Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jonnyrig
Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
|
|
Oh yes mr K. Please tell us all about humility.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
Sketch...Hyper-defensiveness..? Is that the opposite of hyper-offensiveness...?
|
|
jonnyrig
Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
|
|
Why would i take the time to enter such a philosophical debate with you when i clearly lack the necessary time? It,s so much more entertaining to swooop by and drop a snarky comment as a worthless diversion for a guy like yourself who seems to feel he,s got something to teach me about humility and american knuckle-dragging. Thanks, but i,ve been wrong before, will be again, accept the limits of my own judgement or lack thereof, and already know full-well that roughly half the country are idiots.
Why, just the other day the wif and i were considering where to migrate. I hear Canada,s beutiful. Ya got mountains, fishing, and vast exanse of open country to explore. Oh, and i can bring rifles and kill sh#t. Stretch out yer open arms brother... Here we come!
|
|
jonnyrig
Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
|
|
Look dude, i,ve already resigned myself to climate-change-for-the-worse. While i personally have no desire to contribute to that change, there also isnt much im able to do that will stop it. So its really just a matter of surviving the rest of my life and teaching my kids a valuable skill set that would be welcomed worldwide, like energy industry service, corporate food production, or marketing. In addition, if i convince them to learn spanish, chinese, russian, or canadian eh? they could truly be citizens of the earth, and not just this little map-stain.
Seriously though, im thinkin if i can buy a little plot in coastal canada, as well as one in west mexico as a hedge-bet, then my little family unit can follow the temperate zone regardless of who,s climate model wins the popularity vote in the long run.
Nobody wants to see me dance. Id just step on the elephants feet. And our changing climate isnt much of a debate to me, just what i gota do to keep postin my smarky b.s. on the forum.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Again.
My position on this issue is man is responsible for rising CO2 levels, which are bad for the planet. They contribute to rising global temperatures. They may even be responsible for most of the recent warming.
yes, that is what I have understood for quite a while
so why then all the back and forth arguing?
|
|
Inventioneer
Boulder climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
Actually, yes, 31,000+ scientists from all the disciplines that comprise the non-linear complex study of climate dynamics (9,000+ of whom have PhDs) have been polled as to what they think about whether or not AGW is a settled matter, and those 31,000+ scientists were unanimous in that they say it is NOT a settled matter at all.
So I suppose that the fans of baseless ad hominem attacks on those who dare question the magnitude of AGW will allege that those 31,000+ scientists are all owned by the oil companies while the 2,000+ hand-picked lemmings working for the IPCC are the only true scientists?
Boy, the propaganda machine has been exceedingly effective in duping so many people into believing that AGW is a settled issue.
The irrefutable fact is that at best (or worst) anthropogenic CO2 is about an 18-20% forcing factor in the current warming trend. Is that an acceptable percentage if compared to the natural CO2 baseline? Can't say, nor can anyone else. This means that 80-82% of what drives the climate machine even now is comprised of NATURAL factors.
I called into KGO Radio this morning to talk to a climatologist who is on Obama's climate advisory committee, and I pinned him on the AGW issue. I got him to admit that it is indeed not a settled science. He even confessed that behind the scenes all of Obama's scientific advisors on climate concur that AGW is not a settled matter.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
settled
settled
settled
settled
settled
Dude, where did you find all these straw men? Some things about climate change are fairly well settled, and others not at all. I'd guess about 97% of the active scientists know that, although for some reason the concept some-is, some-isn't goes way over the heads of many denialists who fixate on this "settled" word like you do.
The irrefutable fact is that at best (or worst) anthropogenic CO2 is about an 18-20% forcing factor in the current warming trend.
And where on Earth did you find an "irrefutable" for that one?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 5, 2014 - 02:53pm PT
|
Sketch, I fully apologize. You are right about when this started:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&tn=25220
I do, mostly.
However, I'm skeptical of the media's coverage of climate related research.
You did not distort this. No excuse from me, I made a mistake and I am wrong.
(1) I can cite numerous posts of yours where you purposely misrepresent what I've said. Don't make me go back and quote you, it won't show a positive reflection of your personality.
As I stated right after I made that claim, I didn't have time to go back and piece together old conversations. I did, however, say I would get to it.
More recently, I have shown that you do indeed purposely misrepresent what I have said. I've pieced together long conversations (which is boring to read and an overall waste of time) where I believe I've shown how you twist things that are said. In my view, I believe I've demonstrated this trait of yours fairly well, even though it took some time.
(2) I got my views of your beliefs from your posts. Would you like me to quote some of your opinions?
Right after I made this claim, I looked back through your posts and found that all I could find were passive remarks that, together, formed my view of your opinions on AWG. I could not find posts of yours that directly stated your views. That's why I called you slippery, your slant is obvious but you mask your opinions through passive quips. Then one day I finally found an old statement of yours that I felt showed your view. You claimed that the post was "trollery." I was back to not having a direct statement of your opinions.
Since then, you posted a pretty full description of your views, and today you posted an older statement of your view. These few direct statements of yours show, to me, that you don't buy the current scientific conclusions on global warming. And I have tried to explain how I came to that conclusion.
You've done nothing to back either claim from anything I posted before you made that post.
Simply, this is not true.
And, I'm going to apologize for your Item 3, which you didn't include in your latest post. I made a semantic mistake when I commented on a post of yours, where I claimed the OpEd you quoted was a "recent study" (or something like that).
Personally, I thought the nit-pic on the semantic difference between what I wrote and the point I was making was insignificant. True, you caught me on a semantic mix-up, but I felt the same point could be made without that mix up. You were arguing an almost-insignificant nit and not on the principal of my statement. In a jury of peers, who comes out ahead?
|
|
Inventioneer
Boulder climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
That much-touted "97%" is such a falsehood. Those alleged 97% were taken from a survey of a few hundred scientists (not 31,000+) and they were given loaded/biased/leading questions that could not be answered without it appearing they believe AGW is a settled matter.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid of religious fervor (right-wingers and left-wingers) and actually make the concerted effort to STUDY the unbiased data.
This is my bailiwick so don't debate what you have no grounding in. Don't come at me with beliefs, approach me with scientific credentials and we'll DISCUSS the complex issue. Otherwise, find another cause celeb to take up that your lack of education will allow you to seem like you know what you're talking about.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Catching up on my reading this afternoon, came across this note in Science 23 May: Record-breaking winters and global climate change by Tim Palmer.
Palmer starts out with what we know from recent studies regarding the "hiatus" in surface temperature rise:
Since the late 1990s, global mean temperatures have been rising quite slowly. This pause or “hiatus” in global warming is linked to an increase in the westward trade winds across the tropical Pacific (4). The ocean currents, forced by these intensified trade winds, have been drawing down much of the excess heat associated with human climate change to the deep ocean (5, 6). However, one region that has not been cooling is the tropical West Pacific. Over the period of the hiatus, warm surface waters have been piled up in the tropical West Pacific by the intensified trade winds.
He then considers what a warming West Pacific surface means for US weather:
The surface waters in the tropical West Pacific will have been warmed further during this hiatus period through the local effects of man-made enhanced greenhouse gas forcing. Even though this enhanced warming may be small (it is not currently possible to estimate reliably its magnitude), its effect can be important in a region where SSTs are among the highest in the world. Any further warming in this region will lead to a relatively large increase in atmospheric water loading, leading to unusually strong latent heat release. Consistent with this, there was a very active typhoon season over the tropical West Pacific in 2013, including typhoon Haiyan, which devastated parts of the Philippines. These intense tropical weather systems continued into the 2013–14 winter season (7). Anomalous latent heat release in the tropical West Pacific can produce a particularly strong Rossby wave response in the Northern Hemisphere (8, 9). The phase of this Rossby wave response is consistent with the cold and snowy season seen in the U.S. Midwest and East Coast. If this line of argument is correct, the extremely cold and snowy season in parts of the United States may indeed have been caused at least in part by increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
That's an alternative to the better known but controversial hypothesis that Arctic warming drives recent mid-latitude winters.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Palmer wraps up by pointing out that no scientists think "global warming" implies uniform warming:
As this analysis indicates, it is simplistic to say that climate change makes the planet uniformly warmer. Earth's climate is a complex system, and its response to some external forcing will not be linear. Because of this complexity, sophisticated climate models are needed to test the correctness and robustness of climate mechanisms. Running these models is computationally expensive but crucial for advancing understanding of current and future climate.
And then there's El Nino, which I believe went up to 70% in the forecasts today.
Current seasonal forecast models suggest that a new (warm) phase of the El Niño/Southern Oscillation phenomenon may begin later this year, when the trade winds will finally weaken. If an El Niño event is on the way, the hiatus period may be coming to a close. If so, the upside is that the residents of the U.S. Midwest will be much less likely to have to suffer very cold winters. The downside is that global temperatures are likely to start to rise again, with many undesirable consequences for humans across the planet (1).
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
This is my bailiwick so don't debate what you have no grounding in.
Your outburst has been totally clueless so far.
|
|
Inventioneer
Boulder climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
I don't suffer fools, so I shall not respond to ignorant buffoonery.
However, I will say that the whole AGW debate is rife with what I call "intellectual fascism", that which "believers" of any faith resort to in lieu of true empirical understanding.
I find the outright dismissals of the possibility of AGW to be as loony as the outright belief that it's real and settled. Does anyone who posts on this never-ending thread have even the slightest grasp of just how profoundly complex climate dynamics are? It's not a 1+1=2 matter, but that's exactly the sort of back-and-forth nuttiness I keep reading in this thread.
As I said prior, come to me with a real open mind rooted in true science -- not orthodoxy, dogma, and faith -- and we'll kick the data around and see what we can deduce.
But if it's your intention to keep shooting your arrows of hysteria-rooted popular misconceptions at me, well, you will get no response from me.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Who are you ?
"inventioneer" from Mt. View isn't very specific.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
This thread can be downright scary to read. On the otherhand, posters like Chiloe seem like they are actually trying to understand this complex system. Why I am bothering to post I don't really know....but here goes.
THe Earth is not a globe stuck in an "oven" of some sort, yelding some sort of even temperature distribution. It rotates, has seasons, and different materials on it's surface and in it's atmosphere causing a wide range of heating and cooling that changes day to day, season to season, year to year. We all agree on this right?
Put up with me for a second and just mentally picture this. Global warming is happening. If this is happening, what does that mean exactly. Higher temperature means more energy in the system (Earth). What is the best way to adsorb energy on earth? Water. It adsorbs energy with the least amount of temperature change of all the common materials on Earth. The redistribution of this water system energy in part drives our weather. So if there is more energy in Earth's weather system via water(as complicated as this is), then there are also potentially wider differences between the temperature highs and lows across the Earth. The result of this is more violent weather. Not everywhere, but in those places where these interactions are likely to occure. Not really a mystery. THis means colder areas, hotter areas, and more extreme weather all together.
It boils down to energy and how the Earth tries to redistribute it given air and ocean currents, the spin of the Earth, and the amount of radiations hitting the Earth and being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere. And this varies by latitude and longitude. Anyway, that's my simplified view of the system. Physics and water cycle.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Obviously that is not an original idea.
But water vapor alone doesn't explain the earth's temperature
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
Of course not. But its a start and is the major mechanism in the redistribution of energy. To say that I fully understand how the Earth's weather system works would be foolhardy. What I am saying is that you cannot ignore the basic physics of the system (which I know you know as well). And the expectation that the earths temperatures are all going to go up all the time is just as foolhardy. And that's all for today....I am actually going to go climb.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
The irrefutable fact is that at best (or worst) anthropogenic CO2 is about an 18-20% forcing factor in the current warming trend.
And where on Earth did you find an "irrefutable" for that one?
That would be Jeffery's friend Peter Taylor. Taylor believes we are on the verge of a catastrophic cool down. Now who is the alarmist?
Here is his book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chill-Reassessment-Global-Warming-Theory/dp/1905570198
And no, Jeffery, Bill Martin is not an Obama climate adviser. He was 1 of about 8 tv meteorologists from around the country invited to the white house for a pr meeting.
You can hear the call in below for Thursday 10-11 am, at about 29 minutes:
http://www.kgoradio.com/page.php?page_id=241
Like Chiloe said, some of AGW is settled some is not. Your call in is hardly proof that Obama's advisors think that nothing in AGW is settled.
This is my bailiwick so don't debate what you have no grounding in.
Because you are an engineer? Wow!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
THe Earth is not a globe stuck in an "oven" of some sort, yelding some sort of even temperature distribution. It rotates, has seasons, and different materials on it's surface and in it's atmosphere causing a wide range of heating and cooling that changes day to day, season to season, year to year. We all agree on this right?
the energy output from the sun is constant, day to day...
the earth rotates, what if you average over that?
the seasons can also be averaged over, and the years... what do you think you get when you do that?
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
the rotisserie effect?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!