Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 8, 2010 - 03:15pm PT
|
Gosh, is my face red.
Right, I was thinking about two separate posts and CC was really taking the cake in the other. So sorry to even compare you to him. My bad.
And no, pictures of snow melt do not show cause. But what I was referring to is your assuming that the locals don't like the snow and ice that is now missing. For this, I tried to say that you were a fool.
Do you understand why?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
And no, pictures of snow melt do not show cause. But what I was referring to is your assuming that the locals don't like the snow and ice that is now missing. For this, I tried to say that you were a fool.
Do you understand why?
No, we'd have to ask the locals. I imagine some might prefer it to be a litter warmer than than it currently is.
Here's my thinking: is there more migration in the US from colder to warmer places, or from warmer to colder?
There was an interesting short article in The Economist a while back opining that if global cooling was the problem rather than global warming, the public may be more upset about it.
I understand there may be problems associated with rising sea levels (and other problems), but I think humans are likely resourceful enough to adapt.
And for the record, not that my opinion really matters, but I believe that lots of actions that may be taken to mitigate alleged global warming are good ideas for other reasons.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
k-man - Many of us now look on the IPCC reports as agenda driven opinion breathlessly presented as fact.
Glaciers just melt faster due to carbon black precipitation from the giga tons of biomass in cooking fires, coal fired power plants, Ag burn offs,
and diesel power.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/is-the-media-awakening/
Reconstruction of European Air Pollution from Alpine Ice Cores
-Margit Schwikowski
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Ed H. wrote
The researchers and the institutions that they belong to are in full compliance with disclosure laws. In spite of a lot of complaining, there has not been a demonstrated instance in which this was not the case.
Ed, that's not true.
See http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/decisionnotices/2010/fer_0238017.pdf
The cited report found direct breaches of FOIA. It also found a prima facie case that FOIA was violated in other even more serious ways, but couldn't investigate further because the statute of limitations has passed. (That is, Climategate scoundrels got off, in part, on a technicality. They were absolutely caught in other respects, as laid out in the report.)
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that when you wrote that "researchers and the institutions that they belong to are in full compliance with disclosure laws," that was just the partisan in you spouting off, and you were merely delusional instead of lying.
You should, however, apologize for slandering me by saying I couldn't support my assertions.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Its rather damning to the Warmists crusade of stopping the mythical
climate change so as to let Human population growth continue
while it is just this growth that they say is causing global warming
in the first place. Logically they should hope for a GCC that would
limit our population.
Silly rabbits indeed.
|
|
Bob Harrington
climber
Bishop, California
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2010 - 09:07pm PT
|
In the blog that bookworm points to, the stated 0.01% increase of CO2 during the last 100 years is off by a factor of about 3000. It's increased from a bit less than 300 ppmv to a bit less than 400 ppmv over the last century.
|
|
DrDeeg
Mountain climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2010 - 07:20pm PT
|
Dr F:
This is a great post. Thanks.
Climate Skeptics v. Climate Deniers
By David Brin, Ph.D.
Dr. F: Recommended reading - Very good article for the Climate Skeptic, and all scientists; and defining the Climate Denier
I tell students to "Be skeptical, especially about your own work." As Ed H has noted, for example, Jim Hansen's papers are quite frank about where the NASA/GISS model performs well and where it does not. The models do well in simulating temperature values that correspond well to global observations. And the climate science community agrees that we need better projections of regional climate and precipitation.
Persistent skepticism in the face of evidence = denialism.
"If you never change your mind, why have one?" - E De Bono
|
|
MoonGoon
climber
canadistan
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2010 - 07:41pm PT
|
In the blog that bookworm points to, the stated 0.01% increase of CO2 during the last 100 years is off by a factor of about 3000. It's increased from a bit less than 300 ppmv to a bit less than 400 ppmv over the last century.
I saw that too! I just had to pull out my climatology text book to make sure I wasn't going nuts.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Oct 18, 2010 - 10:23pm PT
|
I'd like to thank the scientists who contributed to the thread. Ed, Base, John Y, etc etc. I thought this was a particularly good response which I quote below (I added the bold for Dingus, who also had many worthy reads up there). Oh, BTW, Dr F, I read your first 2 or 3 posts and quickly realized that in your posts you display less intelligence than the hair in my a*# crack. If you felt that you posted something of significant and worth reading, say, almost as much as fresh dog sh#t in the yard: please repost it as I only read your first 2 or 3 posts, and fresh dog sh#t in my yard is both more interesting and more intelligent than anything you've said here that I read.
Regards to all.
"ydpl8s
Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
Nov 9, 2009 - 10:48am PT
As a working geoscientist (geologist/geophysicist) the one thing I am aware of is that yes, we have gone through cycles like this in geologic history, long before there were greenhouse gas emissions. That being said, I do believe that we are contributing to the problem, how much? enough that it makes sense to do what we can.
Do I think that we can realistically make a dent when emerging economies like China and India are not fully on board? No!
Do I think that we are being a bit ignorant and arrogant about what we will be able to accomplish with our endeavours? Yes!
Do I think that natural phenomena like one single volcanic eruption can make years of Kyoto type measures irrelevant? Yes!
Do I think that the whole global warming bandwagon has become a cash cow for academia? yes!
That being said, I do think that we need to develop as many new energy sources as we can. Sadly, as altruistic as we may be, these won't become viable UNTIL they become economic.
We are, after all a race that is more reactionary than forward thinking.
We did develop some good data back-up systems leading up to Y2K. But I guess that even though I agree in the more basic development of energy sources and emission control, I'm afraid I believe that a lot of what is happening strikes me as "Chicken Little" philosophy.
Leaving Kyoto aside Dingus, why can't we do the simple and easy things now? Ie, increase the MFG in cars and reduce the emissions as an easy first step? Allow Nuclear so as to reduce coal? etc etc etc etc and many many more easy, cheap things.
|
|
ydpl8s
Trad climber
Santa Monica, California
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 12:33pm PT
|
Thanks for quoting me Couch, I guess you could sum up my feelings on this as...I think we all need to try and are coming up with a lot of new ideas, but the cynic in me thinks that it will take a lot longer than we wish to get enough people on board to make a difference, and I think we may find out that mother nature may march on despite our best efforts. I hope I am wrong.
|
|
philo
Trad climber
Somewhere halfway over the rainbow
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2010 - 08:33pm PT
|
Good stuff YDpl8s.
|
|
DrDeeg
Mountain climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
We have measured black carbon in snow at Mammoth. Generally values are less than about 20 part per billion. A student at U Nev Reno is looking at these values for her master's thesis. We are preparing a manuscript for submission.
An issue to study is whether the black carbon stays near the surface or washes down as the snow melts.
|
|
Flanders!
Trad climber
June Lake, CA
|
|
Frankly Sir, You Are an Embarrasment
Gore chooses Swedish government jet over public transportation, leaves car running while telling the rest of us to cut carbon
By Einar Du Rietz
Al Gore
He did it again.
Recently, Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore was on tour again (or maybe he does that all the time). This time, he turned up in Gothenburg (Sweden) for the usual alarmist talk. In advance, all distinguished guests were politely advised to – if possible – use any form of public transportation to go to the event, in order to minimize CO2 emissions.
Intriguingly, the Master of World Climate himself arrived in a rental car (with or without driver is unclear), from the airport, and subsequently left the engine running for the entire lecture. That is to say, about one hour. Incidentally, local legislation prohibits – for very good environmental reasons, i e pollution – any car engine idling for more than 60 seconds. Fines are severe. As far as I know, he was not fined.
It starts to form a pattern.
After the ceremony in the Norwegian capital Oslo, it is customary that the laureate is invited to the Swedish capital Stockholm, for a cordial visit. The train ride, supposedly the environmental choice according to Mr. Gore, is approximately four hours. However, he opted for the cosier ride with one of the Swedish government aircrafts. As these can, according to the rules, only be used when a cabinet member is on board – and as the Swedish government after a short ceremonial visit – offered to fly him to Frankfurt (Germany) for his flight to the US, you can calculate both the manpower and the fuel used for this grand tour against man’s destruction of the planet.
Stupidity and hypocrisy – as well as vanity – are, like it or not, common human traits. I admit to some of them occasionally, but I don’t demand taxpayers to finance my stupid talks at dinner (yes, I love doing that). Here’s the deal Mr Gore: get out of my way, and I will keep out of yours.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
Revenge of the Nerds!!!!!
Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics
The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.
By Neela Banerjee, Tribune Washington Bureau
November 8, 2010
Reporting from Washington — Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in Tuesday's election.
On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about
global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.
John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate change skeptics, is also pulling together a "climate rapid response team," which includes scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.
"This group feels strongly that science and politics can't be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists," said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.
"We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed."
During the recent campaigns, skepticism about climate change became a rallying cry for many Republican candidates. Of the more than 100 new GOP members of Congress, 50% are climate change skeptics, according to an analysis of campaign statements by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
Prominent Republican congressmen such as Darrell Issa of Vista, Joe L. Barton of Texas and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin have pledged to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. They say they also intend to investigate the so-called Climategate scandal, in which thousands of e-mails of leading climate scientists were hacked and released to the public last year.
Climate change skeptics argued that the sniping in some e-mails showed that scientists suppressed research by skeptics and manipulated data. Five independent panels subsequently cleared the researchers involved and validated the science.
"People who ask for and accept taxpayer dollars shouldn't get bent out of shape when asked to account for the money," said James M. Taylor, a senior fellow and a specialist in global warming at the conservative Heartland Institute in Chicago. "The budget is spiraling out of control while government is handing out billions of dollars in grants to climate scientists, many of whom are unabashed activists."
Ongoing public interest in Climategate has prompted the scientists to act.
The American Geophysical Union plan has attracted a large number of scientists in a short time because they are eager to address what they see as climate misinformation, said Jeffrey Taylor, research fellow at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado and manager of the project.
Still, the scope of the group's work is limited, reflecting the ongoing reluctance among many scientists to venture into politics.
A rapid-response team, however, is willing to delve into politics. In the week that Abraham and others have been marshaling the team, 39 scientists agreed to participate, including Richard Feely, senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University.
"People who've already dug their heels in, we're not going to change their opinions," Mandia said. "We're trying to reach people who may not have an opinion or opinion based on limited information."
neela.banerjee@latimes.com
Copyright © 2010, Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,545056.story
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
I read that article this morning, and my response was "Finally!" The best way to convince true skeptics (as opposed to deniers) is to get the evidence out -- and to be persistent about it.
Other than the misuse of "skeptics" in the article (all scientists are skeptics), my only concern is the overtly political overtones in the article, but you can't help dealing with politics when you're trying to affect public opinion. I hope they keep putting the facts before the public. We're perfectly capable of making rational political decisions when given proper factual backgrounds.
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!