Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2014 - 10:45pm PT
|
Who the hell is this Roger Brown you whack jobs are bending over backwards to show reverence to?
Anyway Roger, I don't care if your the great Joe Browns son , the brother of peanuts character Charlie Brown, or the resurrected Jesus H. Christ; that you are living, breathing , independently thinking human being is what most counts. Obviously I'm in opposition to both the unproven theory of catasthrophic anthropogenic global warming and the agenda that has seized it as a vehicle to implement a predetermined agenda. This is no conspiracy theory as they have amply published their doctrine and the way they intend on implementing it. Don't take my word for it: rather take a little time to research the genesis of the U.N.'s IPCC. People, organizations, publications of interest are: Club of Rome, The Limits of Growth, Canadian billionaire oilman Maurice Strong the originator of the IPCC , its first chairman, and a fugitive after misappropriating u.n. oil for food embargo funds who now lives in China to avoid prosecution, also of interest is the U.N.'s Agenda 21 publications. The information for all the above is all well known, unhidden and easily available on an internet search.Your question about increased heat creating more water vapor which in turn traps even more heat in a snowballing runaway effect is a good one. This is one the central premise's of CAGW that is often trotted out to instill visions of a Venutian hell on attempts to scare the public into acceptance of fossil fuel free future, energy poverty and behavioral modification through massive taxation. The fact this runaway greenhouse has never happened in earths 4.5 billion year history despite long periods of both much higher average temps and much higher atmospheric CO2, even at times concurrent with glacial eras , is the first clue that something is amiss with their horror scenarios. Good luck.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2014 - 10:49pm PT
|
Who the hell is Rick Summer...? Any relation to Donna Summer...?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2014 - 12:38am PT
|
pick one...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumner_(surname);
"The fact this runaway greenhouse has never happened in earths 4.5 billion year history despite long periods of both much higher average temps and much higher atmospheric CO2, even at times concurrent with glacial eras , is the first clue that something is amiss..."
you didn't read the Sagan Mullen paper now did you... it's a good paper, but you won't be able to do the math... it's about the sun...
Earth and Mars: Evolution of Atmospheres and Surface Temperatures
Abstract. Solar evolution implies, for contemporary albedos and atmospheric composition, global mean temperatures below the freezing point of seawater less than 2.3 aeons ago, contrary to geologic and paleontological evidence. Ammonia mixing ratios of the order of a few parts per million in the middle Precambrian atmosphere resolve this and other problems. Possible temperature evolutionary tracks for Earth and Mars are described. A runaway greenhouse effect will occur on Earth about 4.5 aeons from now, when clement conditions will prevail on Mars.
Science, 177, 52 (1972)
|
|
Roger Brown
climber
Oceano, California
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2014 - 10:49am PT
|
Rick,
With Supertopo members now posting from all over the world, Yosemite is just one small place. So if you are not a regular Yosemite climber you probably don't know the designated driver at Facelift, or the guy that restored the benches at Swan Slab and Church Bowl Tree. Yea, that's Roger. When I see interest in threads from Yosemite regulars like Clint, Kelley, Ed, Leo, Werner, (and so many more the list would fill pages) I take the time to read what they have to say. All these folks are well liked and respected people that I am proud to know. I am sorry to say that I won't be here for Facelift this year because of a job comitment, so.....maybe you should drive over and take my place. I bet Ken could find you a campsite and you could meet some of these folks. You could put faces to names and probably make new friends.
Roger
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2014 - 09:59pm PT
|
Yo Roger,
Thanks for the introduction and invite. I see why folks hold you in high esteem. Your short list of public service to the community is admirable and probably just a hint of your full contributions. I'd love to attend the Facelift to see friends and acquantances I haven't seen in decades as well as meeting the people I've been arguing with here. Unfortunately family commitments and project completion is going to keep me here in Ak till november. You know, even though we are harsh and unmerciful sometimes in our treatment of each other on this thread I really see many of the people here as quality individuals. Take Ed for instance, a perusal of the threads here reveals him to be a good and decent human being that gives freely of his time and knowledge. If his enviromental idealism allowed for a consistently unbiased presentation of the science he would not only be able to see the forest through the trees but their wouldn't be the steep divide between him and the skeptics. At the other end of the spectrum of humanity are people like Bruce, this threads most prolific poster, who intuits delusional fallacies about opponents he doesn't know from Adam, then using prescriptive programming from the likes of progressive sites like Grist.org ceaselessly babbles out lies. Even he has redeeming qualities though, some of his one liners are absolutely hysterical. Im sure in person I would appreciate his humor as long as bit down on his forked tongue.
Ed I have issues with a couple of your latest posts. First - a temperature trend independent of time, really amigo? The only place I know of that fits that bill is entering the event horizon of a black hole. Second- even though I didn't read your link I know where your going with the Sagan paper and it doesn't wash. Output from the sun increases approx 1% per 100 million years. The vast majority of the time from the beginning of the Tertiary period 65 million years and through a large portion of the Quatenary to the present CO2 levels were much higher than today and we entered into the glacial epoch we are still not out of.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2014 - 11:22pm PT
|
First - a temperature trend independent of time, really amigo?
as I said, you don't understand what "trend" means... why you want to keep proving it is a mystery to me.
even though I didn't read your link I know where your going with the Sagan paper and it doesn't wash.
you didn't read the paper, but you know it "doesn't wash." Where did you get your opinion about it then? divine revelation I suppose...
rick, there is plenty to discuss regarding how we should respond to the fact that humans are altering the environment, including the climate, in many ways. For climate, it's about the CO2 we emit. There are few that disagree.
This is a problem, you characterize my position as being one of scaring people, but you're the only one I know that uses the phrase "catastrophic" all the time. Give it up.
You can certainly have an opinion regarding the science, but your opinion isn't worth much when compared to people who are much more studied then you, and capable of understanding the science. Stop reading those blogs that tell you how to think about these things and start thinking for yourself.
I offer the Sagan Mullen paper because you might take up the challenge of actually working it through and understanding it, and form an opinion different from your blog collective. I can imagine that that would be scary for you, you might even come to understand what the issues are.
naw, no way you're not going to do that...
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2014 - 11:48pm PT
|
How's does mother earth deal with the co2's that she emits?
How has she takin care of herself in the past?
How does our fuel burnin cause the planet to warm?
Could her process for equalizing co2's not be working up to snuff?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 08:14am PT
|
Climate shifts may be causing the disparate changes in the Missouri River Basin, the USGS report says. The scientists noted that higher stream flow in the Dakotas had occurred even as water use increased. In addition, they said, lower stream flow in some areas could be related in part to groundwater pumping.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 09:44am PT
|
here's the link to the USGS report:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5053/pdf/sir2014-5053.pdf
and the summary:
Synthesis of Trends
Either upward or downward significant trends in annual, monthly, and seasonal streamflow were pervasive within three watershed regions: downward trends in WR1 (upper Missouri River), upward trends in WR3 (Great Plains and Central Lowland physiographic provinces and Niobrara River), and downward trends in WR5 (Kansas River watershed). A comprehensive analysis of cause of trends is outside the scope of this report. An increase in diversions or consumptive use of water during the study period, however, could not result in upward trends in annual streamflows over broad regions, such as WR3. All seven HCDN streamgages in WR3 have upward trends, which supports a climatological forcing for the upward trends. Although not examined in this study, an increase in consumptive use because of groundwater pumping has been identified as a contributing factor to the downward trends in WR5 (Wen and Xunhong, 2006).
Downward trends in WR1, the upper Missouri River, were significant throughout this region and even on main-stem streamgages below reservoirs, such as streamgages 06177000 and 06185500 (map numbers 20 and 21, respectively) in WR1 and streamgage 06342500 (map number 53) in WR2. Two out of eight HCDN streamgages had downward trends, streamgage 06278300 (map number 32) and streamgage 06298000 (map number 40), whereas the remaining HCDN streamgages had no significant streamflow trends. Future studies could examine the forcing factors of these observed trends in streamflow, the watershed effects and potential long term consequences.
101 streamgages with significant trends in annual streamflow were analyzed for any significant trends in seasonal and monthly streamflow. Annual streamflow trends tended to perseverate at seasonal and monthly timescales for all watershed regions within the Missouri River watershed. Seasonal and monthly streamflow trends reflected prevailing annual streamflow trends within each watershed region.
I underlined the two sentences for emphasis on climate.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 10:29am PT
|
This whole run around about the meaning of trend in the time series temperature average anomaly from mean seems worthy of a graduate of slick Willy's (god I miss the stability of his tenure) institute of is ism. That I can't understand it being independent of time when it was bracketed by beginning and end dates is my failing I guess, Ed. As far as always using "catastrophic" goes- this is how the press and a good portion of high level practicing CC scientists almost always portray. Its good that you don't back this mis portrayal. Blog collective- hilarious.
Bruce it's good your finally admitting that your characterization of others is what you intuit from unconscious recognition of that which is part of your own psyche.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 10:38am PT
|
did you download the report and read it?
or are you just quoting from some other source?
and the reporting is not just about that report, but about the response to that report. The article lacks a link to the report (which nearly every news report lacks on these issues, probably because of the overlap of print and web based articles, there are no hyperlinks in print), but quotes a number of people who are interpreting the report.
the "synthesis" section does suggest that there are climatological factors forcing the trends... that is a conclusion it can reach without studying the details of those factors.
The study can be used as a piece of a puzzle in a larger picture, and is not inconsistent with the expectations of climate model regional forecasts.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/05/1314382110
Identifying external influences on global precipitation
Kate Marvel and Céline Bonfils
Significance
This study provides evidence that human activities are affecting precipitation over land and oceans. Anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion are expected to lead to a latitudinal intensification and redistribution of global precipitation. However, detecting these mechanisms in the observational record is complicated by strong climate noise and model errors. We establish that the changes in land and ocean precipitation predicted by theory are indeed present in the observational record, that these changes are unlikely to arise purely due to natural climate variability, and that external influences, probably anthropogenic in origin, are responsible.
Abstract
Changes in global (ocean and land) precipitation are among the most important and least well-understood consequences of climate change. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are thought to affect the zonal-mean distribution of precipitation through two basic mechanisms. First, increasing temperatures will lead to an intensification of the hydrological cycle (“thermodynamic” changes). Second, changes in atmospheric circulation patterns will lead to poleward displacement of the storm tracks and subtropical dry zones and to a widening of the tropical belt (“dynamic” changes). We demonstrate that both these changes are occurring simultaneously in global precipitation, that this behavior cannot be explained by internal variability alone, and that external influences are responsible for the observed precipitation changes. Whereas existing model experiments are not of sufficient length to differentiate between natural and anthropogenic forcing terms at the 95% confidence level, we present evidence that the observed trends result from human activities.
...
Conclusions
In this paper, we have presented a simple method to track thermodynamic and dynamic changes in global precipitation. This method identifies physical effects that are robust across multiple models, even in the presence of model errors. We have identified a fingerprint pattern that characterizes the simultaneous response of precipitation location and intensity to external forcing and acts as a noise filter. Observed changes in this multivariate response are incompatible with our best estimates of natural variability and consistent with model predictions of externally forced change. The synchronicity of these changes is key, however: considering either change in isolation does not lead to detection and attribution (SI Appendix, Fig. S3). By focusing on both the underlying mechanisms that drive changes in global precipitation, and by restricting our analysis to the large scales where we have some confidence in models’ ability to reproduce the current climate, we have shown that the changes observed in the satellite era are externally forced, and likely to be anthropogenic in nature.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 11:44am PT
|
That I can't understand it being independent of time when it was bracketed by beginning and end dates is my failing I guess
ok, but are you interested in only talking about a 9 year period, without any discussion of what came before or what will happen later?
if you kept to that, you wouldn't have projected into the future, what's the point? And if you don't look backward are you implying that there is nothing that happened in the past that affects the 9 year period you are "studying"?
Choosing two dates has to be justified, also. If the choice is arbitrary, one can easily find that just shifting the "window" one year can swing the trend from very negative to very positive... if you want to make a significant point about "very negative" you have to explain why this swing happens.
of course, all this can be considered irrelevant if your interest is simply to justify your political point of view... you simply ignore points that do not support your own. that makes it easy.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 18, 2014 - 05:37pm PT
|
It's a shihtty headline, Ed. Give them the point...
Actually, the headline was OK. It's the article that is crap. It doesn't talk much about, or even cite, the USGS report from which the headline was born.
I read the article and thought, "How about the report?" A critical-thinking individual might do the same. But that stupid blogger site would never do anything of the sort (critical thinking, that is). They'd lose half their readership, and the others would just realize that most of what they print is BS.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 18, 2014 - 06:30pm PT
|
So I searched for a place in the data where the fit of the trend has an equal rate of change as the period from 2005-2014.
Ah OK, I was wondering why the two lines were parallel. Now I get the point.
Thanks for taking the time to write up your long post Ed. You're right, it's mostly over my head, I have no formal training in this stuff. But even a little help is a lot of help.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 06:34pm PT
|
I actually got the link from WUWT, after Googling the title....
...but I consider WUWT to be, essentially, and extended OpEd page specializing on Climate issues.
It is true that newspapers (and their web equivalents including WUWT) don't have staffs that are science literate available to write good articles. But as with anything, the popular article is really just the starting point for getting information.
Is it misleading?
"Climate change reflected in altered Missouri River flow, report says"
the report summarizes:
"All seven HCDN streamgages in WR3 have upward trends, which supports a climatological forcing for the upward trends."
the article interviews a number of people regarding the connection, and the findings of the report.
Such signatures, given the limited time over which the observations were made, offer a difficult challenge: to extract a signal out of some noisy data (which the report also discusses). The study, as far as I can see, was to evaluate trends in the Missouri River water shed. The verb "support" is used not to claim an effect was demonstrated, but that the data are consistent with the explanation that the flow changes were due to "climatological forcing" in one water shed area and suggested that some other areas might also warrant analysis.
Is that misleading?
is it intentionally misleading?
is it evidence for a conspiracy between the press, the scientific community and the liberal "establishment"?
my interest would concern what the USGS report implies, not determining if the LA Times was trying to deceive its readers...
Thanks for bringing an interesting article to my attention.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 06:35pm PT
|
All I know is Ed's way smarter than me on science matters so I'm rolling with him.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 08:07pm PT
|
my interest would concern what the USGS report implies, not determining if the LA Times was trying to deceive its readers...
"What is apparent is that the climate is changing and that it is being reflected in the stream flow conditions," said Mark Anderson, director of the USGS Water Science Center in South Dakota and another of the report's authors.
They use "climate shift" and this "climate is changing" as descriptions for what caused the river to move. Without a note to it being either a Natural phenomenon, or a "Climate Change" perpetchuated by fuel burning co2's. They didn't seem to point a finger of blame? They did however point to man's part in slowing the flow with pumps and hydrogenerators.
The Times did a good job being unbiased and bringing in all the players.
The Tourism, the local farmers, the Insurers, the scientist. The only one's left are the Lawyers and The POliticians?
All in all, it sounds like a cry for Government Aid to help Change the river back the way it was. Profitable!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 18, 2014 - 09:42pm PT
|
The suit is:
Ideker Farms, Inc. et al v. United States of America
which has a URL:
http://www.missouririverflooding.com/SitePages/Home.aspx
you can find the complaint here:
http://www.missouririverflooding.com/SiteAssets/SitePages/Pleadings/Complaint.pdf
(could be slow to download)
It's an interesting read because the reference to the "historic flooding patterns"
"326. Plaintiffs had distinct, reasonable, investment-backed expectations that their property would only be subject to flooding in line with historical flooding patterns established over the past six decades of the Corps’ policies and procedures for management of the River."
the presumption being that the river and the watershed and the regional climate would be otherwise unchanged.
My point here is not to argue that the Corps is off the hook by claiming "climate change" but to point out that there is a huge public interest in forecasting how the climate will change.
The entire Missouri River basin flood control was based on studies done in the early 20th century, and based on what was known or could be gleaned by the geology. What was known didn't date back earlier than its discovery in 1673. Lewis and Clark were the first to voyage its length starting in 1804.
Fur Traders on Missouri River, painted by George Caleb Bingham c. 1845
like so much of American culture (by which I am referring to the US history of N. America) we tend to think that things would always be the same... unaware of the bigger changes, e.g. climate, that had been occurring.
We find this paragraph in the complaint:
218. The Corps’ reservoir storage allocations and water release procedures in the Master Manual were determined from operational studies made on historical river flows and historical flood and drought events. The 1960 and 1979 Master Manuals required the Corps to keep storage in the reservoirs at or below certain prescribed levels during the year to ensure there was enough storage capacity to handle the predicted runoff and to prevent flooding. The Corps understood that the lower it kept the storage levels, the better it was for flood control.
though the period of the "historical river flows and historical flood and drought events" is not described in the complaint. The Missouri River Master Water Control Manual 2006 can be downloaded here:
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=usarmyceomaha
(could take time to download)
Here is the relevant section regarding climate:
3-05. Basin Climate. The broad range in latitude, longitude, and elevation of the Missouri River basin and its location near the geographical center of the North American continent, provide wide variations in climatic conditions. The climate of the basin is produced largely by interactions of three great air masses that have their origins over the Gulf of Mexico, the northern Pacific Ocean, and the northern Polar Regions. These great air masses regularly invade and pass over the basin throughout the year. The Gulf air tends to dominate the weather in summer and the Pacific and Polar air dominate in winter. This seasonal domination by the air masses and the frontal activity caused by their collisions produce the general weather regimes found within the basin. As is typical of a continental-interior plains area, the variations from normal climatic conditions, from season to season and from year to year, are very great. The outstanding climatic aberration in the basin during the 20th Century was the severe plains area drought of the 1930’s when excessive summer temperatures and subnormal precipitation continued for more than a decade.
interestingly, the original plan for flood control was established for the 1944 legislation...
It is also important to note that the Missouri River flood control is connected to Mississippi River flood control, it is not an independent system. This increases the area affected by "local" climate changes.
Appendix A of this manual gives a history of floods and droughts on the Missouri River which were used to formulate the planning. The earliest flood described is 1844, only 100 years before the 1944 legislation, which was based on 7 floods, the 1943 flood triggered the federal legislation that created the plan. There were 11 floods in all up to 1960 which is when the first manual was created and reduced the flooding, but there were still 10 floods during the time of flood control starting in 1967, a number equal to the number of floods from 1844 to 1960.
Planning a response to potential floods would be helped by accurate regional climate forecasts.
But flooding isn't the only regional climate issue, as noted in this same Appendix A:
"A-07.1.1.1 Recently climate researchers have been examining the impacts of weather phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña on the United States climate, but these effects may pale in comparison to mega-droughts of the past. A drought in the 16th Century, according to the latest research, could have lasted over 40 years and been the worst in the last 800 years according to tree ring studies. Some drought researchers currently conclude that these types of extensive droughts are linked to ocean currents like those discussed above but on a much larger scale. Drought is currently the most severe type of natural disaster because of its large aerial extent and prolonged duration..."
once again, climate forecasting would be an important component for understanding and managing the Missouri River basin.
It is largely this quest to understand the climate that lead to the current climate research. The desire for predictable climate science, enabling regional forecasts on decadal time scales an outgrowth of this program to anticipate the changes and formulate responses.
This program of prediction is what we see today as climate science. And the program of predicting the climate uncovered the major drivers for climate, and climate change in the 20th century, human activities, largely energy production which resulted in increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. This science is still trying to understand the affects of this at the regional level, it is quite apparent on the global level.
It wasn't the intent of the scientific community to advance an "environmental agenda" on society, it was the intent to understand and predict climate changes that lead to the conclusions that are contested in this thread.
Such a predictive capability has a huge benefits for society. Interestingly, the process of refining that predictive ability has uncovered a major, and probably unexpected (or at least forgotten), source of climate change, that society itself.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 19, 2014 - 06:30am PT
|
Is that misleading?
is it intentionally misleading?
is it evidence for a conspiracy between the press, the scientific community and the liberal "establishment"?
I suppose the article, and the title, could be construed as misleading if that is specifically what you're searching for. The thorough look at the article by Ed shows this not to be the case. However, if you ignore certain parts of the article (and the report itself), you could certainly blast a headline of your own:
How the media mis-represents everyday science
Now, is that headline misleading?
Is it intentionally misleading?
Is it evidence of a conspiracy between well-funded groups intent on muddying the waters of climate science?
Sketch, what's your view? I'm curious, now that the full light has been shown on the subject.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 19, 2014 - 07:10am PT
|
WUWT, the blog site that propelled the non-story of Climategate into a frenzy, a story that to this day leaves a debunked tarnish on climate scientists.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!