Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
You're welcome ...... :-)
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
What amazes me is that climbers, who regularly hang it out there, everything on the line over essentially no tangible reward, fall prey to this chicken littleism pushed by another subclass of society whose extreme agenda has repeatedly been laid bare. Mind bogglingly stupid, and not just American.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
My personal opinion is that increased C02 causes more heat to be trapped, but that the Earth has systems in place which regulate things to keep it all in a state of pretty good equilibrium, within bounds. At least this is pretty explicitly what the data says for now IMO.
I think this is a very strange view. Just look at the difference in climate between an ice age and the periods between the ice ages. Quite a large difference between forests and lakes and a km of ice for the northern parts of the world.
And the climate have changed much more than that before that period.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
I'm also saying the super-heating nightmare scenarios just have not happened.
Maybe because it is 2014 now and the super-heating nightmares scenarios are supposed to happen in the future and not now?
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
Jammer, while I agree with you that some of the "nightmare" scenarios are "a way off," your reasoning as you express it is not real strong.
For starters, you seem unwilling to believe in the overall state of climate science until the nightmares, whatever you define these to be, are happening. This is a little like saying, life on Earth wasn't annihilated by a huge nuclear war, therefore it was alarmist to have been worried about the possibility until it actually happened. Or, geologists have been saying for DECADES that there's a good chance of a really big earthquake - say magnitude 7 or 8 - in LA or San Francisco. But this nightmare scenario has not in fact happened; only little ones, a few bottles of nice wine broken and a few people conked by falling bricks. So, are we to conclude that we should ignore the earthquake concerns and stop spending billions of dollars on seismic retrofits? In my opinion, that's not wise.
The logical problems with retro-judging the science by the frequency and magnitude of climate-related disasters that do or don't occur are many. For one thing, no scientist will EVER be able to state, even after the fact, that any one particular flood would not have occurred, or the height of any one particular flood stage would have been 2.7 feet lower, absent any overall climatic warming. So, there is never, ever, going to be a backwards relevance of any one particular event. For another, if the overall science is right, within a reasonable error margin, it doesn't matter whether there is never another climate-related disaster at all. Ever. The science is either right or wrong based on the data and analysis, not based on one particular event or its timing.
Making simple predictions about any one climatic parameter, say surface air temperatures, that are date specific and testable is always going to be difficult, because the "climate" has a lot of different places that energy can go. But one of the predictions has always been that sea level would rise. And this prediction is absolutely verified by empirical data:
It's easy to stuff your head in the sand by regarding this as simply a continuation of the trend since the end of the last Ice Age, and having nothing to do with anything anthropogenic, but insurance companies, really big ones with huge sums of money at stake and a lot of smart, high-priced people analyzing it, are not ignoring it.
If you live in the mountains, a sea level rise of a few inches is definitely no big deal, but if you live in coastal Bangla Desh, or, soon enough, Miami or New Orleans, that is definitely a nightmare scenario. What's your "nightmare" about it? And how far in the future is "a way off" and how long will it take to change course on the giant oil tanker we're now running full speed ahead toward the rocks?
...the Earth has systems in place which regulate things to keep it all in a state of pretty good equilibrium.
sounds like, it's magic, we don't need to worry, mother Gaia will fix it. Well, the paleoecological record shows the opposite: absolutely huge ecological changes have happened before. She didn't fix it.
At least this is pretty explicitly what the data says for now
is completely false; the data shows exactly the opposite.
Personally, I have very little optimism that the global community will act collectively enough to head off the "nightmare" scenarios, whether those are only 30 years off, or 150. People just won't do sh#t until they personally experience a really big disaster. Even then, they'll be concerned with dealing with the immediate problems and not with preventative actions. The disasters, when they occur, will be scattered here and there in time and geography, precluding effective action. And anyway, by then it's going to be too late. But that too is irrelevant to whether the science is right or not. I do think it's useful to be planning for the likely range of adverse climate-related events, because any effective outcome of such planning is useful whether the events are related to human action or are just the occasional giant drought or flood.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Impressive reference. A blog post that state something as a fact without even showing the relevant data. I guess that I need to look up the sea level rise for 2014 myself.
But I guess that you already have done the job with looking into this in detail so that you can write it down here?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
So for the earth in it's current state in terms of how it is maintaining it's primordial heat, the ice caps getting twice as large and much thicker is the lower bound?
Earth maintains its primordial heat partly because the lithosphere is a surprisingly good insulator, which is also why deep heat has nothing much to do with climate -- as pointed out many times on this thread.
"The ice caps" are not "twice as large and much thicker" -- even though it shouted that in the Daily Mail! (And TGT brightly shared here.) If you want to actually learn what's happening with sea and land ice we could look at that, but there must be some reason you jumped so quickly to believe this.
As for your "lower bound" I can't guess what you're thinking, but it doesn't come from real "data." Earth's climate is capable of large changes, as many datasets make clear.
It seems oceanic heat transfer is a relatively new contribution, despite how obvious that would be, so who knows there. Seriously.
That's the hobby horse you rode in on, and you seem unshakably attached. It's not real though, as you heard many times in many ways (and could look up yourself if you wanted).
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
Jammer, the source you linked regarding sea level rise is incorrect. You say that you know how to use the internet, but demonstrate a major lack of the curiosity you profess to have.
Specifically, did you bother to check what the 1990 IPCC report actually said about sea level rise? or any data sources about what has happened? Obviously not, or you would have found that the statements at your link are false. The blaring headline says IPCC predicted 120 mm of sea level rise, and that there's only been 1/5 of that. Well, I looked at the original source, something you should learn to do (along with other factual sources), not just bloggy BS, and the actual "best estimate" prediction was about 100 mm for that time period; and there has been roughly 60 mm instead. My calculator tells me that being off by 5x would mean there would have been only 20 mm, not 60.
You cannot blame anyone who reads your posts for losing a bit of respect for you when you post up this kind of nonsense. Hence, I recommend again that you go to actual sources of science and data, not these BS blogs.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
Jammer, you repeat again that because the "nightmare scenarios" have not happened, you have little faith that they will (whatever faith has to do with it). Do you also not believe that a major earthquake will ever happen in coastal California, because one has not happened in over 100 years? It's just not a sensible worldview.
I have no idea, nor does it particularly matter, whether you are denying that there is global warming due to (or contributed to by) CO2. I just think that a few of your posts display a lack of enough common sense and consideration of the factual answers that some of the other folks here have provided.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
If gas was still the roughly 97 cents a gallon it was when I started driving, my life would be SO much cheaper. For many of us this means the difference between being able to afford a doctor visit, save any amount of money for some kind of retirement, etc.
Interesting that you seem to think that the price for gas in america needs to be about 1/10 of the price in Europe for many American's to be able to get some basic health care and retirement.
It's as if they assume the American public would still choose dumb ass gas guzzlers over green energy if given the option. Like everyone has their head in the dark and is some evil dipsh#t. Wake the f*#k up...
Yes, because American's are famous for their small cars with good gas mileage.
|
|
BigFeet
Trad climber
Texas
|
|
This thread will never die - just as any science related argument would not until finally proven absolute.
I believe the problem is there is no absolute yet.
Prediction is 30,000 replies by the end of 2014.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
I believe the problem is there is no absolute yet.
You're guessing.
The Absolute exists.
Modern science can't see the absolute because they only use their own defective instruments .......
|
|
BigFeet
Trad climber
Texas
|
|
WBraun,
It is not a guess, otherwise this thread would not exist. No absolute has been found. Never said it did not exist, hence the word yet.
Not arguing - just clarifying. I should have worded it better. My mistake.
Defective instruments, or deceptive data... neither lead us to the stated goal of finding said absolute.
I like this site, for it keeps me sane and smiling.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
BigFeet -- "No absolute has been found."
That is an Absolute statement.
Be careful ......
|
|
AndyMan
Sport climber
CA
|
|
Come on scammers, EVIDENCE, NOT theory.
IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what is the EVIDENCE that man's CO2 has caused any of the warming since the Little Ice Age? ... the warming that STOPPED 2 decades, despite more than 1/3 of all man's CO2 being emitted in that period.
There's NOTHING to support your scam.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Thanks AndyMan. Good to know global warming has stopped for 2 decades.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
Andrew,just disregard this and remember burning Gasoline,Coal ,Oil and NG is actually GOOD for our atmosphere.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
The only catastrophe to stop is Warmists, like Malemute, turning off
thermal powerplants and destroying civilization for millions of people.
|
|
BigFeet
Trad climber
Texas
|
|
WBraun,
Very true. Still, my statement will stand as is.
All others,
No matter what the end-all-be-all, I will always try to be a good steward of where I tread - as should all. No reason not to, but I will always be weary of those who force good intentions on those who can reason for themselves.
I don't really want to help build that road.
I still am not seeing an absolute given, and along with known fraudulent data (found multiple times) used to create a narrative given to the masses, it does not bode well for those in the scientific community soliciting this. Credibility of all established data comes into question. Does it not? If not, why?
I need more than what has been given so far to give up my Harley and '77 C-10 for that Prius. :)
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
If gas was still the roughly 97 cents a gallon it was when I started driving, my life would be SO much cheaper. For many of us this means the difference between being able to afford a doctor visit, save any amount of money for some kind of retirement, etc. The lack of any kind of real investment in the green technologies which are already available (GM EV1 anyone?) is the final straw in that
"Interesting that you seem to think that the price for gas in america needs to be about 1/10 of the price in Europe for many American's to be able to get some basic health care and retirement. "
-------
And if you measure it correctly, gas is about the same price now as it was in 1981 at $1.00/gal in CONSTANT Dollars.
It's as if they assume the American public would still choose dumb ass gas guzzlers over green energy if given the option. Like everyone has their head in the dark and is some evil dipsh#t. Wake the f*#k up...
" Yes, because American's are famous for their small cars with good gas mileage. "
The EV1 was a little too early. Today you can get much better EV & PHEV cars than that: Volt, Leaf, I-Miev, Tesla, Fit EV, Prius, Focus EV, Spark EV, i3, Smart EV, etc, + more in next couple years. But for most people cheap petro fuel is so far still the deciding factor, which allows commuting to work in a Ford Raptor.
http://www.torquenews.com/electric-vehicles
http://www.autosaur.com/electric-cars-top-ten/
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1093497_nissan-leaf-vs-bmw-i3-vs-volkswagen-e-golf-german-magazine-compares
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/electric-cars
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!