Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 07:44am PT
|
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 08:38am PT
|
All the quasi-scientists here with their cut and paste acumen are less than convincing in their efforts.
The climate change paranoia is just that.
Pretty amusing Pud.
Here's a cut-n-paste job for ya:
Almost 16 years after Harvard researcher Naomi Oreskes first documented an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, a research team confirmed that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening.
The study, published Tuesday [4/13/16], brought together 16 scientists, including seven authors of consensus studies that documented similar conclusions over the years despite varying research approaches. While reaching this so-called “consensus on consensus,” authors concluded that scientific agreement on human-caused climate change is “robust” with a range of 90 to 100 percent, depending on the question and methodology.
...
The study also shows that the higher the level of expertise in climate science, the higher the agreement that global warming is caused by humans.
Among climate experts, the rate of agreement on human-caused climate change is between 90 to 100 percent.
CREDIT: John Garrett/University of Queensland
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 08:45am PT
|
The latest numbers are 99.99% of climate scientists agree
the old 97% number was way off
I would add that scientists in general are probably at 99% as well
The only people in disagreement are Republicans and conned libertarians, and they are not scientists.
and paid shills for the FF industry
vvv
sorry, didn't read all your post
I was just citing numbers I read in the skeptical journal
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 08:51am PT
|
The latest numbers are 99.99% of climate scientist agree.
Craig, not that I want to disagree, but re-read my post.
Also, there is the breaking news that the FF industry has been covering it up since the late 1940's [reported on the previous page of this topic].
Yeah, 60% of we Americans are represented in congress by a GOP who has cozied up to the tit of the fossil fuel industry, and have gone along with their misinformation campaign.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 09:05am PT
|
They are addicted to Koch!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 09:11am PT
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 07:08am PT
All the quasi-scientists here with their cut and paste acumen are less than convincing in their efforts.
The climate change paranoia is just that.
Sadly, this type of ignorance has a lot of political sway.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 09:49am PT
|
Almost 16 years after Harvard researcher Naomi Oreskes first documented an overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, a research team confirmed that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening.
11 1/2 = "Almost 16"
Love those statisticians.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 10:19am PT
|
Do I really need to post that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy? Why not respond with facts supporting the anthropogenic hypothesis, which I found overwhelmingly convincing? The other arguments insult intelligence - or just plain insult.
Even worse, the most convincing argument against the anthropogenic warming hypothesis for undecideds seems to be that it's simply a convenient excuse for their preferred political system, namely government control. When we blend our politics into our science, we give those who disagree with the politics an excuse to ignore the science. If we stick to the science, frustrating as that is when dealing with non-science-based critiques, we have a much better chance of prevailing.
John
Edit: Thanks for the following post, BASE104. Now that's what I'm talking about!
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 10:24am PT
|
It has been mathematically shown that if the Earth's atmosphere did NOT contain its current volume of greenhouse gasses, we would plunge into a deep freeze.
They are one of the main drivers of climate.
When we see a marine rock, we know that we are looking at a high stand of sea level. When we see an unconformity, we know that we are looking at a low stand. That is pretty simple. What causes this periodic rise and fall of sea level? The volume of water tied up in ice. If Antartica melts, which it has many times, sea level will greatly rise, and you will see a transgression of the coastline, as well as the types of rocks being deposited.
The main driver of these cycles appears to be Milankovitch cycles. Those are changes in the planets axial tilt, orbit, and the like. However, the theory is not air tight. Wiki has a terrific page on them. Take a moment to read, and educate yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
The carbon cycle is fairly well understood. Release of carbon in the atmosphere happens in a variety of ways. Vulcanism, respiration, biological decay..there are many.
The important thing to know is that despite us seeing a warming going on, we are actually not in a part of a Milankovitch Cycle that would cause warming. So we aren't warming from that.
Carbon "sinks," or processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere are mainly oceanic. Not only does the gas enter the water as a dissolved gas, CO2 forms a weak carbonic acid in rainfall, and that rainfall tends to end up in the oceans. By far the largest carbon sink is the tests of marine organisms, who grow tests, or shells, of calcium carbonate. These deposits become limestones, and the Earth is lathered in huge limestone deposits. I live on top of a sandstone, but beneath my feet are several thousand feet of limestone and dolomite (dolomite is magnesium carbonate, formed through diagenesis of limestones). The amount of CO2 that the oceans can take is one of the main variables in climate change equations.
The Earth originally had a CO2 rich atmosphere. With the arrival of cyanobacteria, that CO2 began to be turned into limestones. This is a simple matter. Eventually, CO2 became a minor constituent (although still powerful) of the atmosphere. The presence of oxygen is due to life. Free oxygen loves to bind with everything, and if life suddenly ceased, we would see a rapid return to a CO2 rich atmosphere, with a minor amount of oxygen.
That is one way to look for extraterrestrial life: If you see a lot of free oxygen in the atmosphere of an exoplanet, you can be pretty sure that something odd is happening. Probably life.
As we can see from plants, though, not all life respires oxygen. Plants are the majority of available biomass, and they breathe CO2. If their remains get sequestered, they become coal, but if there is an oxygen environment, that biomass will simply be devoured by tiny animals and bacteria, and the CO2 will return to the atmosphere. To get coal, or any of the fossil fuels for that matter, the biologic material needs to be deposited in an anoxic environment. We see this throughout the rock record. Organic carbon is very difficult to sequester. You need an oxygen free environment to keep it from rotting back to CO2 again.
This has been shown to be true throughout the rock record.
Like tree rings, cycles of high and low stand of sea level are recorded in the rock record. Geologists have known of these cyclothems for a hundred years. We know that the climate is cyclic. The only way to cause a several hundred foot rise or fall in sea level is to adjust the amount of water tied up in ice. So sea level is directly related to climate. We use high and low stands of sea level to correlate rocks around the world. Exxon published a global history of high and low stands of sea level since the beginning of the planet. It is commonly used to correlate rocks.
You need to understand that we don't just walk around with a hammer and look at surface rocks. Via oil and gas wells, we can look at an incredibly long slice of the history of the Earth. So much knowledge of sedimentary rocks, and the cycles that deposited them, are known from deep wells and the geophysical logs run over them. Logs are great. I wish that I could explain them to you, but it is way over your head. It takes years to get good at log interpretation, and I've gotten pretty good at it. Anyone who looks at them 8 hours a day for 30 years will get good at log interpretation.
I think that Ed knows a little about certain logging tools. Some of them use a radioactive source to bombard the borehole with neutrons.
As an aside, very rarely your logging tools will get permanently stuck in a well. If it is at the bottom, you might be able to save your well. You retrieve them via what is called "fishing," and and any lost junk in a wellbore is called a fish.
If you lose your neutron density logs in a hole, the logs that contain the radioactive source, you must plug the hole with cement from top to bottom. The upper thousand feet or so of cement has to contain iron oxide pigment to turn it red. That way, if somehow it is forgotten that a certain well has a neutron density tool stuck in it, you won't re-enter that well later on.
I've been around these tools hundreds of times. The source is pretty small, but it is taken very seriously when you get a cesium source lost in a deep well.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 10:37am PT
|
It must be tough being a right wing apologist
trying to reconcile the Republican Party with the unwilling hoards of no nothings.
According to John, we have to appeal to them through science??
Sorry John, we have tried that, and it doesn't work
just like facts will not sway religious zealots
They don't want to look at facts, they want to tell us that WE are wrong, "why believe science when you can believe something you want to believe"
according to them, all scientists have been bought off by the commies or something insane
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 11:11am PT
|
It is certainly worth noting that this is almost completely political. A science problem's answer is now gauged by political sentiment and disinformation.
I sort of see the climate change deniers as being in the same group as creationists. They have their beliefs because someone told them to. They never back away and look dispassionately and critically at the problem. They ignore the plentiful data that opposes them.
You can't understand science via politics. All that is accomplished is a false sense of security.
I like to listen to Limbaugh, if I'm out driving when he is on. Sort of a know thy enemy sort of thing. I remember him saying, probably a decade ago, to not worry about climate change. That it was all made up BS.
I know that he is wrong, and I can provide examples of climate change in the Earth's history. Simple geology (maybe not that simple to some of you, but nevertheless...). We have seen the planet do this in the past. The difference is that this time, the atmosphere is being tainted by human activities.
Sometimes I feel like a crack dealer. I find oil and gas, I like it when the prices are high, yet I beg people not to use it. Nobody is really doing anything to alter our behavior, though. Most of you probably drive to work alone. You don't use car pooling or mass transit, which is much more efficient, using less fossil fuels.
Well, I got rid of my truck. I don't even own a car anymore. I walk or ride my bike. Now and then I need to borrow my wife's car to haul something, but I'm amazed at how I don't need the thing.
I turn the heat and AC down. I do what I can.
However, even then, I still use, through various indirect means, probably a hundred times more fossil fuels than a person in Bangladesh.
We can get by with far less gasoline. Also, as long as it is cheap, then people will waste it, and right now oil is as cheap as it was in the early 80's.
The US is 5% of the world's population, and we use 25% of the oil. Most of it is used for transportation. Americans just waste it without a thought. Bottled water costs ten times more than a barrel of oil right now.
A group of us geologists were chatting about this a decade or so ago. We came to the conclusion that our progeny will curse us for BURNING gasoline. It is a very useful substance, and you can make all kinds of stuff out of it. Anyway, it may not seem like it now, but it is a limited and non-renewable resource. Oil prices drive much of our foreign policy. Why else would we be friends with the Saudi's? Hell, most of the 9-11 bad guys were Saudis.
It is a complicated web, but at its root, we simply waste too much oil. I've been in favor of a carbon tax for decades. Since I first heard of the idea. Tax the snot out of it. Our addiction to it has led us indirectly into two major wars in the past 20 years. The tax needs to be leveled directly on the consumer, though. Not the producer. We don't have a production problem. We have a consumption problem.
It will never happen.
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 12:17pm PT
|
I seriously don't understand why y'all even bother with the deniers
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 12:37pm PT
|
I seriously don't understand why y'all even bother with the deniers
Because they vote, and make decisions, and influence those who haven't made up their minds, all in a way that is detrimental to our current and future well-being.
John
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 12:39pm PT
|
Love those statisticians.
@EdwardT, who exactly are the statisticians to whom you are referring? Certainly not the author of the article about study, right?
@JE, I think you are missing the point. The GOP constantly uses the argument that there is no scientific consensus about AWG. They say the science is not in, or there are still uncertainties.
This study shows that the GOP folks who say this are full of BS.
If you want to go into the actual science, there are plenty of routes you can choose to do just that.
So, when you say, "Why not respond with facts supporting the anthropogenic hypothesis,", climate scientists have. But it seems the political party that you endorse wants to play footsie with the FF industry instead of basing their views on scientific fact.
It has been mathematically shown that if the Earth's atmosphere did NOT contain its current volume of greenhouse gasses, we would plunge into a deep freeze.
Yeah, it's also been "mathematically shown" that our current CO2 levels will kill us.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 01:06pm PT
|
@EdwardT, who exactly are the statisticians to whom you are referring? Certainly not the author of the article about study, right?
Whoever led off the number-laden consensus sprayfest with bad math.
Alejandro Fragoso?
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 01:21pm PT
|
I'd have to agree with k-man - you missed my point. The deniers are not going to change their minds. They've already been brainwashed. So why do those that understand science and logic even bother when there is exactly zero chance in changing a deniers mind.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 04:17pm PT
|
That,Nature and anyone else here is why I will not bother.
But ,carry on.
I like your last post Base.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2016 - 05:36pm PT
|
Whoever led off the number-laden consensus sprayfest with bad math.
So, not a real statistician, but a journalist.
Boy, when all you are is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2016 - 07:40am PT
|
So, Base104, in that excellent post, gave me an idea for part of the solution. You can steal this if you want and run with it. Beano for cattle.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2016 - 07:52am PT
|
I'd have to agree with k-man - you missed my point. The deniers are not going to change their minds. They've already been brainwashed. So why do those that understand science and logic even bother when there is exactly zero chance in changing a deniers mind.
What do you know about science?
One does not understand logic, rather the concept thereof. But you knew that, I'm sure.
The fear instilled in the climate change follower's lives has a greater negative effect on them and those around them than a warmer planet ever will.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!