Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2014 - 12:22am PT
|
My god Ed, you are seriously deluded if you buy into accuracy of these models in the unreal world where natural variability and processes are removed. So, in what portion of the infinite multiverse could such treatment have any bearing on reality?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2014 - 12:36am PT
|
That's right Glandhead, it don't mean shet. It, CAGW science, also became non-science as soon as it was hijacked to support a twisted political agenda not compatible with human life.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2014 - 12:49am PT
|
Rick
All of civilizations advances in the last 400 years are due to only one thing
Science.
Science is simply one thing
Answering questions
Is this true or false verifiably?
It is the most powerful thing in history. The apparatus.. the system is not perfect.. but it does work. It works well over time.
You are wrong about global warming friend. But that's not what is interesting about this thread. What is interesting is the process of a civilization facing a problem..one that just might destroy it... I doubt civilization will be destroyed but the possibility exists. More likely billions will simply suffer more than necessary. Perhaps that is worse than a mass die off. That calculus is not one I wish to give more than a fleeting thought about.
Man is intelligent.. mankind. not always so much. Good luck to the future. The elements of human specialization encoded in our collective genetics may not be proper for the current issues. The time of the hunter gatherers mix is past.. the genetic mix is still stuck in that world.. it may well bring us back to where it thrives. Has the mix shifted somewhat? Has it become more intelligent and farsighted? The things that make man something special? Or is it still more focused on brute force and reactions that are destructive to complex systems?
When I was young I expected better from humanity. I am hopeful that what we managed to barely muddle through in the past was worse than what the future holds.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 16, 2014 - 07:18am PT
|
The Chief, do you think 2014 will be in the top ten hottest years on record?
A YES or NO will do.
Thanks,
(I'll go on recored as predicting it will turn out hotter than 2013, so I'm thinking "YES".)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2014 - 07:55am PT
|
do you think 2014 will be in the top ten hottest years on record?
This a silly way to keep this flame going.
This thread is "Climate Change"
We can see the planet's climate is in an extreme phase.
There is very little stability and normalcy in the world's climate at this point in time.
Extremes, hot, cold, dry, wet wars, pestilence, genocide, diseases, poverty, etc etc all due to non harmonious actions against Nature.
Instead you people just keep staring at stupid graphs and arguing endlessly.
It's unbelievable ......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2014 - 08:33am PT
|
I think that Werner has an interesting take, basically there is a sense among many that the climate has changed considerably over the last two or three generations, large enough changes in a short time to be noticed.
At the same time, trying to understand the climate, scientists looking at graphs and such realized they couldn't explain what was happening unless they included the consequences of human activity, primarily the increases atmospheric CO2 concentrations from energy production.
It is not just about the "natural variability."
Changes in the arctic were much more pronounced, and noticeable to those who worked there. It was tying all the anecdotal evidence together, and looking for a "cause" that lead to the conclusions that are argued about on this thread.
Driving the "it's only natural" argument is the fear that a response to the "human generated" hypothesis will cost them something they are unwilling to give up.
That's my take... as for the science, it is about quantitative comparisons.
For instance, The Chief keeps going on about "the hiatus" but he hasn't defined what a "hiatus" is quantitatively. Obviously over 6 decades the climate observations agree with the climate model predictions, and do so with the necessary inclusion of human activities.
It is less clear what a decade scale "departure" from the predictions means, but it is tied up in the quantities being compared.
So The Chief should explain that, at least, in his question: what is the definition of a "hiatus" (in what? how much? how long?, etc.) quantitatively. It might be a challenge, but he could take some time out from his noisy contributions to this thread and do a little net surfing. There's got to be some definition in one of his favorite blogs... and he could get some help from his mates on this. Maybe you can teach an old goat new tricks...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 16, 2014 - 08:53am PT
|
This a silly way to keep this flame going.
Point taken Werner, and you explained your view directly.
It doesn't take a weatherman to know that the weather is screwed up, and it doesn't take a marine biologist to know that what we're doing is ruining the oceans.
If you tap into your basic understanding of how the system we call Mother Earth works, then you know that the problems we bring are huge, and we'd better get a clue about it--soon. The graphs and such, it's just proof that what we feel down deep can be proven to be the state of affairs.
The Chief, rick--they live in paradise where there is plenty of water and the weather is fair. Perhaps this is how they view the state in rose-colored glasses.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 16, 2014 - 09:11am PT
|
The Chief, the depth of your foolishness never ceases to amaze me.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2014 - 09:30am PT
|
I agree with all of your list of human made ills Werner. Except the extremes of weather, which have always been and always will be. It won't be the weather that visits extinction upon mankind, instead it will be stupidity that forces humans to live in disharmony and contrary to the intelligence bestowed upon us. Stupid humans.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2014 - 10:59am PT
|
And who the fk are you Chief?
Oh, forgot, some anomaly that frequently bumps super dumbass threads such as this one on the inturdnet and then post his political ideological jiberish on it in order to perpetuate it.
see we're all in the same drum circle..
|
|
snarky
climber
vantuna
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2014 - 07:17am PT
|
I know this has nothing to do with "climate," but we set another record! We're rocking it!
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2014 - 08:37pm PT
|
I'm only going to jump in here to address the "what everyone should know about climate change" videos in that link.
I'm not taking sides on the climate issue, I just can't stand it when people use "consensus among scientists" or "scientists all agree" to back their argument, whether or not I am on their side. That is very very rarely, if ever, true.
Sorry, it drives me nuts and immediately reduces the credibility of anyone who says it.
Carry on
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2014 - 08:55pm PT
|
what wording should they use, LimpingCrab?
can't say consensus...
how about just stating the facts?
Powell, 2013[
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[26] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[27]
or one could just read for themselves, this Survey of Scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2014 - 09:15pm PT
|
Norton, that looks like a vast majority, not "all" or complete agreement (consensus).
I agree, when decisions have to be made you have to go with someone and the opinion of vast majority would be the best bet.
As a scientist (aspiring, I barely finished grad school) I just don't like it when the majority try to shame the outliers by throwing around words like consensus. It reminds me of Whitney calling Muir a dumb sheep herder for thinking glaciers carved yosemite. That's only a climbing related version of a story that's played out in science countless times. Look up nobel laureate Daniel Shechtman and quizicrystals. There was a really recent example with genetics and medicine that I can't think of off the top of my head.
Not even the professors in my climate change classes or advisors for my research used absolutes.
Science would be boring if everyone agreed on stuff. Debate, it's fun, but don't claim everyone agrees with your side, whatever it may be.
Edit: Norton, I was told on two unrelated grant proposals to work the words "climate change" in if I wanted to get funded. I did, it worked.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2014 - 09:53pm PT
|
True fortmental, that was the best I could do when I was trying to think of a climbing analogy. I should've just stuck with the quazicrystals since I'm blanking on my favorite example.
Bruce, you're right, shaming was a poor choice of words. I would call it more of a fallacy; claiming "everyone agrees" as a means of winning an argument.
The majority of scientists do agree on climate change, but PLEASE don't say there is a consensus. Encourage people to investigate their opinions, suspicions or beliefs, that's much better for scientific advance than saying "ok, now we're positive and everyone agrees, don't ask questions, move on and hold what we've told you as truth."
Anyway, all I'm saying is that scientific consensus is virtually a myth, and it should be.
Anthropogenic climate change, on the other hand, is very likely and we should take better care of the planet. But it's also EXTREMELY complex, so certainty and consensus is not likely. Atmospheric chemistry hurts the brain
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2014 - 10:15pm PT
|
Fortmental, p-values cannot equal 0
Please don't say ALL scientists agree on something while debating a scientific topic, that's all I'm suggesting. For example, say the vast majority of scientists believe there is anthropogenic climate change and most data backs them up. That would be a true statement and I'm not arguing that.
|
|
limpingcrab
Trad climber
the middle of CA
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2014 - 11:16pm PT
|
Fair enough. My comment wasn't climate change topic specific. I saw my pet peeve in the video and brought it up. I still think claiming there is a consensus or that "all" scientists believe something is a poor tool for an argument when someone is trying to prove that their view is the correct one (it's also usually not true). Just use simple, good old fashioned evidence. Crap, I brought it up again and can't help myself!!!
Sorry for the thread drift.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2014 - 04:47am PT
|
3% of climate scientists agree that there is no Global warming.
You got that going for you.
No "C" word.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 19, 2014 - 08:06am PT
|
Norton, that looks like a vast majority, not "all" or complete agreement (consensus).
limpingcrab, I agree with you. When I hear "consensus," I cringe because I know what that word means. Same with "all."
But "vast majority" doesn't quite capture the incredibly lopsided number of scientists who believe that climate change is causes by none other than us.
How about this:
The massive, overwhelming, and mind-blggling majority of climate scientists believe ...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!