Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
90% Percentage of 108 climate change denial books published between 1982 and 2010 that were not peer-reviewed. The books variously denied that climate change is happening, that humans are at fault, that climate change is having a negative effect on the environment, or any combination of the three. A strong link was also found between the books and conservative think tanks. Seventy-two percent of the books were published by an author or editor with a verifiable affiliation to some such group.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
You're on top of it sketchy never miss an opportunity to be nasty
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
Hey ,back to the argument:
Sketch ,yes I could do better.
That article highlights the uncertainties your side of this issue clings to.
While they sound believable,like Crunch and Ed pointed out,they are not .
You will never hear me waiver.
Cheers,all.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 02:11pm PT
|
The researchers examined data on contemporary reef ecosystems as well as fossil coral reefs from two places in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Belize in the Caribbean, and from Indo-Pacific sites in Hawaii, Taiwan, Moorea, Kenya and the Great Barrier Reef off Australia to simulate future coral reef outcomes.
Some folks have all the fun.
Thanks for that reference The Chief. Hopefully the new corals are able to adjust to a more acidic ocean.
|
|
Camahoo
Trad climber
Shaver Springs
|
|
Be leave what you want. The facts are this natural gas, gasoline or any other hydrocarbon use as fuel is mostly carbon by weight. Fact carbon in fuels will ether be emitted as carbon, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide or unspent hydrocarbons.
So follow this: if I burn 20 gallons for fuel going to my local climbing area SF to shuteye I would have burned up 20 gallons (1 gallon of = 6.3 lbs) or emitted 126 lbs of sh_t mostly carbon into the sky. so in 8 round trips I would have dumped 1 ton of sh_t in to the sky.
So the way I see, it any commuter climber that likes to makes environmental statements just shut up!
27 years for Source Emission Testing I am an expert!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 04:00pm PT
|
So the way I see, it any commuter climber that likes to makes environmental statements just shut up!
You mean we're not allowed to talk about the energy policies and decisions that are made at the Gov't level?
How about fuel standards, zip?
No talk of mass transit, just STFU?
Camahoo, I think you're missing the point.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
The entire "hypocrisy" strawman tangent is just a denier rationalization.
You will never get rid of hypocrisy as long as there is a single living human on the earth. Capitalism is founded on materialism and consumption. It is not the duty of climate policy to change human nature, even if it does help. Successful policy works with existing human behavoir, not counting on some utopian fantasy.
The point of policy to lessen climate change is to provide disincentives to continued carbon emissions and incentives for alternates, REGARDLESS of whether or not some/many/most people are "hypocrites." The policy is successful if the total emissions decrease without crippling costs, REGARDLESS of some people being sometimes hypocritical.
For instance, if a revenue neutral fuel tax doubled the cost of fuel, many climbers would carpool with someone else, or drive a hybrid, and cut emissions in half.
But what about Leo?
REGARDLESS of Leo.
But what about Al?
REGARDLESS of AL.
But what about ...
REGARDLESS of ...
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Here are a few thoughts on that opinion piece from Sketch and Brown:
opinionated, unbacked, projection, strawman, fact-less.
"That’s right folks. Climate is what happens over 30+ years of weather, but Hansen and indeed the entire climate research establishment never bothered to falsify the null hypothesis of simple linear response before building enormously complex and unwieldy climate models, building strong positive feedback into those models from the beginning, working tirelessly to “explain” the single stretch of only 20 years in the second half of the 20th century, badly, by balancing the strong feedbacks with a term that was and remains poorly known (aerosols), and asserting that this would be a reliable predictor of future climate."
Wrong.
The most immediate feedback from the initial CO2 heating is that water vapor will increase (which magnifies the greenhouse heat imbalance effect). This has already been confirmed. Brown suggests ignoring such obvious feedbacks. Another - If there is less ice, the earth will be less reflective. There are other feedbacks that could make matters even worse, but I don't think they are even built into models yet: such as GHG release from the oceans, or from tundra.
"Increasing it will without any reasonable doubt cause some warming all things being equal (that is, linearizing the model in our minds before we even begin to write the computation!)"
We have no empirical foundation for assuming positive feedbacks in the vicinity of the local equilibrium — that’s what linearization is all about!"
More unbacked assumptions. The computation is based on physics and massive efforts on new sensors and measurements, not on Brown's deluded assumption of linearity. All of the feedback effects continue to be measured and data checked against predictions. When differences are found, models are updated to make them more accurate. Climate science now have decades of measurements and model refinement to allow improved predictions. Improved hindcasts of the last 15 years validate the improved models.
Brown just doesn't like the findings, but has no facts, only gut feelings.
Debates:
"Um, Steven [Steven Mosher], it is pretty clear that you’ve never been to a major physics meeting that had a section presenting some unsettled science where the organizers had set up two or more scientists with entirely opposing views to give invited talks and participate in a panel just like the one presented. This isn’t “rare”, it is very nearly standard operating procedure to avoid giving the impression that the organizers are favoring one side or the other of the debate."
Um, M. Brown, it is pretty clear that you are a Total Strawman x 10.
Of course climate scientists do have such talks. So Brown is making up this whole non-existent situation so he can argue against it.
Non-climate scientists like Brown are far too outside their own field of knowledge to be a peer in such talks.
So they resort to trying to create a non science debate in the lay media.
Little difference to the scientists hired as industry stooges to create doubt and fake a valid debate as to whether smoking tobacco was harmful.
"Most scientists are quite honest, and most of them are reasonably fair in their assessment of facts and doubt. But scientists have to eat, and for better or worse we have created a world where they are in thrall to their funding."
Again with the pure FAUX news projection. I guess solar and nuclear energy and LED lights and electric motors will never work, because those darned fraudulent scientists made it all up.
Many scientists have tenure and are not in danger of losing their jobs, unlike the ones paid by Heartland and Koch. Their biggest motivation, if they had findings that differed from the norm, would be to publish the new findings and eventually become famous as the one who "bucked the system."
" the ClimateGate letters openly revealed that it has long since become covertly corrupted."
climate-gate is as significant to Climate Science as bengazi is to World War. (in lower caps since it is a minor minor molehill)
The laughable instant a denier brings this up as an argument, you know they are deluded.
Read these responses to a similar editorial and tell us what FACTs you have to respond.
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2014/09/20/on-eve-of-climate-march-wsj-publishes-call-to-wait-and-do-nothing/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/22/wall-street-journal-downplays-global-warming-risks
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/22/3570280/wall-street-journal-climate-inaction/
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
"In other words, Nature is doing what it has done so well for a longass time. It is adapting to the ongoing infinite changes in the environment. Those species that can not do so, they will just go as so many have done for the past 100 million or so years."
As has already been discussed,
that's not an argument that human caused climate change is a good thing to be embraced. No one is disputing that life on earth will continue. Is it a good thing that in large dead sea zones, algae and jellyfish have replaced fish? for Cactus to replace trees, lizards replace deer, Sand to replace snow.
When climate changed 20000 years ago, most people of the world moved. There was generally somewhere to move to, or they killed whatever "Neanderthals" were in the way. Is that a good thing?
In order for your argument to be valid:
 humans evolve to eat toxic algea.
200,000,000 coastal people rebuild cities on high ground.
200,000,000 in arid zones move to wetter countries.
half the farms of California move to ???
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
"So who is telling the TRUTH, Splater?"
Both. Why do you immediately think one contradicts the other?
What was life like in California in the year 1190?
If they suffered and died, it's fine if we make a repeat more likely on an even bigger scale?
Which is more tragic or acceptable, if either :
those who died of drought when the cliff dwellings of the U.S. southwest were abandoned,
or those who die of drought due to 40 more years of desertification of the Sahara?
Is this your argument:
There was climate variation in the past,
therefore it's fine if we increase it now.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
"Hey Splater, you did totally contradict yourself.
At least you are consistent. "
Hilarious! You are very funny, if more than a little unable to follow a line of thought to its conclusion.
But that's enough amusement for today.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
For those who argue presence, it makes you sound like a moron (no weather is not climate and anomolies in the data are part of the game called science).
If you want to argue causation, you might not sound like a moron; depends on how good a case you make.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Six centuries of variability and extremes in a coupled marine-terrestrial ecosystem
Bryan A. Black et al.
Science 345, 1498 (2014);
DOI: 10.1126/science.1253209
Reported trends in the mean and variability of coastal upwelling in eastern boundary currents have raised concerns about the future of these highly productive and biodiverse marine ecosystems. However, the instrumental records on which these estimates are based are insufficiently long to determine whether such trends exceed preindustrial limits. In the California Current, a 576-year reconstruction of climate variables associated with winter upwelling indicates that variability increased over the latter 20th century to levels equaled only twice during the past 600 years. This modern trend in variance may be unique, because it appears to be driven by an unprecedented succession of extreme, downwelling-favorable, winter climate conditions that profoundly reduce productivity for marine predators of commercial and conservation interest.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
did you read the sentence after that one?
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
I'm standing by my position, Chief. All your "but look at this" just makes you sound silly. If you want to start talking mechanism, then you might not. You could even present some kind of grounded arguement about how much of the upward shift in global temperatures seen in the last century are due to normal variations in global climate versus how much is due to burning of fossil fuels and other human related factors. But, you seem to like bluster over substance.
You appear to be someone who likes to run the show and a lot of your show is the louder you say something and the more frquently you say it, the more true it becomes. Bad strategy. You're a classic bully. At the other extreme is Ed. Rational, reasoned, respectful, actually understands how science works, and has the patience of Job! We could learn a lot by his example.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 10:13pm PT
|
You're an idiot.
Sketch, you say that as if anybody takes you seriously.
Well, I do suppose there is The Chief.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
Slope, Chief, slope.
Here is the editor's summary of the article Ed referred to above.
Rings of ocean upwelling
Coastal upwelling along the coast of California has become more variable than during nearly any period in the past 600 years. Black et al. used a 576-year tree ring record to construct a record of wintertime climate along the California coast. Because wintertime climate and coastal upwelling are so closely linked there, they were able to determine that upwelling variability has increased more over the past 60 years than for all but two intervals during that time. The apparent causes of the recent trend appear to be unique, resulting in reduced marine productivity and negative impacts on fish, seabirds, and mammals.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
Check the editors summary above more closely. Remember it is a scientist saying it, so it will be understated. You have to look closely....
If have looked at climate trend as a whole you are aware of the ending of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century and the increase of global temperature at that time. If you are aware of the data on overall global trend, you are clear of the unusual slope of increasing global temperature that correlates with the increasing use of fossil fuels during the 20th century.
That is the consensus of the science. The change is what it is. The change may be due to normal climate variability, use of fossil fuels, both, or none of the above, but there is essential consensus of the data and the conclusions of the scientists analyzing the data.
Yes, you do sound silly arguing the above. You like to throw out obfuscations to prove how smart you are; it doesn't work and just makes you sound desperate and insecure.
Argue causation, not presence, of increasing global climate. Make your case.
Or, as my wife says, "You should listen more. You have two ears and one mouth because you should listen more than you talk. You don't learn anything when you're talking, you only learn when you're listening." Smart woman.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!