Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2014 - 07:20am PT
|
Carpe diem! lol
|
|
roadkillphil
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2014 - 07:56am PT
|
Are you guys talking about saving the planet, or saving the human race? Because there is a big difference. The planet has been around millions of years (or 10,000 years, pick a belief system you can have faith in) and is still trucking along just fine. The human race is just another species which hasn't yet gone extinct. Like the vast majority of every species that ever existed. That's the natural order of things (or God's will..again, take your pick). Species arise, species flourish, species decline, species go extinct. So why get your panties all in a bunch over something you can't do anything about?
It's too late anyway. The planetary human population has finally reached the Malthusian tipping point beyond which even new technology isn't going to work....there's just too many people and not enough resources. If you really wanted to save the planet you should probably kill yourself and about half a million of your closest friends.. At least quit reproducing. But no matter how well intentioned one might be, for every mile you ride your bike to work, there are 13 million Angelinos driving on the freeway. For every light bulb you turn off or water faucet you close, there are Las Vegas style light shows and fountains all over the world. I have a hard time seeing how my little bag of recycling is going to save the planet when I see pictures of NYC garbage barges and people living (and recycling) in the Rio or Mexico City dumps.
I always get a kick out of what seems like the monthly Patagucci catalog I receive unsolicited. Buried somewhere in the middle of the full color glossy pages jam packed with 20 different styles of board shorts, 17 different types of yoga mats, specialized yoga gear, and a myriad of choices of down jackets there is a story about a guy who is saving the planet by wearing old clothes and borrowing his neighbors tools. I guess if it makes you feel good, do it.
Like the Access Fund campaign urging one to buy a t shirt to support "Responsible Consumerism." Based on pictures in National Geographic, t shirts are available in the deepest darkest reaches of remoteness. I don't see an international t shirt shortage looming anytime soon, so can't quite figure out how buying another one is going to save the planet.
Even "The Sixth Extinction," interesting reading proposing that humans are responsible for the next major extinction event, refers to previous planetary climatic changes as being related to sun activity or "poorly understood" events.
But enough of this...I'm going to find a climbing website that's actually about climbing.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2014 - 08:10am PT
|
I'm going to find a climbing website that's actually about climbing.
No, you won't.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 25, 2014 - 09:25am PT
|
Are you guys talking about saving the planet, or saving the human race?
The movement to raise awareness about the findings of the climate scientists is aimed at a couple of things. (1) Inform the general public, especially in the US where there are concerted efforts to distort the truth, about the amount of research that has gone into the climate and to shine a light on the scientist's findings, and (2) to try to bring about a change at the highest levels of gov't and international corporations to begin rapid change in the methods we produce and use the world's "energy."
Like you said, recycling and running gas-efficient cars is not going to make a large enough dent in the situation to make a difference. What needs to come about is a world-wide change in attitude. Simply, we have to begin living more within our means, and stop thinking we're entitled to the way of life in which we live.
There are many prongs on which this needs to move, and I feel population is certainly one of those--the Earth cannot support our current populations, not to mention projected rises. The Catholic Church hasn't helped much in this effort, but they aren't the only ones to hold accountable.
Does any of this relate to climbing? You can make ties to all aspects of our lives, I suppose. And if you like to climb ice, it certainly relates.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2014 - 09:33am PT
|
The "Oceans" are Warming (.65 C over 23 years) due to Natural Variability/ENSO/Kelvin Wave Activity.
like you know what that actually means?
Polly want a cracker? or is "Polly" just a cracker?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2014 - 09:47am PT
|
Its never too late to self abort RoadKill.
You wack job AGW boosters repeat the mantra that because of the prophesized energy imbalance from CO2 radiative forcing the earth system is in energy imbalance and the excess energy is now simply going into the oceans instead of atmosphere. This belief of an 0.6wm2 Imbalance ignores large margin of error estimates that range as high as 17wm2 ( Stepans et al 2012).
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2014 - 10:00am PT
|
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 25, 2014 - 10:17am PT
|
So, that's what this thread is about.
Partially.
It stated out to see if anybody on the forum actually bought into the denial crap that's being shoveled down our throats. Then, after seeing that there are still some folks who don't believe in the science, it turned into a debunk the debunkers thread--where bozos throw up the crap they read on anti-science blogs, and others tune in to show what nonsense it is.
BTW Sketch, still waiting for the reference to where the Cook study backs up the Legates claim--you did say it exists.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2014 - 10:51am PT
|
the atmospheric temperature is one of a number of observables of the climate.
How the atmosphere's temperature changes in the short term is interesting in many ways. In particular, defining what "short term" means is a research question that has been enabled by the increased accuracy of climate science, including the models used to make the predictions.
"Short term" is usually taken to be around 30 years. But this has more to do with the prediction accuracy then to the "random" behavior of the climate system. As the predictions become more accurate, there is less "random" behavior.
The focus on the atmosphere has to do with the large data sets of long term surface temperatures, which are available in various proxies. The reconstructions of the past surface temperatures and the comparison with current (20th and 21st century) temperatures show that this last century has been anomalous, the temperatures are going up, and in a manner not consistent with "natural variability."
Add to that our understanding of the mechanism that establishes the surface temperature, the so called green-house gas concentration in the atmosphere, and estimates of human production of CO2 and its subsequent increase in the atmosphere. Well understood science would lead to the conclusion that the increases in surface temperatures are what you'd expect.
But this has to be averaged over long periods of time because the yearly increases do to the rising CO2 concentrations are small compared to what we have traditionally termed "natural variability," a term that sweeps all that we don't understand into a single term.
As the climate system is studied it becomes much better understood, and the prospects of reducing the forecast times get better. The climate models become more accurate, and their variability is reduced, the comparison with the observations start to reveal more about the climate system.
Take this paper, for instance:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2014GL059274/asset/grl51430.pdf?v=1&t=i1pc0eaw&s=6a9cecba1684a0870c3351a7dd58be6bc3dc6fb5
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation as a dominant factor of oceanic influence on climate
Petr Chylek, James D. Klett, Glen Lesins, Manvendra K. Dubey, and Nicolas Hengartner
Abstract A multiple linear regression analysis of global annual mean near-surface air temperature (1900–2012) using the known radiative forcing and the El Niño–Southern Oscillation index as explanatory variables account for 89% of the observed temperature variance. When the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) index is added to the set of explanatory variables, the fraction of accounted for temperature variance increases to 94%. The anthropogenic effects account for about two thirds of the post-1975 global warming with one third being due to the positive phase of the AMO. In comparison, the Coupled Models Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) ensemble mean accounts for 87% of the observed global mean temperature variance. Some of the CMIP5 models mimic the AMO-like oscillation by a strong aerosol effect. These models simulate the twentieth century AMO-like cycle with correct timing in each individual simulation. An inverse structural analysis suggests that these models generally overestimate the greenhouse gases-induced warming, which is then compensated by an overestimate of anthropogenic aerosol cooling.
the paper assumes that the temperature is a linear combination of various processes captured by the "indices" for those processes... how all that is built up can be tracked down in lots of papers, but the interesting aspect of this paper is the attempt to account for the "natural variability" in terms of the indices, and then compare that with the various climate models, and then understand the differences.
This is a very simple analysis to perform and one that I'll attempt to do over the coming days. It is not a "predictive" method (like the one that Chiloe reproduced from Foster and Rahmstorf which takes the current values from a set of indices and projects the next value). It is a method that attempts to account for the variability in the dependent variable (the surface temperature as a function of time) in terms of a linear sum of independent variables (the indices' time series).
Unfolding the physical processes is the role of the models, where they are embedded and allowed to interact as they would in nature.
It is important to note that the sensitivity to the relatively small variations caused by soemthing like the AMO are due to the models' improved ability to accurately predict the temperature.
final observation, I'm sure the language in the conclusion will be picked up by our stalwart "skeptics." A large part of the objection to the climate science conclusions is the admission that we don't know everything. But not knowing everything is not the same thing as knowing nothing, we know a lot.
Keep in mind that the paper finds that the contribution to the early 20th century temperature rise is attributable to the increase of human produced CO2 (30%) and that the mid to late 20th century temperature rise is something like 70% human caused.
The difference in the details are important, but do not imply that these changes are "natural" unless you want to include human activity as "natural."
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2014 - 11:23am PT
|
Pragmatism on Climate Change Trumps Politics at Local Level Across US
(from the New York Times)
http://nyti.ms/ZMgRKo
Ed, thank you for the wonderful post above.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2014 - 01:38pm PT
|
Two word, Chief....straw man.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2014 - 03:46pm PT
|
Chief, you use the classical logical fallacy known as the straw man in most of your posts.
So that you and those who read your posts are aware of the structure and the illogical nature of the straw man argument, I am posting coverage of it from Wikipedia.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2014 - 04:43pm PT
|
A fool is someone who doesn't learn, who can see a post such as Ed's above that explains how good climate science has become, and who then retreats to his generic denier dogma.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2014 - 05:34pm PT
|
" But not knowing everything is not the same thing as knowing nothing, we know a lot."
Well said ,Ed.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2014 - 07:39am PT
|
I've already explained my point.
Try some Listerine, Sketch, to get that taste of bullsh!t out of your mouth.
That's a common tactic of yours Sketch. You make an idiotic statement and when asked to back it up, you offer up some slipshod snake-oil reply and claim you addressed the question.
You're not interested in reasoned debate, you're just here to put up BS to see who you can troll.
"IF" you all knew shet, you would not be writing your Summaries with words such as "IF", "COULD", "WOULD", "POSSIBLY" & "MIGHT". Those ARE NOT the words of certainty nor confidence.
Proof The Chief doesn't know how to read scientific papers.
As for reasoned debate, you'd have better luck talking to that guy in Chinatown who stands on the corer all day yelling out bible passages in Chinese.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2014 - 08:17am PT
|
there ain't enough Listerine in the world.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2014 - 08:41am PT
|
"Throwing more stones to compensate for your stupidity."
That's quite a come-back Sketch. But not much in terms of content--just another of your ad-hominem attacks that we're so used to here.
Got anything of sustenance to say?
Bill Moyers: Grassroots Pro-Democracy Movement Must Rise to Challenge Corporate Control
Ahead of final sign-off, veteran journalist tells viewers that reaching out to their fellow citizens and neighbors is the essential task in creating the transformation so desperately needed
There has to be a broad-based movement for democracy that mirrors and exceeds what Bill McKibben, 350.org and kindred spirits like Naomi Klein have built to reverse global warming.
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/10/24/bill-moyers-grassroots-pro-democracy-movement-must-rise-challenge-corporate-control
"If that's what it's about, you get a whopping D-."
I suppose trying to make sense to folks who's minds are made, yeah. But to others who are open to thinking, I believe the thread has done pretty well.
BTW, when is sci-fi getting off the wall?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2014 - 09:08am PT
|
For those interested in having a reasonable conversation with The Chief, here's something that might make some sense:
你們甚至無法弄清楚如何“減輕其”感冒。你希望我們給“吞”了說你已經找到了一個天然的接地系統，氣候你軟弱的話，那要複雜得多？
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight。
而“長期”被認為是140年左右出的4.6億美元
年。
疑難雜症雅 EDH！
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 26, 2014 - 11:59am PT
|
The study examined 11,944 papers. Of those 11,944 papers, only 64 explicitly state that humans are causing most of global warming. That's 0.54%.
The Cook study did not publish this statistic, as you said it did. And I suppose that's why you refuse to quote or say where the study supports the debunked Legates paper.
Also, I showed how Legates came to their conclusion of only 64 meeting their criteria, it was a word game. Try to keep up.
And I said I'd answer your dumbass question as soon as you answered mine, which you have yet to do. So get off it--you know what I mean.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!