Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 25, 2014 - 05:29pm PT
|
Following comprehensive survey, Chinese researchers warn drinking sources may dry up in much of Asia.
Glaciers in China are disappearing quickly, an environmental institute in Lanzhou confirmed on Wednesday.
Scientists with the Cold and Arid Regions Environmental and Engineering Research Institute conducted a lengthy survey of southern glaciers, which provide vital drinking water to India, and found that their total geographic area had decreased by 13 percent since 2002.
In the immediate future, the melting glaciers may release some amount of water, Liu Shiyin, who led the survey, told Science magazine. But any short-term effects "will be exhausted when glaciers disappear under a continuous warming," Liu said.
Science writes:
In 2002, Chinese scientists released the first full inventory of the country’s glaciers, the largest glacial area outside of Antarctica and Greenland. The data came from topographical maps and aerial photographs of western China’s Tibet and Xinjiang regions taken from the 1950s through the 1980s. That record showed a total glacial area of 59,425 square kilometers. The Second Glacier Inventory of China, unveiled here last week, is derived from high-resolution satellite images taken between 2006 and 2010. The data set is freely available online.
Liu and his colleagues calculated China’s total glacial area to be 51,840 square kilometers—13% less than in 2002. |
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2014 - 06:11pm PT
|
^^^^Bitter old ignorant white dude, fearful of change and brown people.
Happy New Year anyway.^^^^^
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
from the NYTimes OpEd page today...
Where Have All the Cod Gone?
"The recent ban on cod fishing in the Gulf of Maine was an important step toward restoration, though clearly marine systems are very complex and subject to many variables. Considering that ban in light of history, however, is crucial. Historical perspectives provide a vital sense of scale for the sobering restoration challenges we face.
The fisheries story, however, also provides a heading into the future, revealing as it does the tragic consequences of decision makers’ unwillingness to steer a precautionary course in the face of environmental uncertainties. At every step of the way, decisions could have been made to exploit fish stocks more sustainably. That’s a tale worth pondering."
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Sustainable- what a crock of shet. There is nothing sustainable about the dominate species. For that matter there is nothing sustainable about this planet, solar system, galaxy, universe, or even the physical laws governing on this go around.
No amigo, sustainable is an over and misused dirty word.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
For that matter there is nothing sustainable about this planet, solar system, galaxy, universe, or even the physical laws governing on this go around.
Yeah, and the universe is expanding! That's funnier when Calvin & Hobbes say it, though.
Where Have All the Cod Gone?
Ed cites a great op-ed piece by UNH environmental historian Jeff Bolster. Jeff has done fascinating work for years, including efforts to estimate the 19th-century biomass of cod in New England waters, based on historical fishing records -- how much specific vessels caught, with the gear of their day, in known locations over a known period of time. As he says in the op-ed, historical biomass likely was more than two orders of magnitude greater than today. Similar estimates have come from other researchers studying Atlantic Canada waters. The near-destruction of NW Atlantic cod has been an ecological overshoot-and-collapse story on the scale of the American buffalo. Sadly there are other examples too. Some biologists have suggested that by "fishing down food webs" (consuming top predators like cod first, then forage fish, and so forth) we're pushing toward marine ecosystems dominated by invertebrates, or ultimately jellyfish. Which in some places are already here.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Expanding (like the universe!) on that theme, from something I wrote years ago:
Changing Marine Ecosystems
Fisheries, especially modern ones, produce systematic changes in exploited marine ecosystems. These changes in turn have consequences for the people whose lives depend on fishing. Certain kinds of ecological changes appear widespread:
1) Reduction in biomass of target species, and of other species taken as bycatch (Gomes et al. 1995) or affected by benthic habitat disruption (Watling and Norse 1998).
2) Downward shifts in the size distributions of caught fish, due both to the progressive elimination of older age classes, and evolutionary reductions in size-at-age (Haedrich and Barnes 1997).
3) Reduction of large predator species, leaving room for expansion by smaller and lower-trophic-level species (Deimling and Liss 1994).
One consequence of these trends can be to shift the mean trophic level closer to primary production, a process called “fishing down food webs” (Pauly et al. 1998; also see Caddy et al. 1998).
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 3, 2015 - 08:10am PT
|
But we now have nothing to worry about because the Republicans are in control (the party now controls 31 governorships and 68 of 98 partisan legislative chambers), and we know they'll get down to the business they're so good at, stepping in once more to save the day.
Republicans also are likely to take up measures diluting the power of the EPA, which has proposed state-by-state targets for reducing carbon emissions. A dozen states have challenged proposed EPA regulations on power plants in federal court.
Happy New Year folks.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
OMG !!!!! Chuff said this and Chuff said that and Chuff is saying more later hahahah
OMG OMG OMG !!!!!
Science Science Science Science Science Science we're all gonna die because no one know Science, aaarrrrgggggg !!!!!
You and that cazy rabid dog Malmutt are insane ......
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
Yeah, what's science and facts when you have faith.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Is there a ventiloquist manipulating the dummies Bruce Kay, malemute, mono, Kman, etc.etc?
The same old tired shet.
They need a new schtick.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
From the Week in Review section of today's NYTimes:
Playing Dumb on Climate Change
By NAOMI ORESKES JAN. 3, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/opinion/sunday/playing-dumb-on-climate-change.html
'SCIENTISTS have often been accused of exaggerating the threat of climate change, but it’s
becoming increasingly clear that they ought to be more emphatic about the risk. The year just
concluded is about to be declared the hottest one on record, and across the globe climate
change is happening faster than scientists predicted.
...
Years ago, climate scientists offered an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)
as the “safe” limit or ceiling for the long-term warming of the planet. We are now seeing dangerous
effects worldwide, even as we approach a rise of only 1 degree Celsius. The evidence is mounting
that scientists have underpredicted the threat. Perhaps this is another reason — along with our
polarized politics and the effect of fossil-fuel lobbying — we have underreacted to the reality, now
unfolding before our eyes, of dangerous climate change.'
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Aha, a pair of ventriloquists pulling the dummies strings.//////\
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Chiloe, what do you make of that last graph you posted?
Several things:
1) Don't interpret the wiggles, they are mostly not distinguishable from noise.
2) Partisan divisions on this issue are very wide (widest of almost any issue) and stable over the past 4 years.
3) The percentages show agreement with a statement that climate change is happening now, caused mainly by human activities. All major scientists' organizations, most national academies, and the vast majority (high 90s, it seems) of scientists studying this topic would agree with that. So as you move up the scale in that graph, you're looking at groups getting closer to agreement with scientists.
4) Even among the highest group in that graph (Democrats), agreement with the statement is much lower than it is among scientists.
All this stuff baffles many scientists, who don't see how they could possibly be more clear. They're fascinated and ask a lot of questions, though, when they see that graph.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
What do you make of the downward spike with the Tea Baggers?
See point 1) above.
Doubling down in the face of insurmountable evidence?
But then there's this graph, from the same paper.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
I've at least temporarily lost enthusiasm for posting on this thread after my climbing accident. Ed H and Chiloe posted (and emailed) some kind and thoughtful comments, and I'm not looking to spoil the mood by bickering with anyone (although I'm sure Ed and Chiloe would welcome well formulated comments from me or anyone else). Let me give a quick thanks to everyone else who posts on this thread who put good wishes on my injury thread or emailed me.
Still, I'll share a link to a recent column by right-wing political commentator and humorist Glenn Beaton titled "Fear, loathing and global warming":
http://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/14470931-113/warming-global-climate-scientists
Glenn was my boss for many years, is a friend, and is indisputably a smart guy. (He was a partner at a prominent international law firm before retiring, and I'm still at that firm, at least for the next few weeks. Glenn didn't win every case, but he had some notable wins in cases that were important both for the amount at issue and for tackling cutting-edge patent law issues.)
Some points raised in his article are surely non-contentious and reasonable.
Other points may well be wrong. (Is it correct that "President Bill Clinton held office [when the Earth] was slightly warmer than it is now."?)
I'm just posting this for whatever interest it may have as it's directly on topic, and it may be a good example of the Wall Street Journal / Forbes / well-educated-right-winger view of climate change. A cynical view may be that that view is kind of a "nothing to see here, let's move along people" spin so that businesses can continue to do whatever they're currently doing, while paying lip service to science. Glenn certainly has no direct financial interest in that view at this stage of his life, and I'm sure the views in his column are sincere.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
edit: just went back and saw Blah's posts about the accident - sorry to hear that.
Anyway, It looks like you're back to full skeptic strength, and I hope the rest of you is starting to recover as well. :-)
The above Beaton aspentimes article is just a summary of misleading denier arguments, such as Wall St. Journal opinion, written without any consideration of the comments which have already basically disproved them.
Some of which I posted a few months ago on Sept 23, 25 & 28. such as
http://skepticalscience.com/wsj-downplays-global-warming-risks-again.html
So what is really going on when politics outvotes science is discussed in Malemute's link:
http://www.cbc.ca/day6/blog/2014/09/25/are-we-hard-wired-to-ignore-climate-change/
NPR had a piece on what people do when they feel overwhelmed by too much possible evidence. A decision or conclusion is reached based on a gut emotional response.
The same response is likely when facts conflict with opinion, especially when this conflict does not have an immediate visible effect.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I'm just posting this for whatever interest it may have as it's directly on topic, and it may be a good example of the Wall Street Journal / Forbes / well-educated-right-winger view of climate change.
I think it is important to read Koonin's essay very carefully, and I don't believe that his main point of writing that essay is the one that shows up in your link, blahblah.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565
Science in a sense is never settled, there are always open questions to answer. There are major open questions to answer about quantum electrodynamics (QED), the most precise theory we have. Yet there is a consensus among physicists (all physicists) that the theory is "settled" though they wouldn't use those words. What is a better characterization of the situation is that there are known problems, but those problems occur in a domain that doesn't affect the calculations.
While this is a bother for a lot of physicists (Feynman famously grouched about not actually getting it right, and he was a co-inventor of the theory, Schwinger, the other co-inventor, also had many questions), most physicists understand when to apply the theory and how to make use of the results.
Settled or unsettled?
I re-read Koonin's essay and I get a similar sense from it. The "hiatus" has been subject to extensive research and debate, and it does indicate that we are missing something in the models. That isn't a very controversial statement.
The reason is simple, the models are making predictions that can be tested against 10 years of observations. At a rate of 1ºC change per century, we'd have expected the surface temperature to have been 0.1ºC warmer, as the models predict. The model variations have to be smaller than this in order for us to conclude that the predictions aren't agreeing with the observations.
The yearly variations of the global mean temperature of order 0.2ºC, which is larger than the 10 year change. Add on top of that the 1998 El Nino event that starts the "hiatus" off, where the observations are warmer than the models would predict... and you start to get the sense that the models are doing better than it seems they're getting credit for.
Koonin is saying that these are important things to get right, and we should be working on getting them right. And we are working on that.
'Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.
But climate strategies beyond such "no regrets" efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.
Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about "believing" or "denying" the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity's deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.'
Policy is a different animal from science, no argument there... you've been following this discussion, I've been pointing that out for a long time...
from your link:
Beaton
"Koonin explained that global warming exists, or doesn’t, depending entirely on the time period you’re referencing."
Koonin:
"The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit."
--
Beaton:
"Notwithstanding all those natural climate variations, serious scientists such as Koonin do say this:
Part of the slight warming over the past few hundred years was probably human-caused. We don’t know how much."
Koonin:
"Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself."
--
Beaton:
"The recent warming peaked about 18 years ago. The computer models didn’t predict that. We still don’t know why it happened. We don’t know if the warming will resume or reverse and, if it does resume or reverse, we don’t know at what rate or whether it will stop or start again."
Koonin:
" Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.
Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling."
--
Most of the rest of Beaton's piece isn't found in Koonin's essay... which is why you should read that essay a bit more carefully, and with a lot less interest in finding confirmation of your views in it.
Koonin states:
'Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?" Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.'
this is about the next century, which is a very small period of time for the climate, and crucial for the nature of the policies being proposed.
Are these difficult science issues new? Koonin points out that: "These and many other open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them." The IPCC reports are supposed to be technical documents, and even the summaries have made an attempt to quantify certainty and uncertainty, I don't think it is correct interpret Koonin's observation that 'a public official reading only the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies.' It is more a statement that the "public official" is very likely not to be able to give "a detailed and knowledgeable reading" of even the summary.
Now Beaton's final point:
Here’s what not to do:
Don’t fear-monger by contending that a particular heat spell or a snowstorm proves or disproves global warming. Scientists don’t rely on a single data point.
Don’t loath those who disagree with you. Children censor, shout and name-call; scientists consider, analyze and, only then, rebut. And friends and other persons in a civil society simply respectfully disagree. Persons with one set of views are not “deniers” and persons with another are not afflicted with “hysteria.”
In any event, censorship, shouting and name-calling are counter-persuasive. They say, “I’m not smart enough to rebut you, so I’ll instead silence you.”
Don’t take scientific advice from politicians and celebrities, and don’t take a position because it’s fashionable or because that’s the position dictated by your liberal or conservative tribe. Think for yourself.
Finally, unless you’ve stopped traveling by planes, trains and automobiles — and ski lifts — don’t get too sanctimonious. We’re all in this together.
For my part, I don't believe that I do any of those unctuous things, but I'm sure there are many who post to this thread that believe that I do.
I've even advocated "think for yourself" but I really mean think, if your thoughts are based on faulty arguments, then I'm likely to point that out. I don't have an agenda (even though I've been accused of having one) and I'm at least able to read the papers... I've been skeptical of the literature and have posted that on this thread.
Not only that, but I have long been an advocate for reading the IPCC reports carefully and learning what the details of the discussion are... they are the best summary of the state of climate science, and most if not all of the disagreements between observation and theory/model have shown up in very good discussions in those reports.
So don't take Beaton's word for what Koonin said, go and read Koonin's essay yourself. If you get the sense that Koonin thinks that we can ignore what we know about climate I'd like to hear just how you come by that conclusion in your reading.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!