Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Yeah DMT, I have some greif here also. Not with Eddie per se, hell he's all over the board, ranging the full gamut from citizen, to scientist, to politician, anything to win over converts to support the "industry", of which his family and freinds are at least peripheral players and benefitting of the shlosh over effect of the huge sums wasted on the criminal enterprise. No, my problem is with the whole "study buddy" industry, the wasting of diminishing resources on problems that there is no intention to solve. Rather than identifying the best practice path forward, the end game is a circular self reinforcing loop of endless study. Meanwhile, answers and actions on the real problems facing humanity are ignored.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
You are ISIS Frosty. The Canuckistan chapter, village Squeamish wannabe cheiftain. Go write some more snide little letters to the editor in your local rag.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
The blog is more true than those wallstreetjournal editorials.
The misleading Koonin one was written and timed in the hopes of slowing international discussion of climate change policy.
Whether or not climate models are accurate enough to predict all small fluctuations is not that important in the long run. Some minor fluctuations depend on predicting volcanoes and ocean oscillations, which may not happen any time soon. That may be an interesting field for science, but it is only a small factor in overall long term climate trends, since in the long run those fluctuations are likely to average out to little impact, even if some ocean oscillations last decades. Improvements in the impact of manmade aerosols are needed, but overall, focusing on these lessor forcings and small possible model improvements is just an attempt to sidetrack progress in GHG emissions reduction policy.
Look at all the AR5 predictions, and it's clear that there is a big upward long term trend in warming and its effects. Surface temperatures are not the only or the best indicator. Others are sea level, ocean 0-2000 temps, ice melt, snow cover. more posts Oct 29 on this.
To refute the long term warming trend prediction, you would need a scientific model of how the greenhouse effect will not trap a lot more heat due to continued rising GHGs. Or how the deep ocean could trap heat indefinitely. There is no such accepted model, only some who attempt to lowball forcings and who use time frames of only a few decades instead of many decades.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Humans are, as a species, not much smarter than a slime mold in a petri dish showing about the same level of restraint relative to anticipating a decline of resources or managing for ecological sustainability.
You have about the same odds of getting humans to do something effective about climate change as you do getting a response to mentioning to the slime mold it might want to 'slow down' because it's reaching the edge of the dish pretty fast.
|
|
EdwardT
Gym climber
Discontent
|
|
Whether or not climate models are accurate enough to predict all small fluctuations is not that important in the long run
You'd have a point if GCM inaccuracy was only about small fluctuations. It's about most of the IPCC models being wrong for most of this century. And it's about the climate experts continually changing the criteria for invalidating the models.
The level of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increases every year. Atmospheric CO2 levels increase every year. Yet, we've seen minimal warming in the last decade or so.
The experts seem to have gotten it wrong. This isn't nit-picking or cherry picking details. It's about being wrong.
Instead of defending the science at all costs, perhaps the climate science community could be more willing to acknowledge mistakes.
Anthropogenic emissions are toxic to the environment. That's a no-brainer. We need to reduce these emissions. Again, no-brainer.
But the conversation needs to change. Back in the 90s, when global temps set new record highs, year after year, it was easy to believe the predictions of catastrophic global warming. And then we experienced a prolonged "hiatus", which hurt the cause. The masses concluded "I guess it's not that bad".
What to do? I'm not sure. Maybe a global agreement, holding all contributors accountable. This would require the US and the EU to play hardball with China, Russia and India. Get everyone on board. Until that happens, our efforts are just so much navel gazing.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 08:08am PT
|
At some point there has to be 'big correlation' that show the warming in the real world, not on a graph, not a weather blip, ...
Perhaps you missed the fact that the Greenland ice is melting. That the Arctic is now almost ice-free in summers. Or that sea levels are rising, as predicted. How about the temps in Australia last year, or the measured rise in ocean temperatures.
I could go on with many more real-world examples of a warming planet.
So Dingus, what types of facts are you looking for? Would some sky writing help you understand?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 08:17am PT
|
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 08:20am PT
|
OK, "ice-free" is an exaggeration.
40% less ice from the summer of 1997... Why is that The Chief?
EDIT: That is a transposition typo, it should read "1979".
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 08:30am PT
|
Dude, you are so brainwashed that you keep posting utter bullshet.
How about another quote from your wife The Chief. We could use another dose of your reality here.
LOL....
Oh, and sorry about the typo. I suppose that invalidates all the honest science...
Have a watch, this posted by a blog known as NASA:
[Click to View YouTube Video]
But back on point. Why all the ice loss The Chief?
Dingus, want to comment?
|
|
EdwardT
Gym climber
Discontent
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 08:20am PT
OK, "ice-free" is an exaggeration.
40% less ice from the summer of 1997... Why is that The Chief?
The 2014 minimum was down 28% from the 1979 minimum.
Forty percent is also an exaggeration.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 08:48am PT
|
EdwardT:
You start your long post with a fairly nebulous observation:
You'd have a point if GCM inaccuracy was only about small fluctuations. It's about most of the IPCC models being wrong for most of this century.
It's a pretty bold statement to say most of the IPCC models are wrong, and it makes me wonder if the remainder of your post has any validity.
There's many IPCC models, "most" doesn't give me a good indication of which models are wrong and which are right. Can you give me an indication of the number of models that are wrong, and perhaps compare those to the models that are right?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 08:51am PT
|
The 2014 minimum was down 28% from the 1979 minimum.
EdwardT, 28% decline is extremely concerning. Can you help me understand why there has been so much ice loss?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 09:07am PT
|
Dingus, any comment on my real-world examples of a warming planet? I used reputable sources to show things like ice-cap melting. What's your take there?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Show us the beef. Make a prediction using the models, and then show the prediction coming true. Has validation taken a hiatus too?
what makes a validation, quantitatively?
please post your criteria... if you are going to demand validation, you should have a definition of validation.
|
|
EdwardT
Gym climber
Discontent
|
|
You start your long post with a fairly nebulous observation:
You'd have a point if GCM inaccuracy was only about small fluctuations. It's about most of the IPCC models being wrong for most of this century.
It's a pretty bold statement to say most of the IPCC models are wrong, and it makes me wonder if the remainder of your post has any validity.
There's many IPCC models, "most" doesn't give me a good indication of which models are wrong and which are right. Can you give me an indication of the number of models that are wrong, and perhaps compare those to the models that are right?
Here's an illustration of my point.
Just eyeballing it, there seems to be a growing divergence between nearly all of the models and the observed temps.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
My impression is this: whether you're talking the 80th percentile or the 20th, these are the people who decide things along partisan lines, first. They then seek validation of the party line.
There are a couple of versions of that in the literature, the top-down one is called elite cues meaning people figure out what their leaders' position is (including their favorite news channel or blogger) and then follow that.
The bottom-up version is called cultural cognition, people sort of yam what they yam, and see everything according to that light.
Personally I'm sure they're both partly right.
It would be great if folks stopped doing that but to pretend its only one side of this issue doing it is ludicrous.
But here's where I disagree, it's not all in the mind. There's a real world of water, ice and rock out there, and ecosystems that keep us alive, all nonhuman entities we can't bargain with and don't control through our ideological fantasies.
Also, there's something new under the sun, a culture of scientists around the world who are trying to figure this stuff out. It might be true that people in the general public are lining up with their parties as you say, but at the same time (for reasons deeper than coincidence, I think) they're also lining up with or against the science, hence with or against the best information we have about that non-socially constructed reality.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Show us the beef? What constitutes validation?
Seems to me Ed, that the models have made predictives and already are invalidated. Lets see, we have the 18 year hiatus which is contrary to the predicted monotonous rise, we have the glaring absense of the midtropospheric hotspot, we have RH not behaving as predicted and the H2O amplification m.I.a., we have the global sea ice mass expanding into record territory, we have snow and ice extent and duration expanding over the last decade, we have sea level rise stubbornly stuck at 2mm a year.
You said enough in one of your recent posts by acknowledging that the models are missing some inputs. It's time to acknowledge that CO2 is not the end all driver and control knob. The CAGW community has exposed itself as third rate burglars. Nope, they can't make up excuses fast enough, or manipulate the current and historical temps fast enough to pull the wool over the publics eyes.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Yes Frosty, competency might help, but the truth would be better. Almost universally, you guys want bigger government supported by increased taxation, you want more regulation and less individual freedom, you want the productive to support the indolent. You might have better luck by advancing a narrative that justifies a neccessity for these desires.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!