Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 07:47am PT
|
NO WARMING since 1998! The PAUSE continues... That is the CONSENSUS!
Dang you are stupid, Chiefy.
Any new temp above the trend raises the trend rate.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 08:00am PT
|
Does anyone here believe he is impartial or unbiased in his practice of science...
Does anyone here not participate in the petty trash talk that dominates this thread?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 08:18am PT
|
In lieu of any real science involved ( observed reality long ago disqualified the theory) in the practition of this most fundamentalist of religions one is limited to the "trash talk" the alarmists are so good at advancing, Edward T.
You noticed that Chiloe didn't deny significant CAGW industry funding. And they are all solid consevative types also- yeah right. Your dealing with totalitarian statist wannabes, on par with the Stalinists, Nazis, or modern Islamic extremist ideology. Don't let the warm , fuzzy , generous and helpful Intellectual character projections of individuals like Ed Hartouni fool you
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 08:20am PT
|
EdwardT, I agree with your sentiment. I still click it for the info and links to papers. I have learned a lot and appreciate the time some folks take to explain the science, it also helps me when I am rooting around the net. Obviously, there is a fair amount of good stuff, along with the sad. Egos be damned.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 08:35am PT
|
Upthread I posted a graph of NOAA's deeper ocean heat content index, 0 to 2000 meters. Its most recent values achieved both 3-month and annual high points. Below is their other global index, for 0 to 700 meters. These depths are better measured for a longer time series, so we have 3-month averages back to 1955. The annual average for 0-700 meters also reached its highest values in 2014.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 08:39am PT
|
The oceans are warming.
Now what?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 09:04am PT
|
The oceans are warming.
Now what?
Are you waiting for oceanographers to tell you?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 09:25am PT
|
No. I'm asking where we go from here.
The oceans continue to warm. How are we going to use this information?
What's it take to move the conversation forward, beyond the same old verbal sparring?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 09:29am PT
|
No. I'm asking where we go from here.
The oceans continue to warm. How are we going to use this information?
What's it take to move the conversation forward, beyond the same old verbal sparring?
Have you done any reading? Has anyone ever addressed this question before?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 11:17am PT
|
Put in really simple terms, we've got something like these three questions:
1. Is there a problem?
2. If so, what can we do about it?
3. Do I like the answer to 2?
A huge amount of good science answers "yes" to point 1. However, many people who can't read science reason backward to declare that since they don't like the solution (point 3), the problem (point 1) must not exist. This way of thinking has a name in psychological research, solution aversion.
So that's been studied, but on this thread you see some variations on solution aversion that I don't think have a name yet. One of them is for the solution-averse posters to proclaim things like "if you can't answer 2 then shut up about 1!" That's another way of saying nahnahnahnah, and just like that child's trick it does not make reality go away. Physics doesn't care whether we've got a solution or not.
The other variation I see here is that solution-averse people who reason backwards from "no" on 3 to "no" on 1 imagine that other people, scientists for instance, must be equally dishonest but in reverse: those scientists are saying "yes" on 1 because they have some solution they want to push, some version of "yes" on 3. Just as childish as nahnahnahnah, but now with the nastier edge of hate and conspiracy ranting.
What scientists for the most part are doing instead is reporting what they see, such as warming oceans. That's alarming enough that many are trying to make the transition to 2, at least by trying to explain how they know there's a problem. Seen through solution-averse dark glasses that confirms their conspiratorial intentions, but so would their silence, it's truly a closed cognitive system.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 12:57pm PT
|
The argument Chiloe just made coincides with the one I've been making for several years, so, of course, I think he's spot on. Much of the attack on orthodox climate science comes from people who don't like proposed remediation measures. The logical arguments should focus on the likely marginal costs vs. marginal benefits of each proposed measure. While this necessarily involves estimates of climate change, the focus on costs can sharpen and clarify debate much more than arguing often arcane points of statistical inference.
Part of the problem is one that I've seen in environmental law and environmental economics generally since I first started studying these areas in the 1970's: Peoples' values differ, so their opinions of costs vs. benefits differ. That makes it hard to have a rational debate about any particular action. As a result, we end up with policies that often resemble either trying to kill a fly with thermonuclear devices, or trying to bail out a sinking aircraft carrier with a thimble.
That said, I wish those who think some proposed solutions are worse than the problem (this set includes me, by the way, at least for some proposed solutions) would be better served - and better understood - by making the argument focus on the proposed solution, because intelligent minds can differ there. Trying to argue about the science in lay terms strikes me as a lost cause. Every time I've tried to do so in just about any field, one side or the other feels the victim of condescension or ignorance, and therefore tunes out the other side.
John
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 01:02pm PT
|
Good words John the Armenian!!
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 01:40pm PT
|
Attempting remediation measures for something that is not
happening is the real danger. Taking money away from Warmists
to shut them up seems the best plan. I'm sure the 30 Billions
being spent on falsified global warming paperwork every year can
do some good elsewhere.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 03:40pm PT
|
You say that as if you HAVE.
Deny everything,why be responsible.......man child.
Go ahead call me names.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 04:03pm PT
|
At this stage, only as#@&%es deny the science.
Yet they seem to be driving the bus.
As DMT asks, the real topic is what we do about it.
In a better world, that would be true. In this world many people deny the science because they don't want to do anything about it, so as JE notes that conversation barely gets off the ground. Note all the loud cries here (mostly from people who do deny the science) to skip that reality and risks stuff and come up with some magical solutions.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 04:16pm PT
|
Put in really simple terms, we've got something like these three questions:
1. Is there a problem?
2. If so, what can we do about it?
3. Do I like the answer to 2?
A huge amount of good science answers "yes" to point 1. However, many people who can't read science reason backward to declare that since they don't like the solution (point 3), the problem (point 1) must not exist. This way of thinking has a name in psychological research, solution aversion.
So that's been studied, but on this thread you see some variations on solution aversion that I don't think have a name yet. One of them is for the solution-averse posters to proclaim things like "if you can't answer 2 then shut up about 1!" That's another way of saying nahnahnahnah, and just like that child's trick it does not make reality go away. Physics doesn't care whether we've got a solution or not.
The other variation I see here is that solution-averse people who reason backwards from "no" on 3 to "no" on 1 imagine that other people, scientists for instance, must be equally dishonest but in reverse: those scientists are saying "yes" on 1 because they have some solution they want to push, some version of "yes" on 3. Just as childish as nahnahnahnah, but now with the nastier edge of hate and conspiracy ranting.
What scientists for the most part are doing instead is reporting what they see, such as warming oceans. That's alarming enough that many are trying to make the transition to 2, at least by trying to explain how they know there's a problem. Seen through solution-averse dark glasses that confirms their conspiratorial intentions, but so would their silence, it's truly a closed cognitive system.
You do a nice job summarizing the state the issue. In essence, it's a closed loop. The Deniers' constant harping keeps climate researchers focused on proving themselves, allowing them to avoid dealing the unpleasantness of tangible, achievable solutions.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 04:19pm PT
|
True ,Edward.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 26, 2015 - 04:55pm PT
|
Well Chiloe, what you got to start fixing this. Post it up. Or are you one of those that is warm and cozey in the problem banging the drum of CAGW and how the science is good.
I don't get it, why is it Chiloe's, or Ed's, or my problem to solve? Why don't you do some reading on your own and come to the table with some viable solutions.
The truth is, whether you want it or not, this problem will change the status quo, like it or not. The question is, are we going to control part of that change, or not.
How about this for a start--stop planned obsolescence, stop wasting oil on importing crap, nationalize all oil reserves and use the oil only for very specific needs, etc, etc.
I've posted radical ideas such as these before. But nobody responds to them because they seem so unrealistic--way too far out, too much out of the status quo. Capitalism must live on, ya know. It's the only way we know!
But keep denying that radical change will be needed to get things working, and you might as well be looking at your kids while saying "We're choosing the Easy Bake Oven for you because I don't want to change my ways too much."
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 26, 2015 - 05:02pm PT
|
How can there be global warming when there's a Huge Blizzard on the east coast? What, are you folks daft or something?
Just sayin' ...
|
|
Mike Bolte
Trad climber
Planet Earth
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2015 - 05:18pm PT
|
Hang on The Chief. Are you giving up calling climate change a big hoax designed to fill the pockets of all the unscrupulous scientists and switching to complaining that those same scientists are doing nothing about this looming catastrophe? That's a whole new thread isn't it?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!