Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
EdBannister
Mountain climber
13,000 feet
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:40pm PT
|
|
|
EdBannister
Mountain climber
13,000 feet
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:41pm PT
|
Dynamic equilibrium for the last 450,000 years which we are now well within the normal limits of.
Are you really going to maintain that Exxon caused these?
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:43pm PT
|
Ed, thanks for the substantive contributions. With the first list, it is hard to compare its merit without a list of scientists who have, after evaluating the data, reach a contrary conclusions. With the second list, two points. First not everyone on the list I would characterize (based on their titles) as necessarily qualified to render an opinion on the subject matter. Second, as you point out, they are not denying climate change but, rather, question the ability to quantify the data.
|
|
EdBannister
Mountain climber
13,000 feet
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2016 - 09:57pm PT
|
Fat,
no honest person pretends to know what quantity of influence man has on climate change.. there is no means of measuring it. there is no control! there can be no scientific experiment.
but to maintain that the earth as we know it is threatened, when we are well within the pattern of the past, is grant searching alarmism.
When i was in high school we were all going to die from overpopulation.. a statistical inevitability.
Erlich made a lot of money.
we were all going to die from heterosexual aids, and the Bird Flu also others..
research grant impending doom. all of them.
there are more lists, wikipedia has a page i copied 2 of many lists from.
and there is this, inconvenient truth...
140,000 penguins died last spring in Antarctica because not just an iceberg, anentire bay remained frozen that normally thaws and penguins feed.. for the last three years in a row, southern polar ice has been at the highest level ever measured.
facts.
and when facts don't match the science, the facts are not wrong, the "science" is..
|
|
EdBannister
Mountain climber
13,000 feet
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2016 - 10:05pm PT
|
We are in the Holocene 11,500 years worth... and it has been getting warmer the whole time, somehow this is news??
the only news might be it could be stabilizing now.. after all the north american high temperature record was set in 1913. : ) true, despite all efforts to amend that inconvenient truth.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2016 - 10:06pm PT
|
Ed B, no list of dissenting scientists ( some of which number greater than 30,000), no amount of peer reviewed papers, and no quantity of unimpeachable evidence will ever sway these freaks from party line adherence to the gospel of their religion.You might as well be arguing with robots.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2016 - 10:25pm PT
|
Rick, you're describing yourself (and BS about 30,00 dissenting scientists on this issue).
Ed, I understand your point but I think you're pointing to false analogies. You're talking temperature but neglect to mention carbon.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2016 - 10:31pm PT
|
actually, I asked for references to scientific work, not testimony.
how much do you think Erlich made on his book?
do you know any of the scientists on that list?
have you ever read any of their papers?
went to any of their seminars,
talked to them in any way?
you don't know who they are, and you don't know how the list was made, or by whom.
you actually can talk to the scientists that post to STForum who can explain with some patience what is in the papers, yet you find them less convincing than the suggestion of someone you don't know who put up a list of 25 scientists who you've never read any technical work from...
...perhaps I should not find this strange, but I do...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2016 - 10:48pm PT
|
nwo2, I don't see how that has anything to do with the science of climate.
How we choose to respond to the results of that science is something quite different.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
|
Nov 19, 2016 - 11:38pm PT
|
^^^^^^ You love a tender T-bone steak as much as any of us, don't you?
LOL. You should go to work for Trump Steaks. Stop it. You are making me drool.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2016 - 12:53am PT
|
My query has nothing to do with the "science of climate".
I don't know what the policy outcome will be, but I do know the science will not change whatever that outcome is.
|
|
Brandon-
climber
The Granite State.
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2016 - 03:42am PT
|
No meat would be a good start.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2016 - 04:29am PT
|
Thanks Ed.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2016 - 07:18am PT
|
"No meat would be a good start."
How about not.
How about all the vegans who tell the rest of us not to eat meat just jump in volcanoes. The net result would probably be about equal.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2016 - 08:07am PT
|
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
EdBannister, thanks for listing the couple of dozen scientists you found that "question the accuracy of IPCC climate projections."
Would you now like to see a list of the thousands of scientists who have proofs on what your handful of scientists question?
Not that it's wrong to question, in fact that's what science is all about--questioning. But, when a small handful is so powerfully outnumbered, who do you believe?
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2016 - 08:58am PT
|
K-man,
just because the majority believes it, doesn't make it true.
Care for a few examples?
I don't know what the policy outcome will be, but I do know the science will not change whatever that outcome is.
The earth evolves. It changes. Science follows.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2016 - 09:02am PT
|
Climate Change: Why aren't more people concerned about it?
Because people are mostly preoccupied with sex.
Dave, why don't you grow up and learn that others can have opinions different from yours. Better yet, throw yourself into a volcano. Too many people on this planet anyway. Because as a solution, the vegan option would have a solid positive impact. And I don't think that methane and the other hydrocarbons are addressed by a carbon tax scenario (although I could be wrong on that), despite the fact that CH4 has 21 times the greenhouse gas effect of CO2.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2016 - 09:07am PT
|
no honest person pretends to know what quantity of influence man has on climate change
No, the honest persons pretend to know that no honest person knows what quantity of influence man has on climate change.
My evolved survival/confirmation bias processes know better than your science.
Hope that's on topic for this thread :-)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2016 - 10:34am PT
|
EdBannister and pud and others make the argument that the Earth's climate has changed, historically, and that the current change can be attributed to natural causes.
There is an interesting number of threads to pull regarding this point, I don't think it is too difficult to follow the reasoning.
In fact, it was the departure of the climate's behavior from "natural" and the search for natural causes which ended up concluding that the climate was responding to human activity. The very same logic, that climate change is natural, lead climate researchers to study the early climate.
It is a fact that those very same plots of the history of climate came out of this research effort, an improving understanding of the paleoclimate, using a number of interesting observations that serve as "proxies" for the actual quantities to be measured, for instance, the surface temperature, the CO2 concentrations, and other quantities known to mediate the climate.
These proxies built a picture of the "recent" climate, during this interglacial, that provides a detailed set of observations against which to compare the observed climate of the 20th century.
Squaring this historic data with the current data is not possible given our understanding of how the Earth's surface temperature is established, the explanation for which was given by Arrhenius in 1896, which addressed the difference in the Earth's temperature in glacial and interglacial periods. The quantitative explanation involving the role of CO2 and the "greenhouse" mechanism is well established and the methods used applied to planetary atmospheres as a first approximation to their behavior.
In that paper the prediction of a warming climate due to the emission of CO2 from human activity was made, and the rate of warming calculated based on the climate sensitivity to CO2, and the rate of coal burning. The sensitivity calculated was not that far off, the rate of CO2 intensive energy production was grossly underestimated.
The relatively simple model Arrhenius used was due to the lack of global data of the climate, and the necessary simplification of the calculations that could be performed. Both the data and the computational ability increased dramatically.
The models, which contain our best understanding of all the factors involved in climate, can be used both the predict future climate, and to explain the recent past climate. As data on the climate became more accurate, the models became more constrained.
In the end, the models could not explain the 20th century climate without accounting for the human contribution of CO2 in the atmosphere. The natural variability of climate does not account for this recent behavior.
All along this research path the basic assumptions of the models, of the data, of the climate reconstructions have been challenged, the best challenges by the scientists conducting the research themselves, but also from other scientists, and other people outside the scientific "establishment." While there are open questions, the degree to which these open questions can effect the current understanding are getting smaller and smaller.
For instance, understanding clouds has long been a difficult issue and a major uncertainty in the models. It was a natural place to study, and many criticisms of the importance of CO2 pointed to the important role that clouds could play in relatively short term climate. The proposal that galactic cosmic rays might be changing the solar system "environment" and be a part of the non-terresital climate forcing was at least part of the basis of the CLOUD experiment at CERN.
Conducting this research several interesting observations were made. First and foremost, the primary mechanism for the cosmic-ray--cloud-formation mechanism was shown to be so small that it is ruled out as an explanation for the 20th century climate "anomaly." It did discover the importance of different types of aerosols in cloud formation, and that the sulphur aerosols, once thought to be a primary agent, is only a part of the story. This is important in understanding the paleoclimate record.
Finally, studies of the correlations of the cosmic ray flux with climate see modulations which help to explain the remaining variability of climate, not nearly large enough to explain the 20th century, but important in explaining some of the "bumps and wiggles" that occur when comparing the models to the data. Reducing the unaccounted variability increase the predictive power of the models.
I mention this last case as an example of the "self examination" that occurs in doing science and following up on the "loose ends" of the model. There is a huge incentive within the science community to pursue these loose ends as they are the places where important discoveries are made, and the making of important discoveries is rewarded in science.
Among the listed scientists there are a fraction who have provided scientific criticism, all of which had been addressed through observation, measurement and modeling. The understanding of clouds being one such criticism. To a varying degree, these criticisms existed previous to the voice those particular listed scientists gave them, and those criticism were addressed in the research efforts of climate science.
Being able to read both the criticisms, and the responses, in the scientific literature is an important part of understanding the arguments and there importance to the scientific discussion. Unfortunately not everyone can read that literature, some of it is located behind a "paywall" and most of it written for a professional audience possessing the tools to understand it.
For the most part, the interested public listens to interpretations of the work and depends on the interpreters for their understanding. Being able to ask questions about the interpretations is important, being able to understand the scientific work would be so much better.
Bottom line, it is the departure of the 20th century climate from what is "natural" that was the interesting question that had been ultimately answered by considering the human activity which has increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration. When this activity is taken into account, we can explain the 20th century climate.
|
|
EdBannister
Mountain climber
13,000 feet
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2016 - 12:36pm PT
|
Ed H. thanks for your thoughtful reply, of course i respect your opinion.. we differ, but i still respect your reasoned opinion.
I look at nature as cyclical and variable, even the polarity of the planet has regularly reversed and i view where we are as within the normal range and rate of change.
as for Malemute,
if you consider money to be the motivation, then please look at examples like Stanford receiving 225,000,000 dollars.
re: your implication as to my stupidity, particularly in high school science:
Limiting my response to High School only.
In 11th grade all 1,342 students in my class took the same standardized Biology test, you think maybe i am saying top 5 or 10 %? no, i had the highest score by a 3% margin.
In 12th grade i passed the AP exam for biology, accomplished by only three that year in a geographic area covering 28 High schools from LaCrescenta to Monrovia, CA
I graduated from Pasadena High School with departmental honors in guess what? Science.
so if we are to label that stupidity, what are we to call your performance?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!