Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 04:34pm PT
|
Jeez Chiloe enough already with all that "research" and "work" that you're doing.
Hah, I had already posted my weekend adventures to a climbing thread and a doggy thread, so I figured that bought me license to toss up another graph.
Really, what's been happening in the Arctic this year is impressive. The area graph above actually understates the changes. If Jim Overland is right, it's going to affect our weather this winter too.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 05:09pm PT
|
Hey Chiloe,
I know it's not exactly your area of expertise, but your recent pic of all the broken up sea ice off Greenland got me thinking about the consequences of Greenland glaciers being un-stoppered at the sea, lubricated from below, and flowing into the sea.
What is your understanding of the current consensus around whether the North Atlantic Conveyor could be shut down by a massive glacier flow off Greenland? And how close, time-wise, are we from such an event, were it to happen?
For those of you unfamiliar with the Atlantic Conveyor, and what the consequences would be if it were to shut down (as it did once near the end of the last ice age) - it could drop temperature and rainfall drastically and almost instantly over Western Europe. The last time it happened, it put an ice cap over England in just ten years. See the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
Thanks!
GO
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 05:28pm PT
|
GO, the modelers now think a thermohaline shutdown is unlikely to occur anytime soon. I dunno if they're right, models tend to show gradual change rather than tipping points, but anyway that's what the smart folks are saying.
Latest research on the stability of big ice sheets suggests that Greenland is a little more stable than thought, but W Antarctica is less so. Both are losing a lot of mass right now, but W Antarctica has more structural potential to collapse.
The scariest scenario used to be THC shutdown but it now seems to be massive methane release, if warming surface waters (partly due to increased Arctic river runoff as the hydrological cycle has sped up) thaw subsea permafrost releasing clathrates from the Siberian shelf. One or more of the prehistoric mass extinction events (eg at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum) might have involved a methane/greenhouse feedback.
Nobody knows when or if that sort of abrupt and irreversible event might happen. But meanwhile, we're poking the sleeping dragon with very sharp sticks.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 05:42pm PT
|
Lets see if I have this right:
Warmist's warn of a possible climate change that would kill a lot of people
if it happens and seek ways to prevent it allowing the worlds population to
continue to grow exponentially to the point where a lot of people will die
due to depletion of Earths natural resources.
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 07:36pm PT
|
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 12, 2011 - 07:56pm PT
|
Lets see if I have this right: -- CC
Baby Einstein triumphs again.
|
|
Jorroh
climber
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 08:26pm PT
|
Lets face it cc, you're just too f*#king blinkered and stupid to get anything right.
Why don't you just keep enlightening us with a few dozen more links about "Warmists" and the vast conspiracy of cash laden scientists.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 10:30pm PT
|
Elcapin, a note about your sea ice extent map above ... see the one region on your map, along the NE coast of Greenland, where the ice extends out farther than the 2003-2006 average?
That's exactly the area in the two satellite images I posted on the previous page. The ice extent is greater there because (as you can see in the pics) formerly shorefast ice is breaking up and drifting out to sea, and also that's the exit door for Arctic Ocean ice blowing south through Fram Strait into the Atlantic.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 11:00pm PT
|
Thanks for the reply Chiloe. That's good news about the current being more stable than had been thought. Of course the melting of permafrost and resultant gas release is the big trump card. Scary stuff.
GO
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 11:17pm PT
|
We can ignore the global warming scare mongers as all their 'facts' are
inside the margin of error.
But it is time to sell any and all Australian stocks as their nutjob warmists are in power down under. How did that happen?
Election fraud?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2011 - 11:25pm PT
|
what a dumb fuk ^^^
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2011 - 12:09am PT
|
Can you do any math at all?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 13, 2011 - 02:35am PT
|
Just look at Hugh Hefner, he's a scientist.
He's liberal, he's Rich, AND he gets all the babes.
Those nerdy scientist scoundrels.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2011 - 07:40am PT
|
What other indicators do we have, besides melting sea ice and glaciers, that things already are changing? Thousands of scientists across dozens of different disciplines have seen global change in their own field, and often in their own data. For example, here's a recent paper from Science:
Rapid Range Shifts of Species Associated with High Levels of Climate Warming
Chen et al., Science 19 August 2011
The distributions of many terrestrial organisms are currently shifting in latitude or elevation in response to changing climate. Using a meta-analysis, we estimated that the distributions of species have recently shifted to higher elevations at a median rate of 11.0 meters per decade, and to higher latitudes at a median rate of 16.9 kilometers per decade. These rates are approximately two and three times faster than previously reported. The distances moved by species are greatest in studies showing the highest levels of warming, with average latitudinal shifts being generally sufficient to track temperature changes.
|
|
Douglas Rhiner
Mountain climber
Truckee , CA
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2011 - 10:53am PT
|
CC is just a fart in the wind, an avatar, a digital version of what he'd like to be.
Ed, is a real person.
He posts under his TRUE name.
Whether or not you agree with what he proposes, fine, at least he is willing to couple what he believes with whom he is.
Unlike the majority of the people on this forum.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2011 - 12:20pm PT
|
Mike, while the article is interesting, it is also incredibly naive.
Let's say the paper published by the author had, instead of being about a diamond planet, shown conclusively that the prevailing theory of pulsar formation was wrong, and that the author had a radically different theory that fit all of the known evidence. Instead of being an interesting footnote (as his actual paper was) this would be a very big deal for astrophysics. And instead of being a cool page 3 headline for the rest of the world, it would be a footnote.
Why? Because the interests of science and the rest of the world only line up more or less randomly. Climate change is one area where those interests do line up. As such, big, powerful interests will weigh in on the discussion. Non-science interests.
Is this a bad thing? Yes and no.
Yes, because those interests can powerfully shape the public perception, leaving the actual science behind in its wake. This always happens when science and the public interest are closely matched. And it's not necessarily big business that blows up the process. Sometimes it's the frightened populace. Look at the fears around childhood vaccination and autism. There are diseases that were getting close to extermination, and are now resurfacing more and more widely, due to large parts of the population who feel that vaccination is dangerous. Another instance - I remember back in the 80s, it was believed that silicone breast implants were causing horrible death and disfiguration, and they were pulled from the market. It took several years for the epidemiological studies to show that the silicone implants were actually no more or less prone to cause problems than the saline ones.
Science is slow and careful, so this stuff is inevitable.
And on the other hand, no, it's not a bad thing that public perception and science sometimes line up. Think of the alternative. What if people paid no interest to the scientific process. That would mean no funding, fewer initiatives that took the science and used it in public policy, etc.
The author of the article is just irritated at the world that one scientific discipline is treated differently from another. But, frankly, some areas have more impact on the imagination (diamond planets), on public health (childhood immunization), and commerce (global warming) than does, say, pulsar formation.
While I salute the author's grace in wishing that other scientists could get only the positive attention he happened to get, to imagine that those areas which impact people more will not get more attention (good and bad) is just silly.
GO
|
|
Mike Bolte
Trad climber
Planet Earth
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2011 - 01:17pm PT
|
These are good thoughts you have written down, but in my mind the point of the little blurb was simply that scientists (good ones) carry out their work usually because they have a real interest in their area of expertise and research. The "truth" is really there to be uncovered.
In the world of academic research, and climate science usually has fallen into that area, competent scientist have been carrying out studies with no thought of liberal vs conservative politics, faking or slanting results to meet some political agenda, no opportunities for under-the-table payoffs and free of sniping and grenade launches from folks who don't understand the work at all.
But, when that work in some science area happens to align with bigger issues, funny things can happen. In the case of climate change research, the world really has gone nuts. But, the good science does not change. The good scientists still carry out their work in a way that seeks objective truths. Matthew sort-of-concludes that he feels fortunate that that wide world doesn't really care about his research and it has no large impact. I think it is unfortunate that science that does turn out to have a large impact human activities can launch such a circus of ignorance.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 13, 2011 - 05:16pm PT
|
Insightful.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2011 - 07:00pm PT
|
Mike B said: I think it is unfortunate that science that does turn out to have a large impact human activities can launch such a circus of ignorance.
Unfortunate, yes, but also inevitable. Individuals and corporations are going to look out for their own interests. In some cases, those interests will not line up with the best interests of society as a whole.
It's the responsibility of those in the know to fight for the truth, and yes, sometimes that's easy, and sometimes it's hard.
Ed H said: the fact that science is actually important for making these sorts of decisions, big decisions with huge societal impact, is relatively new...
Actually, I don't think that's so at all. For as long as there has been such a thing as real science (and, I'm sure, long before) there have been vested interests that have had a stake in a position that science showed to be false.
Galileo was imprisoned for nearly fifteen years merely because the church had a strong interest in maintaining the concept that their position on all matters, in particular those regarding the heavens, was granted them by God. Therefore they could not have been wrong in the past.
Point being - science is basically about turning over rocks to see what's underneath. Occasionally what scientists find is very disturbing. And when those new ideas happen to butt up against a vested interest with real power, the fur will fly.
GO
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!