Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2012 - 04:37pm PT
|
but I staying in my 'natural cyclical change' boat
Fair enough, but you don't have much science company left in that boat. A lot of scientists have tried a "cyclical change" boat -- I know a fair number who believed it was the explanation, 15 years ago. At the time of the IPCC's First Assessment Report (1990) it's likely that most scientists were skeptical about ACC. But the predictions that cyclical hypotheses made, and the evidence that was needed to support them, just did not come through. Year by year it became unavoidably clear that we're heading somewhere new, which is why scientists do now have a consensus.
Frinstance, regarding solar affects on climate, here's the wrap-up paragraph from one of the more comprehensive assessments to date (Gray et al. "Solar influences on climate," Reviews of Geophysics 2010):
Finally, the role of solar variability in climate change has received much public attention because reliable estimates of solar influence are needed to limit uncertainty in the importance of human activity as a potential explanation for global warming. Extensive climate model studies have indicated that the models can only reproduce the late twentieth century warming when anthropogenic forcing is included, in addition to the solar and volcanic forcings [IPCC, 2007]. The change in solar radiative forcing since 1750 was estimated in the IPCC [2007] report to be 0.12 W m−2, corresponding to an increase in TSI of 0.69 W m−2. A value of 0.24 W m−2 solar radiative forcing difference from Maunder Minimum to the present is currently considered to be more appropriate. Despite these uncertainties in solar radiative forcing, they are nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes, and the predicted SC-related surface temperature change is small relative to anthropogenic changes.
http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/rg1004/2009RG000282/
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2012 - 04:58pm PT
|
Corniss....good self-description....vote for the republican fear gansters...RJ
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2012 - 11:32pm PT
|
Those who fail to adapt to changing conditions will
suffer the consequences.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2012 - 12:54am PT
|
The "climate" may indeed be changing, always has and it always will. The question is how much "man" and his demonic machines has upon it.
From what I've read, we've just passed a warm period and are entering a cooling cycle that just may be unfriendly.
Bottom line? I don't think we should change our fossil fuel consumption rates. We are pretty good at self-regulation and monitoring.
I'd like to accuse you, Chiloe, of self-interest in this topic, but from reading your sh#t over the years I have to conclude that you're pretty honest. At least that's my take.
And you like dogs too! That may seem stupid, but maybe you know that old saying....
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2012 - 09:56am PT
|
From what you read? What did you read? RJ
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2012 - 10:59am PT
|
The "climate" may indeed be changing, always has and it always will. The question is how much "man" and his demonic machines has upon it.
Not really dude. Let's say Man has Nothing to do with it. It's still friggin warming and to such an extent (always turning out to be going faster than predicted) that places like most of Florida and many coastal cities will be ruined or under water in 100 years. That's big sh#t and somehow, some conservatives don't seem to think we should do anything about it.
Even if the warming can't be stopped, you gotta make investments in the changes coming.
From what I've read, we've just passed a warm period and are entering a cooling cycle that just may be unfriendly.
Can you give us some links to that because I'm terribly suspicious that what you read has zero credibility. Huge amounts of Methane (worse than C02) have been observed being released from the northern oceans in huge quantities. We have probably reached a tipping point of no -return. It's a huge disservice to humanity for people to drink this coolaid and deny that there's a problem.
Bottom line? I don't think we should change our fossil fuel consumption rates. We are pretty good at self-regulation and monitoring.
Bottom line, you don't know enough to comment. Even if fossil fuels had zero effect on climate, it is a limited resource and peak oil has probably arrived just as more countries want to develop and use more. We will be forced to use less because we aren't discovering as much as we burn and this has been the case for decades now.
The only answer to climate change that conservatives seem to offer is nuclear winter. Denial of dwindling fossil fuel realities and climate change are selling us down the river of pain and death for future generations
Shame
karl
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2012 - 11:03am PT
|
Dr. F:
All the Denialists here also post as Hard Core Right Wing Republicans on the Political Threads, and as Christians on the Religious Threads
Interesting point, is that true? I don't know because I don't go there.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Feb 26, 2012 - 11:13am PT
|
" Bottom line , you don't know enough to comment..." There it is...The deniers have taken the fox news , science fiction side of the debate and run with it based on the unspoken innuendo that scientist are gay liberals...It's all about maintaining your macho image and rooting for the republicans....Science and reality never comes into play regardless of the damaging effects..
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 01:20pm PT
|
I just want to say thanks to Chiloe for your many very interesting posts and updates on climate change research. I also appreciate others who have posted links and excerpts from research, such as the glacier photos and changes in methane production from northern lakes. It is probably annoying to post such information in order to counter the nonsensical posts of a few, but maybe one excuse is as good as another. Meaning, if Blue, CC, and BW weren't posting their opinions, the rest of us might not be benefiting from your wonderful perspectives.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 05:03pm PT
|
There's been plenty of factual data posted here about the earth's temperature rising, the Arctic/Antarctic ice melting, the inevitable rise in the oceans.
Quite a few people are puzzled about why in Northern climates the winters appear to becoming colder with more snow.
Here's a good explanation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17143269
oh, and in case you're disinclined to read a sensible article, here's the one chart from it:
about 6% loss in Arctic ice area in 33 years.
Get ready for oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean.
And big dikes around the Silicon Valley shorelines.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 05:07pm PT
|
And big dikes around the Silicon Valley shorelines.
Well that's they way they've done it in Netherlands for hundreds of years.
Good stimulus work, no?
One thing lots of libs just can't seem to understand, no matter how simply it's put: most of the world believes in some amount of global warming and that at least some (maybe all) of that is attributable to human activity. We're just not too worried about it. Capice?
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 06:04pm PT
|
Dr F - We are soooo not worried about you cake eaters trying drum
up anxiety about the climate.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 06:19pm PT
|
We're just not too worried about it. Capice? Clearly you aren't among the billion or so of poor people who live on land that's only a foot or less above current sea level.
Say goodbye to the Tuamotus, the Andamans, most of Bangladesh.
I'd wager a guess that neither you nor CC own ocean front properties in Brazil or the Amazon basin.
But hey, why WOULD you? You can afford to live wherever you like.
I'll also wager that you would oppose taxes to build more levees around New Orleans and love the fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant.
Capice?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2012 - 06:23pm PT
|
Just be sure they understand that the Real World is likely to be Very Very Different from the model.
Your own quote from a few minutes ago on what is by comparison, a trivially simple system
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 07:40am PT
|
Paul, thanks for the encouragement. We've got a bunch of science-savvy folks 'round here kicking in time to time (and Ed deserves a prize!) -- so the thread hasn't lost its head.
|
|
Jim E
climber
away
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 09:16am PT
|
My first post is in, I don't know, 6 months or so.
Just wanted to add some more 'high fives' for Chiloe, Ed Hartouni, DrDeeg, and all the other scientists that have contributed to this thread.
Some may view this thread as just another off topic political thread but I view it as very much on topic. Given the significance of glaciers, snowfields, and permafrost in relation to high mountain environments I don't really see how this topic can be considered anything but 'on topic'.
This is one of the few threads I ever bother to come around for, other than photo threads.
Anyway, nice work guys, and thanks for showing the opposition how civilized and intelligent people carry on a discussion.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 10:06am PT
|
Gotta be a little careful with stats of a specific area. I firmly believe in man related global climate change but here is an interesting stat-
Since the advent of satellite imagery in 1979 the sea ice growth in winter in Anarctica has "increased" by about 1% per decade.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 10:53am PT
|
Jim, fair point about the Antarctic, it's a different beast than the Arctic. Arctic sea ice has declined significantly through every month of the year, with the minimum area, extent and volume falling at what seems to be an accelerating rate. Here's the Arctic extent minimum, for instance:
But the Antarctic changes have been erratic, weakly declining in some seasons and weakly increasing in others, not showing a clear pattern. For instance, here's the Antarctic minimum on exactly the same scale (also making the point that most Antarctic sea ice melts every year, unlike the Arctic).
September mean Arctic sea ice extent declined an average of 63,000 km^2/year over 1972-2011. February mean Antarctic sea ice extent also declined over 1973-2011, but by less than 10,000 km^2/year.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2012 - 01:36pm PT
|
Bruce, the graphs above represent extent, defined as the sea area covered by at least a 15% concentration of ice. The Uni Bremen time series are the longest-running sets of daily pan-Arctic or Antarctic data.
Area in this context refers to a different measure: the area covered by the ice itself, not counting any water in between. This gives a lower number than extent. Area might seem like a more meaningful indicator, but it's also trickier to measure in an accurate, consistent way.
A third quantity, volume, is not measured directly but inferred from physical models that are constrained by the available data on area, extent, thickness, climatology and weather. Volume is even more interesting than area, but also even harder to get right.
It's a topic of much discussion that volume appears to be dropping more steeply than area or extent, which implies that the Arctic Ocean is covered with increasingly thin ice -- an idea supported by icebreaker and other observations.
Minimum Arctic extent, area and volume graphics, in the style of my bar charts above, can be compared on the top line of this page from the Arctic Sea Ice blog:
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/longterm
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 29, 2012 - 09:54am PT
|
One thing lots of libs just can't seem to understand, no matter how simply it's put: most of the world believes in some amount of global warming and that at least some (maybe all) of that is attributable to human activity. We're just not too worried about it. Capice?
Like the people who read that Smoking causes cancer but aren't too worried about it. And after all, lots of non-smokers get cancer so WTF! Why me Worry?
Good point about the Republicans not wishing to spend money to protect what everybody knows will happen in the future. The majority of Florida isn't defensible like the Netherlands. How long will it take for us to adapt to sea level rises of unprecedented scale?
Peace
Karl
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!