Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2009 - 09:33pm PT
|
Do the GCC denyers have anything to prove their contention ??
or just that there were some confusing e-mails,
so that must prove that the 1000s of scientists are wrong,
and the fear monger lyers are right
Yes, liars.
Their claim that the e-mails disprove everything is even more dishonest than the e-mail scandal they claim happened.
|
|
Mason
Trad climber
Yay Area
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2009 - 11:26pm PT
|
Thanks Roger.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2009 - 08:35am PT
|
can any libs here show me a lib source that gives ink to the opposition?
Oh cut the bullsh#t. You don't care about the science. It's out there if you are interested. You are interested in grinding your political axe.
Talk about politicizing the science...
|
|
C-dog
Social climber
from under your favorite rock
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2009 - 11:38am PT
|
Ed Hartouni: Thanks a lot for the post about the Fermi discovery of Gamma Ray bursts. Normally I get this kind of info through other sites related more directly to my job. Getting this important piece of info from the taco is way cool!
Dr. F: Reversed polarity of lightning pulses is not new. We formerly subscribed to a lightning database for years and polarity is one of the parameters. It's just rare, maybe 1 in a 1000. Interestingly bluering and I got lightning'ed off of Marmot Dome twice after that hmph of an approach. When I returned to the office, and tried to locate the lightning bolts that we saw in the database we were paying $$$ for, they were not to be found! Yes, the climbing reality took over and we canceled.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2009 - 11:52am PT
|
And guess what? I am a filthy dirty petroleum geologist.
One who keeps his hands dirty with data, it sounds like! Good contribution to the thread.
I grew up in a geologist-headed household, back in the days when you could get denied tenure for writing that continents moved. Watching a scientific revolution from the inside provided quite an education.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2009 - 12:23pm PT
|
Before the page goes all goofy again ... the graphic below does a good job of visualizing
some ideas about the consequences of greenhouse buildup, as currently understood (a
couple of years ago anyway). It's from a talk by Bob Correll, Senior Fellow of the American
Meteorological Society, chair of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, etc.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2009 - 12:36pm PT
|
"Before the page goes all goofy again " Chiloe, you're right on target about several recent posts. There's another thread, with almost 15,000 posts, for partisan ranting. This one has been an outstanding OT thread precisely because it had, until recently, been free of partisan name-calling.
John
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2009 - 12:39pm PT
|
Three more slides from Correll's talk, setting out paleoclimate timelines as context for
the 21st-century figure above. NOTE: time runs right to left in the first graph below
(but not the other two), a common convention with paleoclimate data. In the third
graph, time has a (sort of) logarithmic scale.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2009 - 10:56pm PT
|
This infrared stuff seemed pretty interesting to me back in 1958. My first job was scanning around
using, would you believe, a PbTe detector. Imaging did not even exist back then and the data was
all strip chart recorder data. Here are some AIRS data showing the CO2 on earth is not uniformly
distributed.
http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/AIRS_CO2_Data/
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2009 - 02:19am PT
|
Excellent posts, Base104. This page seems to have returned to the best of this thread.
One note on modeling: I've been using -- and estimating -- econometric models since 1973. These necessarily use nonexperimental data, which present unique theoretical problems, particularly in determining the statistics of fit. Classical statistical theory has problems in that circumstance and, in my opinion, Bayesian theory is more accurate both from an epistemological and statistical standpoint.
The climate models most in use have the tremendous advantage of drawing on substantial experimental data. Unfortunately, however, they, too, rely to a certain extent on non-experimental data. That fact, and not just the incredible compexity of weather systems, causes most of our uncertainty.
As Ed and several others have pointed out, though, uncertainty does not mean we do nothing, but it does mean we hedge our bets. The degree and nature of those hedges are for the political, not the scientific, process to decide.
John
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2009 - 07:20am PT
|
once again, dirt, you're deflecting and attacking
my challenge wasn't about the science (i know where to find it, and ed is doing a superb job on his own) but about political media presenting both sides of a story...any story
you always trash me for articles i find on admittedly right-wing sites but never address the points made; you simply attack the messenger
my challenge, again: show me a lib political site that presents both sides of the climate issue...i proved hotair.com is willing to give the opposition a voice by posting to a link that debunks claims by the "deniers"
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2009 - 12:24pm PT
|
DMT,
While I'm not so sure about empires with extended supply lines (after all, Rome/Byzantium and England/U.K. lasted a very long time), your comment about unilateral first world action having a severly adverse effect on manufacturing there has a strong basis in reality. That makes dealing with this issue such a daunting task.
John
|
|
Deemed Useless
Social climber
Ca.
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2009 - 09:15pm PT
|
I think DMT is barking up the right tree here. However, I also think there is a "witch hunt" out there for newly industrialized nations. I think the ability to produce is at the fore front of all of this climate change demonology.
As this is a climbing forum.
When did the glaciers in Yosemite begin to retreat?... and also...Is the modern age a part of its progress of retreat?
|
|
Deemed Useless
Social climber
Ca.
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2009 - 10:32pm PT
|
Ed, I took this from your reply.
(A Yosemite Glacier re-formed at least twice since then but never again became nearly so large as that of a million years ago. The most recent glaciation was at a maximum only about 20,000 years ago, but the glacier was not very large. The ice extended only as far as Bridalveil Meadow and did not erode high on the valley walls. Retreat of this last glacier left moraines; Lake Yosemite; and waterfalls at hanging valleys, such as Yosemite Falls and Bridalveil Fall; and at glacial steps, such as Vernal Fall and Nevada Fall. Moraines and waterfalls remain, but Lake Yosemite was filled with river-borne sediment to form the nearly flat valley floor on which the Merced River meanders today)
Sooo, why did it reform?
Did this glacier retreat along with other glaciers and "snow fields" along the Northern Hemisphere during the same time period?
Are we now a part of that same time period?
|
|
Deemed Useless
Social climber
Ca.
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 12:24am PT
|
Well, I guess my question is,... Is this time period a part of the same time period that melted the last "big" glacier to inhabit Yosemite Valley?
|
|
Deemed Useless
Social climber
Ca.
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2009 - 12:26am PT
|
20,000 years as it stands geologically does not sound like a lot of time.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!