Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Rick stated:
I guess the reason this whole issue upsets me to the point of argument is that it seems to be part of a manipulation of the masses that is fostering a turn inwards towards the false premise that we can and should have an all enveloping safety net that shields us from birth to a long deferred death
ah, now we are getting somewhere!
The REAL thing that upsets Rick is the "premise that we can and should have an all enveloping safety net"
and we can assume then that Rick is against what America settled 80 years ago when the first "safety net" was created, Social Security, when we got sick and tired of our older people suffering and living in abject poverty, and we chose to do something about it, a "safety net"
and we can assume that Rick is also against the creation of Medicare as a "safety net" when way back almost 50 years ago we got sick and tired of seeing our old people suffering and dying and having no healthcare of any kind
presumably, Rick is perhaps also against maybe "food stamps" which keep the very poor fed
perhaps also against Medicaid, the "safety net" for poor children
oh my, all this "cradle to grave" First World solving human suffering crap!
BUT, fine, I don't give a damn if Rick or anyone else has that ideological "opinion" , but I cannot for the life of me understand what the hell that has to do with Climate Change, anyone?
or perhaps this Climate Change thread is just being "used" by Rick as a platform to bellyache about programs for the poor and sick in America, as he has done of other threads
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
|
|
In Inconvenient Truth, Gore said each gallon of gasoline creates 22 lbs. of CO2. That's pretty amazing.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
|
|
Dr.F, can making the atmosphere denser and heavier make it more sluggish and react more slowly - delaying weather systems or make them stall and etc.? Would it give winds a higher energy to knock things down? There are many ways it can effect weather and climate that are not being told.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Chiloe can you please get a little more sciency in your selection of graphics to bolster your argument. I have little problem with the graph per se, it is as good of a cartoon as any other, but it's source is a Professor of Sociology that seems to be engaged in statistics as a way of measuring (perhaps sway) public support of ideas.Could it be that our oceans have more of a moderating effect than we have complete knowledge of?
Ed has stated that as our resolution of observation and understanding increases new finer tuned theories supplant the old. While not totally invalidating the old at macro scales the new theories better explain the real world around us both at the macro and the new micro scale of observation we are then capable of. If i may be so bold, may i suggest that since the projections of the current state of climate science seems to be off the mark ,to the extent they are, it is time to develop a new finer tuned theory to supplant the old. (please excuse my unsciency choice of wording)
Dr. F ,no doubt you have a good grasp of the particulates polluting our air and once again i congratulate you on your part in cleaning up the southern Californian skies. But good Dr., have you considered the possibility that the answer to further cleaning of your local air and the way to avoid dumping another 100ppm of CO2 into the atmosphere is right under your feet.
As Base has in effect stated; the problem isn't so much big oils influence as it is our (your average consumer) insatiable taste and waste for crude oil.Well, under all of our feet is at least a hundred year supply (and growing)of cleaner burning natural gas. If we substitute NG for coal in all our power plants,convert all of our commercial truck fleets and a ever increasing percentage of our passenger cars to its use we could cut that 100ppm figure at least in half.The industry and technologies are all already in place ,we just have to have the will to do it.I know this a current argument a lot of you are likely to reject, but perhaps with some reconsideration of clean energy's problems of high costs and non continuous on demand generation you can at least see this as the bridge to a brighter future.
Hedge-i guess your point is "as goes California so goes the rest of the nation". I seriously hope all 50 states don't follow it's road to dysfunction and bankruptcy.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
|
|
Along the same line that burning fossil fuel creates CO2 and Oxygen is a weight component of that, I have read that the percentage of Oxygen by itself in the atmosphere has decreased (in a measurable way ). It is interesting we have had that kind of impact.
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
Have a read, may give you some other ways to frame the argument that work better.
Converging evidence from the behavioural and brain sciences
suggests that the human moral judgement system is not well equipped to
identify climate change — a complex, large-scale and unintentionally caused phenomenon —
as an important moral imperative. As climate change fails to generate strong moral intuitions, it does not motivate an urgent need for action in the way that other
moral imperatives do. We review six reasons why climate change poses significant challenges
to our moral judgement system and describe six strategies that communicators might use
to confront these challenges. Enhancing moral intuitions about climate change
may motivate greater support
for ameliorative actions and policies.
Though few people are blamed for intending to cause
climate change, many are exposed to messages that hold them
accountable for causing environmental damage as an unintended
side effect of their behaviour and lifestyle. Such messages probably
provoke feelings of guilt (and other negative emotions such as fear
To allay negative recriminations, individuals often engage in biased
cognitive processes to minimize perceptions of their own complicity
http://sharifflab.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/03/MarkowitzShariff2012.pdf
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
"Be more substantive" Ed says.
Well it wouldn't matter how substantive i get in suggesting natural causes possibly overlooked, such as longer frequency solar variation or still occurring recovery from the LIA that need to be factored and removed from the models to further refine them. Nor would i alone be taken seriously in pointing out that 20 years of constantly refined models still putting garbage in gets garbage out in relation to missing the mark of actual observation-i.e. over estimating amplification of cloud feedback. No i am not a climate scientist although i've done substantial reading of both pro and con on the subject. Contrary to claims that there is virtual unanimous consensus for disastrous AGW there is in fact not.Below is a short list of scientists who have published papers not in line with the "consensus".
Spencer-Braswell-christy-Hnilo 2007
Spencer-Braswell 2008
Michaels 2008
Lindzen-Choi 2009
Akasofu 2009
Scafetta 2011
Fu-Manabe 2011
Thorne 2011
Santer 2012
Seidel 2012
Po-Chedley 2012
Allen 2013
You'll have to do the work of looking up the papers yourselves, then have at it and shred them up-there are others.
First Chiloe brings in the sociologists and now Hoser brings the psychiatrists- i hope they have enough pharmaceuticals to make all of us skeptics accepting and compliant.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
rick sumner:
Chiloe can you please get a little more sciency in your selection of graphics to bolster your argument. I have little problem with the graph per se,
So your objection is purely ad hominem? Ah well, below are a couple of more sciency sources that did statistical analysis in similar spirit (regressions adjusting for solar, ENSO etc.) and reached roughly the same conclusion -- you can't account for recent temperatures without taking GHG into account. By totally different routes, that's what modelers and paleo folks who have studied this found too, so the conclusion is very robust.
Lean, J.L. and D.H. Rind. 2008. “How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006.” Geophysical Research Letters 35 DOI:10.1029/2008GL034864
To distinguish between simultaneous natural and anthropogenic impacts on surface temperature, regionally as well as globally, we perform a robust multivariate analysis using the best available estimates of each together with the observed surface temperature record from 1889 to 2006. The results enable us to compare, for the first time from observations, the geographical distributions of responses to individual influences consistent with their global impacts. We find a response to solar forcing quite different from that reported in several papers published recently in this journal, and zonally averaged responses to both natural and anthropogenic forcings that differ distinctly from those indicated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose conclusions depended on model simulations. Anthropogenic warming estimated directly from the historical observations is more pronounced between 45°S and 50°N than at higher latitudes whereas the model-simulated trends have minimum values in the tropics and increase steadily from 30 to 70°N.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034864/abstract;jsessionid=F81EED06C25185A44ED4B99DFCC70CFD.d03t01
Foster, G. and S. Rahmstorf. 2011. “Global temperature evolution 1979–2010.” Environmental Research Letters 6. DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022
We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr−1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Niño/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Could it be that our oceans have more of a moderating effect than we have complete knowledge of?
Could it be that leprechauns are to blame?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Up in the Arctic, the sea ice melt season has started. How will it go? Lots of people are watching.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Abrams. If you are going to go to a dedicated non science tabloid website for your information, you are going about it the wrong way.
Try reading a book. You can start at Wiki, and down below you will see the cited references. Click through those, one by one, and when they take you to another paper, it will have references that you should then read one by one. That or you can just use the canned political bullsh#t. If you do, you should admit to being a willfully ignorant bastard at the start of your posts. I am a stickler for willful ignorance.
the links above came from this website:
http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/
Websites like that are fuzzy homes for people who won't think, but have discovered how to take the mouse and cut and paste.
I really feel for the climate scientists who are stuck in the middle of this. Science normally plods along in the background and you might notice better TV's, or GPS, or other typical wha wha, without any knowledge of science whatsoever.
These people are scrutinized by agendas. Agendas have a stake in the outcome of a particular situation. They don't care where the science goes, as long as it doesn't go in this direction. It would drive me crazy, because science is just science, and the data drives the direction, not the opinions.
That is not how science works. You do not say what the answer MUST be, you just ask what it CAN be. The data you use is physics. Everyone can agree on physics.
Climate science, which I do not follow much other than what I read in papers (not flaky websites), is pretty solid now. The problem of altering the climate of the planet is pretty obvious, and it has been a hot research topic for twenty years. It isn't a few dread-locked dudes with more piercings than Dennis Rodman, who are doing this work. It is a huge topic of interest that is being studied by scientists from many countries.
The whole problem with this is if the answer is that we ARE trashing the climate, it leads to all sorts of economic, social, and political policy changes. There are people who do not want these changes. Those people play make believe climate scientist and create websites like you see above.
Do not go to these websites. If you are close to a university, enroll or try to audit some classes. It is heavy on math and physics, so not many people are likely to do this.
Instead they make flaky websites who cherry pick the snot out of the data or make stuff up out of whole cloth. It is like a political campaign run by the rules of Lee Atwater. If you don't know who he is, then you suck at trivial pursuit.
I can say this without any hesitation: It has happened on Earth before. By "it," I mean a high CO2 driven hothouse event that drastically altered the climate. Dinosaurs played close to the N Pole, and the distribution of flora was quite unusual. From more recent times, we know that much of the Sahara was lush and received far more rainfall.
If anyone is interested, I can probably dig up a short reading list that describes the late Mesozoic hothouse event, which was caused by a period of intense volcanism. How do you measure CO2 levels that are well over 100 million years old?
You do it by putting the big picture together. On a finer scale you can do things such as keep a running track through time of things such as stomata density of common species which live to this day. Gingko Balboa is a favorite. It is one of the oldest trees, and I have one living in my front yard.
You can grow them under differing conditions to see how stomata distribution changes. There are several mechanisms that can change this, but one is to grow them in a lab under differing CO2 concentrations. You can also use a technique that compares oxygen isotope ratios in the calcium carbonate tests of marine animals. A test is basically a sea shell.
When the amount of water that is locked up in ice changes, it also changes two isotopes of oxygen, and they can be measured quite easily in a lab. We have been doing this for fifty years.
I know that climate scientists use this information, as well as follow shale deposits that were deposited in anoxic, ocean acidification events. These have happened in the past, and two big ones have deposited source rocks that produced most of the world's oil. Those events happened during hothouse events which led to ocean acidification, which allowed the constantly raining dead organic matter to accumulate and be preserved. Normally, in an oxygen rich environment, bacteria will eat the snot out of any available carbon in the well known carbon cycle. These two events were different.
I am constantly concerned with paleoclimate as I unravel the difficult stratigraphy of reservoir rocks which can contain oil and gas.
I haven't seen the climate guys make any mistakes when using or interpreting old rocks. The petroleum guys have worked the living snot out of sedimentary rocks, and oddly, the big events which sourced much oil and gas were from two main global warming hothouse events. We know this. We have known this for fifty years. The climate guys are using this data correctly, and I find it very interesting, as do most geologists.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Yep. Hoser did post a REAL article. It is mainly about the human response to the warning, which is key to actually doing anything about it.
I haven't read the specific journal, but it is a sub-journal of Nature, which is a top scientific journal. It has to be important to be accepted by Nature.
Here is the link to Nature Climate Change, a journal limited solely by the four corners of climate study and debate.:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html
Here is the paper that Hoser linked to. It is more of a sociological topic, so you don't need to use math to read it:
http://sharifflab.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/03/MarkowitzShariff2012.pdf
After you have read the paper, look over the citations at the end of the paper. All of these papers were used to write this one in some way. You can read all of these papers as well, and within no time, you will be immersed into the raw science playing out.
|
|
abrams
Sport climber
|
|
Ok sure you are embarrassed with all those gigatons of new CO2 in the air and no warming to show for it. Who would not be?
Your best course is to claim you always leaned towards CO2 having little effect on the temperature and be done with it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/2/global-warmings-fatal-conceit/
rofl trivia: Germany has spent more than 100 billion euros
($130 billion) on subsidizing the solar industry; yet, as Der Spiegel
reported, “the 1.1 million solar systems have generated almost no power”
this winter, and Germany is forced to import power from elsewhere. They
are paying three or four times the U.S. rate for electricity, making many
of their industries noncompetitive.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
oh really?
gonna make it through grade school this year bunky?
Germany set a world record for solar power production with 22 GW produced at midday on Friday 25 and Saturday 26 May 2012. This was a third of peak electricity needs on Friday and almost half on Saturday.[15]
Germany had not installed adequate storage to accommodate high percentages of wind and solar power and in 2012 is exporting peak generation to neighboring countries.[18]
Approximately 9 GW of photovoltaic plants in Germany are being retrofitted to shut down if the frequency increases to 50.2 Hz, indicating an excess of electricity on the grid. The frequency of the grid is available on the Internet, and is unlikely to reach 50.2 Hz during normal operation, but can if Germany is exporting power to countries that suddenly experience a power failure, as happened in 2003 and 2006.[19][20][21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
|
|
Hoser
climber
vancouver
|
|
Germany is more or less the same latitude as BC, for all those nay sayers about solar here. I believe Germany is where "organic" power started, here in BC its called bull frog power
http://www.bullfrogpower.com/
Regarding the price as Abrams pointed out, this is why we need to raise the price on carbon based energy. For sure, new sources of power are going to cost more, and if we continue to provide cheap carbon based power such as LNG , tar sands and coal we will never make the transition to green power. This scenario is easily witnessed with the recent explosion of non conventional natural gas, shale, coal bed, tight gas and so on.
When oil became expensive it became economical to invest in fracking and horizontal drilling.
We as a society need to demand that politicians start charging us the true cost of power, costs that represent the damage we are doing to the environment.
Here in BC our heritage assets, although they dont seem to be calling Site C that, provided us with cheap cost based power, but at the same time this cheap energy has fostered an energy intensive society, when compared to Europe or Japan. Currently, the BC energy strategy is looking for nearly 80% of new power needs to come from demand side management, we now have two tier billing and Hydro as has asked for a 30% increase in rates over the next three years and they are hinting at 50% over 5.
We have already locked in 1.5 - 2c worth of warming at the current rate of fossil fuel use for the next 16 years. We need to act now.
Yes it will be challenging, yes it will cost more, but the only reason we are not switching to alternative fuels is because of political policy, in that sense we are stuck. We need to demand these changes and I believe that the youth of this world are rallying hard for it.
We are going to see some interesting times here in BC with NDP's love for LNG and their commitment to see 3-5 new LNG facilites by 2020
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Tonight boys and girls i bring you a disclaimer and some quotations which i would like you to attribute to their authors.
Disclaimer:The projections are based on results from computer models that involve simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully understood. Accordingly, no responsibility will be accepted by ___ for the accuracy of the projections inferred from this brochure or for any person's interpretations, deductions, conclusions or actions in reliance on this information.
Quote: "If we look at the history of CO2 over time, we see the atmospheric CO2 content has been far higher than at present for most of time.Furthermore atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise-it does not create a temperature rise.To argue that human emissions of CO2 are forcing global warming requires all the known, and possibly chaotic, mechanisms of natural global warming to be critically analysed and dismissed".
Quote: " I fear the irrational policies of extreme environmentalists far more than a warmer climate on this relatively cold planet". and " If we stopped fossil fuel use today, or by 2020 as Al Gore proposes, at least half the human population would perish and there wouldn't be a tree left on the planet within a year".
You know guys, if any of you had a still open mind, accepting of rational evidence, i would Amazon you both "consensus view" books on the subject along with dissenting views by actual experts in the field. I would leave it to the still untainted portion of your minds to sift the hysterical B.S. from fact.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
You miss the point Dr.-who are the authors?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Well, i can see you guys are not exceptionally well read.
Disclaimer-Australia's national science agency, accompanying there climate model projections. All models should have similar disclaimers.
Quote 1 Ian Plimmer professor of the School of Earth and Enviromental Sciences at the University of Adelaide, two time winner of the Eureka Prize Australia's highest scientific honor,author of 120 scientific papers and many books.
Quote 2- Dr. Patrick Moore Phd. Ecology and co founder of Greenpeace
Ed, i don't know what set of data you are looking at but the global mean temperature has been virtually flat since the peak El Nino year of 1998.How many of the early or even recent models predicted this? It seems if they have to constantly rejigger the inputs (in yours and others words "refine")to make the models more in line with reality, then something is fundamentally wrong.Perhaps the state of computer technology and the incredible complexities of interactions of the Earth, atmosphere, oceans, and variables of both terrestrial and extraterrestrial origin are simply to dynamic and chaotic to simulate and predict out long term. Or the other option is it is not Science it is Politics, and a whole lot of people both layman and scientists are being bamboozled.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
HadCRUT 3 -1850 to present, global monthly average temps. If you include the El Nino anomaly year of 1998 (the hottest on modern record) then the median from there to 2012 it is almost flat. Excluding 1998 it is actually trending downwards.The significance of this, as i see it, is that we have been climbing out of LIA cold trough since 1850, during which the temps were well below the 2000 year average and even now, after a near doubling of CO2 by human activity, we are still below the temps of the medieval warm period, roman warm period etc. etc. Why are we here below the low end scale of the two dozen computer models?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!