Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
I want to know where the science on the Right is coming from. Surely there are those
out there, in the name of the scientific process who are trying to disprove manmade global
warming. That's where I'd start if I was serious about it.
Micronut, I don't think you're serious about it, if by "it" we mean science.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 05:29pm PT
|
How about a null hypothesis. If you want to prove Penicillin works, you eventually try to prove it doesn't. That's all I'm sayin.
Or do you think its best to constantly try to prove that man is causing the problem. Is that the scientific method?
Surely some levelheaded scientists are trying to prove the other side of the argument. I want to see what they are finding as well.
Or do you simply seek out info that corroborates your stance?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Or do you simply seek out info that corroborates your stance?
Isn't that what your last several posts were about?
But no, it's not what I do.
|
|
Josh Higgins
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
It's been a while, and I may get some little facts wrong, but here's how I understand it. Essentially everything emits and absorbs electromagnetic radiation (light, radio waves, infra-red, ultraviolet, microwaves, and on and on, these are only different wavelengths). There is something called "blackbody radiation." This determines what peak wavelenghts something emits depending on it's temperature. The sun is at a few thousand degrees on the surface and emits at a certain peak wavelength. I don't know what this wavelength is, but a lot of the energy from the sun's rays passes through the earth's atmosphere. Once it hits the earth, it warms it up. Part of this is from greenhouse gases (weather or not we were emitting CO2 because CO2 is a natural component in our environment). The earth has a blackbody radiation that has a peak at or near infrared (the heat that you feel when kicking it near a camp fire). This infrared radiation is at a wavelength that CO2 absorbs. This energy does not escape the atmosphere, but is trapped. The CO2 molecules become "excited" which increases their kinetic energy. Temperature is a measurement of average kinetic energy. That is the basic mechanism for the greenhouse effect. (Note, the compound which traps the most heat of all the greenhouse gases is water. If you're out in the desert it will be warmer after a cloudy night than a clear one sometimes...)
Now onto whether or not global warming is human forced. CO2 traps some of the radiation that is emitted by the planet, but not all of it. Increase the amount of CO2 and more radiation (heat) will be trapped. This is really simple. There IS human forced global warming. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a f*#king idiot. We've doubled the amount of CO2 in the air. There are now more molecules to absorb energy at those wavelengths! CO2 is NOT the only greenhouse gas that humans emit either. I believe that one molecule of CFCs or methane does the same amount of energy trapping as thousands of molecules of CO2.
The only question is how much of the current warming is due to us and now much due to a natural warming cycle. There are so many positive and negative feedback cycles and it's so complex that there are many arguments that are valid and more that are invalid against human forced global warming. I've read sources that say according to ice cores and historic cycles, we should be heading back into an ice age now or at least soon. My opinion is that humans are having a significant effect. The temperature rise with CO2 and Methane increases from humanity seems a little too coincidental when you're looking at the geological timescale. Plus, the HUGE MAJORITY of scientists believe in human forced global warming. The media just portrays it as one scientist says this and one says this. Not 9 to 1 as it is in reality...
Even if human forced global warming weren't an issue, dependence on foreign oil and the rising costs of oil ARE! We need to, as a country, try to decrease our dependence on oil.
Anyone want to point out flaws in my facts? I'm sure there are some. A lot of that stuff is from memory starting a decade ago, but generally, the increase of CO2 leads to more heat trapped can't be argued with.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 05:49pm PT
|
Dude, Chiloe, you seem like a smart guy, I'm just gathering info on both sides here. I just didn't dig your tone, like anybody who is on the other side of the argument isn't worth listening to. I'm sifting through this stuff so as to be able to make an educated decision and have a rational debate with some buddies. I'm just trying to streamline the effort, there are lots of cats here who seem to feel strongly about this stuff on the Taco. A few of them are even normal and have given good intel.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 05:49pm PT
|
thanks jhalgrim......I'll look into it.
|
|
'Pass the Pitons' Pete
Big Wall climber
like Ontario, Canada, eh?
|
|
Micronut -
Maybe someone can help me out with this. We need a photo of the Eiger Nordwand back in the Heinrich Harrer - White Spider day, and a photo today. Once primarily an ice climb, it's now just a crumbling heap of limestone choss.
Then we need some photos of glacier snouts in South America twenty years ago, and a photo of the same glaciers today. Some of those guys have receded two miles in two decades!
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
I just didn't dig your tone, like anybody who is on the other side of the argument isn't worth listening to.
Yah, I get impatient. I keep saying the same things, pointing people towards the primary
science literature, where there are many different views but not really "sides to the
argument" in the political way that you mean. And where the overwhelming consensus,
from people who are actively studying these topics, is that anthropogenic climate
change is quite real.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Xela,
The solution you state is equivalent to the problem I state. What is proper pricing? It's where price = marginal cost. Put slightly differently, the price of emitting one extra unit of pollution is equal to the cost to society of that one extra unit. I see many proposed solutions to the problem that simply assume we know what those numbers are, but I have yet to see a study that properly measures those numbers.
John
|
|
Xela
climber
|
|
John,
the goals that are generally proposed (450 and 550 ppm CO2-eq for low and medium stabilization levels) come from the scientists and are related to potential increases in temperature. Estimated damages are extremely uncertain depending on how bad a scenario one constructs. Damages will also vary greatly by region and whether a country is developed or developing. Ricahrd Tol of Hamburg University has produced some interesting papers on worst case damages. California has sponsored quite a bit of work funded through the California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research Program (PIER) that might be worth a look. I don't think you will ever get down to the value of one more ton. That level of precision just doesn't exist (yet?).
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
micronut, the "sides" are defined as scientifically literate and others... at least in my view of the debate on the science of climate change. It isn't who has the best argument, it is a consideration of the marshaled data, its analysis and interpretation.
If you aren't willing to put the time in to understanding the scientific situation, your opinion is just that, an opinion, which really has no scientific merit.
It is funny to the point of despair, to scientists, the length that the "others" go to in their arguments, which are addressed and continue to be addressed in the scientific literature.
Chiloe posts additional information after my link because the science has progressed since the most recent IPCC WG1 study. If you don't know that, and if you are unaware of the work being done, you fall behind... and you may not actually have all the relevant info.
The characterization of the climate scientists taking sides is a misrepresentation of what they're doing. Their scientific research might lend credence to one or another political position, but they themselves are trying to learn what nature is actually doing. They're entire life is devoted to understanding that truth, they don't have time to waste making political arguments.
If you are serious, you have a lot to learn...
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 06:58pm PT
|
I'm on it Ed.
I now have a couple weeks of info to chug through.
That WG1 study is a great starter piece.
Thanks for all the input. I'm just a hack tryin not to be opinionated without basis.
"The searching out and thorough investigation of truth ought to be the primary study of man." CICERO
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2009 - 07:04pm PT
|
Chiloe,
Thanks for the info. I'll grind through it soon.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
The real question that is not being asked yet or often enough isn't whether man has had a hand in climate change, but rather what scope could man's further actions have in changing the course of climate change?
How much of our money should go to cleaner technology and how much to moving all the port cities of the world to higher ground within 100 years?
Tough call, better get used to thinking about it and less pretending.
Micronut wrote
"Karl, I didn't mean to put down your take on this, I was just trying to gather some enviro stats rather than personal experiences/feelings on the matter. India will break your heart huh? I leave for a mission trip to nepal in 8 weeks. It will be my first time over there. No time to climb. We will be putting some technology into a "school" and spending time with an underground church. Installing computers and stuff I think."
Nope, every society is equally heart rendering and heart aching as a totality. We just all have our blind sides.
Good luck on Nepal. They are wonderful, wonderful people, Be prepared to throw out every preconception, they'll be helping you as much as you help them.
FUnny place. TONS of Buddhists! OFFICIALLY Hindu and illegal to proteletyze and yet super tolerant. South Asia is beyond reason, better get used to it.
Peace
Karl
|
|
noshoesnoshirt
climber
dangling off a wind turbine in a town near you
|
|
For further study refer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
However, we do live in a very large system with a lot of input.
2nd However, just look around you man. Aren't there enough people on this bit of dirt?
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
All it takes to make you a believer is one trip to the eastern seaboard of China to see that just one country can profoundly affect climate, not even taking into consideration the pollution going on around the rest of the globe.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Mary J Pickford is absolutely right about the tight correlation
between CO2 and Global temperature.
She just can't read the graph correctly as many can't.
==
Warming happens 1st then the CO2 goes up afterward.
==
Temperature controls the amount of CO2 not the other way around.
So Human CO2 additions can have nothing to do with temperature.
So its silly for humans to reduce CO2 because the (ice core) graphs prove CO2 does not control temperature.
|
|
jbar
Social climber
urasymptote
|
|
It's been my experience that a candle in the bathroom helps to eliminate toxic greenhouse emissions.
You want something interesting for your brain trust don't worry about global warming. We won't make it long enough for it to make a difference unless we have a flu pandemic or jihad or something. The global population limit was actually reached and exceeded but is still sustainable thanks to the introduction of oil based fertilizers and pesticides. Now that oil is on the down turn how much longer will we be able to keep wasting and still survive?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!