Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2016 - 09:26pm PT
|
There was an editorial in the LA Times a while back on this. The writer,
of no little repute, said those dead snags are more or less business as
usual - nothing to see, folks, y'all can go home and quit reading the
media's frothy sensationalism. Now, I admit it looks bad but she had
solid numbers to back up her assertions.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2016 - 10:33pm PT
|
Looks to me like decades of too aggressive of fire fighting efforts and the forced retreat of commercial harvesters are significant contributers to a too dense forest ecosystem that is highly susceptible to die off from infestation and drought.
|
|
clifff
Mountain climber
golden, rollin hills of California
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2016 - 01:14pm PT
|
ANTHROPOCENE
"Published on Nov 15, 2016
Human impacts on the way our planet functions have now become so extreme many scientists are claiming the Earth has shifted out of the Holocene state and into a new geological epoch. They’re calling it ‘The Anthropocene’, the new age of humans, because millions of years after we are gone, the scar of our existence will be visible in the rocks of tomorrow. In this episode we look at how the last 60 years of socio economic growth has transformed the human race into a geological force to rival nature."
[Click to View YouTube Video]
What the 1% Don't Want You to Know
Bill Moyers :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzQYA9Qjsi0
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
Human impacts on the way our planet functions have now become so extreme many scientists are claiming the Earth has shifted out of the Holocene state and into a new geological epoch. They’re calling it ‘The Anthropocene’, the new age of humans, because millions of years after we are gone, the scar of our existence will be visible in the rocks of tomorrow. In this episode we look at how the last 60 years of socio economic growth has transformed the human race into a geological force to rival nature."
It's posts like this that make the GW crowd look like a group of bored, pseudo scientists drumming up drama just so they have something to talk about.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
Brought to you from the bitter north ^^^
|
|
AP
Trad climber
Calgary
|
|
How come this is frequently treated as a political topic?
It is not
It is a scientific topic
The political part is what we will do in response.
People shouldn't waste their time arguing about whether it is happening or whether we are responsible. Rather we should be focussing on solutions
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
(6) skeptics are willing to put some effort into understanding the science
I agree with you, Malemute, up to the point quoted above, which you do not state strongly enough. Skeptics practice science. We build our science on skepticism. Deniers and believers lacking skepticism both practice religion.
John
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
People shouldn't waste their time arguing about whether it is happening or whether we are responsible. Rather we should be focussing on solutions
That's not what people are interested in talking about. You've got the zealous alarmists. They want to bask in their self-righteousness, preaching to the masses, attacking all non-believers. And then you've got the folks who make sport of those zealots. the dynamic plays out on a regular basis. Lather, rinse, repeat. There's little effort to sincerely advance the cause. It's mostly about pissing on the other guy.
* Hat tip to Ed Hartouni for high value, low snark posts.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
I agree with you, Malemute, up to the point quoted above, which you do not state strongly enough. Skeptics practice science. We build our science on skepticism. Deniers and believers lacking skepticism both practice religion.
And has been asked before, what does it take to become settled science?
Should I practice skepticism that smoking causes cancer?
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
People shouldn't waste their time arguing about whether it is happening or whether we are responsible. Rather we should be focussing on solutions
Rather hard to focus on solutions when the party that will soon control all three branches of government mostly denies that it is happening and/or is a problem.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
what does it take to become settled science?
Religion. The scientific method doesn't allow for anything "settled." The fallacy, however, is not being skeptical. Rather, the fallacy lies in requiring "settled science" before action.
As just one example, science is not settled on predicting earthquakes, but that doesn't make it prudent to build along a known fault zone without taking the possibility that a quake could happen into account.
Similarly, you should remain skeptical about whether smoking causes cancer. It's entirely possible that something else is the cause. But I think someone who begins smoking is foolish because our best theory suggest that smoking increasing the likelihood of cancer, heart attacks, and a host of other adverse health outcomes significantly.
This may seem like semantics, but I find it important precisely because I know too many people who argue that the science isn't settled, so we need not act. Understanding the meaninglessness of "settled science" helps to avoid getting lost in trying to define what constitutes something that does not exist.
John
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I think lung cancer and cigarette smoking is an interesting analogy... certainly cigarette smoking doesn't kill you off today, next week, next month, next year or even next decade... and it might not kill you off at all... but it might.
So it is a risk whose consequences are differed, to some extent.
the timescale is of order 20 years...
Now there isn't a step-by-step explanation of how cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, by you can see that once the rate of smoking decreased, the frequency of lung cancers did too, but later...
to me this is strong evidence for the hypothesis that associates the two. But that is me...
What are YOU will to risk?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
actually, the statement that Jody cut-and-pasted was made in early 2014, and can be found here:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-no-scientific-proof-humans-are-dominant-cause-warming.html
The "September" referred to was in 2013...
Moores' statements do not contain any explanation for his views regarding anthropomorphic climate change, if someone has a link to something more substantive I'd like to see it.
Making statements is easy, backing them up is difficulty. Jody doesn't know squat about climate science, so he depends on the supposed authority of someone like Moore, where does Moore get such authority?
Certainly not through his scientific work.
For instance take the temperature anomaly from NASA:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
the sunspot numbers:
http://www.sidc.be/silso/DATA/SN_y_tot_V2.0.txt
the recent CO2 concentration:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
and the Law Dome CO2 historic concentrations:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr20
and make this plot:
the blue line is the surface temperature anomaly by year. The year 2013 is marked with the vertical black dashed line...
the red line is the sunspot number by year, a proxy for the solar irradiance,
the green line is the measured atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the purple line is the Law Dome ice core CO2 concentrations...
you can see that the temperature is not flat or falling after 2013, as the quote from Moore predicted...
also, you can see the solar sunspot activity peaked around 1960 and has been falling ever since... but the temperature anomaly is increasing through that period... so it is not the Sun causing the warming...
the increased CO2 concentration tracks nicely with the increased temperature anomaly, and though it is not so simple, it certainly is suggestive, and a deeper analysis shows the surface temperature increases are due to the increased CO2, and that the increased CO2 is due to humans.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
I expect, and can't wait, for Ed's consistent list of government alphabet soup agencies to be defunded out of the climate scam business. Won't it be great when these sources are discredited and their frauds so well documented that if Ed, say in another 4 years time, dared to once again cite these fraudulent agencies discredited criminal works that he would be promptly laughed off the forum.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
rick sumner, your prognostications have not been very accurate in the past.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Gonna get cold by 2019 Ed. That's my sole prediction. My above post is just hope for change, or rather, belief the government climate science scam will be severely short changed.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Shetville , North of Los Angeles
|
|
Maybe Trump will jail all of the scamming climate change heretics and put this hoax to sleep...
|
|
AP
Trad climber
Calgary
|
|
Patrick Moore was not a co founder of Greenpeace, just an early member. He lies about that.
He has not authored a single science paper in a refereed journal.
He is a fraud and does not have a clue about data analysis.
Anyone with any knowledge of science, methods, and data analysis can shred his arguments with a minimum of effort
Here is a talk at Moses Znaimer's Ideas City
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFHX526NPbE
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!