Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 09:25pm PT
|
Rick! is it really you?? I remember when we met, you were living in a tee-pee in Strawberry. 6-packs for pro, indeed, a great time.
But let me ask you a question: Do you really think that you can go toe-to-toe with Ed? I mean, his is a scientist and all, and actually can back up what he talks about, with science. I don't want to degrade your sense of style, but while you were in that tee-pee, Dr. H. was studying hard sciences, and doing really well at it I imagine (judging by where he's currently employed).
But carry on, it is amusing to see somebody swimming with the sharks.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 09:26pm PT
|
Its all about you Rick,
Tell us more, fruitcake...
Thanks to Locker.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 09:30pm PT
|
Yes K-man, 6 packs for pro, the prehistoric version of the Norwegian, but no tee pee, i had a north face ve24.Anyway give me a name or a shout over email. Much has changed, i have three kids, all grown, all with science degrees including one in physics. No 6 packs for 28 years.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2013 - 09:34pm PT
|
No tee pee, really? Dang.
Good work on the kids, and on the sixer's. Seriously.
[And you wouldn't remember me, I was just a larvae swimming in pond scum back them. Heck, seems like not much changes sometimes...
:- Kelly]
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 09:40pm PT
|
Well Kelly, really man we are all pond scum, always were and will be in the wider scheme of things. Considering your era of youth, you qualify for my climbing team if you don"t mind 5.3d.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 09:55pm PT
|
Yeah the pregeriatrics guide to desert adventure.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 10:01pm PT
|
The globe is in a cooling phase folks,within a decade it will be obvious to even the most eggheaded of the CAGW crowd and then they will once again blame man for climate change.
Rick, instead of issuing your own personal opinion over and over
why don't you take this issue head on?
as in: refute the science
point by point take on those eggheads and snobs and elitists, you know, like Ed and Base and others here
if you are going to declare victory and convince even one person here as you said, then you gotta get busy refuting the science
we all know you have a powerful intellect, Rick, lets see it in action!
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
May 15, 2013 - 10:17pm PT
|
Not going to go in blind like Custer, Norton. The battlefield must carefully evaluated, all intelligence gathered, the enemy probed.
Ed is no snob, he's a great guy and has been pointing the way.
This could take years
|
|
Spitzer
climber
|
|
|
May 16, 2013 - 11:59am PT
|
Suppose that overnight we somehow ceased emitting CO2. Would the planet still get warmer due to what we've already pumped into the atmosphere?
|
|
Spitzer
climber
|
|
|
May 16, 2013 - 12:16pm PT
|
"100s of years", so you're saying the planet would continue to warm even if emissions ceased? That's what I thought, but a recent perspective in Science magazine by Matthews and Solomon says that this is a common misunderstanding. It's worth reading.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6131/438
|
|
Spitzer
climber
|
|
|
May 16, 2013 - 12:19pm PT
|
That's why I phrased it as a question back to you. I wasn't sure you had actually answered my question. Had you?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
May 16, 2013 - 01:11pm PT
|
Spitzer, there was an article addressing your question a few years ago in Nature Geoscience. Here's a summary and discussion by NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt. If human CO2 emissions went suddenly to zero,
CO2 concentrations would start to fall immediately since the ocean and terrestrial biosphere would continue to absorb more carbon than they release as long as the CO2 level in the atmosphere is higher than pre-industrial levels (approximately). And subsequent temperatures (depending slightly on the model you are using) would either be flat or slightly decreasing. With this definition then, there is no climate change commitment because of climate inertia. Instead, the reason for the likely continuation of the warming is that we can’t get to zero emissions any time soon because of societal, economic or technological inertia.
That is an interesting reframing of an issue that comes up all the time in discussions of adaptation and mitigation. This is because it demonstrates that adaptation (over and above what is necessary to reduce vulnerabilities to current climate conditions) is unnecessary if mitigation is dramatic enough.
However, the practical implication of this reframing is small. We are clearly not going to get to zero emissions any time soon, and even the 60-70% cuts required to stabilise concentrations initially seem a long way off. Thus as a practical matter, it doesn’t really matter whether the inertia is climatic or societal or technological or economic because the globe will continue to warm under all realistic scenarios (what we do have a possible control over is the magnitude of that warming). Thus further adaptation measures will still be needed.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/climate-change-commitments/
|
|
Spitzer
climber
|
|
|
May 16, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
|
Chiloe, thanks for that. I'm not surprised that this was already understood and also not surprised that you and Ed knew this. I posted the question and link because I didn't know this despite reading more than the average layman about climate change. So as the authors of that perspective suggest, there are probably a lot of people with this mistaken belief.
There may be no practical difference but there is a psychological one.
|
|
kennyt
climber
Woodfords,California
|
|
|
May 16, 2013 - 05:51pm PT
|
well it's raining and cool in woodfords right now so I guess it's no problem.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
May 16, 2013 - 10:58pm PT
|
Dr F, that is only part of the denialist cookbook.
1. Any day of less than average temperature disproves science.
2. Any science that conflicts with capitalist manifest destiny type dogma must be false, because a belief system is more important than science.
3. The more the public and politicians can be confused and bought off, the more we can delay any useful policy.
|
|
abrams
Sport climber
|
|
|
May 16, 2013 - 11:32pm PT
|
The Global Warming Cookbook Edition 3,846,478
Tasty recipes for the end of the world feast!
Reading sheep entrails and thermometers like a pro!
Predict when the sky will fall on your city!
Do's and Don'ts of running around like a maniac trying to scare neighbors.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
|
|
|
May 17, 2013 - 01:27am PT
|
just to change the direction a little, I'm posting this comment I found in a random blog;
In a Solar system with a star at the centre, it makes the most sense to look to the huge burning furnace to explain planetary temperatures, not CO2 production (especially when the global CO2 production follows the global temperature rather than precedes it).
This is pretty silly since we know exactly where the CO2 is coming from - it's human emissions. CO2 is not increasing because the sun is getting hotter. Unless all of the emissions are coming from air-conditioner use, the comment is wrong and silly.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 17, 2013 - 10:46am PT
|
The most ambitious survey on the causes of climate change - covering 11,994 peer-reviewed papers by 29,000 scientists over 20 years - has found that 97.1% agree climate change is caused by human activity, with dissenters representing a "vanishingly small proportion." Yet industry lobbying has created a "gaping chasm" between scientific consensus and public perception, with just 42% of Americans seeing the connection.
"The public have been confused because people have been trying to confuse us." |
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
May 17, 2013 - 11:10am PT
|
Sure, Ron, a lot of people are looking at that. They start from the observation that only surface air temperatures seem level, while the ocean keeps on warming (and sea level keeps rising, and glaciers keep melting). Here's the most recent article I've read (emphasis added). Their mechanism involves the observed intensification of trade winds, affecting currents and vertical mixing at sea.
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Balmaseda et al. (2013) Geophysical Research Letters
The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 17, 2013 - 11:22am PT
|
The most ambitious survey on the causes of climate change - covering 11,994 peer-reviewed papers by 29,000 scientists over 20 years - has found that 97.1% agree climate change is caused by human activity, with dissenters representing a "vanishingly small proportion." Yet industry lobbying has created a "gaping chasm" between scientific consensus and public perception, with just 42% of Americans seeing the connection.
"The public have been confused because people have been trying to confuse us."
This shows the typically muddled thinking of the alarmists.
Bruce's story shows that something like 1/2 of Americans don't know if an electron is bigger than an atom, or if lasers work by focusing sound, or if evolution explains current life forms.
Presumably, there's no industry lobbying trying to confuse the poor public about atomic physics or lasers (perhaps you believe "the Church" is brainwashing people on evolution, but what percentage of Americans belong to a church that teaches against evolution?)
The only "industry lobbying" re: climate change I see is things like Exxon's statements that acknowledge climate change and the role played by humans in emitting greenhouse gasses (direct human emission isn't that relevant, except from Chole's mouth). (That's not to say there isn't other industry lobbying; I'd expect most of it to be directed at politicians rather than the public--that's kind of what lobbying is.)
The more likely explanation (consistent with public's understanding of atoms and lasers) is that most people have extremely limited interest in things that that don't directly affect them or where their opinion doesn't really change anything, even if it does affect them.
And notwithstanding MountaionLions's belief that he himself has seen vast climate change in his 40-year life, it strains credulity to believe that many people can have personally noticed climate change, in light of the relatively small (and irregular) change so far compared to normal weather change.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!