Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2010 - 03:33pm PT
|
Scientists explore link between dust, snowpack
Researcher Tom Painter, director of the Snow Optics Laboratory at the University of Utah. “Areas that are actively disturbed release 1,000 times more dust,” Painter said, adding that dust layers in 2009 caused the snow pack to melt 45 to 48 days earlier than normal.
http://thewesterner.blogspot.com/2009/09/scientists-explore-link-between-dust.html
THE DENVER CO CLIMATE SUMMARY FOR THE YEAR OF 2009. .... IT HAD SLIGHTLY BELOW NORMAL TEMPERATURES AND GREATLY APPRECIATED ABOVE NORMAL PRECIPITATION. ...
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/?n=annualsum09
..not good news for the global warming scammers. Ag dust pollution
and black carbon can be linked to retreating glaciers, and not to CO2.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2010 - 05:28pm PT
|
well, there are enough credentialed scientists to keep me skeptical...and, i read something relative to the thread, and i post it...if what i post has faults, especially scientific since that's the crux of your criticism, then respond...or just criticize me
and i do understand the politics very well...first "the science was settled" (which is strange enough for scientists to say)...then the scientists lied, destroyed data, and manipulated the peer-review process to silence dissent (but they were just a few scientists compared to the thousands of the ipcc)...now the ipcc (and the many bureacrats who are members) acknowledge that one of their primary alarmist claims is not only false, but not even based on peer-reviewed science
not exactly a sound basis for pursuing economically crippling legislation
|
|
REIGN 1
Trad climber
Mt. Woodson, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2010 - 09:58pm PT
|
The guy that started the weather channel is a weatherman in san diego. Last thursday he had an hour show that proved the climate warming buisness is just that, a business. Is Al gore a scientist? Nope, He praises his professor from college as the guy that regonized global warming. That scientist has changed his opinon on it. Back in the 60's I remember watching jets take off from the airport and looking at all the black exhaust drifting in the wind. Driving to L.A. my eyes would water and hurt. We've come along way from those days. The earth warms and cools. The trees live on carbon dioxide(sp), We breathe the oxygen. The world revolves around the sun. The one thing that will end life on earth for sure if the sun decides to quit working.
|
|
climbingjones
Trad climber
grass valley,ca
|
|
|
Jan 17, 2010 - 10:07pm PT
|
from ED:
...also, you only post links to this debate from one point of view, that doesn't seem to be indicative of an interest in understanding, but rather of advocacy...
Really ed?One track minded koolaid drinkers like dr.f do exactly that over and over and over and over, but thats okay I guess? The "science" of global warming is not science. It is cherry picked data, pieced together Michael Moore style. Have any of you dolts ever heard of a pig fvker named Maurice Strong? He is considered the godfather of the environmental movement, and a billionaire industrialist (read:oil dimwits). You guys hate those right? He has gotten even richer off of the whole carbon credit scam. He was with the UN until being busted in the oil for food scandal a few years ago and has had his hand in cherry picking data for UN climate reports. One things you suckers dont seem to get is that science requires a provable conclusion, which there is not in the global warming debate.
If you think this "global warming" scam is about more than controlling how you live, you are as foolish as you sound. You are all so brainwashed that you cant imagine that a little thing like the SUN might have an impact on climate? Jesus! I find it sooooo hilarious that the weather guys cant tell you with certainty what the weather will be tomorrow, but goddammit these so-called "scientists" dare to tell us what it will be like in 100 years. Really?
Here is one bit of undeniable science for you, the earth has been both WARMER and COLDER long before we were here.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2010 - 12:00pm PT
|
The glacier scientists I know all seem to like their jobs, out there on the ice or back at the lab trying to figure out what it all means. It does look like cool work, although hard.
A "background support presentation" prepared for NASA's Dec 14 press conference on black carbon & aerosols is dense with information, highlighting for me the difficulty of reducing good science to sound bites that will get echoed accurately on the Web. Here's just their first slide:
Why this presentation was produced.
 A series of media and science errors has produced confusion about the actual state of Himalayan glaciers (slides 40-42).
Some errors exaggerate the rate of melting, and others go the other way and errantly claim climatic insensitivity of glaciers.
A planned NASA press conference (which occurred Dec. 14*) appeared likely to reproduce and reinforce some of those errors, and this had to be avoided.
The lead author of this presentation was asked to join the press conference as a guest panelist (not part of the team whose work was to be featured).
A nuanced perspective on Himalayan glaciers, and the effects of glacier changes on water resources and other matters, is necessary; reality is complex. Oversimplification, exaggeration, or ignoring serious matters can be consequential.
An expert team has been assembled to build the case and buttress statements by Kargel that the glaciers will not disappear by 2035, but that they are melting rapidly in some areas and responding differently to climate change in other areas of the Himalaya/Hindu Kush (including some glacier advances).
This effort has expanded now to present a more complete view for the benefit of scientists as well as the media and public.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2010 - 12:02pm PT
|
And here's their second slide (I'll stop now, but there are 44 more).
- We will show examples of:
Wasting, disintegrating glacier tongues
Stagnating tongues that are thinning but have stably positioned termini
A surging glacier
Total Himalayan mass balance is distinctly negative; some anomalies may exist.
There is complexity in glacier parameters, e.g., glacier area, types, and debris-cover, and in how they relate to the integrated Earth system.
Glacier responses and response times depend on climate, topographic characteristics, and unique aspects of each glacier, e.g., debris cover and types and sizes of lakes.
There may be a geographic pattern to aspects of the glacier dynamical complexity.
Glaciologists and climatologists have partial explanations for what is happening (but much is still not known or understood):
Anthropogenic emissions (gases and aerosols) affect the global climate system and regional transport/precipitation of moisture.
Regional variation in Elevated Heat Pump (EHP), Monsoons, and Westerlies.
We attempt to correct recent media and space agency errors and summarize and quantify some more realistic rates of glacier retreat and impacts on water resources.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2010 - 12:12pm PT
|
Coincidentally, I've been working with researchers in 3 states this weekend on a proposal about climate, carbon and snow.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2010 - 12:56pm PT
|
IPCC eats crow on glacier scare report.
IPCC’s Himalayan Glacier Forecast Is Melting!
By: Bradley Fikes — January 17th, 2010
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change looks likely to retract its much-ballyhooed forecast that global warming climate change will melt most Himalayan glaciers by 2035, according to the UK Sunday Times.
Instead of the glaciers melting, the IPCC’s authority may be melting away, due to the flimsy evidence backing up one of its most sensational statements.
The IPCC, created by the United Nations, is supposed to rely on peer-reviewed scientific studies in its various reports. However, the source of the prediction was so flimsy as to be nearly non-existent, according to the Sunday Times:
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
more..
http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6681
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2010 - 01:11pm PT
|
[quote]IPCC eats crow on glacier scare report.
IPCC’s Himalayan Glacier Forecast Is Melting!
By: Bradley Fikes — January 17th, 2010
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change looks likely to retract its much-ballyhooed forecast that global warming climate change will melt most Himalayan glaciers by 2035, according to the UK Sunday Times.
Instead of the glaciers melting, the IPCC’s authority may be melting away, due to the flimsy evidence backing up one of its most sensational statements.
The IPCC, created by the United Nations, is supposed to rely on peer-reviewed scientific studies in its various reports. However, the source of the prediction was so flimsy as to be nearly non-existent, according to the Sunday Times:
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
more..
http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=6681[/quote]
Yawn.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
Monrovia, CA
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2010 - 10:45am PT
|
Base, nice post. Some guy named Maslow brought up the
population issues 65 years ago but did anybody, besides
the chinese, listen or suggest doing anything about it?
No, because all economies are predicated upon growth.
Thank heavens the chinese listened or there would be two
billion of them now.
The Pentagon is probably the leading organization which
has addressed the population/dwindling resource dynamic.
Lock and load folks!
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2010 - 08:23pm PT
|
what's worse than a climate change "scientist" profitting from the agw hysteria at the expense of american taxpayers?
how about the head of the ipcc profitting from agw hysteria at the expense of the american taxpayers...
"Pachauri, the IPCC chief, is under attack on another front, as well, as newspaper reports in India have commented repeatedly on his reportedly lavish lifestyle. TERI receives funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, both of which did not respond to requests for comment from FoxNews.com. Reports indicate that there also are concerns in the United Kingdom surrounding 10 million British pounds in funding for TERI, and questions about TERI's objectivity."
here's the whole article:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/20/panels-glacier-disaster-claims-melting-away/
that's right, it's from FOX! will you attack the messenger or refute the claims?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 20, 2010 - 08:47pm PT
|
what's worse than a climate change "scientist" profitting from the agw hysteria at the expense of american taxpayers?
Trick question? Naw...
Wall Street hedge fund managers and bankers profiting at the expense of the American taxpayer. Or, Oil company CEOs, who enjoy billions in tax "incentives."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE51P5XI20090226
Do I hear you grip about those guys?
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2010 - 08:53pm PT
|
well, my post is in response to the claim made here that NOBODY profits from agw hysteria, especially not scientists
but, yes, i griped about tarp and all the bailouts
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2010 - 09:07pm PT
|
The sooner the Earth's population self regulates the better.
Raise your hand if you want it to continue growing forever: ???
Right. No takers I hope.
Continual unending multiple worldwide disasters would be preferred at slowing
the population growth rather than warfare; no revenge factor possible then.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2010 - 12:22pm PT
|
May i try to make Ed's point in a slightly different way? We should judge purported scientific results by the science presented. Those of us who think Mann, for example, has engaged in some "political science" cannot rely on that argument to discredit his scientific publications.
As damning as some of the Climategate emails sound, merely citing them does not refute the conclusions of those authors. It merely shows a strong personal belief (I could probably say bias, but that word is too loaded for this discussion) in a particular matter. The way you refute a researcher's work is to present contradictory, confirmable, duplicatable research.
This goes for all sides of any controversy. Just as it's not enough to say that Michael Mann receives money for research, it's also not enough to say that a different researcher gets industry funding and thereby dismiss their conclusions. We need to look at the science with scientifically skeptical eyes.
I'm not saying this has or has not been done in Mann's case. I had great concerns with the statistical validity of his original models, but others have already pursued, and continue to pursue, that issue.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2010 - 01:58pm PT
|
Agreed, Ed. I used the past tense about my reservations because I had access through the literature to the research that answered my questions. Some posters on this Board (particularly Chiloe) helped greatly in this regard, by the way.
My statistical view is still not precisely the same as Mann's and others' (they use a more classical statistical approach, I use a more Bayesian one when dealing with what I call "specification searches,") but the statistical discrepancies merely reflect imperfect knowledge, not an absence of knowledge.
The fact that the funding process for government dollars is more open still does not, to my mind, change the need to subject all results to the normal scientific testing process. If someone paid for by the coal lobby publishes a study with data contradicting Mann's results, for example, it's still a non-sequitur to say that Mann must be right because he got his funding from the government.
John
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 06:52am PT
|
http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/copenhagen-accord-on-climate-c
the gist:
none of the countries at copenhagen have submitted plans for how they intend to cut emissions...NONE!
the tool in charge declares that the u.s. will be "held" to the promises made by barry...clearly this tool understands the american government as well as many of the posters here...at least al gore got one thing correct: "Signing the Protocol, while an important step forward, imposes no obligations on the United States."
so, despite the fact the senate never ratified kyoto and clinton never even sent it to the floor BUT america cut emissions MORE than any kyoto signee during the BUSH administration WITHOUT any economy-destroying legislation, you still want barry to pass the crippling cap-n-tax and give BILLIONS of dollars to the third world where there are NO environmental regulations at all and simultaneously allow china and india to keep INCREASING emissions
see, our skepticism is not just about the science...it's even more about the politics and the economy...science was so much more attractive when it was still rational
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 10:24am PT
|
Ed Hartouni:
on the ARRA funded research proposal of Mann,
one explanation would be that his proposal was judged worthy of support based on its science
An article by Mann and colleagues describing their most recent findings on "Global signatures and dynamical origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly" was cited earlier in this thread by Ed and me. That article was published last fall in Science, the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I doubt many denialists read the piece, because unlike actual scientists they "know" on political grounds that whatever it says must be false.
Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly
Michael E. Mann,1,* Zhihua Zhang,1 Scott Rutherford,2 Raymond S. Bradley,3 Malcolm K. Hughes,4 Drew Shindell,5 Caspar Ammann,6 Greg Faluvegi,5 Fenbiao Ni4
Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific. The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!