Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Flashlight
climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 01:40am PT
|
Are George H.W. and Barbara humans?
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 01:52am PT
|
The figure of $450 was produced by Milton Copulos...name ring a bell? He was the principal energy analyst for the Heritage Foundation..... that well know Bastion of Liberal and environmentally conscious thought.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Social climber
valley center, ca
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 01:56am PT
|
i'm still saying let us stop talking and do. why discuss the difficulties over and over. if we sent people to the moon (didn't we? maybe) let's develope a strategy...one problem at a time...and solve it as a people....don't think the elected (bought and paid for) politicians will. We can clearly see the track record of the last 16 years.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 01:59am PT
|
oh...probably the percentage of people that used
paperless electronic voting machines in the last elections.
my apologies to flashlight and dirtbag. The entertainment value
of their posts on this thread should not of been sullied by this
poor comic:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=9iqu6x&s=4
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 03:17am PT
|
"Karl,
Believe it or not, we say the same thing. Don't just measure the marginal cost of reducing carbon emissions, measure the marginal cost of not doing so. I called the latter quantity the marginal benefit of carbon emissions reduction in earlier posts. "
It's a reasonable approach. Sadly, if oil depletes too suddenly, people will demand ANY energy that can be scaled up in the quickest time, like coal gassification and they will throw global warming out the window.
Just like they threw their freedoms out the window after 9-11.
Unless we change on a deeper level than I'm seeing now
peace
Karl
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 10:17am PT
|
Lynne Leichtfuss: The question you should be asking yourself is - why am I waiting.
If you wait for everyone else to come on board - as you can see for yourself from this thread - the ship will be sunk while you're still waiting.
Some folks simply won't change. Grab a lifeboat, gather the folks you can, and start rowing.
I did.
GO
|
|
Jim E
climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 12:13pm PT
|
What harm would be done if we try to do something about global warming whether it exists or not, whether it's human caused or not?
If you say 'our economy would suffer', I say prove it.
Wouldn't there be a whole new emerging industry (it's actually already started) aimed towards the goal of slowing or reversing global warming?
Does it really matter if it's caused by man? Won't the end result be the same whatever the cause?
If it's OK to invade a country that is no threat at a cost of trillions of borrowed dollars, can't we spare a few billion to do something, anything?
I'm pretty sure there's a Flashlight in this box.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 12:19pm PT
|
Meanwhile, in Moscow today, the were 500 kilometers of cars stuck in traffic jams. (Supposedly Sao Paulo held the record at over 260 kilometers before today.) On a typical day Moscow has 650 traffic jams.
Boy, that must really blow. Stop and go all the while it is getting warm.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 12:22pm PT
|
The first mention that I could find of "Global Warming" is in this 2002 thread Best place to live and Climb?. Oddly, the "debate" heats up in this rather strange, for that time, political thread Food Stamps which launches a whole set of arguments, pro and con, regarding the notion of climate change. Perhaps the first time Jody rolls out his position on the matter is in the Chris Mac thread, the warmest Yosemite winter ever?. Interestingly, the arguments haven't gotten anymore nuanced, calcification might be a better description.
People seeking absolute truths should no look to science, there are none there. Science is a set of provisional descriptions, ever more refined, that seek to describe the physical world, the world that can be measured. The extent that science produces "truth" is by advancing predictions, or hypothesis, that are based on quantitative logic (a "theory") and calculate what will be, or show what is based on what was, and then tested by observation and experiment and either is shown to be incorrect or consistent, within a limited ability to make the measurements.
Science is not a democratic or otherwise consensus on what is true and what is false. In a very real sense, scientists believe the only authority is nature. A single graduate student sitting in a lab, or in an office, can have an insight that radically changes the scientific consensus... as well as a Nobel Prize winner... onto neither is conferred any authority that does not directly derive from nature, that is, the careful experimentation and observation, and then the logic connecting the results to the greater quantitative understanding of nature.
If you dig back through the SuperTopo Forum and look at the discussions of "Global Warming" you find that there is little to do with discussing scientific results and a lot to do with discussing a particular political point of view.
Scientists working on the issues for years and realizing that the consequence of what they were finding were not appreciated may have become political in bringing their work to the public eye. They were not doing science, per se, but "selling" science. Those interests that had a lot to loose as a consequence of those studies started "selling" their view. Ultimately these would be resolved either through scientific debate, or the consequences actually being realized.
Ultimately, how society responds to this information is political. Look at the recent financial crisis, which some would have said they predicted. Before the crash, small gov't advocates would strongly argue against any regulation, now even they say there should have been more regulation. They had won the argument, a political one, previously, but there is little to have been "won" in the result of those policies. Economics is a "dismal science," we have much better climate science.
The scientific world has not stood still in the intervening 5 years of this ongoing discussion on SuperTopo, yet the same arguments, mostly political, are trotted out in these discussions... uninformed by the advances.
Some say the are just "looking for the truth," and reject science not supporting their position labeling it "assumption." It is the most difficult thing to learn in science, to realize that you bring a particular point of view to the lab-bench, and to try to cast off those preconceptions to actually "listen to nature." The easiest person to fool is yourself. And so scientists learn to be skeptical and critical, and are vigilant not to "fool themselves." Unfortunately, too many people looking into this will not take the time to understand what the now huge body of work on climate and climate change is telling us, which is even more profound than the collapse of the environment due to green-house gas emissions. That has a root cause too...
|
|
Jim E
climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 12:23pm PT
|
"Meanwhile, in Moscow today, the were 500 kilometers of cars stuck in traffic jams. (Supposedly Sao Paulo held the record at over 260 kilometers before today.) On a typical day Moscow has 650 traffic jams."
Guess we should follow their lead then.
Maybe we should invade them.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 12:38pm PT
|
JimE,
Everything we do to lessen human impact on the climate takes away from something else we could be doing. For example, suppose that human activity is responsible for 1% of climate change. (DISCLAIMER: I am NOT saying this is true, and current scientific evidence strongly suggests otherwise). If we spend all our effort trying to end human effects on climate, we will be wasting resources that could be used more productively elsewhere, such as moving people who are about to get flooded when ocean levels rise.
As Ed points out, the real issues are political. I would argue they are economic, viz. how do we best use our scarce resources, given the information we currently have? Unfortunately, this decision requires comparing costs and benefits of various actions (including inaction).
Bottom line: "Doing something" could indeed be harmful if it takes resources that could be better used elsewhere. Hence, the debate.
John
|
|
Jim E
climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 12:58pm PT
|
John,
I would certainly believe (hope) that all things, including shifting of resources, would have to be part of an overall plan. Personally, I couldn't possibly begin to conceive such a plan. I'm simply not that sharp or influential. Obviously such a thing would/will require a massive global effort in planning and execution and would no doubt a futile endeavor. In the end, again, what do we stand to lose as a species?
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 01:56pm PT
|
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx
I'm sorry folks, but it looks like we may have to invest in some warm clothing soon.
Further, concerning the Sierra glaciers: "Geology of the Sierra Nevada" Mary Hill, University of California Press, 1975.
The Sierra glaciers are the product of the "Little Ice Age" and have been slowly melting since the end of that event. Previous to that, the Sierra glaciers had melted completely over the years since the end of the last Pleistocene glacial period.
The "Little Ice Age" (1700 to 1750). These are new glaciers. Then another warming and so on. It's been back and forth since the last major Pleistocene event.
Using the melting of glaciers anywhere in the world tells us little more than a cycle exists and has existed since the last major glaciation.
I know the GW/human responsibility will probably reject this, but the solar factor is now gaining serious attention.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 02:05pm PT
|
There's no certainty about the future, of course. Anthropogenic climate change might be mild, but it could also be faster and more damaging than any of the IPCC scenarios. In certain respects (e.g. Arctic melting) it seems already to be on a faster track. I disagree that "doing nothing" is an intelligent or conservative recommendation, based on the evidence we have.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 02:14pm PT
|
Jim E wrote:
> I would certainly believe (hope) that all things, including shifting of resources, would have to be part of an overall plan.
> Personally, I couldn't possibly begin to conceive such a plan. I'm simply not that sharp or influential. Obviously such a thing
> would/will require a massive global effort in planning and execution...
Again, I cannot disagree more strongly. The Boston Tea party was just a few crazies dressed as Indians. The Boston Massacre was a small mob. "Common Sense" was written by one man - Thomas Paine.
Actions by individuals and small groups can have big impacts. You don't have to wait for all of society to catch up.
GO
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 02:15pm PT
|
In the IPCC's most recent report of the Working Group I (Scientific Basis) there is a chapter outlining what the future research needs are. Woody points out that more work is being done, but it is important to note this is a part of the over all research program. Here is the link (which I have always tried to get people to read before posting their opinions, suspicions, etc) to Chapter 14. Advancing Our Understanding. Note that Woody's issues on the "solar component" are addressed in the third bullet, it is "radiative forcing."
Further work is required to improve the ability to detect, attribute, and understand climate change, to reduce uncertainties, and to project future climate changes. In particular, there is a need for additional systematic observations, modelling and process studies. A serious concern is the decline of observational networks. Further work is needed in eight broad areas:
-Reverse the decline of observational networks in many parts of the world. Unless networks are significantly improved, it may be difficult or impossible to detect climate change over large parts of the globe.
-Sustain and expand the observational foundation for climate studies by providing accurate, long-term, consistent data including implementation of a strategy for integrated global observations. Given the complexity of the climate system and the inherent multi-decadal time-scale, there is a need for long-term consistent data to support climate and environmental change investigations and projections. Data from the present and recent past, climate-relevant data for the last few centuries, and for the last several millennia are all needed. There is a particular shortage of data in polar regions and data for the quantitative assessment of extremes on the global scale.
-Understand better the mechanisms and factors leading to changes in radiative forcing; in particular, improve the observations of the spatial distribution of greenhouse gases and aerosols. It is particularly important that improvements are realised in deriving concentrations from emissions of gases and particularly aerosols, and in addressing biogeochemical sequestration and cycling, and specifically, in determining the spatial-temporal distribution of carbon dioxide (CO2) sources and sinks, currently and in the future. Observations are needed that would decisively improve our ability to model the carbon cycle; in addition, a dense and well-calibrated network of stations for monitoring CO2 and oxygen (O2) concentrations will also be required for international verification of carbon sinks. Improvements in deriving concentrations from emissions of gases and in the prediction and assessment of direct and indirect aerosol forcing will require an integrated effort involving in situ observations, satellite remote sensing, field campaigns and modelling.
-Understand and characterise the important unresolved processes and feedbacks, both physical and biogeochemical, in the climate system. Increased understanding is needed to improve prognostic capabilities generally. The interplay of observation and models will be the key for progress. The rapid forcing of a non-linear system has a high prospect of producing surprises.
-Address more completely patterns of long-term climate variability including the occurrence of extreme events. This topic arises both in model calculations and in the climate system. In simulations, the issue of climate drift within model calculations needs to be clarified better in part because it compounds the difficulty of distinguishing signal and noise. With respect to the long-term natural variability in the climate system per se, it is important to understand this variability and to expand the emerging capability of predicting patterns of organised variability such as El Niņo-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). This predictive capability is both a valuable test of model performance and a useful contribution in natural resource and economic management.
-Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.
-Improve the integrated hierarchy of global and regional climate models with a focus on the simulation of climate variability, regional climate changes, and extreme events. There is the potential for increased understanding of extremes events by employing regional climate models; however, there are also challenges in realising this potential. It will require improvements in the understanding of the coupling between the major atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial systems, and extensive diagnostic modelling and observational studies that evaluate and improve simulation performance. A particularly important issue is the adequacy of data needed to attack the question of changes in extreme events.
-Link models of the physical climate and the biogeochemical system more effectively, and in turn improve coupling with descriptions of human activities. At present, human influences generally are treated only through emission scenarios that provide external forcings to the climate system. In future more comprehensive models, human activities need to begin to interact with the dynamics of physical, chemical, and biological sub-systems through a diverse set of contributing activities, feedbacks, and responses.
Cutting across these foci are crucial needs associated with strengthening international co-operation and co-ordination in order to utilise better scientific, computational, and observational resources. This should also promote the free exchange of data among scientists. A special need is to increase the observational and research capacities in many regions, particularly in developing countries. Finally, as is the goal of this assessment, there is a continuing imperative to communicate research advances in terms that are relevant to decision making.
The challenges to understanding the Earth system, including the human component, are daunting, but these challenges simply must be met.
|
|
Jim E
climber
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 02:25pm PT
|
GO, I would hope you figure that I already do what I can. It's going to take a bit more than my tiny efforts to change the tide, though.
Edit to add: I agree with you in that we can each make an effort without having to be lead to do so.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 02:35pm PT
|
As for the Little Ice Age, there was a nifty piece about that in a recent issue of Science. The authors used the non-CO2-driven LIA climate events to estimate the impact of warming on CO2 (instead of vice versa), one part of the puzzle that's otherwise been hard to quantify.
The LIA data imply that atmospheric CO2 will increase more quickly with global warming than most models suggest. One implication is that the 20th-century CO2 rise due to anthropogenic emissions may have been amplified by 20 to 30 ppmv through the impacts of global warming on natural carbon sinks. Furthermore, the existence of a strong climate effect on the carbon cycle indicates that larger emissions cuts are required to stabilize CO2 concentrations at a given level. The LIA is just one example of a natural climatic anomaly in the past that can provide insights into the strength of the coupling between the Earth's climate and carbon cycle. Paleoclimatic data cannot tell us how to meet the challenge of managing 21st-century climate change, but they can help us to better understand the nature of this challenge.
|
|
WoodySt
Trad climber
Riverside
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 03:56pm PT
|
The irony relative to myself is that I agree with the GW believers in their desire for getting away from polluting our environment with fossil fuels. I further believe we should be doing all possible in the areas of wind, solar, nuclear etc. I see this as a problem related to finite resources, a cleaner environment and national security. However, I can't associate with the GW fanatics due to their repugnant and unconscionable behavior toward those that questioned their so-called "consensus" and those who put forth other hypotheses such as cyclical factors, solar etc. The moment they did that, I knew something must be very wrong. No debate and censor those who disagreed. You can usually count on fanatics to over reach. If, in the end, GW is attributed, primarily, to other factors beside human activity, the environmental movement will be severely damaged. That will be regrettable because we need them. We don't, however, need the fanatics taking over the movement and destroying their credibility.
We now have more genuine science coming to the fore and examining the issue. We will have, and should have had before, good science unencumbered by the "inquisition" that so recently tried to shut reasonable inquiry down.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2008 - 04:10pm PT
|
Yawn.
The science has been there for quite awhile, but lunkheads like you get in the way.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!