Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
"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?"
Yup, look at the Ocean. Hard to believe man has fished out something like %80 of the big fish in it eh?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html
"
Only 10 percent of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—are left in the sea, according to research published in today's issue of the scientific journal Nature.
"From giant blue marlin to mighty bluefin tuna, and from tropical groupers to Antarctic cod, industrial fishing has scoured the global ocean. There is no blue frontier left," said lead author Ransom Myers, a fisheries biologist based at Dalhousie University in Canada. "Since 1950, with the onset of industrialized fisheries, we have rapidly reduced the resource base to less than 10 percent—not just in some areas, not just for some stocks, but for entire communities of these large fish species from the tropics to the poles."
"The impact we have had on ocean ecosystems has been vastly underestimated,"
so below, also above
PEace
Karl
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Al Gore said it well " When someones paycheck depends on his not
understanding something you can be fairly certain he will 'not'
understand it."
IPCC working groups publish lots of charts but don't ever want you to see 'this' one because it shows how insignificant Human activity is to Global Climate Change.
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
Sprocketville
|
|
If we can not fix it and we all die, then the theories will not matter.
I see the opposing sides as a non-confront to the real issue.
a stall out, so to speak. because of the enormous task at hand.
So, what we need to do is this.
1)forget what is causing it
2)work on ways to fix it.
a)determine if we can fix it
b)determine if mother nature is going to fix it (ie:more clouds=cooler earth)
c)predict a temperature graph for the next 1000 years
d) from the graph, figure out if we need to evacuate of just adapt
not an easy task.
for the latest on ice melting:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/
the solution i am working on is a way to speed up the earth's rotation by a few nano seconds.
ok on 3, everybody move one foot east.
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
I must be too stupid to understand the causation or "human forcing" of climate change. Or as was said above I'm a "F*#king Idiot"
Maybe here is another way to ask for evidence: why can't someone explain the proof for human forced climate change in a relatively straightforward way?
In other words, why is it so complex to understand whether we need to make drastic changes in human behavior or not?
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Found the budget expenditures for the IPCC since its
creation.
The IPCC charter stipulates its to only analyze peer reviewed
papers and use them to prepare reports every 5 years or so!
Check out how much traveling these people are doing and how much
is spent on meetings! A gravy train ride? Couldn't they sit at home and pull the info off the web? No..gotta go to the
The Ritz-Carlton Bahrain for IPCC meeting again.
IPCC Budget
http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session29/doc3.pdf
IPCC should be closed down due to unscientific behavior! Some fun
stuff in this one
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/11/ipcc_member_cal.html
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
Dear Mr Chopper
Although water vapor has spectral properties that make it a 'Greenhouse Gas' (i.e. it is in vibrational part of the E-M spectrum), the claim that it contributes to global radiative forcing is predicated on the notion that atmosphere is an isostatic system.
It isn't.
The atmosphere has distinct and different strata; the boundary layer and the troposphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere, and a bunch of other 'spheres' that we only care about if we are designing or communicating with satellites. Longwave radiation is emitted upwards from each strata to the next one; the surface warms the troposphere, the troposphere emits longwave radiation to the stratosphere, and so in until some of that longwave radiation goes into space.
The amount of water vapor in the upper troposphere, say about 7 km above the surface, is 0, zip, nada. The atmosphere is too cold to allow even minimal evaporation. This means that in the levels at which the terrestrial system releases energy to space, H2O has long since ceased to be an issue.
Water vapor is, of course, an important feedback in tropospheric dynamics because of its clear influence on cloud physics, surface heating and tropical convection, but it doesn't work as a greenhouse gas in the way that well-mixed chemicals like CO2 and methane do.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
for 20 years the total budget is about $82 Million US
that's $4M per year travel budget.... planning for the 2011 report has something like 500 trips per year... $8000/trip, which is a very good number for international travel.
These costs are not unusual for a large international scientific collaboration.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Xela,
I'm trying to answer a different question from the one you're posing. You're looking at the levels we need for stabilization. I'm trying to prove that the economic decisions this implies are worth it.
As one (pro-environmentalist) law school professor said to my class about thirty years ago, "the environmental scientists give us a lot of data -- all of it useless." What he meant was that we're trying to justify economic decisions with non-economic data. I'm in the process of taking the scientific data and the economic data, and then trying to measure marginal costs of action vs. inaction. Until the marginal cost of action exceeds that of inaction, we should be acting. Once it doesn't (and at some point it won't) we need to stop.
You cannot convince those that resist action (as opposed to science) without this information.
John
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
John,
I think you're onto the real way to approach it.
thx for the insight.
M
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 9, 2009 - 02:47pm PT
|
Great thought process John.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
"Maybe here is another way to ask for evidence: why can't someone explain the proof for human forced climate change in a relatively straightforward way?
In other words, why is it so complex to understand whether we need to make drastic changes in human behavior or not?"
I think there are a couple of answers to this.
1. It is a complex problem. Various researchers work on specialized components such as: analysing atmospheric records in antartic ice cores, studying effects of aerosoles, refining computer models to take into account high altitude clouds... And then you have other more "generalists" trying to look at the big picture and put it all together.
Just because this is a really big deal to the future of society, doesn't mean you will be able to give accurate, convincing, sound bite answers. DDT and mercury poisoning are big deals also, but the science isn't a simple soundbite. Global warming is a much more complicated system than that. That doesn't mean that it can't be well understood, but it doesn't lend itself to simple explanations.
2. There is really big money at stake. Really big. Big, big.
I mentioned it before but I will continue the analogy. Scientists by the mid-60's had very clear evidence that smoking causes cancer. Big tobacco worked very hard to discredit that for decades. At first, they were able to keep scientific bodies from stating that smoking causes cancer. But even after they lost that battle, they were still able to keep a little bit of doubt in the mind of the public. So even after most people thought smoking probably caused cancer, a smoker who thought about quitting would hear these "doubts" and think, well gee, if they don't really know 100% for sure, maybe I will just sort of put off this hard decision and bury my head in the sand about the consequences of smoking... And there are plenty of interest groups (Big Oil for starters, Big Coal next, self-deluded citizens third) that have a big economic interest in spreading (or wishful believing in) "doubt".
So, when some commuter hears talk about a $.50 gas tax, suddenly he is much more receptive to some talk show guest spouting off about "doubts" about man induced global warming. Or alternately bury his guilt by thinking that the chinese aren't doing their part either.
As another aside, the www.realclimate.org is geared toward scientists who want to understand which issues really are in doubt and which "doubts" have been discredited. Some of it can be on the technical side. It explicitly stays out of politics, makes no recommendations or comments on what actions should or shouldn't be taken. It just tries to lay out the "best science" and occasionally debunks some issue making the rounds of the chattering classes.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 9, 2009 - 04:07pm PT
|
Just got this little quote from realclimate.org
Advocacy vs. Science
The advocate will pick up any piece of apparently useful data and without doing any analysis, decide that their pet theory perfectly explains any anomaly without consideration of any alternative explanations. Their conclusion is always that their original theory is correct.
The scientist will look at all possibilities and revise their thinking based on a thorough assessment of all issues - data quality, model quality and appropriateness of the the comparison. Their conclusion follows from the analysis whatever it points to.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
And beyond that little quote, did you get some of the science they're talking about?
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 9, 2009 - 05:56pm PT
|
just started the bit on the Wilkins ice shelf update........
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 9, 2009 - 07:32pm PT
|
Wes,
You gotta admit you can't just take the C-12 numbers and the temp increase and say bada-bing-bada-bam, man causes global meltdown. Hopefully you aren't doing this. There are hundreds of other variables.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
The ice core data tells us that the CO2 level has been going up and down for the last 800,000 years preceded by the temperature.
First the temperature goes up and years later the CO2 level goes up.
Then the temperature goes down and years later the CO2 goes down.
All without 6 billion humans on the planet burning hydrocarbons
except for this last cycle which is well within the norm for all the other ups and downs.
But you're not gonna get a research grant/job saying that, now are you?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
CC, I guess you don't read the science?
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
hei Chiloe - have any time to read IPCC reports during your
ice storm last December?
Seriously, its the sin of omission that the GCC minions are committing.
|
|
tdk
climber
puhoynix
|
|
If you truly want the "right-wing skeptics" viewpoint, a good starting point with lots of solid links can be found here.
Plenty of books too, try these authors:
Roy Spencer
Patrick J Michaels
Bjorn Lomborg
Lawrence Solomon
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!