Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 01:32pm PT
|
The 'hiatus' is surface air temps, not ocean temps, Chief.
You do know the graph below is ocean temps, not surface air temps, right Chief?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 01:35pm PT
|
Good one Bruce.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 01:44pm PT
|
Enjoy your fantasy world for a few more days, Chief.
Anderson, are you saying thermoclines don't exist in the oceans because the average temp has increased 'only' .18F?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 01:57pm PT
|
Chiloe, you never answered where all that CO2 came from in past era's if not volcanism.
Posing again? I gave you 3 references to recent, state-of-the-art papers addressing that question with respect to Antarctic glacial-interglacial transitions, which is what your talking point was about. But you knew from your politics, without reading the papers, that all three "were just rehashes of previous suppositions dressed up as studies." Not true at all but you science-proofed your head there.
I gave another reference to a paper that took a longer view including the rise of CO2 at the PETM. But you could tell by your politics, without reading it, that the author is a "jokester." Not true either, but you're in no danger of learning.
And yet, your politics embrace Ian Plimer, he says things that other scientists know are false but you're very eager to believe.
How do you like Plimer's theory that El Nino and La Nina are caused by earthquakes and volcanoes?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 02:16pm PT
|
Here are the most recently published graphs showing ocean heat content and mean sea level:
source: NOAA
source: NOAA
source: University of Colorado
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 02:25pm PT
|
Didn't you hear... that is all just propaganda. Chief chuffs-a-lot said so. You should just take his word for it, cuz he said so. Anyone who disagrees with is opinion is mistaken, lying, or corrupt, cuz he said so. And any data that contradicts the diarrhea he spews forth was collected wrong, misinterpreted, or fabricated, cuz he said so. Peer review by experts who actually understand the subject material means nothing, cuz he said so.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 02:35pm PT
|
I called him [me] names years ago and I regret it.
Wes, I don't remember that. We've disagreed, but I never felt like you posted anything abusive toward me. I've always enjoyed your posts, and missed them when you were away. One of the wonderful things about Tacoland is that I can feel like someone I've never met in person, like you, is my friend.
John
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 02:36pm PT
|
Sure Ron. In the oceans the average depth of the permanent or stable thermocline is approximately 700m. You are one of the stupid people who don't know the difference between the seasonal thermocline (influenced by seasonal temperature variations) and the permanent or stable thermocline (influenced by longer term temperature variations). As a result, you are incapable of comprehending how scientists determine that number with clearly defined margins of error and KNOW that the temperature is increasing with a reported level of CERTAINTY. It requires at least 9th grade math skills.
Any more questions?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 02:43pm PT
|
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 03:01pm PT
|
The original question, Larry, was about the temporal relationship of CO2 increases to temp increases. The answers from the papers, Larry, were previous suppositions to explain away that the stubborn refusal in the proxy records ( Antarctic ice cores specifically) for temps to rise in response to increased CO2 instead of the exact opposite that is indicated in the proxy reconstructions. The weakest of the arguments was that global warming was not global as far as Antarctica. You then introduced the point that volcanism is a minor player compared to anthropogenic as far as CO2 increase goes, which brings us to the problem of past era's- absent anthropogenic contribution, and considering the supposition that CO2 increases beget temp increases, where exactly did the CO2 increases of the past come from?
Your guys spent considerable effort in putting words in Plimer's mouth that didn't originate from him.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 03:15pm PT
|
The Fet,
I'm not sure where the "media balance" cartoon came from, but they don't know economists well, since they confuse an economist with a denialist. Most economists I know, anyway, think that AGW is real, for what that's worth. To an economist, the issue is what we do about it. Economists would oppose a statement to the effect "whatever we do to ameliorate it is worth it," for example, because it fails to consider marginal costs and benefits. There is nothing in economic theory or practice, however, that causes us to ignore science or technology.
John
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 03:31pm PT
|
The answers from the papers, Larry, were previous suppositions to explain away that the stubborn refusal in the proxy records ( Antarctic ice cores specifically) for temps to rise in response to increased CO2 instead of the exact opposite that is indicated in the proxy reconstructions.
Still haven't read or tried to understand them, eh? But with your political certainty, there's no need to.
The weakest of the arguments was that global warming was not global as far as Antarctica.
That's weak alright, because you got it straight backwards. Antarctic temperatures are partly local not global.
You then introduced the point that volcanism is a minor player compared to anthropogenic as far as CO2 increase goes, which brings us to the problem of past era's- absent anthropogenic contribution, and considering the supposition that CO2 increases beget temp increases, where exactly did the CO2 increases of the past come from?
What a gish gallop! I made that point (citing Gerlach) about volcanism vs. anthropogenic CO2 in recent decades. You tried to counter with Plimer who turns out to be quackish, then launched off to the Deccan flows 65 million years ago, making up some accusations about what I said (AFAIK, nothing on that topic). As for "where exactly did the CO2 increases of the past come from," that depends on which increases, doesn't it? The ice core time lags discussion all has to do with the last few glacial cycles, and the papers I cited -- which you dismiss without trying to understand -- have some answers.
Your guys spent considerable effort in putting words in Plimer's mouth that didn't originate from him.
Unlike you, I don't make my facts up.
"Prof Plimer also argued El Nino and La Nina were caused by major processes of earthquake activity and volcanic activity in the mid-ocean ridges, rather than any increase in greenhouse gases."
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/archive/news/mankind-cant-influence-climate/story-e6frez7r-1111113327820
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 04:21pm PT
|
Most economists I know, anyway, think that AGW is real, for what that's worth. To an economist, the issue is what we do about it.
I just thought that cartoon was a funny summary of the arguments in this topic. But yeah it should have been denialist not "an economist".
And I agree the issue is what we do about it. But to many on the right that is NOT the issue. They are claiming the issue doesn't even exist, it's a fabrication of some global agenda to take away people's rights.
It's funny but also sad and frustrating to see people manipulated into thinking other people are being manipulated. The manufactured doubt industry is toying with these people like puppets. I would feel bad for them if they weren't such willing puppets.
The same tactics and even the same PR companies sowed doubt for:
Tobacco and lung cancer
CFCs and the Ozone layer
and now AGW
How can they do that as a living (sow doubt) and live with themselves?
How can people buy into their B.S.? They must really want to believe it, because anyone with any objectivity should easily see the ridiculousness of what they say.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 05:03pm PT
|
How can people buy into their B.S.? They must really want to believe it
Exactly, because any rational response is expensive. Those who don't want to pay now find it easier to deny than to go through the rigor (and rather great difficulty) of trying to determine what steps are and are not worth doing.
Ironically, by taking the denialist approach, they risk making themselves irrelevant in the debate determining the appropriate responses. If I've learned anything in life, it's this: dealing with reality always beats denying it (with apologies to Adam Savage on Mythbusters ["I reject your reality and substitute my own."], but he was being tongue-in-cheek).
John
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 23, 2013 - 05:46pm PT
|
How can they do that as a living (sow doubt) and live with themselves?
That, my friend, is one of the great mysteries in my life. How on Earth do those folks sleep, or look at their kids?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 05:46pm PT
|
Your reference for Ian Plimer's volcanism causing El Nino, La Nina was a 2007 article that interpreted what he said at a meeting, not an interview and not his 2009 book, Larry. And no I didn't get it straight backwards, the paper said Antarctica's climate didn't necessarily follow global climate i.e. global warming is not global as far as Antarctica, as you guys are finding out about this region among many others. Now, Larry, the past certainly does have a bearing on the future even if CO2 has been in a remarkably low range for the last 400,000 glacial era years. What causes increased atmospheric CO2 if you rule out anthropogenic and geological sources as primary causation? Also, hasn't CO2 atmospheric content varied from 220 to 320 ppm in the last 100,000 years? What could cause such a swing?
Isn't there really a lot more that is poorly understood or unknown about causation and effects of climate change than is currently known?
JEleazarian- the steps are already being taken, independent of the scientific hysterics and plutoons of economists. The answer lies right under our feet, with our waters, and within the atom. The U.S. has already reduced CO2 emissions to 1990 levels without being signatory to any of the CAGW treaties. You won't believe me so check for yourself-it's called "awareness and natural market forces".
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 08:32pm PT
|
Bruce, Rong used his fish finder to identify the thermocline in some lakes... so he KNOWS all about ocean thermoclines... and KNOWS the countless professionals are wrong. Just like he KNOWS there are no warm water fish species along the west shore of Lake Tahoe, despite multiple snorkel surveys that identified them there. Imagine what scientists would KNOW if they could just get their hands on Rong's fish finder...
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 09:01pm PT
|
nice, JohnE
well said
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2013 - 09:10pm PT
|
BIG Report on Climate Change Due Out Friday:
The fifth assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which has concluded human-caused global warming is more of a certainty than the fourth assessment published in 2007 had said—will be released Friday.
Technically speaking, what will be released is that part of the assessment produced by Working Group I, along with a 20-page summary. This will be followed over the next 14 months by reports from the other working groups.
Findings? Human-caused global warming is all-but-certain, temperatures have risen nearly a degree in the past hundred years and will continue to rise, sea levels are rising and will continue to rise, ice in glaciers and in the Arctic is dwindling, and weather has become and will continue becoming more extreme. On all that there is widespread agreement. On the details differences remai n.
Known by the shorthand of AR5, the U.N. fifth assessment is the work of more than 200 leading scientists embodying the findings of more than 9,000 peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. The IPCC has upped the odds of humans being the cause of global warming from the 90 percent noted in the fourth assessment published in 2007 to 95 percent.
Leading the denier effort is the oil- coal- and rightwing foundation-fueled Heartland Institute. As reported by Katherine Bagley at the Pulitzer prize-winning InsideClimate News, Heartland has released its own 1,200-page study, the cutely named Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. You might remember Heartland's notorious campaign tying those who accept the scientific findings about global warming with Unabomber Ted Kacyznski. The nastiness of Heartland's public discourse is a match for its scientific "research."
In a conference call last week, the cautious chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra K Pachauri, said that he has high confidence in the fifth assessment:
"There will be enough information provided so that rational people across the globe will see that action is needed on climate change." [...]
"I really wouldn't want to say anything about any perceived effort for a pushback," he went on. "We are doing our job and we are reasonably confident that rational people in government and all over the world will see the merit of the work that has been done."
The trouble, as Pachauri knows but was too kind and diplomatic to point out, is that the U.S. government is brimful of irrational people on many issues, and especially when it comes to global warming.
The IPCC remains very conservative in its global warming calculations. Too conservative, according to Joe Romm at ClimateProgress, who has often complained that all the IPCC's assessments have been out of date before they are published. He recently wrote about the latest obsolescence:
“Every climate scientist I’ve spoken to has said we will blow past 550 [parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere] if we continue to put off action. Indeed, we’re on track for well past 800 ppm. And a 2012 study found that the carbon feedback from the thawing permafrost alone will likely add 0.4°F – 1.5°F to total global warming by 2100.
So the alarming disruption in our previously stable, civilization-supporting climate depicted in the top figure is our future. On our current emissions path, the main question the [equilibrium climate sensitivity] answers is whether 9°F warming happens closer to 2080, 2100, or 2120—hardly a cause for any celebration. Quite the reverse. Warming beyond 7F is “incompatible with organized global community, is likely to be beyond ‘adaptation’, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems & has a high probability of not being stable (i.e. 4°C [7F] would be an interim temperature on the way to a much higher equilibrium level,” as climate expert Kevin Anderson explains here.
One of the key recent attacks of the denier crowd hasn't been directly on the AR5, but rather on recent reports regarding Arctic ice. The fact that the minimum summer coverage of the ice was significantly greater than the minimum in 2012 spurred the notoriously denier Daily Mail newspaper to publish David Rose's article. Thus, he and other journalists implied, all the scientific conclusions about melting polar caps are wrong.
That bogus view emerges from a failure to understand the summer melt of Arctic ice doesn't set records every year. The minimum covers more or less area one year than the next. For 2012, a rise was predicted by 80 percent of climate scientists who weighed in on the subject. But that rise doesn't mean the melting trend has changed direction. That trend has been steadily downward for decades.
Moreover, the ice coverage the denier journalists latched onto in their reporting is surface ice. Volume matters. A lot. And the volume is far less than it was just 10 years ago. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/23/1240842/-Deniers-working-hard-on-their-lies-to-trash-UN-climate-report-in-advance-of-its-Friday-release
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!