Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
WC
I've been cleaning up after Engineers and Scientists in multiple disciplines for several times longer than you've been alive.
Your kind of condescension at one time upset me.
Now I just shoot the stakeholders an email and sit back and wait for the sh#t to hit the fan.
It never splatters on me.
How about growing up and trying to disprove the hypothesis?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Ed, you have to admit these guys are pretty funny, in a pathetic sort of way.
Mounds of science, years of research, and countless hours spent studying the ACTUAL PHYSICS behind the processes... vs... random musings about what they believe might be the answer, followed by "but nobody knows, so your "guess" is as good as mine."
3 year olds are pretty funny too
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi
The hoaxers are solidly at phase 2; be careful when they move to phase 3, as they are well-funded, determined, and at least half-way intelligent. (OK this last sentence is just silliness on my part, but Gandhi's quote does seem to describe a certain condescending attitude from some of you.)
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
We have room for so much uncertainty precisely because we cannot rely on experimental data. The climate models are so complex because the climate itself is an exceedingly complex and chaotic system. Put differently, we can't measure the precise effect of an additional gram of CO2 released into the atomosphere because doing so would require a "control Earth," identical in all respects except for the release of the additional gram of CO2.
That's why we've looked at statistical data. When we deal with statistics, we necessarily deal with uncertainty and probability. Those in the technical fields of climatology must rely on statistical arguments to support or refute hypotheses. Since neither support nor refutation is a certainty, this allows others to question the results.
I hope that few would argue that there exist people on every side of the climate debate who are not disinterested. Their existence neither refutes nor supports the interpretations given. For example, I find several of the emails in "climategate" rather damning of certain individuals, but that doesn't change the data they cite, or the conclusions they draw. Same for researchers supported by the existing energy industries. Only other research can refute their studies.
Unfortunately, most of us lack the background to analyze the data and studies independently. As a result, we rely on reports from others about what the data say. It reminds me of the typical jury trial involving expert testimony. The jury understands neither expert, so they look for external clues to determine to whom they will listen, rather than try to understand what the experts are saying and which explanation better fits the facts presented.
We have the same thing going on in this thread. In a way, that's expectable, since we're dealing with rather esoteric climatalogical and statistical questions. The "read the references" argument won't work, because few people have that kind of time, and fewer still have the motivation (or the humility) to realize we don't know that much about what we're talking about.
I wish I had a solution, but sometimes, musing on the problem may help.
Carry on.
John
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
"But another answer is that although "global warming" refers to something real, the term confuses a lot of nonscientists, who think it must imply that every place on the globe is warming. Which of course is not so."
global: pertaining to the whole world; worldwide; universal
so, i guess the real question is who's responsible for the confusion: the ones who believe words have actual meanings? or the one's who don't know the meanings of the words they use? or, perhaps, the ones who know what words mean and intentionally misuse them to further a political agenda?
"Referring to "climate change" rather than "global warming" invites less confusion on this point, and also makes sense when describing regional climate and shifts in such things as precipitation, ocean currents, seasonality and so forth that are not well described as "global warming" -- although they might be related to it"
except, of course, nobody's talking about "regional" climate change but rather "climate change", which implies global (see definition above) change
still, the earth's climate has changed before (i.e. the real disappearing glaciers that used to cover significant portions of north america) and long before anyone built the first factory...and, now, we have one of the leading agw scientists acknowledging that the medieval warming period could have been warmer than current temps without a single factory...and we know both had positive results for humans, assuming you like humans, of course
anyway, i'll ask this: why hasn't anyone bothered to collate all of this incontrovertible data/research into a report that lay people can understand? see, i can't debate the science because i don't know enough beyond the fact that there are some very smart scientists who dispute the agw consensus...i'm primarily concerned with the politics; the agw "consensus" is pushing hugely significant economic policies--and it's not irrelevant to point out those being pushed are not scientists either but have their own personal agendas--that could, i believe, have immediate devastating consequences...and their response to "skeptics" has been to attack, hide/falsify data, and manipulate the peer-review process on which science depends for it's credibility...i mean, if the evidence is so overwhelming, wouldn't scientists welcome dissent, if for no other reason than to humiliate their opposition? and why aren't all scientists demanding greater oversight and harsher consequences for those who have severely damaged an entire profession?
it's like when the president calls a "summit" ostensibly to find some common ground on legislation that will affect 15% of the economy but then monopolizes the time (because he's the president) and ends the "summit" by saying, essentially, if you don't agree with us, we'll do what we want to do anyway
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
How about growing up and trying to disprove the hypothesis?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
The annotated Bookworm:
global: pertaining to the whole world; worldwide; universal
Umm, like an average?
so, i guess the real question is who's responsible for the confusion
Your post is very confused. Is someone else to blame?
except, of course, nobody's talking about "regional" climate change but rather "climate change", which implies global (see definition above) change
Try a Google search on "regional climate change," just to test your assertion that nobody is talking about it.
still, the earth's climate has changed before
Can you find one scientist alive on the planet today who thinks otherwise?
why hasn't anyone bothered to collate all of this incontrovertible data/research into a report that lay people can understand?
They have tried many times in many different ways. Why have you read none of it?
wouldn't scientists welcome dissent,
Dissent is common at scientific meetings, in the journals, or in bars where they gather. It's how things progress.
if for no other reason than to humiliate their opposition?
You're projecting, now.
why aren't all scientists demanding greater oversight and harsher consequences for those who have severely damaged an entire profession?
They would, if that were actually what had happened.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Sure, as soon as you provide a testable hypothesis.
I did.
Go back and read it again.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Another contribution to paleoclimatology. Huang et al. (2000),
"Temperature trends over the past five centuries reconstructed from borehole temperatures."
"Shaded areas represent 1 standard error about the mean. Superimposed are the corresponding series of instrumental surface air temperatures (SAT)6. Because the geothermal reconstruction is the concatenation of century-long trends, and the SAT anomaly series are referenced to the mean over the period 1961–90, we have shifted the SAT series along the temperature axis to enable an easy comparison of their respective trends. The SAT records have been shifted -0.20 K for the global series, -0.28 K for the Northern Hemisphere and -0.13 K for the Southern Hemisphere."
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
WC
Most people who died in auto accidents ate carrots in the previous month.
A strong correlation.
If you can't explain the mechanism the correlation is meaningless.
If all the 15um radiation is absorbed at 30m at typical atmospheric concentrations then CO2 doesn't adequately explain the warming. The one guy I cited (actual lab data NOT a simulation) comes up with an effect 1/80th of what is commonly claimed.
Explain the mechanism.
Enlighten us.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
One still wonders why smoking is allowed at all...
Wow, if a knowledge of science leads to promotion of a facism:
Screw it, I'd rather the world warm up a few degrees (as a Colorado rock (not ice) climber, wouldn't really bother me much).
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Ed--
Yes, I stand corrected, thanks.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
here's the other issue...you've got a bunch of "fear-mongerers" running around screaming, "the sky is falling" and using bogus evidence to prove agw and the "scientists" just allow it to continue
for example, barry tried to use vancouver's warm february temps during the olympics as proof of "climate change"; too bad nobody bothered to tell barry that vancouver's average feb temp is 45 degrees
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/02/newsflash-snowless-in-vancouver-is.html
rather than attacking the idiots for making such stupid comments, the "scientists" feed the beast by instead attacking those who point out the discrepancies between the claims and the data
hey, if agw is proven, then instead of charging me for energy why not take the billions and billions spent on research (why research something that has already been proven?) and conferences...isn't it fair for the person whose energy bills are going to (according to barry) "skyrocket" to demand some "sacrifices" from those demanding skyrocketing energy bills? hey, al, are you listening?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
bookworm:
for example, barry tried to use vancouver's warm february temps during the olympics as proof of "climate change"; too bad nobody bothered to tell barry that vancouver's average feb temp is 45 degrees
President Obama did not actually try to use Vancouver's weather as "proof" of anything. He cited it to illustrate points often made by researchers. If somebody told him this, then his advisors are doing their job well.
"I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn't mean that every place is getting warmer; it means the planet as a whole is getting warmer."
and
"The idea is, is that as the planet as a whole gets warmer, you start seeing changing weather patterns, and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather."
I took my own quick look at Vancouver records going back to 1937, which show the average February temperature is about 40 degrees. What's your source for the 45, was it really nofrakkingconsensusblogspot.com?
January 2010 was the warmest January in this record (back to 1937).
February 2010 was unusually warm too. Here's the daily graph; the red line at bottom marks the longterm February average.
A significant Jan-Feb warming trend appears in historical data; note the position of 2010.
Does Vancouver "prove" climate change? Of course not. It would be stupid to say that. And it's dishonest to accuse others of saying it when they didn't.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
He cited it to illustrate points often made by researchers.
What point(s) does the weather in Vancouver during the course of the Olympics illustrate?
Would the significantly colder-than-average weather that much of the US has faced for several months illustrate those same points, other points, or no points at all?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
blahblah, why don't you read it for yourself?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
here's the other issue...you've got a bunch of "fear-mongerers" running around screaming, "the sky is falling"
There's your problem. You listen to the most extremist of those on the other side of this issue (and other issues I'm sure) and think they represent the majority of those concerned with climate change. It's easy to refute crazy people.
It's like if I said "look at the right wing loonies who say chemicals don't destroy the ozone layer, seat belts don't save lives, cigarettes don't cause cancer, etc."
Most people concerned with climate change are concerned about the economic impacts our children will face, which will probably much more severe to deal with than cutting our emissions now. It's just selfishness clouding your thinking.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
blahblah, why don't you read it for yourself?
Not sure what "it" you're referring to.
I read your post; it made no sense. Sorry, just telling it like it is.
|
|
Jim E
climber
away
|
|
...just telling it like it is.
No, you're just telling it like you want it to be.
The post makes perfect sense, you just don't want it to.
Just calling it how I see it...
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
OK, Jim E, mind saying IN YOUR OWN WORDS what points related to GW are illustrated by Vancouver's weather during the Olympics?
Since Chiloe's post made "perfect sense," you'll have no problem hitting this softball out of the park.
Edit--it would be nice if some of you who criticize those who "refute" global warming by pointing to isolated incidents of sub-average weather will have the guts to say that Obama put his foot in his mouth when said that said that current weather in Vancouver illustrates any points related to climate change.
And that Chiloe has shown himself to be a shameless whore for trying to defend the indefensible.
|
|
Jim E
climber
away
|
|
GEEZUS FRIGGIN' CHRIST, dude. READ IT!
Chiloe was refuting bookworm's attempt to misrepresent Obama's statement.
Obama: First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody's like-a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say "see, look at that. There's all this snow on the ground, you know, this doesn't mean anything." I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn't mean that every place is getting warmer. It means the the planet as a whole is getting warmer. But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver which is supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow. The idea is that the planet as a whole get warmer, you start seeing changing weather patterns and that creates more violent storm systems, more unpredictable weather, so any single place might end up being warmer. Another place might end up being a little bit cooler. There might end up being more precipitation in the air. More monsoons, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, more drought in some places, floods in other places.
Edit: Just want to keep this quote from disappearing
blahblah wrote:And that Chiloe has shown himself to be a shameless whore for trying to defend the indefensible.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!