Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 04:25pm PT
|
I haven't been keeping close tabs on this cat fight, but to address the following, completely false statement:
"Those "thousands of scientists" believe differently, but cannot PROVE their caes. They ASSume that humans are contributing to the warming.
There are also thousands of scientists who agree with me."
No, there really aren't. The consensus is so unanimous that global warming is caused by carbon, primarily produced by human activity, that to make a statement like that only demonstrates that your head is really far up your a@#.
In fact, a couple of years ago the Bush administration had someone testify before Congress about global warming. Turns out the guy was merely a statistician who took issue with some of the calculations. So much for a rebuttal.
As for a bigger question, why are some people so vehemently opposed to the notion that global warming exists? It's as if it's a personal issue rather than a scientific one.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 04:27pm PT
|
Jim E, you're right, and I was a bit too strong in my language. Right on the heels of Lynne's multiple posts, I guess I got caught up in the idea that yours was one more post decrying the "powers that be" for not doing enough.
My point is simply that just doing one's own part, however small, is always the place to start.
GO
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 04:29pm PT
|
Well Fat Dad, in the case of the person you quoted we're not exactly sure. It's certainly not a scientific motivation as he's never laid any sort of ground work to show he knows much about science much less critical/logical thinking. It could be personal. After all, GCC (it's Global Climate Change, people, not GW) is a world conspiracy to out the republicans of this country and heaven forbid the world pinko-commie-liberals are right about something!
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 04:31pm PT
|
I like the idea that GW will prevent the next IceAge. Think an
alligator infestation of Lake Superior will be easier to deal with
than a half mile thick glacier covering the northern states.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 04:49pm PT
|
Fat Dad, you clearly missed Ed's point!
So I will paraphrase it for you.
Consensus means squat to scientists.
Further, I would recommend you peruse at least the executive summary sections in each chapter from his link.
There are a great deal of uncertainties in there. There is a statement to the effect that many models overestimate both the rate and amount of warming. That the models are inconsistent with respect to what data fits.
There was even a note that they could not identify exact drivers, i.e. identify exactly what the impacts are of various types of greenhouse gases including sulfates.
So - continuing to study the problem probably makes a lot of sense. It sure would suck to use all available and becoming more scarce economic resources on a driver that was either not especially controllable or perhaps was less alterable than another.
It might surprise you, for example, that the huge retrofits on coal stacks primarily focus on the removal of nitrogen from the flue gases (NOx). The amount of bad nitrogen coming out without this type of scrubber is pretty staggering. Sulfur by weight or volume is almost a footnote by comparison. This type of stack only costs a few hundred million to build and you could fit a mile of two story efficiency apartments in one. That is for just a plain old 1000 MWe burner.
|
|
nature
climber
Santa Fe, NM
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 04:54pm PT
|
TiG - you might have a point there. But recall the Jodster has 1000's of scientists that are in agreement on his side. Err... well... there's not... but I digress. So maybe try that logic on him? Oh... never mind.... logic and Jody don't get along. I'll delete this post.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 04:55pm PT
|
Interesting ideas about climate change written into this
Scifi story, online here:Fallen Angels:
http://www.baen.com/library/067172052x/067172052X___1.htm
Its about how the GW people got control of the government and mandated reduction of CO2 and brought on an IceAge. They of course
blamed scientists. Lots of cool stuff as the good guys battle
glaciers and the Feds to rescue 2 space shuttle pilots who were shot down for 'air theft'! And then the desperate task by Fans to get them back home to the space stations before capture by the anti-technology police.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 05:05pm PT
|
Tradlsgood,
One, I didn't see any links in flashlight's posts.
Two, if I understand you correctly, I think you're mixing consensus with collective. What I mean is that of the scientists who have studied the subject, the data and findings of those scientists as reported, with very, very few exceptions, support the finding that the earth is becoming warmer and that's it's due primarily to carbon.
Why do you say consensus means nothing to scientists? I'm missing your point.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 06:08pm PT
|
The Climate Change debate is a little too similar to the years of tobacco companies saying smoking wasn't proved to harm people and years of more studies should be undertaken before anything was done.
Still, I'm skeptical, The science doesn't matter. People will pollute themselves right into the graves and under the sea until the signs are so extreme that it's too late. That' why real leadership would be required to do anything substantive in time
Peace
Karl
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 07:03pm PT
|
Karl, other folks have noticed that analogy. An article in the Atlantic described it as the basis for a new legal strategy: suing Exxon et al. on behalf of Kivalina, Alaska, for damages due to climate change -- not because it's provable that Exxon caused climate to change, but on the theory that it's provable fossil energy interests conspired to promote junk science aimed at forestalling regulatory action, following the tobacco-interests model.
|
|
WandaFuca
Gym climber
San Fernando Lamas
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 07:16pm PT
|
TIG said,
There is a statement to the effect that many models overestimate both the rate and amount of warming.
I've read through the full IPCC reports, and nowhere does it say this.
The Ch.14 summary, that Ed posted, does say that more data and better methods are needed.
From all that I've read about global climate change, most models grossly underestimate the rate and amount of warming and ice melt because they miss some of the positive feedbacks.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 07:26pm PT
|
Although Ed's right -- nature has the last word -- I still give some weight to consensus/peer review. Ain't infallible but it's one key part of the process.
That said, I'm reading a trio of delightfully contrarian geology articles today that set out to overthrow the conventional wisdom on Earth's first two billion years, the surface of Venus, and 3-D driving mechanisms of plate tectonics.
Or, back on the topic of climate change, I often talk with researchers who think the IPCC's consensus approach was perhaps over-conservative.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 08:57pm PT
|
Peer review is essential, but usually what counts most is that people test other people's ideas, and that the results of experiments are reproducible. Not only that, but it is done in public, vetted through peer reviewed publications. It's not just an opinion, but an active participation in doing the science that matters... it's a part of doing science. We build this stuff up brick by brick.
Consensus opinion is just that, opinion. I believe that the science that exists supports the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis without a doubt, that's my opinion. But I also know that there is a lot of work going on, and that it is important to be informed about the results of past studies as well as the need for additional studies.
It is an "endless frontier" and to represent it otherwise does a disservice to the process.
Where we all get tangled up is in making the translation of this scientific assessment to policy. This is not unknown, there are 3 IPCC working groups, the first is the science basis, the other two are "effects" and "mitigations" (essentially), which are hugely complex social issues where science plays a part.
It is important for policy makers to understand that the prevailing opinion of the science community is that the climate change which is happening is due to human activity. But it is also important that the extent of the validity of that opinion is also understood.
The outcome is not determined on just the science, one hopes that policy is heavily informed by the science, but if the policy action falls short, having been given the best scientific information, well to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the body politic gets what it deserves.
That will be cold comfort (or warm?). But nature has a wonderful way of restoring to balance... awesome in every sense of the word.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2008 - 08:58pm PT
|
Most of these studies find that, over the last 50 years, the estimated rate and magnitude of warming due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases alone are comparable with, or larger than, the observed warming. Furthermore, most model estimates that take into account both greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols are consistent with observations over this period. From Chapter 12. (emphasis added)
Fat Dad, Ed is Ed Hartouni who posted a link to the actual report a few posts before you came in.
BTW. I suspect the certainty of a poster is inversely related to his scientific training. The scientists in the field lay out all sorts of uncertainties - food for them or others to research. Those with no science training seem to be the most religious about both what the scientists, the certitude of their statements as well as what the best course of action in the economic, social and political arenas.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!