Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Jim E, don't spaz out and try using your brain for just a minute. This is pretty simple so it won't take long.
I listened to Obama's statement (it was made in a speech). The transcript you posted appears to be accurate.
Admittedly, Bookwarm's characterization of Obama's comments was imperfect.
Nevertheless, Obama CLEARLY cited Vancouver's weather at the time he made his comments to try to make a point supporting global warming theory. And that point is absolute crap--the particular weather outside as a particular time (which was not all that usual in Vancouver, in any event) DOES NOT MAKE ANY POINT WHATSOEVER RELATED TO GLOBAL WARMING OR CLIMATE CHANGE.
I know Chiloe (and maybe Jim E) is such a partisan twit that he won't call out Obama on this. But I'd like for at least one supporter of mainstream global warming theory to admit that Obama is full of it on this particular point, just on general principle.
Jim E you dumbass feel free to quote everything I've written on this website.
|
|
Jim E
climber
away
|
|
blahblah,
Your understanding of Obama's statement is... well... just plain wrong. If you've seen/heard the speech and read the transcript and still come to your same conclusion I don't believe there is any amount of explaining that will clear this up for you.
I think you are being a bit of an ass with the name calling and all, as well.
Just telling it like it is.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
blahblah is quite the blowhard.
Connections between climate, weather, and the probabilities of extreme events have been topics of ongoing research among climate scientists, baffling though that might be to some others. For example,
Scientific Assessment Captures Effects of a Changing Climate on Extreme Weather Events in North America
June 19, 2008
The U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research today released a scientific assessment that provides the first comprehensive analysis of observed and projected changes in weather and climate extremes in North America and U.S. territories. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change previously evaluated extreme weather and climate events on a global basis in this same context. However, there has not been a specific assessment across North America prior to this report.
Among the major findings reported in this assessment are that droughts, heavy downpours, excessive heat, and intense hurricanes are likely to become more commonplace as humans continue to increase the atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases.
The report is based on scientific evidence that a warming world will be accompanied by changes in the intensity, duration, frequency, and geographic extent of weather and climate extremes.
[emphasis added]
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080619_climatereport.html
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Jim E:
You are right about one and only one thing: Obama's statement speaks for itself.
I'll leave it to the good readers of this website to consider whether they agree with Obama's statement, Bookworm's relatively cogent criticism, Chiloe's rambling defense, and your 0% content addition (you really add nothing to this conversation. Sorry.)
Chiloe:
I have no problem with the contention that climate change will lead to increased variability in weather.
What I find to be completely unjustifiable is Obama's citation of the then-current weather in Vancouver and Dallas as evidence of that variability.
If you or Jim E contend that Obama wasn't saying that current weather in Vancouver (and Dallas) was evidence of that variability, I think you need your head examined and question your objectivity, but at least we've narrowed down the source of disagreement as much as possible.
|
|
Jim E
climber
away
|
|
You're right, blahblah, I haven't added anything and probably shouldn't have stepped in here.
I've been following along for the last 150 or so posts, however, and can't seem to recall any substantive posts written by you, unless cryptic one liners count as substance in your world.
Carry on with your enlightening posts.
Returning to lurker mode now...
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
So Wes, if I say what something "may" mean, I guess I'm not really saying anything at all because it "may" mean something else, perhaps the exact opposite?
Your highlighting is nice, but why don't you highlight that Obama thinks Vancouver is "supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics"--that's funny too, no?
And to sort this out (us idiot's need some help), let me make sure I have this straight:
Obama is mad that some people are claiming then-current weather conditions (snow) in DC refute global warming;
Obama says a consequence of global warming is increased variablity in weather;
Obama cites (what he thinks is) current unusual weather in Vancouver and Dallas as an example, even noting that's it's "supposed" to be snowing in
Vancouver but it's not; but
Obama is NOT claiming current weather in Vancouver and Dallas had anything to do with GW?
If you believe that, having you think I'm an idiot is more than OK.
Chiole finally provoked me into some name calling after his repeated barbs, but you're such a joke on this site that you don't bother me in the least. Keep it up, it's funny (pathetic too, but funny nonetheless).
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
I didn't bother trying to decipher it. If you are saying local weather is NOT a good proxy for global climate:
CONGRATULATIONS
YOU ARE FINALLY STARTING
TO CATCH ON!!!!
I'm so glad we FINALLY cleared that up.
I'm glad you came around to my point of view Wes--I thought you'd figure it out eventually.
Now just concede that Obama was engaging in scare tactics by either stating or implying (depending on how you interpret his statements) that the daily weather in Vancouver and Dallas in any way related to global climate, and we can stick a fork in this.
You must have quite a precocious nephew. Assuming intelligence is largely inherited, which one of you was adopted?
|
|
BASE104
climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Weather anywhere is important. If you look at it over a very long time.
I work nothing but paleozoic clastic and carbonate cycles from eustatic rises and falls of sea level. The only way to store that much water is ice. So there is a natural mechanism in place, I would assume. The evidence in the rock record is overwhelming.
However, that in no way precludes the hypothesis that man cannot change the climate.
Half of NASA's unmanned launch schedule for this year is to put satellites into orbit to study this very topic. Satellites, that I assume, were budgeted from the LAST administration. You don't plan, build, and launch a scientific satellite that fast.
It is good. More hard data is good. And with that data, the science will change to adjust.
And hey! If the science leads us to the fact that we are NOT changing the climate, that would be outstanding news to both me and about half of the species on the planet.
And Inhofe is my senator. I dunno what has a bug up his ass on this. The Oklahoma Climate Survey has a statement on their webpage acknowledging global warming. And we have more meteorologists in my hometown than anyplace in the world.
My best friend is one of the top cloud physicists in the world. We yack about this all of the time.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Most people who died in auto accidents ate carrots in the previous month.
A strong correlation.
Just noticed this from a couple of pages back and as someone who gets paid to know about such things I gotta say no, that is not any kind of "correlation," strong or otherwise.
A correlation would occur if people who ate carrots last month were more likely than non-carrot eaters to die in an auto accident. Or for that matter, if they were less likely than non-carrot eaters....
Of course either way, a correlation wouldn't imply causality.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
It seems feasible that large scale weather patterns might result in Vancouver being warm and dry at the same time Dallas is cold and wet, but I just don't know.
I haven't looked at Dallas, but your alternating theory reminds me of the well-known North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) -- which in its positive phase increases the likelihood of a cold winter in northeastern N America and Greenland, together with a warm, wet winter in Europe. The mechanism involves variations in the Icelandic low and Azores high pressure systems.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
More cool data: rising sea level.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
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.
Good grief. This is not hard to interpret. In plain English here's what he's saying:
This crazy weather does not "disprove" global warming. On the contrary, unusual weather events like the ones we're seeing are not only consistent with the predictions, but if the models are correct, such events should become more frequent.
You really have a problem with that? That's silly.
GO
|
|
BASE104
climber
An Oil Field
|
|
Don't be so hurried. If this is happening, it will happen slowly. It takes a while to see a clear trend in individual events.
The converse is, if it is shown unequivocally to be happening, adjustments in lifestyle will have to be made. A lot of people have a hard time hearing that, but our species has done it many times in the past.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
If this is happening, it will happen slowly.
But do we know that? Things like rainfall can change a lot quicker than farms can move.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
GO, this issue is largely beaten to death, which I'll take responsibility for. But since you seem to think there's still more to say and took the time to post, I'll respond this final time.
I have no problem with your "plain English" translation of Obama's statement. But that's not what he said, and I disagree that your translation is accurate.
The possible ambiguity is whether Obama referenced the daily, local weather in Vancouver and Dallas merely as examples of unusual weather events, or whether he referenced them as examples of unusual weather events that were caused by climate change.
With all due respect to you and the previous posters who made the same point, I submit that it's clear that Obama referenced the daily weather in Vancouver and Dallas as examples of unusual weather caused by climate change for at least the following reasons.
First, in the clause "But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver . . . ," the word "it" refers to "the science of climate change." See the two sentences preceding the quoted clause to verify that. Accordingly, Obama is referring to the Vancouver and Dallas weather as "examples" (his word) of the meaning of science of climate change, not merely examples of unusual weather.
Further, he said that Vancouver "is supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics." (Let's put aside that Obama was apparently referring to Whistler and not Vancouver--while some think that shows Obama's ignorance, I'll treat Vancouver as meaning Whistler.) Obama was saying that the weather in Vancouver shows that something is happening that is not supposed to be happening. In light of the preceding sentences, Obama is saying that the weather in Vancouver wasn't "supposed" to be happening but was happening nonetheless. Why? Climate change.
I understand your position that Obama was merely referencing Vancouver and Dallas as examples of unusual weather, even though he referred to them as examples of the meaning of climate change and as things that were not "supposed" to be happening. (And even though Obama brought up warmth in Vancouver as a counterexample to current snow in Washington DC, which seems to show that he regards local, daily weather as being significant to a discussion of climate change.)
I understand some of you desperately want to believe that Obama can do no wrong and seize upon strained interpretations to cling to that illusion; I try to evaluate everything on a case-by-case basis and separate out personalities and politics as much as possible.
I do apologize for calling Chiloe a "shameless whore" since it's now clear to me that many of you read Obama's statements as meaning something that is defensible, even though I think you're misreading Obama's statements for the reasons stated above.
That you for attention to this very important matter. I hope that, even if you disagree with me, you understand my viewpoint. You or anyone else can have the last word on this as far as I'm concerned.
Added--No more posts, but Wes is such a tool I'll add a few words to this one.
Wes--you combine a really annoying habit of noting other's typos while making ass loads of them yourself. (Go back in this thread where you told Ed "With all DO respect"-haha).
I didn't fault Obama in the slightest for the generally rambling nature of his comments. (If George Bush spoke like that, it would be widely cited as evidence of retardation.) I even gave him a pass on not knowing the difference in weather between Vancouver and Whistler.
Still, I can't get too mad at Wes--he's like the village dunce, both amusing and irritating.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
I first heard about marine clathrates while drinking beer with a bunch of Arctic types, probably somewhere near Lake Tahoe. The Arctic Ocean clathrates might be particularly susceptible to climate warming. If marine clathrates go (the "methane gun") then all of us are in trouble.
One of my companions remarked that "No one knows how to model them because they're so big."
From Science 5 March 2010:
Extensive Methane Venting to the Atmosphere from Sediments of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf
Shakhova, Semiletov, Salyuk, Yusupov, Kosmach, Gustafsson
Remobilization to the atmosphere of only a small fraction of the methane held in East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) sediments could trigger abrupt climate warming, yet it is believed that sub-sea permafrost acts as a lid to keep this shallow methane reservoir in place. Here, we show that more than 5000 at-sea observations of dissolved methane demonstrates that greater than 80% of ESAS bottom waters and greater than 50% of surface waters are supersaturated with methane regarding to the atmosphere. The current atmospheric venting flux, which is composed of a diffusive component and a gradual ebullition component, is on par with previous estimates of methane venting from the entire World Ocean. Leakage of methane through shallow ESAS waters needs to be considered in interactions between the biogeosphere and a warming Arctic climate.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
It really is telling when science loses it's credibility as a result of scientists.
That's so bad. These are the people we're supposed to trust and a couple of fools have ruined the whole agenda. When science is corrupt...we're screwed!
Facts are no longer facts. Truth is in dispute. It's bad and almost a sin to do this in the scientific field. We are betrayed. Sad.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Rok, the Arctic scientists I was talking with didn't view clathrates fatalistically, like they were unavoidably going to end the world. Rather, they saw them as one more (very large!) positive feedback that might be unleashed if greenhouse warming continued. When, exactly? No one knows.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
So we basically know little, Ed?
It would seem that water vapor anomalies coincide with solar activity, no? That's what I can render from the data. It seems as though everything is following solar cycles. Everything. From water vapor, sea ice concentration, and MORE CO2 in the atmosphere, or the lack of significant increases.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!