Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
UncleDoug
Mountain climber
Places unkown
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2010 - 04:47pm PT
|
I challenged Chiloe to call up Mike and debate him--seemed to shut that windbag up right quick.
Yeah I'd love to hear Mike's explanation of why Vancouver experienced the warmest winter on record....
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2010 - 05:19pm PT
|
I guess UncleDoug learns his climate change theory from Obama, since he seems to think the local weather in Vancouver over a short time period is proof of global climate change. I guess we're OK in Colorado since it's been cooler than average here. Or is that proof of climate change too because of the "increased variability"?
Wes--there is no such thing as "conservative" or "liberal" science, but conservatives may be more inclined NOT to discount the biases of "scientists" when making policy decisions.
The climate change guys are starting to sound a lot like the doctors and other so called "experts" in saying which food or vitamin is good for you, then it turns out that it's bad for you, then they just don't know one way or the other. No one (with a brain) says that diet is irrelevant to health just as few dispute climate change as an abstract proposition. But that doesn't mean the eggheads really have any idea of what they're talking about.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2010 - 10:42pm PT
|
Me too. Had some real nice weather the past few days (got in come after work pitches in Boulder Canyon yesterday), big storm coming in tomorrow. Lots of "rapid change."
Guess I know about as much as the eggheads, haha.
Could be the kernel for a new reality show here, where cameras focus on blahblah as he stands on a stage in front of 400 scientists, and tells them how much he knows.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2010 - 11:09pm PT
|
WEschrisT could have perfect recall and only needs to hear Liberal
lies one time to swallow them. Too bad. Critical thinking time
not needed then either? Also bad.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2010 - 11:26pm PT
|
This is not surprising. Attack the messenger etc...
Climate of hatred for climate change scientists growing stronger
..Climategate also spawned an unprecedented level of public fury and backlash against climate scientists.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/289021
And a new Climategate logo.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2010 - 11:40pm PT
|
This thread is dumbing down and I'm not helping.
Heard an interesting talk today by a Rear Admiral in the US Navy, which takes climate change quite seriously (as does the Russian navy, for that matter). Decisions will need to be made soon about building ice-hardened ships, and laying infrastructure to operate in the Arctic. Will the Bering Strait become a new tanker passage? Issues also loom regarding sea level impacts on naval bases, changing precipitation in Asia, rapid acidification and other things.
Heard also the observations of an Inuit hunter, on what satellites don't show about ice change.
Then there were the scientists, many of them. Bob Corell noted that the past 10,000 years of stable climate -- less than 1 degree C variation in temperature -- have been unique in recent Earth history, and are the foundation that civilization was built on. We're heading rapidly out of that envelope, with changes of +3.8 C or more before the end of this century. And that's *average* change, some places like the Arctic will likely be much more, with unknown feedbacks to the globe.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2010 - 11:48pm PT
|
Chiloe - on the one hand it could solve the human over population
problem i.e. 7 billion down to 1 billion(?) A good thing, yes?
On the other any possible climate change helps human population continue
to expand even faster than it does now.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2010 - 05:51pm PT
|
Pretty good article in this week's The Economist
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15719298
Does a good job of noting the bias among climate "scientists" and governmental and quasi-governmental agencies, although that's not the main point of the article.
Chiloe's bold assertions notwithstanding, the article notes that there is huge uncertainty as to the likely extent of climate change because of unknown feedback effects (and other reasons). It also implies, at least to my reading, that the tree ring stuff may be a load of crap.
(Before the liberals get too riled up, the article is NOT advocating a "do nothing" approach to GW and does not at all question the basic principles and "truthfullness" of some degree of GW caused by pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.)
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2010 - 05:59pm PT
|
blahblah:
Chiloe's bold assertions notwithstanding, the article notes that there is huge uncertainty as to the likely extent of climate change because of unknown feedback effects (and other reasons).
Are you making that up? Where did I boldly assert otherwise?
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2010 - 06:06pm PT
|
I just clicked on an Ann Coulter (pay per click) ad on the right of this thread!!
Take money from Ann and give it to Supertopo! What a great thread.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2010 - 06:14pm PT
|
Good link, blahblah. I think, though, that the general thrust of the article is quite consistent with the posts of the scientists (Chiloe, Ed, et al.) on this forum, at least. I don't recall a post by Chiloe that denied uncertainty and unknowns in this area. After all, if we already know everything, why conduct research?
Similarly, I thought Ed made a post that did a particularly good job of showing how uncertainty and science go hand-in-hand (i.e., that "settled science" is an oxymoron. State-of-the-art scientific thinking is merely the best explanation we have until something better comes along.)
The article does contradict, and quite well, those who believe that there should be no debate on the actions we take in response to what we know (and don't know). There, I think, lies the real debate.
John
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2010 - 06:15pm PT
|
The article does contradict, and quite well, those who believe that there should be no debate on the actions we take in response to what we know (and don't know). There, I think, lies the real debate.
I agree 1000%. Leave the science to the scientists. We lay people should be addressing what we think we should do about it.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2010 - 06:18pm PT
|
blahblah:
Chiloe's bold assertions notwithstanding, the article notes that there is huge uncertainty as to the likely extent of climate change because of unknown feedback effects (and other reasons).
Are you making that up? Where did I boldly assert otherwise?
You wrote that we'll have "changes of +3.8 C or more before the end of this century."
According to The Economist article: "Adding the uncertainties about sensitivity to uncertainties about how much greenhouse gas will be emitted, the IPCC expects the temperature to have increased by 1.1ºC to 6.4ºC over the course of the 21st century."
You should not claim +3.8 when the IPCC itself readily admits the change may be as low as +1.1.
In other words, to spell it out as simply as I can, you should claim "+1.1 or more," not "+3.8 or more."
For all I know, these numbers change frequently and you just had some out-of-date info. If that's the case, I'll ask you to correct your post and kindly move on.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2010 - 06:31pm PT
|
For all I know, these numbers change frequently and you just had some out-of-date info. If that's the case, I'll ask you to correct your post and kindly move on.
Hah, no, my information is much newer than the IPCC report. And it's no certainty, but +3.8 C was toward the lower range of the estimates I heard.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 01:56pm PT
|
Ed and John are setting a good example, so I'll be substantive for a minute.
The Economist piece is literate and does look at some research, unlike the Mike Rosen rant that impressed blahblah upthread. Even so, the article is sloppy or wrong on some points. One glaring mistake is repeating the widely believed but simply false claim that
"the errors in the IPCC, such as they are, all make the problem look worse, not better."
They do not; in some big respects including sea level and ice sheet behavior, IPCC AR4 errs on the side of optimism -- as scientists began pointing out as soon as AR4 was released.
Another bit of sloppiness by the Economist is their statement,
"the IPCC expects the temperature to have increased by 1.1ºC to 6.4ºC over the course of the 21st century."
This was intended to convey wide uncertainty, which is how blahblah read it and why he cites it triumphantly above.
But what the journalists did to get these numbers was combine the lowest limit from the most optimistic IPCC scenario, B1 (best estimate +1.8°C, ±1σ range 1.1-2.9°C), with the highest limit from the most pessimistic scenario, A1F1 (best estimate +4.0°C, ±1σ range 2.4-6.4°C). That yields 1.1-6.4°C, which sounds wide as intended, but only because it confounds uncertainty in actual projections with the different, arbitrary scenarios that these projections evaluate.
To clarify, the IPCC and similar model runs are like big if...then statements, in which the "if" part includes choosing a scenario for carbon emissions. B1 is "optimistic" because it assumes that population declines after 2050, we shift to an information and service economy, technology becomes clean and resource efficient, problems are solved globally....
See why it's optimistic? The 1.1°C boundary in the Economist's range is the lowest warming expected under this most optimistic scenario.
In contrast, A1F1 is the most "pessimistic" of the standard IPCC scenarios. Not doom-and-gloom (it still assumes declining population after 2050, quick spread of new technologies, and worldwide convergence of incomes), but with continued burning of fossil fuels. So the upper limit for this "worst" scenario gives us the Economist's 6.4°C boundary.
Those scenarios and the others are not modeled in terms of probabilities at all. But which path are we on? CO2 buildup since AR4 has been close to or above the worst-case A1F1 assumptions. And that has given rise to new, upwardly-revised thoughts about temperature -- as in the Bob Corell talk at the State of the Arctic conference last week, mentioned in my comment upthread.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 02:10pm PT
|
Thanks, weschrist, I got it (4.0). None of the above explains the +3.8 number I mentioned, but that's a whole 'nother story.
Edit to add: I went back to look up what "best estimate" refers to in this context. Seeing your reasonable guess of 4.4, I realized it couldn't be the mean. "Best estimate" apparently refers to the mode of the probability density function, or "most likely value."
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 02:49pm PT
|
OK, fine, I just based my comments on the article, I'm not in a position to defend it or refute criticisms of it.
Does anyone know why these articles never mention that, other things being equal, both increased CO2 and increased temperatures will be good for plant life (I mean in the aggregate, not every single plant)? Seems like that's worth mentioning, at least.
Actually but for rising sea levels, GW seems like it may be a good thing. Getting back to The Economist, they had a short article a while ago noting that if global cooling were happening instead of global warming, we (the industrial societies based in cool climates) would be much more prone to try to stop it. As creatures who evolved in the warm African savanna and then invented technology to survive in much colder climates, warming sounds just fine. Apparently the Russians aren't too shy about noting that they live in a cold country and a little (or maybe even a lot) of warming won't ruffle their feathers.
That's one reason why I perk up when people to try to spin global warming into things like monster hurricanes, droughts, etc. Seems like they know that GW, by itself, elicits mostly a "so what" reaction. If the eggheads think that GW is such a bad thing and that society should incur huge costs to prevent it, they need to do a better job of explaining why.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2010 - 04:18pm PT
|
blahblah:
Does anyone know why these articles never mention that, other things being equal, both increased CO2 and increased temperatures will be good for plant life
Actually, that's been mentioned thousands if not millions of times. To nonscientists, it sounds like a reason why greenhouse warming might not be bad. To scientists it sounds like a researchable hypothesis. At the conference last week I heard about experiments where they covered patches of vegetation with clear boxes to control temperature and CO2, then measure what happens. The answers aren't simple, nor all good.
Actually but for rising sea levels, GW seems like it may be a good thing.
You can say that because you tune out the research. Scientists are worried not because they never thought of some obvious things that you have, but because they've thought them through a lot farther, past the obvious.
For instance -- agriculture and civilization arose only after climate stabilized following the Ice Age; the past 10,000 years have seen the least variation (within about 1°C) in quite a long time. We're heading outside that envelope in a hurry, with unknown results. Storms live on heat energy, so just one impact is likely to be more storminess than we've ever seen before. As Ed notes, wider variance means it's hard to grow crops, count on river flows, know where to build cities, and so forth.
That's one reason why I perk up when people to try to spin global warming into things like monster hurricanes, droughts, etc.
I think you "perk up" (= disbelieve scientists) straight away because you think their research results disagree with your politics. You haven't actually tried to learn why most scientists think we have bad weather ahead.
they need to do a better job of explaining why
They are trying! That frustration was a recurring theme at the conference last week. What could they do differently to reach you?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2010 - 12:08am PT
|
BK,
As the Economist article noted, it is not ONLY the suggestive emails that shows bias on the part of scientists, but also the fact that every time they got caught making a mistake (or fibbing, depending on your point of view), the mistake is in the direction of a doom-and-gloom scenario.
Both of those factors combined with the obvious motivation of scientists to fib (you can't have much of a career as a climate change scientist if climate change doesn't exist) cause reasonable laypeople to wonder what the heck is going on.
Chiloe disputes the Economist's assertion that the mistakes are always on the side of more change and I think disputes the email evidence, although I'm not sure how he explains them away. The "explanations" I've heard seem strained, to be put it charitably.
I accept the Economist's conclusion that good public policy decisions would consider the probability of climate change. Combined with the fact that oil may be running low and is mostly owned by unfriendly countries, higher gas taxes etc. seem to be a no-brainer.
My main point in posting on this thread is that the scientists sound to me like the old boy who cried wolf--of course, there really was a wolf at the end. Also seems like GW has turned into a boondoggle where UN types fly around taxpayer's dime (Bali, etc.) and "we" need to keep our eyes on them.
Chiloe raised what I think is a good question: how do scientists do a good job of capturing public attention on this issue. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I think they've used some scare tactics, which then got debunked, and it backfired.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2010 - 09:22am PT
|
blahblah:
but also the fact that every time they got caught making a mistake (or fibbing, depending on your point of view), the mistake is in the direction of a doom-and-gloom scenario.
That is not a fact, it is false.
the obvious motivation of scientists to fib (you can't have much of a career as a climate change scientist if climate change doesn't exist)
This is bullsh#t.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!