Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 19001 - 19020 of total 21544 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Nov 12, 2014 - 11:09am PT
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2014/11/caltech-robotic-ocean-gliders-discover-why-antarctic-polar-ice-is-melting/
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 12, 2014 - 12:38pm PT
You don't even recognize your Chiefs own words. No wonder you're his intellectual sub-man.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Nov 12, 2014 - 01:02pm PT
Standard issue impotent snark.
Lame reply imbecile.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Nov 12, 2014 - 01:04pm PT
Just checking in to report record or near-record lows in Boulder.
As I recall from last year, that's more evidence of global warming, correct? (As Chiloe helpfully explained, all that cold air must have come from someplace else.)
Nothing like a good game of heads-I-win, tails-you-lose!
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Nov 12, 2014 - 01:27pm PT
Hey blahblah, Chiloe is correct.

guyman

Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
Nov 12, 2014 - 01:29pm PT
Heay... The UN just decided that all warming is caused by MAN....

Hold on to your wallets, I am sure that some scam will be forth comming.

And speaking of wallets, the nice low cost of gas is going to end, in California at least, soon ..... remember that deal Arnold worked out about 6 years ago.... its going to kick in soon.

It makes me feel so good to know the we will soon be making a diference.

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Nov 12, 2014 - 01:39pm PT
Work on your reading and graph comprehension, Chief.

Take the words and concepts slowly. Use a dictionary if you need to. Ask the wifey for help.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 12, 2014 - 01:52pm PT
I am sure that some scam will be forth comming.


The scam of cheap energy has already come. That scam will soon end, by hook or by crook.

But, the environment will take an even heavier toll than usual because the Republicans are now in charge and they are intent on rolling back even more environmental protections, so their corps can squeeze out every drop of cheap, dirty energy.

You guys are climbers, right? You must see, or at least understand the effects of "cheap energy". Cheap engery means you're not paying the full cost of the energy. You're just paying the upfront costs--the rest is left for later generations to pay for--and they'll be paying alright, by hook or by crook.

And that, there, is the real scam.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 12, 2014 - 04:04pm PT
As Chiloe helpfully explained, all that cold air must have come from someplace else.

As comments go this seems dumber than dumb but perhaps it's just a prelude to blahblah explaining his theory that the cold arctic air now in Boulder did not come from someplace else but was created right there over Boulder.

As monolith more intelligently notes, the best antidote for silly "it's cold today in Wagga Wagga" posts, so popular on this thread (or equally for their mirror image when it's hot there today) should be to post a global temperature map. He gave an example, here's an ESRL version I like. That's absolute temperatures on top, anomalies below.



The link is live, so that will keep changing daily. For a bit longer perspective here's their 90-day version,



Or, as we shift from weather to more climatic time scales, NASA has good mapping page for global temperature anomalies by decade back to 1880. For example here is 1980-1989,



1990-1999,



and 2000-2009,

wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 12, 2014 - 04:06pm PT
Let's see who has a "predictable" answer to those,Chiloe.:)
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 12, 2014 - 04:10pm PT
Let's see who has a "predictable" answer to those,Chiloe.:)

I'd rather not see, sometimes ya gotta avert your eyes. Spent today hearing science from scientists, it's a whole 'nother world. I'll try to bring some of that back here when I have time.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Nov 12, 2014 - 04:16pm PT
But I'll leave you with something funnier that was new for me today ... Tree Lobsters!

wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Nov 12, 2014 - 04:26pm PT
Very Good!

Reminds me of VW camping at the Portland pier parking lot.A guy selling fresh Lobster Rolls.......man!

blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Nov 12, 2014 - 04:35pm PT

As comments go this seems dumber than dumb but perhaps it's just a prelude to blahblah explaining his theory that the cold arctic air now in Boulder did not come from someplace else but was created right there over Boulder.

As monolith more intelligently notes,

Got it, thanks.
I have been "explaining" to random people I interact with that record lows are proof of global warming, but I've been getting some confused looks. To fortify my argument, I'll try calling any stragglers "dumber than dumb"--perhaps that will persuade them.
(One interlocutor did have the insolence to say something like "if record lows prove global warming, what do record highs prove?" Needless to say, no response other than a look of utter contempt was necessary.)
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Nov 12, 2014 - 05:05pm PT
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2014/11/12/if-all-you-see-1311/
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 12, 2014 - 06:21pm PT
From:

Got it, thanks.

To:

I have been "explaining" to random people I interact with that record lows are proof of global warming, ...


Odd, Chiloe said nothing about record lows being proof of global warming. So when you say, "Got it," what is it that you got?
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Nov 12, 2014 - 07:50pm PT

Odd, Chiloe said nothing about record lows being proof of global warming. So when you say, "Got it," what is it that you got?

I wouldn't quite say the above is an accurate reflection of the ST record. Here are what I see as being the relevant posts:
me:
Just checking in to report record or near-record lows in Boulder.
As I recall from last year, that's more evidence of global warming, correct? (As Chiloe helpfully explained, all that cold air must have come from someplace else.)
Nothing like a good game of heads-I-win, tails-you-lose!

monolith:
Hey blahblah, Chiloe is correct.

Chiloe:
[quoting my comment that "As Chiloe helpfully explained, all that cold air must have come from someplace else.]"

As comments go this seems dumber than dumb but perhaps it's just a prelude to blahblah explaining his theory that the cold arctic air now in Boulder did not come from someplace else but was created right there over Boulder.

I suppose monolith's comment could be reasonably read as endorsing only the proposition that "the cold air must have come from someplace else," but it seems to me that when he wrote that "Chiloe is correct," that was also an endorsement of the contention that record lows evidence global warming. Maybe it's ambiguous, maybe I'm mistaken, no big deal.

What is a stranger was Chiloe's statement that my comment was "dumber than dumb," when my comment was just a summary of Chiloe's earlier statement, which monolith had confirmed, and which Chiloe has again endorsed!!
Apparently Chiloe can't take "yes" for an answer.

Perhaps Chiloe detected a bit of sarcasm in my post, which isn't entirely unreasonable, but I don't really have a problem with the "air comes from someplace else" explanation, which is obviously true to some extent. I was just trying to stimulate a little discussion on weather and climate, but we've got a cantankerous group here.
In particular, do record lows (not just one, but a pattern of them) have anything useful to tell in evaluating climate change? Maybe not in light of Chiloe's point about air coming form someplace else. But then what about record highs?

Whatever happened to the old "there's no such thing as a stupid question" (which isn't literally true of course, but is intended to stimulate discussion).
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Nov 12, 2014 - 08:22pm PT
Stupidity is a badge of honor for these folks. They live and embrace it.
Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Nov 12, 2014 - 08:56pm PT
From The New York Times...

GREENBELT, Md. — I’M a climate scientist and a former astronaut. Not surprisingly, I have a deep respect for well-tested theories and facts. In the climate debate, these things have a way of getting blurred in political discussions.
In September, John P. Holdren, the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was testifying to a Congressional committee about climate change. Representative Steve Stockman, a Republican from Texas, recounted a visit he had made to NASA, where he asked what had ended the ice age:
“And the lead scientist at NASA said this — he said that what ended the ice age was global wobbling. That’s what I was told. This is a lead scientist down in Maryland; you’re welcome to go down there and ask him the same thing.
“So, and my second question, which I thought it was an intuitive question that should be followed up — is the wobbling of the earth included in any of your modelings? And the answer was no...
“How can you take an element which you give the credit for the collapse of global freezing and into global warming but leave it out of your models?”
That “lead scientist at NASA” was me. In July, Mr. Stockman spent a couple of hours at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center listening to presentations about earth science and climate change. The subject of ice ages came up. Mr. Stockman asked, “How can your models predict the climate when no one can tell me what causes the ice ages?”
I responded that, actually, the science community understood very well what takes the earth into and out of ice ages. A Serbian mathematician, Milutin Milankovitch, worked out the theory during the early years of the 20th century. He calculated by hand that variations in the earth’s tilt and the shape of its orbit around the sun start and end ice ages. I said that you could think of ice ages as resulting from wobbles in the earth’s tilt and orbit.
The time scales involved are on the order of tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. I explained that this science has been well tested against the fossil record and is broadly accepted. I added that we don’t normally include these factors in 100-year climate projections because the effects are too tiny to be important on such a short time-scale.
And that, I thought, was that.
So I was bit surprised to read the exchange between Dr. Holdren and Representative Stockman, which suggested that at best we couldn’t explain the science and at worst we scientists are clueless about ice ages.
We aren’t. Nor are we clueless about what is happening to the climate, thanks in part to a small fleet of satellites that fly above our heads, measuring the pulse of the earth. Without them we would have no useful weather forecasts beyond a couple of days.
These satellite data are fed into computer models that use the laws of motion — Sir Isaac Newton’s theories — to figure out where the world’s air currents will flow, where clouds will form and rain will fall. And — voilŕ — you can plan your weekend, an airline can plan a flight and a city can prepare for a hurricane.
Satellites also keep track of other important variables: polar ice, sea level rise, changes in vegetation, ocean currents, sea surface temperature and ocean salinity (that’s right — you can accurately measure salinity from space), cloudiness and so on.
These data are crucial for assessing and understanding changes in the earth system and determining whether they are natural or connected to human activities. They are also used to challenge and correct climate models, which are mostly based on the same theories used in weather forecast models.
This whole system of observation, theory and prediction is tested daily in forecast models and almost continuously in climate models. So, if you have no faith in the predictive capability of climate models, you should also discard your faith in weather forecasts and any other predictions based on Newtonian mechanics.
The earth has warmed nearly 0.8 degrees Celsius over the last century and we are confident that the biggest factor in this increase is the release of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning. It is almost certain that we will see a rise of two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) before 2100, and a three-degree rise (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) or higher is a possibility. The impacts over such a short period would be huge. The longer we put off corrective action, the more disruptive the outcome is likely to be.
It is my pleasure and duty as a scientist and civil servant to discuss the challenge of climate change with elected officials. My colleagues and I do our best to transmit what we know and what we think is likely to happen.
The facts and accepted theories are fundamental to understanding climate change, and they are too important to get wrong or trivialize. Some difficult decisions lie ahead for us humans. We should debate our options armed with the best information and ideas that science can provide.
Piers J. Sellers is the acting director of earth science at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

http://nyti.ms/1B4PU64
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 13, 2014 - 05:38am PT
The NYT editorial opens thusly:

I’m a climate scientist and a former astronaut. Not surprisingly, I have a deep respect for well-tested theories and facts. In the climate debate, these things have a way of getting blurred in political discussions.


The Chief opens his response to the piece like this:

Yet, Democrat Leadership is endorsing building Oil Pipelines across our Homeland to export them "fossil fuels" throughout the globe to be burned and then emitted into the atmosphere....

It's like two worlds. There's reality, and then there's the world The Chief inhabits. He's responding to the NYT piece, but, well... not really.
Messages 19001 - 19020 of total 21544 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews