Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 25081 - 25100 of total 26889 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:45am PT
I think Sketch is sure to point out that he posted the plot and quote without offering his opinion about that plot and quote...

He's trolling as usual, so while he doesn't say what his point is, it is rather a transparent effort to produce some drama.

He has primarily offered drama (quantifiable, the the number of words where he states his actual viewpoint to the total number if words he's posted)
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:56am PT
I hooked Ed and Chiloe in less than 25 minutes.

Yee Haw!
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jun 4, 2014 - 10:57am PT
He's trolling as usual
Yeah I think we've all noticed that. He's got nothing.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 11:05am PT
Love the self-righteous posturing, boys.

The important thing is you cared enough to whine about my post.

Cheers.
barry ohm

Trad climber
escondido, ca
Jun 4, 2014 - 11:29am PT
Simple way to look at the Climate change argument
http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with-a-marker-just-made-the-global-warming-debate-completely-obsolete-plus-epa?g=2&c=ufb3
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all the Sheep from atop the Hill
Jun 4, 2014 - 11:33am PT
SKETCH....


You Bastard!!!!


Keep up the good work.





And these guys, Chiloe, EDH, KMAN etal, all supposedly have a professional PhD life.


No wonder they want gov't to get bigger.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jun 4, 2014 - 11:38am PT
The important thing is you cared enough to whine about my post.

at last, a concise summation of your views.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 12:28pm PT
Is the graph incorrect?

No warming for 17 years and 9 months?

Incorrect.

Lord Monkton doesn't believe the warming oceans count towards GLOBAL warming.

Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 12:48pm PT
Incorrect.

Lord Monkton doesn't believe the warming oceans count towards GLOBAL warming.

How is the graph incorrect?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 12:51pm PT
Already explained Sketch.

Focus on the word GLOBAL.

Does one interpretation of satellite data for lower troposphere a good representation of global warming?

Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 12:58pm PT
How about this one?



#Least squares trend line; slope = 0.00161212 per year
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jun 4, 2014 - 01:18pm PT
Simple way to look at the Climate change argument

Simple, but wrong. For my analysis, I have the following postulates, all of which I personally agree with

1. Global climate change is real, and human activity forms one of its drivers;

2. If the sorts of climate change that occurred over the last, say, 100 years continue, there will be catastrophic consequences for humanity, including but not limited to widespread economic and political instability, famine, disease and an accelerated inability of the earth to sustain its human population.

These still do not justify his conclusions, because he fails to attach probabilities to his likely outcomes. Instead, he assumes that we have infinite risk aversion. By that I mean that we prefer doing whatever it takes to mitigate the worst case at any cost -- regardless of the expected value of the range of actions we could take.

In a way, it reminds me of a time when one of my former law partners wanted to hire a blasting contractor to blast some holes through the hardpan for some trees he wanted to plant near his house. (This was a common practice here because we have a layer of hardpan soil that needs to be penetrated for the proper growth of large trees). When he was talking to the contractor, he asked what was the worst that could happen if something went wrong.

The contractor replied that he really couldn't speculate what was the worst that could happen, but he'd be happy to tell my former colleague what was the worst disaster his own work caused. My partner said to go ahead.

The contractor said he'd been hired to blast out a large tree stump. The contractor sawed through the stump, and then put a small charge under it, intended to shatter the soil around the stump (and, of course, the hardpan around it) so that they could remove the remaining pieces easily. Unfortunately, the stump was not completed cut apart, and the blast acted like a mortar charge, propelling the stump into the air and over the owner's house, where it crashed through the roof, the second story, the first story, and then landed in the basement. The contracted finished "Now do you still want to hire me?"

My partner asked the contractor "How many blasting jobs have you done near residences?" the answer was "About 5,000." "How many times was there an accident?" "That once."

"Go ahead."

Probabilities matter.

John
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 01:27pm PT
Already explained Sketch.

Focus on the word GLOBAL.

Does one interpretation of satellite data for lower troposphere a good representation of global warming?

Funny how the dominant metric for measuring global warming was the average surface temperature up until just a few years ago. We didn't hear about other metrics until it became obvious that global average surface temperature was not warming.

Now, deep ocean warming is all the rage, even though the pre-Argo deep ocean records are exceptionally sparse.
barry ohm

Trad climber
escondido, ca
Jun 4, 2014 - 01:32pm PT
I have been told by a friend in the scientific community the problem with agreeing on Human caused climate change is the math doesnt work out as there is to many other variables? Still, as a lay person in the argument , that we have the reposibility to lower emissions from power plants, transportatioin and manufacturing only makes common sense. Im a construction guy, but have worked Nuclear Power, Oil Refinerys and manufacturing and have seen that you can't leave the Corporatiions the responsibility to do whats right as if left to their own consious its about the profit, Cheers
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 01:40pm PT
For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's.

That's 0.06C since the early 1960's.

At this rate, it will only take 800 years for the oceans to warm one degree.

Or maybe my math is wrong. Feel free to correct my work.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 01:42pm PT
LOL, Sktch, study up on heat content and the mass the oceans represent.

Do ya think that the water under the arctic ice has only warmed up .06C degree?
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 01:47pm PT
Mono - All you seem to do is make hollow accusations and post alarmist propaganda.

How about actually defending your claims?
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jun 4, 2014 - 01:52pm PT
Barry,

Good point. We're dealing with a classic economic externality. The problem is picking the right point where the marginal cost of the mitigation equals the marginal benefit. Even more important is the question of who should decide.

This last questions poses a world of problems (pun intended) because activities of one country affect the whole world. I often see the argument made, for example, that if all United States coal-fired industry shut down, it would make a relatively small difference in the world's temperature change. That's true, but misleading. I could use the same argument to say that my car should have no pollution controls because the pollution caused by driving my car makes no measurable difference in the air quality of where I drive.

The political and economic decisions -- and the decision-making process -- present daunting problems, but individual economic actors will not voluntarily make decisions in the world's best interest, because those actors are not bearing the full cost of their actions. In carbon emissions, even decisions by regulators of one country may not make the proper decisions, because their countries are not bearing the full costs of their decisions.

I'm frankly surprised that there has been as much action to mitigate carbon emissions as there has been. I am not sanguine on humanity's getting its actions very close to the right place, but I'm all ears for realistic suggestions. Climate change, to me, is particularly intractable because it exposes the weakness not only of market economics, but of democracy as well.

And Monolith, I have a small quibble with your terminology. Skepticism drives science. Analysis without skepticism is faith, not science. I would prefer that those you call "skeptics" instead bear the title "deniers." Science demands skepticism.

John
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 01:55pm PT
Which claim Sketch?

Please be specific.

Water temp under arctic ice?
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:02pm PT
And Monolith, I have a small quibble with your terminology. Skepticism drives science. Analysis without skepticism is faith, not science. I would prefer that those you call "skeptics" instead bear the title "deniers." Science demands skepticism.

Absolutely true, and shown repeatedly (alas) by the real and fake skeptics on this thread.
Messages 25081 - 25100 of total 26889 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