Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 25101 - 25120 of total 25968 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
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 0.06įC since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's.

That's 0.06įC 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.
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:03pm PT
Funny thing, as usual the cost to cut back on carbon has been Way over Blown by the Special interest groups.


Cutting Back on Carbon

MAY 29, 2014
Paul Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opinion/krugman-cutting-back-on-carbon.html?_r=0


The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce new rules designed to limit global warming. Although we donít know the details yet, anti-environmental groups are already predicting vast costs and economic doom. Donít believe them. Everything we know suggests that we can achieve large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at little cost to the economy.

Just ask the United States Chamber of Commerce.

O.K., thatís not the message the Chamber of Commerce was trying to deliver in the report it put out Wednesday. It clearly meant to convey the impression that the E.P.A.ís new rules would wreak havoc. But if you focus on the reportís content rather than its rhetoric, you discover that despite the chamberís best efforts to spin things ó as Iíll explain later, the report almost surely overstates the real cost of climate protection ó the numbers are remarkably small.

Specifically, the report considers a carbon-reduction program thatís probably considerably more ambitious than weíre actually going to see, and it concludes that between now and 2030 the program would cost $50.2 billion in constant dollars per year. Thatís supposed to sound like a big deal. Instead, if you know anything about the U.S. economy, it sounds like Dr. Evil intoning ďone million dollars.Ē These days, itís just not a lot of money.

Remember, we have a $17 trillion economy right now, and itís going to grow over time. So what the Chamber of Commerce is actually saying is that we can take dramatic steps on climate ó steps that would transform international negotiations, setting the stage for global action ó while reducing our incomes by only one-fifth of 1 percent. Thatís cheap!
Alternatively, consider the chamberís estimate of costs per household: $200 per year. Since the average American household has an income of more than $70,000 a year, and thatís going to rise over time, weíre again looking at costs that amount to no more than a small fraction of 1 percent.
One more useful comparison: The Pentagon has warned that global warming and its consequences pose a significant threat to national security. (Republicans in the House responded with a legislative amendment that would forbid the military from even thinking about the issue.) Currently, weíre spending $600 billion a year on defense. Is it really extravagant to spend another 8 percent of that budget to reduce a serious threat?

And all of this is based on anti-environmentalistsí own numbers. The real costs would almost surely be smaller, for three reasons.

First, the Chamber of Commerce study assumes that economic growth, and the associated growth in emissions, will be at its historic norm of 2.5 percent a year. But we should expect slower growth in the future as baby boomers retire, making emissions targets easier to hit.

Second, in the chamberís analysis, the bulk of the reduction in emissions comes from replacing coal with natural gas. This neglects the dramatic technological progress taking place in renewables, especially solar power, which should make cutting back on carbon even easier.

Third, the U.S. economy is still depressed ó and in a depressed economy many of the supposed costs of compliance with energy regulations arenít costs at all. In particular, building new, low-emission power plants would employ both workers and capital that would otherwise be sitting idle, and would, if anything, give the U.S. economy a boost.

You might ask why the Chamber of Commerce is so fiercely opposed to action against global warming, if the cost of action is so small. The answer, of course, is that the chamber is serving special interests, notably the coal industry ó whatís good for America isnít good for the Koch brothers, and vice versa ó and also catering to the ever more powerful anti-science sentiments of the Republican Party.

Finally, let me take on the anti-environmentalistsí last line of defense ó the claim that whatever we do wonít matter, because other countries, China in particular, will just keep on burning ever more coal. This gets things exactly wrong. Yes, we need an international agreement to reduce emissions, including sanctions on countries that donít sign on. But U.S. unwillingness to act has been the biggest obstacle to such an agreement. If we start taking serious steps against global warming, the stage will be set for Europe and Japan to follow suit, and for concerted pressure on the rest of the world as well.

Now, we havenít yet seen the details of the new climate action proposal, and a full analysis ó both economic and environmental ó will have to wait. We can be reasonably sure, however, that the economic costs of the proposal will be small, because thatís what the research ó even research paid for by anti-environmentalists, who clearly wanted to find the opposite ó tells us. Saving the planet would be remarkably cheap.
barry ohm

Trad climber
escondido, ca
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:12pm PT
Didn't go to college but think I remember that Air changes temperature at a Higher rate than water, So if the Ocean warms even by a small temperature than that can have a big effect on the weather as the Ocean is a big part of the formation of weather?
Its a crazy argument, for example there was a plan to lower the sulfur emissions at the cheveron refinery in rodeo ca. The deal made with cheveron to invest a couple billion dollars in the refinery to lower emissions was that Chveron would be able to expand and increase production, That was opposed by lawsuits by the enivromental community and shut down. Unless we can stop people from driving there has to be some sort of Petroleum production in the USA.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:13pm PT
Good post, Barry.

Mono - You claimed my graph was incorrect. How so? All you said was "Already explained Sketch. Focus on the word GLOBAL."

Isn't RSS a global measurement? Is global surface temperature no longer relevant? If so, when did this happen?

When did deep ocean temps become the dominant metric, as you seem to be implying?

Do you have data for the combined temperature/warming for ocean content and surface temperature?

If there isn't combined data, you gotta wonder if all the deep ocean talk is just a distraction from the fact that RSS shows no warming for the last 17 years and 9 months. LOL.

Come on, Mono. Let's see if you can compose something more than one-liners.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:18pm PT
Focus on Lord Monkton's claim in the graph, Sketch.

No global warming for 17 years, 9 months

He didn't claim 'no lower troposphere warming in 17 years, 9 months'

Don't you think the claim made in a graph is important to consider?

Since the oceans absorb 90%+ of global warming, they are a much better indicator of global warming.






Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:23pm PT



k-man

Gym climber
SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Jun 4, 2014 - 02:06pm PT
You left out the next sentence: "If I'm wrong, please re-post my opinions."


And you, without shame, left out my next sentence where I posted a link to where I quoted your opinion.


I'm not your secretary Sketch. If you can't find your own opinions, you don't deserve to have them.

I posted the entire content of your post. Look again, dumbass.

More to the point, my preceding post gave numerous examples of where you made up crap. As I expected, you ignored them, instead boasting about quoting my opinion, which I posted after the fact. An opinion I gave to you, two weeks after you threatened to post my opinions... but couldn't.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:27pm PT
Since the oceans represent 90%+ of global warming, they are a much better indicator of global warming.

Who says so?

Was it in the latest IPCC report? Have the IPCC reports been saying this all along?

Any major climate organizations?

Or are we just talking about a few researchers?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:30pm PT
wow!

The IPCC has always mentioned rising ocean temps in it reports.

Are you disputing this?

Are you claiming that the mass of the oceans is absorbing much less then 90% of warming?

Are you disputing that the mass of the oceans is negligible compared to the mass of the atmosphere?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:38pm PT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Global warming is the unequivocal and continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's climate system.[2] Since 1971, 90% of the warming has occurred in the oceans.[3].
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:39pm PT
And then there's this:



It sure does look different than your chart.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:40pm PT
"Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010." p.6,IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 6, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013."

Yes, Sketch, the IPCC claims the ocean absorbs more than 90% of global warming.

Even your graph of 0-700m shows quite a bit of warming in the last 17 years, 9 months.
barry ohm

Trad climber
escondido, ca
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:45pm PT
So most of our oxygen comes from photosytnethis from Plankton in the ocean, If the balance of nature gets out of whack and plankton is killed by temperature or bacteria then we have less oxygen? Help me here , I know there is some really smart educated people on Supertopo!
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jun 4, 2014 - 02:46pm PT
monolith

climber
SF bay area

Jun 4, 2014 - 02:30pm PT
wow!

The IPCC has always mentioned rising ocean temps in it reports.

Are you disputing this?

Are you claiming that the mass of the oceans is absorbing much less then 90% of warming?

Are you disputing that the mass of the oceans is negligible compared to the mass of the atmosphere?

Mentioning it isn't the same as claiming it's a much better indicator of global warming.

Nope.

Nope

Not sure about the last one. I think you meant the opposite of what you wrote.
Messages 25101 - 25120 of total 25968 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