Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 25721 - 25740 of total 28285 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 2, 2014 - 10:43pm PT
Yes, i know, Beck is an incredible source. Thats why I had you look him up for yourself. Now show us big Al's bod hanging chads and all, victim of unpresidented sea level ruse. Failing this absolute proof, perhaps you could properly answer Bigfeet and stop the diversionary ploy of answering old posts of mine.

Oh come on. How about a little push for carbon taxes and additional non economic regulations.

Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Sep 2, 2014 - 11:03pm PT
Because every single simple troll deserves a thesis written to refute it.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 3, 2014 - 12:07am PT
It's interesting that two issues are being discussed...

1) the science of climate

2) the consequences of climate change and what, if anything we should do about it

the problem is that if the science of climate states that human activity is responsible for the 20th century climate change, then humans will feel compelled to do something about it, especially if the consequences are persistent. it's a moral issue. we're messing things up, we should at least try to fix things...

this bumps us to assessing the consequences and deciding what to do. this is an interesting policy topic and certainly has a great affect on all of us. the affect is so large that we would rather keep discussing 1) and hope that the science is different from what we currently understand.

however, waiting for 1) to be proven "absolutely" means that we have to wait for the consequences to hit us before we act. our current understanding of these consequences is that waiting to act for this to happen will not allow us to respond and fix it.

since 1) is telling us that the source of the climate change is our own activity, we have a choice to act, a choice to do something else than vent CO2 into the atmosphere.

correctly costing the emissions, sort of like charging someone to use the landfill, or to flush sewage into a treatment plant, does raise the cost of dumping garbage and flushing the leu... but it also preserves resources and probably reduces the overall costs of these activities, getting rid of garbage.

the consequence of climate change will cost, so assessing the cost of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere should be possible, and in so doing both helps to recover some of the expense of doing so, but also encourages alternative activities which do not dump CO2 into the atmosphere, presumably because they become cost competitive.

flexible policies could also adapt to what we will know as the science becomes better at predicting the consequences of our actions.
BigFeet

Trad climber
Texas
Sep 3, 2014 - 12:08am PT
Splater & Ed,

It is nice to have a discussion without all the drama and mud. Thank you guys for keeping it civil.

A lot to go through from you both. It is late here so I will keep this fairly short for now. It takes awhile to type this out on my phone.

I agree with quite a lot you both have said.

I'm not stating things have not changed, for they always will. The predictions given have not panned out though. First cooling, then warming, now climate change (nice cya on the last one).Ice caps, hurricanes, water levels among other things have shown not to be anything close to what was predicted. This in the face of former ice ages. Why did the ice cap covering most of the northern hemisphere disappear? Climate change/warming way back before any industrialised societies. Discovered cities found throughout the world well underwater. They were not built there were they?

I understand we humans have an impact on our environment. Litter, water pollution, concrete everywhere, vehicle emissions, even Splater's Harley noise pollution. How do we make everyone feel and think the same way on societal issues that can drastically change their lifestyle without some form of tyranny? What if this expensive remedy does not affect the changes you predict? Is this possible?

People deal with other people's crap on a daily basis and we will never be able to overcome this. Your good intentions could have a negative affect on things unknown. Do we abandon lasting and cost effective fuels to jump to technology still in infancy of efficiency? Do we overuse our food stuffs for fuel alternatives? This list could be very long.

I am aware of our capacity to understand without all knowns known. Sailors many centuries ago knew how to utilize wind without completely knowing what it was, and where it came from. We knew the water the ship sailed on was wet, denser than air, and could float said ship. My Hawkings comment earlier shows we are still, to this day, understanding without knowing.

I'm not a "denier" - just skeptical based on what I have found. You should be too. This in no way diminishes you, but keeps you thinking and asking questions. Is this wrong?
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Sep 3, 2014 - 01:25am PT
to repeat:
The simplest question to ask is:
How could we pump out that much greenhouse gases WITHOUT having a big effect?
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Sep 3, 2014 - 04:50am PT
The system is bigger and more resilient than we thought.
raymond phule

climber
Sep 3, 2014 - 05:28am PT

I said I was done, I couldn't resist. Are you discounting the influence of the Japanese auto market? LOL! You really are not that smart...

I probably wasn't clear enough.

My point were that Americans often drive large cars with a bad gas mileage. It is possibly that it has changed to some extents since the last time I was there but I really doubt that it today is similar to Europe.

So you seemed to suggest that the problem were with the lack of available green technology. That is one part but I believe that other things like the "need" to drive a large car are more important.

One other thing is that there are green alternatives that could be used much more than it is now in many areas (for example cars) but it is not used because people think it is to expensive.

This somewhat relates to you complain about the gas price even though the gas price in USA is much lower than in for example Europe.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 3, 2014 - 06:32am PT
If you want to compare sizes of autos, use google street view.
It will confirm that north americans drive large vehicles and europeans drive small ones.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Sep 3, 2014 - 06:53am PT
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north

Sep 3, 2014 - 06:32am PT
If you want to compare sizes of autos, use google street view.
It will confirm that north americans drive large vehicles and europeans drive small ones.

Did you come up with that all by yourself?

Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 3, 2014 - 07:15am PT
Western Climate Initiative, Inc. (WCI, Inc.) is a non-profit corporation formed to provide administrative and technical services to support the implementation of state and provincial greenhouse gas emissions trading programs.

The Board of Directors for WCI, Inc. includes officials from the provinces of Quebec and British Columbia, and the State of California. The services provided by WCI, Inc. can be expanded to support jurisdictions that join in the future.

http://www.wci-inc.org/
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 3, 2014 - 07:18am PT

http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca/article3685
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 3, 2014 - 07:20am PT

Americans care deeply about 'global warming' – but not 'climate change'

Yale researchers have found that the two terms, often used interchangeably, generate very different responses

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/27/americans-climate-change-global-warming-yale-report
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Sep 3, 2014 - 07:26am PT
monolith

climber
SF bay area

Sep 3, 2014 - 07:05am PT

What's your point, Sketch?

Just trying to help Malemutt out.

The method he recommended seemed a bit tedious.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Sep 3, 2014 - 07:45am PT
How astute.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 3, 2014 - 08:25am PT
The predictions given have not panned out though.

I think the point is that climate is the average of weather, and that from year to year, the average changes a little, but the weather can change much more. Over time, like a century the small changes add up, they are all going in the same direction...

So interestingly, the predictions of 1896 were correct, that fossil fuel use would change the climate. It took decades (actually probably 60 years) before the climate change was large compared to the yearly variation of the weather to produce an overwhelmingly convincing picture.

Climate scientists started out to understand climate, which they assumed was driven by natural forces, and found that they could not explain all the changes without evoking the CO2 increases caused by humans. This one prediction has "come true" and is confirmed in the data.

That data includes establishing a baseline CO2 concentration before the industrial period.

The predictions are based on averaging over time, and most climate scientists would take a 30 year period for that averaging. It has been about 30 years since the first indications of the human component to climate change have been discussed.

Predictions on the 10 year time scale are intermediate between weather forecasts and climate projections. Difficult, but not thought impossible, with our current understanding. The challenging goal has driven a lot of science discussions trying to describe that system.

It should be noted that these changes, the hiatus, are not the biggest factors determining the climate. There was a "hiatus" from about 1940 to 1970, yet since 1880 the global mean temperatures have increased. The difficulty in making these shorter term forecasts has to do with the apparent fact that the natural variability doesn't average out over 10 years...

Most of the arguments that are made against the current scientific model of climate change have been investigated by the climate scientists themselves. The fact that they do not pan out has more to do with their failure to be consistent with the observations than with some murky conspiracy. The scientific literature is available to read for everyone... and all arguments meet the same level of scientific scrutiny.

I don't think anyone, least of all the climate scientists, think it is an easy task to project into the future accurately. They have been very scrupulous in trying to bound the likely maximum and minimum changes, and to state the most likely values facing the near term (next 100 year) changes. This injects the language of "uncertainty" into the discussion, which can be used to a disadvantage in debates... the desire for "absolute certainty" essentially eliminates any science, since science is all about understanding with uncertainty, which is intrinsic in how we measure things as well as a fundamental part of our theories. Insisting on "absolute certainty" essentially eliminates science from the discussion. No scientist will claim "absolute certainty" on anything.

However, as I said before, quantifying uncertainty is possible, and important, and especially important to the policy discussion. Actually understanding where the uncertainties come from help guide research both in the modeling and the observations and experiments. The field concentrates on what is "uncertain" and moves on from that which it has determined is "certain."

Most scientific discussions are around those uncertain bits... with less discussion about the certain bits. When someone from the outside looks into a passionate scientific debate, it's usually all about what we don't know. It's easy to get the impression that this debate reflects the state of understanding, hard to see that this is often small compared to what we do understand.

By and large, the predictions have panned out... the climate of North America has changed, and it has changed in a way that would not have happened without the contributions of humans, in particular, CO2 into the atmosphere. The arctic has changed even more dramatically. The oceans are changing also. And while this has happened in my lifetime, most people reading STForum are too young to see the changes... and even I have to listen to stories of older people, many of whom have died, to get a sense of what the climate was like at the beginning of the 20th century.

This is the largest challenge to humans, to be able to see across a time longer than a human lifetime, at the changes. In my lifetime the human population has doubled. That population has increased its resource use by more than that factor. While people proclaim that the predictions of human population stress have not occurred, it's not at all obvious that they have not, that we are just not seeing the changes. The planet is a very different place than it was 1000 years ago, and 1000 years isn't a very long time period for the Earth, or life on the Earth, or even human history.

Taking that kind of perspective is going to be necessary. Something that doesn't pan out in your lifetime isn't a failed prediction.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 3, 2014 - 09:45am PT
A carbon tax is like a tax on tobacco. We need to make sure we are paying the full cost of something that is going to cause havoc down the road. In fact a carbon tax could be even revenue neutral, i.e., the money could be refunded to help the needy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/russ-blinch/carbon-tax-canada_b_3069560.html
Cragar

climber
MSLA - MT
Sep 3, 2014 - 09:57am PT
Very few lay people have either the stomach, the brains, or the time to research journal articles for the words "straight from the authors minds", trusting instead the media's accounting.

Since humans are now below goldfish in terms of attention span it is no wonder that folks have a hard time with basic science(accuracy vs. precision as noted hella above) these days. The unfettered access to the internet where you can find anything to support your belief leaves 'us' with what we see here and in society in general. Long live the FOX!
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 3, 2014 - 09:58am PT
38f here this morning at latitude 62.5. Fresh snow in the Talkeetnas at and above 2500'.

Four inches of new snow in Barrow this morning. Much of Canada showing signs of an early winter.

Looks like the seasonal arctic melt may have already reached bottom. Perhaps the highest average september extent in a decade.

The solar minimum of cycle 24 is still 5 years off.

What great scientist said; " the anthropogenic signal is rather feeble compared to the range of natural variability".



Norton

Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
Sep 3, 2014 - 10:20am PT
38f here this morning at latitude 62.5. Fresh snow in the Talkeetnas at and above 2500'.

gee Rick, do you still not know the difference between local weather and CLIMATE?

honestly, post after post, you prove that you just can't understand even simple concepts

grow up already will you?
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Sep 3, 2014 - 10:32am PT
To be fair, the media have played a large part in sensationalizing bogus doom and gloom predictions.

To continue that fairness, so too have climate change aficionados. Chicken Little comes home to roost, every night.

DMT
Messages 25721 - 25740 of total 28285 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