Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Dennis_Harmon

ANWR drilling

Recommended Posts

I must admit I had similar beliefs to Mr. Mtn. Being from TX and the land of oil and cattle we I didn't really believe the whole "were destroying the environment thing." I have since changed my mind. There have been some compelling studies (ask senor Xenolith for more details). In fact some people are even saying we will see dramatic affects in our lifetime. It is troubling to think about. Even if were to be able stop all pollution right now the effects would continue to degrade for some years. I hope someday we will learn but it doesn't seem anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 years ago these same concerns were being expressed over the coming ice age - which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much time today for this, but it's been a good thread so far IMO.

 

"not according to the 2001 IPCC report:"

 

I am struck by the technique of refuting my points using the very IPCC stuff I claim is wrong. We already know I (and those I've been reading) don't agree with the IPCC assessments, that's why there is a disagreement in the first place. Bringing out IPCC data, to prove IPCC data, is a bit circular!

 

I'll be back with more data, just don't have time today. And I'll try and dig up data specifically on the points raised by the IPCC stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isnt disagreeing with the IPCC while claiming not to understand the finer points of the science, like disagreeing with Darwin cause the bible doesn't say anything about dinosaurs or Homo Habilis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Dru:

Isnt disagreeing with the IPCC while claiming not to understand the finer points of the science, like disagreeing with Darwin cause the bible doesn't say anything about dinosaurs or Homo Habilis?

Exactly

 

If you dissagree with data that's been subject to review, but you don't have a good understanding of the subject, why should we believe you.

 

So bring it on. Lets see either you or Fairweather come up with data that backs your claims. Remember all good scientists submit their work for review by thier peers, so your info should come from a scientific journal not some lone scientist out prove everyone wrong.

 

And Fairweather I've looked at links you have provided and they just aren't good enough science. You may not own stock in Texaco and you might not get your data from the Cato institute, but you sure think the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not need to understand the finer points of any discipline to see where broader questions of method are either not answered, or glossed over. It doesn't matter how much of an expert you are, or how esoteric your field, the rules of the game are the same no matter what and independent of the particulars.

 

If you cannot explain why you have chosen a baseline in a particular time period when the climate continuously varies all the time, it doesn't matter how important you are or how many PhD's you have or how smart your peers are.

 

If you cannot understand the functioning of climate to a point where your models match reality provably, you have no case your models are correct enough to predict a darned thing. If you don't know what you don't know, you cannot tell if your *guesses*, however educated, about C02 sensitivity mean a darned thing, because your models do not meet the ultimate test, something called *REALITY*.

 

Anybody who tells you they understand something but cannot prove it nor predict it is feeding you a line not accepted *anywhere* else in science as proof. It doesn't matter how smart they think they are, or how much more minutae they know about their specialty, they are subject to the same *basic* standards for science anyone else is. And these standards are well understood by plenty of people who may not be experts but can still ask questions about methodology that are entirely valid and indeoendent of specialized knowledge.

 

Now maybe someone telling you they understand something but can't prove or predict it repeatably and provably against the real world appears to be science to you, but it does not meet the tests established for nigh on 400 years now. It does however meet the tests for a previous standard, faith. But we're not talking faith, we're talking measurable, provable, repeatable, verifiable results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a really good article on this subject. It's rather lengthy but the data seems to speak for itself.

 

http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/surface1.htm

 

I especially liked how he showed that the critical areas of warming (as speculated by the IPCC) are the poles. So when the data is looked at from the poles, where most common errors in reporting do NOT occur, we should find a good warming trend. Since all "global warming models" show the poles warming the most/fastest. Guess what they find when examining the data? No change! Put simply.....no warming in the poles. Kind of throws a big monkey wrench into the models eh?

 

Anyway, check out the article. And take the time to follow up on the references he mentions. It is a very well written and documented paper.

 

Again, I am not saying we do not have problems with what we're putting into our air, but I am becoming more and more convinced that it is not effecting the earths temperature. The quality of our air and thereby the quality of our lives....yes, but not the temperature.

 

Craig

 

[ 07-17-2002, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: CraigA ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got cut off from CC.com at work. They have some sort of scanner for email and web traffic and you guys set off alarms like a Polaris submarine running aground on the coast of Siberia. Then when I get back on line, I find that you have been having an intelligent conversation. Is this a conspiracy? And what about the Ross ice shelf that is now the biggest iceberg in 2300 yrs? That's a fairly long time even by climitalogical standards. After all this discourse, hasn't anyone ever heard of the studies of particulates in the ancient ice on both poles? Our ice, that from the last 100 years, is consistantly dirtier than ANYTHING they have found from earlier times except for short intermittant periods of volcanic dusting. Shit. Now I have to go read scientific journals to find what I am talking about.... This is really going to hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig,

 

I'm not a climate scientist, and I don't have acess to all the journals listed in the report. I do know how to use Google though. Here's what a little searching got me when I looked up The Greening Earth Society.

 

quote:


The Greening Earth Society -- a nonprofit

organization founded, funded, and housed by the Western Fuels Association ...

 

Here is a link that talks about the, "Society."

grist mag

 

I know what you or Fairweather would say if I quoted stuff from a Greenpeace site or the Siera Club, so I'm having problems with a group that gets their money from the Western Fuels Assoc.

 

Some of the links on the Greening Earth site are funny. I found one to an article about how the DDT scare was a bunch of crap and we should still be hosing down bugs with the stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the best shake roof preservative i

ever used was "woodlife" (now outlawed)

which contained about 5% penta, if

i remember correctly. good poison rules!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting ABC News story that aired on "20/20". I'm not a big fan of network news, but John Stossel makes some interesting observations:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/2020/stossel_tamperingwnature020614.html

 

I'm sure AlpineK will be quick to delegitimize this reporter as an agent for big oil....somthing he was no doubt able to confirm via "Grist" ("a beacon in the smog") magazine or some other sub-culture rag. [Roll Eyes]

 

[ 07-17-2002, 11:46 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I need to delegitimize that one Fairweather; it seems to be mostly an editorial about the evils of environmentalism.

 

You don't have to like Grist. The fact remains the Greening Earth Society is a puppet of folks with a heavy investment in the status quo.

 

[ 07-18-2002, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: AlpineK ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by trask:

the best shake roof preservative i

ever used was "woodlife" (now outlawed)

which contained about 5% penta, if

i remember correctly. good poison rules!

I hear DDT really kicks ass too.

 

sorry, thread drift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keith Schultz, The Ross ice shelf anomaly as well as the variation in ancient verses 'recent' ice surveys should come as no surprise to anyone...unless, of course, they've been living in a cave. I guess my stance is that not every thing in nature need be described and quantified and verified by science (as it exists at this time) before vital changes in our behaviors need to occur. Just like emergency room physicians practice,...every diagnosis does not need be definitively verified in order to act to save lives.

AlpineK, As a child I rode my bicycle in the wake of fog of the DDT trucks because it was fun. Maybe that's why I am the way I am today. Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I continue to look through the facts (and BS) I stand by my earlier statement that it's all in who's paying the bills.

 

The "mudslinging" between Grist and Greening Earth is right in line with political campaigning. As I read what Grist had to say about Greening Earth I was drawn to the statement Grist made: "Grist's own Heat Beat reports that the planet's 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1980 and that the 1990s have been the warmest decade in an estimated 1,200 years." Correct me if I'm wrong but I didn't know we had weather records that went back 1,200 years.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to say that Greening Earth's points are all correct and Grist or IPCC are all correct. I believe the "real truth" is somewhere in the middle: doomsday is not tomorrow or next week, but we absolutely do need to change the way we do things. I find it disturbing that we have to dig so deep to try and get to the bottom of anything because you can't believe what the "experts" have to say. Their agenda is loading their pockets (not for profit or not) and "real science" takes a back seat to this.

 

Hey, how's this for the new theory: Global warming is being caused by body heat. Think about it, more than 6 billion people. We've all been in crowded rooms, overpopulation=global warming. Sorry, I'm just trying to keep things somewhat lite. Let's face it, whether or not "we" are causing global warming or it's just cyclical it's time for a change. But unfortunately for all of us.....MONEY TALKS! And the more of it you have the more reports you can fund to prove your right and the other guy is wrong. So I'll keep digging and sifting through the reports and culminating my own opinions. Hopefully in the end the planet will prevail.

 

Time for me to step down off my soap box and finish up a few things before I leave for Hawaii on Saturday. [big Grin][big Grin][big Grin] I have really enjoyed this thread and will check back on it when I get back.

 

Have fun all and stay safe out there!

 

Craig

 

[ 07-18-2002, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: CraigA ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to come back to a point that MtnGt questioned

 

quote:


"Biodiesel is available today,"

 

Does it generate more energy than it takes to create it? A crucial point, just wondering if this has been addessed.

 

I found this on the web site of the National Biodiesel Board. They cite a US Department of Energy study

 

quote:


Biodiesel contains no sulfur or aromatics, and use of biodiesel in a conventional diesel

engine results in substantial reduction of unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide

and particulate matter. A U.S. Department of Energy study showed that the

production and use of biodiesel, compared to petroleum diesel, resulted in a 78.5%

reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Moreover, biodiesel has a positive energy

balance. For every unit of energy needed to produce a gallon of biodiesel, 3.24 units

of energy are gained.

 

I've been running the stuff in my chipper for a month. The machine runs like a champ and the exhaust smells like pop corn. It costs a little more, but I think it's worth it. There is a cancer risk associated with regular diesel. With biodiesel the risk is greatly reduced. Also I'm helping American farmers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig we do have climate records going back more than 1200 years. monks wrote down the weather in monasteries (not temp in C but length of growing season, # of days with snow etc.) in Europe, for instance. Chinese recorded a lot of this stuff too.

 

ALSO and more importantly we have tree rings, seafloor sediment, coral reefs, fossils and ice cores giving us 10 000 yrs of recorded climate data.

 

But I guess, the western fuels association wasn't around then so all those sources are bullshit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be impatient (well, just a little) but since MtnGoat is fond of the concepts behind the scientific method: we are still waiting for the supporting evidence for the comments he made against the IPCC report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took this thread as an excuse to educate myself about global warming research, and to play devil's advocate for MtnGoat and Fairweather's position, as they seem pretty well outnumbered here.

 

First of all, from j_b:

It is ridiculous to expect to have complete certainty before we change negative behavior (do you need to be certain that a crevasse is in your path before you rope up?).

 

I don't think this is exactly what MtnGoat is trying to suggest. To take your very apt analogy a little further: If there were nothing to climbing on a glacier besides crevasses, then you are right. However, in the real world, it's possible to find yourself on a glacier with a low probability of crevasses and lots of rockfall in one area. In this case, you might want to balance the benefits of roping up with the costs (slowing you down and increasing exposure to rockfall); the prudent decision may be to travel unroped. Not to put words in his mouth, but I think MtnGoat is trying to say that we need to balance the certain costs of trying to mitigate global warming (direct economic costs, and opportunity costs - e.g. every dollar we spend trying to halt global warming cannot be spent on the AIDS crisis in Africa) with the uncertain benefits in terms of warming that may not even be real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×