DEEP - The future of skiing and snow Book on Kickstarter

[Cannonball]

Remember the OZONE layer crap from the 90's, yeah don't hear about that as much these days.

Yeah, I remember that really well and it's a great analogy to this discussion. In a nutshell.... Scientists recognized the symptoms then conducted studies to identify the causes (man-made release of CFCs) and solutions (worldwide CFC regulation). Meanwhile there were years of denial, and attempts to discredit the scientists by calling them "alarmists" with a hidden agenda. Eventually, through a painful policy process, everyone finally got on board with what the scientists had been saying for years. As a result, we got a major UN resolution, we turned the tide on the ozone hole expansion, and are in a slow progression back to pre CFC levels (pre 1920s).

On the global warming/CO2 front we are about half way through that same absurd process. Would be a hell of a lot more efficient and cost effective to learn from our own recent history. But apparently that's not in the cards. So we'll go on this frustrating ride again, and hope sanity prevails in time again.

 

[fbrissette]

Also arguing carte blanche that's its manmade as FBRISETTE seems to think is pure bullshit, just on the other side.

Let's make it clear. I am not on 'the other side'. I am not with Al Gore or Greenpeace. I represent the view that is shared by the overwhelming majority of scientists who are well read in the topic.

Start with this (the fifth assessment report - the newer version is not yet available):
http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

There is no 'science' conspiracy. Scientists don't get rich of climate change. On the contrary, anyone who could produce good science (not even great science) showing that the earth is not warming up, or that it is not man-made, could get nearly unlimited funding. Yet this science does not exist. Think about that.

It really amazes me that the country that has produced by far the most Nobel prizes is also the one where the highest percentage of its citizens are distrustful of scientists.

 

[fbrissette]

Gray dedicated his life to atmospheric science. But forget about this tick for tack... reports after the last IPCC indicates that climate modelers are now considering "climate sensitivities factors" on how much co2 emissions will cause a rise in temp. The point being is their models where not accurate enough and they have to tweak them.

Atmospheric science and climate science are two different fields. Gray is well published in the former but not at all in the latter.

Nobody has ever said that climate models are perfect. They all exhibits biases, sometimes severe over certain regions. But this has never been hidden. It's been studied and a lot of effort has been put into uncertainty estimation.

Climate sensitivity is not new. Here's chapter 8 of the IPCC fourth report, there is a complete section on climate sensitivity. The 4th assessment report was published in 2007, so it reviewed the science until 2006. The 5th report will go into this much deeper.

http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8.html

 

[jack97]

It really amazes me that the country that has produced by far the most Nobel prizes is also the one where the highest percentage of its citizens are distrustful of scientists.

I am not distrustful of scientist..... but I am well aware that theories or hypothesis comes and goes. The ones that stick are that ones that can stand up to match real life observations. The climate "slowdown" place the models out of whack, so lots of factors have to be reconsidered. Here's a report which summarized what may be happening in the scientific community researching this topic, click on the video if you want the vid summary. IMO, it's an exiting time to be in this field if one enjoys science and not policy making.

And as the reported stated, this debate is really healthy for the field.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...lobal-warming-slowdown-sparks-new-debate.html

 

[skiNEwhere]

IMHO saying there is global warming using the history of RECORDED weather in relation to the age of the earth is like saying a stock is going from $1 to $1,000 in the near future because its went up in price 10 cents in a minute.

I just don't think there is a big enough sample to say there is a trend in either direction.

 

[fbrissette]

I am not distrustful of scientist..... but I am well aware that theories or hypothesis comes and goes. The ones that stick are that ones that can stand up to match real life observations. The climate "slowdown" place the models out of whack, so lots of factors have to be reconsidered. Here's a report which summarized what may be happening in the scientific community researching this topic, click on the video if you want the vid summary. IMO, it's an exiting time to be in this field if one enjoys science and not policy making.

And as the reported stated, this debate is really healthy for the field.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...lobal-warming-slowdown-sparks-new-debate.html

The telegraph is not science.

'Science writer Marcel Crok argues the Earth's climate sensitivity – the estimate of how much the Earth's climate will warm in response to the increased greenhouse effect – is less affected by human activity than the mainstream science community believes.'

So we are supposed to believe Marcel Crok over mainstream science ????

"Right now there is not really a good explanation for the slowdown, and this is really refreshing for the international debate because suddenly even mainstream climate scientists start to disagree with each other.

There are actually several good explanations that could explain the slowdown. Scientists are not sure which one (or combination of) it is.

Mainstream climate scientists still overwhelmingly agree on the fact the the earth is warming (even though global temperatures have been stable over the past 15 years, the last decade has still been the warmest on record), and that the main cause is man-made. You are right when you mention that climate models are not reproducing this plateau but the model-simulated natural variability is smaller than the observed one. You are also right in that healthy debate is the way science progresses.

 

[fbrissette]

I just don't think there is a big enough sample to say there is a trend in either direction.

Go read the frigging science.

 

[Edd]

There is no 'science' conspiracy. Scientists don't get rich of climate change. On the contrary, anyone who could produce good science (not even great science) showing that the earth is not warming up, or that it is not man-made, could get nearly unlimited funding. Yet this science does not exist. Think about that.

It really amazes me that the country that has produced by far the most Nobel prizes is also the one where the highest percentage of its citizens are distrustful of scientists.

Yeah, it's a whole right wing thing. Sorry man. They put WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE ahead of all else. After that, it's on you to convince them of really, really, simple facts. If you bail on this thread, you're just saving energy, which is something else the right wing is against.

 

[ScottySkis]

Let's make it clear. I am not on 'the other side'. I am not with Al Gore or Greenpeace. I represent the view that is shared by the overwhelming majority of scientists who are well read in the topic.

Start with this (the fifth assessment report - the newer version is not yet available):
http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

There i man-made, could get ne does not exist. Thi
It really amazes me that the country that has produced by far the most Nobel prizes is also the one where the highest percentage of its citizens are distrustful of scientists.

This award does mean anything our war crazy president has won it.

 

[fbrissette]

This award does mean anything our war crazy president has won it.

I'll agree with you that it seems that the Nobel peace prize committee has been smoking some good stuff lately. Another example: as much as I respect the IPCC, them getting the Nobel peace prize was also a weird one.

The other Nobel prizes still carry a lot of weight and respect however.

 

[Mapnut]

Anybody want to talk about the guy trying to publish a book, and his Kickstarter project?

Not that global warming isn't a worthy topic for debate, but the debates are always the same.

 

[fbrissette]

Anybody want to talk about the guy trying to publish a book, and his Kickstarter project?

Not that global warming isn't a worthy topic for debate, but the debates are always the same.

Agreed. It would be great if the author could join the topic. Might be a good way for him to increase his backing.

 

[Cannonball]

Anybody want to talk about the guy trying to publish a book, and his Kickstarter project?.

Sounds like it could be an OK read. But with all the really innovative and cool kickstarter projects out there I don't plan to back this one. Good luck to him though, I'll probably read it if it comes out.

 

[Nick]

Anybody want to talk about the guy trying to publish a book, and his Kickstarter project?

Not that global warming isn't a worthy topic for debate, but the debates are always the same.

Yeah it's sort of linked in right? I think we already had a thread on this.

 

[jack97]

Anybody want to talk about the guy trying to publish a book, and his Kickstarter project?

Not that global warming isn't a worthy topic for debate, but the debates are always the same.

In terms of the book, not sure what can be done. Throughout history, various regions had to adapt to changes. Hence ski areas effected will have to adapt as well.


As for global warming and I have thought about this while trying not to start another p1ssing war contest.......IMO, the debates are changing. More and more scientist have become disillusion with the IPCC, this type of science by consensus is not how science has traditionally conduct their research. Most are use to operating in independent organization and they independently scrutinize each others findings and hypothesis until consensus is formed.... they do not form consensus under one organization.


Attached are some links that I found, it appears to maintain some independence of political agenda.

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/reporting-climate-science-com.html


Another link, Judith Curry's (a suppose heretic) testimony to congress.

http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/17/uncertainty-gets-a-seat-at-the-big-table-part-iv/