Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
User avatar
adamschneider
Posts: 3711
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: SE Portland
Contact:

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by adamschneider » October 29th, 2022, 9:07 pm

BigBear wrote:
October 29th, 2022, 5:51 pm
There's a lot of discussion about oceans rising because of the melting of ice sheets. It's said like it's a scientific fact. I will agree that the melting of ice on landmasses could increase the ocean's level, but most ice is floating in the water...and the melting of that ice will have a zero impact on the ocean's rising or lowering.
Christ almighty, this willfully ignorant amateur "science" is getting truly ridiculous. :roll: Most of the world's ice is not floating; it is contained in ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica, and if just 10% of it melted, the oceans would rise by 21 feet.

Image

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by retired jerry » October 30th, 2022, 6:24 am

I agree climate models suck. The claim that the globe will warm 2 degrees (or whatever) if we don't limit the CO2 to some level is not well founded. One factor is water vapor can either make it warmer or cooler but people are researching to figure that out, so until then, there's a lot of uncertainty.

And people keep coming out with ever more dire warnings. If they couldn't motivate people with the previous dire warning then we need an even more dire warning. But that doesn't work to motivate many people. Maybe they need to come out with assurances that "we" won't take your car away until something better and cheaper is available. We can feel good about a lot of progress made, for example, most new electric generation is solar or wind which are also cheaper than alternatives...

Yeah, melting ice on water won't raise sea level. That is well understood. It's the ice on Greenland and Antarctica that's the problem. And it's not well understood how much, how fast that will melt.

We are living an interesting science experiment

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by retired jerry » October 30th, 2022, 6:56 am

"Christ almighty, this willfully ignorant amateur "science" is getting truly ridiculous."

To me, that is going beyond discussing difficult, contradictory scientific data to personal attacks

Calling someone willfully ignorant, amateur, and ridiculous is not helpful

In my opinion

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by retired jerry » October 30th, 2022, 7:15 am

According to climate models the arctic is going to have more warming. Which is consistent with people living there. But seems abstract to us people that don't live in the arctic.

I thought this was interesting https://projects.oregonlive.com/weather/temps/
pdx90.jpg
pdx90.jpg (9.58 KiB) Viewed 2923 times
For 1940 to 1970 there were about 80 days per decade over 90 F

For 1970 to 2010 it increased to about 130 days. This does not correlate with global warming so it must be natural variation. It shows how difficult this problem is, trying to figure out whether warming is because of CO2 or natural.

For 2010 to 2020 it increased to about 170 days. This does correlate with increased CO2. I think this is the first decade when we are significantly feeling global warming in Portland.

For 2020 to 2022 there were about 75 days. If the rest of the decade had the same pattern, it will be 250 days per decade - large increase from the previous decade. This also correlates with increased CO2 which has been increasing exponentially. This would be much greater than the natural variation.

I predict this will be like cigarettes - gradual acceptance that they're dangerous, but over time it becomes more and more obvious and people will quit denying it.

It would be prudent to take action now. At least do the easy things, like building more solar and wind which are cheaper than the alternatives.

User avatar
adamschneider
Posts: 3711
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: SE Portland
Contact:

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by adamschneider » October 30th, 2022, 7:29 am

retired jerry wrote:
October 30th, 2022, 6:56 am
"Christ almighty, this willfully ignorant amateur "science" is getting truly ridiculous."

To me, that is going beyond discussing difficult, contradictory scientific data to personal attacks

Calling someone willfully ignorant, amateur, and ridiculous is not helpful
Guilty as charged. I think sometimes you just have to call out the B.S. when it's obvious someone isn't making any sense. The cartoon I posted says it all.

(But for the record, there's a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance. The latter is a choice, and it's common among Climate Deniers.)

User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by drm » October 30th, 2022, 7:36 am

"One factor is water vapor can either make it warmer or cooler"

This is simply not true either. We are in funny farm territory here. Maybe you were thinking of clouds, for which it is true. But water vapor in general is a known addition to warming. It is one of the primary positive feedback mechanisms. Nor were comments about climate models accurate, but I am not inclined to get into an argument over overwhelmingly proven facts on a hiking blog. Once we get into funny farm territory, it's time to move on.

User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by drm » October 30th, 2022, 7:48 am

retired jerry wrote:
October 30th, 2022, 6:24 am
But that doesn't work to motivate many people.
So should scientists change what they say to make it more motivational, or should they just say what they find? Human history is full of examples of societies that ignored obvious warning signs of many types and paid a dear price for it. If anything, the current weak response to this particular issue is just par for the course. We could have started responding decades ago and basically prevented the impacts. Now they are starting and the question is far far will it go.

BTW, the 2* C of warming forecast is very well grounded in science, partly due to the extensive research done over the ice ages, when temperatures fluctuated by about 9* between glacial mins and max. Science has been estimating how much the temps would change for over a century, and the amount has only been refined a bit, the number hasn't changed that much since the early 1900s, when science first suggested that our fossil fuel use would change the climate. I think that was in 1915. Climate science has been active since the 1800s.
To me, that is going beyond discussing difficult, contradictory scientific data
Because it isn't nearly as difficult or contradictory as you think it is. You are quoting known falsehoods that have been known and disproven for decades. And a reading of a summary document from, say, the National Academy of Sciences would make that clear. So it's not like it is that hard. Most of us are beyond being diplomatic and trying to convince people at this point. Been there, tried that, failed.

Sheesh, look at your graph of hot days. It is counting the total days above a certain temp in each decade. It's not an average. The 2020s are lower because we are still early in the decade! You just took an article that makes it clear our summers are getting hotter and claimed the opposite by misinterpreting the graph as an average. The proper way to interpret that graph would be to say that in the 2010s there were 175 days above that temperature, and after only two years this decade, we already have 75 such days. We are 25% the way through the decade and already over 40% the way to that already extreme number from the previous decade.

I used to spend a lot of time doing this kind of debunking. I stopped when I discovered it does no good. People kept spreading the same misinformation irregardless of how much proof was offered. And it is a particularly frustrating meme that they use articles to prove a point that in fact prove just the opposite.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by retired jerry » October 30th, 2022, 8:23 am

Water vapor that forms low clouds will be warming - the greenhouse effect

Water vapor that forms high clouds will be cooling - it reflects away solar radiation

I've read about research by climate scientists, for example in Scientific American that is trying to quantify this

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by retired jerry » October 30th, 2022, 8:38 am

"So should scientists change what they say to make it more motivational, or should they just say what they find?"

just say what they find including data that supports and contradicts any beliefs they have. And the certainty of the data.

then, clearly identify that they're switching to subjective opinions when they do that

DO NOT EXAGERATE IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONVINCE PEOPLE


"The proper way to interpret that graph would be to say that in the 2010s there were 175 days above that temperature, and after only two years this decade, we already have 75 such days."

yeah, that's what I did. If there were 75 such days for three years, assuming that trend continues, there would be 250 days for the entire 10 year period. Huge increase from previous years. You better go out and get that air conditioner.


"I used to spend a lot of time doing this kind of debunking. I stopped when I discovered it does no good."

Same here. Usually I appear to argue on the side of global warming, but occasionally get beat up by global warming supporters, like now :)

I've read that the best way to convince people is to stick to the facts and don't call people that disagree with you stupid

In my opinion, it's clear that burning fossil fuels has caused an increase in CO2, and it's pretty clear that it has caused global climate change, but much less clear how bad it will get how soon.

For example, there's very little understanding of how fast those glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland will melt. So far, the melting has exceeded what scientists predicted.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by retired jerry » October 30th, 2022, 8:42 am

"Guilty as charged. I think sometimes you just have to call out the B.S. when it's obvious someone isn't making any sense. The cartoon I posted says it all."

I think that cartoon is calling bigbear stupid. Subtly. As I've said, there is a lot of uncertainty about all of this and supporters of global warming over stating their case.

Post Reply