Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by plecoptera419, Sep 19, 2013.
What is that I smell? Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop...
Whenever I read articles like this, I can't help but realize the power and dangers of being wrapped up in a paradigm. Without considering the accuracy of the claims in the article, I was instinctually disappointed at the idea that the planet might NOT be heading towards catastrophic overheating at the hands of humans. If these claims were true, it would mean I was wrong in believing climate change scientists and the agenda pushed by "libtards" like Al Gore. It would mean that yokels who haven't touched scientific thought since the 9th grade could say "I told ya' so." It would also mean that we might not be cooking ourselves to death - which would be a very good thing. But It wasn't the long-term fate of planet earth, or even the short term fate of salmonids that my mind was concerned with while reading the article, it was the idea that my agenda was being attacked and I might be wrong.
In situations like these, it scares me how easy it is to get so rooted into an opinion that I'll dismiss an argument purely because I don't like the implications of it being correct. Because I consider myself to be on the "open-minded" and "progressive" side of the debate, the idea that I'm being closed-minded isn't even on my radar. Anybody else ever realize their own bias when they read something like this and hope that scientists and policy-makers don't fall into the same trap?
Do you think Al will be a stand-up guy and give the money back?
I read the article and I don't think it says anything of significance about the main features of global climate change. For as long as I have been following this issue, there have always been data that weren't perfectly predicted by the models. The models themselves are based on prior data, so they can't always accommodate natural variation in data such as those discussed here.
That said, by far the majority of deviations from model expectations have involved observations that climate change is progressing more rapidly than models have predicted, probably due to feedback loops that weren't accommodated in the models. So, while I'm sure the climate change deniers will jump all over this as the smoking gun that scientists don't know what they are talking about, the climate scientists will debate and learn from this and develop some new hypotheses that can be tested by more research. That's how science advances.
It doesn't advance by denying the findings already obtained.
Did anyone else see the article in the Seattle Times earlier this week about a seminar local weather guru Cliff Mass tried to organize to discuss climate change (http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021826582_westneat15xml.html)?
He tried to pair a group of scientists with a group of deniers (ie. non- or psuedo-scientists, or those in the pocket of big business who stand to lose the most should emission regulations ever be imposed) for an open and honest discussion about the facts. Turns out that both sides have become so entrenched in their own orthodoxy that the discussion quickly deteriorated into name-calling before the seminar was held (and which Mass cancelled before it even began.)
To paraphrase Cruick's very good point above, "Don't try to confuse me with facts - I already know what I want to believe."
You mean the world really is round? Sure does look flat to me!
Oh come on Kent...do you really believe those "scientists" in academia don't have any bias or stand to profit from this debate? One only needs to follow the money to see that pure, unbiased science has been whored out by pimps, from every walk of life, who stand to profit.
Creating a false narrative to get the momentum and sell the theory is a clever tactic... until the foundation of the argument begins to crumble. At that point, those who started it become incensed that they've been found out and simply double down on protecting the goose that lays their golden eggs.
I've come to the conclusion that human's are incapable of looking at things from a global perspective. We're too short-lived to identify with concepts that could encompass decades, let alone centuries or thousands of years. You don't have to look any further than our fisheries to see how poorly we grasp the bigger concepts. And the more we look at the details, the harder it gets to see the bigger picture. We are, by and large, incapable of grasping anything but our immediate needs and surroundings.
The good news is, that guy who says second-hand cigarette smoke isn't bad has already debunked the IPCC report through his heartland-institute (the guys who think global warming is fake because the unibomber) funded "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change".
Personally, I look forward to the hurried demise of the human species. I do everything I can to contribute toward that cause on a global scale because I, for one, look forward to the apocalypse, and plan on enjoying it immensely.
I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
I do so hope they're salmonfly's who use fly fisherman to wreak havoc on trout species that killed their kind in mass. Year round season, no reg's and no limits!
“I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you’re not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern: a virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague, and we are the cure.”
Agent Smith - The Matrix
Just received this image and the context below from a friend. Seemed like a perfect thing to share in this discussion.
Context: "At the Wednesday college convocation, a social scientist with a degree in statistics fudged data that she wanted to hide from us. Those of us who knew the data set -- two English profs, me, and a sociologist -- called her out. It's on par with the time an economist told a committee that inconvenient data could not be presented because there was no room on the page. Egad."
"global warming" morphs into "climate change".... weren't you just a happier person before the lobbyists got their "hooks" into "your" minds??
There are too many lobbyists and propaganda on both sides of this issue.
I find it very interesting that some governments wanted the factual data on the rate of warming being 1/2 of what it was, and less than 1/2 of what the models predicted to be eliminated from the report. I also find it interesting that the IPCC will not comment on this either, but that they are working on a way to include it in their report.
Hmmmm....... I never knew scientists who are reporting things from objective (i.e. actual) measures needed to find a way to include them into a report. The data is there, it shows the rate of warming to be 1/2 what it was, and it shows the rate of warming is less than 1/2 of that predicted by the models. Factual, observed data. Ought not it be simply included into the report without any editorializing?
And although some of the members of the IPCC Committee who are writing the report have hypothesized the heat is being stored in the oceans, I noticed they didn't provide any measured data to support that assertion. Instead, the ones who spoke about it to the author of the article present this hypothesis as if it is a fact, which it is not. In fact, it has not been tested! Therefore, it is nothing more than a theory (i.e. a set of assumptions that purport to explain why something is the way it is) that has never had any hypotheses tested. Yet, it is presented as fact.
I also find it interesting that some climate change advocates are now saying that this much slower rate of warming that has been observed since 1998 is probably caused by La Nina, El Nino, the Artic Oscillation, etc. A few years ago this explanation was being dismissed as fantasy that was being promulgated by the skeptics. Very interesting turn of events I'd say.
It must be nice to simply ignore observed data, or try to explain it away when it is inconvenient to your argument and position. And here I though scientist always want to discover the true facts based on observed data and that they would never try to advance a political agenda.
"Scientists can now say with extreme confidence that human activity is the dominant cause of the global warming observed since the 1950s, a new report by an international scientific group said Friday"
FT, I can believe that "the heat is being stored in the oceans," due to my own experience. Not that it proves anything one way or another, but I have noticed evidence of persistently warmer sea surface temps here along the coast this summer.
Usually, we get shorter durations of this warm surface water hanging around. "El Nino" conditions are often associated with this warmer surface water moving in and staying around for an extended period, but we supposedly aren't experiencing an "El Nino" now. Southerly flows will push in the warmer water, too, and shut of the upwelling of cold water from the sea bottom. Northerlies blow the warm surface layer away and let the cold water resume its upwelling.
This summer, the sea surface temp along the coast here at Westport WA has held in the low 60's (F) for the longest period that I can remember since I began surfing here in the Spring of 1979. We hit 64 F a few times, and 63 several times recently. We have easily had over two months of warm surface water conditions with only a few days when the temp dipped below 59 F.
This must be some kind of anomaly. I have been taking full advantage of the warm water. I've managed to grab 16 good surf sessions so far this month. Aug was pretty good, too. As was July, June, and May. (Water started warming up in May, dipped lower again whenever we had a few days of the strong Northerlies that get the upwelling of cold water going, but warmed up again whenever the north winds backed off and let the warm surface water move back in).
Last Winter, the temps dropped into the upper mid-40's for a long time, lingering at a chilly 45 to 46 F for a couple of months. I heard reports of even colder water (43 F) from surfers who rode waves up in the Strait last Winter.
That's a 20 degree F spread between Winter lows and Summer highs.
We have friends who live on the mid-Atlantic coast that say its been cooler than usual...go figure, God works in mysterious ways.