Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 8941 - 8960 of total 20046 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Oct 5, 2013 - 02:10am PT
Then does it have no affect or does it reduce atmospheric heat content?

and uhm..this chart you posted sure seems to show a conclusive correlation between co2 concentration and temperature. Cause and effect could be argued although the graph supports both possible simple conclusions at various periods. ie delta c either precedes and trails delta t at times.

Your shorter term ones do not necessarily contradict the correlation due to the short time period involved.

I will grant we are in an era of untested limits to the clear historical correlation. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. Mmm Not so much. Experiments like this seem somewhat reckless to me. I will hope/pray for an unforeseen low environmental impact source of high buffer.

Otherwise that red line appears about to go high into uncharted territory.


raymond phule

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 02:18am PT
Do the chief even look at his own graphs? Why did he post the first one? What are we supposed to see?
raymond phule

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 09:57am PT
So the chief is just a religious nutcase?
dirtbag

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 10:04am PT
What a cop out.

You can 't bother to learn even the most basic math and science concepts listed above yet you still opine on them.


You're just another willfully ignorant, illiterate, dumbass who can't keep his big fat mouth shut. F*#k you.

raymond phule

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 10:04am PT
So you are a religious nutcase that believe in some supernatural laws (probably libertarian) about the universe.
dirtbag

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 10:04am PT


BUT, I do have faith in the laws that are in place that run the big show.


"The Truth".


I.e., "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH."

Fukk you.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 10:10am PT
The chief, i did of course know that you and your peers believe in the "truth" that climate change is not man made. It is the only thing you claim over and over and it is obvious that your only arguments are that you "know" that it can't happen. The data from the world and the science doesn't matter at all for you because you already know the "truth".
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Oct 5, 2013 - 10:19am PT
The cheif let me simplify.

The graph you posted very obviously does not support your conclusion.

BUT, I do have faith in the laws that are in place that run the big show.

OOOKAYYY that's nice. Not sure what you are getting at though. Do you think there is some law that assures man cannot cause global warming? Or reverse it if man causes it?
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 5, 2013 - 10:33am PT
The Queef wrote:
there is no turning back and earth will end up in a situ identical to Venus via the Runaway Greenhouse Effect.

NO scientist who knows anything about anything would EVER say that. And only a willfully ignorant fukwad could ever imagine they would.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 5, 2013 - 10:40am PT
I see "the collective" here has made a resurgence. Even old Ed, who i don't want to piss off to badly since i hope to recruit him for inconsequential, obscure, untrodden, adventure climbs in the big void, has shaken the embarassment of realization of ideological tainting to rejoin this futile battle.

The problem with you hotheads and your cult of doom (besides the obvious fact that observations do not match the tales of calamity you spin) is that you are one dimensional, veritable flat earthers, unable to grasp the multiplicity of dynamics of the higher states of order governing life and it's evolution on this earth. You've taken a single physical effect, the ability of the CO2 molecule to intercept radiant energy of a narrow bandwidth and then reradiate 6-8% earthwards to trigger all sorts of hypothesized positive feedbacks to create an artificial, ever escalating loop of doom. In your flat earth modeling negative feedbacks are given short consideration if considered at all, little valuation is given to solar variation and it's myriad of direct and amplified effects, the cause and effects of oceanic currents and turnover are little understood. little consideration is given to earths lifeforms and their abilities to regulate climate somewhat as a thermostat.Etc, etc., etc.

When will you guys get your heads out of your asses to face the light of day?
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Oct 5, 2013 - 10:42am PT
Hey Rick. No doubt there many other complex mechanisms that tend to buffer the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

My concern is that those buffers have limits. Unknown limits. We have a pretty interesting experiment going on here. Testing those limits in ways we have no similar historical data for.

A decade or so of buffering does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling. I hope the buffering is very robust but suspect that instead it is being stretched to the limit and about to burst. As most buffering systems I am familiar with will do if pushed too hard.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 10:46am PT
It is interesting how the people that is the most closed minded once all the time claim that it is everyone else that is closed minded. Projection?
raymond phule

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:05pm PT

Yet the EPA says cutting out all the coal power plants will have ZERO effects on the CO2 output.

I would really like to see a direct quote of that claim.

What really do you believe that they said in that article? That the release of less CO2 would result in the same release of CO2 or something without logic like that?
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:27pm PT
Rong:
Yet the EPA says cutting out all the coal power plants will have ZERO effects on the CO2 output.

Ray:
I would really like to see a direct quote of that claim.

Hahaaa... yeah, good luck with that. I assure you it was a misunderstanding stemming directly from the ignorance of the interpreter... who regurgitated the bullshit interpretation to Rong.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:36pm PT
No, I remember that article but cant remember the details. I am sure that all or at least most of the misunderstandings in this case is fully ron's own.

I believe that EPA said that it would be no real difference in CO2 release with some new rules in regard to coal plants. The reason where probably that the new rules didn't make it attractive to change to better coal power plants so that the rules would change nothing.

climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:37pm PT
Lol I guess it would depend on what you replaced them with.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:44pm PT
Yes, but I believe that the main point from EPA where that they where not going to shut down the old coal plants and they where thus not replaced with anything.

But I am really not sure. I just skimmed the beginning of the article. Realized that Ron's interpretation where wrong as usual and stopped skimming. It could have been some other reason.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 5, 2013 - 04:48pm PT
but Ron, that article obviously doesn't claim anything close to
"Yet the EPA says cutting out all the coal power plants will have ZERO effects on the CO2 output." so you must have read something else. The word shutdown is not even in the article.

Did you just make up that quote?
AndyMan

Sport climber
CA
Oct 5, 2013 - 05:24pm PT
No global warming for 2 decades. Global cooling for the past decade. Antarctic sea ice at record highs. Arctic sea ice record increase. Rate of sea level rise decreasing. Cyclones and hurricanes at a 30 year low. Polar bear numbers increasing (for the Gore kiddies).

Still not a shred of evidence of any kind that man's CO2 has caused any of the warming since the Little Ice Age.

Come on all you frightened pussies, in your own words, where is the EVIDENCE that man's CO2 caused any of the global warming that stopped 2 decades ago.

Credit: AndyMan

Credit: AndyMan
Paul Martzen

Trad climber
Fresno
Oct 5, 2013 - 06:15pm PT
The normal "pollutants" that we have been trying to clean up for the last 40 years are side effects of combustion. Typical pollutants are from incomplete combustion, dirty fuel, or too hot or cold combustion. Sulfuric acid comes from high sulfur coal. Incomplete combustion produces various hydrocarbon and particulates. Not sure what produces NOX, high heat in the combustion chamber, maybe. All these pollutants are potentially cleanable with efficient and complete combustion or after combustion technologies.

As you note, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It does not have any detectable harmful effects on humans at these levels. It is a primary result of combustion and is only related to the total amount of fuel being burned. The more fuel burned the more CO2. In order to capture that CO2, you have to spend just as much energy as was released when you burned it.

When ever you burn wood or eat food, you release CO2, but that CO2 was captured out of the atmosphere by plants while they were alive, recently.

The gasoline that we burn in our cars or the coal in powerplants was taken out of the atmosphere millions of years ago over a span of a few million years. The plants that were slowly converted to oil and coal underground were once living on the surface, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere. Over that long time span, atmospheric CO2 slowly dropped from much higher levels down to the levels that we are used to. Life in general did just fine with those high CO2 levels and higher temperatures. Humans and mammals weren't around so we don't know how we would have done then.

Most of the CO2 on earth is locked up in carbonates in sedimentary rocks. The amount locked up in oil and coal is probably much less, but still significant.

Venus is an example of a planet with a primarily CO2 atmosphere, something like 96% CO2. The temperature on the surface is around 740 degrees Celsius, because of the greenhouse effect.
See this website comparing the atmospheres of Earth, Venus and Mars.
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s9.htm

Messages 8941 - 8960 of total 20046 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta