Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10821 - 10840 of total 25079 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 3, 2013 - 07:27pm PT
Base thanks for the suggestions. As far as the positive feedback loops, primarily atmospheric water vapor, they have so far failed to materialize. The expected heat is missing and there is a desperate search on to find it- they are even looking under rocks in the deep ocean, all to no avail so far. The hothouse events you mention were probably initiated by large scale basaltic eruptions which pumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere ( on the order of several thousand parts per million) to really trap infrared radiation and trigger the positive feedbacks, including large scale methane releases and increases in atmospheric vapor. In your research see if you can find unambiguous evidence of elevated CO2, in just the hundreds of parts per million, leading to temperature increase rather than lagging it. It is interesting that the flora and fauna ( dinosaurs by the billions)seemed to thrive in this hothouse event, planet wide, till the asteroid impact 55 million years ago and the huge volcanic eruption event in India millenia later. Were they killed by the one two punch causing a nuclear winter like period of extreme cold? Too bad your leaning to the AGW side, you'd make a formidable ally. Anyway, not much is happening in this ongoing war till the release of more info on the Cern CLOUD experiment and release of AR5. I am getting too busy to argue with you guys and their are few minds open to change. Unless something comes up i will take a vacation from this. If any of you guys are pissed, remember you have DR. F to blame for my appearance here about post 7500. He took the liberty of transferring my post from another of his threads to here. Otherwise i would never have engaged.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jul 3, 2013 - 07:53pm PT
Adios Rick.

Remember, no matter how busy you are, every morning you get a golden opportunity to take a good honest look in the mirror

If you can do that, you can safely say you are a straight up conservative and not just another bottom feeding right winger.

Ron - did you get a chance to listen to that Spotted Owl podcast I posted?
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jul 4, 2013 - 11:09am PT
I don't personally advocate any one approach to this over another, and there are obviously very strong political opinions regarding just what is acceptable and what is not. But what I have tried to do in this thread is to show that the climate science is a reliable guide to what is happening and what is going to happen.

^^^

There it is. Ed and Chilo, and others, speak to the science. Ed you've done an amazing job. My own attitude, and I use that word specifically, has changed as a direct result of your persistent patience. I used to think that as long as India and China refused to play, and global trade continues present trends, efforts here in the US to curtail CO2 would be insufficient. Actually I still think that. What's changed is my attitude toward the effort. Science is not policy and sadly policy often ignores science. Whaddaya gonna do?

Well I see what Ed and Chiloe are doing and I admire it. I compare that to fly fishing.

DMT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jul 4, 2013 - 11:15am PT
Oh but wait, you can't rely upon me, I'm a fence sitter! I am one of those people open to change. Darn, I guess you can't count on me to adopt a position and stick to it in the face of all logic and contradiction; an unprincipled man.



The relevance of the science is obvious, it is why it has attracted such attention both positive and negative. The identification of the source of the climate change observed over the last century as the by product of human energy production activity provides a very specific focus on what we need to do.

Still amazes me the Do Nothings standard tactic is:

1. Deny there is a warming.
2. When that fails deny humans are causing or even contributing to the effect.
3. When that fails assert there is nothing we can do to prevent it, anyway.

And interestingly the same three people play the same three cards over and over, 1,2,3, 1,2,3,1,2,3... Playing the first first card again, after playing the third, shows the circle jerk nature of these people and shows that it doesn't matter what science suggests, these are Men of Principle and they'll be goddamned if they are going to change their minds.

You've demonstrated that too Ed, their intractability. They are impervious to all facts and logic. after all they are men of principle...

DMT
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 4, 2013 - 11:23am PT
Cheers!
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jul 4, 2013 - 11:36am PT
Well said DMT
Happy 4TH from Montana.
Credit: wilbeer
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Jul 4, 2013 - 01:19pm PT
There is no question Ed makes a very convincing argument. In general I would agree. I still claim that human C02 contributions may not directly play a role in the unusual undulations of the jet stream we have observed recently - my comment was restricted to that phenomenon. I don't know one way or the other.

The huge problem of carbon taxes et al is the continued weakness of the US economy. I look at this from a personal perspective here in Pueblo West, a middle class community 10 miles from Pueblo, on the high S. Colorado prairie. There is no central business area out here, but a number of strip malls and individual business buildings. I have observed small business after small business vanish starting just after the Great Recession began. Recently that trend seems to have accelerated, leaving a large number of empty spaces. Also, in my extended family there are significant unemployment problems among several younger members who were well-trained for their work. One is a very competent driller whose job vanished with the downturn in precious metals' values.

When someone recommends taxing imports from China, etc. if they do not follow the lead of the US, I think Yes, and then those in my family skirting near the edge of financial disaster will have to pay 12$ for an item at Walmart previously listed as 10$. Who ends up paying the price? And, yes, import fees might increase US production, but that's a dangerous path.

Ed has stated all will have to pay the price.

PS: an 1800 lb car getting 275 mpg and requiring 12 seconds to get up to speed would be blown off I-25 into the path of an 18-wheeler here on the high prairie.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 4, 2013 - 02:23pm PT
Excuse me gents, i can't let this go without correcting the record somewhat. The narrative you guys are advancing is as disconnected from reality as the precious climate models you worship.

DMT is right in that The Chief, Ron and i hit you repeatedly with the old 1-2-3, over and over again.

The Chief presented graph, after graph, after graph highlighting the disconnect between the numerous models and observed reality. He offered up article after article, by some of the most respected scientists in the world refuting much of the CAGW hypothesis.He revealed the huge quantity of capital behind this climate change inustry and the ones who will ultimately pay the costs-us.

Ron showed in study after study that the flora and fauna of planet Earth is not suffering as a consequence of increased CO2. He pointed to the real causes of devastating wilfires, which is mainly because of an overreaction to clear cutting forests of the past resulting in overzealous and wrongheaded extreme enviromentalism. He also shredded the idea of the extinction of the Polar Bear-the poster child of the CAGW overreactionaries.

I presented numerous papers ( not just the one Ed claims) by many highly respected scientists offering alternative natural processes that correlate well with observations. These ran the gamut from oceanic cycles, to numerous causes and effects of solar variability, to extra solar effects from cosmic rays etc.

At one point a 1000 or 1500 posts ago both Base and Ed conceded that the Anthropogenic contribution and effects will likely be less than all the modeling. From memory- Ed " the anthropogenic signal is rather feeble compared to natural variability", Base "the effects will likely be more an inconvenience than an extinction and will require adaptation"- These are not exact quotes but are accurate as to their meaning.

Now some of you guys say we deny any anthropogenic contribution towards the cause of the 20th century's modest heat increase of 0.7 c. This is not true, all of us agreed that man has a minor degree of contribution to this increase. What we don't agree to, is that it is a disaster, or a reason to panic.

Ed stated in his last post that i consider the consensus policy to be " a threat to the welfare of humans around the globe", and i ,"align with those who advocate a do nothing policy". The first of his statements is absolutely true- many people do think the carbon taxing scheme that he frequently advocates is a real threat. The second is also true-any one would align with those who advocate doing nothing, before happily agreeing to pay vastly more taxes, to promote more governance at the expense of their welfare, all for an unproven disaster that may occur (according to a minority of scientists)many decades in the future.

Ed had a good illustration in his last post. The grey area on the right showed the loss to inefficiency- don't most of you think that improving efficiency is a worthy goal of science and government policy-i do. It also showed how much coal is used in power generation (coal use is the single largest polutant and releases approx, 50% more CO2 than combustion of natural gas). It also showed how pathetically little energy is produced by wind and solar despite hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies and the use of thousands of square miles of public property. It just can't, at this point, totally replace coal and petroleum. But the combination of increased natural gas usage, construction of more modern nuclear plants, increased efficiency, and funding of R&D on viable alternatives can.This can all be done without a carbon tax. It can be done environmentally safely. It can start to be done now.


jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Jul 4, 2013 - 02:56pm PT
"Further observations and analysis are needed to confidently
attribute the causes of these changes (jet streams) to anthropogenic
climate change, natural variability, or some combination of
the two"

OK. Thanks.


. . . combination of increased natural gas usage, construction of more modern nuclear plants . . .

Sounds good.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jul 4, 2013 - 03:03pm PT
Rick:
Excuse me gents...

You wallow in your own willful ignorance and refuse to learn the basics of the science you try to refute. There is no excuse for you.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Jul 4, 2013 - 03:14pm PT
PS: an 1800 lb car getting 275 mpg and requiring 12 seconds to get up to speed would be blown off I-25 into the path of an 18-wheeler here on the high prairie.
And I can't safely ride my bicycle in the middle of the main drag.
But I still get around.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jul 4, 2013 - 03:35pm PT
Look at Malemute... pretending these fools are not impervious to reason.

It is ALL or NOTHING... if you live ANYWHERE it snows you better drive a big SUV at all times, even to pick up your groceries in July... you just never know. And if you have ever driven on a windy highway fuel efficient vehicles for around town (where most fuel is consumed) will NEVER work.





And NO, driving 50 miles to do a 100 mile road ride does not make you a "biker" it makes you an idiot who rides bikes.
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Jul 4, 2013 - 03:58pm PT
Knew my PS would generate some flak!


;>)
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jul 4, 2013 - 07:37pm PT
Dr. Christ...Even if you live where it doesn't snow , you should have a large 4WD SUV just in case your neighbors were thinking about one-upping you...RJ
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Jul 4, 2013 - 08:56pm PT
Was riding a scooter today....it stalled just after getting started out of an intersection and I got rear ended. All is well, managed to stay upright left rear lights got taken out....but I got their right headlight! I'm going to rate it 5.12D.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 4, 2013 - 09:05pm PT
Did you get clipped by The Chief?
crunch

Social climber
CO
Jul 4, 2013 - 09:05pm PT
I look at this from a personal perspective here in Pueblo West, a middle class community 10 miles from Pueblo, on the high S. Colorado prairie. There is no central business area out here, but a number of strip malls and individual business buildings. I have observed small business after small business vanish starting just after the Great Recession began. Recently that trend seems to have accelerated, leaving a large number of empty spaces. Also, in my extended family there are significant unemployment problems among several younger members who were well-trained for their work. One is a very competent driller whose job vanished with the downturn in precious metals' values.

When someone recommends taxing imports from China, etc. if they do not follow the lead of the US, I think Yes, and then those in my family skirting near the edge of financial disaster will have to pay 12$ for an item at Walmart previously listed as 10$. Who ends up paying the price? And, yes, import fees might increase US production, but that's a dangerous path.

Your argument could turned on its head.

No one yet knows how hard global climate change will hit us.

But the people hardest hit will be those living in locations where the climate is hot and dry, marginal for agriculture already. Southeast Colorado would fit into that category.

Among the other, non-human forcings and variables, currently the human-caused element is feeble. But even this feeble effect has, seemingly, wrecked agriculture and ruined ranchers and farmers in southeast Colorado and into Oklahoma.

So, any tax that serves to stall climate change will benefit places like southeast Colorado and Oklahoma and New Mexico far more than Vermont or Pennsylvania.

So, by this logic, the people of Pueblo should be the most enthusiastic supporters of carbon taxes and the like.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Jul 4, 2013 - 09:20pm PT
Did you get clipped by The Chief?

No, he's shot at me before though. It's time to get an SUV......with armored windows and side walls!
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Jul 4, 2013 - 09:39pm PT
So, any tax that serves to stall climate change . . .


Good luck with that.

I don't think the majority of people of Pueblo would rush to support such a tax. Ervaz Steel Mill (formerly CF&I) modernized, removing old coal burning furnaces a number of years ago, replaced by electric furnaces fueled by the Commanche (coal) Power Plant nearby. Additional taxations would injure the economy - we are not primarily an agricultural or ranching community. However, SE Colorado is and you might find a little support there, but I doubt it, as families out there are concerned about where their next meals will come from and the "promise" of "possibly stalling climate change" is pretty nebulous.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Jul 4, 2013 - 09:46pm PT
We should just wait and see if it gets bad enough to do anything about, like Rick says. But, we could tax chalk too. Chalk is getting off easy.
Messages 10821 - 10840 of total 25079 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews