Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 11621 - 11640 of total 17219 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

Norton

Social climber

the Wastelands

Feb 24, 2014 - 10:28am PT

so yes, I am asking you rick sumner to show the errors, what and where the errors came about, and why you believe they are in error, or falsified, or whatever

get on with it, rick

mechrist

Gym climber

South of Heaven

Feb 24, 2014 - 11:54am PT

I listened to a conservative talk show on the radio the other night, just for fun. Anyone with listening skills and a brain should be offended by that sh#t.

They bounced from climate change to health care to Benghazi without pause... as if they were all the same subject. The only thread through the whole talk with the "caller" was how "they" were trying to destroy the country.

Of course the "caller" made the bold claims and the talk show host followed up with a "well, you just never know... like with Obamacare... some people say it is destroying this country..." and then let the "caller" rant rattle off another 5-10 straw-sequitur (R). My favorite was the ol' "these climate alarmists ignore the fact that the Earth's climate has changed drastically in the past... there were glaciers that covered 1/2 this country". hahaha... yeah!

I wonder how much the "caller" makes. At least he is working for it and not on welfare.

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Feb 24, 2014 - 12:26pm PT

You are breathing too hard Ed and caused a one tenth of one percent reduction in atmospheric O2 in the last 25 years. Now if you believe this tiny amount of reduction, below the margin of error in measurement, stay out of those damn off widths. As for ocean acidity the .1 percent change is well below the seasonal and regional variation.

As for Nortons request- Point two is residence time of atmospheric CO2; The IPCC gives a wholly unrealistic estimate of hundreds to thousands of years compared to numerous measurements and studies showing an average residence time of 5 years. This makes a huge difference. If the Earth entered into a cycle of cooling with a decrease of average temps to mid 20th century levels then outgassing would slow and the residence time would overtake emissions and CO2 levels would slowly decline.

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Feb 24, 2014 - 01:34pm PT

CNN is mad that people are still "debating" climate change.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/24/opinion/costello-debate-climate-change/index.html?hpt=hp_c3
I sorta like the categorization of people's reaction to climate change (The Alarmed, The Concerned, etc.), but the author left our a few, such as the The Charlatans, The Scare-Mongers, the Enviro-Whackos, The Profiteers . . .

For whatever reason, the author used a quote from Ted Cruz to cast aspersions on the deniers, but he seemed to have a somewhat reasonable point:

And just last week, tea party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz told CNN's Dana Bash, "Climate change, as they have defined it, can never be disproved, because whether it gets hotter or whether it gets colder, whatever happens, they'll say, well, it's changing, so it proves our theory."

I suppose even a lack of change could be considered to be a change if at some point in the past there was change!
As has been posted on this thread many times (and many other places), a lot of us caught on that something was up once things changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change."

TLP

climber

Feb 24, 2014 - 02:24pm PT

In fact the portion of atmospheric CO2 attributable to man is in the 3-6% range, meaning 94-97% percent of the increase as measured by Mauna Loa is natural and overwhelmingly from ocean outgassing.

This is a statement that is just not believable without substantial support from peer-reviewed publications. Also, it does not make sense for many reasons. For starters, if the CO2 is coming from ocean outgassing, the observations would show fluctuations in its concentration that track with ocean temperature, that is, when there's a big El Nino event, CO2 would go way up, then go down again when there's La Nina conditions. But this is not what the data show: CO2 just steadily ratchets upward along a very smooth curve with very regular seasonal variation. We know how much CO2 is emitted by human activities, directly or indirectly, and we know the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2. For human emissions to be only 3-6% of that increase, there would have to be an enormous amount of the known emissions that are just plain disappearing somewhere. Not into vegetation: we're clearing forests rather than growing them (in fact, clearing and burning is a notable component of emissions; not a sink). Not in the ocean, since your idea is that those are outgassing. Where's it all going?

The only rational conclusion is, that particular explanation of the insignificance of human emissions is wrong.

raymond phule

climber

Feb 24, 2014 - 02:29pm PT

Rick is obviously confused and makes the same errors over and over again even though people have showed him his error.

Two of the errors he made above.

The human induced part of the carbon cycle is something like 5 percent. Rick's believes that this is the same as saying that only 5 percent of the increase in CO2 is human induced (or something similar). This is of course not true because the human induced CO2 is added to natural carbon cycle that involves a lot of carbon. Think about a lake with a natural 100 cubic meter per second inflow and a 100 cubic meter per second outflow and consider the volume of the lake when a person add a small amount of 1 cubic meter per day.

I am not completely sure about his second mistake but I believe that it is something like. Rick has read that the average time for a single CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is something like 5 years but he miss that this is not the same as saying that a higher CO2 concentration disappear in 5 years.

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Feb 24, 2014 - 03:52pm PT

I think you are confused as to what an El Nino represents Tlp. El nino is the cooling phase of the ocean as it gives up heat to the atmos. La Nina is the phase when the ocean absorbs solar radiation. I'm working and subject to limitation by comm off my cell phone, so look up Sabine and Feeley- the oceanic sink for carbon dioxide for an explanation of mechanisms, transports, and release or absorbtion of the ocean sinks. Fortmental makes my case by highlighting the 100 and thousand year claims by Ipcc in the material he presented.

Wade Icey

Trad climber

www.alohashirtrescue.com

Feb 24, 2014 - 04:10pm PT

More of Chef ecofreak's substantial anti-scientism contributions in his own words:

It's them damn Volcanoes, lack of Sunspots and the Chinese Smog

It's everything now. But, it is happening.

Total fking FAIL. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! LOSER! Start sucking that water from your shetter

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

BTW, this site has absolutely no trail of substance as to who, what and where.

You really are a purest dumbass. And you don't even realize it.

CAGW fighting crowd walk around without wiping after they squat to leave one in the dirt let alone wash their skanky lazeeeeeeeeeee asses all in the name of conserving water and fighting Climate Change.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Fking eco-freak morons. The lot of you.HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Keep inciting the fear. Tell em all the world is coming to an end because the weather is NOT acting as you want it to.
Oh the CAGW propaganda machine just keeps on rolling....

I propose that you all start praying for more volcano eruptions and that the Chinese keep spewing more shet into the atmosphere. That is the solution.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Feb 24, 2014 - 10:37pm PT

Thanks Ed for the confirming propaganda from IPCC. As usual it is quite unsubstantiated bullshet. Did Jesus tag the mythical 2000 year old molecules that the IPCC is identifying for their longevity studies?

Further confirmation of IPCC claims; "Carbon dioxide cycles between the atmosphere, oceans and land biosphere. Its removal from the atmosphere involves a range of processes with different time scales. About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years". From AR4, page 501 of the executive summary.

Norton

Social climber

the Wastelands

Feb 24, 2014 - 10:45pm PT

Rick Sumner, I still don't see how you have identified the specific errors in the data

can you be more clear, more specific about this?

rottingjohnny

Sport climber

mammoth lakes ca

Feb 24, 2014 - 10:48pm PT

The Chief...I saw a report on the news a few nights ago that said this past January was the 4th warmest on the planet since records have been kept... ...I find it hard to believe that climate change isn't happening..Butterflies in mammoth today and aspens on the verge of budding green leaves..this typically doesn't happen till mid May or later and this is the 3rd dry year in a row for the Eastern Sierra...Somethings not right with the weather and i'm not going to fall for big oils marketing ploy of denying what's obviously happening out here in the real world...

Norton

Social climber

the Wastelands

Feb 24, 2014 - 11:06pm PT

you would prefer Joe the Plumber?

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Feb 25, 2014 - 12:36am PT

Fort Mental, I froze my little Cali girl's behind off in Sandia Park last weekend!
That's all the proof I need to know the warming is ovah! Of course the rels regaled us with tall
tales of the good old days when it actually snowed up there but I know they are full of it. Oh,
wait, I lived there then, didn't I?

raymond phule

climber

Feb 25, 2014 - 01:15am PT

So Rick still doesn't understand the difference between time in the atmosphere for a single CO2 molecule and the time that is needed for a change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

He also seems to ignore the fact that one of his favorite scientist, Judith Curry, disagree with what he writes.

dirtbag

climber

Feb 25, 2014 - 02:18am PT

Chief what's it like to have moobs?

dirtbag

climber

Feb 25, 2014 - 02:23am PT

How is he a racist, Pinnochio?

dirtbag

climber

Feb 25, 2014 - 02:26am PT

How is he a racist, Pinnochio?

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Feb 25, 2014 - 02:34am PT

No Phule, you dont seem to understand. The unsubstantiated claim by the Ipcc is clear. They are claiming residence time of existing CO2 varies from decades to millenia. While it may be true that under the influence of a gradual cooling that the rate of atmospheric CO2 decrease could be slow , they dont say that in the text quoted.