Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 12241 - 12260 of total 20059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 22, 2014 - 06:36pm PT
The last i heard "the human portion of the biomass", as DMT says, were net emitters, unless they could be considered Flora as in residents of the land of fruits and nuts.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Jan 22, 2014 - 06:36pm PT
So if the biomass of the planet can impact, and by your contention, serve to regulate the CO2 content of the atmosphere; help me understand your thinking.

Then the human portion of the biomass, as a subset, can have an impact, and in fact serve to regulate the CO2 content of the atmosphere as well?

Right?

Hmm, perhaps theoretically possible, I don't know--humans don't directly engage in photosynthesis; I suppose respiration has some effect on CO2.

But you're missing the forest for the trees when you try to break it down like that--the important thing to remember is that these "models" (if you can even call them that, many of them are just statistical constructs of the type that even Ed H. used to condemn until he found out his buddy Chiloe was one of their leading proponents) are mere guesswork.

Fortunately, the good scientists at NASA have discovered that increased CO2 will both increase plant growth and limit CO2-caused global warming, assuming arguendo such a thing even exists in any substantial amount!
That's a good thing--no need to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Cragar

climber
MSLA - MT
Jan 22, 2014 - 06:39pm PT
Forget about beliefs, they're irrelevant.

One way to not fall for it.. Dingleberry Creambagel!
TLP

climber
Jan 22, 2014 - 07:00pm PT
Blah, it's absolutely true that when plants photosynthesize they take CO2 out of the atmosphere. (But it is science, so be forewarned that it's mere guesswork.) But considering that the types of vegetation that have the greatest potential photosynthetic rates per unit area, namely forests and specifically tropical ones, are being steadily reduced in area, vegetation is not going to go very far to balance CO2 emissions by human activities. Plus, there's a limit to how much of that fixed carbon stays fixed. You can get really big trees, then they blow over and decompose, and all that CO2 goes back out into the atmosphere. A lot of carbon is stored in soil, such as in the Arctic permafrost, which is released as temperature goes up (which even deniers admit will happen, it's only a question of how fast). All these interactions of the biosphere with atmospheric CO2 are known but just aren't big enough to be particularly significant on the scale that matters for climate change except possibly the Arctic soil CO2 stock, which would cause a notable atmospheric increase if it were released on a short time scale (few decades).
dirtbag

climber
Jan 22, 2014 - 08:54pm PT
Close... but,















Nope.






Like FUKEDWARFEDICKMENTAL, more practice.



More.


You might just get it some day.

It's sad watching #1, from sun up to sun down, piss away his retirement and his limited remaining time on Earth showing the world how utterly fooking stoopid he is.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 22, 2014 - 09:21pm PT
Things Funky here.
Things Funky here.
Credit: web bootsy
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:50am PT
Many here do not mind being fools.

Credit: Wade Icey
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 23, 2014 - 02:07am PT
I think there was a recent study claiming upwards of a 12% increase of greening of the planet as a result of the higher trace CO2, mainly in arid regions where C4 plants prevail as they require less moisture. The Idso's over at CO2 science have a lot of material on effects of a warming phase world on flora and fauna.

The only other thing i might add is that there is a fool reborn every minute and not all of them are of what ED infers as the intellectually inferior class, which in ideologies he seems to support might be as high as 80% of the populace. All hail The Chief.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 23, 2014 - 08:39am PT
Hmm, perhaps theoretically possible, I don't know--humans don't directly engage in photosynthesis; I suppose respiration has some effect on CO2.

But you're missing the forest for the trees when you try to break it down like that

I don't think so. You acknowledge that humans are causing warming by increased CO2 emissions through your 'increased plant growth negative feedback loop' gambit (I won't call it a theory without some reference to some calculations, you know... guesswork).

If human-contributed CO2 is or will cause an increase in plant growth its patently simple to see that humans can regulate the CO2 content of the atmosphere simply by reducing or increasing the CO2 contribution.

So when you're hacking at your forest be careful lest one of your own trees hits you in the head.

DMT
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jan 23, 2014 - 10:19am PT
You have established the disgusting and pathetic protocol of immediately discrediting, personally attacking and demeaning anyone that does not side with your agenda, as an important component of establishing this ideology throughout the world. As evidenced here on this thread by you and the others.
The chump said this?
It's his agenda in a nutshell.
He's too stupid to crunch any numbers, so he bullshits.
WBraun

climber
Jan 23, 2014 - 10:55am PT
This mornings front page headlines:

NOAA: World in 2013 was 4th hottest on record

What does this mean?

It means this thread will definitely go on and on and on and on etc etc etc .....

Carry on men!

:-)
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jan 23, 2014 - 10:58am PT
the chump is a trailer trash moron who is too stupid to crunch numbers
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Jan 23, 2014 - 12:03pm PT
Here is a question for the pro-modeling crowd:
what is a non-trivial prediction of the current models that we can later check to see if they get it right?
I understand we may need to wait a few years, that's OK, just something concrete that may allow me to say "nyah nyah nyah" or "oh crap they actually got it right."
Of course it's possible that the model may be "right" by luck (I don't think it can be "wrong" by luck, there's a lack of symmetry there).
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 23, 2014 - 12:29pm PT
Blahblah, that's the heart of the matter and the reason I'm here. The models long ago disproved their own projections and therefore the extremes of CAGW theory. Reality failed them by not having a linear temp rise along with CO2, by the south pole getting cooler and adding ice, by not having a mid tropospheric hotspot, by feedbacks being on the negative side instead of positive, and on and on. Now when you confront these climate religionists with these facts they will deny and point to this new study or that, all productions of the multi hundred billion dollar climate industry and evangelical society. A good example.being Ed's graph above. Warm ,windy, rainy conditions are not unusual in the southcentral AK winter Bruce. They are called Chinook's and occur several times most winters.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 23, 2014 - 12:29pm PT
what is a non-trivial prediction of the current models that we can later check to see if they get it right?
I understand we may need to wait a few years, that's OK, just something concrete that may allow me to say "nyah nyah nyah" or "oh crap they actually got it right."

Credit: Cheesegraphs
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:00pm PT
Peeeeeeeeeeeeeerfect, wade.


Thanks Cheese, thought it might be upside down. Welcome to the Anthrocene.

Credit: Wade Icey


Now, standing by for the proverbial and ongoing name calling, personal attacks, discrediting attempts and all the rest of the protocol sorts....

what are you on about? have a great day Chef.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:06pm PT
Credit: Wade Icey
TLP

climber
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:22pm PT
Planet Earth and the actual natural component of Climate, do not crunch numbers.
Only egocentric humans that think and claim they know everything, do.
Accept the planet and it's diverse and very COMPLEX behavior as something you CAN NOT control.

This seems to me to be a very telling set of statements, which appear to be the same as saying "do not bother to do any science at all, because the planet is complicated (true) and it is what it is." That was basically the church's position in the Dark Ages and has been judged to be obsolete by most modern societies. In my opinion, that viewpoint is irrelevant to any discussion of the validity of one or another specific science. Personally, I think science is useful because understanding things is helpful in dealing with the consequences of natural and human-influenced processes. Knowing the causal connection between a big earthquake and a soon-to-arrive tsunami is useful to an Indonesian coastal resident, I would think. But apparently The Chief believes, on the contrary, that the tsunami is just going to come - there have certainly been bigger ones in the last 500 million years - so you might as well just get washed away.

In another direction, I think blahblah's question about a non-trivial prediction is a reasonable one, though the answer is not simple for two reasons: it needs to incorporate controls relating to unpredictable or semi-predictable but irregular natural processes (volcanic eruptions, ocean oscillations); and, once one is suggested, the wording and parameters will just be contested along the lines of, they're fudging the temperature data bases anyway, that's not an acceptable prediction. That said, Ed's graph provides a first cut: that for for X number of years (like 45, say) out of Y (50?), observed temperatures, smoothed according to some standard mathematical methodology, will be within Z amount (in absolute numbers, or standard deviations) of the average predicted global temperature of all the models, or some subset of them as we gain an improved understanding of which ones are most valid and are based upon the most realistic patterns of human activities (such as emissions and deforestation). And as his graphic shows, the observed temperatures certainly fall within the range of the collective modeling effort. Probably needs to be expanded to accommodate increasing understanding of ocean heat content. But something along those lines would be useful. Basically, scientists do this general kind of evaluation all the time with modeling, and when something doesn't fit, start looking at all the inputs and calculations to see what might be wrong. I don't do climate, but I do vegetation modeling sometimes, and that's exactly what we do.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:25pm PT
Planet Earth and the actual natural component of Climate, do not crunch numbers.
Only egocentric humans that think and claim they know everything, do.
Accept the planet and it's diverse and very COMPLEX behavior as something you CAN NOT control.

This seems to me to be a very telling set of statements, which appear to be the same as saying "do not bother to do any science at all, because the planet is complicated (true) and it is what it is."

The statements are born from Contempt.

DMT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:41pm PT
Yup!


Contempt

No need to add anything else.

DMT
Messages 12241 - 12260 of total 20059 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

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews