Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 13101 - 13120 of total 20059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
dirtbag

climber
Feb 23, 2014 - 11:20am PT
LULZ to the max.

Now that is more in tune with the actual observed data on this website...



Carry on.





Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Feb 23, 2014 - 11:26am PT
Chef's ecofreak antiscientism contributions:
Credit: Cheesegraphs
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1111111!!!!
RIIIIIGHHT1111!!!!!
NNIIIIIIICE!!!!!!1111
GOT IT

Now that is more in tune with the actual observed data on this website...

Credit: Wade Icey
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Feb 23, 2014 - 11:31am PT
Chef's FACTUAL and REALISTIC contributions:

LOL















































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





...I guess you deleted all your scatalogical studies...out for peer review?

Credit: Cheesegraphs


Now that is more in tune with the actual observed data in the real scheme of the world...

Spot on!
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Feb 23, 2014 - 11:50am PT
Now that is more in tune with the actual observed data of YOUR postings on this website.

See what I mean? The chief always has to be right.

Got it.

DMT
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Feb 23, 2014 - 12:27pm PT
Norton, I keep seeing posts from you asking Rick to provide proof the data used in CAGW theory is incorrect. First, off are you referring to Rick #1 (The Chief) or myself # 2? Second, are you challenging my assertion that " the reconstructed data and infills are erroneous", if so be more precise in your wording undersecretary? Until then, let me offer the following observation: increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a consequence of cyclical natural global warming much more so than anthropogenic release and this observation alone is enough to invalidate the theory if it was indeed "science" instead of a radical fundamentalist religion used to fund global cronyism. Let me elaborate somewhat- Despite many attempts, consuming platoons of determined fundamentalists and millions of dollars in public money, atmospheric CO2 concentrations are still accepted to rise and fall as a consequence of surface warming/cooling-a fact. 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. Ocean outgassing of CO2 occurs much more readily in warmer waters, i.e. equatorial waters in which Mauna Loa sits close to. Cooler waters surrounding the poles readily absorb atmospheric CO2. Digest these facts, then consider the primary source of atmospheric CO2 concentrations of the indirectly observed past is from ice cores which were formed in an environment of considerably less CO2 concentrations than Mauna Loa. Therefore using these ice core reconstructions and projecting global atmospheric conditions of the past is a bit improper, unrepresentative of a global average, and adjustments to reflect global conditions from the past from this data is subject to gross bias by the fundamentalist fanatics of the global CAGW church of environmentalism and perpetual support of the scientifically lame that could find no other employ otherwise. There is much, much more, undersecretary Norton, but I fear I waste my breath in explanation to you.

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Feb 23, 2014 - 12:46pm PT
First, off are you referring to Rick #1 (The Chief) or myself # 2? Second, are you challenging my assertion that " the reconstructed data and infills are erroneous

yes, that would be you, rick sumner I am constantly asking to come out and define, state just exactly what are the "errors in the data" that you said were there

you know, the "data" that are included in graphs, studies, etc that are used to support the position that the earth is warming overall

that you disagree with?

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

ok, thank?
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Feb 23, 2014 - 02:51pm PT
Dingbats you say?



http://garbagefinds.com/2012/10/06/poster-vaccination-clinic-in-dingbatland/
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Feb 23, 2014 - 06:06pm PT
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Feb 23, 2014 - 06:11pm PT
now that IS funny, Hurricane Michelle Bachman!

thanks for posting, WIlbeer
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Feb 24, 2014 - 08:27am PT
"SHUT UP!", they debat...er, they argu...ummm, they clai...threatened.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/24/heating-up-climate-change-advocates-try-to-silence-krauthammer/?intcmp=latestnews


dirtbag

climber
Feb 24, 2014 - 08:41am PT
Yeah! And how dare WAPO for not publishing both sides of the "Earth is Round" debate!
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."
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Feb 24, 2014 - 02:23pm PT
Only six of the 19 cities that have hosted Winter Olympics in the last century would be cold enough to reliably host a Games by the end of this century, predicts a new study led by a Canadian climate change expert.

The average February daytime temperature of Winter Games locations has been steadily rising, the study found, with average temperatures in the 1920 to 1950s hovering around 0.4 degrees Celsius, before rising to 3.1 C during the 1960-90s, and 7.8 C in Games held in the 21st century.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/few-former-host-cities-could-hold-winter-games-by-century-s-end-study-1.1701217
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.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Feb 24, 2014 - 02:26pm PT
The only rational conclusion is, that particular explanation of the insignificance of human emissions is wrong.
The only rational conclusion is, that particular explanation of the insignificance of human emissions is a bald faced lie.

fixed it for ya
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.
Messages 13101 - 13120 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews