Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16101 - 16120 of total 26664 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 24, 2013 - 01:38pm PT
If you've got beetles, let your timber industry cull them, if you have late arriving snow use up some of your precious water resource to make snow, if your skiers are depressed have them move elsewhere.

Maybe I was wrong, even that NH winter graphic brings out the stupid. Rick, you reliably have no idea what you're talking about, yet proclaim with such D-K self-assurance.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 24, 2013 - 01:59pm PT

Regarding my statement about "man caused some warming", my point was the criteria "man caused warming" is completely open ended. The level of man's contribution to global warming is undefined. The criteria allows for any amount of contribution by anthropogenic forcings.

I look at all criteria and believe that you statement would fit into level 6 or 7.


You claim the criteria sets the minimum for anthropogenic contribution at 50 per cent. Where, in the criteria for levels 2 and 3, is that criteria stated?What's your basis for that claim?

My bases for that claim is that level 1 and 7 use that criteria and that level 2,3,5 and 6 is considered as the same criteria but with uncertainties attached because the quantification is not included in the abstract.

You seems to suggest that statements like
"man caused some warming"
"man caused a minimal amount of warming"
"man caused a small amount of the warming"

Would be considered at level 2 while

"man caused 40% of the warming" obviously should be put into level 7.

From the article
"Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact"

I also interpret these statements as strong statements that is only used when the author thinks that most of the global warming is caused by humans. The theory of AGW is not that humans have caused a very small part of the warming.
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Oct 24, 2013 - 02:17pm PT
the more rick, and chuff and sketchy go on the more sure I am about AGW.

keep up the good work fellas!
brotherbbock

Trad climber
Alta Loma, CA
Oct 24, 2013 - 02:26pm PT
Wow... good solutions there Rick Summer. That is about one of the stupidest posts I have ever read.
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Oct 24, 2013 - 02:32pm PT
This thread just keeps getting better and better.

Rick, The Chief, Sketch, and Anderson should take this show on the road!

Yeah, we're laughing with you, right?
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Oct 24, 2013 - 02:45pm PT
These warmist tards got nothing. Winter Spring Summer Fall still
happening normally and that's really pissed them off.
They insanely thought that their warmist IPCC fantasy papers could
magically cause the climate to change.


Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Oct 24, 2013 - 02:52pm PT
I see. Since level 7 explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming, any paper that implies humans are causing warming (without clarifying how much warming or minimizing the human impact) should be interpreted as saying humans are causing at least 50% of the warming.

Is that about right?.

Let's try this again:

Level 7 explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming.

Level 6 explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming

Level 5 implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly

Levels 2,3,5 & 6 have no criteria about the degree humans have contributed to recent warming. Instead, they seem to group papers by whether they support or oppose anthropogenic factors. Yet, you seem to think levels 2 & 3 only contain papers supporting "most of the warming".

Since you have been relying on the abstract and not the actual paper, I'm posting the Levels of endorsement, Descriptions and Examples from the paper.

It's obvious your 50% criteria doesn't hold water, based on the paper's definitions.

If you still think your right, based on the paper's definitions, please explain why.

Here are the Definitions of each level of endorsement of AGW.

(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification
Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming
‘The global warming during the 20th century is caused mainly by increasing greenhouse gas concentration especially since the late 1980s’

(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification
Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact
‘Emissions of a broad range of greenhouse gasesof varying lifetimes contribute to global climate change’

(3) Implicit endorsement
Implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause
‘. . . carbon sequestration in soil is important for
mitigating global climate change’

(4a) No position Does not address or mention the cause of global warming

(4b) Uncertain Expresses position that human’s role on recent global warming is uncertain/undefined
‘While the extent of human-induced global warming is inconclusive.. .

(5) Implicit rejection
Implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly
E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming
‘. . . anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results’

(6) Explicit rejection without quantification
Explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming
‘. . . the global temperature record provides little support for the catastrophic view of the greenhouse effect’

(7) Explicit rejection with quantification
Explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming
‘The human contribution to the CO2 content in the atmosphere and the increase in temperature is negligible in comparison with other sources of
carbon dioxide emission’
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 24, 2013 - 02:54pm PT
Amazed that some think CYCLES arent part of this world. EVERYTHING cycles. Fish, birds, lakes and weather. Climate has cycled up and down since time began. Lakes go from clear to green and back to clear. ALL by themselves.

But somehow AGW types think this is disturbing news. Granted man has added some pollutants to the mix. BUt what would CO2 and temps be doing right now if man had never industrialized himself? I would imagine it would be close to the same. Natural occurrence was to blame for every spike in history up to the industrial revolution. So now we just assume man is to blame for all of it now eh..
Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Oct 24, 2013 - 02:54pm PT
the more rick, and chuff and sketchy go on the more sure I am about AGW.

keep up the good work fellas!

Hey Nature - Why did you delete your post about the sea level rising 10 feet?




























Don't sweat it. I saved it for everyone to enjoy.
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:06pm PT
I had not had my coffee and I was off by an order of magnitude. Chuff already posted it.

I deleted it because my math sucked. You could delete a bunch of posts for the same reason.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:07pm PT
Yes, the rock record is filled with cycles of high and low sea level stands, and the only way to do that globally is by accumulating and melting sea ice.

In sequence stratigraphy, these fit the milankovitch cycles. However right now we aren't in a warming part of those cycles.

Petroleum geologists work these cycles like crazy. They control the distribution of reservoir rocks for oil and gas.

There is a good wiki page on it, but for our use, these words are important:

These alternating high and low sea level stands repeat at several time scales. The smallest of these cycles is approximately 20,000 years, and corresponds to the rate of precession of the Earth's rotational axis (see Milankovitch cycles) and are commonly referred to as '5th order' cycles. The next larger cycle ('4th order') is about 40,000 years and approximately matches the rate at which the Earth's inclination to the Sun varies (again explained by Milankovitch). The next larger cycle ('3rd order') is about 110,000 years and corresponds to the rate at which the Earth's orbit oscillates from elliptical to circular. Lower order cycles are recognized, which seem to result from plate tectonic events like the opening of new ocean basins by splitting continental masses.

Hundreds of similar glacial cycles have occurred throughout the Earth's history. The earth scientists who study the positions of coastal sediment deposits through time ("sequence stratigraphers") have noted dozens of similar basinward shifts of shorelines associated with a later recovery. The largest of these sedimentary cycles can in some cases be correlated around the world with great confidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequence_stratigraphy

raymond phule

climber
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:09pm PT
I see. Since level 7 explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming, any paper that implies humans are causing warming (without clarifying how much warming or minimizing the human impact) should be interpreted as saying humans are causing at least 50% of the warming.

You should use global warming instead of warming in what you write. If that the case I would think so.



Since you have been relying on the abstract and not the actual paper
I have been relying on the paper.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:23pm PT
Pangea was breaking up in the Mesozoic. The rifting led to a massive amount of volcanism, and the high CO2 from that led to a worldwide hothouse event. Sea level was high enough that during the Cretaceous, there was a north-south seaway across the north American plate.

How do we know this? Because there is a pile of Cretaceous marine sediments there.

If you want to understand past cycles, you really need to do a little googling on "sequence stratigraphy," Milankovitch Cycles," Cretaceous Hothouse"

That should get you started. It will be pretty hard for us to increase the CO2 content up to Cretaceous levels, but if we burn all of our fossil fuel deposits, that should get us close.

You also need to read up on "Ocean Acidification," "Global Anoxic Events," and a reconstructed CO2 concentration curve through deep time. Back to the Permian, at least.

Here is one on reconstructing the global CO2 concentration curve using leaf stomata. It is interesting.

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/GSA_Paper.pdf


Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:24pm PT
On the coast not far from here you can find these tortured metamorphic rocks that record collisions then separations between Europe and North America plates. A ways inland, the Connecticut River Valley contains remnants of two volcanic island chains that were formerly oceanic.

My front yard, literally, was at one time a place where the Laurentide Ice Sheet formed a cliff calving into the Atlantic. On a summer day I like to sit on the patio and imagine that scene.

Ron's and Dave729's declarations of what scientists do or don't believe regarding climate change and cycles are complete fantasies mainly proving they don't read.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:29pm PT
We have a lot of paleo evidence. It is just a matter of culling it all in and seeing if there is a correlation between CO2 levels and sea level rise and fall in the past.

As stated above, current geological theory blames most of this on orbital forcing. This is fairly new, though. Ten or 15 years old.

We do know that the Cretaceous event was CO2 forced, though. We are pretty certain, anyway. CO2 levels were through the roof, and dinosaurs lived in the arctic.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:30pm PT
Climate change cycles a FANTASY? hmmmmmm...


Ok Chiloe, what is wrong in my statement. CO2 and temps have indeed gone up and down ALL BY THEMSELVES in the past. Due to ONLY natural occurrence.
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:32pm PT
[Message removed because I'm not a jerk]
raymond phule

climber
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:41pm PT

Amazed that some think CYCLES arent part of this world.

I am more amazed that someone think that "some think that CYCLES aren't part of this world.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:50pm PT
Here's your fantasy, Ron. It's false and you just flat made it up, but you read nothing so you don't even know when you're doing that.

Amazed that some think CYCLES arent part of this world.
...
But somehow AGW types think this is disturbing news.


So far as I know, no scientist anywhere ever claimed that "cycles aren't part of this world."
The existence of cycles is not news to anyone except maybe the "AGW types" cartoon dancing in your head.
No scientist in real life finds the concept of cycles disturbing.

Base just gave some examples, did it cross your mind that here's an "AGW type" whose expertise includes cycles?
Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Oct 24, 2013 - 03:55pm PT
You should use global warming instead of warming in what you write. If that the case I would think so.

Warming = most of the warming

Got it.

Nice display of critical thinking.
Messages 16101 - 16120 of total 26664 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews