Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 17001 - 17020 of total 21618 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 2, 2014 - 12:51pm PT
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 2, 2014 - 01:18pm PT


http://www.amazon.com/Dire-Predictions-Understanding-Illustrated-Findings/dp/0756639956


http://vimeo.com/43546383
jammer

climber
Sep 2, 2014 - 01:24pm PT

Concur.

DMT

Thank you :).

I would like to lastly add that you guys can go ahead and think the push back against global warming was dreamed up by and solely propagated by right-wing ideologues, but that wont bring you any closer to reality.

If gas was still the roughly 97 cents a gallon it was when I started driving, my life would be SO much cheaper. For many of us this means the difference between being able to afford a doctor visit, save any amount of money for some kind of retirement, etc. The lack of any kind of real investment in the green technologies which are already available (GM EV1 anyone?) is the final straw in that. But go on believing it's all right wing media...

It's as if they assume the American public would still choose dumb ass gas guzzlers over green energy if given the option. Like everyone has their head in the dark and is some evil dipsh#t. Wake the f*#k up...
TLP

climber
Sep 2, 2014 - 01:27pm PT
Jammer, you repeat again that because the "nightmare scenarios" have not happened, you have little faith that they will (whatever faith has to do with it). Do you also not believe that a major earthquake will ever happen in coastal California, because one has not happened in over 100 years? It's just not a sensible worldview.

I have no idea, nor does it particularly matter, whether you are denying that there is global warming due to (or contributed to by) CO2. I just think that a few of your posts display a lack of enough common sense and consideration of the factual answers that some of the other folks here have provided.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 2, 2014 - 01:29pm PT
From Meteorology to Mitigation: Understanding Global Warming

an online course from Penn State University

http://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATFwLETE3NQ
http://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/112


Lesson 9 Summary

In this lesson we looked at the potential impacts of projected climate change on civilization and our environment. The key impacts under continuing anthropogenic carbon emissions are:

Projected sea level rise could threaten many coastal and low-lying regions of the world by the end of this century; low-lying island nations could be submerged. Within two centuries, major east coast and Gulf coast cities would be severely impacted. Costs from damage of coastal infrastructure could rise to a third of a billion dollars for the U.S., and millions of individuals could be displaced.
Certain species such as the Golden Toad have already gone extinct at least in part due to climate change. Many other amphibians, and iconic megafauana such as the Polar Bear are already under threat from climate changes. Projected losses of species could approach 1/3 with only 2 C additional warming, and well over half of all species with 3 C warming. The combined impact of warming oceans and increasing ocean acidity from anthropogenic greenhouse emissions, combined with other human-caused threats such as pollution and ozone depletion, place coral reefs---which account for 25% of the ocean's biodiversity--under threat of disappearance in as soon as a few decades.
Shifting water resources threaten damage to societal infrastructure through increased precipitation intensity and flooding during certain seasons in some regions, and increased drought during other seasons in other regions. In regions such as the desert southwest of the U.S., decreasing water supply is on a collison course with increasing populations in cities such as Las Vegas and Phoenix.
Health impacts of climate change are likely to include increased mortality due to more frequent and intense heat waves, increased spread of disease from more widespread flooding and drought, threats to health and life from more increased storm damage, and the poleward spread of tropical disease with warming temperatures.
National security impacts of climate change include increased conflict arising from the competition between nations and groups for diminishing land, food, and water resources, and the need for additional national defense as new shipping routes and coastlines open as a result of diminished arctic sea ice.

http://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/173
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 2, 2014 - 01:38pm PT
Lesson 10 Summary

In this lesson we looked at the potential impacts of projected climate change on civilization and our environment. The key points are as follows.

Adaptation and mitigation are two often-discussed strategies for dealing with the threats and challenges of human-caused climate change. The two approaches are not mutually exclusive -- it is very likely that both will need to be employed if we are to limit societal vulnerability to climate change.
Adaptive measures to reduce coastal vulnerability to sea level rise take the form of three progressively more defensive responses to increasing magnitudes of sea level rise -- protection through engineering, followed by accommodation to rising sea level and, eventually, managed retreat.
There are a variety of adaptive responses that might be taken to deal with shifting water resources resulting from anthropogenic climate change. These responses take the form of demand side and supply side actions. On the demand side are better conservation of available freshwater resources (a so-called no regrets strategy), and introduction of a system of tradeable water rights to help insure efficient use of available fresh water. On the supply side are the development of better distribution systems to move water from regions of surplus to regions of deficit, better use of available groundwater and freshwater aquifers, and (though currently not cost effective) the use of desalinization technology, particularly in coastal regions where distribution requirements would be minimized.
Adaptation can to some extent mitigate the loss of agricultural productivity due to climate change, though there are substantial differences between tropical and extra-tropical regions, and also between different crops (e.g., staple cereal crops such as rice, wheat, and corn/maize).
Theoretical crop models subject to admittedly limited (and perhaps not wholly realistic) climate change scenarios of, e.g., simple warming of temperatures and elevation of CO2 levels, indicate that for moderate warming, losses in tropical regions can be mitigated through the introduction of appropriate adaptive measures. Adaptive measures can further bolster agricultural increases in extratropical regions that benefit from longer-growing seasons with warming.
The same crop models indicate that as the warming progresses, gains in the extra-tropical regions become increasingly less, and losses in the tropical regions become increasingly greater, even with appropriate adaptive measures. As warming approaches 5 C, losses are seen in all regions regardless of adaptation, and both global food productivity declines and global food price increases become substantial.
http://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/177
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 2, 2014 - 01:40pm PT
Lesson 11 Summary

In this lesson, we investigated the concept of geoengineering, and investigated various of the specific geoengineering schemes that have been proposed as potential approaches to mitigating climate change. We found that:

Geoengineering schemes that have been proposed fall within one of two basic categories, either seeking to prevent CO2 from building up in the atmosphere, or offsetting greenhouse warming through schemes aimed at reducing the short wave, solar radiation received by Earth's surface.
The least invasive scheme (so much so, that it is often not even considered geoengineering at all) is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), aimed at capturing and burying CO2 at the point of emission. CCS is only useful, however, for large, concentrated emission sources such as coal-fired power plants. Moreover, it cannot lower CO2 ambient levels, but simply decrease the rate at which they are increasing.
An alternative scheme, known as air capture, actively filters CO2 out of the atmosphere. It has the advantage of that it can be deployed widely (i.e., it isn't necessary to place it at or near the source of emissions), and because it acts on ambient CO2 levels, it could in principle be used to lower CO2 concentrations as well as stabilize them. It has the disadvantage of being far less efficient (and more expensive) than methods such as CCS which act on concentrated streams of CO2 emission.
A number of other geoengineering schemes that fall under the category of solar radiation management instead attempt to decrease the incoming shortwave radiation by placing reflective sulphate aerosols, or reflecting mirrors, in the lower stratosphere, or by decreasing the albedo of Earth's surface.
Stratospheric sulphate aerosol injection might be a relatively inexpensive option for offsetting greenhouse warming, but suffers a number of potential undesirable side-effects, including inhomogenous temperature changes that could actually lead to even more warming in certain regions like the Arctic, possible decreases in continental precipitation, worsening of ozone depletion, and other potentially harmful chemical side-effects. Other schemes for radiation management avoid some of these complications, but are likely to be highly expensive or impractical.
Another scheme known as oceanic iron fertilization seeks to stem the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere by adding iron to regions where marine phytoplankton productivity is primarily limited by this nutrient, thus potentially speeding the uptake of atmospheric CO2 by the ocean. Initial experiments have shown no clear evidence however of increased deep ocean carbon burial, calling into question the efficacy of the scheme. Possible unintended consequences include increasing the competitive advantage of harmful plankton such as those which cause red tides.
In general, geoengineering schemes appear to be fraught with potential uncertainties, harmful known and perhaps unknown side effects. The law of unintended consequences would appear to apply to many if not all schemes that have been proposed.

http://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/184
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 2, 2014 - 01:40pm PT
Lesson 12 Summary

In this lesson, we studied the details of greenhouse gas emissions, including the sectors of the economy responsible for emissions of various greenhouse gases, the potential for mitigation in these various sectors, and the economic and ethical considerations of climate change and climate change mitigation. We observed that:

CO2 from fossil fuel burning, deforestation, and other human practices, are the primary causes, responsible for roughly three fourths of net anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
There is a modest but non-negligible contribution (roughly 13%) from methane, produced largely from agriculture/livestock and dam projects; other minor contributors include nitrous oxide, which also produced as bi-product of agricultural practices.
The primary sector of our economy responsible for greenhouse emissions is energy production, amounting for more than 25% of emissions; other major contributors are industrial practices (nearly 20%), deforestation (roughly 17%), and transport and agriculture (each at 13%). Residential buildings and waste management make up the balance.
The largest absolute increase over the past two decades (roughly 3 gigatons CO2 equivalent per year) has been in the energy sector, while transport and forestry have shown similar (roughly 35%) increases.
Economists use cost-benefit analysis to assess market-based solutions to stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions.
A quantity known as the social cost of carbon (SCC) is used to estimate the cost to society of emission of one metric ton of CO2 equivalent. Economists typically estimate the SCC as falling within the range of $20-$100/ton of CO2 equivalent, but this value depends critically on what is known as the discounting rate, a quantity which assumes that costs and returns calculated for the future are less than those calculated for today. Carbon emissions reductions will only pass the cost/benefit analysis when the SCC exceeds the cost of mitigation, i.e., it costs more to emit carbon than not to.
A simple way to encourage emissions reductions is to raise the cost of emitting carbon through some financial intervention in the form of either a carbon tax or tradeable emissions permits (e.g., cap and trade).
There is a range of mitigation potential among the various sectors, with some of the most significant opportunities in the energy supply and industrial sectors owing to the availability of carbon sequestration for large point source emitters in addition to other mitigation opportunities. There are also substantial mitigation opportunities in the transportation sectors (e.g., use of alternative fuels) and agricultural sectors (e.g., the restoration of degraded agricultural lands).
Individuals have an important role in mitigation through reducing their personal carbon footprints; In many cases, no regrets strategies (i.e., things we ought to be doing anyway for health, financial, or ethical reasons) can greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the U.S., current emissions are roughly 20 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year per person; A reduction to under 4 metric tons per year by mid-century would be consistent with a scenario of 450 ppm CO2 stabilization.
Only governmental policies and negotiated global treaties can insure that proper economic and societal incentives are in place to limit carbon emissions below levels considered to constitute a dangerous anthropogenic interference (DAI) with our climate.
Ethical considerations arising from the disaggregation of costs and benefits of burning fossil fuels, with tropical/developing nations and future generations at great risk of suffering negative climate change impacts, complicate simple cost/benefit analysis approaches to climate change mitigation.
Ethical considerations related to the precautionary principle, i.e., that it is unwise and arguably unethical to be playing dice with the future of our planet, provide additional arguments for stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions beyond simple, and potentially flawed, economic cost/benefit analysis approaches.
http://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/193
raymond phule

climber
Sep 2, 2014 - 01:42pm PT

If gas was still the roughly 97 cents a gallon it was when I started driving, my life would be SO much cheaper. For many of us this means the difference between being able to afford a doctor visit, save any amount of money for some kind of retirement, etc.

Interesting that you seem to think that the price for gas in america needs to be about 1/10 of the price in Europe for many American's to be able to get some basic health care and retirement.


It's as if they assume the American public would still choose dumb ass gas guzzlers over green energy if given the option. Like everyone has their head in the dark and is some evil dipsh#t. Wake the f*#k up...

Yes, because American's are famous for their small cars with good gas mileage.
jammer

climber
Sep 2, 2014 - 02:06pm PT
Yes, because American's are famous for their small cars with good gas mileage.

I said I was done, I couldn't resist. Are you discounting the influence of the Japanese auto market? LOL! You really are not that smart...
BigFeet

Trad climber
Texas
Sep 2, 2014 - 02:24pm PT
This thread will never die - just as any science related argument would not until finally proven absolute.

I believe the problem is there is no absolute yet.


Prediction is 30,000 replies by the end of 2014.
WBraun

climber
Sep 2, 2014 - 02:30pm PT
I believe the problem is there is no absolute yet.


You're guessing.

The Absolute exists.

Modern science can't see the absolute because they only use their own defective instruments .......
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 2, 2014 - 02:33pm PT
Polar vortex chills linked to melting sea ice
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/polar-vortex-chills-linked-to-melting-sea-ice-1.2753522

Here, by conducting observational analyses and model experiments, we show how Arctic sea-ice loss and cold winters in extra-polar regions are dynamically connected through the polar stratosphere.
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140902/ncomms5646/full/ncomms5646.html
BigFeet

Trad climber
Texas
Sep 2, 2014 - 04:20pm PT
WBraun,

It is not a guess, otherwise this thread would not exist. No absolute has been found. Never said it did not exist, hence the word yet.

Not arguing - just clarifying. I should have worded it better. My mistake.

Defective instruments, or deceptive data... neither lead us to the stated goal of finding said absolute.

I like this site, for it keeps me sane and smiling.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 2, 2014 - 04:40pm PT
If you deniers want to be taken seriously, then take the online course at

http://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/

Then you might have some idea of what you are posting about.

For instance, if you dispute this diagram,

http://www.e-education.psu.edu/meteo469/node/116

post up numbers from a respected scientific journal that are different.
WBraun

climber
Sep 2, 2014 - 04:48pm PT
BigFeet -- "No absolute has been found."

That is an Absolute statement.

Be careful ......
AndyMan

Sport climber
CA
Sep 2, 2014 - 04:53pm PT
Come on scammers, EVIDENCE, NOT theory.

IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what is the EVIDENCE that man's CO2 has caused any of the warming since the Little Ice Age? ... the warming that STOPPED 2 decades, despite more than 1/3 of all man's CO2 being emitted in that period.

There's NOTHING to support your scam.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 2, 2014 - 04:57pm PT
Thanks AndyMan. Good to know global warming has stopped for 2 decades.

wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Sep 2, 2014 - 05:01pm PT
Credit: wilbeer

Andrew,just disregard this and remember burning Gasoline,Coal ,Oil and NG is actually GOOD for our atmosphere.

Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 2, 2014 - 05:01pm PT
you can act now, or you can be forced to act later

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/



The US and Climate Change Negotiations
Policy Strategy
Step 1: Deny it
Step 2: Fight it
Step 3: Dilute it
Step 4: Delay it
Steps 5 and 6: Do it and Market it
http://www.globalissues.org/article/179/reactions-to-climate-change-negotiations-and-action
Messages 17001 - 17020 of total 21618 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