Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 23841 - 23860 of total 25079 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Feb 27, 2014 - 04:14pm PT
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/gcip/m2ccycle/m2html.html


This is from BASE's link,a hell of a resource.

TFPU BASE.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Feb 27, 2014 - 04:21pm PT
and now with polling completed.....

Rick Sumner, apologize to all of us on this thread and your god for lying

hint, if and when you admit you were wrong and lied, I shall stop demanding apology

only YOU, Rick Sumner, can put an end to this


hint: I have tremendous stamina and am prepared to make you go to confession
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Feb 27, 2014 - 05:27pm PT
Upon further review ,quote of the day goes to Mechrist,

"The atmospheric effects of major volcanoes MIGHT last a decade... and results in COOLING. So, wtf does that have to do with the observed warming trend?"


k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 27, 2014 - 06:11pm PT
"mmmmm. hazelnut."


Now that is friggin' funny.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Feb 27, 2014 - 06:17pm PT
<While the attitude [of over consumption]is stubbornly ingrained, the solution to your "perceived climate doom" is well underway here in North America. We've increased efficiency in our power generation, vehicles, housing and office space, etc. extensively over the last few decades.>

Some of that is true, but Much of the improvement in NA emissions is accidental. We were the world leader in rejecting Kyoto, instead of focusing on how to later improve it. We took a hiatus on vehicle efficiency standards for 25 years. Only in the past few years did action restart. Except now we have 25 years worth of gas guzzlers on the road, which will take a long time to replace, and many will hesitate since they don't care to get in a collision with a Suburban. And we have 30 years of sprawl development based on constant car travel for every need, which is very hard to undo. What actions we are taking have been loudly opposed by many.

<NG is supplanting coal for power generation>

That is because fracking allowed cheaper NG energy. It is not due to a concerted effort to reduce CO2, and does not somehow make us a world leader. We had the most room for improvement; many countries were already much more efficient.

<and if the attitude's of radical environmental lobby will allow increased nuclear and well designed hydro then our emissions will be well below the targets.>

It's not the environmentalists who shutdown San Onofre; it is the incompetence of Southern Cal Edison. Decentralized competitive power is a better source than guaranteed monopolies.
There are no big opportunities for new traditional hydro, only adding small reservoirs for pumped hydro, whose purpose is to balance green energy such as wind and solar.

-


"How do we shift public sentiment? One path is to change the message. For the last 10-15 years, the message has been about gloom and doom, end of the World scaremongering. These messages have lost credibility, especially since warming seems to have paused....What's a better message? I'm not sure. Maybe make it's about something in the near future, not 100 years down the road. Have a more honest dialogue about the science, instead of constantly trying to disqualify the critics."

Denialism is big because media pretends that there is a credible reason to be a skeptic, even though the skeptics are irrational. It is the denialists who continue to warp the media discussion. You can't blame scientists for faux news, alec, kochbros, etc.
It is quite clear from all models that the early part of change/warming will be not be as obvious as the bigger changes to follow, which will be harder to reverse. The early years are the the easiest for denialists to discount, but are the best time to change our policies.

"Let's say 80% of the industrialized world is on board... Clean coal? What's that? It may not be clean. But it's much better than the status quo. What to do about China et al? How about huge carbon tariffs? Until there's a major plan to reduce CO2 levels... until that happens, we're just pissin' in the wind."

I tend to agree that will remain our logic. We will blame China, just as we did with Kyoto, when really we just want big air conditioned homes, big cars, and cheap power. In a separate reality where we were leaders instead of excuse makers, we could have started with one step 20 years ago, and been working on the 4th step by now, each time insisting that all economies in the WTO follow. An evolutionary process similar to nuclear arms treaties, to avoid too much unilateral action like the EU or California.
(side note- clean coal does not exist, it is not feasible to store the CO2 exhaust, even more energy intensive than tar sands)

"what will be the impact to your life? Will it make any meaningful improvements to forestall their hyped doom scenarios or will it just negatively impact you?"

Hmm, Only yesterday you were proclaiming how much we have already done to reduce emissions. Just because a cost/benefit calculation will not be exact does not make it wrong. Often the new costs are more clear than the benefits and avoided costs, which are based on trends, time, & probabilities. It's hard to calculate the avoided cost and probability of widespread coastal flooding, people + infrastucture displaced, disrupted ecosystems, countless extinct species, lost agriculture, fisheries, freshwater, etc. But there is an entire field of study about the subject. Traditionally migration is how people dealt with climate and resource changes, but that was a lot easier with under 1 billion rural people than it is with the 8 billion of 2027 -est.
The richest people will be able to buy their way out by moving to new resources, abandoning most who will be barred at the gate. Would climate change be fine as long as we can externalize most of the costs onto Bangladesh and arid tropical zones?

More reading but a summary is: The expected cost of inaction is higher than the cost of a coordinated cut in warming gases.
Expected cost = Sum of all (outcomes x likelihood).

ipcc-wg2.gov/njlite_download.php?id=6399 > see executive summary

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~walker/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Tol2009.pdf
> not all recent, but a good summary of the subject.

http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Pindyk-Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf > read the conclusion

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/threats-impacts/economic-loss-and-damage.xml

http://climatenexus.org/resources/ipcc-working-group-ii/#future

http://www.c2es.org/publications/workshop-proceedings-assessing-benefits-avoided-climate-change

http://www.theccc.org.uk/blog/is-climate-change-a-global-benefit/

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

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Feb 27, 2014 - 06:18pm PT
I assume all you scholars have had a chance to peruse the Froelicher paper and have no objection to its topic of study, methods, and conclusions other than what you think I see in the paper, is that correct? Let's give a little longer for any latecomers to weigh in. Splater, I dont see the inconsistency in my statements as we do not have China ( the biggest emitter ) , other industrializing nations, and large parts of the old soviet bloc on board and short of war will not, so our reductions make little difference. As far as San Onofre agreed, but im talking of new nuclear properly placed. Finally, their are vast opportunities for small and mico scale hydro without environmental damage
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 27, 2014 - 06:21pm PT
Less funny, this exercise from a link to a page referenced by Base's original link:

Exercise

The world' s 1992 population of 5.4 billion people placed approximately 6 billion tons of carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere annually. It is expected that this alteration of atmospheric composition will lead to a warming of the global climate. Annual output of carbon dioxide per person on average is 1.11 billion tons. (Remember, averaging lumps the United States with countries like Nepal and Mali, countries with vastly different contributions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.)

What would be the total amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere annually at current per capita production levels if

a. world population stabilizes at 10 billion, an optimistic view;

b. world population stabilizes at 11.6 billion, which current United Nations projections include as a reasonable possibility; and

c. world population stabilizes at 14 billion, which some analysts fear is most likely of all.

By how much would per capita consumption of carbon dioxide have to be reduced to keep total production at 6 billion tons annually under each of the three population scenarios above?

What would per capita production of carbon dioxide have to be under each population scenario in order to halve annual global emissions?

Describe the results of your calculations verbally and present your numbers in tabular form.
WBraun

climber
Feb 27, 2014 - 06:58pm PT
rick sumner

Please keep lying to that nutcase PC forum tool Norton
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Feb 27, 2014 - 07:20pm PT

STFU Braun

You are the anal idiot

leave him the fuk alone

it is you who is the loser
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Feb 27, 2014 - 09:14pm PT
No I cannot tell a lie Werner. If im chopping down Nortons cherry tree I must apologize. Working on something now, will get back to you wackos later.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Feb 27, 2014 - 09:22pm PT
Can't tell a lie eh? Well looks like you can sure avoid the truth about as much
command error

Trad climber
Colorado
Feb 28, 2014 - 12:35am PT
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Cycle22Cycle23Cycle24big.gif

We are currently over five years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and
observed size makes this the coldest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which
had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml


command error

Trad climber
Colorado
Feb 28, 2014 - 12:43am PT
>>>>>>>>>> As predicted historic low in solar activity combined with
the tremendous succession of dusty volcanic eruptions are hazing
the atmosphere, making the 2013-14 winter colder than usual.

Average is about 50 eruptions. 2013 had nearly 100 and in 2014
the pace is above average so far. This is exactly how an
ice age can start experts say although not the only way.
An asteroid strike is another possibility.

http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports_weekly.cfm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/record-number-of-volcano-eruptions-in-2013-is-catastrophic-global-cooling-dead-ahead
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Feb 28, 2014 - 04:18am PT
The Top Ten Reasons global temperature hasn’t warmed for the last 15 years

raymond phule

climber
Feb 28, 2014 - 04:41am PT

As predicted historic low in solar activity combined with
the tremendous succession of dusty volcanic eruptions are hazing
the atmosphere, making the 2013-14 winter colder than usual.

Colder than usual in your backyard or globally? I believe that this so far have been a quite warm winter globally. Here is some data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2014-0-29-deg-c/

I guess that the low solar activity and vulcanic eruptions only make a difference in north america.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Feb 28, 2014 - 06:32am PT
Big thaw projected for Antarctic sea ice: Ross Sea will reverse current trend, be largely ice free in summer by 2100
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140227115512.htm
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Feb 28, 2014 - 06:53am PT
Yeterday Sketch posts this:

The two biggest hurdles I see with combating global climate change are sentiment of the masses and global cooperation. Both are needed before we can attempt to reverse the trend of rising CO2 emissions.

Until there is a dramatic shift in public sentiment, nothing is going to happen. By dramatic shift I mean 70-80% of the public believes this is an issue that needs immediate attention, understanding reasonable measures mean a reduction in creature comforts.


Until there's a major plan to reduce CO2 levels... an achievable, affordable one that would actually produce results... until that happens, we're just pissin' in the wind.


Today he posts this:

The Top Ten Reasons global temperature hasn’t warmed for the last 15 years



If Global Warming is not happening to any significant degree, why would you suggest " we can attempt to reverse the trend of rising CO2 emissions" ?

Do you think that disingenuous accurately describes your debating behavior?

Would it be accurate to say you speak with a forked tongue?

BTW, you will note I edited down your yesterday post for brevity. This is because you uncharacteristically "did go on" quite a bit. I don't wish to discourage that as that is precisely how human beings tend to communicate meaning. However strategically I think you should steer clear of " going on" too much. You risk becoming far too vulnerable for your purposes.

Your Pal, BK







Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Feb 28, 2014 - 07:16am PT
Meanwhile....

ROB FORD DAILY NEWS


In Toronto, of course, we have Rob and Doug Ford, brothers for whom politics is a battle that never ends. You win or you lose, live or die. In their us-and-them world view, non-Fords are either allies or enemies. There’s nothing in between. Theirs is an endless series of encounters waged against anyone and everyone who dares disagree with their apocalyptic view of civic politics.

When Rob warns that the mayoral campaign just getting under way will be “a war,” he means just that. Already, Ford and his foot soldiers have drawn up lists of those who must be (electorally) killed or allowed to live.

The siege mentality, if not outright paranoia, according to which the Fords conduct themselves allows for no nuance. The Fords exists in a constant state of outrage, anger and resentment. If you’re not for them, you’re against them. Whether it’s Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair or some pathetic drug addict and former brother-in-law like Scott MacIntryre beaten to a pulp in a jail cell, the Fords respond to perceived threats with maximum force.

Rob Ford’s take-no-prisoners attitude was on full display Thursday afternoon when he publically demanded Blair apologize to him. This after having referred to Blair as a “c---sucker.”

In the meantime, Brother Doug, angry at the chief for having spoken of his “disappointment” with the mayor after seeing video of him smoking what appeared to be crack cocaine, has launched his own attack on Blair. Among the charges hurled at the beleaguered chief, Doug accused him of “breaking the law” and of going “rogue.”

In their search for an enemy, the Fords have lashed out at any number of people, former allies and community leaders among them. Blair certainly hasn’t distinguished himself as police chief, or heaped honour on the force, but in this particular matter, he has been a model of probity.


Interesting characters. Sounds familiar?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Feb 28, 2014 - 07:20am PT
If im chopping down Nortons cherry tree I must apologize.


do it then
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Feb 28, 2014 - 07:38am PT
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/mean:6/plot/hadc...
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/mean:6/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend
Messages 23841 - 23860 of total 25079 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