Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 6661 - 6680 of total 25079 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 6, 2013 - 09:52am PT
Seems wherever i go this year this "global cooling Phase" manifests itself directly overhead. Here in Reno 39.51 degree latitude, thundershowers and unseasonably cool. Yes Ed, i realize the difference between the unworkable carbon tax you propose and a carbon market, the likes of which your wonderful state is going to initiate shortly with an auction for credits in Sacramento. I guess you missed my attempt at humor-i meant after the more pronounced effects of the solar driven cooling phase we are possibly entering their will be cries for increased emmisions of GHG's to be paid for by the government, with our increased tax dollars of course.
rSin

Trad climber
calif
May 6, 2013 - 09:56am PT
living in a bubble eh?

take that bucket off your head sir!
global warming MEANS severe disruptions in typical past climate patterns

snow on the farce of july and christmas travel delayed cuz the tarmac is melted in a heatwave

rSin

Trad climber
calif
May 6, 2013 - 09:59am PT
"solar driven cooling phase"

by chance do you know how many years worth of data THAT speculation is based on?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 6, 2013 - 03:48pm PT
31 year veteran Ed. I've seen the winters go from the longer, cooler period during the eighties (more severe in the 70's) to the shorter, warmer period of the 90's back to the longer cooler period of the past 10-12 years, this year's winter extending abnormally (even as measure against the 70's) long.
I wasn't referencing the paper you commented on. My point is the models are based on the variation of the typical 11 year cycle. There is historical indication that our sun is a bit more variable than that inputted as it's 11 year cycle in the models. Other scientists say their are other cycles, short, mid and long term that produces a much more variable value. Apparently we could be entering into a period of quiescense comparable to the maunder minimum in which case the current models more dire predictions would have to be thrown out the window.The climate variations might have to be averaged over a much longer time set than decades, in which case the recent decadal rise would seem less significant.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 6, 2013 - 04:00pm PT
if you want to reduce CO2 emission, the best way is to tax it, directly...

I had a student who lived and breathed by what the Cato Institute said... "dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace"

He agrees 100%.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 6, 2013 - 09:15pm PT
Well Ed, as you well know their has only been a direct and accurate record of total solar irradiance for 30 years by satelite. Although we have learned much the measurements have served to highlight the fact that our understanding of our sun and its effects on Earths climate is still in the early stages of complete knowledge. What is the suns estimated range of value in blocking of cosmic rays and the extent of cosmic rays in cloud formation,what is the effect of the high degree of variability in certain spectrums and their as yet unexplained effects on our biosphere, why is a value of .01 the given for total solar variation when their is still contention about the extent of comparatively recent climate swings? What is the explanation for the warming of the early 20th century absent the larger content of atmospheric co2 seen later in the century?Solar varibility has its largest effects in the polar regions because of extremes of seasonal exposure. Its certainly interesting that the 20th century warming, and particularly its most rapid warming, corresponded with a solar maximum of activity. Its also interesting that now that we've been in a period of decreased activity (and forecast to decrease much more)that the higher latitudes are cooling.
another nickname

Social climber
Yazoo Ms
May 7, 2013 - 08:25am PT
Atlantic Magazine item appeared recently about "methane ice" found at bottom of oceans & currently not well understood nor easy to obtain.

Apparently it may exist in sufficient quantities to fuel the world's hydro-carbon economy at current rates for a thousand years.

We might not get chance to burn all of it, because doing so causes global warming, apparently.

Item mentions how "fracking" has derailed favorable economics of alternate energy, by way of suggesting that methane ice may accomplish this
permanently.

I think cold fusion is the way to go.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 7, 2013 - 10:06am PT
Anothernickname- we have hundreds of years of conventional gas available thanks to the evolving technology of the conventional energy industry without even having to touch methane hydrates. If the CAGW crowd would embrace this as the much cleaner burning and much less CO2 releasing fuel it is instead of being the non sensical obstructionists they are, we would have the breathing room and increased funds to really fund alternative energy to an extant that new technologies could be developed that are competitive or even more competitive to fossil fuel costs. Alas CO2 reduction is not their true goal, but rather just a tool they intend to use for dismantling the present industrial age and replacing it with their hideous vision of utopia.It is an ideological battle not rational science and application.

Ed, seriously brother i'm not going to sift through thousands of posts looking for answers to questions that were made to your satisfaction.I know their are reams of papers out there purportedly dismissing questions of the opposition and they are part of the so called "scientific consensus", but that consensus is consensus by minority as increasing numbers of scientists worldwide find their voice to express different opinions. This discussion, this science needs to go back to page 1 for serious review while scientists look at more of the thousands of poorly understood factors that can have an impact on climate . Solar insolation and its many unknown effects are just one item, although probably the most important.
new world order2

climber
May 7, 2013 - 10:09am PT
Ed, Chiloe, please.....What are your thoughts on GMO food, aspartame, and fluoride in drinking water?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 7, 2013 - 10:42am PT
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
http://dirtyenergymoney.org/view.php?searchvalue=30011&com=&can=&zip=30011&search

Rick you are a weekend libertarian,if you and your "non obstructionists" friends are truly for free markets and not for oil/gas socialisim ,subsides and greasing would have stopped years ago.
You are just like the rest of your GWD crowd,totally hypocritical.
How bout some links to the crap your defending?
How much do we spend on GW research?It is far less than your gang spends to refute it.Look it up.
So I will say it again,98% of scientists have a consensus,2% do not.You and your 2% get way to much airtime.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 7, 2013 - 10:57am PT
98%?? paaleeze...
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 7, 2013 - 11:55am PT
instead of insinuating that the scientists are not trustworthy, you should read their papers and show what is wrong with their science.



Not going to happen. He couldn't figure out what is right or wrong with the science if his life depended on it.

Ergo - the only option left is to follow his finely tuned intuition. This quite naturally leads him to distrust those who actually do have the ability to understand the things he does not. The logic resulting is this: If they are untrustworthy, they must be wrong. Therefore I must be right.

Get it?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 7, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
Ok Ron look that up,for everyone of your right wing websites that differ with the 98% number i can show you 10 websites [at the very least] that agree.
Go ahead look it up.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 7, 2013 - 06:07pm PT
Well said Ed Hartouni.
rSin

Trad climber
calif
May 7, 2013 - 06:13pm PT
it would be easier to ask him "without looking!" how many toes he has and assign him remedial work according to his answer, and the length of pause before it
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
May 7, 2013 - 07:54pm PT


Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification

New comprehensive study outlines rapidly acidifying Arctic Ocean caused by CO2 emissions

- Andrea Germanos, staff writer
Published on Monday, May 6, 2013 by Common Dreams

The rapidly acidifying Arctic Ocean caused by absorbing the world's CO2 emissions have pushed us beyond "critical thresholds," with widespread impacts to be felt for "tens of thousands of years" even if we stopped emissions, say scientists.

The three-year assessment from a team of international scientists is being released at the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme's (AMAP) International Conference on Arctic Ocean Acidification starting Monday in Bergen, Norway, and details how the phenomenon dubbed "climate change's evil twin" is causing a global problem.

"The ocean has been performing a huge climate service over the last 200 years by having a great capacity to absorb CO2. It has taken up 50 percent of the CO2 that we have emitted and is currently still taking up 25 percent of the CO2 that we are producing", stated Richard Bellerby, Research Scientist at the Norwegian Institute for Water Research.



Norway's Center for International Climate and Environmental Research explains that the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent over the last 200 years, with CO2 being more readily absorbed by colder waters.

- Richard Bellerby, NIWR"Arctic ocean acidification is happening at a faster rate than found in other global regions. This is because climate change such as warming and freshening of the oceans is acting in tandem with the enormous oceanic uptake of C02," said Bellerby.



“Continued rapid change is a certainty,” Bellerby told BBC News.

“We have already passed critical thresholds," warned Bellerby. "Even if we stop emissions now, acidification will last tens of thousands of years. It is a very big experiment.”

Sam Dupont, Researcher at the University of Gothenburg, says that "something really unique is happening. This is the first time that we as humans are changing the whole planet; we are actually acidifying the whole ocean today."

"The most optimistic prediction," Dupont says, "tells us that within few decades, by the end of this century, the ocean will be two times more acidic. And we also know that it might be even faster in the Arctic."

The impacts of this acidification will be widespread, as Dupont explains.

"One example of potential species extinction is the brittle star. If you expose the eggs of this species to the conditions that we can expect within decades in term of ocean acidification, they all die within days. And you may not care if this species disappears but if this one disappears other will be impacted too, the ones that are feeding on them. Scientists think that similar kinds of effects can happen in the Arctic, and that it can even maybe be worse in the Arctic."



See more in the Arctic Ocean Acidification video from AMAP:
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/05/06
rSin

Trad climber
calif
May 7, 2013 - 07:56pm PT
so the oceans as good as soda pop...
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 7, 2013 - 09:19pm PT
Thank you Doctor for this bit of new "sensational news". The claim that the industrial revolution has reduced ocean ph levels by .1 have been out there for years. Our resident shrink "Bruce from communist B.C." is correct that i base some my beliefs on intuition. I had the gut feeling that their would soon be an all out push to ram this CAGW scheme down a gullible public's throat and presto hear it is. A decrease of .1 (i assume this brings the average oceanic level from 7.9-8.2 down to 7.8-8.1) is hardly any big f-ing deal. It would have to decline to 7.1 to be merely neutral.The study itself admits it cannot accurately predict further decline in the following two centuries. It also stops short of making hard predictions of this slight decrease effect on oceanic life, but leave it to a compliant press to sensationalize and insinuate dire consequences.As before in geologic history the biota will rise to the occasion and scrub this small fractional increase. The good news is that the oceans may be doing a better job of absorbing atmospheric CO2 than many assumed.

Good posts Ed. Of course i"ll be checking the veracity of the scientific representations in my slow non-scientific method. I will not go quietly into the night however.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 8, 2013 - 07:18am PT
i"ll be checking the veracity of the scientific representations in my slow non-scientific method. I will not go quietly into the night however.


And there we have it. The essence of how the non reality based community thinks. Thanks for that Rick. I don't think even WB could have distilled it into so few words.

This combined with the latest from Taliban Bookworm (http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1883519&tn=5460); reveals further the need to amend the 2nd Amendment. Something along the lines of " the citizens right to stupidity and unrestrained expression thereof, shall not be infringed, and shall be regarded as equal as any other expression and opinion, as God has granted as enforceable by individual mandate, thus the state shall not restrict citizen access to machine guns, 22's for kids, flame throwers, cluster bombs, land mines, tanks or any other future advances in weaponry that God see's fit to bestow upon his children through advances in church approved interpretation of sciences and technology"

But really you better get cracking before the next election rounds and any sudden heart attacks on the court benches. If you blow that you better take a page from the evangelicals and start making a move to africa. I bet Uganda would dig it.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 8, 2013 - 07:21am PT
Good one. Ocean acidification is responsible for the deposition of the oil and gas source rock shales that result in oil and gas accumulations.

The oceans are constantly raining carbon, from dead algae and other critters, onto the seafloor. Acidification events create anoxic conditions which preserve the carbon, which would otherwise be gobbled up and recycled by other organisms in the so-called "Carbon Cycle."

Since these specific shales are so important, they have been intensively studied. The environmental conditions that cause acidification events on a global scale, mainly the Devonian and Jurassic, source most of the major oil fields in the world, although there are some local basins which achieved acidification as starved basins with no outflow. The conditions have always been interpreted as being hot house events, and they correlate nicely with other data, such as fossil records. I was at a shale gas technical meeting last month and all of this was discussed. I can provide geology papers that were cited, but the basics of the shale depositional environments has been worked out for at least three decades.

One core was rich in radiolarians tests (a test is a shell, MOL), which provided a lattice that helped preserve larger pore throats through which gas can migrate. I'm talking horizontal shale gas wells here, with fracking and all that jazz.

The taxonomy of the microfossils in the shales tend to show the hothouse conditions, as well as data from paleoflora, such as Gingko leaves and their stomata density. These directly correlate to CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and during the mid Mesozoic, as Pangea broke up, there was a huge increase in volcanism leading to a CO2 forced hothouse event. It is also backed up by the general global distribution of plants, with some of them, such as ferns, growing very close to the poles.

Basically, this has happened before, and exploration geologists use this data to understand the depositional environment of the (now) gas shales.

We can even get a good idea of the CO2 and oxygen concentrations of the very distant past using plant fossils.

I've seen some work regarding the Mesozoic anoxic event, which sourced the Middle Eastern oilfields, and the CO2 content rose to about double of what we have today, or 4 times the pre-industrial revolution level of CO2.

There are other factors involved in paleoclimate such as axial tilt of the Earth, CO2 from volcanism, albedo from having large ice caps or not, and other wha wha.

These shales are usually only a few hundred feet thick in the best areas. The ones in the U.S., with the exception of the Haynesville Shale in Louisiana, are all the same age...late Devonian/early Mississippian.

Global oceanic anoxic events are key in the search for oil and gas, and this is one field that has had the snot worked out of, because oil and gas are worth a lot of money.

There are some pretty poor thinkers on this thread. They take a rigid position, mainly based on political information, and the extent of the reading is quite small.

Anyone can go cut and paste a graph. What you need to do is understand that graph, what it means, how the data was gathered, and how does this fit in with the overall picture.

---That is my semi-annual post to this thread.
Messages 6661 - 6680 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