Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 6681 - 6700 of total 20085 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2013 - 09:40pm PT
Thanks Base... just found it on youtube...

Demon Haunted World


And on a similar note, if anyone wants to understand how diversity and statistics are (mis)interpreted, may I recommend Full House by Steven J Gould. If anyone is interested, I will give it to you for the price of shipping.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jul 2, 2013 - 10:48pm PT
Who is it here that worked with the L.A. water issue? I'd be interested in hearing more about what worked and what didn't work for L.A.'s water conservation efforts. Clearly people LEARNED water conservation... why not energy conservation?
kev

climber
A pile of dirt.
Jul 2, 2013 - 11:21pm PT
Sigh...Still waiting for R. Sumners....
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jul 2, 2013 - 11:23pm PT
Sigh...Still waiting for R. Sumners....

and you will be waiting until the cows come home
new world order2

climber
Jul 2, 2013 - 11:46pm PT
Sigh....if we could somehow cull a few billion people, the environment would right itself.

How can we go about doing that?
new world order2

climber
Jul 3, 2013 - 12:04am PT
This the kind of future Ed, Chiloe, BASE, and Christ, envision for us......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRFsoRQYpFM

View the freakin' vid!

You guys like eating steak, having the freedom to drive your own car to the crags, or living in your own house?

You won't be getting any of it, once Agenda 21 kicks in.

dirtbag

climber
Jul 3, 2013 - 12:21am PT
Dude, you sound like a bible thumper. Sorry.

Some unseen entity, working in mysterious ways, controls everything.
new world order2

climber
Jul 3, 2013 - 12:23am PT
^^^I'm far from that, dirtbag. Pardon me for sounding like one.
new world order2

climber
Jul 3, 2013 - 12:30am PT
^^^^It would go to line Al Gore's pockets, of course!

Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 3, 2013 - 12:33am PT
Well Kev- It is well known, by my own admission on this thread, that i am neither a climate scientist nor a mathematician. However, i do totally reject the CAGW elitists practiced argument against what they call deniers who they claim cannot possibly have the mental faculties to understand the "consensus science". I, along with the majority of the public and an emergent majority of scientists, understand quite well the utter b.s. underpinning this science which is indistiguishable from a cultish religion.Now on to your answer-excuse me i will put it in plain english minus the manipulation of data present in the equations.

Milankovitch Cycles-There are three major identified cycles (and a host of lesser effect cycles). 1.) The eccentricity of Earths orbit around the sun. It varies over a 100,000 year cycle from nearly cicular ,.0034 variance at its most circular, to .058 variance at its most elliptical, currently we are at .0167 variance. The Earths closest approach to the sun is called perihelion and its furthest aphelion. This current difference in distance translates in to a 6% variation in solar insolation between perihelion and aphelion. Currently the northern hemispheres summer corresponds to to the apehelion. On the face of this, this should dictate a general cooling trend in the northern hemisphere summer but for a peculiarity of the eccentricity that is often overlooked. That is; because of the enlargement of the orbit, and corresponding longer period of time it takes to traverse the further point of the ellipse, summer is several days longer currently in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere and vice a versa with winter. 2 Axial tilt- The Earth varies in the amount of tilt from the plane of its orbit over approx. 40,000 years from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees. Currently we are at 23.5 degrres approx. and decreasing. The more tilt the more pronounced the difference in the seasons, but the less the tilt the less the year long solar insolation at high latitude and the more favorable conditions are to high latitude ice growth in both hemispheres. 3) Precession of the equinoxes or seasons- Along with the axial tilt the earth also has a wobble, caused by gravitational effects of the other planets, which causes the the axis of rotation about the geographic poles to circumscribe a cicle around the 12 backgrond constellations of the zodiac over a period of approx. 26,000 years.This also translate into a slow calendrical change ( if we didn't add a day to the calender every 400 years) in the seasons as precession slowly changes the earths orientation towards the sun at a rate varying from the orbital year and contributes along with eccentricity of the orbit to a change, in not only the time of the seasons, but also length of the seasons. As described above summer is currently several days longer in the northern hemisphere than the southern hemisphere.

Solar cycles-The sun's magnetic field varies and flips from the northern to southern pole over a period averaging 11 years, this is called a Schwabe cycle, the most prominent solar cycle.Over the length of this cycle the suns magnetic field causes numerous spots to occur on its surface which corresponds to increased irradiance during the maximum of the cycle to periods of low or no visible spots corresponding to lower irradiance. Current estimates, based on the modern period of observation, is that the total solar irradiance (TSI) varies only 0.1 % over the typical modern cycle . But because of chaotic internal processes having no or ill defined periodicity sometimes the sun goes into periods of multiple Schwabe cycles of low activity (lengthed cycles of decreased sunspots and irradiance) called a Grand Minima- The little ice age happened during the Maunder and Dalton minimums- we started coming out of this period in 1850. Other times the sun goes into to periods of high sunspot counts and irradiance called a Grand Maximum- cycles 19-22 in the mid to late 20th century fit the definition of Grand Maximum. Currently many solar scientists are predicting that cycle 23 and our current cycle 24 is the start of a new Grand Minimum that could be as pronounced as the Maunder minimum. They are also calling for the beginning of a distinct global cooling period because of prolonged TSI output near the lower levels of its variability. It will be interesting to see if this 0.1% estimate for TSI variation holds up going from maximum to minimum solar activity.At any rate even a small variation in solar activity does have a significant effect if it is at the limits of variability for a prolonged period of time.

Ocean Oscillations- There are quite a few of these from the PDO, ANO, AO, ENSO etc. etc. I'm getting tired of writing so look them up yourselves. Anyway, the planets oceans work much more efficiently for heat storage than land. All these ocean oscillations have positive periods (when the surface waters absorb heat and they stay at or near the top layer and negative periods where there is a transfer of energy from the surface water as the cold deep ocean water upwells to the surface. These oscillations store radiative energy during periods of increased TSI from the milankovitch cycles and Solar Grand Maximums and give it up to the atmosphere during the positive periods and as distributed by distinct ocean currents and likewise cool the atmosphere during negative periods.

Conclusion- Because of the Northern hemisphere's currently lengthed summer, the recent grand maximum of solar activity, and late 20th century positive periods of many of the oceanic currents most of the increased global warmth can be attributed to the aforementioned with only a small anthropogenic contribution. Additionally, as we seem to be going into a solar grand minumum, and at least the PDO has gone negative, and considering we are at the point of the Milankovitch Cycles favoring a slow descent back into glacial conditions, we should see a natural decrease of the 20th century's modest global heat rise. You guys do the math and the inevitable shredding and ridicule.

Bruce- glad your back as i value your sense of humor. Your statements- "punitive on the wealthy" and "chuffian darwinian evolutionary survival" are too funny, LMAO
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jul 3, 2013 - 12:35am PT
Don't worry, an orbit change and a few La Nina's will save us.


http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/03/new-hockey-stick-graph-...
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/03/new-hockey-stick-graph-scarier
Credit: monolith

Credit: monolith
new world order2

climber
Jul 3, 2013 - 12:40am PT
Green is the new world order religion.

You guys are akin to bible thumpers.

Whether the climate is warming or not, the agenda (21) is to live like this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGQu1y4BZSs ,
and to eventually depopulate mankind.

Credit: new world order2
new world order2

climber
Jul 3, 2013 - 01:25am PT
It would be a waste of my time to try.

So, why is it you keep on trying, Ed?

You maintain weapons of mass destruction for a living.
Do you really give a flying f*#k for mankind?

Or, are you a government op, placed here to push this spiel, because you climb?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 3, 2013 - 01:37am PT
You know Ed, if you decide to retire from science, you would make a damn good commissioner of the I.R.S. if your cherished carbon taxes are ever levied. Come to think about it that would be a great placement for the soon be displaced climate scientists. Now what would you guys do with the loot?How would you distribute it to achieve social justice. As far as everything i mentioned being discussed and dismissed upthread, i wouldn't know of the truth of that.When you dismiss all of the most improbable whatever is left, however probable, must have an element of truth. Anyway your guy"s cherished models are diverging from reality and losing credibility, so perhaps it is time to look elsewhere no matter how smart they thought their modeling to be. A presidential term only last four years,
sentorial term 6, congressional term 2. The pendulum swings, usually from one extreme to another. The carbon money is uncle Ben funny and i wouldn't go counting it just yet.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 3, 2013 - 02:08am PT
All of the above and your original appraisal of intuition, Bruce. My function here is to provide a thorn to the side of the consensus juggernaut. If i slow these guys down one day or one minute, great. If all other concerned citizens did likewise we could have a return to rational sensibility or as close to it as the human condition allows. Your a very funny guy Bruce-i'm beginning to think that is a common canuck trait since all from your neck of the woods that i've met seems to be so.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 3, 2013 - 02:18am PT
You could be on to something Bruce-the psychoactive effects of mild food poisoning from their common diet. As good of an explanation of generational insanity as any other.Over and out.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 3, 2013 - 11:50am PT
Yes things are forever changing Ed. Contrary to what you say, im quite comfortable with that as long as there is progress towards a better future.What i can't stand, nor should anyone trying to make their way in difficult living conditions of this modern world, is regression to the past through taxation that serves no purpose other than to enslave the majority of the populace in order to increase the power of the elites running the various governments with various agendas all dependent on limiting the power of the people.

We've gone through the science and the side you seem to support has failed to make an irrefutable argument with testable predictions that matches real world observations. We talked of ideology , your side seeming to worship a return to pre-industrial times where the imagined world works just fine minus the energy, mobility, mass production of food, etc etc. that makes our now 7 billion population barely sustainable. Won't work Ed without radical population reduction-and who will decide? Or will it just fall disproportionately on the disadvantaged?

Now we are on to the political. With the "consensus science" collapsing, the worlds populace rejecting the ideology through their "ignorance and indifference", it leaves your side with the sole option of political imposition of the policies against the will of the people.You guys have been heartened lately with the dear leaders luke warm endorsement of the policies and his stated intention of imposition by royal decree. We'll just have to see how well that flies, won't we?

The sad part about this is that their is a solution palatable to all at hand. That is embracing the usage of the huge quantities of natural gas underlying huge portions of the landmass, going ahead with construction of the latest generation of nuclear power plants, ending the corporate and special interest subsidies particularly in the energy sector,institute a progressive consumption tax with higher rates on costly luxury goods, then taking all the savings and reducing income taxes while investing exponentially more in R&D on technologies for alternative energy that is as viable, or more so, as our fossil fuel powered economy. Because of competing rigid ideologies and political gamesmanship these sensible solutions are currently not at hand. I guess it takes a national/international emergency such as a widespread war to achieve a common focus.
dirtbag

climber
Jul 3, 2013 - 12:03pm PT
^^^^^^^^^^ Christ, what an idiot. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
kev

climber
A pile of dirt.
Jul 3, 2013 - 01:00pm PT
Rick,

Well I'll give you this - you did take the time to reply. But I asked for some equations. If you can show me the mass balance/heat transfer/etc equations that support your hypothesis then I can take you seriously.

Since you admittedly claim you're not a climate scientist then perhaps you should take the time to fill in the easily explained details. When scientists converse the language we usually use is math (sure a chemist depending on discipline may often use chemical equations which are a bit different, etc..). It seems like you really don't have an true enough understanding or background of what you're talking about to explain it properly and until you can do that why should I take you seriously? Believe it or not - I'm not trying to be a dick here (unusual for those that know me ;) but you really need to work out those details before otherwise anyone with a science background is going to look at you like a crank.

If you've got an undergraduate science background you could go off and spend some time reading the literature (real literature with equations and such). While reading it, you'll need to fill in the details. Make sure you get what those equations mean physically (graph em, is the data stationary, whats that Fourier Transform telling you, etc). Maybe then you can easily explain it with the correct language that is accepted.

The burden is on you to make the presentation as climate change is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists so unless you want to sound like a crank go you've got some work to do.

Regardless I think you can agree that your word choice of "easily explainable" was incorrect.

kev
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jul 3, 2013 - 07:52pm PT
Well, I see that Rick read up on Milankovitch Cycles. What you need to learn next is how water vapor will affect climate.

First, you need to start reading up on how water vapor, methane, and CO2 currently control climate. After just the basics, you should then look at the rock record to learn as much as possible about past climate events. Geology is a broad topic, but since oil and gas is found in sedimentary rocks, billions and billions of dollars have been spent learning about the history of the planet. I can help a little, and point you towards some books. Sort of an online geology degree, but without the math and physics.

I will try to take the time to post about the empirical evidence that geologists use to determine paleoclimate, including temperature, gas content, etc. The history of the Earth is incredibly interesting. I live a half mile from the University of Oklahoma, and their geology library is huge. It is far bigger than the town library. Geology is such a massive topic that most of us become specialists in some small discipline. Mine is late Paleozoic rocks.

The easiest hothouse event to understand is the late Mesozoic event. It was caused by high CO2, and there is a lot of evidence to support it. You had dinosaurs and ferns living close to the poles. From this information, you will learn that the planet's climate is very sensitive to certain inputs.

I also recommend that you do a little basic googling on the topic of punctuated equilibrium.

My best guess, from what I know about previous events, is that we are already screwed. 200 years from now, the planet will have changed a lot.

This isn't really a species extinction problem. Canada might be a great place to live.

The real problem is that people are not altruists. We are incapable of foregoing a period of prosperity in order to protect the species 200 years from now.

On the bright side, we will all be dead.
Messages 6681 - 6700 of total 20085 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 Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews