Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 6701 - 6720 of total 20343 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
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.
Bob Harrington

climber
Bishop, California
Jul 3, 2013 - 08:59pm PT
On the bright side, we'll all be dead.

Ha, droll.

A relevant read here is "Under a Green Sky" by Peter Ward. Ward is a Palentologist who's done a lot of work on the fossil record related to extinction events. He recounts studies done to find a palentological smoking gun in the fossil record showing that the KT extinction was sudden, supporting the bolide impact explanation for the KT event. He then contrasts this with the fossil record related to other events where extinction was not sudden. In the years following the acceptance of the bolide hypothesis for the KT event, much work was done searching for evidence of impacts associated with other extinction events. But Ward's work suggests that the at the KT event was unusual and that bolide impact doesn't account for other major extinctions. He gives particular attention to the Permo-Triassic event, and proposes that this event (and others)were triggered by CO2 outgassed by volcanic erruptions, which warms the atmosphere and oceans, resulting in lower O2 solubility and H2S accumulating in the oceans to the point where it becomes toxic to marine life. His take home point -- CO2 increase initiated the chain reaction, and the origin of the CO2 (volcanic or anthropogenic) doesn't matter, and maybe we are provoking a similar event.

It's a good popular science read, both for the science content and the insights into how professional science is conducted. He gives a great description of the misery of doing field work in the continuous cold and rain of the Aleutians that should disabuse any aspiring geologists of the notion that geologic field work is idyllic stroll.

Ward also has a good TED talk on the subject:

http://www.ted.com/talks/peter_ward_on_mass_extinctions.htm
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jul 3, 2013 - 10:14pm PT
It's been a cold stormy season on the Arctic Ocean, but in the part two days clouds have cleared to show a bit of what's underneath. Sea ice extent numbers are still higher than the lowest recent years, but that "extent" counts a lot of slush where there used to be thicker ice. Here's one view fairly near the North Pole, today.



That's a satellite view, each pixel about 250 meters. With ice this broken up and thin, what happens over the rest of the summer depends a lot on the weather, more than used to be the case.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jul 3, 2013 - 10:17pm PT
On the bright side, we'll all be dead.


Ha, droll.

Droll perhaps but a succinct summation of the chief's position in one word. Droll can be efficient!

DMTR
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 3, 2013 - 10:27pm PT
Base thanks for the suggestions. As far as the positive feedback loops, primarily atmospheric water vapor, they have so far failed to materialize. The expected heat is missing and there is a desperate search on to find it- they are even looking under rocks in the deep ocean, all to no avail so far. The hothouse events you mention were probably initiated by large scale basaltic eruptions which pumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere ( on the order of several thousand parts per million) to really trap infrared radiation and trigger the positive feedbacks, including large scale methane releases and increases in atmospheric vapor. In your research see if you can find unambiguous evidence of elevated CO2, in just the hundreds of parts per million, leading to temperature increase rather than lagging it. It is interesting that the flora and fauna ( dinosaurs by the billions)seemed to thrive in this hothouse event, planet wide, till the asteroid impact 55 million years ago and the huge volcanic eruption event in India millenia later. Were they killed by the one two punch causing a nuclear winter like period of extreme cold? Too bad your leaning to the AGW side, you'd make a formidable ally. Anyway, not much is happening in this ongoing war till the release of more info on the Cern CLOUD experiment and release of AR5. I am getting too busy to argue with you guys and their are few minds open to change. Unless something comes up i will take a vacation from this. If any of you guys are pissed, remember you have DR. F to blame for my appearance here about post 7500. He took the liberty of transferring my post from another of his threads to here. Otherwise i would never have engaged.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jul 4, 2013 - 02:09pm PT
I don't personally advocate any one approach to this over another, and there are obviously very strong political opinions regarding just what is acceptable and what is not. But what I have tried to do in this thread is to show that the climate science is a reliable guide to what is happening and what is going to happen.

^^^

There it is. Ed and Chilo, and others, speak to the science. Ed you've done an amazing job. My own attitude, and I use that word specifically, has changed as a direct result of your persistent patience. I used to think that as long as India and China refused to play, and global trade continues present trends, efforts here in the US to curtail CO2 would be insufficient. Actually I still think that. What's changed is my attitude toward the effort. Science is not policy and sadly policy often ignores science. Whaddaya gonna do?

Well I see what Ed and Chiloe are doing and I admire it. I compare that to fly fishing.

DMT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jul 4, 2013 - 02:15pm PT
Oh but wait, you can't rely upon me, I'm a fence sitter! I am one of those people open to change. Darn, I guess you can't count on me to adopt a position and stick to it in the face of all logic and contradiction; an unprincipled man.



The relevance of the science is obvious, it is why it has attracted such attention both positive and negative. The identification of the source of the climate change observed over the last century as the by product of human energy production activity provides a very specific focus on what we need to do.

Still amazes me the Do Nothings standard tactic is:

1. Deny there is a warming.
2. When that fails deny humans are causing or even contributing to the effect.
3. When that fails assert there is nothing we can do to prevent it, anyway.

And interestingly the same three people play the same three cards over and over, 1,2,3, 1,2,3,1,2,3... Playing the first first card again, after playing the third, shows the circle jerk nature of these people and shows that it doesn't matter what science suggests, these are Men of Principle and they'll be goddamned if they are going to change their minds.

You've demonstrated that too Ed, their intractability. They are impervious to all facts and logic. after all they are men of principle...

DMT
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Jul 4, 2013 - 02:23pm PT
Cheers!
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jul 4, 2013 - 02:36pm PT
Well said DMT
Happy 4TH from Montana.
Credit: wilbeer
jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Jul 4, 2013 - 04:19pm PT
There is no question Ed makes a very convincing argument. In general I would agree. I still claim that human C02 contributions may not directly play a role in the unusual undulations of the jet stream we have observed recently - my comment was restricted to that phenomenon. I don't know one way or the other.

The huge problem of carbon taxes et al is the continued weakness of the US economy. I look at this from a personal perspective here in Pueblo West, a middle class community 10 miles from Pueblo, on the high S. Colorado prairie. There is no central business area out here, but a number of strip malls and individual business buildings. I have observed small business after small business vanish starting just after the Great Recession began. Recently that trend seems to have accelerated, leaving a large number of empty spaces. Also, in my extended family there are significant unemployment problems among several younger members who were well-trained for their work. One is a very competent driller whose job vanished with the downturn in precious metals' values.

When someone recommends taxing imports from China, etc. if they do not follow the lead of the US, I think Yes, and then those in my family skirting near the edge of financial disaster will have to pay 12$ for an item at Walmart previously listed as 10$. Who ends up paying the price? And, yes, import fees might increase US production, but that's a dangerous path.

Ed has stated all will have to pay the price.

PS: an 1800 lb car getting 275 mpg and requiring 12 seconds to get up to speed would be blown off I-25 into the path of an 18-wheeler here on the high prairie.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 4, 2013 - 05:23pm PT
Excuse me gents, i can't let this go without correcting the record somewhat. The narrative you guys are advancing is as disconnected from reality as the precious climate models you worship.

DMT is right in that The Chief, Ron and i hit you repeatedly with the old 1-2-3, over and over again.

The Chief presented graph, after graph, after graph highlighting the disconnect between the numerous models and observed reality. He offered up article after article, by some of the most respected scientists in the world refuting much of the CAGW hypothesis.He revealed the huge quantity of capital behind this climate change inustry and the ones who will ultimately pay the costs-us.

Ron showed in study after study that the flora and fauna of planet Earth is not suffering as a consequence of increased CO2. He pointed to the real causes of devastating wilfires, which is mainly because of an overreaction to clear cutting forests of the past resulting in overzealous and wrongheaded extreme enviromentalism. He also shredded the idea of the extinction of the Polar Bear-the poster child of the CAGW overreactionaries.

I presented numerous papers ( not just the one Ed claims) by many highly respected scientists offering alternative natural processes that correlate well with observations. These ran the gamut from oceanic cycles, to numerous causes and effects of solar variability, to extra solar effects from cosmic rays etc.

At one point a 1000 or 1500 posts ago both Base and Ed conceded that the Anthropogenic contribution and effects will likely be less than all the modeling. From memory- Ed " the anthropogenic signal is rather feeble compared to natural variability", Base "the effects will likely be more an inconvenience than an extinction and will require adaptation"- These are not exact quotes but are accurate as to their meaning.

Now some of you guys say we deny any anthropogenic contribution towards the cause of the 20th century's modest heat increase of 0.7 c. This is not true, all of us agreed that man has a minor degree of contribution to this increase. What we don't agree to, is that it is a disaster, or a reason to panic.

Ed stated in his last post that i consider the consensus policy to be " a threat to the welfare of humans around the globe", and i ,"align with those who advocate a do nothing policy". The first of his statements is absolutely true- many people do think the carbon taxing scheme that he frequently advocates is a real threat. The second is also true-any one would align with those who advocate doing nothing, before happily agreeing to pay vastly more taxes, to promote more governance at the expense of their welfare, all for an unproven disaster that may occur (according to a minority of scientists)many decades in the future.

Ed had a good illustration in his last post. The grey area on the right showed the loss to inefficiency- don't most of you think that improving efficiency is a worthy goal of science and government policy-i do. It also showed how much coal is used in power generation (coal use is the single largest polutant and releases approx, 50% more CO2 than combustion of natural gas). It also showed how pathetically little energy is produced by wind and solar despite hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies and the use of thousands of square miles of public property. It just can't, at this point, totally replace coal and petroleum. But the combination of increased natural gas usage, construction of more modern nuclear plants, increased efficiency, and funding of R&D on viable alternatives can.This can all be done without a carbon tax. It can be done environmentally safely. It can start to be done now.


jgill

Boulder climber
Colorado
Jul 4, 2013 - 05:56pm PT
"Further observations and analysis are needed to confidently
attribute the causes of these changes (jet streams) to anthropogenic
climate change, natural variability, or some combination of
the two"

OK. Thanks.


. . . combination of increased natural gas usage, construction of more modern nuclear plants . . .

Sounds good.
Messages 6701 - 6720 of total 20343 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