Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 6781 - 6800 of total 26956 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
kennyt

climber
Woodfords,California
May 21, 2013 - 01:56pm PT
and so im theorizing that your purpose here Elcono is simply to inject nonsense at a random pace?

that's my job!
Bharata

Mountain climber
Pune
May 21, 2013 - 01:58pm PT
Maybe our esteemed climate-control-demigods will answer this rudeness?

Can Tornadoes Be Prevented By Stealing Taxpayer Money To Fund
Green Energy Scams?

with this long list of the Presidents Taxpayer-Backed Green Energy Failures
which yield a negative answer to that question but maybe they can refute?

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/can-tornadoes-be-prevented-by-stealing-taxpayer-money-to-fund-green-energy-scams/



Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 21, 2013 - 01:58pm PT
You say BAD consequences Norton. However if fuana species are an indicator as previoulsy thought, then the population increase of Polar bears is a good thing no? And whatever natural causes of flucuation of CO2 levels in the past are still here today no? And those are all but impossible to predict no?

I think it would be far more dire of levels were suddenly falling dont you?




edit: Is this where i mention a million or so of our tax dollars was just given to science to study,,,,DUCK penises and the implications on society?
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 21, 2013 - 02:07pm PT
you sure didnt expect the answer i gave you on your critiques of my work

And I don't believe it either.

No doubt climate changes... and the major causes have been identified. The ONLY REASONABLE cause of the current changes in climate is the addition of anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere, which has been shown very clearly. Sure, the specifics of feed backs require further study... the Earth's climate is far more complicated than stuffing dead things. Sure, how we as a society/species approach the issue is up for debate. But to deny anthropogenic CO2 is directly affecting our global climate is asinine.

There is NO OTHER alternative hypothesis that hasn't been blown out of the water. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. Anthropogenic CO2 remains a SOLID explanation, despite ALL the OTHER alternative hypothesis that Big Oil could BUY.

Do you deny that increasing the CO2 concentration by 20% would have an effect on the Earth's energy balance... which drives climate? Or do you lack the ability/desire to learn that very simple, reproducible, controlled experiments show that it most certainly does?



And whatever natural causes of flucuation of CO2 levels in the past are still here today no?

Yes, and they are TINY in comparison to anthropogenic emissions of CO2. And they have a distinct isotopic signature. And it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
May 21, 2013 - 02:10pm PT

edit: Is this where i mention a million or so of our tax dollars was just given to science to study,,,,DUCK penises and the implications on society?

Yeah but that's only a fraction of a penny per American--what's the harm in that?
I didn't know that "scientists" had picked up something like personal injury lawyers' "per diem" arguments (I'd like you award my client just $1 for each minute of pain she'll suffer . . .)
Bharata

Mountain climber
Pune
May 21, 2013 - 02:20pm PT
mechrist - your straight-man jokes are quite good. thank you for good laugh.

They also used to know with reasonable certainty that witches
caused climate change.

http://grist.org/list/did-climate-change-cause-the-salem-witch-trials/

Climatic Change and Witch-Hunting: The Impact of the Little Ice Age
on Mentalities
http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-94-015-9259-8_13.pdf







Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 21, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
certainly a 20% difference either way would affect us. but THAT is also up to debate because nature is an UNKOWN factor. We only know there has been a SMALL increase today. There are many charts of prediction all differing.
Is BIG OIL behind a lot of resistance, more than likely, just like medicine is against cesium chloride for cancer cures. DOLLARS period. On that i agree.
However the amount of anomalies in and of themselves make me think twice about the effect of a small increase in CO2. The polar bears are diggin it.
Meanwhile the antartic grows. Those are rather large anomalies all contradictory of BAD effects from this small amount of CO2 increase.



Let me use a forestry practice for example. It is stems per acre, not SIZE of stems per acre that will do the most "natural scrubbing" of CO2.
Private acreage in many Timber companies are managed in this exact way to produce optimum amounts of board feet coupled with speed in growth. Yet they are labeled bad in more ways than ever deserved from contradictory science and studies. Even the dang Spotted Owl prefers THEIR areas like those pesky clear cuts.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 21, 2013 - 02:22pm PT
You say BAD consequences Norton. However if fuana species are an indicator as previoulsy thought, then the population increase of Polar bears is a good thing no? And whatever natural causes of flucuation of CO2 levels in the past are still here today no? And those are all but impossible to predict no?

Hi Ron,

well personally I don't give a damn if polar bear populations are increasing or not

regardless, polar bears have nothing to do with the fact that our earth IS warming, and yes those bears are definitely having a harder time getting to seals to kill because the arctic ice IS decreasing

and Ron, YES you are correct in that whatever natural levels of CO2 are still here today but we sure DO know that the CO2 levels are increasing MORE than the natural levels and we DO know that the stuff that humans put into the atmosphere has weakened the protective ozone which then allows more of the sun's rays and warmth into our atmosphere and that has been proven beyond scientific peer reviewed doubt, and NO that is not difficult to predict because yes we do have many decades of research to back up those facts

I think you know all this but are sometimes just trolling for fun
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 21, 2013 - 02:24pm PT
What a bunch of pansies you miserable Hotheads are. When my new friend Chief Knotts kicked your scrawny little asses using your own misinformation you had to run to daddy Mac begging his banishment to save you from the beating you deserve.

very, very weak as undersecretary Norton would say.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 21, 2013 - 02:24pm PT
certainly a 20% difference either way would affect us. but THAT is also up to debate because nature is an UNKOWN factor. We only know there has been a SMALL increase today.

Ron, you are 100% wrong. The MEASURED concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from ~280 ppm to 400 ppm. That is an increase of OVER 40%. THAT was MEASURED... no predicted... not up for debate. THOSE ARE THE FUKING OBSERVATIONS.

40% is NOT a small increase.

Meanwhile the antartic grows.

Ron, I'm trying man... really. The antarctic ice is "growing" at less than 1% per decade (if that), while the arctic ice is shrinking at over 4% per decade. Please pull your head out of your ass. I hate to see you get beat down over and over and over.

It is stems per acre, not SIZE of stems per acre that will do the most "natural scrubbing" of CO2.

Technically it is green biomass... stems per acre is a more easily measured proxy. Whatever.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 21, 2013 - 02:29pm PT
Norton the bears still get the same seals that swim the same ice lines, they are simply closer to eventual land mass,,, which at the current rate wouldnt be seen for a LOOOOOOONG time. BUT the polar bear issue WAS used as an indicator previously for global warming- a veritable poster child if you will, and that was a loud lie.

And excuse me for confusion but how dos the antartic grow ice of GLOBAL warming is occurring at such a frenzied level?

Ive heard theories of a "hole in the ozone" but if ozone reduction equals global warming, how does that equate?


edit: Wes i was referring to future predictions NOT the known.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 21, 2013 - 02:30pm PT
Rick,, someone got banned???
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 21, 2013 - 02:32pm PT
Ron, the "growth" of antarctic ice has only been statistically significant (within measurement error) for some MONTHS, while arctic ice shrinks at 4 times the rate and remains statistically significant OVER THE ENTIRE YEAR.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

Head... ass... remove from.



Okay... so we KNOW CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% (we measured it)... we KNOW the CO2 is anthropogenic (we measured that too)... and we KNOW "certainly a 20% difference either way would affect us" because you told us so.

So what is your point?



Can you really not see how absurd you are being?
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 21, 2013 - 02:33pm PT
you had to run to daddy Mac begging his banishment


what?

oh come on Rick, I may be wrong but I doubt anyone here has contacted Chris and asked for you to be BANNED!

you gotta be making that up

you have done nothing to warrant being banned, nothing that I can see
until you can provide some proof then we will assume you are both thin skinned AND paranoid

and yes, until your morale improves the beatings WILL continue

now grow up and stop being such a baby
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 21, 2013 - 02:37pm PT
Ron, the earth rotates through space not on a perfect axis,

therefore the RATE of overall warming between the north and south pole areas is not the same rate

therefore, it is perfectly understandable that the Antarctic is very very slowly growing ice while at the same time the Arctic is losing ice, and at a much much faster rate

you knew this, but I gotta hand it to you, you are a magnificent troll~
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 21, 2013 - 02:38pm PT
hhhmmmm so ,, so,, yur sayin,, it may NOT be just CO2 affecting this?




shooot Norton,, i had a GREAT joke for a penguin segway yesterday but couldnt get the right response to launch!;-)
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
May 21, 2013 - 02:39pm PT
Neither his Dust bowl wiki page or Ken Burns documentary mention the causes effecting the rapid desertification that occurred.

If anyone knows of any theories I'd love to hear it.

Bruce, in the wiki article they did mention farming practices but I noticed no temps. Here's an article I was reading that talks about Arctic Ice anomalies from that period and they might be related. Even in 1930, CO2 concentrations were already climbing, but especially black particle contamination was probably significant - but I bring that up on my own;
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/

There's interesting reading and good links in there. It seems like relatively balanced discussion too.

mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 21, 2013 - 02:42pm PT
Ron, orbital variations have been looked at in detail. They explain the major glacical periods pretty well.

But they are ABSOLUTELY NOT responsible for the recent observed changes in global climate. ABSOLUTELY 100% NOT.

Sure models aren't perfect, just like your dead things aren't alive... but mounting a trout on a sage branch? That's fuking retarded.

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 21, 2013 - 02:48pm PT
But they are ABSOLUTELY NOT responsible for the recent observed changes in global climate. ABSOLUTELY 100% NOT.

Correct

And it is the thinning of the earth's ozone layer
that is causing the warming increase
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 21, 2013 - 02:51pm PT
Yeah Ron, Where is Knotts? I have it from reliable sources that their was complaint to mac. So you can begin to see the depths of their desperation, when somebody mounts an effective counter campaign against them they plead for removal. Me- Norton? no, not me , i haven't even begun yet.
Messages 6781 - 6800 of total 26956 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 Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews