Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7001 - 7020 of total 20085 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 1, 2013 - 11:59am PT
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 1, 2013 - 12:19pm PT
The Chief has been most entertaining today.

Keep it up, Chief!

BTW, Chief, it's all about where you place the reference line, the scaling, and the smoothing you use. Your not very bright, are you?
raymond phule

climber
Aug 1, 2013 - 12:26pm PT
Oh, I am surprised. The chief changed the subject once again. What about trying to discus one thing at the time?

Ricks comment in regard to Ed probably take the price as one of the most idiotic things posted on this forum so far.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 1, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
Again, Chief, it's all about where you put the reference line, the scale, and the smoothing, you use.

Yer not very bright, are ya Chief?
raymond phule

climber
Aug 1, 2013 - 12:33pm PT

Answering your strawman. I am no expert about paleoclimate but one of the lines in your own graph actually disputes the 7000ppm level.

Like this? Current Models compared to reality. Nice.

Where is the connection with what I wrote and you wrote? I cant see it.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 1, 2013 - 12:41pm PT
raymond phule

climber
Aug 1, 2013 - 01:00pm PT

So PHUUULE, you believe the current Climate Models yet you question the CARBIII model that goes back some 500 or so million years?

I said that there where a model in the graph that you showed that didn't show any 7000% ppm. That model thus disputed the results of the carb111 model.

But I guess that it is denier/idiot/"skeptic" logic that applies. All models, data, conclusions, arguments that came to a conclusion that you like are correct. All models, data, conclusions and arguments that came to a conclusions that you don't like are incorrect.

I am sure that you have absolutely no idea if the result from the CARB111 model are good or if it is better than the other models in the figure you copied.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 1, 2013 - 01:02pm PT
Don't have much time to mess with this today but you guys should look at the link below for the current weather trend gripping our nation. Looks like the country is currently far below average-except for you Ron-im sorry but it looks like you'll be 1 degree above normal. How are those arctic rowers doing, for that matter how is the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents doing-some interesting info there but you true believers won't believe it unless you look for yourselves.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/weather/1919754-record-cold-air-july-august-2013-a.html
raymond phule

climber
Aug 1, 2013 - 01:13pm PT

how is the Arctic sea ice extents doing

No, record year so far (but it can still be) but below the 00 mean. The arctic sea ice cover seems to be consistently shrinking.

But I guess that a non record year this year prove without a doubt that climate change is a huge conspiracy. I mean the record year was last year and a larger ice cover this year prove that the ice age is coming. The statistics for two years is of course enough if you like the conclusion.
dirtbag

climber
Aug 1, 2013 - 01:23pm PT
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^



raymond phule

climber
Aug 1, 2013 - 01:25pm PT

Wrong! You lose.

Correct! You are a bird. (I guess you play the non sequer game)


raymond phule

climber
Aug 1, 2013 - 01:30pm PT
NO, YOU LOSE (not the capitalized letters, I scream higher so you obviously lose).

raymond phule

climber
Aug 1, 2013 - 01:32pm PT

that data you just posted does not apply to this thread. It does not substantiate the game plan

Who believes that records low is not possibly when the climate is warming? What game plan?
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 1, 2013 - 01:55pm PT
Raymond you can't win a moronathon.

But getting back for a second to ancient atmospheres and climates, it might be a good time to mention the faint young sun paradox, that is the mystery of why Earth was warm enough for liquid water in Archean times when the sun was substantially fainter. It's known the answer must involve greenhouse gases, but not known exactly how.

Here's Wikipedia's entry,
The faint young Sun paradox or problem describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in the Earth's history and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun's output would be only 70% as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox

New research (July 2013) addressing this paradox, from the University of Colorado:
The simplest solution to the faint sun paradox, which duplicates Earth’s present climate, involves maintaining roughly 20,000 parts per million of the greenhouse gas CO2 and 1,000 ppm of methane in the ancient atmosphere some 2.8 billion years ago, said Wolf. While that may seem like a lot compared to today’s 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, geological studies of ancient soil samples support the idea that CO2 likely could have been that high during that time period. Methane is considered to be at least 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and could have played a significant role in warming the early Earth as well, said the CU researchers.
...
Another solution to achieving a habitable but slightly cooler climate under the faint sun conditions is for the Archean atmosphere to have contained roughly 15,000 to 20,000 ppm of CO2 and no methane, said Wolf. “Our results indicate that a weak version of the faint young sun paradox, requiring only that some portion of the planet’s surface maintain liquid water, may be resolved with moderate greenhouse gas inventories,” the authors wrote in Astrobiology.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2013/07/09/cu-study-shows-how-early-earth-kept-warm-enough-support-life

And here is that Astrobiology article itself, the whole thing:
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/ast.2012.0936
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 1, 2013 - 02:09pm PT
I just can't seem to get enough of The Chief and his seemingly infinite wisdom.

Here, I repeat another pearl of his deep thinking:

You want the Govt to start fixing this AGW chaos. Yet your own DEM GOVERNOR is willing to shell out 3-5 BILLION of your tax bucks on a BULLET TRAIN. How much on CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION? 1/10th of that. NICE!


But wait a minute... Isn't getting cars off the road one of the planks that we need to implement in order to reform our use of fossil fuels? And, wouldn't mass transit help with reducing car travel?


Hmmmm, The Chief, please explain to me a couple of things:

1) Can a nation change it's energy platform without the aid of the government?

2) Doesn't mass transit help to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?


I ask you because from your tone of voice, it appears you might know some things. So, I'm depending on you to provide thoughtful and useful answers.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 1, 2013 - 02:26pm PT
And your Buddy Ed posted a paper titled "No climate paradox under the faint early sun" a few days back Chiloe. Seems to have a different conclusion based on studies of sediment mineralogy. Can you guys please get your scientists straightened out, they seem to be all over the board and indeed overboard in this rat infested sinking ship of CAGW.
dirtbag

climber
Aug 1, 2013 - 02:32pm PT
Idiot^^^^^
raymond phule

climber
Aug 1, 2013 - 02:36pm PT

Can you guys please get your scientists straightened out, they seem to be all over the board and indeed overboard in this rat infested sinking ship of CAGW.

The problem is sometimes that climate science is conspiracy where everyone agrees with each other to get funding and different views cant even get published and sometimes is the problem that the scientists cant even agree with each other...
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Aug 1, 2013 - 02:48pm PT
HAMWEATHER is now not worthy. Unbelievable.

Who ever said it was not worthy?

You said:

NOAA released last weeks "Record Temperature Events"

And I corrected you... it ain't from NOAA. Try unwinding your panties a bit and learn to read.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 1, 2013 - 03:08pm PT
Can you guys please get your scientists straightened out, they seem to be all over the board and indeed overboard in this rat infested sinking ship of CAGW.

Rick reliably exhibits a tinfoil-hat comprehension of science. The reality-based community understands science is dynamic by its nature for non-conspiratorial reasons. Frinstance, Ed cites (and Rick tinfoil-hats) a 2010 article in Nature suggesting that low albedo could resolve the faint sun paradox. Since then other scientists have run the numbers and disagreed, as in this NASA group:

We show that, even with the strongest plausible assumptions, reducing cloud and surface albedos falls short by a factor of two of resolving the paradox,” say Goldlatt and Zahnle.

So the paradox is alive and well; and more puzzling than ever. Last year we discovered that a greenhouse effect can’t explain the paradox. Now we know that a lower albedo wouldn’t have done the trick either.

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424154/faint-young-sun-paradox-not-solved-says-nasa/

We could go farther with this topic though I know that reality can't dent Rick's conspiracy views.
Messages 7001 - 7020 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