Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 7161 - 7180 of total 29483 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 28, 2013 - 04:57pm PT
Popping in occasionally from the field. I have a stupid science question. During periods of continental glaciation the atmospheric CO2 content generally, but not always, decreases. According to interpretations i've deciphered this is due to increased absorption capacity of cooling oceans and increased uptake by foraminifera whose mass increases. This doesn't make sense to me since cooler climates decrease forests and desert and other arid land areas decrease CO2 uptake by less weathering. It seems like the first condition cited above would be offset by the second. So my question is; are their studies out there examining the roles of the entire solar radiant spectrum and its effects on the more complex atmospheric molecules and likewise with cosmic Rays and other extrasolar particles/energy fluxes.Since the earth and suns geomagnetic fields fluctuate could times of low shielding effects of magnetic fields allow more complex molecules to be broken down at accelerated rates. Probably a stupid question, but i thought i would ask you guys to get back to more science content.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 28, 2013 - 05:08pm PT
Polio: You still don't get it

Yep, thanks to science, not many people do these days.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 28, 2013 - 05:19pm PT
Ron said:

if the military is a right wing cause, how come they protect leftys too? Your logic,, doc,, is "askew"..

good point, Ron

our US military is decidedly NOT a "right wing cause", it is both political party's support and funding for our mutual National Security

there are no Democrats or Republicans in war zones, just guys fighting and dying primarily for each other as comrades and because they took an oath to defend the USA.

mountainlion

Trad climber
California
May 28, 2013 - 05:40pm PT
Thanks for the graphs and links Chiloe...Thanks Ed for all the time and work you have spent explaining the science (the papers themselves are tedious but you make it easier to understand).

I DON'T believe the Chief or Ron dislike science...how can you be surrounded by beauty that is nature. The insects, animals, plants, of all shapes and sizes, the geologic complexity of rock with dykes, spots, pockets, stains, and crystals without wondering how they were made and how long they will last.

As far as having hatred for elites---the Chief posted in the last 2 days what appears to be his work with elite soldiers (unless I'm mistaken that Delta is not elite). Ron climbed with the most graceful if not the best climber ever in Dano and has mentioned countless times the inferior work he has to compete with in taxidermy today (he must be pretty good or elite at it).

I dislike them putting Ed, Base, and Chiloe down because they are obviously talented scientists. I believe the science they have provided us with on this forum. I continue to do my own research as well and the vast majority of it PROVES THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING TOO RAPIDLY TO BE EXPLAINED WITHOUT HUMANS BEING A CAUSE!!!

All of this leads me to believe this is just entertainment for Ron and the Chief...something to do to break up what would other wise be a boring day. Willfully ignorant that is Rick but Ron and the Chief are just trolling...enjoying us getting worked up and then continueing to love nature just as much as us. Still recycling, Leaving no trace, Using solar, eating fresh veggies from their garden or making use of every part of an animal they killed, biking or hiking more than the average human.

I will never believe they don't like science especially after watching and reading about all the rigging and calculations that went into Dano's jumps...
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 28, 2013 - 06:47pm PT
Popping in occasionally from the field. I have a stupid science question. During periods of continental glaciation the atmospheric CO2 content generally, but not always, decreases. According to interpretations i've deciphered this is due to increased absorption capacity of cooling oceans and increased uptake by foraminifera whose mass increases. This doesn't make sense to me since cooler climates decrease forests and desert and other arid land areas decrease CO2 uptake by less weathering. It seems like the first condition cited above would be offset by the second. So my question is; are their studies out there examining the roles of the entire solar radiant spectrum and its effects on the more complex atmospheric molecules and likewise with cosmic Rays and other extrasolar particles/energy fluxes.Since the earth and suns geomagnetic fields fluctuate could times of low shielding effects of magnetic fields allow more complex molecules to be broken down at accelerated rates. Probably a stupid question, but i thought i would ask you guys to get back to more science content.

You deniers are a total panic! It reminds me of the last time I bought some gold stock. I figured how hard can it be ? I had a little inside dope, gold price was going up, India was on fire so what the fuk?

Ever since then, and in combination with similar lessons learned when swimming with the sharks, I hire those who know what they are doing. It takes a bit of work to find someone of trust and you better pay them what they want, but the alternative sucks..... unless you are willing to do the work to be independent and don't short change yourself in guessing what that involves.

Hey Rick, I'm thinking of building a nuclear reactor in my back yard - can you come and give me some advice?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 28, 2013 - 07:31pm PT
I am sure glad i do not know proper discussion etiquette in this one here.
If theres one thing i defend since i was a boy scout ,it has been the enviornment.
NOT SORRY. You men have proved nothing yourselves,but one thing,especially after attacking scientists like Ed,Base,Chiloe, etal .
There is only one way to talk to you....see post 9072.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
May 28, 2013 - 08:51pm PT
You deniers are a total panic! It reminds me of the last time I bought some gold stock. I figured how hard can it be ? I had a little inside dope, gold price was going up, India was on fire so what the fuk?

Ever since then, and in combination with similar lessons learned when swimming with the sharks, I hire those who know what they are doing.

Sounds reasonable. But the problem is, there are some things in life where no one really knows what they're doing, and the so-called experts are nothing more than charlatans. This isn't my pet theory; I'm summarizing one of the points raised in Taleb's The Black Swan.

Slightly interesting that many of the examples of phony experts Taleb gives relate to finance, the area that you seem to think has credible "experts." (Well there are of course financial experts in some sense, but among stock pickers? Hard to say.)
Also slightly interesting that Taleb uses climate change modeling as an example of something that probably cannot be done well. (He does not at all reject man made climate change.)
Science and engineering are great when they work--but humans being humans, that has lead to a lot of junk "science" where the practitioners of hocus pocus try to ride the coattails of real scientists. How the climate change stuff will sort out remains to be seen.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
May 28, 2013 - 09:22pm PT
Slightly interesting that many of the examples of phony experts Taleb gives relate to finance,

But Taleb himself turned out to be claiming expertise he did not have, criticizing the field of statistics for instance without knowing much about it. His defense was that he was writing for the general public, not expecting to be judged by professional standards.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 28, 2013 - 09:33pm PT
point taken Blahblah. Its hard to argue with you on that. For starters, no matter what the intent is here, it is forecasting so uncertainty is a given.

But right off the bat there is a great degree of difference in motive and by extension probability of corruption or deciept when comparing the science community and the unscrupulous rogues in the world of business and finance. I'm not suggesting they are all a bunch of saints or anything but if scientists sell reefers to school kids, Stockbrokers are mother rapers.

Then there are the policy makers who are father rapers.

But whether its climate science or a stock portfolio, It all starts with gaining the best understanding of the beast and you have 2 choices. Do it yourself (ultra low odds) or find someone better qualified ( infinitely better odds). Most sane people will chose the latter which means you need a system of vetting expertise better than spinning a bottle or equally as bad, letting your prejudices make the choice.

Which leads to the old question, what the difference between prejudice and intuition?



by the way, I agree that the world of investments is about the least likely place to find someone with "your interests" above thiers. But if you are willing to pay for it, it is easier to find.

Comparatively speaking finding the best climate science advice is far easier - and cheaper!
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 28, 2013 - 09:38pm PT
Bruce, it might surprise you to learn i am in agreement with you on deferring to experts. 30 years ago, i took a day from my self employment to work on my wifes car, their was a slight accident and i wound up with a load of explosively propelled metal filings in my face and embedded in the eyes. Well the 3 days lost production and the 100's of dollars in medical bills were more than enough to convince me to stick within the narrow realm of my expertise. Blahblah made an excellent post in answer to yours. The only thing i would add is the incredibly complex multi disciplinary field of climate science lacks a scientifically neutral over seer to sort through the tens of thousands of sometimes contradictory evidence and conclusions. Instead we have a political organization in charge that integrates the whole into a vehicle to support it's agenda and the only solutions they allow. This is obvious to all and the argument between proponents and opponents fall along ideological lines.Nobody cares about this peculiar little backwater forum so it is a good place to learn and practice skills in convincing the limited few we can influence. You are a fool if you let a " professional investment advisor" manage your retirement funds without you actively monitoring and limiting them.As for the nuclear reactor, i'll defer to Ed as he is the nuclear physicist, i'll stand on my own little patch of solid ground.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
May 28, 2013 - 09:51pm PT
Oh but you know how stats can be made to say anything.

Never understood this, words can lie so much better.

Many years ago I assigned Darrell Huff's famous little book How to Lie with Statistics to an undergrad stats course, thinking it would make things more fun. Actually it made things more confusing, Huff was writing for a different time (1950s) and trying to protect rubes from ad-men, not to help them read science. Some of his warnings, like against the gee-whiz graph, make sense only for about the first inch.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 28, 2013 - 09:53pm PT
Well I am somewhat surprised to hear that so maybe we have simply missunderstood each other.

Perhaps Ed, Chiloe or someone could explain how science is "governed" and if the IPCC is capable of misrepresenting the science that is provided to it.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 28, 2013 - 10:05pm PT
What mechanism(s) provide for the excess energy from balance to be absorbed by the oceans rather than both the ocean and atmosphere.

http://sealevel.colorafo.edu/
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 28, 2013 - 10:07pm PT
Instead we have a political organization in charge that integrates the whole into a vehicle to support it's agenda


and the name of this well known "political" organization IS?

new world order2

climber
May 28, 2013 - 10:28pm PT
Norton and Dr. F---Like peas in a pod.

photo not found
Missing photo ID#304879
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 28, 2013 - 10:29pm PT
poor little NWO

photo not found
Missing photo ID#304881
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 28, 2013 - 10:42pm PT
Ain't going to happen with me. My eyes glaze over and I start drooling
new world order2

climber
May 28, 2013 - 10:43pm PT

You guys are intelligent, but you don't have even the very basic skills to understand this stuff on your own.

And as a result, have no right whatsoever to question myself, nor the gods of science.

get those skills, then you wouldn't have to be so dependent on "experts" to tell you what to think. No need for an overseer...

Such as the esteemed Ed H.

I bow to you, great god of science. Can you be any more full of yourself?

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 28, 2013 - 10:47pm PT
And as a result, have no right whatsoever to question myself, nor the gods of science.

that is correct NWO

when you have a PHD in Physics then you can piss in the tall grass with the Physicists

in the meantime, stick to being an undereducated dirt ball
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 28, 2013 - 10:49pm PT
NWO2 - that was one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while
Messages 7161 - 7180 of total 29483 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