Climate Change skeptics? [ot]


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7201 - 7220 of total 21618 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
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

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

Credit: monolith
new world order2

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... ,
and to eventually depopulate mankind.

Credit: new world order2
new world order2

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.

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

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

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.


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

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:

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!

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.

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...

Jebus H Bomz

Peavine Basecamp
Jul 4, 2013 - 02:23pm PT

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

Boulder climber
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.
Messages 7201 - 7220 of total 21618 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