mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
May 21, 2013 - 10:32am PT
|
If you EXPECT actual responses,, a certain level of respect and decency is required.
ah, yes, that is exactly what deniers bring to the discussion of climate change.
"You are wrong. I don't know enough to tell you why decades of research by thousands of highly trained experts are wrong, nor do I have the desire or ability to learn, I just know you are wrong. Polar bears."
Yes, respect and decency.
|
|
Ron Anderson
Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
|
|
|
May 21, 2013 - 10:40am PT
|
you sure didnt expect the answer i gave you on your critiques of my work,, now did ya LMAO! Dont think for a second i didnt know the angle you trolled for. ;-)
and again i must remind you there is no argument that climates change. JUST the amount of human impact therein.
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
May 21, 2013 - 10:47am PT
|
the warning given in Oklahoma was offered only 10s of minutes from the event.
Not exactly true. It was predicted days in advance that tornado producing storms were coming. The tornado itself started forming 10-15 minutes before it hit the ground.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
May 21, 2013 - 10:51am PT
|
Ron said:
and again i must remind you there is no argument that climates change. JUST the amount of human impact therein.
and on that I think that all of us agree!
and all of us agree that the climate IS getting warmer, maybe not in your backyard, but certainly globally, and with bad consequences
and all of us agree that because of the present global warming that the great ice caps in the arctic are indeed melting, getting smaller, and sea levels are rising
so what's the disagreement then?
|
|
kennyt
climber
Woodfords,California
|
|
|
May 21, 2013 - 10:56am PT
|
and so im theorizing that your purpose here Elcono is simply to inject nonsense at a random pace?
that's my job!
|
|
Ron Anderson
Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
|
|
|
May 21, 2013 - 10:58am 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 - 11:07am 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 - 11:10am 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 . . .)
|
|
Ron Anderson
Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
|
|
|
May 21, 2013 - 11:21am 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 - 11:22am 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 - 11:24am 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 - 11:24am 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 - 11:29am 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 - 11:30am PT
|
Rick,, someone got banned???
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
May 21, 2013 - 11:32am 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 - 11:33am 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 - 11:37am 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 - 11:38am 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!;-)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!