Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 7441 - 7460 of total 26399 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
dirtbag

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 03:14pm PT
Everything I've read says there was a very small bit of interbreeding contributing a percent or two to our genome--that species is gone. There are no Neanderthals
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 14, 2013 - 03:17pm PT
(sigh) ..



HOW ELSE do you explain guys like Dennis Rodman Dirt!;-)






edit: Crunch is there an ACCURATE measure of NATURAL CO2 rises along with what we humans put out? Is there an accurate means of predicting those natural sources? Obviously CO2 has fluctuated many times before mans intervention. So what amount of the current natural rise can be controlled by mans actions? Acknowledging the fact that cleaning our act up is always - will always be a good idea in general.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 03:25pm PT
HOW ELSE do you explain guys like Dennis Rodman Dirt!;-)


Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 14, 2013 - 03:32pm PT
thought youd go for a "missing link" joke!
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Jun 14, 2013 - 03:33pm PT
When those brownies got trapped by that ice earlier, they decided to go white to blend in and became "polar bears". They can certainly do the reverse in any time frame given.

Lamarkian logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

Organisms evolve because the environment tends to eliminate species that can't adapt to the changes. Brown bears didn't "decide" to acquire the characteristics that make polar bears successful; only the strain (subspecies) that could survive passed on the successful genes.

Unfortunately Man evolved intelligence and can now create tools to allow us to live beyond what nature can support. So we go on trashing our environment until we tip the scales hard over to the point where we can't "fix" it. Game over. Cockroaches & bacteria win.
dirtbag

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 03:34pm PT
Ron I think my suggestion is plausible too.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 14, 2013 - 03:35pm PT
Yes i grant you a consensus there Dirt!

But truly are we all not connected to homo-erectus?






Want my suggestions for a cleaner CO2 level from "man"?


Live near where you work. DRIVE less. No more long trips to exotic climbing locales. Climb in yur neighborhoods i do. I live where i work. No commutes of 30 minutes to an hour daily.

People here in NV are the worst for this. The live in Carson valley yet drive every day to Reno or Carson to work. Or live in Carson and drive to the lake or Reno.. Day in day out. year after year for their career.

Drive less the problem will look better.

k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 14, 2013 - 03:53pm PT
well rick, you have stated something as fact that is absurd, that CO2 concentrations rise after the temperatures increase...

I suspect that you would rather not look at that assertion in a critical way, it seems to form the current foundation in your skepticism, which also appears to lack any scientific basis.

However, ...



Great post Ed, in it's entirety. I especially like the part about moving on to our actions in response to the knowledge that we do indeed have a human-caused problem.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jun 14, 2013 - 04:03pm PT
Ed will never admit he may be wrong, or his thesis is flawed.

100% utter bullsh#t.


Excellent suggestions regarding driving Ron. I declined two jobs in the last 4 months because of the commute. The problem is, people won't start making the change until they have to... which in this society means market pressure... i.e. until we start paying the ACTUAL cost of fossil fuels AT THE PUMP. We The People need to stop giving oil companies $10's billions in subsidies.
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jun 14, 2013 - 04:16pm PT
Mine rSin?

Working on publication... something I will be doing for many hours at $0/hr in order to make it easily accessible to the scientific community. PM me and I would be happy to email you a copy in a couple months.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 14, 2013 - 04:18pm PT
Im going to do mine on duck penises and societal implications thereof. Should be worth $$$$$ in grants. Thats where the smart money is at.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Jun 14, 2013 - 04:43pm PT


So heres some more info on greenhouse gasses i found.



Water vapor is the single most potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, trapping more heat than carbon dioxide and methane put together. Estimates of the impact of water vapor on global warming vary widely from a minimum of 60% of all greenhouse effect to 98% of all greenhouse effect, but even at the minimum of 60%, that leaves 40% of greenhouse effect to be shared by all other chemicals combined, including carbon dioxide and methane (which has ten times the greenhouse capacity pound for pound as carbon dioxide).


Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is, of course, silly.)

Over the last few years, there have been very careful studies in Antarctica which clearly show global temperatures rising together with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global warmers have sent me several of these research papers with the usual "Ah HA!" type comment, but on reading the papers it is clear that the global warmers stopped at the abstract, because what these recent studies show is that Carbon Dioxide levels increased AFTER the rise in global temperature. Let me re-state that. Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and THEN Carbon Dioxide levels would increase. And there is nothing at all mysterious about this. Carbon dioxide is a very unique chemical in that it is more effectively dissolved in liquids in lower temperatures. Normally, air will hold more water when warm, sugar will dissolve in water more quickly when warm, but carbon dioxide will escape from solution as the temperature rises, which is why your beer will soak your shirt if it is too warm when you open it.

So, as the sun warms the Earth (as recorded in the ice) carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and lakes bubbles into the sky like too-warm soda pop fizzing over the top of the glass, and as the Antarctic ice reveals, winds up in the atmosphere.

Now, this is not to say that I think we should waste our planet's resources. Quite the contrary, I think we need to be very careful of what we have, because we are not likely to get a replacement planet any time soon. But the global warming "hype" is exactly that, hype to sell products and policies.
raymond phule

climber
Jun 14, 2013 - 05:09pm PT
I believe that all* climate scientists agree that the rise of CO2 level is due to human activity and I am sure that you manage to use google to find the evidence and arguments for that claim.

*with all I mean also scientist like Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Svensmark, etc that are to some extent skeptical to the standard version of climate change but I am sure that there are some scientist that disagree and of course a lot of laymen that writes on the internet.

But really, it is obvious that the CO2 level have risen and continue to rise above the maximum level that has been achieved during the last cycles of warming and glaciations. So how likely is it that this happens due to some natural (non human) causes exactly at the time that humans have released a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere?
Skeptimistic

Mountain climber
La Mancha
Jun 14, 2013 - 05:34pm PT
So Ron- when are you going to start being the "nipple sucking liberal" you advertise?
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jun 14, 2013 - 07:20pm PT
So how likely is it that this happens due to some natural (non human) causes exactly at the time that humans have released a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Keep in mind, that natural (non human) cause would also need to have the same stable isotopic signature as burning fossil fuels.

It is far more likely that Ron is a beastophile posing as a taxidermist than the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from a non human source. Or that the Chaff's navel experience had more to do with the village people than the armed forces. Or that blurring really is THAT dumb.

I know, I know... it is still possible... but very, very unlikely.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 14, 2013 - 09:35pm PT
We all know that with the many surface tests of atomic weapons from the 1940's to 1970's the isotopic signature records were screwed from then on Dr. Christ.

Bruce- it is Wasilla- a single s. The place is shaping up, all the liberals who have survived the recent winters were voted out of office. So the policy side is now ok, but the outside rabid enviro NGO's continue to file lawsuit after lawsuit trying to impede progress. Fortunately their are still a few judges out their that haven't had their minds fried by CAGW and the greater rabid enviro ,socialist progressive, human hating movement.

Ed you know as well as i that far more CO2 is liberated from the sinks by increased surface temps than mans measly contribution, you also know that the mythical molecule does not perform as a blackbody or we wouldn't be here arguing this.Yes, every one agrees that there is an anthropogenic ingredient to this stupid term "global warming" (which has not been global
in extant during this age), but the hystericals will never have a consensus in the scientific world because they are quite obviously wrong in the degree of increase they model.

K-man, our government, and indeed most world governments, are grossly corrupt, incompetent, and wasteful.

I noticed somebody posted a scientists refutation of Lu's paper on CFC's that stated he made the mistake of assuming correlation=causation, well here is a little something about CO2-global warming correlation.

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 14, 2013 - 09:46pm PT
Or are you just another one of them typical folks out there that is waiting for the Gov't to fix it.

@ The Chief: Maybe it's beyond your ability to understand, but governments are the entities that create energy policy for the citizens of their respective countries.

Because of this, you must address the governments if you want to address energy policy.

Perhaps you live off the grid, The Chief. However, the vast majority of the folks in this world live on the grid and use the electric energy supplied through their country's electric grid.

Likewise, if you use fossil fuel for transportation, then you must address that industry through the gov't (see above for why). To attempt to change the way energy is used and produced on a large scale, you cannot go anywhere else but to the governments. Got it?

However, if you want to think you can effect large-scale change by stopping your consumption of beans (and subsequently, reduce the blowing of hot air), then by all means continue on your quest.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 14, 2013 - 11:39pm PT
KMAN
then you must address that industry through the gov't

Are you people that ignorant! The "Industries" OWN the gov't. Ever heard of an entity in our gov't called Lobbyists? As if you less than 1% AGW/SCIENTISM fanatics are really going to change that. Really.

HINT: The ONLY way the current system will ever change, is through a flat our revolution. I know that most if not all of you AGWers are NOT willing to die for your cause. SO this entire bullshet AGW GREEN UTOPIANISM/SCIENTISM escapade is just that. Really.

RICK
our government, and indeed most world governments, are grossly corrupt, incompetent, and wasteful.

BINGO.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jun 15, 2013 - 12:10am PT
Ed, Chief, Ron,Bruce, etc. read this paper to see if you get this interpretation.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0921818112001658
Dr. Christ

Mountain climber
State of Mine
Jun 15, 2013 - 12:13am PT
We all know that with the many surface tests of atomic weapons from the 1940's to 1970's the isotopic signature records were screwed from then on Dr. Christ.

You know less about isotopes than I know about the Navy. It is impossible to discuss any subject with people who refuse to learn the basics of the subject being discussed. You know nothing about stable isotope chemistry. Educate yourself or STFU.
Messages 7441 - 7460 of total 26399 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