Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2014 - 11:21am PT
|
Enough to remind them regularly NOT to get addicted to the false God of science and technology.
So, you don't let them use electronics?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 11:55am PT
|
UNLESS IT IS SCIENTIFIC BASED, IT IS NOT TRUE NOR VALID!
AYE AYE Chief!
i,ve seen this trend.i wonder if this is how Naziism got started?
people like Fruity are good little nazi's pushing the us or them propaganda.Even going as far as calling for the death to christianity over the next generation or two.
dont'cha know if you cant see it or hold it, it's not valid?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 12:38pm PT
|
No The Chief, is not off the deep end. Instead he is in the deep end looking at you fools splashing about In illusory, shallow water. Is this new ,all consuming ,IT age evolution or is it a dead end? Does mankind need just virtual frontiers or does it need actual physical reality for advancement and satisfaction of the soul? One thing is for sure; the collective programming has seized control of whatever mind Bruce ever independently posessed. Witness his fascination with cultural oddities like the Toronto mayor or his stubborn belief in the imaginary consensus CAGW science. If he was still In posessesion of his faculties and could actually read the science he would know that other than paying ,usually minimal ,homage to the funding god the research does not support the spectacular claims, nor a consensus.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 04:11pm PT
|
Chief
You said it well, but that's an atavistic point of view.
It held more or less true until the Industrial Revolution.
Humankind now has immense effects on the earth's ecosystems. Even if you ignore global warming.
Deforestation, desertification, overfishing, air and water pollution.
That is the fundamental sociological problem we haven't learned to deal with.
Even your beloved Owens Valley and the Eastern Sierra canyons have been transformed as you so often mention.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 04:53pm PT
|
But your science states different as does your moral/social philosophy. Unfortunately one of us is seriously mis-understanding the other.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2014 - 04:55pm PT
|
This is funny, considering your penchant for making one unsupported/unsupportable claim after another.
Please post up three unsupported claims on mine. Should be very easy after all, you say I make them one after the other.
You're dodging Sketch. You made a claim, now back it up. Should be easy, I make them one after the other.
I'm skeptical because the media coverage implies circumstances far different from the studies conclusions.
Odd, I saw that the media, and especially the examples you showed us, accurately summarized the two studies on the WAIS. Can you show that they did not?? I mean, other than posting a cartoon that fully misrepresents the conclusions of those studies.
And to complete the circle, this is where I get my view that you do not support the conclusions of scientific studies on AWG.
[I think that's checkmate.]
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2014 - 05:04pm PT
|
Soon you will deploy an opinion that those with lesser formal education are to be marked and put on a train then sent to camps in the desolated wilderness.
The Chief to Outer Space: Here I come!
Why is it that in the past few posts you make comments on what I believe, when you have zero clue about me?
But here, allow me to help you formulate a sentence about what I believe. Those with a lesser education are unable to comprehend studies and papers that surpass their knowledge of the subject addressed in those studies and papers.
You comment on things on which you have zero ability to interpret. That has the opposite effect of making you look "smart."
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2014 - 05:28pm PT
|
Already done.
You mean the post where I discredited all your points? I call that "Not Done."
As for knowing your beliefs, I said I got my views from your posts. I posted one, you said it was just a troll. So now I know, I cannot know your beliefs because any time I try to show you a post you made, you deny it's your belief.
Sketch, all your posts land on the Denier side of the AWG fence. Can you prove to me that that's not the case? Can you show me where you've stated that you believe the conclusions of AWG research? If so, show us. Because I can show post after post of where you denounce those very scientific findings, starting with a cartoon you posted that complete misrepresents the WAIS reports.
To me, it's pretty clear where your beliefs lay, based on your postings here. And like I've said before: If your posting do not reflect your beliefs, then I'm not sure who's a bigger fool, me for reading your posts, or you for posting them.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2014 - 05:59pm PT
|
Sketch,
I quoted you, you said that you were just a troll.
Now I've stated this a couple of times, nobody knows your beliefs because you deny your postings reflect what you believe.
Do I need to supply a quote from myself where I stated that? There's one just a couple posts above, and more above that.
So we all now know: You are just a troll, and slimy one at that.
End of story.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 06:20pm PT
|
As I mentioned earlier and now I'll include the graphs...
All anyone has to do is look at the huge spike in CO2 of the last 100 years compared to the last 500,000 years to know humans have caused way more CO2 in the atmosphere than naturally would exist. About 40% more.
Then look at the spike in global temp over the last 100 years compared to the last 1000 years.
I have no problem with people debating about the predictions of what MAY happen, and arguing about the political B.S. of ANY intended mitigation steps, but if someone can't look at those two graphs and apply simple reason to understand and admit there is a problem, then there really is no point having a conversation with them. All you will get is straw-man arguments, righteous indignation, and projection. As we have seen ad nauseam on this thread.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 27, 2014 - 06:37pm PT
|
Classic K-man. Make a claim, with nothing to back it up.
Um, I quoted you to back up my claim. Do you need me to repost that (it's where you claimed you were nothing but a troll)?
You seem exceptionally concerned about this issue.
You keep bringing it up. I try to say, "Case Closed" with quotes to support my case. Do I need to repost these too?
Can you say the same, that you try to close the discussion? Why do you not address my posts, why do you keep saying that I don't answer your question, when my answers are often on that very same same page?
Why do you avoid the questions I ask of you? Instead, you slime out from under any responsibility. Instead you attack when you've been shown to be a shill, just as in your last post to me above.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 06:39pm PT
|
Sketch instead of looking for any evidence to support any preconceived ideas, just read what I wrote with an open mind.
If your question is legitimate and you really want to know I'll answer you.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 07:11pm PT
|
Well Fet ; what is your estimate of the scale of temporal resolution for atmospheric CO2 content available via proxy reconstructions? In other words ,is your knowledge sufficiently godlike to rule out decadal or low centennial spikes of CO2 due to short term release as a result of temperature increase? You do know that temperature increases precede atmospheric CO2 increases, don't you?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 07:23pm PT
|
Sketch disingenuously posts
I claimed I'm nothing but a troll? Really? Please re-post that declaration.
one of the many considerations of my pulling out of this thread was precisely because you were a troll, and many of your posts you danced troll-like around the issue of your trolling.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 07:48pm PT
|
I have some questions, the Fet....
One graph covers 400,000+ years, the other, 1000. A casual observer may miss that fact. Given it could foster impressions of a. Misunderstanding of the facts or b, misrepresentation of the facts, why post graphs of different time scales?
Now about the data... I notice C02 concentrations at spike levels on the 400,000+ year graph - can you show me the calculated average temps for the same time scale? A visual that correlates 'higher C02 = higher temps', human origins of latest spike notwithstanding, is what my Missouri-inner-self would like to see.
Do you know of such data?
I know DMT is sincere (well, as well as I know anything) so here goes.
First off though I'm not an expert and don't purport to be, my point is that when you boil things down to simple facts and apply a little reason and think for yourself you should be able to come to some simple conclusions.
The two graphs are not supposed to correlate. (edit to add, only the end results are the correlation, not the total time span) The time-spans are clearly labeled and posted in the text, no slight of hand intended. The graph with the 500,000 year time span shows that the level of CO2 currently in the atmosphere is not natural. We have a relatively huge timespan to show that. We also see there are large natural variations in CO2 and in this time scale we can see their normal highs and lows. Volcanic eruptions and other natural processes do not create what we see now. The logical conclusion is that humans caused it (like all science this isn't "proven" but supported over and over). You could do further research on this and roughly calculate how much CO2 humans are emitting vs. how much is natural, and my guess is it would support what we see on this graph.
The second graph shows a time period where likely all or most of the other factors that drive the climate have been the same or very similar.
You could look up a graph or data that shows the global temperature for 500,000 thousand years but it doesn't really help clear up the question if humans are warming the planet. There are MANY factors that go into the climate. e.g. Sun cycles, variations in the planet's orbit, etc. etc. And many we don't even know about. There are also feedback mechanisms, positive and negative. A negative feedback mechanism stabilizes the system, e.g. the ocean may absorb more CO2 when the CO2 in the air is high limiting it's impact, or you can also have positive feedback mechanisms which amplify the change, e.g. a warmer climate may mean more water vapor in the air which also causes a greenhouse effect.
Bottom line there are a huge number of factors that influence the climate and we don't even know about all of them. Especially ones that happened 100,000 or more years ago.
However humans have been around the last 1000 years keeping track of history and we can go back and get a pretty good idea of the temperature over that time and have a pretty good idea about other factors that may be at play in that timeframe.
So we don't know what other factors were at play in the climate 100,000 years ago but we have a pretty good idea of what's been going on over the last 1,000 years.
So either humans caused the rise in CO2 and the global temperature suddenly jumped at about the same time, or there is some natural cause of the global temperature increase at this time, which would be an extreme coincidence.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 07:56pm PT
|
as an engineer I see no confusion or contrariness to the Fet's graphs.
We have a very long record of CO2 atmospheric concentration thanks to radioisotope decay, thermodynamics and core samples from ancient ice.
We have a several hundred year record of earth's temperature in Europe. Precise thermometers are not a new invention. Thermometers have been calibrated to the freezing and boiling point of water for 450 years.
Through temperature proxies such as isotope decay, coral growth and ice cores we have a good temperature record back about 2000 years.
The first graph shows CO2 for 400K years. Why can it be compared to the second graph? Because in that 400K years there has never been nearly as high a concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as now.
The second graph shows temperature for 1000 years. At no time in that period has the earth's temperature fluctuated more than a fraction of a degree C. Until the start of the Industrial Revolution and the rise of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and ocean.
It is not a coincidence that the CO2 and global temperature rise dramatically at about the same time.
Why not?
Not just because the data looks like it.
Careful climate science explains the interaction between the sun, CO2, the Earth's albedo, and the ocean temperature (and CO2 levels). There is a coherent thermodynamic model that correlates the known CO2 and temperature data.
Scientists understand not only the what, but the why and how.
Will there be adjustments to the model as we go forward? Of course, just as we had to adjust nuclear fission and fusion theories/models to fit the actual results.
Just as in the early 20th century we discovered that Newton's Laws of Gravity and Motion were incomplete. That didn't stop them from working for the previous 220 years.
By the way, the measurement of temperature and atmospheric gases has been well understood since before the start of the Industrial Revolution. They were essential to it.
I would like to see the sources cited.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 08:00pm PT
|
that this type event, in the long term, is a common one Never with magnitude of the current event. Note that atmospheric CO2 has never been much above 300PPM in 400K years and it is now 400PPM. That is a 33.333% increase in about 130 years.
And there is a well studied thermodynamic model that explains the correlation with the sudden temperature rise.
by the way, the "greenhouse effect" was discovered by Tyndall in 1860. Yes, that Tyndall. His life's work was the interaction of the thermodynamics of air and the atmosphere.
That does not matter nor is it taken into consideration? That is a fair enough question. That question has been asked for the past 25 years. The thermodynamic models are now in close agreement with the historical data. The science now explains the historical data.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 08:08pm PT
|
My pleasure Dingus.
As I've said before, I would support any GLOBAL effort to reduce pollution. But I'm not too gung-ho about tightening my belt without the cooperation of China, Russia, India etc.
I believe you have to balance any efforts to reduce climate change with any possible reduction in standard of living. We could make a huge effort and live like cave men and then the planet gets hit with an asteroid or some other natural disaster out of our control and it was all for naught. However we can make changes at all levels, personal, local, state, federal, and global to help.
Personally I still do what I want to do. I'll drive to go climbing a few hours. But I also won't be wasteful and drive a bigger car than I need (I'm in a multi-car family so I can drive a little car when needed and a bigger one other times so I'm lucky in that regard) All the time I see people commuting by themselves in big SUVs that will never tow or go off-road and that's just wasteful and not to mention not much fun to drive compared to my little sporty car that gets twice the MPG. I don't leave lights on, I combine trips, I recycle, etc. Whatever I can do to help, without negatively impacting my lifestyle too much. I think we should take the same approach at the state and federal level. Just because someone else won't take steps to help doesn't mean I'm not going to. If someone else litters in the wilderness it doesn't mean I'm going to. We should also lead by example. But as mentioned we should do anything to make ourselves significantly less competitive globally. e.g. requiring car fleet overall mpg to get better in the end is going to be a win-win for the US. We pay less at the pump, companies invest in technology to make more efficient cars.
Really it's not about saving the planet. It's about the economic and quality of life impacts over the next decades and centuries. And the people that will have the biggest negative impacts are those in poorer countries. I'm not going to give up everything, but I'll do what I can to reduce my impacts on those less fortunate than me.
And for the planet as a whole an ounce of prevention will probably be worth a pound of cure. If we take steps now to reduce CO2 it will probably be less expensive to deal with than crop failures, disease, rise in sea levels, less fresh water, etc.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 27, 2014 - 08:14pm PT
|
So the Chief is human caused CO2 increase didn't cause the temperature spike what did?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!