Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 28, 2014 - 03:18am PT
|
^^ "scientific claims of global warming
destroying humanity." Haha strawman much?
Yes there's a huge global conspiracy of climate researchers with an impressive scheme to get year to year limited funding to continue. It's not like they could turn sides and work for the denialist industry and make much more money, right? When something like that which is so clearly BS is posted doesn't that make you wonder about the motivations of the writer?
Like what FET?
I don't know it could be changes in solar radiation, greenhouse gas concentrations, etc. It's hard to know what happened tens of thousands of years ago or millions of years ago. But we have much more data about what has happened in the last 100 years. That should be a much easier question to answer.
What was different then than it is today?
It was an ice age, probably due to changes in the Earth's orbit. So conditions were very different. I don't know why there were larger spikes then, I'm more interested in the present conditions, where we haven't seen spikes like that for 10,000 years. However having an idea why that happened is probably good for understanding our current and possible future conditions.
The graph I posted shows the last 1,000 years, and the graph you posted shows much the same story over the whole Holocene / last 10,000 years. So what else could have caused the warming at the end of this period?
Ok I answered your questions. Now answer mine please.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 28, 2014 - 04:35am PT
|
That's an interesting graph, The Chief. It made me wonder what it would look like if you added life on Earth to the mix.
Then if you magnify the last period (the dark triangle):
This seems more realistic though:
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2014 - 09:40am PT
|
It is the law of the Universe which we can not avoid.
So we should of course stop caring. Smog is great, bad air is great, a nuclear war should just be fun, we can look at pictures of animals, some nice biological warfare is missing.
Why should we care, it is just evolution anyway?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2014 - 09:50am PT
|
More like attempting to manipulate the rules of the Universe for your selfish wants, again. And again, and again...
This is really the strangest thing with your anti-science philosophy. You don't seem to have any problems with behavior that change the environment by "mistake" but your seems to be against all kind of regulations or change of our behavior.
It seems that you would rather want everyone to drive around with cars driven on leaded gas with really bad gas mileage in a smog than to recognize the problem and trying to do something about it (which has been done to some extent).
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 28, 2014 - 11:45am PT
|
K-man - Last night I posted a brief summary of my take on AGW.
I admit, I completely missed your post. My mistake, I really wish I caught it when I skimmed yesterday's posting. Thanks for posting it up though; I'm actually quite surprised that you can be straight forward.
The funny thing, your post proves my original claim, that you believe OpEds over the findings peer-reviewed AWG scientific studies.
Here, take a look:
"This is partially due to what seems to be a dishonest overuse of consensus claims. I'd really like to a survey of a large sampling of climate experts, asking for a specific number or range on how much manmade forcings have contributed to recent warming."
I don't remember anybody using the word "consensus" with regards to climate expert findings. Instead, I hear 97%, which is almost consensus, obviously not quite. That aside, your quest for specific numbers on forcings is more proof that you align with OpEds over the studies--the studies outline exactly the precision they are able to attain. The AR5 reports were particularly cautions on this.
It's the OpEds that demand precise forcing numbers, not the scientists.
Also, who gave you the idea that climate experts are overestimating their findings? More belief in the OpEds that bolster the denial of scientific findings, I see. I posted a link to a report that showed just the opposite, that the conclusions of AWG papers are continually being adjusted for the worse, not the better. But, the OpEds you posted give a view that the opposite is true. Again, OpEds over science.
Same old, same old.
You mean you're going to continue to ask me the same question, even though I have answered it many many many times? Oh please, Stop.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 28, 2014 - 12:02pm PT
|
Most of the content in this thread is angry. Chief's animosity isn't unique.
The MO of many regulars is attack, attack, attack.
The tone of this thread turned to the deep south when The Chief began to post. He brought a whole new level of hate. Most folks tried to be civil, at first, when responding to The Chief's wind-tunnel of hate and abuse. But finally, many fell to the level that The Chief brought to this thread.
Also, from what I have seen, the AWG crowd has been more than patient as they have tried to deal with the abuse from the denial crowd. Sure, there's a couple who relish in the verbal exchanges, but take a look and you'll find that more often than not, is the denial crowd that brings in the low-level noise.
Basically, it's their only defense against the facts as reported by the scientific studies. Why they even have a voice in the discussion is obvious, the money flows from the FF industry.
Go ahead, take your cheap shot. But you won't be able to mount an argument against my points above.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 28, 2014 - 12:02pm PT
|
Dayum K-man. You've got to be a troll.
Back to the snake oil.
Say Sketch, why not try to address what I posted instead of throwing insults?
Proves my point, the denial crowd are the first to jump in with insults.
They don't have the choice to work with facts.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 28, 2014 - 12:13pm PT
|
PS. "En guarde" was not a way to try and look smart, it's more of a way to say "watch out." And now, Sketch, you've been checkmated.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 28, 2014 - 12:59pm PT
|
Say Sketch, why not try to address what I posted instead of throwing insults?
Because you constantly post bullsh!t.
If I post BS, it should be easy for you to pick it apart. But instead you post insults.
Then you post a long-winded reply that is void of any real content. Reads like a good "poor me" letter.
Yeah, checkmate. And sore losers are kinda sad, don't you think.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
May 28, 2014 - 01:18pm PT
|
Eight tenths of a degree C in 150 years coming out of the LIA is hardly a spike. Temps plummeted nearly an order of magnitude higher than this measly .8c in decades at the onset of the younger Dryas 12, 800 years ago.
where is the error in the statement about the younger Dryas? There's a basic climate error and a basic physics error, both in that one sentence. Can you figure out on your own what they are?
I thought you, as well as Ed , quit this thread in disgust over dealing with the barbarians. You've stated that belief twice now, did you dream it?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 28, 2014 - 01:50pm PT
|
Blah blah blah
--- Sketch
Yawn.
Sketch, I got tired of your snake-like ways of making passive-aggressive declarations and running away when challenged. I started to call you on it.
But I suppose I really got under your skin when I said you got your opinion on AWG from non-scientific OpEd pieces. I don't know, perhaps you figured you were a level-headed guy who made decisions rationally, and didn't like looking at where you really got your opinions.
Anyway, you went into full attack mode. You kept demanding for me to back up my claim. Like a dog that doesn't let go. In fact, I'm kinda of waiting for you to ask me again.
Finally, when DMT also pressured you to come clean with your views, you finally wrote something substantiate, something that was an actual direct statement.
And that proved my point--that you favor OpEds over scientific fact.
Sorry you don't like the picture of yourself, but don't take it out on me.
OK, that's it. If you bring it up again, you cannot say that I'm the one who won't let go--it is you who keeps bringing this back to the table. Let it go, and realize that if you want to change the picture of yourself, only you can do it.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 28, 2014 - 02:23pm PT
|
But, but, but....
Hahaha, good one.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 28, 2014 - 06:49pm PT
|
And all this time I thought it was (AWG/ACA)IPCC+NOAA. Humh, something new every day.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
May 29, 2014 - 12:52am PT
|
Chiloe-other than some slightly twisted semantics , a grammatical error and lack of puntuation, I see nothing wrong with my statement. It is merely an average of regional temperature drops over the average time frame attributed to the onset of the Younger Dryas. Perhaps it is just inconsistent with your CAGW oriented understanding of climate .
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
May 29, 2014 - 11:05am PT
|
Ostensibly I'm interested in this thread because when the subject comes up with friends/family I've read the distilled, simplified arguments here and will be able to counter the inevitable bullshit from both sides. But of course I need a much bigger shovel for the denialist side.
But really it's such an interesting microcosm of perspective and personality (and personality disorders in some cases).
I think the denialist crowd (and right wingers in general) have a deep though probably unrealized appreciation for the most fervent left wing debaters and their sometimes nasty tactics. They can assume everyone who doesn't agree with them is in this other crowd, and be comfortably assured that they are the correct ones and they are the reasonable ones. And it gives them a great straw-man to debate (e.g. global warming is the end of the world!) since it's much tougher to debate the reality of what the other side is saying.
Where I see most people descending into insanity (as opposed to the ones that are already there) is the folks getting more and more upset trying to deal with these types of people, name calling, and subject to that old cliche of "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Like they will finally come across the argument that finally makes the deniers open their minds and see things in a different way. I start to get caught up in that myself and realize that people will believe what they want to believe and have all kinds of mechanisms to keep that in place. I don't think you could change that with years of psychotherapy, nevermind a bunch of climbers talking on the Internet.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
May 29, 2014 - 11:37am PT
|
I've got more immediate problems than the ongoing attempt to rescue you idiots from the sewers you allowed your minds to be flushed down. Got a 400' hole into bedrock at my new fractional ownership vacation home project. Looks like im going to have to have it hydro fracked to clean out seams in thr bedrock to get it from the unworkable flow rate of 5 gallons an hour to something approching a gallon a minute. If I can get it to that rate I can engineer storage, if not it looks like a twenty thousand dollar dryhole. Where are you Base?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 29, 2014 - 11:45am PT
|
Hey K-man, is this anti-science right-wing propaganda?
No. But is it over-the-top reporting, sensationalizing the finding in order to arouse fright? Are they exaggerating the findings?
Sketch, what's your thought on that?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
May 29, 2014 - 12:00pm PT
|
Eight tenths of a degree C in 150 years coming out of the LIA is hardly a spike. Temps plummeted nearly an order of magnitude higher than this measly .8c in decades at the onset of the younger Dryas 12, 800 years ago.
where is the error in the statement about the younger Dryas? Chiloe-other than some slightly twisted semantics , a grammatical error and lack of puntuation, I see nothing wrong with my statement. It is merely an average of regional temperature drops over the average time frame attributed to the onset of the Younger Dryas. Perhaps it is just inconsistent with your CAGW oriented understanding of climate.
"Twisted semantics," "nothing wrong," "CAGW," you are floundering.
The pseudoscience bloggers apparently can't help, having fed you this false fact to begin with. Real scientists or science bloggers could help easily, and so could science-based posts on this thread (as recent as a few days ago) if you read either of those. Basic climate or physics knowledge would help too, at least to think things through for yourself once an error was mentioned.
It was 85 degrees where I live on Monday. Tuesday it plummeted to 40 degrees. Global cooling by 45 degrees F in one day! Where do you suppose all that heat went?
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
May 29, 2014 - 12:19pm PT
|
I thought that Rick Sumner was a disgraced evangelical avatar. Who am I thinking of?
Anyway, my question for Rick is are you fracking your own residential well/ storage? Strictly technical question. Is that a chemical process that will affect your potable supply. Sorry if this has been answered before. Thanks.
(Conflating Perry, Warren and maybe someone else. No offense.)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!