Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 23, 2014 - 07:01pm PT
|
Modern Climate change hoaxing is the same type of silliness as the Geocentric solar system belief system of hundreds of years past.
So Dave, what makes you think that we are not the center of the universe?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2014 - 09:40pm PT
|
Adding .05% to the mass of the atmosphere annually of a stronger greenhouse gas than the average atmosphere has no affect on temperature.
A 40% increase in the concentration of CO2 over the last 250 years has no effect on temperature.
The deniers expect me to believe this? How can I beleive that Rick?
Sorry not going to believe that without EXTRAORDINARY evidence in favor of a bizarre hypothesis.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2014 - 08:09am PT
|
You realize , of course ClimbSki, that the anthropogenic contribution of the current CO2 rise is but 3% of the total released into the atmosphere? Where does the other 97% come from and through what process? That is what you should be asking yourself instead of stewing on canned propaganda crammed between your ears that Is gumming up your thought processes then provoking the precribed attacks against those labeled deniers.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2014 - 08:10am PT
|
Good for you. But please, cease insisting as a select few here and throughout the world do that yours is the ONLY reality that we must all succumb and choose to believe and live by.
Are you saying that since it is impossible to get everyone to believe anything we should not insist on anybody following any regulations they don't believe in?
Or just the ones you don't believe in? Or just some of the ones you don't believe in?
The AGW debate as it is going on this thread is just ..so elementary and pretty boring if you are not into drama.
Much more interesting is what to do about it. Which requires knowing when and what the future impacts will be. Very difficult science there. A place where there is much room for reasonable debate
Then it requires concrete steps to alleviate any expected serious impacts. Ones that do not cause as many or more problems than they solve. Preferably steps that are better than the current status quo in all possible scenarios. Things like clean efficiently produced energy. Anything that is a positive economically and environmentall for the majority of people.
This is where the AGW debate interests me.
Too bad it's very difficult to have this discussion.
Anyway.. Have a great Christmas Chief, and all of you :)
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2014 - 08:16am PT
|
Lol, rick sumner continues to say the same incorrect things over and over again. His misunderstanding has been explained to him many times but that doesn't stop a "free thinker" like him.
I guess that there are no articles about the carbon cycle in his (imaginary) pile of articles on his desk (in a room that he never seem to be in for same reason).
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2014 - 08:23am PT
|
Interesting questions to me are.
Will global warming increase or decrease the overall amount surface fresh water.How about locally in various key food production centers? What should we do to adjust to possible changes. Will Los Angeles benefit or be harmed by climate change?. The central valley? Nebraska and Kansas. Northern Italy. Africa?
How rapidly?
SO many good questions. SO many possible strategies to deal with changes.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2014 - 08:42am PT
|
Are you denying reality again Raymond? Please show us the definitive studies showing the anthropogenic portion of CO2 release exceeds the single digits percentage of the total.
As for the water issues ClimbSki; you have some legitamate concerns there. Short term many of those mentioned areas are in drought ( unless of course the current El Nino changes the precip pattern on americas west coast), long term change is in the cards, even the Sahara wad once a lush, green, land of lakes and streams a mere 5000 years ago. If humans want to farm and live in desert areas one would think that they better quit tge paralyzing handwringing, endless studies, and get busy with engineering some solutions.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2014 - 10:42am PT
|
Merry Christmas and Happy New Years to you all.
It is 60f here today,a new record ,but , why keep track.......[according to a Dingus].
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2014 - 11:15am PT
|
Are you denying reality again Raymond? Please show us the definitive studies showing the anthropogenic portion of CO2 release exceeds the single digits percentage of the total.
So what really do you want me to show? That the "extra" 100 ppm or so of CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by humans or that only a few percent of the CO2 in the carbon cycle is due to human emissions?
My understanding of your claims are that you just don't understand the meaning of what you claim.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2014 - 08:04pm PT
|
Raymond, I thought I made myself clear. PERCENT OF TOTAL. And while your at it please explain why exactly that the anthropogenic contribution would stay aloft indefinitely. I think the jury is out on the capacity of the sinks. One thing is clear; temp changes always precede CO2 changes, whether it is more or less.
Merry Christmas to all. We have decent skiable snow in the mountains but the valley floors are barely covered here in south central AK.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2014 - 07:02am PT
|
Percent of total: Silly concept, since the carbon in the atmosphere is also a small percentage of total in the carbon cycle.
Indefinite time: Who claims that?
Temp always rise before CO2: Nope, Milankovitch cycle starts the temp rise, subsequent CO2 release from oceans continues the temp rise.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2014 - 07:35am PT
|
Raymond, I thought I made myself clear. PERCENT OF TOTAL.
Ok, so you say that something like 20 ppm is due to humans and something like 80 ppm in he steep rise is due to natural changes for some reasons? You claim that nothing unusual is happening with the climate but believe that the spike in co2 for same reason is natural.
The only thing that is clear is that you don't know what you are talking about.
And while your at it please explain why exactly that the anthropogenic contribution would stay aloft indefinitely. I think the jury is out on the capacity of the sinks. One thing is clear; temp changes always precede CO2 changes, whether it is more or less.
I think that you should read something about mass balance and equilibrium. You could think about a lake with rivers floating in and out of it and an extra source and see whats happening.
The last sentence is common among people like you but it is actually a really stupid claim. It can actually be both at the same time depending on what can be considered the input.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2014 - 07:44am PT
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#mediaviewer/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Rick, just to be clear.
So CO2 has not been higher than 300 for 400000 years. It has now increased about 100 ppm above the old high. So you say that 20 of those 100 ppm are due to humans and 80 are natural? So without humans we would right now be about 80 ppm above the old maximum even though nothing unnatural is happening with the climate according to you?
Your problem is still that you don't understand that a relatively small contribution to a system in equilibrium can result in a large change in the variables.
There is a lot of carbon that changes places in the nature every year and the human caused CO2 is only a small percent of the total carbon cycle. One interesting thing about this is that even though the amount of carbon involved is large it is in a natural equilibrium so that the CO2 in the atmosphere would be close to constant. If we now add co2 into the atmosphere about half of that amount stays in the atmosphere (or probably more correct adds to the co2 concentration in the atmosphere).
This is similar to having a lake with a river that adds 100 cubic meters every second and a river that subtracts 100 cubic meters every second. The volume of water in the lake would be constant even though a large volume of water flows in and out of it.
If we know add 1 cubic meter of water every second from another source, i.e. only 1% extra water, the lake would start to rise with 3600 cubic meters every day.
The reason for this is of course that we added the extra water even though that extra water was only 1% of the total flow into the lake.
You seems to be hang up on the fact that the co2 released into the atmosphere is only a small part of the co2 that is released into the atmosphere and you mistakenly believe that it means something that it doesn't mean.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2014 - 10:07am PT
|
Merry xmas Raymond.
Your lake/river analogy is lacking, the outlet would just flow at the extra 1 cms. Same with your larger point. Proxy reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 content don't have the resolution to detect short term spikes and with an average residency of five years they wouldn't be detected, therefore the claim of largest content In 400, 000 years may not be true.
Also the sinks capacities are not fixed or maxed out, increases like the planet greening 12% over the satellite era is proof of this. Another well known variable sink is in global ice mass. The planet has warmed from a small but long term solar output Increase coming out of the LIA, this has released CO2 sequestered in ice. A similar but opposite decrease in solar output would have the obvious effect of trapping atmospheric CO2. Same goes with the largest sink of all, the oceans. Warming seas release, cooling seas trap. The one constant is that temps always precede atmospheric CO2 changes. Finally I reject your notion that the planets climate system is in a delicate equillibrium. It might seek equillibrium, but it has never achieved that state. Just too many changing variables for that amigo.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2014 - 10:54am PT
|
Merry cristmas,
Your lake/river analogy is lacking, the outlet would just flow at the extra 1 cms.
Cool, I guess that the level of lakes never changes due to a higher inflow in your world. I am sure it does in my world though.
Same with your larger point. Proxy reconstructions of atmospheric CO2 content don't have the resolution to detect short term spikes and with an average residency of five years they wouldn't be detected, therefore the claim of largest content In 400, 000 years may not be true.
Another good example how you don't understand the meaning of what you read. The extra concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere don't disappear after 5 years even though a single CO2 molecule has a residence time of maybe 5 year.
Also the sinks capacities are not fixed or maxed out, increases like the planet greening 12% over the satellite era is proof of this. Another well known variable sink is in global ice mass. The planet has warmed from a small but long term solar output Increase coming out of the LIA, this has released CO2 sequestered in ice. A similar but opposite decrease in solar output would have the obvious effect of trapping atmospheric CO2. Same goes with the largest sink of all, the oceans. Warming seas release, cooling seas trap.
Interesting that this is happening right now over a 150 year period and that it cant be seen in any other records.
The one constant is that temps always precede atmospheric CO2 changes.
This is still a stupid claim.
Finally I reject your notion that the planets climate system is in a delicate equillibrium. It might seek equillibrium, but it has never achieved that state. Just too many changing variables for that amigo.
I tried to simplify the concept so that you in theory could understand it. A change of over 30 percent in a variable is much larger than has been seen in the last couple of thousands years.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2014 - 11:12am PT
|
Well Raymond, you do seem capable of learning after all as evidenced by the decrease of 398, 000 years for the claimed highest atmospheric CO2 content between your last couple of posts. Now, if you could put your rigid programmed ideology away long enough to stop your idiotic personal attacks, the fallacy of your claims might take traction in your brain.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2014 - 11:34am PT
|
of course, rick all of your assertions have been thoroughly pursued in research and don't pass the challenge of explaining the observations...
you've picked a few things that are "in the gaps" but even those have been investigated
the invariant here is that you will choose only those things that reaffirm your belief that nothing is happening...
best wishes to you and yours today in your warm Alaska.... even in this age of a solar minimum...
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2014 - 11:52am PT
|
Well Raymond, you do seem capable of learning after all as evidenced by the decrease of 398, 000 years for the claimed highest atmospheric CO2 content between your last couple of posts. Now, if you could put your rigid programmed ideology away long enough to stop your idiotic personal attacks, the fallacy of your claims might take traction in your brain.
I just thought that it would be enough to mention the last couple of thousands years because I guess that we have less uncertainties for those years.
You talk about my idiotic personal attacks in the same sentence that you attack me. That seems like a strange thing to do. I don't even believe that I have personally attacked you in my last posts. I have just pointed out that you say the same incorrect things over and over again.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 25, 2014 - 12:49pm PT
|
Merry xmas to you as well Ed.
And no we are not yet in the age of solar minimum, as you are no doubt aware we are at the maximum of cycle 24. The drop from max will be precipitious, as is usual, but once we hit bottom the minimum will be more prolonged than weve seen in a 150 years. Combine this long minimum period with the projected weak max of cycle 25 and you have a good test of the " primarily solar" hypothesis. We shall see.
Exploiting gaps? Hell they are grand canyons running through the flat and monotonous plain of consensus AGW. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
The temps here in southcentral AK have been Iin the range of normal over the last week; teens to high twenties. Currently we have heavy snowfall and 27F at my place close to downtown Wasilla.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!