Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ashcroft
Trad climber
SLC, UT
|
|
Another interesting observsation by many lay folks that I associate with. The AGW premise that Temp rises were a result of the increase in C02 is no longer a strong point. Why? Even the AGW science has concluded that C02, not temps, follow the others increase and in the current case, may indeed have absolutely nothing to do with the other. Indded in this case, C02 increases are no where near the range of temperature increases. So that original premise has been negated, debunked and now accepted by no other than the AGW scientific comminity itself.
Chief, I don't aspire to change your mind, but for the benefit of others I need to point out that almost every statement you make above is wrong.
For example, you suggest that the premise of the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that CO2 increases are the only thing that drive global temperature. In fact, people who have studied climate are fully aware that many things affect climate, including atmospheric composition, aerosols, orbital changes, and solar activity. The idea that increases in CO2 would change the climate was not based on measurements of the Earth temperature (modern or ancient). In fact, that theory was suggested more than 100 years ago, based on the absorption of thermal radiation as measured in a laboratory, and long before any global temperature measurements had been collected. With modern measurements, we are finally in a position to observe the effect of changing the atmosphere, but the theory originated long before that.
I think you are alluding to temperature and CO2 records as extracted from ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years. Those records show that as the Earth warmed periodically, (because of orbital variation or some other reason), CO2 that was dissolved in the ocean came out of solution and went into the atmosphere. (Just like the bubbles that appear in a carbonated soft drink when it warms.) Your mistake is to conclude that because temperature caused CO2 increases in the past, CO2 must not affect temperature today. That simply doesn't follow logically.
That's like saying that because an ice-free Arctic Ocean will result in warmer water, warmer water must not melt ice. It simply doesn't follow.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Commonality in an existence that mandates no one how they should or can live their lives.
So it's ok if everyone leaves their wag bags all over the backcountry. It's ok to dump your motor oil in the river. It's ok to blow cigarette smoke in someone's face. It's ok to murder. Got it.
|
|
Dropline
Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
|
|
Ed, in case you missed it amidst the mosh pit, and should you care to respond, on the previous page I responded to something you said.
|
|
Ashcroft
Trad climber
SLC, UT
|
|
Chief, I'm not sure where your graph comes from, but your argument seems to be that because the atmosphere had much more CO2 300-500 million years ago, it's not big deal now!?!?! For crying out loud, the continents were in different places back then. Lots of things were very different. You say that millions of species thrived during that period, but has it escaped your notice that we were not one of them.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Ah, my point exactly! Humans are not meant to be nor will be here on the earth forever. We aren't the king of the planet after all. Just another visiting species that will follow suite in the extinction process. Part of the deal here on planet earth.
So let's just bring out the kool-aid, take a few sips and be done with it all now. Why wait around? Doesn't matter anyway.
Yada yadda yada...
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Please do fill us all in Dirtbag on how you or I or any other human will counter the fundamental Universal laws in place that have prevailed for the last 4.6 Billion years. Please do tell us.
Nice strawman ya got there.
We can reduce carbon emissions.
But if we're all doomed why bother? So let's the drink Kool Aid and preempt fate.
You go first.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Ah, the old "if you're not living in a cave you're a hypocrite" spiel.
And now we have the red herring to go along with the strawman.
Everyone else keeps saying that without a concerted, coordinated effort by public and private sectors, nothing will change much. the problem will only be addressed by large scale combinations of smarter energy policies, new technologies, and yes less use when feasible.
But from what I've seen you don't listen.
At all.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEMEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN em to death.
Hey what's good for the goose...
The funny thing is I didn't have to even change the meaning or your words to spin it to an unreasonable conclusion like you need to do. e.g. no one here ever said you need to ELIMINATE all carbon emissions, just REDUCE them. But over and over again you keep going on about how ANY driving, any electricity use, etc. is hypocritical. Why is that? Why can't you debate the ACTUAL position most of us here are talking about? Why do you have to make it about humans not being able to stop natural processess, when it's aobut human caused changes that are the concern.
Sure an asteroid, volcano, or supernova could wipe us all out and there is nothing we could do about it. But we are not talking about that. We are talking about how the actions of billions of people can negatively affect their environment.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
If you don't realize how the actions of billions of people with their technology can't change our planet there's not much left to say.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
the Fet - Since you want to believe that why aren't you going after
bigger CO2 emitters than humans? Especially ones that won't fight back.
Termites spew 10 times what we humans do.
http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html
Go kill them and leave people alone. Or is screwing up peoples lives really
what its about for you? The power to force others to behave in a manner you
dictate? Its the only conclusion as Human CO2 emissions are nothing compared to termites.
............
Bad news for camels in AUS
Killing a camel to earn a carbon credit may seem a curious way to tackle
climate change, but Australia is poised to allow investors to do
precisely that.
A new “carbon farming initiative”, a scheme that lets farmers or investors claim carbon credits if they can show they have cut greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e633ac8-9126-11e0-9668-00144feab49a.html#axzz1OigF51vS
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
I just post about fallacious arguments and you come back with.... more fallacious arguments. Bravo!
I don't know if you meant to be funny or are just stupid. Either way it's pretty funny. Thanks for that!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Oh, we know all about Corniss's stupidity over on the Republicans thread.
Forget trying meaningful discourse with Corniss, his brain is not capable of linear critical thinking.
He cannot follow what is being discussed, as a result we spend all our time simply
correcting and proving wrong whatever "facts" he makes up to support his long ago
preconceived ideology.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
So are you Warmists denying the existence of termites? :O
Or are you in denial that they out gas 10 times the CO2 that humans do per year?
Perhaps you subconsciously know stopping termites from making CO2 is as unlikely as stopping human civilization from doing the same.
You know to do so would mean death for either species.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
so if you cannot produce the supporting scientific literature for your plot, and its interpretation, you are irrelevant to the discussion, you aren't adding anything, your just making noise and your "point" is just uninformed opinion.
Hey, Chief, I think Ed's onto you, man.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
what do termites eat that gives them gas?
Strawmen!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
so then why do you even bother to make the argument, The Chief? why the appeal to graphs and scientists and all... why not just say you don't believe anything science has to offer...
that is your latest argument. Why not just own up to it.
Just don't do it on the internet. Buncha scientists made some guesses about how computers might work and you never know, they could be wrong.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
Yo Warmist simpletons: plant life on Earth does a great job a carbon sequestration except termites screw up the plants hard work of carbon capture.
Stop the termite and your hysterical worries about human CO2 production
will be solved.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
Sorry Chief, don't have time to kiss asses, thar be termites to smush.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
There are no global warming fanatics on this thread. One more time for those too delusional to face it: it's not about eliminating all impacts, it's not about saving the Earth.
However there are global warming denial fanatics on this thread. The ever changing arguments, the fallacious arguments, the projection, the ridiculous claims (planted by oil company paid PR firms) that this is all about controlling other people (like somehow scientists went back in time 20 years to bring up this concern with hope that it would someday lead to carbon market that would make them rich LOL.
You deniers are so full of sh#t it's frightening that people can do that to themselves. Be skeptical, fine, but being a denier with constantly shifting reasons for it smacks of cowardice and selfishness.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
Ed - The biotech doesn't exist yet but if Warmists began a project to engineer a virus that would only mutate termites to out gas something other than CO2 -maybe graphite poop pellets?- your believed problem of CO2 and
carbon sequestration would be solved and you could leave people alone.
the Fet -fyi-
There are some 4 billion tons of termites. It is said that about 700 kg of
termites exist for every human on the planet. In terms of carbon churn and
methane they contribute the most as compared to other living species on
earth. They eat everything cellulose, often even living plant tissues.
The biomass per sq km of termites is often far greater than any other animal.
.Termites achieve this high degree of efficiency by exploiting the
metabolic capabilities of about 200 different species of microbes that
inhabit their hindguts.
http://www.timberbuysell.com/Community/DisplayNews.asp?id=3168
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!