Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2011 - 03:19am PT
|
I can't imagine the contrived guilt warmists must feel just living
day to day releasing clouds of CO2 every minute.
Your belief system says CO2 increases into the atmosphere is bad yet your
daily existence increases it more.
You don't undertand my belief system so why are you telling me what it says? Is it because you can't debate my actual position?
So you must think that since all humans exhale co2 all "warmists" must be terribly conflicted that they are destroying the Earth with every breath, so they all think they should just commit suicide right? Wrong, no matter how many times I've said it you either can't comprehend it or you choose to ignore that creating co2 is fine in moderation. The problem is creating so much of it that it changes the climate. It's like drinking alcohol, 1 or 2 drinks a day is fine, actually it's beneficial in ways (alcohol may help with heart disease, co2 is needed for plants), but 6-10 drinks a day is probably going to screw you up or even kill you (and excess co2 is very likely causing GW, which may make the climate worse for people).
Reducing fossil fuel use also: saves money, helps local air quality, and keeps money in your pocket instead of in the hands of Opec.
I imagine when people like you read posts like this you may think about it for while and almost come to some new understandings, but then your defense mechanisms kick in and you find ways to twist what I wrote in your mind and revert back to your self delusions.
As I quoted a few pages back:
The U.S. economy remains only about 13 percent energy efficient. That still unacceptably high level of inefficiency either will be allowed to remain in place and therefore leave the U.S. mired in lackluster economic activity … or it will be tackled head-on, leading to new efficiency advances and unleashing robust future economic growth in the U.S. For example, Japan and several European countries are about 20% efficient, a factor of 1.5 higher than the U.S.
How big might the next round of potential energy efficiency be? If we invested in more energy productive technologies, energy efficiency investments can provide up to one-half of the needed greenhouses gas emissions reductions most scientists say are needed between now and the year 2050. And that gain in energy efficiency would not only mean reduced greenhouse gas emissions, it would result in lower energy bill for consumers.
Instead of helping the USA by encouraging efficiency and finding new energy sources the deniers put their energy into claiming there is no AGW so there's no need to change how we are doing things.
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 - 01:05am PT
|
You guys need to get away from the ad hominem...
I am certainly not in league with the chief or cc, because the majority of there comments to not deal with the issue, but only concern themselves with insult. I think Ed approaches some degree of rationality (he misses the forest for the trees though I fear), but even he gets dragged in. I am not even going to go into the myriad of other asinine comments from other AWG proponents.
My beef with AGW has nothing to do with impure motives, and there are many among both parties to boot. I am not an employee of the energy sector, nor do I work for someone who is paid by the oil industry. I am a lowly Mechanical Engineer. It has to do with the lack of proof in my mind.
I, having constructed many models for professional aims, know that models will say whatever the creators want them to say. Sometimes while modeling, I know I am a liar...somewhat. What gives me confidence in them is through test. Let me be clear, models do not constitute proof. They are good for predicting known inputs across testable outcomes after they have been successfully proven. And even with that said, most models are considered good, if they are within 25% accurate, after being proven through testing. All computer models are tuned to data sets, and if a data set has no bearing on future outcomes. ie solid data does not bound the models results, then the models outlandish predictions are complete hogwash. If your model predicts a tipping point, it is beyond suspect, it is crap. Because tipping points show you the bounds of your model, not the bounds of your system.
Again, models are just computer calculations. You can make a computer output anything you like. Seriously anything you like. You can couch our assumptions, and calculations, and estimating bullshit in any technical terminological way to obfuscate your deception. At the end of the day, if you can not successfully prove your model through solid testable data. It is bologna. If your model is not testable and bondable by observation, it holds no water. You may say, that time will prove your right, but so far, it has been a bitch. And in 40 years, if global warming is out of control and the world is starting to ice over (kind of a confusing mix I know), then it will be time to start doing something about CO2. But so far, time has not been your ally. In terms of data, mankind is kicking ass on mitigating mother natures wrath. So far fossil fuels and technology made possible by the incredible energy they provide have helped us mightily in mitigating natural disastrous, and you will have to come up with provable and impressively compelling reasons why that trend will not continue. Models are not compelling...
We are not talking about something so simple as aerosoles or ddt. We are talking about CO2, one of the most ubiquitous and life changing gasses that one could conceivably regulate. You better have a better explanation than, "the model told me so."
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 - 05:06am PT
|
The Chief wrote:
I am not the one trying to sell the world on an agenda that will cost them more taxes and tell them that they can no longer do as they have for most of their lives, freely.
The world changes, society changes, and sometimes we have to adapt to those changes. Freedom, as defined by the US constitution, extends only “to your neighbors nose”. So freedom, since the beginning of the notion of society, has its limits, and those limits are ever evolving as society evolves.
9/11 occurred and changed processes and procedures at airports. When now taking a plane, one can no longer accompany another to the gate. We’ve lost that “freedom” to the idea that the greater good and security would be better served with these measures. Out of honest curiosity, have you written any posts over the last 10 years arguing against the Patriot Act as you are currently arguing in this thread?
The fact is that climate change is real, and the globe is currently warming. For argument’s sake let’s just say it’s not due at all to human activity – that still does not change the fact that the sea levels are rising. Given that’s the case, why are we still building along the coast and why are my taxes going to beef up areas that will be fighting a continual fight against this rise? At the least should we not stop all building and development in these areas?
Another example is New Orleans and the Mississippi river basin (or even take the levees in the Sac area) – lots of tax dollars (my tax dollars are in there somewhere) have been spent to try to overcome the ridiculous, and yet not only do I pay for the levees to protect people who are stupid enough to build their homes in a flood plain, but I also pay taxes for the FEMA rescue and clean up. If the French quarter survived the floods of Katrina (as I understand it) it’s because way back when people adapted buildings/construction to nature and did not try to adapt nature to what they wanted to build.
The Chief wrote:
I am not the one promoting that people should change their way of life based on computer models.
No, but you are encouraging people to continue on consuming and living their lives without any kind of adaptation or consideration for current status of the climate, the economy, world population, etc., etc.
The Chief wrote:
My attitude is not the issue.
Sure it is. Ed has shown you nothing but courtesy and respect, and you resort to insults and ad hominem attacks.
The Chief wrote:
I am not the salesman.
Ed is certainly not a salesman, and his post history on this thread and on this site overwhelming supports that he is not the salesman.
The Chief wrote:
I am merely one of the many millions out here that is not buying into the shet hypocrisy that these people are selling.
It is my job to have an attitude! I am the prospective buyer.
Really? It’s your job to be disrespectful in this manner to Ed? To anyone else who does not agree with you on this particular subject?
But by your logic I am also a prospective buyer, so is it my job to have the same shitty, disrespecting, arrogant, consdescending, self-righteous attitude that you do?
The Chief wrote:
Nor in any kind of religion, such as the religion of AGW!
That’s just what you tell yourself so that you can feel good about both your attitude and your point of view.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 - 11:29am PT
|
The Chief enacts Godwin's law!
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 - 12:28pm PT
|
I'm not thrilled to see the luxurious lifestyle of the rich and superrich, but if somebody who is superrich (the Al Gores and George Soros) wants to support progressives causes even as they live a lifestyle commensurate with their wealth, I think that is preferable than the alternatives.
Even an American making an average to below average income of $25,000~$50,000 has a luxurious and wastefull life compared to the say 2 billion people in this world living on a few dollars a day.
If you ride your bike to work, great. But however, green your choices, most Americans find a way to essentially spend everything they make consuming resourses that are not sustainable in the long run.
peace
What a bunch of bullshit that is!
I think the bottom line is that you feel that whether MMGW is real or not, it makes you (et al.) feel really good about yourself because you're a self-important, arrogant fool. "I'm doing my part!"
And yet you give a pass to Gore and Soros for 'spewing' CO2 in the name of decreasing it??? Is that right?
In my world or ignorance and 'anti-science', that's what we used to call hypocrisy.
I've never claimed I was "doing my part". I am certainly not against individuals trying to take small steps. But I do not actually believe that riding a bike to work instead of driving, or recycling a few bottles, or using canvas bags for shopping, is going to change the fact that our society is living in an unsustainable manner. I think that is true from the top all the way down to the bottom. And it seems to me that the [immediate] damage one does is mostly based on income. I think the difference between the Gores and most Americans is one of degree not absolute.
I don't expect anyone to take and keep a vow of poverty.
To become sustainable is going to take really fundamental changes in society. Getting people to accept the seriousness of the problem is the first step.
I never gave Gore a pass either. No more than myself or anyone else.
But I stand firmly behind my conviction that I would rather see him spend some small part of his time, wealth, and influence trying to leave the world a better place for our children and our children's children, than to see him spend his time, wealth, and influence trying to get more tax breaks for the uber rich.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 - 12:37pm PT
|
perhaps a pictorial presentation would be less fatiguing than reading
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 - 12:45pm PT
|
we could start there... and work a paper through, to parse it, and see how it works.
That sounds interesting, Ed.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 - 01:37pm PT
|
No way, Dingus. Ed is trolling the troll. No way will The Chief fall for that ploy.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 - 04:28pm PT
|
I think the bottom line is that you feel that whether MMGW is real or not, it makes you (et al.) feel really good about yourself because you're a self-important, arrogant fool. "I'm doing my part!"
Screw you, buddy. I'm doing my part because it's the only responsible thing to do, and my mother raised me that way.
And yet you give a pass to Gore and Soros for 'spewing' CO2 in the name of decreasing it??? Is that right?
Nope. I don't give him a pass at all. I'm the one who said if he really was wasting resources like that, he is an ass and a hypocrite. I simply recognize that: A - Being a hypocrite doesn't mean you're not right, and B - Someone can be a total ass in their personal life, and do great work in their professional life.
GO
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2011 - 04:31pm PT
|
say, that makes sense!
|
|
DrDeeg
Mountain climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2011 - 12:03am PT
|
I have continued to read this thread but have not posted in a while. The arguments asserting that anthropogenic climate change is mythical dishearten me, because they divert us from the discussions we should have. Perhaps in vain, I would like to articulate some of those issues, and also explain why we should move on.
Fundamentally, the drivers for Earth’s climate are: (i) sunlight which mostly penetrates through the atmosphere to Earth’s surface (clouds, snow and ice, and some aerosols reflect about 30% of the sunlight, and ozone, water vapor, dust and soot absorb about 10%); (ii) infrared radiation emitted upward by Earth’s warmed surface (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other gases absorb). Earth’s temperature would be in “steady state” when the amount of sunlight absorbed (by atmosphere and surface) equals the amount of infrared radiation that escapes back to space. If we start with a steady state and cause the atmosphere to absorb more of the radiation emitted by the surface, then less will escape to space and the atmosphere must warm and emit more radiation itself until the balance is reestablished. Data from an instrument that flies on three satellites – CERES, the cloud-earth radiant energy system – show the Earth currently absorbs about 2 Watts per sq m more than it emits. So it has to warm.
Greater concentrations of carbon dioxide increase the infrared absorption, and the resulting higher temperatures also cause more evaporation and therefore more water vapor too, so the carbon dioxide has a “positive feedback”: about half the warming results from the increased water vapor that the increased CO2 causes.
Note that this fundamental argument does not depend on a complicated climate model. In fact, the basic physics were published by Arrhenius in the late 19th century. The historical data -- direct measurements of air and sea temperature, along with CO2 concentrations -- show warming, as do the paleoclimatic data from tree rings, sediments, isotopes in ice, and borehole temperatures. The changes in Earth’s orbit (eccentricity, obliquity, and precession) occur on scales of 10,000-100,000 years so are not responsible for the changes in the last millennium, but do correlate with the great climate changes associated with the Ice Ages.
The “forcing” (i.e. change in the atmosphere) caused by CO2 and its positive feedback is a little less than 3 Watts per sq m, and has been offset by less than 1 W per sq m by increases in sulfur aerosols which have increased the atmosphere’s reflectivity. This increase in the planets brightness does indeed cause cooling, but not enough to erase the CO2-induced warming. In the 1970s, the worry that the aerosols might cause drastic cooling was a legitimate cause for concern, and the radiative transfer calculations had to improve to address their effect, along with the plausible consequences of nuclear war.
In contrast, the forcing by changes in the Sun’s irradiance since 1880 is about 0.3 W per sq m.
Burning of fossil fuels releases about 6 gigatons of carbon per year, biomass burning another 2. The atmospheric reservoir of carbon is going up about 4 gigatons per year, so the biosphere is taking up some of the extra CO2 but only about half of it. Global volcanic CO2 emission is recently estimated at 0.26 gigatons per year.
So the Earth must warm unless there is some counteracting mechanism. Two have been proposed: increased cloudiness which would increase Earth’s reflectivity and clearing over the tropical Pacific that would allow more infrared radiation to escape. Neither is supported by the satellite data.
What are the real uncertainties? Regional variability (where will effects be most severe?). Precipitation (more in some regions, less in others). Sea level (how much, where?). Aerosols (which also darken snow and ice, but in general cause the atmosphere to be brighter).
We should focus on these issues, because we will have to make choices about investments in both mitigation and adaptation. If we do nothing about mitigation, then adaptation (or suffering) will be the only option. To borrow a phrase from the legal world, human activities cause significant changes in climate “beyond reasonable doubt.” Mitigation should focus both on energy efficiency and renewables. Adaptation can think about land use, where to replace infrastructure, water, etc.
Ironically, the debate is similar to that about smoking 50-60 years ago. We cannot fix the problem without some curbs on business-as-usual behavior. Some of the opposition to anthropogenic climate change owes to this fundamental dislike of regulation, taxation, or other mechanisms. As with smoking a half-century ago, the opponents of any restriction on individual, corporate, or societal “rights” attack the science.
|
|
justin01
Trad climber
sacramento
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2011 - 02:44am PT
|
I just came across this great video of a very informative and enjoyable debate. It is rather old, 2007, so maybe the science has improved.
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis/
It was ruled in favor of skepticism, but it was close. I think both sides make solid points, but to me and the audience it was close to tied. It takes place at NYU and hosted by WNYC, not known for having their head in the sand. The debate series is very well regarded by many liberal publications.
Its far more intelligent and informed than your average ST poster...
It is a debate though, not a scientific study. There are too many good points to list from this video. You all must listen, in the very least it is a good distraction from the desk jockeying most of us enjoy.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
breaking the speed of gravity
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2011 - 03:15am PT
|
There is nothing anyone can do to reverse the growth of fossil fuel burning
around the globe. Industrialization continues everywhere its economically
feasible and CO2 releases are going up as a result.
But the best news is we've successfully labeled the warmists as chicken little's yelling the sky is falling. Some refuse to believe their scam
is over but it is.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2011 - 11:35am PT
|
If the "science" is not relevant to the Chief's position, then what exactly is?
Chief?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2011 - 12:58pm PT
|
So I take it the Chief will not be discussing the merits of the science with Ed?
Because science does not recognize a "higher power"? True, science has no "need" to do so.
But the Chief does recognize a higher power, but then says Jesus Christ and man's religions have nothing to do with this?
I honestly believe, and respect, that the Chief is mostly concerned that because as he stated he is living on fixed budgeted income, his concern is financial because someday he might be asked to pay some sort of "carbon tax".
I get that, that is a very valid personal concern. But that concern has nothing to do with
the Chief's refutation of "science" as just plain wrong about climate change.
Two different issues, the Chief's personal finances and science.
Chief, it would help a lot if you would accept Ed's offer to discuss the science behind your claim that the science is "wrong".
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2011 - 01:12pm PT
|
weschrist wrote:
Nauseating
Indeed, bitter troll, when consumed in large quantities, has be known to cause nausea in some.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2011 - 01:15pm PT
|
The Chief,
The tone of your posts ring as arrogant as the apparent arrogance you are criticizing in AGW science/scientists. Kind of ironic, isn't it?
The Chief wrote:
Oh yeah, science will never be able to even touch or process this dimension that I speak of. Never.
The same pompous arrogance and sense of superiority you are criticizing in everyone in this thread who does not agree with you.
Where's the humility you are asking others to demonstrate?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2011 - 01:21pm PT
|
By doing so, I am now free to live and think without the constant fear of the certainty that will one day come through my physical death.
There's that life driven by fear [of death] thing again - one of religion's resolute drumbeats. I've never really understood it. I mean really, what exactly is the problem with this wonderful life being it and when we're done, we're done? Why on earth is that so frightening? Personally, I have zero problem with simply shuffling off the mortal coil into oblivion. Seems totally irrational to me for our culture to be so afraid of death.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2011 - 01:29pm PT
|
Dr. Deeg:
Burning of fossil fuels releases about 6 gigatons of carbon per year, biomass burning another 2. The atmospheric reservoir of carbon is going up about 4 gigatons per year, so the biosphere is taking up some of the extra CO2 but only about half of it. Global volcanic CO2 emission is recently estimated at 0.26 gigatons per year.
The biggest challenge is all the developing countries. If we only had to deal with the developed western countries reducing CO2 by 50% would not be that tough. I see so many soccer moms in full size SUVs getting 14 mpg when a sedan or small suv would do everything they need and get twice as many mpg. As I quoted earlier there is a huge opportunity by improving efficiency in the US, which would also make us more competitive internationally. New technology like smokestack scrubbers for CO2 could help at energy plants.
I kind of look at it like trash in the wilderness:
*First I'm going to be responsible for myself. I'm going to pack out what I bring in / I'm going to try to reduce my carbon footprint 50%.
*Secondly if I see trash someone else left I'll pack it out if it doesn't hinder me too much. I'll pack out up to few pounds of trash, but I won't try to pick up so much that it means I can't complete my hike or climb / I'm not going to try to reduce my carbon footprint to 0 and not do the things I want to do because someone else is so selfish they convince themselves AGW is not real so they make no effort to contribute
The effects of AGW are uncertain, and the future is uncertain in general, but I think it's irresponsible to pretend there is no problem so you don't have to conserve at all.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2011 - 01:30pm PT
|
I don't about arrogance, but I suspect needing to 'live' forever is a symptom of a pretty strong ego.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!