Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2016 - 07:12pm PT
|
Not. to worry,the free market will take care of everything.
Lol.
|
|
BobSFrankNose
Social climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2016 - 07:40pm PT
|
Ok, I’ll play the game a little longer. And, I will (at K-man’s request) come clean on my opinions. And no offense to Ed H - LLNL- his is one of the good guys, just yanking his chain.
I used to believe all of it and was quite concerned – as were my fellow associates that I worked with (all over 50 at the time – now well into our 60’s, Not all of us were white!). But, we also read contrary points of view (because we wanted to hear both sides of such a possible catastrophic scenario). Initially most of the predictions seemed to line up and be plausible. But, it started to change with other new and updated opinions. We were not climatologist, but we could come up to speed pretty fast on any topic out there and defend it or prosecute it. We could become reasonable experts fast, at least with deception’s.
Then, money and regulations made its way into the politics of global warming and climate change. It was clearly being driving by other forces. It damaged progressive nations and gave the real polluters a pass. I read and listened to people like Richard Lindzen on the corruption of the data. He is just another opinion – not taking him any more serious than the rest. And don’t call him names and trash him with cut and paste sh#t. I’ve read the entire pros and cons of him over the last ten years.
Then I re-saw Inconvenient Truth and saw a completely disturbing side to it, I ask some questions and the name calling begin. Almost a religious fervor from the defenders of climate change – they immediately got hostile and aggressive. Then I read hundreds of the exposed emails from Climate Gate that clearly showed how data was skewed (manipulated might be a better term) for expectant and certain outcomes from the paying people. I investigated the drivers like Michael Mann and Phil Jones and closely read what they said and did and excused themselves, etc. They had a very hard time defending their deeds. But, that’s just another piece of the puzzled to consider.
I saw Gore buy a 9 million dollar mansion in Santa Barbara (Montecito precisely at sea level). Apparently thinking that only the Atlantic Ocean would rise according to his own outlandish predictions – but not the Pacific Ocean? Hypocrisy at every single stop in my reading, and the money factor became more and more of the driver – with global societal control and social justice. Mostly directed at the U.S. Face it; Germany has little skin in the game comparatively. Sweden pfffft. And China – the biggest polluter has NO skin in the game or intentions of living up to anything we demand or put forth as UN law.
I saw individuals and companies lining up for the CCX, cap and trade participation, Gores Company GMI and Goldman Sachs 10% involvement. Further alarm bells went off – as it should. With trillions on the line for the taking - could something else be up? Any question at this point really produced hatred to the inquirer and mostly name calling. I further reconsidered my research.
This thread is a perfect example of a microcosm of my thought development. I asked serious questions on my first post and immediately get berated with my Nov 4, 2:57 post. I pushed back just a little and got further downgraded as a simpleton. No real answers to my real questions – just sh#t flung my way.
Apparently your spokesperson is Malemut and he seems to be the go to guy for the facts and the goodies. But seriously, with a post like this, who wouldn’t laugh out load. And, he gets worse and worse.
Nov 4, 2016 - 09:53am PT Malemut says:
Climate Change: Why aren't more people concerned about it?
(1) the Koch brothers fund a massive disinformation campaign
(2) bitter old white men don't give a damn about the future
(3) people are afraid of change
(4) a large percent of americans are science & math morons
(5) the Dunning Kruger effect
(6) most humans are irrational
(7) stupid people hate smart people
(8) deeply religious people are ipso facto delusional
(9) many people don't distinguish between fact and bullsh#t
(10) your government is corrupt and incompetent
So, I’ve brought up some serious questions about causes and effects and what we can really do about it now, and just hate, spite and name calling tossed my way. Too old for it to matter or effect me.
I’m not saying it isn’t real, not saying it isn’t man-made – just saying that it could have been overblown, exaggerated, overstated for a purpose, and hyperbolic for a conclusion. And, that there is evidence of manipulation with the data for just the right government approved outcome.
So, why wouldn’t anyone question such a huge life ending, world ending scenario without investigating all sides and being a little skeptical.
Really bored now with this!
AND, I am a long time climber, who has climbed with a lot of great people on a lot of really great routes - everywhere in the world. But, fire away with your insults.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2016 - 07:56pm PT
|
rick sumner writes:
What theory initiated by Maxwell and elaborated by Feynman et al
whatever that means... perhaps he can elaborate.
The report in Science "Earth and Mars: Evolution of Atmospheres and Surface Temperatures" written by Sagan and Mullen has a nice comparison of the Venus, Earth, Mars atmospheres and surface temps...
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/CPS/sites/CPS/files/sagan_and_mullen_1972.pdf
this paper has 673 citation in Google Scholar, 31 in 2016 which is quite good for such an old paper.
The general model used by Sagan and Mullen works just fine, and requires the CO2 (and other GHG) components.
Note also that Lindzen completely agrees with this, his hypothesis has to do with cloud cover to make the surface temperatures higher during the time in Earth's history when the Sun was weaker (the reason I looked at this paper was that it was referenced in Lindzen's paper). Lindzen disagrees with the idea of extreme temperature change due to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations because some other mechanism will take over to equilibrate the Earth's surface temperature, compensating for the increased CO2.
A recent pre-print describing this, and one that uses all of the modern tools of climate science can be found here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.3209.pdf
is instructive that it discusses Lindzen's hypothesis (and finds it no very likely, based on scientific reasoning).
Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations increases surface temperature.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2016 - 08:24pm PT
|
^^^^Wrong Dr. atmospheric density has much more to do with planetary temps than ghg's . You are aware of Feynman and his work with others on the U.S. standard atmosphere model 1976. You are aware of the gravito thermal effect independent of ghg forcing. Sagan smagan.
|
|
EdBannister
Mountain climber
13,000 feet
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2016 - 08:35pm PT
|
the most often quoted stat is the 97 or 98% of atmospheric scientists agree about manmade global warming... but any one who agrees that man is a factor, is counted as if they assign human activity as primary... that stat is not accurate.. and much more interesting, would be a stat of all those who do not have a financial interest in manmade global warming.. i.e. no institutional, departmental or personal grant... funny how most dissenters are safely retired where they can express their real opinions, kind of like conservatives in hollywood. Retire, then tell.
as for bitter.. do you remember all the riots after Obama was elected? I don't.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2016 - 09:12pm PT
|
you've got to be kidding, rick,
you have never read the Feynman Lectures in Physics, and you certainly don't understand what was on whatever blog told you that that was the explanation for the surface temperature...
time for you to go out and get into the breeze, then think of how that breeze comes to be.
The Earth's atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium (there is a rather strong external energy source that needs to be taken into account).
Gravity is very much a part of the climate models...
and the CO2 is mixed, uniformly in altitude to about 100 km...
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2016 - 09:33pm PT
|
Assuming the validity of the current science. What is a wise course of action?
1. Begin trying to reduce emissions in our country, hoping that this will mitigate a process that is active and that engulfs the entire world, pleading with other nations to do the same. What is the assurance this would really have the effect we desire? Is it too late for this option? If we sink all economic resources into such a project, what happens if our hoped-for outcome doesn't materialize?
2. Begin serious planning and preparation within our country do deal with predicted climate changes. Here, in the United States. Hope that other nations do the same. Help where we can.
Does the commitment and financial resources allow for both plans of action?
If yes, fine. If no, what then?
FWIW
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2016 - 09:50pm PT
|
As far as the blogs go, you should get out of your bubble wrap sometime and read some of the papers republished there. And don't forget the comment section.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2016 - 11:19pm PT
|
you should understand what Feynman wrote and what it's applicability is...
as for reading those blogs, it was enough of my time wasted.
The "published papers" seemed to have been withdrawn by the publisher.... and they appear only to exist in the fantasy land of those blogs, which seems to make up all of your reading.
If you possessed the ability, sitting down with the Feynman Lectures in Physics and work through them would be a good start rather than parroting what's written on blogs. My first time through Feynman was 1971 and they are still rather good, I read in them from time to time.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2016 - 11:28pm PT
|
What, Ed , explains the fact that the atmospheric temps of Venus at altitudes corresponding to earth atmosphere surface pressure are the same.
Don't answer. I can't stand the contortions.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 12:04am PT
|
rick, the "hydrostatics" of the atmospheres are governed by the same set of equations, in the approximation that they are hydrostatic, you get your answer, as Feynman, and others, have calculated, no mystery there...
that does not, however, explain the atmosphere's temperature, nor does it explain the surface temperature.
no contortions there...
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 05:58am PT
|
Assuming the validity of the current science. What is a wise course of action?
1. Begin trying to reduce emissions in our country, hoping that this will mitigate a process that is active and that engulfs the entire world, pleading with other nations to do the same. What is the assurance this would really have the effect we desire? Is it too late for this option? If we sink all economic resources into such a project, what happens if our hoped-for outcome doesn't materialize?
2. Begin serious planning and preparation within our country do deal with predicted climate changes. Here, in the United States. Hope that other nations do the same. Help where we can.
I think we need to do both. In terms of "pleading," I believe other more forward thinking nations have been pleading with us to get serious about climate change for some time. The good news (I think) is that something like 193 countries have signed the Paris Agreement.
Curt
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:31am PT
|
The effort to combat global warming is just hot air. It's a big money grab.
We're not gonna do jack sh#t.
Curt referenced the Paris Agreement, signed by 193 countries. It's a worthless document. Little more than a vehicle for signatories to say "We care!' It has no detailed timetable or country-specific goals. Worthless.
I'm not saying the consensus is wrong,... just that we (mankind) are not going to effectively address this issue anytime soon.
Without China's participation, efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2 are a waste of time. So, what's China doing? They're building coal fired power plants as fast as they can. They announce their commitment to peaking emissions by 2030. By then CO2 should be over 600ppm. Maybe over 700ppm. Way to step up, China.
But we can still enjoy these lovely threads, with alarmists foaming at the mouth... attacking anyone not on board. Good theater, indeed.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 06:53am PT
|
Without China's participation, efforts to reduce atmospheric CO2 are a waste of time. So, what's China doing? They're building coal fired power plants as fast as they can.
At least China is doing something. They have actually cancelled plans for many coal-fired plants that were scheduled to be built.
On the 3 September 2016, China ratified the Paris Agreement, and it has policies in place to reach its NDC goals. These policies are currently centred around the targets set in its NDC, which include the target to peak CO2 emissions by 2030 at the latest, lower the carbon intensity of GDP by 60%–65% below 2005 levels by 2030, increase the share of non-fossil energy carriers of the total primary energy supply to around 20% by that time, and increase its forest stock volume by 4.5 billion cubic meters, compared to 2005 levels.
Our analysis shows that China will achieve both its 2020 pledge and its 2030 plans. The announcement that China will peak its CO2 emissions will have a significant impact on global CO2 emissions in the period after 2030...
http://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china.html
Curt
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 07:31am PT
|
Dingus Milktoast
In terms of carbon taxes - who gets to spend the proceeds and what will it be spent upon?
Also, I can't get behind any global agreement to limit carbon emissions that doesn't include trade sanctions or carbon-tariffs, if you prefer, for all non-compliance nations.
DMT
Brilliant,
Let's start punishing nations like Botswana and Zambia so more children can starve.
You people need a greater understanding of the repercussions of your charade.
The regurgitated rhetoric of Malamute, eeyonkee, et al.. does nothing to help this planet or the people on it. Quite the opposite.
It's inceptions, if implemented, harm those that need our help the most.
Ride a motorcycle, learn to fix things that break instead of going out and buying another, conserve everything, don't litter.
Do an inventory of your own house and pro act accordingly.
Just a small list of real things you can do that actually have a positive impact on your environment.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 07:34am PT
|
Dingus Milktoast
My charade? F*#k off pud.
DMT
internet tough guys crack me up ^^^^
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 07:44am PT
|
Ride a bicycle
Fixed it for you, pud.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 08:01am PT
|
Ride a motorcycle, learn to fix things that break instead of going out and buying another, conserve everything, don't litter.
Do an inventory of your own house and pro act accordingly.
Sure, personal responsibility will go a long way. Funny you forgot to mention that we need to go veggie at least one or two days a week, if not more. That's a really big one.
But, these efforts by individuals won't amount to squat if the energy secretaries of large governments don't get on board and shift away from non-renewables to sustainable energy grids.
So it will take a global, political movement. The bad news is that it's obvious we're not up to the task. As Trump would say, Sad.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2016 - 11:23am PT
|
Sorry about calling you an idiot, Bob.
So, can any of you climate deniers imagine any evidence that could be possibly discovered in the future that would change your minds? I'm thinking a very strong no. It's veracity would instantly be put into doubt by the disinformation machines out there. This is what scares me and frustrates me.
Just so you know, I'm a geologist, and 10 years ago or so I was doubting the science. I was just relying on my sense of things -- for example, that volcanic eruptions would obviously be huge inputs that might make human contributions insignificant. Also, I had been working in the environmental field, where having an end product of CO2 and water is typically what you were after. The idea of CO2 being considered a pollutant was just not on my radar.
Well, it didn't take too long to start boning up on things and realizing that there are a lot of smart scientists out there that are attending to these very questions and putting them to bed. Now, the idea that thousands of them somehow didn't think of something that Bob or Rick read on a blog post or that they are somehow in collusion even though they are from countries all over the world strikes my as hubris of the first order for the folks that believe this.
By the way, do any of you climate change deniers believe in evolution -- among other things that humans evolved from earlier species? There seems to be a strong correlation between deniers on these two topics.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!