Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2009 - 09:12pm PT
|
Dingus, not sure what's got you so belligerent and certain here, but you're way off target.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2009 - 09:34pm PT
|
I think Dingus is skeptical of our government being able to enact anything that will truly affect global climate change, mostly because this is a global problem and as he says, if we reduce and the rest of the world increases, then we likely wont affect much, yet we will have incurred more debt.
The problem I see with this is that someone has to lead the way and to have the greatest affect, that someone should be the most powerful country in the world, the country that uses the most resources, ie the good ol US of A.
.........
Now here is a spiritualist point of view. I know, I know, most you you think spiritualism is crap. Well, I guess I am going to write this anyway.
The spiritualist point of view is that global climate change/warming is not happening because of too much CO2, it is happening because of too much greed and a lack of spiritual awareness by the average man. It is caused by the friction between ones higher self and ones carnal self/ false ego. Most of the world admires the ego, ie they admire things like physical beauty while ignoring inner beauty, or they admire the wealthy and look down upon the poor and within all of this there is no balance. ( Please try to understand that I am not saying that all wealth is bad, I am saying that when greed and lust control ones desires, rather then a basic desire to do well and achieve success, and that when success is based on doing better then anyone else, then you have a false, ego centered goal and this creates friction. )
This greed and friction plays out in the abuse of nature and its abundance. We can have the abundant life, but we will have to reevaluate what we think of as abundant.
The Dirtbag philosophy is actually closer to what true abundance is all about, but that would take too long to explain, so I will stop here.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2009 - 09:36pm PT
|
Lead the way by doing what?
|
|
BASE104
climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2009 - 09:38pm PT
|
And I would love for you to cite a single peer-reviewed article stating that global sea level is at its highest point in 125 million years.
I am a petroleum geologist. All I do is look at sedimentary basins. Sedimentary rocks are like an EKG of depositional environments. The only reason I am wasting my time on this is that I am supposed to be revising an exploration agreement, and I hate that legal crap.
Sea level has been incredibly cyclic over time. The entire premise of sequence stratigraphy is based on high and low stands of sea level.
I have no axe to grind with DMT. I just find that 125 million year statement just that. A statement. I know of no evidence that supports it. I mean, nothing. And lots of evidence to refute it.
"Sea level" is in itself rather ambiguous in the long term. The most rigourous definition would probably be what is the distance from the center of the earth to "sea level," at any point in time. You are going way back in time, Dingus.
Southern Oklahoma, and much of Texas, has cretaceous shoreline deposits covering it. The entire cretaceous interior seaway is lined with cretaceous marine sediments.
Go to Amazon and buy yourself a five star textbook on historical geology, DMT.
This has totally distracted me from replying to Bookworm.
Supertopo is EVIL. I won't get home until tomorrow morning at this rate.
|
|
Jingy
Social climber
Flatland, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2009 - 09:47pm PT
|
Not a skeptic... and I care a little.... But I just can't care too much...
Not going to be here long enough to notice
but.... carry on...
|
|
BASE104
climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2009 - 10:31pm PT
|
Thank goodness Ed is here. I can't type fast enough to keep up with this stuff.
I am still waiting on the Lower Cretaceous data, though.
Calm, reason, think critically. Be skeptical.
|
|
Thom
Trad climber
South Orange County, CA
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2009 - 11:30pm PT
|
Base104 - You
mention "statistical significance" and mention that CO2 levels are the highest they've been in 300,000 years.
Mr. Gore mentions in his hysteria producing video (with great dramatic effect, I might add) that CO2 levels are the highest in 600,000 years. 300, 600, whatever, HUGE numbers for sure - but completely insignificant in the scope of geologic time. Mr. Gore (and others) seem to have overlooked the remaining years of the 600 MILLION years of ice core data from which they pull their 300/600,000 years of hysteria producing propaganda. These guys know full well what the remaining data shows and deliberately leave it out; afterall, 600,000 years is a long time, isn't it? Certainly long enough to convince others of this ecological crisis, No? Others are just too lazy to do their own research, and Gore (and others) rely on this laziness to promote their garbage.
600,000 years of data is ABSOLUTELY insignificant relative to the 600,000,000 years of data we have. For those too lazy to do the math: it equals 1/10 of 1%; that's 1 in 1000. If the average global temp for the past 1000 years is 54 degrees and I show you ONE year of data with an average of 70, then began screaming about a global warming crisis, you'd deem me a nut-job.
Based on the 600,000,000 years of data available, our atmosphere is DEFICIENT in CO2, COOLER than average, and LESS humid than average. In the last 600 MILLION years there's only been ONE geologic period that has had less than 400 ppm of CO2 (other than our own): The Carboniferous Period. We should EXPECT temps to be going up, along with CO2.
Incidently, the late Ordovician Period had CO2 levels nearly 12 times higher than present (apprx. 4400 ppm) - AND WAS AN ICE AGE.
What this all means to the human species 2,000 years from now is another thing altogether.
Personally, I'm not questioning global climate change (or global warming). I question our part in it, whether we can (or should) do anything about it, and the questionable motives behind the use of the science.
(Al Gore promotes this CO2 "disaster", starts Generation Investment Management to sell "carbon offsets" on the Chicago Climate Exchange [basically a futures exchange] and starts raking in the $$ promoting this hysteria.)
People, do some frikin' research, for cryin' out loud!
T.
|
|
Conrad
climber
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2009 - 12:13am PT
|
Hi Thom,
Seems as if you have more of an issue with Al Gore (garbage, laziness and propaganda) than with climate change per se.
While the the Ordovician / Silurian boundary is recognized to be glaciated and the first of the five major extinctions the early part of the Orodvician was exemplified by widely separated continents and tropical shelf areas. The result was the greatest increase in bio-diversity at the order, family and genus levels. The same tropical shelf as a rich bio habitat concept reflects our present understanding that these regions have a great amount of bio diversity. (Think great barrier reef in contrast to a desert.)
I will check on this, yet I think ice cores are accurate for to 40,000 years. Much of the climate data is from sea sediment core samples, they date older. Going back 600 million years requires analyzing the fossil record.
Our planet is in a stage of flux. This much is certain. How we address this is our generation's challenge.
And hopefully we can have a constructive conversation and leave the name calling for Glenn and Rush.
|
|
BASE104
climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2009 - 12:36am PT
|
Hey Conrad, I'm typing here!
|
|
Thom
Trad climber
South Orange County, CA
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2009 - 12:41am PT
|
Yes, correct; my bad. Didn't mean to state 600 million years of ice core data. Meant to say 600 million years of data "in general". The fossil and sediment records are older. I believe the ice core dates go back about 750,000 years, or so. The point is the data is there, and it's ignored.
You are correct in that I have a real problem with how the science is being used by some individuals.
As stated, I don't really have a problem with the whole climate change/global warming issue (glaciers ARE melting, no doubt). But again, based on the TOTAL of available science, we should be expecting this, and the impact of our human contribution is questionable.
Contructive conversation? On this forum? Surely, you jest? At least some of us can try to keep things civil.
Cheers,
T.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2009 - 01:30am PT
|
Just remember that scientific data in isolation cannot lead to sound economic decisions. This has become so political because people are pushing economic decisions without the necessary economic data.
Anthropogenic climate change is exceedingly important to our future generations. So is disease control, agricultural practices, and the whole palette of choices of good things. We cannot make a lexicographic ordering of importance. Put into English, we can't say we must do everything to prevent anthropogenic climate change before we do anything to improve our food supply or medical care, for instance.
Again, despite what Krugman states, the peer-reviewed economic literature remains bereft of all but the most crude estimates of marginal costs and benefits of any proposed remediatory actions.
John
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2009 - 04:17am PT
|
It's too bad lack of beer isn't causing Climate change or we'd get a lot more support curing the issue.
Sort of reminds me of the old debate about whether cigarette smoke causes cancer or not. For some time it was "not enough data" "those people would have got cancer anyway" and so on.
This is the same story except that the health of the whole planet is at stake.
Any study of ecology reveals that species increase in population and impact until those very effect cause a decrease in population. Seems we're content to face that as long as we don't suspect we will be the part of the herd facing culling.
It's not just climate change where we're willing to roll the dice at the expense of the future. We're burning up all the oil with little regard to how or if the future will live without it.
Guess that's human nature. If we reincarnate, we'll get to taste our own medicine and blame those bastards that handed the mess down to us, except that those bastards will be us!
Peace
Karl
|
|
Brian Hench
Trad climber
Anaheim, CA
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2009 - 11:27am PT
|
Thom, why should we care what the climate was 600 million years ago? I'd like to think we care about what it is now. You'd like to have us believe that man is playing no part in climate change, which is dead wrong. We've doubled the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere in less than 200 years. And it continues to increase. Regardless of past CO2 levels, increasing current levels WILL drive warming. IT MUST. There is no escaping that conclusion. It WILL increase global temperatures. Period.
The only questions remaining are exactly how much temperatures will increase and who has the resources to adapt. Some of the poorer nations of this world are really going to suffer in the future.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2009 - 11:42am PT
|
Poor countries are always going to suffer, no matter what happens.
That's why they're poor, they can't get their sh#t together.
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2009 - 12:51pm PT
|
Ice cores go back to 700,000 years last I heard, they get deeper ones all the time.
The whole "but co2 levels were higher in the cretaceous" is a specious argument. Might as well mention that in the Cambrian it was 20 times higher than now.
co2 levels alone are not a analog for temperature in the geologic record. However, if all other variables are controlled, and one raises co2 by adding co2 to the system, one can only expect temperature to go up. That isn't to say some previously unknown feedback wouldn't cause something else to happen. However, you can just say "I think there is an unknown feedback that will negate the doubling of co2 in the atmosphere" without some kind of hypothesis for what that feedback would be.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2009 - 01:40pm PT
|
and it continues to pile up:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amm7GJfWypJE
from ed morrissey:
"Global-warming activists insist that we can’t take an assumption from a single year. However, if the CWS forecast turns out to be correct, we will have gone eleven years without any warming at all — eleven years in which carbon emissions did not decline in any significant manner. How does one begin to explain that?"
|
|
wbw
climber
'cross the great divide
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2009 - 03:10pm PT
|
What is certain, is that in 50 or so years at the rate we are going, CO2 levels will be double what they were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That indicates that humans are increasing the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by driving cars, using electricity, and farting. Most scientists from a wide range of disciplines seem to think that at those CO2 levels, there will be problems of such magnitude as to be essentially unsolveable. Those problems will change the way humans live on the planet.
It's either find a different way to live now, or do it later.
|
|
LB4USC
Trad climber
Long Beach
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2009 - 03:22pm PT
|
I'm single. No kids. No grandkids. No nieces. No nephews.
I'm more than happy to risk the future of your kids and grandkids, and drill for oil in the ANWR, off the coast and any other pristine land to gas up my Hummer. Unlocking the water in the frozen ice caps by warming the planet is the least I can do.
That's why I vote Republican.
|
|
gazela
Boulder climber
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2009 - 03:27pm PT
|
I recently attended a lecture by an eminence in the modeling of asteroid impacts on Earth. He stated two principles that guide his science. The first is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the second is that theories or models are inherently untrustworthy that must be modified on an ongoing basis to fit the observed data. However, his uncritical acceptance of mainstream climate-change theory made clear that he doesn't adhere to either of those axioms when it comes to global warming. On one hand, even he seemed to acknowledge that the evidence that man-made CO2 emissions will shortly render the planet uninhabitable is hardly "extraordinary" or conclusive, despite his assertion that drastic action must be taken (the economic effects of which will be extraordinary, indeed). And the recent "equilibrium" hypothesis, injected into the climate models to account for the fact that the Earth hasn't had any net warming for over a decade, should raise a few suspicions.
I'm all for conservation and the development of alternative energy sources, something we should have started doing in earnest a generation ago; however, one key element is more nuclear power plants, the one part of the European energy model that libs in this country refuse to follow. And will hydrogen-powered cars, which give off water vapor as exhaust--the number-one greenhouse gas on Earth--actually aggravate whatever warming may actually be happening?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!