Scott_J Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 (edited) co2, co h2so2 yiks I think all that stuff comes out my ass when climbing. maybe i contribute to the whole more than i figured Edited December 17, 2002 by sisu_suomi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Before debunking global warming, or writing off the current changes as "like what has happened before," it is usually a good idea to ask a few questions. 1. What was the mechanism of climate change? 2. What was the magnitude and rate of change associated with that event? 3. What was the impact? Â Answering these questions in a robust way requires difficult, difficult, tedious and, yes, expensive work. But, the bottom line is that if you look at federal dollars spent, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the $34 billion in damages in the US from the last el nino year, or if you want to get closer to home, the money spent on paleoclimate research compared to NIH, nuclear, or weapons research. Â As to the current episode of global warming... there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community that the species Homo Sapiens is influencing global warming and that change is evidenced as an increase in the rate of global warming starting at about the industrial revolution. So, now's the time to refer back to questions 1,2, and 3. Before you write off the current global warming as being like the ones in the past, make sure you can answer 1 nad 3 for each of the observed excursions for the last 100ka. Â As to the relative impact of CO2 and water, I'll let someone like sayjay speak to that. Â Here's a poster (big file, beware!) that has a bunch of data about paleoclimate on it. Do a search on GISP if you want more data, including data you can play with at home Random poster with some data... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 17, 2002 Author Share Posted December 17, 2002 I have trouble believing this; please explain further. Also, isn't CO2 a small (less than 5%) percentage of "greenhouse gases"? Isn't water vapor the number one greenhouse gas?  CO2 concentration forces climate, water vapor is a feedback that is extremely sensitive to small changes in CO2 conc. Ergo you increase CO2 conc. by half (what we see since the beginning of the industrial era) and you potentially get a huge feedback due to water vapor.  http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/DelGenioPerspective.pdf  Regarding you not liking my logic, I don't care. It's my opinion, that's all. Fuck you if you don't like it, I didn't ask you to.  ha! but you see in the world of science, relevant opinions are brought forth by clear logic. So it's not a question of likes or dislikes, but whether or not you are making any sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott_J Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 I am making fun of something that is happening, but we are helpless to do anything about. Believe me we are. We,humans, are meant to do as the dinosaurs went. Our stay will be extended by our ability to evolve and adapt, but in the end we are doomed. Should we try to help or continue to destroy. Its been cast. I thought, as a biologist, that the majority of the world cared...nope they don't. I am sorry to say this to you all, but I will enjoy my ride while here on this planet and when my life is done its done(by the way I do care and I do try to make less of an impact). I hope that my off spring can live as good as I have and enjoy being happy and free. Have a happy holiday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_Schuldt Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Here is my highly scientific opinion. http://www.changingtheclimate.com/ All those who don't like SUVs check this out!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 That lack of raw log exports from public land is one reason for the supposedly effective US imposed, illegal under NAFTA and WTO rules, softwood lumber duty imposed right now, which has backfired and is shutting down American mills faster than Canadian ones. Like your own medicine Baucus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 HWGA. Damn, I wish I didn't have to work so hard this week, so that I could participate in my favorite spray subject.  1) I can't wait to hear what people say when it starts to get noticeably colder in a few years. Malthusian forecasts rarely come true.  2) If one really believes in human-induced climate change, why does the industrialized west have to do all the sacrificing? Why doesn't somebody get up on the table and yell  a) The 3rd-world countries must limit emmissions from all those POS vehicles (ex: Mexico City). b) The home-fires of India, China, etc. must be extinguished and replaced with something else. c) Most importantly, every nation must agree to limit its birth-rate immediately, because this is the underlying juggernaut factor behind human emmissions.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott_J Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Like I said the majority of the world does not care. But don't tell DFA that any other races other than white American pollute or you'll be told your white robes and hood are available at the cleaners. Â DFA is a butt nugget, I hope your partner does not mind the nugget Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Large, naturally occurring, changes in CO2 levels in the geologic past have been correlated with features of climate change. It's hard to predict how current changes in greenhouse gas levels will affect mean temperature. Â The 3rd-world countries must limit emmissions from all those POS vehicles (ex: Mexico City). Mexico City does impose limits on the numbers of vehicles on the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 *yawn* Â Keep working at it, Sisu; you'll spawn a new insult sooner or later, a-la the monkeys, typewriters, and Shakespeare theory. Â *yawn* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 freeclimb, I'm with ya on the atmospheric gases. Â However I have a hard time believing that Mexico City has an enforced policy on autos. Maybe I'm remembering something from 20 years ago when I lived in Texas and traveled some in Mexico, but there were an incredible number of old vehicles there then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 The idea that a "majority" of scientists agree warming is occurring, is a fiction actively encouraged by warming proponents. Â Climate models don't even include solar variability or possible solar wind interactions with cloud formation if I understand correctly, so whatever predictions they make without including such variables are innately flawed. Â The most common misconception I see perpetrated is that lacking CO2 production, climate change would somehow cease, when it's provably intrinsically variable to begin with wether or not people produce CO2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 damn, mtngoat and I agree on something. There is more CO2 emitted from termite and sheep flatus than from emmissions from the industrialized west. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 The vehicles are restricted by license number. An even/odd deal. I don't know of emission restrictions on individual autos, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 oooooooohh we brought goat out of hibernation? Â i see he has 464 posts of which...463 are related to political threads or what? hey goat go make a post on the "Fun" thread for a change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 The idea that a "majority" of scientists agree warming is occurring, is a fiction actively encouraged by warming proponents. You're tripping, dude. Without question, some regions have gotten warmer in past years. For example, the annual mean temperature in the state of Alaska has risen 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 30 years. A thermometer is a pretty low-tech instrument, and I'd venture to say that a majority of scientists would agree that the warming occurred. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Yeah, Freeclimb, he's tripping. But, you see, it was the Liberal press that reported that even Bush's guys recognize the general agreemen about the contribution of greenhouse gasses to global warming. The whole thing must be a left-wing environmentalist ploy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 I can see I was not specific enough. I'll amend my statement. The idea that a majority of scientists feel warming is driven by human CO2 emissions is a fiction. Â Then we'll deal with the fact that what actually occurs in the physical world is entirely independent of what any number of humans feels is correct or how many believe any particular thing. The world was still round when a majority of scientists felt it wasn't, and the continents were busy moving about underfoot when a majority of scientists felt it was impossible. What is important is not what any number of people agree on, but what is provable. Â "A thermometer is a pretty low-tech instrument," Â And it's very liable to heat island effects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 Sure, freeclimb, it's warmer now, but the point is that climate has often made rather extreme changes over decades. Causes range from asteroid strikes to rotational axis change to tidal force change to volcanism (which is in some cases triggered by tidal forces), etc. Â And that simple tool the thermometer can and is placed in widely-varied places. Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 how about a majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS WITH RELEVANT PHDs??? cause i bet a degree in Metallurgy or Human Reproductive Diseases or whatever really qualifies you to understand the science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobBob Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 What is amazing to me is how worked up people get when someone suggests that they are wrong about global warming and man's rather meager contribution to it. Mark Twain, if he were alive today, would get a real kick out of it. Â No one has suggested that we humans should not reduce our noxious emmissions into the atmosphere. ( I am seriously in favor of cleaning up the worlds's air...even if it means that we must get India and other burgeoning nations to limit their reproduction. ) Â Let's just honestly and consistently and correctly analyse the facts about long term climate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 I'll reiterate that, IMO, The accumulative data is suggestive of a man-made influence, but no smoking gun exists. There has been an increase in greenhouse gases correlated to increased industrialization. And Large, naturally occurring, changes in CO2 levels in the geologic past have been correlated with features of climate change. Draw your own conclusions. Me? I'm sweating the fact that the Canadian arctic is posting warmer temperatures this year (eg. Resolute is 10-15 degrees C warmer than "normal"), and I'm planning a trip on the sea ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted December 17, 2002 Author Share Posted December 17, 2002 Let's just honestly and consistently and correctly analyse the facts about long term climate. Â a large fraction of scientists who believe that climate warming is enhanced by human activities, also study long term climate change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 fc9 I might be moving to Baffin soon and i would rather the Polar Bears be out on the ice eating seals than in town eating me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 17, 2002 Share Posted December 17, 2002 I might be moving to Baffin soon and i would rather the Polar Bears be out on the ice eating seals than in town eating me! What village are you considering? Iqaluit? Party at "The Zoo"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.