Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

100 Reasons why climate change is not man-made

Post general questions and discuss issues related to climbing.
 

Postby jibmaster » Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:27 pm

We are not to blame.
Aliens do exist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoDZQApq ... r2-2r-8-HM
User Avatar
jibmaster

 
Posts: 391
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:23 am
Location: Howell Mt. Napa Valley, California
Thanked: 27 times in 19 posts

Postby Ejnar Fjerdingstad » Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:48 pm

erykmynn wrote:
Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:
erykmynn wrote:
patssox09 wrote:
erykmynn wrote:
patssox09 wrote:
erykmynn wrote:
100 Reasons Not to Talk About Global Warming, Ever




No one would be talking about it if the environmentalists weren't trying to shove these down our throats.
whoa now buddy. lets not put environmentalists and AGW all in the same boat. sure, most AGW proponents are environmentalists. but there are AGW proponents that only give a shit about AGW, and there are enviros who are sick of the AGW-BS fest taking center stage.

you'll find quite a few of the latter right here on summitpost. do you hate the environment? if so what are you doing on an outdoors website?

now....

who taught the enviros that they have to shove shit down peoples throat to get things done? makes you wonder.


I actually am an environmentalist, a paleo-environmentalist. I'm all for conservation, more wilderness areas, protected areas, etc. Your typical environmentalist today will happily fill Yosemite Valley with concrete or chop down all the Redwoods if it that resulted in Cap and Trade and Hybrids for all.
I hate to break it to you, but those people aren't environmentalists.


Oh yes, they are. In Denmark the nature conservancy association used to throw a fit if the state wanted to build a single high-voltage line. Now they are in favour of putting hundreds of windmills in preserved wetlands!
Maybe they figure they'll be off-shore after sea level rise? :roll: Those aren't the people I was talking about anyways. IMO saying you're an environmentalist doesn't make you an environmentalist. If you're doing a bad job of being an environmentalist, then you're not an environmentalist.

A lot of environmentalists are realizing that AGW is de-personalizing, and taking emphasis away from more tangible issues. I know you like Nuclear, and the enviros did play a big role in the changed perception of that power source. But without 3 mile island and chernobyl, would they have had nearly as much shit in their diapers?


Three Mile Island was nothing, nobody was hurt. It was just media-caused mass hysteria. And because the Soviets could not build a better reactor than those at Chernobyl you would ban nuclear power? That would be like banning all cars because a rusty old Lada caused an accident! Already in the 1970s Science warned about the Soviets building nuclear power plants without sufficient containment.
User Avatar
Ejnar Fjerdingstad

 
Posts: 7511
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:34 am
Location: Frederiksværk, Northern Zealand, Denmark
Thanked: 637 times in 413 posts

Postby Snidely Whiplash » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:02 pm

You don't need 100 reasons to prove AGW wrong. Just one good one. That is the old scientific method at work.

There is more than one good reason. Maybe the most compelling reason is that the lower troposphere is warming much more slowly than the surface, in fact, only about half as fast. For AGW to be happening, the opposite must be true. There is no disagreement on the divergence of these two trends. RSS and UAH both confirm less warming than the surface records. Even major supporters of AGW theory acknowledge this and have difficulty reconciling it. Usually it's just glossed over, or they come up with some flakey idea to explain it.

So it's really plain and simple. Radiative forcing cannot be the major cause of recent warming. There may be minor contributions from greenhouse gases, but it is not the major cause. QED.
User Avatar
Snidely Whiplash

 
Posts: 2506
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Seahawks Country, United States
Thanked: 642 times in 360 posts

Postby peladoboton » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:28 pm

so is the lava coming closer to the surface?

what, in the opinion of any with any knowledge on these matters, is the cause of the warming?

(me and my tundra are interested....)

:?
User Avatar
peladoboton

 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: SLC, Utah, United States
Thanked: 1056 times in 672 posts

Postby Snidely Whiplash » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:42 am

peladoboton wrote:so is the lava coming closer to the surface?

what, in the opinion of any with any knowledge on these matters, is the cause of the warming?

(me and my tundra are interested....)

:?


We are coming out of the Little Ice Age that lasted from roughly 1300-1850. It has been warming for over 300 years, with the bottom of the Little Ice Age occurring in the late 1600's. It is indeed warming, but not nearly as quickly as the doomsayers say we are. The rate of warming is not dangerous nor is it unprecedented, and was matched during the beginning of the 20th century. Sea level is not rising any faster this century than last century. It is a natural cycle, perhaps caused by solar activity, perhaps by ocean salinity/currrents, and nobody knows why, including these idiots who say the science is settled.
User Avatar
Snidely Whiplash

 
Posts: 2506
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Seahawks Country, United States
Thanked: 642 times in 360 posts

Postby dakotaconcrete » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:00 am

etsnyd wrote:
peladoboton wrote:so is the lava coming closer to the surface?

what, in the opinion of any with any knowledge on these matters, is the cause of the warming?

(me and my tundra are interested....)

:?


We are coming out of the Little Ice Age that lasted from roughly 1300-1850. It has been warming for over 300 years, with the bottom of the Little Ice Age occurring in the late 1600's. It is indeed warming, but not nearly as quickly as the doomsayers say we are. The rate of warming is not dangerous nor is it unprecedented, and was matched during the beginning of the 20th century. Sea level is not rising any faster this century than last century. It is a natural cycle, perhaps caused by solar activity, perhaps by ocean salinity/currrents, and nobody knows why, including these idiots who say the science is settled.


Proof?
User Avatar
dakotaconcrete

 
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 9:15 am
Location: Grand Junction, Colorado, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Postby Husker » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:30 am

I came late to this party and quickly skimmed the list-was there any mention of cow belching?
Husker

 
Thanked: time in post

Postby Snidely Whiplash » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:32 am

dakotaconcrete wrote:
etsnyd wrote:
peladoboton wrote:so is the lava coming closer to the surface?

what, in the opinion of any with any knowledge on these matters, is the cause of the warming?

(me and my tundra are interested....)

:?


We are coming out of the Little Ice Age that lasted from roughly 1300-1850. It has been warming for over 300 years, with the bottom of the Little Ice Age occurring in the late 1600's. It is indeed warming, but not nearly as quickly as the doomsayers say we are. The rate of warming is not dangerous nor is it unprecedented, and was matched during the beginning of the 20th century. Sea level is not rising any faster this century than last century. It is a natural cycle, perhaps caused by solar activity, perhaps by ocean salinity/currrents, and nobody knows why, including these idiots who say the science is settled.


Proof?


He didn't ask for proof. He asked for an opinion. Look at his question.
User Avatar
Snidely Whiplash

 
Posts: 2506
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Seahawks Country, United States
Thanked: 642 times in 360 posts

Postby The Chief » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:35 am

dakotaconcrete wrote:Proof?

HadCRU's (Mann) very own data....
Image
Image


"The Research Council committee found the Mann team's conclusion that warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last thousand years to be plausible, but it had less confidence that the warming was unprecedented prior to 1600; fewer proxies -- in fewer locations -- provide temperatures for periods before then. Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.

The committee noted that scientists' reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures for the past thousand years are generally consistent. The reconstructions show relatively warm conditions centered around the year 1000, and a relatively cold period, or "Little Ice Age," from roughly 1500 to 1850. The exact timing of warm episodes in the medieval period may have varied by region, and the magnitude and geographical extent of the warmth is uncertain, the committee said. None of the reconstructions indicates that temperatures were warmer during medieval times than during the past few decades, the committee added."

Source
The Chief

 
Thanked: time in post

Postby peladoboton » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:08 am

dude, i kinda want another ice age.

i would love to see all of this tree-hugging hippy crap turn out to be tree-hugging hippy crap, personally.

then i could throw an official 'make 7-up yours' at the punkass little chick in my med school class that kicked my ass in all of my classes and beat me climbing any day of the week

(she promoted all of the recycling programs in our med school, too)
User Avatar
peladoboton

 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: SLC, Utah, United States
Thanked: 1056 times in 672 posts

Postby Snidely Whiplash » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:38 pm

Commentary from Lee C. Gerhard, IPCC expert Reviewer



The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.

Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.

There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.

The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:

Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.

The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.

Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.

Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.

During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.

Contrary to many public statements:

Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.

Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms.

Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years — extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.

The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.

Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century.

The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.

Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word “ever” is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean “in the last 20 years,“ or “the last 70 years.” “Ever” means the last 4.5 billion years.
User Avatar
Snidely Whiplash

 
Posts: 2506
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:08 pm
Location: Seahawks Country, United States
Thanked: 642 times in 360 posts

Previous

Return to General

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.