Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
Chockstone Photography
Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 30 of 41. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 300 | 301 to 320 | 321 to 340 | 341 to 360 | 361 to 380 | 381 to 400 | 401 to 420 | 421 to 440 | 441 to 460 | 461 to 480 | 481 to 500 | 501 to 520 | 521 to 540 | 541 to 560 | 561 to 580 | 581 to 600 | 601 to 620 | 621 to 640 | 641 to 660 | 661 to 680 | 681 to 700 | 701 to 720 | 721 to 740 | 741 to 760 | 761 to 780 | 781 to 800 | 801 to 818
Author
OT: Skeptics vs Alarmist Cage Match unSpectacular!
R James
15-Jul-2009
10:30:19 AM
anthonyk - thanks for a good sensible response.

If we look only at a cherry picked 100 years, there was an increase from 1910 to 1940, then flat until an almost identical increase from 1970 to 2000. The problem is that the increase from 1910 to 1940 was before all the fossil fuel activity started, therefore couldn't have been caused by anthropogenic CO2 - there wasn't a significant quantity. It therefore had to be natural causes. Why, then, would we assume that the second period of increase was caused by CO2, rather than the same cause as the first period?

Next, go to a longer period - say 4,000 years. We find that the recent temperature rise is very normal, as we come out of the "little ice age". Why, then are we trying to find something to blame? The CO2 hypothesis was a reasonable possibility, but it doesn't fit the data - no signature above the tropics, current cooling, evidence that CO2 lags temperature (and so it should - as the ocean warms, CO2 comes out of solution)

Even the greenhouse theory for increased CO2 doesn't fit. The effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is logarithmic. We've already seen most of the effect - doubling CO2 doesn't double the effect. It's like painting a window black, stopping all the light. Paint it again makes next to no difference.

Now to your point about what else could cause the increase? Perhaps the same circumstances that caused the 1910 - 1940 increase, and all the others in the past when it was hotter than now eg medieval warm period (800 - 1,000), Roman warm period (200 - 100BC) etc. We're coming out of the little ice age, and warming is expected.

You mention other effects (cosmic rays). Little is known about this. In fact preliminary tests have shown that cosmic rays do influence cloud formation, but the magnitude is not well understood (IPCC also state this). The European Organisation for Nuclear Research, supported by 9 countries, is setting up an experiment to test this. Unfortunately it's a couple of years from being ready. There's no doubt that cloud cover has a huge effect on the energy reaching us - just standing in the sun when a cloud comes over tells us this. Considering that we're talking about 0.6 - 0.7 degC over 160 years, it wouldn't take much change in cloud cover. Also, water vapour is the main greenhouse gas, and its concentration varies all over the place.

Throw in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, sunspot activity, orbital changes, underwater active volcanos (,5,000 known). We just don't know enough all about these.

Then there's the problem of feedback. There's no question of increased CO2 causing direct significant temperature increase. The scientists agree the magnitude is small. What isn't agreed is whether we then experience negative or positive feedback. For example, higher temperature means melting of ice caps, therefore more heat absorbed. But it also means more cloud formation, and therefore more cooling, making it self regulating. We've never experienced thermal runaway in the past when CO2 and temperature has been higher, so why should we expect it now?

This is the problem with the IPCC models - they assume positive feedback will dominate, even though history tells us otherwise.

I'm not happy blindly accepting the CO2 hypothesis while all these questions are unanswered. If the models match some real data, I'd feel a lot more confident about the hypothesis. To me, it remains nothing more than an hypothesis, with little to support it.

foreverabumbly
15-Jul-2009
11:59:56 AM
On 15/07/2009 evanbb wrote:
>Oh and back to the religion point briefly. Religion is based on belief,
>and has no real basis in the scientific argument. Our own (quite poor really)
>scientific argument shows that the answer is not obvious nor easily grasped.
>So, belief comes into it. But, I don't 'believe' in the science; it's the
>response that involves belief.
>
Well, no Evan. Religion is not based on belief.

You can believe in FairyWinkles, but religion is based on Faith, the two are VERY different. A norrow minded belief on either side of the CC fence is NOT the same as being a religious person.

So lets steer clear of the backhanded comments about the 2000 year old book Vs facts comment a while back - and keep religion out of whats supposed to be a scientific arguement about human influenced climate trends.

evanbb
15-Jul-2009
12:13:02 PM
On 15/07/2009 foreverabumbly wrote:
>whats supposed to be a scientific arguement about human influenced climate trends.

At no stage has this been a debate. You need to listen in debates, and there's been none of that going on. Well, maybe some listening, but closely followed by a lot of ignoring.

I'm concentrating now on illustrating the futility of this whole thread. A bunch of climbing nerds debating something that most of the world moved on from 20 years ago.

GravityHound
15-Jul-2009
12:13:20 PM
On 15/07/2009 foreverabumbly wrote:
>Well, no Evan. Religion is not based on belief.
>
>You can believe in FairyWinkles, but religion is based on Faith, the two
>are VERY different.

Just to stir the pot because I am bored......

Definitions of 'faith' from the internet (because I couldn't be bothered typing one out from the dictionary).

* an institution to express belief in a divine power
* a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
* a Japanese vocalist on Hyde's third solo album
* a bipedal female dog, born in December 2002 with only three legs





foreverabumbly
15-Jul-2009
12:19:37 PM
On 15/07/2009 GravityHound wrote:

>* a bipedal female dog, born in December 2002 with only three legs


Thats it exactly!!!!

I knew others would understand.

foreverabumbly
15-Jul-2009
12:21:30 PM
On 15/07/2009 evanbb wrote:

>At no stage has this been a debate. You need to listen in debates, and
>there's been none of that going on. Well, maybe some listening, but closely
>followed by a lot of ignoring.
>
well, when you put it like that. Thats what 'debates' on religion tend to be as well, from both sides.

IdratherbeclimbingM9
15-Jul-2009
2:52:17 PM
HehXchortle

anthonyk
15-Jul-2009
4:55:37 PM
On 15/07/2009 R James wrote:

I think we've been over this stuff before. in short there are natural explanations for early 20th C warming but human CO2 is the best explanation for late 20th C temperature variations. we're getting into a discussion of how much effect each part has, not just whether they're present or not, and there's only so much we can really say about that.

the models are complicated, they do take into account all known solar, volcanic and other forcings, and I don't think you can come up with a better argument just by looking at numbers and forming your own opinions, you really do need a phd in it. there are plenty of people who do who are willing to give varying opinions and give it a critical look, and the conclusions really do point consistently to ACC. sorry i don't want to spend any more time picking over DIY climate science, there does come a point where it gets beyond comparing a few charts on the internet.

GravityHound
16-Jul-2009
8:26:14 AM
Wow! Magnitude 7.8 earthquake off the coast of NZ. Tsunami warnings were put out and what happened - absolutely nothing. I am so sick of those tsunami alarmists! Tsunami this, tsunami that. Worst of all, other than boxing day tsunami, the numbers of actual tsunami's have dropped. One bad event and suddenly everybody is on the bandwagon......

They reckon that the data collected from this event will go to building a better model so alerts can be tailored better,,,,and they call themselves scientists. Those models need to be perfect! What is the point of getting people to take evasive action when they are not in any danger whatsoever. A waste of energy and money.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/tsunami-alert-after-nz-earthquake-20090715-dlj8.html

ajfclark
16-Jul-2009
8:31:27 AM
That's made my morning. Well done.

evanbb
16-Jul-2009
9:01:49 AM
On 16/07/2009 GravityHound wrote:
>Wow! Magnitude 7.8 earthquake off the coast of NZ.

Very interesting as well. 7.8 is a big quake, plenty big enough to make a tsunami. I guess the thing they can't tell from seismic data is the sort of slip that occurred, which will greatly affect the chances of a big wave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthquakes

A side slip def won't cause a tsunami, a thrust should almost always, and a normal fault is a possible.

I'd love to see a tsunami rushing up a beach. From a safe distance mind you.

ajfclark
16-Jul-2009
9:13:34 AM
I was watching a doco the other day about the boxing day tsunamis and they mentioned that the different fault movements also caused different types of tsunamis. A thrust didn't produce the characteristic sucking back of the ocean while a subsidence did. So in some places they saw the water go out before rushing back in and others they got no warning at all, the sea just suddenly rose a few metres. Very interesting and scary stuff.

evanbb
21-Jul-2009
9:23:55 AM
I've been chuckling at this all morning:
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/downloads/NinequestionsMembershipEmail.pdf


It gets better!

The guy who runs the party Leon Ashby has some, ah, differing views from the mainstream:
"Despite it being commonsense that our more brittle environments need grazers to keep the carbon (vegetable matter) cycling properly, our parks are becoming fire bombs and gradually less fertile due to the unscientific and nonsensical approach our government departments adhere to."

Terrific stuff. really brightened my day.

billk
21-Jul-2009
11:36:53 AM
On 21/07/2009 evanbb wrote:
>I've been chuckling at this all morning:
>http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/downloads/NinequestionsMembershipEmail.pdf
>

I'm waiting for some moon landing skeptics to come out of the woodwork, seeing as it is the 40th anniversary. Or maybe they are too busy with their climate change skepticism public service.

evanbb
21-Jul-2009
11:53:55 AM
On 21/07/2009 billk wrote:
>I'm waiting for some moon landing skeptics to come out of the woodwork,


You can't prove they landed on the moon!
widewetandslippery
21-Jul-2009
12:23:00 PM
Yes you can. Pray to God. HE will tell you HE lives on the dark side of the moon and controls the universe from there. HE will also tell you that HE does bless america and thats why he invited them up there.
egosan
21-Jul-2009
12:32:09 PM
You folks laugh at WWS. I speak as an American and I learned in elementary school that
God does indeed live on the moon in a double wide attached to his fake dinosaur bone
factory. Further he told Buzz and Neil to invest in Microsoft, because they are the
Blessed.

evanbb
21-Jul-2009
12:41:21 PM
On 21/07/2009 egosan wrote:
>You folks laugh at WWS. I speak as an American and I learned in elementary
>school that God does indeed live on the moon in a double wide attached to his fake
>dinosaur bone factory. Further he told Buzz and Neil to invest in Microsoft, because
>they are the Blessed.

What's a double wide? Otherwise that makes perfect sense to me.

I've heard it argued that a problem of a big democracy is that it perpetuates the idea that all points of view are valid. Generate enough people with that in their mind and there's potential for some pretty awesome results.

widewetandslippery
21-Jul-2009
1:08:35 PM
Sure you've seen an eclipse? That ring around the moon is God refecting off the sun. God created US in his image and thats why we humans love mooning (and lighting farts).

ajfclark
21-Jul-2009
1:11:00 PM
On 21/07/2009 evanbb wrote:
>What's a double wide?

A double wide is a category of mobile home.

 Page 30 of 41. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 300 | 301 to 320 | 321 to 340 | 341 to 360 | 361 to 380 | 381 to 400 | 401 to 420 | 421 to 440 | 441 to 460 | 461 to 480 | 481 to 500 | 501 to 520 | 521 to 540 | 541 to 560 | 561 to 580 | 581 to 600 | 601 to 620 | 621 to 640 | 641 to 660 | 661 to 680 | 681 to 700 | 701 to 720 | 721 to 740 | 741 to 760 | 761 to 780 | 781 to 800 | 801 to 818
There are 818 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints