Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 12:52pm PT
|
no it isn't consistent with CAGW by a long shot.
Your problem is that you have no idea about that because you still can't understand any of the science so you neither understand the AGW theory or the paper.
There is actually a wikipedia page that gives the context of the paper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_fraction
So the paper says that when using "curve fitting" nothing suggest that the CO2 from human causes that ends up in the atmosphere is still around 45%. The CO2 sinks that corresponds to the other 55% is still not full.
So the extra CO2 in the atmosphere (above the level for the say 150 years ago) is still due to human activity.
Your twisting interpretation and mincing words Phule.
No, you are the one that can't understand the concept in the paper.
And yes I can see partial validation of my points in all referenced papers.
Yes, I am sure that you can see validation of you points in every paper every written because that is the only thing that you try to do. To find things that you believe fit your world view.
Climate science has a long, long way to go, and only through much more consideration and quantification of natural climate change processes can it ever hope to achieve any accuracy in prediction.
It is more like rick sumner has a very long way to go before he could even start to understand climate science.
That Frölicher paper were actually quite interesting because it is clear that you think it says something completely different than it actually does.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 12:56pm PT
|
Standard scripted CAGW responses- you cant possibly understand the witch doctors as it takes special powers only granted by the church to devine meaning from their words. This is why you idiots are losing the propaganda war. The public is more aware than you give credit for and insults only reinforce what they already know. LOL
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 01:01pm PT
|
Standard scripted CAGW responses- you cant possibly understand the witch doctors as it takes special powers only granted by the church to devine meaning from their words. This is why you idiots are losing the propaganda war. The public is more aware than you give credit for and insults only reinforce what they already know. LOL
If you at least a single time could show that you understood something. Can you even solve ax+b=c? Did you have any idea of the meaning of airborne fraction?
It is actually a fact that you need knowledge about some basic concepts to be able to understand science in the same way that you cant build a house if you cant swing a hammer.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 01:04pm PT
|
For sketch's bullshit:
Until there is a dramatic shift in public sentiment, nothing is going to happen.
(and as long as there are media organizations like the Fux at Fox distorting the facts there will be no shift)
How do we shift public sentiment?
(you start trying to understand wtf you are talking about before spouting off with your ignorant misinterpretation of the science and you start listening to those who have spent their LIVES studying the subject instead of people like Rick the siding guy who doesn't know jack sh#t about shit)
For the last 10-15 years, the message has been about gloom and doom, end of the World scaremongering.
(ah, yes, those community supported agriculture projects and push for conservation are all about fear and the end of the world... as opposed to all the light and happy reporting on war and terrorism and the like that dominate the same "news" programs that call AGW a "hoax")
The messengers have bent over backwards trying to avoid admitting they messed up. It's all about defending the faith.
(bullshit)
Have a more honest dialogue about the science, instead of constantly trying to disqualify the critics.
(idiot)
Foot in mouth, and head up as#@&%e.
Whatcha talkin' 'bout?
Difficult to dance 'round this one
'til you pull it out, boy!
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 02:13pm PT
|
Ponder this Dingleberry while your on the road or in the air in the practice of your career; what will be the impact to your life and ability to support yourself should the more radical elements of the CAGW Industry actually implement their agenda? Will it make any meaningful improvements to forestall their hyped doom scenarios or will it just negatively impact you, your family and all you know. Then take your math skills and reading comprehension to the above posted paper and see if the limited equations contradicts the verbiage. Either way it points to problems the industry triestheir best to ignore and hide. Of course you wont do that, so why bother claiming you are straddling the fence. Eh Dingus?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 02:16pm PT
|
yeah Dingus....
but back to basics:
apologize for lying, Rick Sumner
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 02:27pm PT
|
While perusing the paper that Rick posted and suggested that I read, I came across this page, which has a good overview of the climate and other earth systems.
NCAR/UCAR is a trustworthy source on matters concerning earth science, particularly earth science:
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/gcip/m4bgchem/m4overview.html
This is a nice primer, and it isn't political or one sided. Just science.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 02:39pm PT
|
So Rick when asked to explain one concept start to talk about the solutions that he doesn't like and how people should read the article with his political glasses on.
It really seems strange if Rick doesn't understand that he is a closed minded sheep that only base his opinion about the science on his political views.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 02:42pm PT
|
My phone won't allow me to.open another window Base. Im running from one end of the valley here to the other expediting materials, cleaning up, and doing dump runs till sundown. So it will be
Just the choir here to devine meaning in your link. Thanks
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 02:58pm PT
|
New Thread POLL:
Should Norton stop demanding that Rick Sumner apologize for lying about errors in data?
YES
NO
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 03:39pm PT
|
My god Ed, translation please? Is it relevant to life on Earth or just another gobbledy gook ploy for increased funding to "enhance further studies to establish the parameters of this promising field of study that has important Implications for mass wasting of public funds". Got to hand it to you professor, you do have a sense of humor.
EDIT: Norton I vote no. Does that mean if I lose and refuse to apologize I am banished from the tribe?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 06:01pm PT
|
EDIT: Norton I vote no. Does that mean if I lose and refuse to apologize I am banished from the tribe?
thank you for your vote, Rick
I see you voted no, which means that you feel I should continue posting that you apologize for lying about any errors in the data
thus, since your vote counts a great deal, I shall then continue to demand your apology
thank you for contributing to this weighted poll
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 07:21pm PT
|
and now with polling completed.....
Rick Sumner, apologize to all of us on this thread and your god for lying
hint, if and when you admit you were wrong and lied, I shall stop demanding apology
only YOU, Rick Sumner, can put an end to this
hint: I have tremendous stamina and am prepared to make you go to confession
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 08:27pm PT
|
Upon further review ,quote of the day goes to Mechrist,
"The atmospheric effects of major volcanoes MIGHT last a decade... and results in COOLING. So, wtf does that have to do with the observed warming trend?"
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 27, 2014 - 09:11pm PT
|
"mmmmm. hazelnut."
Now that is friggin' funny.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 09:17pm PT
|
<While the attitude [of over consumption]is stubbornly ingrained, the solution to your "perceived climate doom" is well underway here in North America. We've increased efficiency in our power generation, vehicles, housing and office space, etc. extensively over the last few decades.>
Some of that is true, but Much of the improvement in NA emissions is accidental. We were the world leader in rejecting Kyoto, instead of focusing on how to later improve it. We took a hiatus on vehicle efficiency standards for 25 years. Only in the past few years did action restart. Except now we have 25 years worth of gas guzzlers on the road, which will take a long time to replace, and many will hesitate since they don't care to get in a collision with a Suburban. And we have 30 years of sprawl development based on constant car travel for every need, which is very hard to undo. What actions we are taking have been loudly opposed by many.
<NG is supplanting coal for power generation>
That is because fracking allowed cheaper NG energy. It is not due to a concerted effort to reduce CO2, and does not somehow make us a world leader. We had the most room for improvement; many countries were already much more efficient.
<and if the attitude's of radical environmental lobby will allow increased nuclear and well designed hydro then our emissions will be well below the targets.>
It's not the environmentalists who shutdown San Onofre; it is the incompetence of Southern Cal Edison. Decentralized competitive power is a better source than guaranteed monopolies.
There are no big opportunities for new traditional hydro, only adding small reservoirs for pumped hydro, whose purpose is to balance green energy such as wind and solar.
-
"How do we shift public sentiment? One path is to change the message. For the last 10-15 years, the message has been about gloom and doom, end of the World scaremongering. These messages have lost credibility, especially since warming seems to have paused....What's a better message? I'm not sure. Maybe make it's about something in the near future, not 100 years down the road. Have a more honest dialogue about the science, instead of constantly trying to disqualify the critics."
Denialism is big because media pretends that there is a credible reason to be a skeptic, even though the skeptics are irrational. It is the denialists who continue to warp the media discussion. You can't blame scientists for faux news, alec, kochbros, etc.
It is quite clear from all models that the early part of change/warming will be not be as obvious as the bigger changes to follow, which will be harder to reverse. The early years are the the easiest for denialists to discount, but are the best time to change our policies.
"Let's say 80% of the industrialized world is on board... Clean coal? What's that? It may not be clean. But it's much better than the status quo. What to do about China et al? How about huge carbon tariffs? Until there's a major plan to reduce CO2 levels... until that happens, we're just pissin' in the wind."
I tend to agree that will remain our logic. We will blame China, just as we did with Kyoto, when really we just want big air conditioned homes, big cars, and cheap power. In a separate reality where we were leaders instead of excuse makers, we could have started with one step 20 years ago, and been working on the 4th step by now, each time insisting that all economies in the WTO follow. An evolutionary process similar to nuclear arms treaties, to avoid too much unilateral action like the EU or California.
(side note- clean coal does not exist, it is not feasible to store the CO2 exhaust, even more energy intensive than tar sands)
"what will be the impact to your life? Will it make any meaningful improvements to forestall their hyped doom scenarios or will it just negatively impact you?"
Hmm, Only yesterday you were proclaiming how much we have already done to reduce emissions. Just because a cost/benefit calculation will not be exact does not make it wrong. Often the new costs are more clear than the benefits and avoided costs, which are based on trends, time, & probabilities. It's hard to calculate the avoided cost and probability of widespread coastal flooding, people + infrastucture displaced, disrupted ecosystems, countless extinct species, lost agriculture, fisheries, freshwater, etc. But there is an entire field of study about the subject. Traditionally migration is how people dealt with climate and resource changes, but that was a lot easier with under 1 billion rural people than it is with the 8 billion of 2027 -est.
The richest people will be able to buy their way out by moving to new resources, abandoning most who will be barred at the gate. Would climate change be fine as long as we can externalize most of the costs onto Bangladesh and arid tropical zones?
More reading but a summary is: The expected cost of inaction is higher than the cost of a coordinated cut in warming gases.
Expected cost = Sum of all (outcomes x likelihood).
ipcc-wg2.gov/njlite_download.php?id=6399 > see executive summary
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~walker/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Tol2009.pdf
> not all recent, but a good summary of the subject.
http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Pindyk-Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf > read the conclusion
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/threats-impacts/economic-loss-and-damage.xml
http://climatenexus.org/resources/ipcc-working-group-ii/#future
http://www.c2es.org/publications/workshop-proceedings-assessing-benefits-avoided-climate-change
http://www.theccc.org.uk/blog/is-climate-change-a-global-benefit/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2014 - 09:18pm PT
|
I assume all you scholars have had a chance to peruse the Froelicher paper and have no objection to its topic of study, methods, and conclusions other than what you think I see in the paper, is that correct? Let's give a little longer for any latecomers to weigh in. Splater, I dont see the inconsistency in my statements as we do not have China ( the biggest emitter ) , other industrializing nations, and large parts of the old soviet bloc on board and short of war will not, so our reductions make little difference. As far as San Onofre agreed, but im talking of new nuclear properly placed. Finally, their are vast opportunities for small and mico scale hydro without environmental damage
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!