Reply With Quote
thanks doc, I feel much better
thanks doc, I feel much better
The US taking any meaningful action is a nonstarter. On the bright side, I'll have plenty to research in the coming decades.
Well, this thread still provides a great example of a large misunderstanding of basic thermodynamics.
This forum is a mass demonstration of willful ignorance and cognitive bias. The amount of rampant anti-intellectualism here is among the worst I have ever encountered on any forums I visit.
OK Professor, where does that extra heat go that the oceans absorb? The land returns it out to space rather quickly, compared to the oceans. Light travels how deep in sea water?
Worth reading
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...2011BAMS3139.1
Good read, but the true believers like Manny will dismiss it.
Sorry, Deniers, Study of “True Global Warming Signal” Finds “Remarkably Steady” Rate of Manmade Warming Since 1979
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...nmade-warming/
this fall and winter so far has been the warmest I can remember of life.
i know...not saying much.
AGW or not, our economy would be arguably better off if we take steps to limit our CO2 emissions.
At this point, curbing our use of fossil fuels is win/win.
Win because our economy is better off, and win because we mitigate the risk of monkeying with our climate in ways we don't fully understand.
nobody's seriously talking about atmospheric engineering, only limiting the emission of CO2 (for now)
"wish AGW was real to the extent claimed. Then we could make a better planet."
The planet was fine, with normal oscillations in atmospheric conditions, until 19th century when man started burning coal for heating and industry, and the population exploded. Until then, there was no need to "make a better planet" (what a strange phrase)
Keep in mind that the nature of exponential growth means that the next 10-25 years will see as much CO2 emitted from burning fuels as from our entire history up to now.
If CO2 is really the driving force that climate scientists claim it probably is, the indications will only get stronger.
In that case, the denial will get harder and harder to maintain, like the cigarette companies' denial that their products are bad for you.
Deniers don't care about about "indications". There are more than sufficient, and very convicing "indications" from different scientific disciplines from around the world going back decades.
The Repugs and the UCA corps with vested interest in denying don't respond to, admit "inconvenient" facts. They are irrational and anti-scientific. They have only ideologies, which are dictated and financed by the UCA's objective of maintaining and increasing its wealth.
We already saw with the dubya Repugs that up was down, black was white, war is peace, etc. They have realized they can tell any lies to create a false reality that panders to ignorant bubbas, "Christians", xenophobes, racists, etc.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-26-2011 at 07:36 PM.
OK professor, just how do we distinguish that the warming is man made rather than natural?
Please... tell us how you eliminated all the natural components.
I didn't see how they eliminated the lag time of the oceans movement.
Why?
Relax your thoughts for a moment and consider the possibility that CO2 only has 10% to 20% the warming claimed. That other forced man made and natural are the bulk of the warming we see. Under this possibility, isn't the extra CO2 as a necessary plant growth nutrient a plus?
What if all the problems the true believers attribute to CO2 is actually from the increase in solar energy from 1700 to 1800, 1900 to 1950, and the soot put out by Asia falling on the northern ice cap and Greenland?
What if you are wrong?
I don't know where you live, but where I live, it has so much to do with how the jet stream patterns change. i expected a colder than normal winter, but the jet stream has been coming out of Canada east of the Rockies rather than west.
Wrong about what exactly?
One would have to quantify the dollar value of increased crop yields per unit of CO2. Balanced out by the simple biological fact that any appreciable extra growth will require more water and fertilizer. My understanding is that the marginal benefit of extra CO2 is fairly tiny, if nothing else changes, so I would imagine the economic impact would be based on the biological one.
Feel free to quantify it, i.e. X amount of extra CO2 means Y amount of extra yield, all other things held equal.
Of course if we are using less oil for fuel fertilizer will get a tad cheaper, so it isn't all bad.
I don't see anything changing the underlying trend lines of cheaper renewables and more expensive fossil fuels.
Do you think I am wrong about technological innovation and economy of scale making renewables cheaper over time?
Do you think I am wrong about the mathmatical certainty of the exhaustion of oil supplies?
You're soaking in it , Madge.
(waves at as yet undiscovered sources)
drill here, drill now!
That is a probability, but we cannot accurately predict when, nor should we force the natural trend.
Not at all. I have said as much myself. I just will not get caught up with the unnecessary panic over Global Warming. The only things we can make a difference with are not being addressed. Instead, agenda is driving the way.
Not at all. If you have actually kept up with my points over the years, I agree oil will become hard to extract at any reasonable price. Again, time is the uncertain factor. Not "IF," but "When!"
On one hand saying that we cant quantify and eliminate sources while claiming a specific source is some interesting logic.
I've only seen you repeat what you are spoon-fed. I never see you explain GW in your own words which leads me to believe you don't understand the sciences behind it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
