• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

sailordeac said:
I think this was your original request. I have already provided two, and there is more where those came from.
Click to expand...

Good try, good effort. One 22 year old paper and one commentary with numerous factual errors. Color me convinced.
 
birdman said:
Do I really need to read past the publication date of this paper? It was 22 years ago. At that time many ornithologists still thought that the idea that birds were evolved from dinosaurs was controversial.
Click to expand...

Dude, dinosaurs didn't have wings, wtf are you talking about
 
Christ, I've been posting on this thread for years, explaining how things work because it is my job to study and understand climate science, and talk with scientists, so that good policy can be made. We don't make good policy because the politics get in the way, and the politics get in the way because the largest, most profitable companies on Earth have done an impressively good job of doing just what this thread shows - making real science divisive because if you can divide people, they will never allow themselves to be convinced by the other side. Inaction results, and inaction benefits the status quo.

So just two things.

Yes, 0.8º of temperature rise in 100 years is a lot in a short amount of time, and it coincides with a huge increase in greenhouse gases, and the greenhouse effect is a pretty simple scientific concept, all things considered. 0.8º means changes, and humans don't adapt all that well over 100 years. We invent very well over 100 years, we just don't adapt. Why do you think we still have thousands of nuclear weapons?

Regarding the polar vortex, read this: https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-polar-vortex-1.4998820

Now be big boys and girls and be willing to admit that you might be wrong.
 
quit moving the goalposts, people will think that you are acting in bad faith

but if you really want more, you'll get more

(although you might have to wait till morning, it's almost midnight here)
 
birdman said:
Do I really need to read past the publication date of this paper? It was 22 years ago. At that time many ornithologists still thought that the idea that birds were evolved from dinosaurs was controversial.
Click to expand...

Bird, the person who wrote the article is a proven liar and whore. If Richard Lindzen tells you today is Friday, there has been a change in the calendar.

Take the position with sailor that you can't take anything seriously written by a person who testified to Congress, under oath, that cigarettes aren't harmful to your health.

If you pay Richard Lindzen enough, he will write a "paper" stating that the Earth is flat and the Sun rotates around the Earth.
 
sailordeac said:
quit moving the goalposts, people will think that you are acting in bad faith

but if you really want more, you'll get more

(although you might have to wait till morning, it's almost midnight here)
Click to expand...

OK even though birdman believes that birds are descendants of dinosaurs (I mean, LOL AMIRITE), I'll defend him here: there has been no goalpost moving. Our resident avian enthusiast, deluded as he may be, asked you to provide hard scientific studies that prove the point you're trying to make, which I believe is that climate science has a larger than believed uncertainty and therefore us liberals are dumb. You posted two links. One is over 20 years old was written by a man who hasn't written a peer-reviewed article in nearly a decade was hired by the strongly conservative (with regards to environmental policy) Cato Institute to prove that public interest in climate change caused bias towards the scientific consensus. Almost anyone who is trying to use scientific studies knows that article is not at the highest tier of peer-reviewed science in 2019. I have not had a chance to read the other, but I will because I believe in operating in good faith, something you frequently fail to abide by, though you seemingly desire it from everyone else. But even if that article is what you claim it is, you have still provided one article in a field where hundreds of studies have occurred, which does not prove uncertainty.

But again, no goalposts were moved, you just haven't provided what was asked of you and are now trying to deflect. So either do better or don't, but don't cry about it.
 
One more thing - I've yet to see a country go bankrupt because it began transitioning it's electricity grid to renewable energy. I can give you at least 2 examples (South Africa, Indonesia) of countries who have flirted with sovereign default because they guaranteed fossil fuel projects that came up short, until China swoops in and trades a couple billion for control of a national grid or other nationalized energy asset.
 
Lectro is a fucking moron. Sailor has turned into one because his brain has devolved into gelatin.

ETA that birdman gets all the props for taking the time to teabag those to dipshits in a fairly kind way.
 
BaseballBoomhauer said:
One more thing - I've yet to see a country go bankrupt because it began transitioning it's electricity grid to renewable energy. I can give you at least 2 examples (South Africa, Indonesia) of countries who have flirted with sovereign default because they guaranteed fossil fuel projects that came up short, until China swoops in and trades a couple billion for control of a national grid or other nationalized energy asset.
Click to expand...
Even if it turns out that solar activity negates our C02 output and the earth cools, what is the worse thing that is going to happen by switching to renewable energy sources? Our earth is less polluted and we foster new technologies and innovations while letting aging industry die? Seems ok to me.
 
BaseballBoomhauer said:
One more thing - I've yet to see a country go bankrupt because it began transitioning it's electricity grid to renewable energy. I can give you at least 2 examples (South Africa, Indonesia) of countries who have flirted with sovereign default because they guaranteed fossil fuel projects that came up short, until China swoops in and trades a couple billion for control of a national grid or other nationalized energy asset.
Click to expand...

And this ^ children is why you don’t smoke crack..
 
WFcatamount22 said:
Even if it turns out that solar activity negates our C02 output and the earth cools, what is the worse thing that is going to happen by switching to renewable energy sources? Our earth is less polluted and we foster new technologies and innovations while letting aging industry die? Seems ok to me.
Click to expand...

This really has always been my thought. The only reason we don’t is the rich oil companies (et al) line the pockets of politicians and spend money to squash small renewable energy companies. It makes no sense to be still using coal for god’s sake. No advancement since the 1800s...give me a fucking break.
 
birdman said:
Do I really need to read past the publication date of this paper? It was 22 years ago. At that time many ornithologists still thought that the idea that birds were evolved from dinosaurs was controversial.
Click to expand...

Lol sailor. Good try good effort.

You and Lectro have outkkcked your coverage.
 
or, you might try this one:

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/GC/article/view/2691/3113

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

28 At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. The two scenarios are likely not even mutually exclusive, but a prioritization may result in different relative impact. Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge. Should the celestial alternative prevail, the chain of reasoning for potential human impact may deviate from that of the standard IPCC model, because the strongest impact may be indirect, via the formation of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN). The CRF-generated positive and negative ions combine, within minutes, into electrically neutral aerosols, but only if the two ions are large enough. The required size of these "cluster ions" is reached by addition of atmospheric molecules, particularly sulphuric acid. Since H2SO4 is highly hygroscopic, it attracts also water molecules. In this way, the ~30-100 nm large CCN required as precursors for droplets can potentially be generated (Carslaw et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2003). Thus, sulphur compounds (and perhaps dust, soot and secondary particles, which are formed by condensation of low vapour-pressure gases) could play a major role in this seeding process. In the northern hemisphere, the precursor of sulphuric acid, sulphur dioxide gas, originates mostly from anthropogenic activities, but natural sources, such as volcanic eruptions or DMS from marine plankton, are also substantial.
Click to expand...

Although the role of clouds is not well understood (IPCC, 2001), it appears that the upper tropospheric clouds warm, while the lower clouds, such as those potentially generated by the above CRF seeded processes, cool the climate. In such a scenario, the impact of pollution, if indeed significant, could even potentially result in global cooling (Carslaw et al., 2002) instead of global warming, similar to the IPCC chain of reasoning that is invoked as an explanation for the 1940-1976 cooling trend (Fig. 14d). In addition, we would have to deal not with a global issue of atmospheric CO2, but with large regional phenomena, because it is these that control the dispersion of aerosols, sulphur and nitrogen compounds. We are not yet in a situation where quantitative projections of this impact on climate can be provided (Schwartz, 2004). Indeed, we do not even know if it is at all globally significant, equal to any potential warming generated by CO2, or much larger. In any case, the strategy that emphasizes reduction of human emissions is sound for both the celestial and the CO2 alternative. Nevertheless, this strategy can be pursued in two ways. It can be based on global reduction of CO2, because this would result also in collateral reduction of particulates, sulphur and nitrogen compounds. These are not only potential climate drivers, but also pollutants and their reduction will improve our air quality, regardless of the climate impact of otherwise environmentally benign CO2. At current atmospheric levels, CO2 is in fact an essential commodity for propagation of life on this planet. Any remedial measures based on the global CO2 scenario are also costly. For the celestial alternative, the remedial measures may focus directly on the "collateral" pollutants, which could potentially result in a substantial reduction of the economic cost to mankind. However, the decision as to the best strategy is not a simple prerogative of science, but must also take into account political, economic and social considerations.
Click to expand...
 
a cautionary tale, well worth reading:

https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress....global-warming-research-by-syun-ichi-akasofu/

Although the media often reports that the IPCC conclusion is based on the “consensus of 2500 world experts,â€? there are perhaps not more than a few hundred genuine climatologists in the world. A large number of the participating IPCC scientists are basically meteorologists, whose study areas are physical processes of weather phenomena, not necessarily weather forecasting; their main scientific interests do not include understanding climate change that has occurred in the past. There is also a large group of scientists in the IPCC study group whose primary expertise is in computer modeling.

Meteorologists identify and provide to the modeling groups the presently known climate forcing functions, such as the greenhouse effect, effects of solar output changes, and volcanic effects. Based on this input, modelers attempt to simulate climate change during the last 100 years. They simulate climate change based on the known forcing functions under the assumption that the computer is programmed to accommodate all the basic elements of weather/climate processes. For this particular reason, they also run their models without the known forcing functions and interpret what the computer output gives as “natural changeâ€?. However, this interpretation of the computer output is doubtful and is perhaps incorrect.
Click to expand...

As mentioned earlier, it is important to recognize that studying any period of climate change, including the present warming, belongs to climatology, more than meteorology. A serious defect of the present IPCC approach is that it does not pay much attention to the possible presence of natural changes, which are so obvious as one examines climate changes even during the last several hundred years. This is simply because, by training, the participating meteorologists do not know how to deal with forcing functions of unknown natural causes; some of them may believe that all the forcing functions are well understood. Nature is far more complex than they seem to be willing to admit.
Click to expand...
 
Lectro said:
And this ^ children is why you don’t smoke crack..
Click to expand...

Really great argument. Backs up my earlier post about division making people unable to even consider the other side.

Germany is a good example. They've grown renewables and plan to phase out coal fired power by 2038 at the latest. They have very high electricity prices and yet their economy is chugging along quite nicely.
 
BaseballBoomhauer said:
Really great argument. Backs up my earlier post about division making people unable to even consider the other side.

Germany is a good example. They've grown renewables and plan to phase out coal fired power by 2038 at the latest. They have very high electricity prices and yet their economy is chugging along quite nicely.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should think again. Germany may not be the best poster child for switching to renewables and reducing carbon footprint.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesc...asing-germanys-carbon-emissions/#653a763768e1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top