Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
Cog wrote:Actually I'm baiting you to make any sort of prediction, certainty or not. Next year, ten years, 100 years, take your pick.
dohboi wrote:More bs from vt. Why don't you give it a rest. Or read up a bit on what is known as 'scientific reticence.'
If anything, scientists are constantly understating how dire things are.
kiwichick wrote:@ v....how many reports on climate change have you noted recently which say that the position is better than the scientists observing the changes thought it was going to be
dohboi wrote:The guy's just proving he has no respect for any scientist or for what they say.
So no amount of scientific evidence is ever going to persuade him
Time to move on.
Time to move on.
But seriously no scientist ( good or bad) ever writes up a paper with negative results with the exception of Grad students that got a loser of a thesis project.
The risk was uncovered by Yale University scientist Wei Liu, who has calculated in a study published in Science Advances that the AMOC could collapse within 300 years once atmospheric carbon dioxide increases to 710 parts per million. Last week’s levels were 405 parts per million. There is already evidence that the AMOC has slowed, according to the paper. A shutdown would trigger “prominent cooling” of the northern North Atlantic and a “remarkable sea ice expansion,” according to Wei’s model. In addition, the normal rain belt of the temperate areas would be pushed significantly southward over the tropical Atlantic.
onlooker wrote:But seriously no scientist ( good or bad) ever writes up a paper with negative results with the exception of Grad students that got a loser of a thesis project.
V, seriously? Scientists will write what the data and facts warrant they write. I am not even sure what you mean by negative. The truth is NOT negative , it has been and always will be the way we humans can make correct decisions.
The source of the story about Edison trying thousands of experiments or materials is probably an 1890 interview in Harper's Monthly Magazine:
"'I speak without exaggeration when I say that I have constructed three thousand different theories in connection with the electric light, each one of them reasonable and apparently to be true. Yet only in two cases did my experiments prove the truth of my theory. My chief difficulty, as perhaps you know, was in constructing the carbon filament, the incandescence of which is the source of the light. Every quarter of the globe was ransacked by my agents, and all sorts of the queerest materials were used, until finally the shred of bamboo now utilized was settled upon. Even now,' Mr. Edison continued, 'I am still at work nearly every day on the lamp, and quite lately I have devised a method of supplying sufficient current to fifteen lamps with one horse-power. Formerly ten lamps per horse-power was the extreme limit.'"
onlooker wrote:Your comparing apples and oranges V. In the case of Edison it was about an invention that could potentially make much money, so obviously you want to display a working model and something that does work In the case of global warming it is an ongoing process which we continue to make worse so obviously we want the straight honest facts so we can gauge the risk level and act accordingly
Newfie wrote:I don't know what you are talking about VT. It seems to me pretty damn obvious we currently have significant changes that can be verified by the Mk I eyeball. The breaking up of the Arctic and Antarctc ice is about all the proof I need.
Users browsing this forum: Squilliam and 4 guests