Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Global Warming / Climate Change is Hoax pt 10

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 00:45:07

Dissident correctly stated the science of CC is deterministic not stochastic


OH dear…please tell all of these scientists what they are doing is completely wrong…you can’t apply a probability distribution to climate variables and resulting outcomes…its just wrong, dissident says so!

SEMENOV, M.A. & BARROW, E.M., 1997. Use of a Stochastic weather generator in the development of climate change scenarios. Climatic Change 35: 397. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005342632279

Wilks, D.S. , 1992. Adapting stochastic weather generation algorithms for climate change studies, Climatic Change 22: 67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143344

Sigourous, et al, 2018. Statistical and stochastic comparison of climate change vs urbanization. 20th EGU General Assembly, Proceedings. P 18608

Caccamo, M. T and Magazu, S, 2019. A physical-mathematical approach to climate change effects through stochastic resonance. Climate, 7(2), 21; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli7020021

Proistosescu, C et al, 2018. Radiative feedbacks from stochastic variablility in surface temperature and radiative imbalance. Geoph Res Lett,  
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077678

Hagos, S et al, 2018. A stochastic framework for modeling the population dynamics of convective clouds. Journal of Advance in Modeling Earth Sciences,  
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001214

Dissident wrote "Accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to fundamental climate change. " 
They're is nothing ambiguous about that or undetermined


Perhaps you need to reread what I said. My comment is that nobody argues that greenhouse gases do not have any effect, the main uncertainty is in how much. This is well established by the widespread of ECS and TCS in the recent literature.

Image

In case you don’t understand what the graph is telling you there is a range of ECS anywhere from 6 degrees down to just above 1.5 degrees based on peer-reviewed papers. For a rise in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm that is a difference in ~5 degrees, all the way from nothing to see here to oh, that’s quite nasty. That is the definition of an uncertain projection.

We also have a body of records and measurements from over a century that attest to changes in the ocean-atmosphere-land system that clearly show a rise in temperature and accumulation and increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.


Do I have to remind you that correlation does not mean causation? Do I have to repost anyone of hundreds of graphs showing spurious correlations such as the number of movies Nicolas Cage starred in versus the number of deaths by drowning in swimming pools?

The only serious uncertainties lie in  how fast and how much will climate change and real world data is informing us that worse case scenarios are showing to be more likely and that these extremes are constantly  being underestimated by the computer modeling. So whatever uncertainty does exist is invariably pointing to the climate system producing more extreme and faster changes than we had thought


Jesus wept. Do a bit of reading on the subject

Curry, J, and Webster 2011, , Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster, AMS, DOI:10.1175/BAMS-D-10-3139.1
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 08:19:52

Rockdoc123,

From what if can see it appears you don’t understand science. Science is meant to be a useful tool. Yes you can find all kinds of unknowns within science, and there is always something more to be studied to perfect the theory. But if you never use it to actually co something then it is pretty useless. To make it useful you need to, at some point say:

“This is the best info we have, it’s pretty good, good enough to move forward on. “

In this case concerning AGW one could add:

“The science is good enough to know that if we don’t move then we are likely to be in a worse position, perhaps one from which we can not recover.”

What I hear from all your argument is a case of “analysis paralysis.”

.Perhaps you need to reread what I said. My comment is that nobody argues that greenhouse gases do not have any effect, the main uncertainty is in how much. This is well established by the widespread of ECS and TCS in the recent literature.


What exactly is your fear of taking steps to mitigate warming?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 08:34:53

https://thebulletin.org/2018/06/benefit ... igh-costs/

The cost of not doing something about CC far exceeds the cost of doing something
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 09:25:55

onlooker wrote:https://thebulletin.org/2018/06/benefits-of-curbing-climate-change-far-outweigh-costs/

The cost of not doing something about CC far exceeds the cost of doing something

I like this quote from the linked article.
For example, a study by Regional Economic Models, Inc. and Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. found that a steadily-rising carbon tax whose revenues were all returned equally to American households would grow the economy, with a net GDP increase of $1.3 trillion over 20 years.

Like any tax ever collected was ever all returned to the people. :lol:
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 09:47:59

Ultimately, this is about human survival beyond economic costs. Does anybody think Europe was doing well economically during the Plague? If nothing more health costs will be staggerring as will rebuilding infrastructure. This goes beyond economics and is about the survival of communities and societies.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 11:31:45

From what if can see it appears you don’t understand science. Science is meant to be a useful tool. Yes you can find all kinds of unknowns within science, and there is always something more to be studied to perfect the theory. But if you never use it to actually co something then it is pretty useless. To make it useful you need to, at some point say:

“This is the best info we have, it’s pretty good, good enough to move forward on. “

In this case concerning AGW one could add:

“The science is good enough to know that if we don’t move then we are likely to be in a worse position, perhaps one from which we can not recover.”

What I hear from all your argument is a case of “analysis paralysis.”


Once again, being a scientist and having taught at university level I think I understand it pretty well. You are talking about applied science not actual scientific analysis. Applied science refers to the discipline by which individuals take existing scientific knowledge and use it in practical applications. The science of climate change is not applied science persay…that is left up to those who talk about mitigation strategies or engineering climate solutions. But your comment flies in the face of what others are saying here. You suggest well, OK, it isn’t well understood but it is good enough to have some solutions whereas they are saying….it is completely solved, there are virtually no uncertainties. Which is it?
As to why I do not like running out and trying to solve a problem that isn’t well understood our recent history is rife with man interfering in nature because he thought he could solve a problem without actually understanding the issue properly. An example I always point to is the Smoky the Bear policy that really controlled North American forest management for much of the first half of the twentieth century. In Canada the result was the fire successional species of aspen popular stopped growing and they were the main food source for elk. Those elk ended up eating spruce bark from which they got sick and weak and eventually perished. The entire elk population of Alberta was gone in the early part of the twentieth century, what is there now is a result of import of that species and abandonment of the “no fires” policy. In terms of climate change mitigation many scientists have pointed out the dangers in trying to engineer climate, especially when all the potential interactions are not well understood, there is almost no support for this approach. But my main argument is trillions of dollars spent trying to do something about climate change which in the end may either have zero impact or actually may have unknown negative consequences is bad money management. There are a host of issues important to the world that we know can be solved, hunger in various countries, poor education in developing countries, lack of available health care in developing countries, lack of access to clean water etc, etc and using that money to invest in solving those problems instead we know will have immediate benefits. Meanwhile as climate changes (and it will no matter what is done) mankind mitigates and adapts.

I like this quote from the linked article.

For example, a study by Regional Economic Models, Inc. and Synapse Energy Economics, Inc. found that a steadily-rising carbon tax whose revenues were all returned equally to American households would grow the economy, with a net GDP increase of $1.3 trillion over 20 years.


Like any tax ever collected was ever all returned to the people. 


Canada has a carbon tax and in Alberta it has been around for about a year now. Zero impact on driving miles is the first observation and the second observation is there are just as many SUV's and large pickup trucks on the road as there were a year ago. The third observation is that although the provincial government promised to redistribute that tax income as spending on public projects less than 10% has been spent or even approved for projects. Meanwhile, the salaries of government employees continue to increase. Yeah, that worked out about the way I expected. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 12:13:00

onlooker wrote:Ultimately, this is about human survival beyond economic costs. Does anybody think Europe was doing well economically during the Plague? If nothing more health costs will be staggerring as will rebuilding infrastructure. This goes beyond economics and is about the survival of communities and societies.


If you actually look at the facts vs your beliefs the economy of Europe was going gangbusters from the middle of the Black death onward. See the plague had a total leveling effect, because nobody knew where it came from the effect was distributed pretty evenly across socio-economic indices. As a result the large number of bureacrats and old masters in all the different guilds were as devastated as the youth. As a result of that fact a large portion of the fixed assets, homes, business, trade networks, were transferred from upper levels down the chain to lower levels through inheritance. This sudden influx of wealth by people who had been struggling to feed themselves/family meant there was money for good food for all. Even more so the number of tenant farmers was also cut roughly 30% which meant a lot fewer farmers were out in the fields eating up the crops they were growing.

The sum result of these economic changes became known as 'the renaissance'.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 13:11:12

rockdoc123 wrote:Canada has a carbon tax and in Alberta it has been around for about a year now. Zero impact on driving miles is the first observation and the second observation is there are just as many SUV's and large pickup trucks on the road as there were a year ago. The third observation is that although the provincial government promised to redistribute that tax income as spending on public projects less than 10% has been spent or even approved for projects. Meanwhile, the salaries of government employees continue to increase. Yeah, that worked out about the way I expected. :roll:


The story I get from my daughter who works for the Alberta Provincial Archives is that the NDP government has been trying to negotiate zero percent increases. This article would seem to confirm that https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politi ... age-freeze

The carbon tax isn't high enough to generate a noticeable reduction in SUV and large pickup truck usage in the short term. Over a longer time period it helps encourage people to purchase smaller vehicles and if they own more than one vehicle to favour the more fuel efficient vehicle. Fuel taxes are a good thing even if we did not have a climate change problem because oil is a finite resource.
"new housing construction" is spelled h-a-b-i-t-a-t d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n.
yellowcanoe
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 14:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 15:12:41

Fuel taxes are a good thing even if we did not have a climate change problem because oil is a finite resource.


I disagree. There were already extensive fuel taxes prior to imposing a carbon tax.

And I'm sure in another years time there will still be pundits saying.....oh we still have to wait some time to see when people stop buying SUV's and big pickup trucks. Not going to happen here, too many ranchers, oil workers, rednecks etc. And as I pointed out they haven't spent hardly any of the tax income, have not allocated it to projects and I'm almost certain have zero intention of doing so. They still need to pay for their increased salaries and the boondoggles they are throwing out to the unions. Those carbon tax revenues are going to disappear into government carrying costs I'm afraid. You shouldn't give cocaine to an addict and equally, you shouldn't give money to a politician.

Meanwhile, in far left British Colombia which also has a carbon tax, transportation emissions have increased by 7% since tax implementation. Food and Water (an environmental group) said:

Greenhouse gas emissions have been rising rapidly in recent years even as the tax rate and total tax revenues have increased, it said. Moreover, the short-term declines in taxed greenhouse gas emissions were more modest and were reversed more quickly than the changes to the untaxed greenhouse gas
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 19:54:26

rockdoc123 wrote:
That is how science works. Someone proposes a theory, others pick it apart and point out the shortcomings and the individual who proposed the original theory can choose to adjust his theory, abandon it and/or create a new one.

That is not how we got Relativity, QM and Plate Tectonics. It was other individuals who had a new theory. Your skeptics have no theory.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby dissident » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 21:16:51

rockdoc123 wrote:
Dissident correctly stated the science of CC is deterministic not stochastic


OH dear…please tell all of these scientists what they are doing is completely wrong…you can’t apply a probability distribution to climate variables and resulting outcomes…its just wrong, dissident says so!

SEMENOV, M.A. & BARROW, E.M., 1997. Use of a Stochastic weather generator in the development of climate change scenarios. Climatic Change 35: 397. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005342632279

Wilks, D.S. , 1992. Adapting stochastic weather generation algorithms for climate change studies, Climatic Change 22: 67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143344

Sigourous, et al, 2018. Statistical and stochastic comparison of climate change vs urbanization. 20th EGU General Assembly, Proceedings. P 18608

Caccamo, M. T and Magazu, S, 2019. A physical-mathematical approach to climate change effects through stochastic resonance. Climate, 7(2), 21; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli7020021

Proistosescu, C et al, 2018. Radiative feedbacks from stochastic variablility in surface temperature and radiative imbalance. Geoph Res Lett,  
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL077678

Hagos, S et al, 2018. A stochastic framework for modeling the population dynamics of convective clouds. Journal of Advance in Modeling Earth Sciences,  
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001214

Dissident wrote "Accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to fundamental climate change. " 
They're is nothing ambiguous about that or undetermined


Perhaps you need to reread what I said. My comment is that nobody argues that greenhouse gases do not have any effect, the main uncertainty is in how much. This is well established by the widespread of ECS and TCS in the recent literature.

Image

In case you don’t understand what the graph is telling you there is a range of ECS anywhere from 6 degrees down to just above 1.5 degrees based on peer-reviewed papers. For a rise in CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm that is a difference in ~5 degrees, all the way from nothing to see here to oh, that’s quite nasty. That is the definition of an uncertain projection.

We also have a body of records and measurements from over a century that attest to changes in the ocean-atmosphere-land system that clearly show a rise in temperature and accumulation and increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.


Do I have to remind you that correlation does not mean causation? Do I have to repost anyone of hundreds of graphs showing spurious correlations such as the number of movies Nicolas Cage starred in versus the number of deaths by drowning in swimming pools?

The only serious uncertainties lie in  how fast and how much will climate change and real world data is informing us that worse case scenarios are showing to be more likely and that these extremes are constantly  being underestimated by the computer modeling. So whatever uncertainty does exist is invariably pointing to the climate system producing more extreme and faster changes than we had thought


Jesus wept. Do a bit of reading on the subject

Curry, J, and Webster 2011, , Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster, AMS, DOI:10.1175/BAMS-D-10-3139.1



Your references utterly fail to prove your claim. There is nothing stochastic about the radiative transfer equations and the Navier-Stokes equations. Stochastic by definition means systems that are ergodic and fill phase space. By contrast even energy conserving Hamiltonian versions of the governing equations relevant to the atmosphere and oceans exhibit something called balance and tend to occupy onto a fuzzy slow manifold which is a smaller fraction of the the phase space.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10 ... 0JAS3650.1

That researchers apply statistical analysis to geophysical fluid dynamics problems does not imply that they are studying Gaussian systems for which these tools apply.

Image

The manifestly non-Gaussian nature of the temperature variations in the stratosphere:

http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/S ... _Yoden.pdf

The atmosphere is not in a full bore 3D turbulent regime, it is mostly laminar with baroclinic eddy formation that exhibits an upscale enstrophy cascade instead of a downscale cascade as with 3D turbulence. You can see this clearly for the Jupiter-like system:

http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/paps/cho-p ... F-1996.pdf

Any deus ex machina initial noise is not amplified and maintained, instead it decays away and forms highly organized structures.

But this discussion is a diversion. The impact of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere are not stochastic. They are purely deterministic. This geology shill is confounding the nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations and the monotonic effect of radiative forcing by green house gas accumulation. It is clear to anyone with a clue that the radiative impact dominates the nonlinear transport "noise". The primary way that the nonlinear transport couples to the radiative transfer part of the system is through cloud and surface albedo. But clouds have shown no capacity to offset warming via low altitude scattering of incoming visible band light. And surface albedo has shown a systematic trend towards reduction. So transport nonlinearity cannot offset the impact of well mixed gases like CO2 and CH4. In fact, it is temperature driven processes that govern surface emissions and sinks that dominate the budget of these chemical species. Transport nonlinearity does not affect the budget of these species since they are well mixed and have sufficiently long residence times in the atmosphere.

But the shill wants you to think that greenhouse gases show intrinsic variability in their effects. No, they do not. The only variation is from surface and cloud albedo in the radiative transfer equations. And as already noted, this variation is not important for surface ice and snow trends and cloud albedo variations are not showing any trends that matter. In fact, the IR trapping by ice clouds (cirrus) in the tropopause region due to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation driven increase of atmospheric H2O is significant and acting to amplify the warming. (Ice clouds are mostly transparent to visible light so their albedo effect is not important, but they are effective at trapping IR).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4136590/
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby dissident » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 21:23:37

onlooker wrote:Ultimately, this is about human survival beyond economic costs. Does anybody think Europe was doing well economically during the Plague? If nothing more health costs will be staggerring as will rebuilding infrastructure. This goes beyond economics and is about the survival of communities and societies.


You are sounding like a commie to these penny pinchers. They think that national and international action to combat climate change (while killing a second bird with one stone: overcoming the looming fossil fuel crisis) is some epic waste of their precious lucre. You can see how absurd they are when Exxon spends hundreds of millions of dollars to fund clowns like the resident geology shill as if Exxon is going to keep on pumping oil for the next millenium. Exxon is run by the same desiccated brain cretins that also deny global warming. It is time to treat them as the criminals they are.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 21:29:23

That is not how we got Relativity, QM and Plate Tectonics. It was other individuals who had a new theory. Your skeptics have no theory.


sorry but it is exactly how we got Plate Tectonics. It started with Alfred Wegener who proposed drifting continents. He was torn apart by his critics and rightfully so at the time, he just didn't have much proof. Move forward to the sixties and some of the young geophysicists working out of Caltech and Berkeley....magnetic striping on the seafloor suggestive of plate motions but not enough there to form a comprehensive theory (I have the book sitting in my shelf that walks through that very neat period of time called Plate Tectonics and Geomagnetic reversals by Cox). Move forward to J. Tuzo Wilson who really is credited with the theory of plate tectonics. Wilson had a hard time convincing his peers, there was lots of discussion and lots of pulling apart of the various components of the theory. And even after it was generally accepted (lets say around the late seventies for arguments sake) there were people like Art Meyerhoff (God rest his soul) who continually pointed out some of the problems of that theory (eg: the so-called Benioff zone was not a zone when you looked at it in 3D, it was a scatter plot). Those arguments were all looked at and generally accepted after some discussion and the theory evolved. The period from the mid-seventies through the late eighties was an incredible period of advancement in understanding of earth's tectonic mechanisms and history. Rockman was there at A&M with a few of the scientists I knew quite well who were continually adding and adjusting concepts into that theory. The point being that any questions brought up about the theory were answered, any points that didn't seem to make sense because of new information or reinterpretation of old information caused those involved with pushing the theory forward to adjust it. There was no one out there calling anyone else in the science a denier, skeptical views were welcomed and argued in the open amongst colleagues and not in the press. How do I know this?....well I was there, grad school, teaching and then into the oil industry through that period, I knew many of the key players personally. The history of the evolution of plate tectonic theory bears no comparison whatsoever to what is going on now.
I can't comment directly on the evolution of the theory of relatively other than to state....is there anyone out there in the press calling someone a denier because they are questioning certain aspects of the theory? Are there scientists still looking into aspects of relativity? The answer is yes, just do a perusal of the literature. Are there scientists who feel uncomfortable about questioning aspects of Einsteins theory? The answer is no as far as I can tell. Completely different.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Fri 08 Mar 2019, 22:00:16

Your references utterly fail to prove your claim.


Look dipshit this is what I was responding to:

Dissident correctly stated the science of CC is deterministic not stochastic


And I’m afraid that many, many scientists have taken the view that the problems (especially modeling) can be solved through a stochastic approach. Those papers I pointed to (and there are actually scores more) use probabilistic approaches to climate change modeling/projections simply because there are unknowns and a range of those which makes the problem not properly sovlvable through a deterministic approach. As an example the actual uncertainty regarding radiative forcing has not changed since TAR, it is uncertain. To state otherwise flies in the face of tens of scientists who worked on the science portion of TAR, AR4 and AR5. You ramble on about atmospheric physics as if the measurements that have been made have zero error. The only way that a deterministic approach to modeling climate can be used is either as a single projection (with all the assumptions being stated) or if you can show there is zero uncertainty with the measurements. We know for a fact the latter is not true, the IPCC has laid that out in their last two publications and authors such as Curry make a point of this and there are scads of publications that point this out. And the very fact that there is a huge spread on the various climate models tells us the problem is not a deterministic one, otherwise, all of those models would be replicative (and they are certainly not).

But the shill wants you to think that greenhouse gases show intrinsic variability in their effects. No, they do not. The only variation is from surface and cloud albedo in the radiative transfer equations. And as already noted, this variation is not important for surface ice and snow trends and cloud albedo variations are not showing any trends that matter. In fact, the IR trapping by ice clouds (cirrus) in the tropopause region due to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation driven increase of atmospheric H2O is significant and acting to amplify the warming. (Ice clouds are mostly transparent to visible light so their albedo effect is not important, but they are effective at trapping IR).


Ok now that you have impressed us with your understanding of atmospheric physics perhaps you can address the actual points I was making rather than trying to change the subject. Did I not say that nobody argues that greenhouse gases have an impact on climate? Yes I did, several times in fact. What I did say that you completely ignore here is HOW MUCH. You don’t bother to argue that all of those studies on ECS/TCS are wrong…..why is that? My guess is because you cannot. No matter all the ramblings you have on atmospheric physics, which nobody here has ever argued against, the issue becomes the uncertainty with respect to how big an impact CO2 has in a complex system, not in a single set of equations as you would like to characterize it but in the real world where it is actually possible to back-calculate the impact of increased greenhouse gases in the system (done by scores of scientists and published). Are you actually trying to argue they are all wrong?

You can see how absurd they are when Exxon spends hundreds of millions of dollars to fund clowns like the resident geology shill as if Exxon is going to keep on pumping oil for the next millenium. Exxon is run by the same desiccated brain cretins that also deny global warming. It is time to treat them as the criminals they are.


This comment pretty much describes what kind of moron you are. You may have an understanding of atmospheric physics but you have absolutely no understanding of the real world. Why would Exxon or any other company for that matter give a flying frig about what anyone like you thinks on this site? Why would they pay anyone to come here and spout their views? They wouldn’t. I would not mind getting paid some of that fictious oil money. , but I’m sorry it doesn’t exist, it never has. And Exxon has made billions of dollars as a corporation and millions for it’s shareholders at the sametime as providing ingrates such as yourself with the energy you need to live the lifestyle you do. Do you actually think you would have a computer to type on if there weren't oil companies looking for oil and gas? Good luck with that. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby clif » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 03:58:16

by rockdoc123 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:00 pm
..........
Look dipshit
..........




Moderators, is this acceptable?
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 13:04:10

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Cog » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 04:44:16

clif wrote:
by rockdoc123 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:00 pm
..........
Look dipshit
..........




Moderators, is this acceptable?


He provided considerable evidence that this is the case. Some of my best friends are dipshits and go on to live kick ass lives. Perhaps you should fill out a hurt feelings report because that is always taken seriously.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 05:34:19

More and more confusion is creeping into GW/CC area.
Now one of co-founders of Greenpeace have called GW/CC to be politically and ideologically driven nonsense and is claiming that human CO2 emissions actually restored historical natural balance and helped to save life from starvation:
https://www.rt.com/news/453382-greenpea ... ming-scam/
I hate to "appeal to authority and believe whatever they say" but entire CC argumentation becomes hopelessly politicized these days and it is more and more confusing as we speak and credibilty is going down because of this political dance around a subject.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7342
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 07:10:26

EnergyUnlimited wrote:More and more confusion is creeping into GW/CC area.
Now one of co-founders of Greenpeace have called GW/CC to be politically and ideologically driven nonsense and is claiming that human CO2 emissions actually restored historical natural balance and helped to save life from starvation:
https://www.rt.com/news/453382-greenpea ... ming-scam/
I hate to "appeal to authority and believe whatever they say" but entire CC argumentation becomes hopelessly politicized these days and it is more and more confusing as we speak and credibilty is going down because of this political dance around a subject.


All the more reason to go back to the position I stated on page two of this thread.

But as to the question "Has global warming peaked?" I would not agree with that unless the worlds glaciers stopped retreading and began to gain total mass for a few years. They are an unbiased source untroubled by politics and not in need of a funding source or need to publish.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Ibon » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 08:20:33

vtsnowedin wrote:All the more reason to go back to the position I stated on page two of this thread.

But as to the question "Has global warming peaked?" I would not agree with that unless the worlds glaciers stopped retreading and began to gain total mass for a few years. They are an unbiased source untroubled by politics and not in need of a funding source or need to publish.


There is more to this wise observation than how it reflects the truth of global warming. It is the base line one should use in all of the greater repercussions human overshoot is having on our mother earth.

There are consequences indisputable regardless of how much humans squirm to rationalize some particular bias.

Funny how reality always wins!
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Has Global Warming Peaked?

Unread postby Newfie » Sat 09 Mar 2019, 11:56:29

clif wrote:
by rockdoc123 » Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:00 pm
..........
Look dipshit
..........




Moderators, is this acceptable?


No it is not. But part of the problem is that so many here indulge in such langeage and the moderation staff is short.

To a large degree the level of discourse should be self moderated, posters should act as adults. And the community needs to determine the level of maturity and civility.

Yes moderators will intervene when necessary, but we went baby sitters.

Set good examples.

Rockdoc123, allow me to remind you such language Deeply undermines your position. But also, knock it off!
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18458
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 66 guests