Page 64 of 93 FirstFirst ... 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 ... LastLast
Results 1,576 to 1,600 of 2308
  1. #1576
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,130
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    To those who say we can't afford to do anything about climate change, the Government Accountability Office has set the cost of the Wall Street bailout in 2008 at $16 trillion. Bernie's climate plan, the most expensive plan offered so far, costs ... wait for it ... $16 trillion.

    Seems the world didn't end when we spent that to bail out the banks. It probably won't end if we spend it to continue human life on the planet either.
    Relatively aggressive plans by the West are probably the right thing to do for many reasons. Expectation-wise though, what's the plan for the developing world (which has the faster growing population & higher intensity of FF burn per $ of GDP to start with)?

  2. #1577
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    - Before getting into the weeds, are you arguing greenhouse gases do not act to amplify warming associated with very long timescale variations in the Earth's orbital configuration?
    No.

    - Are you arguing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the industrial era are not driving modern warming?
    No.

    If you answer CO2 does amplify to the first question, which is the consensus opinion BTW, then CO2 both lags and leads. Because of orbital changes (the planet wobbles) either the Southern Hemisphere (or the Northern Hemisphere) slowly warms up whereas in the opposite hemisphere (which is still cold, obviously) CO2 leads the warming.

    This is not controversial.
    The Shakun paper is the first research I have ever seen suggesting CO2 leading. Is there more?

    But, if you deny CO2 causes any warming then we are back to where we started with you (and wattsupwiththat) saying everything you and they don't agree with is a conspiracy.

    In any case, you really are having a hard time with this whole spatial-variability thing aren't you? You're not alone either, wattsupwiththat also completely misses the point of spatial-variability with their criticism too, and inadvertently reinforces the paper's findings. Although I doubt they (and you) realize it.

    You've done a lot of that too in this thread so thanks for all the help with the research.
    After further review, I don't think the first wattsupwiththat link is an especially strong rebuttal. The second link has to raise some questions though? I think the first point in the 3rd link is valid as well. Unless you have more evidence of CO2 leading temperature, the Shakun paper remains an outlier.

  3. #1578
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Bromontane View Post
    Relatively aggressive plans by the West are probably the right thing to do for many reasons. Expectation-wise though, what's the plan for the developing world (which has the faster growing population & higher intensity of FF burn per $ of GDP to start with)?
    There are various plans, but a chunk of Bernie's costs are to help share technology with the developing world. Elizabeth Warren wants to create a a $1.5 trillion “Green Industrial Mobilization” of American-made renewable energy products and a $100 billion “Green Marshall Plan” to help developing nations get American renewable products.

    The point isn't the dollar figures. The point is we must help the world get to net zero emissions by 2050 and there are ways to do that.

  4. #1579
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    There's a big difference in dismissing an argument and making a personal attack.
    Your arguments are inconsistent, citing bogus websites, denying leveraging those websites, insulting authors and posters, making wild claims and ignoring established statistical methods.

    So I'm just not convinced.

    About the only positive thing I can think of is that theories are supposed to be somewhat indeterminate, Heisenberg, quantum theory, error analysis and all that. To that extent we should be suspicious and critical of theories and "facts". But that's a very different thing than putting the conclusion ahead of the data and insulting those who disagree.

    So, I'm out, not that it matters.
    That is not a personal attack. So far dan_pdx's contribution to the thread has been to post an alarmist cartoon graph as proof of AGW, and to rely on midwest farmers and western skiers as proof of the effects of AGW. The only person to demonstrate any scientific understanding of climate change in this thread has been been MV, yet that hasn't stopped everyone else from chiming in on a subject they clearly know little about.

    It's also hilarious you keep accusing me of personal attacks. Have you not noticed its about about 100 to 1 on the personal attacks in the opposite direction?

    My main arguments in this thread have been that:
    1) Current non carbon renewable tech is lacking and the only way to get the world to stop burning carbon is to get the tech to a point where it makes economic sense for the world to adopt.
    2) There is no consensus on how much warming humans are responsible for or how dangerous it is.
    3) There is no evidence of extreme weather events getting worse from global warming.
    4) You are lied to constantly about the subject of AGW from the media.
    5) There is nothing unusual about the climate of today in the context of the past 2,000 years.

    I have not needed any bogus websites, inconsistent arguments, wild claims, or ignoring established statistical methods for points 1-4 and they are 100% true. Point 5 is where I have gotten into the weeds with MV, with MV claiming that the globally synchronous warming is unusual. I remain unconvinced by his position, but won't begrudge him for it.

    Before you leave I'd like if you could give some examples of me "citing anomalies as proof that trends don't exist but only when it supports your claims," because I'm pretty sure you made that up.

  5. #1580
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by dan_pdx View Post
    Um, coming from the guy that couldn't understand a sentence about confidence level, that's pretty rich.
    I misread a sentence, yet still understood what it meant. You're really going to beat me over the head with that on huh?

  6. #1581
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I misread a sentence, yet still understood what it meant. You're really going to beat me over the head with that on huh?
    So then what does it means when confidence is at a 5 Sigma level? Please explain it to us so that we can see that you understand.

  7. #1582
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,130
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    There are various plans, but a chunk of Bernie's costs are to help share technology with the developing world. Elizabeth Warren wants to create a a $1.5 trillion “Green Industrial Mobilization” of American-made renewable energy products and a $100 billion “Green Marshall Plan” to help developing nations get American renewable products.

    The point isn't the dollar figures. The point is we must help the world get to net zero emissions by 2050 and there are ways to do that.
    Warren's got my vote. The West can probably transition by then but it's gonna be a tough slog coercing the rest of the world. Africa as an example is a ginormous logistical challenge.

  8. #1583
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,936
    https://nationalpost.com/pmn/environ...enta-study/amp

    Potentially harmful carbon pollution created by the combustion of fossil fuels reaches fetal side of placenta
    Quote Originally Posted by XXX-er View Post
    the situation strikes me as WAY too much drama at this point

  9. #1584
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,122
    Relevant quote

    “Science offers something close to certainty on many fronts, but on doom, it is ambiguous."
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  10. #1585
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Wet and Mild
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    Relevant quote

    “Science offers something close to certainty on many fronts, but on doom, it is ambiguous."
    Seems to me like we're in the clear then. Right, Ron?
    Set my compass North, I got Winter in my blood.

  11. #1586
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    7,250
    well, well, well....only found in finnish at the moment. i wonder why?

    Climate guru Petteri Taalas: Climate change is not yet out of control, but the debate is - "It has the features of a religious extremism"

    https://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/i...d-b027a403e106

  12. #1587
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,857
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripzalot View Post
    well, well, well....only found in finnish at the moment. i wonder why?

    Climate guru Petteri Taalas: Climate change is not yet out of control, but the debate is - "It has the features of a religious extremism"

    https://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/i...d-b027a403e106
    because it hasn't made the bullshit deniers circle yet. he just looks like an angry dickhead with a grudge

  13. #1588
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    5,720
    Both my sons and many more Baltimore youth are marching to City Hall today. So proud of them.

    Those that still deny global warming/climate change can go fuck themselves. The world passes you by...
    They think I do not know a buttload of crap about the Gospel, but I do.

  14. #1589
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,832
    Is anyone global striking today?

  15. #1590
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    5,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Rideski View Post
    Is anyone global striking today?
    See my post. Both my sons did.
    They think I do not know a buttload of crap about the Gospel, but I do.

  16. #1591
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripzalot View Post
    well, well, well....only found in finnish at the moment. i wonder why?

    Climate guru Petteri Taalas: Climate change is not yet out of control, but the debate is - "It has the features of a religious extremism"

    https://www.talouselama.fi/uutiset/i...d-b027a403e106
    If our fucking PLANET is not worth getting over-zealous about, what is?
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  17. #1592
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    5,389
    I don't have finnish translated so can't comment on exactly who he is claming the zealots are, but here is what Taalas published in 2017, so it's pretty clear what his thoughts are on AGW and climate change.


    Working as one UN to address the root environmental causes of ill health.
    Chan M1, Solheim E2, Taalas P3.
    Bull World Health Organ. 2017 Jan 1;95(1):2. doi: 10.2471/BLT.16.189225.

    There are many compelling reasons why we need to clean up the global environment. One of the most pressing is that a polluted environment is a deadly one. Every year, almost 12.6 million people die from diseases associated with environmental hazards, such as air, water or soil pollution, and climate change.1 That is one in four deaths worldwide.1

    We now know that the single greatest environmental risk to human health is through our most basic need – the air that we breathe.1 For years, governments have struggled to improve access to energy so they can promote economic development. But the largely unsustainable energy path that the world has followed has come at an unacceptable cost. Air pollution, overwhelmingly resulting from energy production and use, causes heart and lung diseases and cancer, resulting in approximately 6.5 million deaths each year.2

    The energy sources that cause the release of deadly air pollutants, such as black carbon, also release greenhouse gases, including methane and carbon dioxide. Together, these drive climate change, which threatens to undermine all of the environmental conditions on which human lives depend – food, water, and shelter.3

    By 2050, 66% of the world’s population will live in urban areas, which are often characterized by pollution as well as heavy traffic, poor housing, limited access to water and sanitation services and other health risks.4

    Environmental risks to health, like many of the challenges facing our world, are too complex and interconnected to be dealt with by simplistic, short-term solutions or by individual actors. That’s why the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, adopted by all countries, is so important. This, the world’s first ever global development plan, offers a unique opportunity for coherent, long-term action by all of society for all of society.5

    Many governments are now bringing several ministries and departments together, for example linking up environment, climate and health sectors, to take joint action. We saw this recently at the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change when ministers of health and environment answered a call by the Government of Morocco to sign the Marrakech Ministerial Declaration on Health, Environment and Climate Change.6 The declaration recognizes that there is currently no global mechanism to bring the environment and health sectors together to work on saving lives and protecting the planet, and calls on the relevant United Nations (UN) agencies to put a mechanism in place.6

    The challenge now is to follow up this declaration with actions.

    Simple interventions, such as reducing vehicle emissions and investments in rapid transit systems, will save lives. Benin, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Nigeria and Togo have committed to introduce low sulphur fuels by July 2017. Athens, Madrid, Mexico City and Paris plan to ban diesel vehicles by 2025. Implementing proven interventions to address short-lived climate pollutants could save over 2.4 million lives a year, and reduce global warming by approximately 0.5 C, by 2050.7 In many cases the benefits will more than cover the cost of intervention.

    Failure to take into account the health impacts of air pollution and other environmental damages is estimated to amount to a US$ 5.3 trillion dollar subsidy to polluting energy sources.8 Failure to protect populations from environmental risks is not just a human cost, but places an additional strain on health services. Health service-related cost is among the largest financial burdens for governments and individuals.

    Just as it is in both the individual and the collective interest of countries and ministries to work together to address complex problems, it is essential for all UN agencies to work more closely together to support them.

    The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are working together to support countries to follow through on the aims of the Marrakech Declaration. We are committed to joining our technical and financial resources behind a single environment and health plan. Air pollution will be our first priority due to the huge health impacts that it causes, as well as its close links with other risks, such as climate change and chemical contamination.

    Each of us will bring our wealth of expertise in either climate, health or environment. WMO, through national meteorological agencies and their network of ground and remote-sensing stations, provides the essential data on climate, and air quality conditions, and facilitates the delivery of related weather and climate services. UNEP works with Member States' Ministries of Environment and other key policy-makers to help prevent and reverse environmental degradation, thereby supporting individuals and communities. WHO, with national Ministries of Health, monitors and assesses health exposures and health impacts, and provides guidance on how to reduce them.

    By June 2017 our agencies will have developed a joint plan, seeking wider engagement from other agencies and from the scientific, environment and health communities at large. In the words of the African proverb: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.”
    Whether or not you think this is alarmism is more likely a product of how long you've been paying attention.
    Move upside and let the man go through...

  18. #1593
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    5,389
    Climate marchers going past the office right now.
    Move upside and let the man go through...

  19. #1594
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,886
    Trump eschewing climate change summit at UN next week but instead hosting a forum on religious freedom there at same time.

    Because apparently no one can prove climate change. like they can the baby Jesus.
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  20. #1595
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Couloirfornia
    Posts
    8,713
    Quote Originally Posted by PNWbrit View Post
    religious freedom
    This regime wouldn't understand religious freedom if it bit them in the face...
    https://www.apnews.com/430e62044dba43daa3f2332792cd97b2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest_Hemingway View Post
    I realize there is not much hope for a bullfighting forum. I understand that most of you would prefer to discuss the ingredients of jacket fabrics than the ingredients of a brave man. I know nothing of the former. But the latter is made of courage, and skill, and grace in the presence of the possibility of death. If someone could make a jacket of those three things it would no doubt be the most popular and prized item in all of your closets.

  21. #1596
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the swamp
    Posts
    6,500
    Anyone climate striking today?

  22. #1597
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,968
    Quote Originally Posted by The SnowShow View Post
    Anyone climate striking today?

    Nope but I drove around 100 miles to pick up a couple of different types of seed to help stabilized areas that have been disturbed and are subject to erosion unless re-vegetated.
    Mister Man! Mister Man! Mister Man. They left this card.

  23. #1598
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    29,886
    Quote Originally Posted by The SnowShow View Post
    Anyone climate striking today?
    I'm only streaming acoustic music today.
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  24. #1599
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,130
    Aside from his intolerance Brit's quite a humanist.

  25. #1600
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,188
    We had 2000 people in Bozeman today in a heavy rain and temps in the high 40's. Probably would have had twice as many on a sunny day. Way to represent Bozeman!! This movement is growing and won't be stopped!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •