Page 64 of 64 FirstFirst ... 59 60 61 62 63 64
Results 1,576 to 1,585 of 1585
  1. #1576
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Posts
    5,080
    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)?
    mountainous regions are wonderlands

  2. #1577
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    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
    1,137
    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
    309
    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
    309
    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
    563
    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
    5,080
    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.
    mountainous regions are wonderlands

  8. #1583
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    4,871
    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
    24,940
    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
    4,635
    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?
    Doesn't mean that much to me, to mean that much to you.

Posting Permissions

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