- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 15,194
- Reaction score
- 11,431
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'm not sure that's the real question, but it is certainly a fair point. It's difficult to keep any rigor in these sorts of discussions as many of the participants are approaching this with about a 3rd graders understanding.
A more important question, which is seldom addressed, is what is the likely climate outcome given a particular set of policy actions on CO2 (etc...) emissions. How does bending the emissions curve bend the temperature curve? How does it bend the economy curve?
Forget the reasons why, increasing global temperature will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy. So too will scarcity of fossil fuels. Restrictions and efficiency mandates will also have a negative effect on the economy. However, they will also offset some of the negative effects of climate change AND resource scarcity. So the real question is what should we do now to put us in the best shape economically for the future?
Statistically significant is a scientific term with an actual meaning that is not well understood by most people (and most scientists).Um.... this is how stochastic processes work and are modelled.
Statistically significant is a scientific term with an actual meaning. Basically, you form a statistical model of the process and then determine the probability that the differences you see between your model and the measured values can be explained with the given noise.
p-value - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A more important question, which is seldom addressed, is what is the likely climate outcome given a particular set of policy actions on CO2 (etc...) emissions.How does bending the emissions curve bend the temperature curve? How does it bend the economy curve?
Forget the reasons why, increasing global temperature will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy.
So too will scarcity of fossil fuels.
Restrictions and efficiency mandates will also have a negative effect on the economy
However, they will also offset some of the negative effects of climate change AND resource scarcity.
So the real question is what should we do now to put us in the best shape economically for the future?
My answer is to encourage massive photovoltaic roof installs.I'm not sure that's the real question, but it is certainly a fair point. It's difficult to keep any rigor in these sorts of discussions as many of the participants are approaching this with about a 3rd graders understanding.
A more important question, which is seldom addressed, is what is the likely climate outcome given a particular set of policy actions on CO2 (etc...) emissions. How does bending the emissions curve bend the temperature curve? How does it bend the economy curve?
Forget the reasons why, increasing global temperature will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy. So too will scarcity of fossil fuels. Restrictions and efficiency mandates will also have a negative effect on the economy. However, they will also offset some of the negative effects of climate change AND resource scarcity. So the real question is what should we do now to put us in the best shape economically for the future?
In order to debate an issue meaningfully, one must understand the terms one chooses to employ, and whenever travis has been asked to define, in his own words, the terminology used in the evidence he attacks, he can't do it.
And that's typical of conservatives--they're simply too dumb to understand any scientific words. So if you want a meaningful debate, then conservative posters either have to be ignored or removed.
Nitrogen is a big UV absorber, I am thinking the sunlight will optically pump the nitrogen.I think I'm missing how the nitrogen is going to be excited given the lack of free electrons in the atmosphere?? Also vibrational contact transfer of energy is far more feasible in an enclosed container rather than out in the open.
Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
Go on then, I'll bite.
How does a stopped clock not show the correct time twice a day? Assuming its a mechanical one with hour and minute hands.
where in the venn space of possible clocks do stopped clocks and broken clocks reside?
I think the Duke study argues fairly convincingly that we should throw the upper bounds out now.
So I was right; having made a silly claim you are in full retreat into psudo-interlectual babble.
The clarity of you knowing nothing about anything is very obvious here.
Forget the reasons why, increasing global temperature will have a profoundly negative effect on the economy. So too will scarcity of fossil fuels. Restrictions and efficiency mandates will also have a negative effect on the economy. However, they will also offset some of the negative effects of climate change AND resource scarcity. So the real question is what should we do now to put us in the best shape economically for the future?
just to clarify, since you posted the above quote;
you think ALL broken clocks are stopped?
none simply run fast/slow (wind speed?), etc?
Moderator's Warning: |
Natural variation just like so many of the warming/cooling phases. Many have alluded to the Maunder minumum but in reality we can only guess
It will be pretty obvious to any impartial observer based on our respective input that I know considerably more about this subject than you do
No natural variation! so the weather guy(or girl) can tell you exactly what the climate conditions will be 5 years from today?Hate to tell you this, guy, but except for the seasons themselves being determined by the earth's position in relation to the sun, ALL major planet-wide climactic changes have CAUSES - they don't "just happen due to natural variation".
Hate to tell you this, guy, but except for the seasons themselves being determined by the earth's position in relation to the sun, ALL major planet-wide climactic changes have CAUSES - they don't "just happen due to natural variation".
Your first quote above obviates your claim.
I'm sure they do. Its just that we do not know what they are. If we do not know the causes of these dozens of natural changes over recent millenia then how can we determine that todays isn't just another one of them ?
Well then genius there have been around two dozen natural warming phases at least as warm or warmer than today since the last glaciation. Please enlighten us (and the whole scientific community) with your explanation for such events ?
This is just the last 4000 years
Kobashi 2011
View attachment 67183762
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
At what time point on that plot did man begin using more than 1/2 of the known CLHC's in the world to begin building the intrastructure and cities in their current (climate compatible) locations?
Can you not read graphs then ? Man clearly has little or nothing to do with the post glacial temperature variations, many of which have been far more dramatic than that which we see today.
Can you not read what I wrote?
The onus is on you to prove that todays temperatures are unprecedented or unnatural and that man must therefore be culpable. I've just demonstrated that they aren't and therefore he isn't. How much clearer an illustration do you require ?
The onus is on you to prove that todays temperatures are unprecedented or unnatural and that man must therefore be culpable. I've just demonstrated that they aren't and therefore he isn't. How much clearer an illustration do you require ?
Nothing you just said has ANYTHING to do with what I wrote in the comment you responded to.
Fanatics don't care about evidence. They will keep the faith, even when their case goes down in flames.
I'm sure they do. Its just that we do not know what they are. If we do not know the causes of these dozens of natural changes over recent millenia then how can we determine that todays isn't just another one of them ?
Well then genius there have been around two dozen natural warming phases at least as warm or warmer than today since the last glaciation. Please enlighten us (and the whole scientific community) with your explanation for such events ?
This is just the last 4000 years
Kobashi 2011
View attachment 67183762
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
That's the problem with your level of understanding, guy - with the great majority (and perhaps all) of the big climactic changes, we DO know what almost certainly caused them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?