csnavywx Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I know the 280 ppm in 20 years comment is a bit hyperbolic on purpose, but we don't do anything on the scale it would require to do that. Iron ore is a billion ton a year business. Oil is 4 billion tons. Coal doesn't even touch 10 billion tons a year and that's a solid bulk fuel. You're talking about sequestering a gas on a scale at least 10 times that? Nasomuch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 I know the 280 ppm in 20 years comment is a bit hyperbolic on purpose, but we don't do anything on the scale it would require to do that. Iron ore is a billion ton a year business. Oil is 4 billion tons. Coal doesn't even touch 10 billion tons a year and that's a solid bulk fuel. You're talking about sequestering a gas on a scale at least 10 times that? Nasomuch. Yeah, it doesn't make economic sense to burn stuff and then remove it right after. The holistic cost would be similar to cutting down trees for no reason, even land use. This is because creating a CDR system capable of doing that would cost the GDP of 20 United States. We could make small strides by sequestering carbon at the source but that is about as good as it gets, aside from reforestation and algae pools. I've long recommended dumping massive amounts of Iron Oxide into the ocean or inland lakes to cause algae blooms. That would be a last resort measure for sure due to the law of unintended consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Wow thats some impressive ridging in the medium to long range. No end in sight to the warmth. Tipping point city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophisticated Skeptic Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 waiting for ORH_wxman to chime in, on the cooling aspect of things.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 waiting for ORH_wxman to chime in, on the cooling aspect of things.. The key question is how all the sequestered heat from 2005 onward will express itself and if you would comment if it was cool? Have we been living in a false climate reality for 10 years? What other feedbacks will this el nino kick into high gear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 waiting for ORH_wxman to chime in, on the cooling aspect of things.. Excellent post...you are contributing a lot to this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nflwxman Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 ORH can defend himself but he never said the oceans weren't collecting heat. Not sure why you'd think he did. We have our disagreements about climate sensitivity, but OHC is actually not where the argument lies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 ORH can defend himself but he never said the oceans weren't collecting heat. Not sure why you'd think he did. We have our disagreements about climate sensitivity, but OHC is actually not where the argument lies... The trolls have been a bit out of control recently. Not only is the increase in OHC quite obvious, I've been predicting 2015 as a record warm year for over a year now, so this warmth is certainly not surprising to this poster. But it is hard to take posters seriously who do not actually bother to read what is being debated and what isn't....and also refuse to read the literaure for themselves and would rather just post sensationalist blog fodder or just flat out troll post like the one baconstrips posted above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 This one is for Jonger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophisticated Skeptic Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I'm guessing that discussing facts about global warming entitles us to a Troll tag. At the same time, it is a bit early to go gung ho on the warming. If things continue looking dire the next several months... then I could see it becoming more of a so-called troll-fest around here. (possibly) Seems like a lot are still hanging on the sidelines and unsure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 I'm guessing that discussing facts about global warming entitles us to a Troll tag. At the same time, it is a bit early to go gung ho on the warming. If things continue looking dire the next several months... then I could see it becoming more of a so-called troll-fest around here. (possibly) Seems like a lot are still hanging on the sidelines and unsure. No, the troll tag applies to your post above....you posted unsolicited about another poster's intents which is both irrelevant to the topic and pure conjecture. You seem pretty confused on what constitutes "facts about global warming".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 No, the troll tag applies to your post above....you posted unsolicited about another poster's intents which is both irrelevant to the topic and pure conjecture. You seem pretty confused on what constitutes "facts about global warming".... Therein resides the certain facts and the uncertain facts with probability curves in both directions. Deniers have a useful energy about them but they are debating the wrong spectrum of facts. If you allow Deniers on the forum, myself & Bacon also have the right to expose our views since both sides are not really supported in the mainstream literature. Granted, this is a different issue from the above post. The sphere of what constitutes denial grows larger every day. At some point attributing significant implications to bi-annual trends in sea ice cover and temperatures will be a form of denial. The public impetus is just not there and voters aren't asking for this kind of legal and political reform. At the end of the day, expect me to be here for the long haul because deniers should not live peacefully in this forum. I wish I had a law degree in 21st century ethics so I could have my own red badge. Mabye people would listen. One-way streets don't work in the 21st century, you should have realized this by now. Again, we have problematic issues of generational misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hambone Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417 An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures Philip J. Lloyd Abstract There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.26.3.417 An Estimate of The Centennial Variability of Global Temperatures Philip J. Lloyd Abstract There has been widespread investigation of the drivers of changes in global temperatures. However, there has been remarkably little consideration of the magnitude of the changes to be expected over a period of a few decades or even a century. To address this question, the Holocene records up to 8000 years before present, from several ice cores were examined. The differences in temperatures between all records which are approximately a century apart were determined, after any trends in the data had been removed. The differences were close to normally distributed. The average standard deviation of temperature was 0.98 ± 0.27 °C. This suggests that while some portion of the temperature change observed in the 20th century was probably caused by greenhouse gases, there is a strong likelihood that the major portion was due to natural variations. I could accept that easily. We didn't start to diverge greatly away from the holocene CO2 range until the 1980's. The red meat of AGW is just still beyond the horizon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 Therein resides the certain facts and the uncertain facts with probability curves in both directions. Deniers have a useful energy about them but they are debating the wrong spectrum of facts. If you allow Deniers on the forum, myself & Bacon also have the right to expose our views since both sides are not really supported in the mainstream literature. Granted, this is a different issue from the above post. The sphere of what constitutes denial grows larger every day. At some point attributing significant implications to bi-annual trends in sea ice cover and temperatures will be a form of denial. The public impetus is just not there and voters aren't asking for this kind of legal and political reform. At the end of the day, expect me to be here for the long haul because deniers should not live peacefully in this forum. I wish I had a law degree in 21st century ethics so I could have my own red badge. Mabye people would listen. One-way streets don't work in the 21st century, you should have realized this by now. Again, we have problematic issues of generational misunderstanding. This post is entirely irrelevant to criticizing his troll post. There is no room for that garbage in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 If you allow Deniers on the forum, myself & Bacon also have the right to expose our views since both sides are not really supported in the mainstream literature. This is total crap, IMO. A science board has no room for opinions that can't be supported by fact. Its not about tit for tat. I am not calling for anyone to be banned, but your admittedly post that you're viewpoint isn't supported by science. So then why is that your view? I am capable of scrolling past your ridiculous posts and 95% of the time I do. I've learned that you offer nothing to this discussion and not once has one of your posts helped me understand anything. But what really gets me is your "get in line with my way of thinking OR ELSE" mindset. You're terrible at convincing others of your viewpoint with facts - likely because, by your own admission, they don't exist - so instead you try to ridicule and shame people. There is nothing scientific about that tactic.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 This is total crap, IMO. A science board has no room for opinions that can't be supported by fact. Its not about tit for tat. I am not calling for anyone to be banned, but your admittedly post that you're viewpoint isn't supported by science. So then why is that your view? I am capable of scrolling past your ridiculous posts and 95% of the time I do. I've learned that you offer nothing to this discussion and not once has one of your posts helped me understand anything. But what really gets me is your "get in line with my way of thinking OR ELSE" mindset. You're terrible at convincing others of your viewpoint with facts - likely because, by your own admission, they don't exist - so instead you try to ridicule and shame people. There is nothing scientific about that tactic.. Weatherguy701, on 22 May 2015 - 5:48 PM, said: If you allow Deniers on the forum, myself & Bacon also have the right to expose our views since both sides are not really supported in the mainstream literature. This includes all peer-reviewed literature used by IPCC and doesn't include the work in recent years on WAIS melting or work involved in predicting the end of the hiatus. None of my views are supported by IPCC, but that is not 100% of the story. You misread my post but I forgive you. You made the irrational decision to disregard all my posts based on stereotypes, so don't lecture me on science and reason. We should try to avoid the personal attacks now. I am getting fed up with it now, and not because it is working against me this time. It's simply a diplomatic offering, even if it seems shadey and unethical. I will sacrifice myself if deniers are banned from the forum. Science is not perfect, we don't live in a perfect world so you should expect surprises that were not compensated for by Science or even formally recognized. I've voiced my opinion before about how the peer-review system is inadequate and how we need a new branch of the scientific process for climate change alone due to the field's bizarre intersection of social aspects and public relations. At the end of the day, it's easier for deniers to scrape by with unsupported theories because the IPCC science is closer to the conservative side and it's not always obvious that their hypothesis is not scientifically tenable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophisticated Skeptic Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 No, the troll tag applies to your post above....you posted unsolicited about another poster's intents which is both irrelevant to the topic and pure conjecture. You seem pretty confused on what constitutes "facts about global warming".... sounds ridiculous / anal-lytic / and borderline crazyhouse talk. Me and Weatherguy pretty much already expect to be banned , just because we talk the truth and generaly go against the grain here. And also knowing the way this place operates.. (ban happy...for anyone that disagrees with a guy that has a Mod / Met tag ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 sounds ridiculous / anal-lytic / and borderline crazyhouse talk. Me and Weatherguy pretty much already expect to be banned , just because we talk the truth and generaly go against the grain here. And also knowing the way this place operates.. (ban happy...for anyone that disagrees with a guy that has a Mod / Met tag ) "We talk the truth"... Question: how would one go about defining objective truth when there isn't a known solution to the question(s)? Would we define truth as taking the mean ECS/TCR values across the spectrum of scientific literature? Would you define truth as the range of possibilities postulated by the IPCC? Or would you only define truth as your own opinion and nothing else? When there's such a variance in opinions on a particular topic (specifically, one that isn't settled), it seems inappropriate to apply the word "truth" to a subject which the specifics are still being debated heavily. For some subjects, there can be truth, as an answer is known. For this topic, I think probabilities are more applicable, I.e. "this is more likely to occur than that," etc. +3c temp increase would be more likely than a +7c temp increase in the next 100 years. You cannot claim to be talking the "truth" unless you possess some incredible foreknowledge that your opinion is the correct one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isotherm Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 This includes all peer-reviewed literature used by IPCC and doesn't include the work in recent years on WAIS melting or work involved in predicting the end of the hiatus. None of my views are supported by IPCC, but that is not 100% of the story. You misread my post but I forgive you. You made the irrational decision to disregard all my posts based on stereotypes, so don't lecture me on science and reason. We should try to avoid the personal attacks now. I am getting fed up with it now, and not because it is working against me this time. It's simply a diplomatic offering, even if it seems shadey and unethical. I will sacrifice myself if deniers are banned from the forum. Science is not perfect, we don't live in a perfect world so you should expect surprises that were not compensated for by Science or even formally recognized. I've voiced my opinion before about how the peer-review system is inadequate and how we need a new branch of the scientific process for climate change alone due to the field's bizarre intersection of social aspects and public relations. At the end of the day, it's easier for deniers to scrape by with unsupported theories because the IPCC science is closer to the conservative side and it's not always obvious that their hypothesis is not scientifically tenable. Just for future reference, how would you define "denier". I see a lot of labels thrown around in this forum quite a bit, and it seems that the labels given are simply a deviation/disagreement from that poster's point of view (i.e., anything less extreme than one's view is a denier, and anything more extreme than one's view is an alarmist). In other words, like my previous post, there's no objectivity involved in defining these labels, it's just a matter of the person's impression of the validity of their own opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophisticated Skeptic Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 "We talk the truth"... Question: how would one go about defining objective truth when there isn't a known solution to the question(s)? Would we define truth as taking the mean ECS/TCR values across the spectrum of scientific literature? Would you define truth as the range of possibilities postulated by the IPCC? Or would you only define truth as your own opinion and nothing else? When there's such a variance in opinions on a particular topic (specifically, one that isn't settled), it seems inappropriate to apply the word "truth" to a subject which the specifics are still being debated heavily. For some subjects, there can be truth, as an answer is known. For this topic, I think probabilities are more applicable, I.e. "this is more likely to occur than that," etc. +3c temp increase would be more likely than a +7c temp increase in the next 100 years. You cannot claim to be talking the "truth" unless you possess some incredible foreknowledge that your opinion is the correct one. lol. Looks like someone's been creeping this thread a bit too long....popping up out of the blue...with long ramblings speak for itself. When there's such a variance in opinions on a particular topic (specifically, one that isn't settled), it seems inappropriate to apply the word "truth" to a subject which the specifics are still being debated heavily. Sounds pretty 2010'ish. We're over the past now and the evidence is overwhelming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Do you realize in every single one of your replies so far you have not answered or acknowledged any of the criticisms that highlight your lack of scientific evidence for your ramblings? You so far have replied with vague answers like "knowing the truth" or making some bizarre reference to 2010 with zero context. Why don't you keep your posts to the banter thread if you are insistent on making declarations with no scientific basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophisticated Skeptic Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Do you realize in every single one of your replies so far you have not answered or acknowledged any of the criticisms that highlight your lack of scientific evidence for your ramblings? nice job with your creative wording. I don't waste my time showing cards to people not worth the time...and that can't listen. Or live in another world, like everything's fine and dandy. (temps/ice) the other guys here already post the images of scientific significance that I normally would be. Maybe you missed my post yesterday...and yes, were currently falling off the cliff ice cover wise. But it's all ok and normal for 'the other side' . Why don't you keep your posts to the banter thread if you are insistent on making declarations with no scientific basis. sounds like someone needs their pacifier again. The same thing you say to everyone that upsets you a touch. grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Just for future reference, how would you define "denier". I see a lot of labels thrown around in this forum quite a bit, and it seems that the labels given are simply a deviation/disagreement from that poster's point of view (i.e., anything less extreme than one's view is a denier, and anything more extreme than one's view is an alarmist). In other words, like my previous post, there's no objectivity involved in defining these labels, it's just a matter of the person's impression of the validity of their own opinion. This might be one of the best posts in CC ever. I feel you man. In my opinion, denier is an individual who believes that AGW is not a social, economic, and political threat in the 21st century. They only need to exclude one of the three to be a denier as well. It's only slightly above and beyond the traditional definition which is simply someone who believes the Earth is not warming due to carbon emissions. We should probably drop the denier/alarmist thing entirely and go strictly by empirical evidence. The only problem with losing the theoretical touch is that you fall victim to unforeseen consequences and feedbacks. The climate system is like a panel of switches, any respectable climate scientist would agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 So you are saying that if you don't believe in the alarmist viewpint you are a denier? The term denier is horrible because it has been used on people who deny the holocaust. This is a serious attack on the majority of atmospheric scientists who can be termed luke warmers if you have to label people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 So you are saying that if you don't believe in the alarmist viewpint you are a denier? The term denier is horrible because it has been used on people who deny the holocaust. This is a serious attack on the majority of atmospheric scientists who can be termed luke warmers if you have to label people. Could very well be on its way towards a genocidal type event at some point, without proper policy making. It's all conjecture, we don't really know what life will be like in 2100 and that is probably a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Genocide? ?? You need to get a grip. The climate system is not that sensitive to CO2. The oceans are a huge buffer and the TCR likely will be centuries. Mankind will adapt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 nice job with your creative wording. I don't waste my time showing cards to people not worth the time...and that can't listen. Or live in another world, like everything's fine and dandy. (temps/ice) the other guys here already post the images of scientific significance that I normally would be. Maybe you missed my post yesterday...and yes, were currently falling off the cliff ice cover wise. But it's all ok and normal for 'the other side' . sounds like someone needs their pacifier again. The same thing you say to everyone that upsets you a touch. grow up. You are completely and utterly off your rocker. No surprise you don't back up a thing you say with science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvantHiatus Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Genocide? ?? You need to get a grip. The climate system is not that sensitive to CO2. The oceans are a huge buffer and the TCR likely will be centuries. Mankind will adapt. Is it really possible to know all of the above when we have no analogs for a rapid 20th century-esque release of carbon? Paleo argues the climate will roughly stay in bounds within given GHG states. If that is the case, we are headed for a world incompatible with civilization as it exists now. We are releasing carbon faster than the PETM event, that is pretty messed up but breezes by those who don't have any context of the science. This is why people should listen to scientists like James Hansen and Eric Rignot. There is alot more to the story than Co2 = more heat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now