176 replies to this topic

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 04 March 2013 - 01:12 AM, said:

you did not show any evidence.

He didn't.  But you did.  Read your own posts.

Why don't we take BFB up on his offer to post some references?  Thanks, BFB.

I'm signing off now.  I am going to a conference and will be back next week.  Won't have a chance to tune in for a laugh until then.
Bye.
Doug

[BFB]

Dont know if the links work, on my phone.

http://m.iopscience....9326/7/4/044025

http://www.nature.co...ll/ngeo1727.htm

http://www.nature.co...limate1251.html

But bigest fear are the ARs(Atmospheric Rivers) will intensify which they will with increased temperatures.. Which will defiantly cause "dangerous GW"

[Br Cornelius]

BFB, on 04 March 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

Dont know if the links work, on my phone.

http://m.iopscience....9326/7/4/044025

http://www.nature.co...ll/ngeo1727.htm

http://www.nature.co...limate1251.html

But bigest fear are the ARs(Atmospheric Rivers) will intensify which they will with increased temperatures.. Which will defiantly cause "dangerous GW"

Those trend are already clearly visible within regional datasets.

Br Cornelius

[Einsteinium]

I accept that the science behind anthropogenic climate change is real and mountains of evidence support the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However I am not sure as to how much this effect is contributing to global warming. The fact that other planets in the solar system are also warming (Mars in particular SOURCE) shows that the sun could be a primary reason for global warming here on earth. However I am sure that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is just going to make it worse/faster.

Our planet has actually been in a rather cool spot for the last 50,000 years or so, cooler than the average, so perhaps we are overdo for a warming period naturally anyways and we are just speeding it along.

EDIT: upon reading more of this thread I realized that I am WAY lacking in sources/evidence here to back up any of my claims let it be known that what I have stated here is my opinion based on reading I have done about this issue in the past. I am open, yes open, to having my opinion changed.

Edited by Einsteinium, 04 March 2013 - 07:02 PM.

[Little Fish]

BFB, on 04 March 2013 - 06:04 PM, said:

Dont know if the links work, on my phone.

http://m.iopscience....9326/7/4/044025

http://www.nature.co...ll/ngeo1727.htm

http://www.nature.co...limate1251.html

But bigest fear are the ARs(Atmospheric Rivers) will intensify which they will with increased temperatures.. Which will defiantly cause "dangerous GW"

those studies are based on unpenetrable model runs, not empirical science and they don't even mention AGW let alone quantify it.

[Little Fish]

BFB, on 04 March 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

It would be a very hard task to come up with evidence for dangerous AGW given at the current state GW is not dangerous for us humans

The only thing we can do is to use our logic and predict what might happen. If you want peer-reviewed paper's on what might happen in decades time it would be possible to deliver some to you.

if its hard or impossible, then thats not a problem for me, its a problem for those that preach dangerous AGW and falsely claim it is based on science.
the sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide as specified by the ipcc does not lead to dangerous AGW. the amplifying factors that the models have to use to produce dangerous AGW are simply assumptions and programmed into the climate models, which in essence is circular reasoning.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 04 March 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

those studies are based on unpenetrable model runs, not empirical science and they don't even mention AGW let alone quantify it.

They predict the observed increase in regional precipitation, storm and heatwave occurrence. Reality is confirming the predictions of climate science which is confirming the model assumptions on which future predictions are based.

In of themselves they suggest only that the correct model assumptions seem to have been met and increase the confidence in the ability of climate models to correctly predict the future climate trends.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 04 March 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

if its hard or impossible, then thats not a problem for me, its a problem for those that preach dangerous AGW and falsely claim it is based on science.
the sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide as specified by the ipcc does not lead to dangerous AGW. the amplifying factors that the models have to use to produce dangerous AGW are simply assumptions and programmed into the climate models, which in essence is circular reasoning.

Sensitivity is based on observed sensitivity within the paleoclimatic record. It is not guess work or predominantly based on model predictions.
The models are simply a means of establishing the component parts of the known historic response to CO2 fluctuations.

BFB point is that the predicted consequences can only be inferred from the known current trends becau7se they have not yet become catastrophic. There is no acknowledgement that they will not become so given a continuation of current trends.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

Br Cornelius, on 04 March 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

Sensitivity is based on observed sensitivity within the paleoclimatic record. It is not guess work or predominantly based on model predictions.
The models are simply a means of establishing the component parts of the known historic response to CO2 fluctuations.

BFB point is that the predicted consequences can only be inferred from the known current trends becau7se they have not yet become catastrophic. There is no acknowledgement that they will not become so given a continuation of current trends.

Br Cornelius

There is acknowledgement of what will, just a guess and a desire to punish tha usa for being so rich.  This is just  world wide effert to get the usa to pay fines, so poor nations can use that money for themselves.  That should read no acknowledgement.

Edited by danielost, 04 March 2013 - 09:21 PM.

[Einsteinium]

danielost, on 04 March 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

There is acknowledgement of what will, just a guess and a desire to punish tha usa for being so rich.  This is just  world wide effert to get the usa to pay fines, so poor nations can use that money for themselves.

Yeah because the billions of dollars in aid we give to those nations is not enough...

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 04 March 2013 - 09:05 PM, said:

BFB point is that the predicted consequences can only be inferred from the known current trends becau7se they have not yet become catastrophic. There is no acknowledgement that they will not become so given a continuation of current trends.

do i have to point our that, that is the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, or "what i suggest is true, because you have not disproven it", does god exist because no one has shown he doesn't?

[MysticStrummer]

danielost, on 04 March 2013 - 09:18 PM, said:

This is just  world wide effert to get the usa to pay fines, so poor nations can use that money for themselves.  That should read no acknowledgement.

A world wide effort to make the world's biggest polluters ( China and the US ) cut the crap? Say it ain't so. Hitting people, including those individuals that happen to be corporations according to the law, in their wallet is what they understand best. It's one of the many wonders of capitalism.

How can intelligent people look at what our species spews into the atmosphere and think it has no effect? I just don't get it. Stopping pollution can only be good, yet people fight for their right to continue polluting the air they breathe, the water they drink, and by extension all their food sources. Humans are very odd animals.

[danielost]

MysticStrummer, on 05 March 2013 - 05:28 AM, said:

A world wide effort to make the world's biggest polluters ( China and the US ) cut the crap? Say it ain't so. Hitting people, including those individuals that happen to be corporations according to the law, in their wallet is what they understand best. It's one of the many wonders of capitalism.

How can intelligent people look at what our species spews into the atmosphere and think it has no effect? I just don't get it. Stopping pollution can only be good, yet people fight for their right to continue polluting the air they breathe, the water they drink, and by extension all their food sources. Humans are very odd animals.

First china isn't included in the green house gas problem.  
Second chinese cow farts he'll green house gas and the usa's cow farts increase green house gases.  I would point I links but I haven't quite got thus tablet done yet.  Thhe reason for most of my mistypes.