Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 21-05-2016, 07:51   #5026
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
And most of the truly stupid....... seem to be on government handouts and benefits.
Like John Christy and Roy Spencer?
__________________

__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 21-05-2016, 07:53   #5027
Registered User
 
Delfin's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Anacortes, WA
Boat: 55' Romsdal
Posts: 1,390
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
We're any puffins killed?
I feed puffins to my cows. Makes them fart more.
__________________

__________________
http://delfin.talkspot.com
When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to appeal to another cause.
- Ulmann's Razor
Delfin is offline  
Old 21-05-2016, 07:59   #5028
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,511
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Yes, I did know that. And I buy gasoline from companies that recognize the problem and are doing something about.
LOL... You're killing me...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image.jpeg
Views:	25
Size:	78.3 KB
ID:	124676  
__________________
Kenomac is offline  
Old 21-05-2016, 08:01   #5029
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,511
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
I feed puffins to my cows. Makes them fart more.
I guess that's kinda the same as revving a Ferrari.............. only different.
__________________
Kenomac is offline  
Old 21-05-2016, 08:06   #5030
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenomac View Post
LOL... You're killing me...
Yes, I am.
__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 21-05-2016, 09:26   #5031
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 129
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
Once again, your lack of understanding is causing you to focus on your own red herring. The % of human contribution to atmospheric CO2 is published. We know what it is. It AGW were true, then to impact warming we would have to impact that since natural sources are beyond our control. Are you with me so far?
You are confused about who is focusing on a red herring.

You continue to focus on comparing our emissions to things like live plant respiration. Nearly 30% of the total natural emissions you quoted are emissions from live vegetation.

Why are you comparing human emissions to those of live plants? You claim to be aware that plants uptake more CO2 than they emit. It is a simple question. Just answer it.

Or do you just have no idea what you are comparing human emissions to?

The rest of your odd rant seems to be entirely based on your confusion about this, so doesn't seem worth responding to.
__________________
mr_f is offline  
Old 21-05-2016, 10:28   #5032
Registered User
 
transmitterdan's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2011
Boat: Valiant 42
Posts: 4,019
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_f View Post
Why are you comparing human emissions to those of live plants? You claim to be aware that plants uptake more CO2 than they emit. It is a simple question. Just answer it.
I undertand Defin's point is that if one believes that only man made CO2 is the problem then we have to reduce that amount of CO2 by a huge amount (50%?) to meet the 1.5 or 2C temp increase goal. But the agreed reductions in CO2 amount to a tiny fraction of that amount. So the goals are woefully inadequate if one holds to the view that only manmade CO2 is the problem/solution.

The simplistic math some are using is not even close to the real complexity of the problem. The CO2 emission/uptake cycle is highly non-linear and cannot be modeled by simple addition and subtraction. And so far as heat retention is concerned a CO2 molecule released by a cow pattie has exactly the same effect as a CO2 molecule released from a car tailpipe. This idea that man made CO2 is somehow "magically worse" than CO2 emitted by polar bears is just silly.
__________________
transmitterdan is online now  
Old 21-05-2016, 10:31   #5033
Registered User
 
Delfin's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Anacortes, WA
Boat: 55' Romsdal
Posts: 1,390
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Yes, I did know that. And I buy gasoline from companies that recognize the problem and are doing something about.
Not me. I seek out oil and gas companies that want to destroy the earth. Usually you can find their commitment to Armageddon in their mission statement.
__________________
http://delfin.talkspot.com
When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to appeal to another cause.
- Ulmann's Razor
Delfin is offline  
Old 21-05-2016, 10:40   #5034
Registered User
 
Delfin's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Anacortes, WA
Boat: 55' Romsdal
Posts: 1,390
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by transmitterdan View Post
I undertand Defin's point is that if one believes that only man made CO2 is the problem then we have to reduce that amount of CO2 by a huge amount (50%?) to meet the 1.5 or 2C temp increase goal. But the agreed reductions in CO2 amount to a tiny fraction of that amount. So the goals are woefully inadequate if one holds to the view that only manmade CO2 is the problem/solution.

The simplistic math some are using is not even close to the real complexity of the problem. The CO2 emission/uptake cycle is highly non-linear and cannot be modeled by simple addition and subtraction. And so far as heat retention is concerned a CO2 molecule released by a cow pattie has exactly the same effect as a CO2 molecule released from a car tailpipe. This idea that man made CO2 is somehow "magically worse" than CO2 emitted by polar bears is just silly.
Thank you.

Just as a practical matter, it doesn't matter what the % of human emitted CO2 is when it comes to the "what do we do about it" question, which is why it is a red herring. We know what the amount is, and it is trivial, but even if atmospheric CO2 were 100% caused by humans if we wanted to reduce it, the plans agreed to accomplish this silly objective aren't going to have the slightest impact. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions by the 3000 gigatonnes the IPCC says is required to limit temps to 2 degrees above pre-industrial times would be to kill off 3/4 of the planet and go back to pre-industrial technology. And wouldn't that be lovely.

Warmists will never honestly debate the question of what is required to do what they say needs to be done because to do so is to discover the simple fact that what they say needs to happen, can't and won't. Which is why I am with Bjorn Lomborg in thinking that rather than pissing away trillions accomplishing nothing other than making Leonardo de Crapio feel virtuous we spend a few hundred billion figuring out how to do something useful for humanity.
__________________
http://delfin.talkspot.com
When stupidity is a sufficient explanation, there is no need to appeal to another cause.
- Ulmann's Razor
Delfin is offline  
Old 21-05-2016, 10:44   #5035
Senior Cruiser
 
jackdale's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Posts: 5,040
Images: 1
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Meanwhile

__________________
ISPA Yachtmaster Ocean Instructor Evaluator
Sail Canada Advanced Cruising Instructor
IYT Yachtmaster Coastal Instructor
ASA 201, 203,204, 205, 206, 214
As I sail, I praise God, and care not. (Luke Foxe)
jackdale is offline  
Old 21-05-2016, 10:52   #5036
Senior Cruiser
 
Kenomac's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Somewhere in the Adriatic Sea
Boat: Oyster 53 Cutter
Posts: 8,511
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Meanwhile

Jack,

Me don't care about no graphics, 'tis the same dang temperature here in Sardenga this time of year as it was last year. And the water measures up to the same height on the fixed pier as it did last year. You're worried about nothin'

I was hoping it would be warmer. Apparently, your graph is bogus.
__________________
Kenomac is offline  
Old 21-05-2016, 10:55   #5037
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_f View Post
You are confused about who is focusing on a red herring.

You continue to focus on comparing our emissions to things like live plant respiration. Nearly 30% of the total natural emissions you quoted are emissions from live vegetation.

Why are you comparing human emissions to those of live plants? You claim to be aware that plants uptake more CO2 than they emit. It is a simple question. Just answer it.

Or do you just have no idea what you are comparing human emissions to?

The rest of your odd rant seems to be entirely based on your confusion about this, so doesn't seem worth responding to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by transmitterdan View Post
I undertand Defin's point is that if one believes that only man made CO2 is the problem then we have to reduce that amount of CO2 by a huge amount (50%?) to meet the 1.5 or 2C temp increase goal. But the agreed reductions in CO2 amount to a tiny fraction of that amount. So the goals are woefully inadequate if one holds to the view that only manmade CO2 is the problem/solution.

The simplistic math some are using is not even close to the real complexity of the problem. The CO2 emission/uptake cycle is highly non-linear and cannot be modeled by simple addition and subtraction. And so far as heat retention is concerned a CO2 molecule released by a cow pattie has exactly the same effect as a CO2 molecule released from a car tailpipe. This idea that man made CO2 is somehow "magically worse" than CO2 emitted by polar bears is just silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfin View Post
Thank you.

Just as a practical matter, it doesn't matter what the % of human emitted CO2 is when it comes to the "what do we do about it" question, which is why it is a red herring. We know what the amount is, and it is trivial, but even if atmospheric CO2 were 100% caused by humans if we wanted to reduce it, the plans agreed to accomplish this silly objective aren't going to have the slightest impact. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions by the 3000 gigatonnes the IPCC says is required to limit temps to 2 degrees above pre-industrial times would be to kill off 3/4 of the planet and go back to pre-industrial technology. And wouldn't that be lovely.

Warmists will never honestly debate the question of what is required to do what they say needs to be done because to do so is to discover the simple fact that what they say needs to happen, can't and won't. Which is why I am with Bjorn Lomborg in thinking that rather than pissing away trillions accomplishing nothing other than making Leonardo de Crapio feel virtuous we spend a few hundred billion figuring out how to do something useful for humanity.
All most helpful & informative, thanks. I understand the gist of Delfin's argument, also understand mr_f's point that the 3% anthropogenic gross number should be looked as a net increase in emissions which the sinks are unable to handle, but not sure what mr_f is getting at beyond that. I don't think he means that CO2 molecules differ, but he can explain. Assuming they (obviously) do not differ, then I think what's he's saying is that since we know natural CO2 is negative, then any additional CO2 emitted (i.e by humans) must be causing the overall increase.

If this is correct, I'm unclear how science makes this distinction given all the uncertainties with how the sinks operate. But then Delfin's basic cost-benefit argument using the IPCC's own numbers seems to make the gross vs. net analysis moot. What'd I miss??
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 21-05-2016, 11:02   #5038
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
Someone's tagline in another thread struck me as apposite to the divide between alarmists and sceptics.

"The trouble with this world is that
the ignorant are cocksure
and the intelligent are full of doubt."
- George Bernard Shaw
No kidding, huh? The corollary problem is if you're so cocksure then you are probably unaware of your ignorance. That's when humility can be indispensable for learning.
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 21-05-2016, 11:11   #5039
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 2,961
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackdale View Post
Meanwhile

Is this one of the satellite data sets, surface data, or a combo? (the source for the graph says NASA but not sure re: the data source).

Btw, most of the scientific community accepts that we are warming, but there's a smaller consensus that believes that, if it wasn't for anthropogenic CO2 and other human influences, we would be cooling.

Maybe you can address that one, or is that too much acknowledgment of scientific opinions that don't support your own preferred position?
__________________
Exile is offline  
Old 21-05-2016, 11:14   #5040
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 129
Re: Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
Assuming they (obviously) do not differ, then I think what's he's saying is that since we know natural CO2 is negative, then any additional CO2 emitted (i.e by humans) must be causing the overall increase.
You have it spot on. The current increase in atmospheric CO2 is caused by us.

Delfin's repeated "but but but... plants emit nearly 10 times as much CO2 as we do" is just silly misdirection. Plants uptake twice as much CO2 as they emit. I know that, you know that, Delfin apparently is still confused about that.

This nonsense about "magic" CO2 molecules is also silly misdirection. No one has claimed that the CO2 we emit has different radiative properties. It it is the concentration that matters. We have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm through our actions, or around 40%.

He has similar math problems with his assertions about the Paris agreements. No one is claiming they are sufficient, but he is way off on how much impact they will have, because he still believes that that humans are only responsible for 3% of the increase in atmospheric CO2.
__________________

__________________
mr_f is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cruising and the Coming Storm ~ Recession, Depression, Climate Change, Peak Oil jtbsail Off Topic Forum 162 13-10-2015 13:17
Weather Patterns / Climate Change anjou Off Topic Forum 185 19-01-2010 15:08
Climate Change GordMay Off Topic Forum 445 02-09-2008 08:48
Healthiest coral reefs hardest hit by climate change GordMay Off Topic Forum 33 11-05-2007 03:07



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 15:09.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.