Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your inference is not my implication.

If the science was settled it would need no further study. No scientist would make the claim, politicians do.

On that we agree.

Of course no scientist would make that claim - that would be saying goodbye to their research funding

[StuM]

Originally Posted by StuM

On that we agree.

Of course no scientist would make that claim - that would be saying goodbye to their research funding

Just after posting that I came across this

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet:
I don't think the ecosystem can differentiate between natural and anthropogenic sources of CO2, regardless of what some alarmists claim.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Who makes that claim?

What about all that back & forth, with supporting evidence, about scientists being able to distinguish CO2 derived from fossil fuel emissions vs. natural sources? Remember somebody arguing that pre-industrial age wood burning would leave the exact same fingerprint? Big debate about that one, or was it all a dream?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM:

Maybe the science isn't settled.

Originally Posted by Exile:

You mean that hasn't been the implication of every one of your relevant posts until this one??

Originally Posted by jackdale

Your inference is not my implication.

My inference? Actually, you are correct that you never implied that the science wasn't settled. Instead, each & every one of your relevant posts explicitly took the position that it in fact was -- settled in support of MMGW and its negative impacts that is. Until now, suddenly. Are there any posts that I missed where you advocated, referenced, or even acknowledged contrary positions?

If the science was settled it would need no further study. No scientist would make the claim, politicians do.

You are correct that no scientist is likely to claim that no further study is needed, but there are plenty who support the MMGW position who claim the science is settled. Aren't these many of the same scientists who you've been relying on throughout this thread?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Just after posting that I came across this

The hockey stick is a nice touch.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

The hockey stick is a nice touch.

That's just a visual clue for those who don't know what Michael Mann of Hockey Stick fame looks like:

[Exile]

Yup, and it's quite the resemblance.

In today's climate, the political rancor over the CC issue is not all that surprising. But the divisiveness within the science community itself is disappointing. I would like to think it's mainly honest disagreement amongst academics, but there must be an awful lot at stake (not just money but also reputation) to create such rigid adherence to entrenched positions. I hope I'm wrong and it's not the latter.

[SV THIRD DAY]

The hardest minds to change are those that already know.

[newhaul]

Rich if you are in Seattle for the show. The invite to see dads refer install is always open.
Cold sodas and hard ice cream as always.

[socaldmax]

I don't know if you guys have discussed this already, but the massive Porter Ranch gas leak fiasco has brought up an interesting fact. There are tens of thousands of methane leaks all across the US from the aging infrastructure and wellheads.

Together the leaks add up to more than 7.3 million metric tons of methane emissions a year, dwarfing what is happening at Aliso Canyon — and producing the same effect on the climate over 20 years as 160 coal-fired power plants,

Now I'm of the position that the effect of man made CO2 emissions on GW is way overblown, but the fact remains that methane is 25x worse than CO2 as a GW gas, and this is all because the industry is too lazy/cheap to fix the leaks!

I'm tires of CARB ramming their noses up everyone's tailpipe, driving small custom engine and motorcycle shops out of business over miniscule amounts of emissions when billions of tons of methane goes into the atmosphere and the big gas companies get away scot free!

Why bother shutting down coal fired plants if the supposedly "clean" alternative is going to emit that much methane unburned??

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by Exile

What about all that back & forth, with supporting evidence, about scientists being able to distinguish CO2 derived from fossil fuel emissions vs. natural sources? Remember somebody arguing that pre-industrial age wood burning would leave the exact same fingerprint? Big debate about that one, or was it all a dream?

I must have had the same dream. Haven't gone back over the 2000+ posts, but I seem to remember a discussion (but perhaps it was somewhere else) about C14 concentration in the gross CO2 burden of the atmosphere being useful to characterize anthropogenic CO2.

The argument went something like:
-Because C14 has a relatively short half life, and is thus absent from "old" carboniferous material such as oil, gas, and coal formed millennia ago...
-When CO2 is produced during burning of these materials, they add nothing to overall C14 inventory but do add to the total C inventory...
-And as a result, the dilution of the C14 inventory allows evaluation of the effects of carbon fuels being burned...which are anthropogenic effects...
-And thus a determination of the percentage of CO2 attributable to anthropogenc causes can be made.

Did I dream all this as well?

[socaldmax]

Here's an interesting chart showing where different emissions come from.

[newhaul]

Here's another wrench in the gw machine Volcanoes Today, 5 Feb 2016: Santiaguito volcano

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by fryewe

I must have had the same dream. Haven't gone back over the 2000+ posts, but I seem to remember a discussion (but perhaps it was somewhere else) about C14 concentration in the gross CO2 burden of the atmosphere being useful to characterize anthropogenic CO2.

The argument went something like:
-Because C14 has a relatively short half life, and is thus absent from "old" carboniferous material such as oil, gas, and coal formed millennia ago...
-When CO2 is produced during burning of these materials, they add nothing to overall C14 inventory but do add to the total C inventory...
-And as a result, the dilution of the C14 inventory allows evaluation of the effects of carbon fuels being burned...which are anthropogenic effects...
-And thus a determination of the percentage of CO2 attributable to anthropogenc causes can be made.

Did I dream all this as well?

It wasn't a dream, I posted several posts early wondering how the scientists can differentiate between CO2 from 1750 and 1760, and Jack assured me they could via carbon dating or something like that.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

It wasn't a dream, I posted several posts early wondering how the scientists can differentiate between CO2 from 1750 and 1760, and Jack assured me they could via carbon dating or something like that.

See here:

It's Our Fault | James Lawrence Powell