Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

'Seems more appropriate placed here.

Good one, Ken!

[Kenomac]

I'm obtaining a price quote for a new Solbian solar array looking something like this, for the davits on our Oyster.

Putting more of my money where Jack and Lake-effect's mouths are.

Anyone adding up the amount of CO2 being spewed promoting the GW/climate Change movement/religion?

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Don't hold your breath. He also hasn't answered the question as to what direct action his school class took in saving the 400 acres of forest he took credit for in a previous post. Must have recycled the essays they wrote throughout the year on the dangers of climate change.

Jack seems to use one of two responses to questions...
...indirect avoidance by posting a cut and paste or links, with little or no comment, and
...ignoring the question.

You left out:
...answering a question by asking an unrelated question.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I'm obtaining a price quote for a new Solbian solar array looking something like this, for the davits on our Oyster.

Putting more of my money where Jack and Lake-effect's mouths are.

Anyone adding up the amount of CO2 being spewed promoting the GW/climate Change movement/religion?

Nice looking set. You do realise that that array. Cost more than my islander and the last 5 years maintance combined . Not to mention the scant 40 gallons of gas I have burned on the boat in that same time frame. I'm a bit jelous.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Nice looking set. You do realise that that array. Cost more than my islander and the last 5 years maintance combined . Not to mention the scant 40 gallons of gas I have burned on the boat in that same time frame. I'm a bit jelous.

To me it represents working 170 hours as a registered nurse, medicating a bunch of idiots in a locked nuthouse.

Hopefully, we'll have our solar array early next month so that some folks can feel good about themselves.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

You left out:
...answering a question by asking an unrelated question.

That would be the logical fallacy of 'avoiding the question,' something all warmists are adepts at. Add the fallacies of the 'ad hominem', the 'appeal to authority', the 'red herring', the 'assuming the answer', and a few other fallacies and you pretty much have Jack's complete repertoire that somehow he confuses with a process of scientific inquiry and integrity.

But that's ok, everyone needs a hobby., so God bless the poor man. The climate continues to warm as it has for 260 years, and it will start to cool at some point - hopefully in the distant future. In the meantime, enjoy the weather, cause it is getting better and better. If warmists weren't killing poor people and acting smugly happy about the results of their fantasies there would be nothing bad to say. They'd be just as harmless as cargo cultists, bothering nobody much and only fooling themselves.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

To me it represents working 170 hours as a registered nurse, medicating a bunch of idiots in a locked nuthouse.

Hopefully, we'll have our solar array early next month so that some folks can feel good about themselves.

I get that but at my house I do it for free. Can I have some of the good stuff heck I would love a couple days of the old thorizene shuffle. :
Have a cousin that lives on a cutter in Frisco I think it would be a couple days for him. He is an arnp flight trauma certified.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I get that but at my house I do it for free. Can I have some of the good stuff heck I would love a couple days of the old thorizene shuffle. :
Have a cousin that lives on a cutter in Frisco I think it would be a couple days for him. He is an arnp flight trauma certified.

Yeah.... I definitely need to upgrade my work environment and pay scale when I return mid October. Right now, I have more in common with a zookeeper than with your cutter cousin.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by chala

You are disappointing me.

Chala,

Welcome back.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

To me it represents working 170 hours as a registered nurse, medicating a bunch of idiots in a locked nuthouse.

Hopefully, we'll have our solar array early next month so that some folks can feel good about themselves.

If you haven't already ordered, you might consider some of these.
I recently purchased a couple of semiflexible but not walkable panels to replace a single 120 watt rigid panel on my stern arch.

http://www.amazon.com/KINGSOLAR-trad...f_=pd_ybh_a_33

Two of these with a support system saved me about 5 lbs while giving me double the output of the same space.
While flexible and not walkable, I'm not expecting to walk up there.
I'm in fat city with 440 watts total. Two Aurinco 100's on the amas and these guys.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Anyone adding up the amount of CO2 being spewed promoting the GW/climate Change movement/religion?

300,000 tons just for the Paris conference

The Paris Climate Talks Will Emit 300,000 Tons of CO2, by Our Math. Hope It’s Worth It | WIRED

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I'm obtaining a price quote for a new Solbian solar array looking something like this, for the davits on our Oyster.

Putting more of my money where Jack and Lake-effect's mouths are.

That's very similar to the array I have.

[mr_f]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Since you are immune to data, I have no idea why you would ask that. It appears above, but here it is again:

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive...t/pdf/tbl3.pdf

Now, assuming that you actually read this and take it on board, can you acknowledge that 3% of total atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic, according at least to the IPCC, leaves 97% due to natural causes, again according to the IPCC?

Further, if you accept the IPCC data, could you acknowledge that unless you propose killing off 5 billion people and returning humanity to the paleolithic age, you are going to have scant impact on that 3% even with the most absurd leftist programs implemented?

Further, if this hard data from a source other than a fantasy writer sinks in, can you acknowledge that the cause you say you fervently believe in and ridicule people who don't share your faith is about as rational as believing that naugas are threatened with extinction due to overharvesting of naugahyde?

We all await your answer......

Originally Posted by Kenomac

'Seems more appropriate placed here.

Since you brought this back up... this bit of logic where Delfin thinks less than 3% of atmospheric CO2 is attributable to humans makes me laugh.

Let's say you have a bank account with $10,000 in it. (Call this the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.)

Let's say you withdraw on average $5000 per day from your account to make a series of interest free loans to your friends -- some long term and some short term. (This is absorption from the atmosphere -- short term things like photosynthesis, longer term things like carbonate forming into limestone.)

And let's say you deposit on average $5000 per day into your account as your loans are paid back (respiration, volcanos, etc.)

Sure, back in the day your balance increased and decreased as you were either ahead or behind on loan collection, but recently you have things pretty well in balance -- $5000 out and $5000 in every day.

But you decide you have some free time, so you get a lucrative job. Pays $10 per day (this is fossil fuel emissions). Your stinking socialist friends think you are now a fat-cat, and start shortchanging you just a bit on loan payments. So now you are depositing $5005 per day into your account -- $10 from your job and $4995 from the loan repayment (somewhat shortchanged because the 'sinks' have taken up some of 'source' -- for instance increased photosynthesis or 'greening' that has been mentioned).

You keep this job for 5 years. Your account is now worth $19,125, nearly double what you started with. ($10,000 + (5 * 365 * $5005) - (5 * 365 * $5000)) (I realize I didn't account for leap years.)

Well, you deposited $9,115,875 from loans, and $18,250 from your job.

Your job only accounts for 0.2% of the deposits into your account. By Delfin's logic, your job obviously has nearly no impact on your balance. You should quit and stick with the loans (which are currently losing money). Brilliant.


(In news related to the more recent posts, I too am in the process of installing about 440W of Solbian panels. I hope they live up to my expectations.)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I answered your questions from post #4111

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2112498

Since you do not bother to read responses, I shall no longer respond to your post.

See ya.

Once again, your silence is deafening. I read your responses to Delfin's initial and follow-up posts but also didn't see where you answered any of the questions posed. Better to say you don't know than obfuscate, ignore, or mislead. Didn't they teach you that in teacher school?

First, I'm mystified that you still think that merely copying & pasting another chart or graph is persuasive without at least a sentence or two explaining how it's relevant or answers the question. But it's up to you to try and advance your position as opposed to merely appearing all-knowing & "officious."

Second, what does your response that fossil fuels have been "sequestered" prior to humans extracting and burning them have to do with the ratio of natural vs. human CO2 emissions now? Obviously they were "sequestered" before humans started using them for energy. The point being made by Reef was that carbon was being released for millions of years prior to that. So the question posed was (a) how did the planet deal with all of that carbon cumulatively over the eons, and (b) how does adding an amount comprising only another 3% of the total throw things out of balance? You've made this claim again & again, so now it's time to support it in the face of some reasonable pushback. Or does pushback offend?

Originally Posted by jackdale

Did you bother to read your table?

Why don't you just make your point rather than this pointless exercise of trying to appear smarter?

The system could absorb the natural CO2. It does not absorb the additional anthropogenic CO2.

Because the additional CO2 is anthropogenic, or because of the additional quantity? Why do your "answers" so often give rise to further questions?

It shows a net increase of 11,700 million metric tonnes of CO2, clearly the system is out balance.

Total numbers sound impressive but are meaningless without directly comparing them to amounts of natural CO2. Don't you think others may have also caught on? The question presented is how does an add'l. 3% in CO2 emissions cause the earth to be out of balance?

If you eat 2200 calories and expend 2060, you body stores that energy as fat.

Obviously, but here we are talking about a system that deals with the "stored fat," i.e. "excess" CO2, by removing a significant part of it from the atmosphere. Your analogy doesn't work, until and unless science can more definitively tell us that storing "excess" CO2 in plants, soil, and oceans is a harmful thing.

If you add more CO2 than is absorbed CO2 levels increase.

Yup, got that one too. Except that warmer temps also increase CO2 levels, a fact which is consistent with the natural long-term warming trend that many scientists also seem to believe the earth has been experiencing since the LIA. I don't recall where you've ever acknowledged this, choosing instead to only post studies concluding that the earth's warming is almost all attributable to fossil fuel emissions. That's fine as evidence goes, but hardly makes the case that such evidence is necessarily deserving of more acceptance given what is also known.

The net effect of volcanoes is short-term cooling.

Yup, another one I've read from you and understand, many times over in fact. But didn't Reef's point go to the cumulative impact of volcanoes and many other events over millions of years which all emit carbon into the atmosphere? The question was where did all that carbon go, and how does a human contribution of just 3% from burning fossil fuels put the earth "out of balance" as you claim?

Originally Posted by jackdale

I was responding to Reefmagnet, not you. Pay attention.

Is this another new "rule," this time restricting the number of posters who may respond to a particular post? I think pm's might be better designed for that. Remember you didn't follow the last rule you pronounced about not attacking the messenger. Or is it that you find Delfin's posts particularly challenging? After participating in Curry's blog and debating all those other important celebrities in the CC world, I would think it would be easy for you to respond on a sailing forum where many more people probably lack a science or technical background. What's with that?

Originally Posted by SailOar

Actually, natural carbon sinks are quite capable of handling the 'excess' CO2 that we humans are emitting. The problem isn't the quantity but rather the rate of release. Natural carbon sinks operate much more slowly then we currently emit.

OK, sounds plausible. But I'm still stumped about the minimal (3%) amount being released by fossil fuel emissions as compared to the total. Even if your cited studies are correct, then how does this harm us, what if anything should be done, and at what cost?

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

In fact the late carboniferous period is particularly revealing- being the time that much of the worlds coal reserves were deposited aka sequestered and all - as CO2 atmospheric content plummeted whilst global temperatures soared. Doesn't really gel with GHG global warming theory now, does it?

This would definitely be a constructive question to answer if I was a devout warmest. Leaving it unanswered only bolsters the deniers and encourages more skepticism.

Originally Posted by jackdale

How many times do we have to say that CO2 is not and has not been the only factor in climate change?

Pretty sure everyone gets this one too, but warmists believe CO2 is the biggest culprit so maybe instructive to focus on that one???

Originally Posted by jackdale

The sequestering of CO2 has resulted in an Goldilocks world in which humans beings and their food crops evolved. Neither we nor our diet are suited to the high elevls of the CO2 that existed in the past.

According to some studies . . . . I have a hunch us humans will adapt, and that Goldilocks will learn to live with those 3 bad ol' bears named Exxon/Mobil, Chevron & Shell. Isn't it these bogeymen and their ilk that are really what this battle is all about for you?

You need to go back 3-5 million years, way beyond the time of humans on earth, to find the current levels of CO2.

Is this an undisputed fact? Haven't there been scientific critiques surrounding the use of the ice cores to measure? Even if correct, does this fact necessarily compel the conclusion that such levels are harmful now?

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Referring to your chart, you should note that the Earth's temperature remained high for many, many millions of years after the bulk of coal and oil were sequestered.

Should Jack opt out from answering (again), then someone really needs to respond to this one. Otherwise the remaining skeptics in the crowd may start listening for Third Day's clock . . . or is it a time bomb?

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Tick....tick....tick....

Originally Posted by Delfin

That's right Jack. CO2 from human sources is magical and cannot be absorbed by the processes that absorb the same molecule from natural sources.

I thought not, but whaddaya I know?? So the warmist argument is about the add'l quantity, or about the rate of anthropogenic emissions if I understand SailOar's point. But this brings me back to the 3% issue again.

CO2 has increased and decreased for millennia. For warmists to point to an excess, or a decrease for that matter as an indication of an "imbalance" is absurd. It is the climate system Jack, doing what it has been doing since long before leftists discovered carbon as a tax revenue source, or climate scientists discovered a near endless supply of grant money to keep telling people that a vital greenhouse gas is poison.

As I said, you cannot be taken seriously on this subject.

For awhile there I thought he could (heavily discounting the transparent political & personal agenda, of course), but confidence is rapidly slipping.

Originally Posted by Delfin

Reefmagnet's point was that CO2 has been produced by natural sources for a very long time and I was merely providing the hard data on how much of the annual CO2 that finds its way into the atmosphere is attributable to humans.

But you haven't addressed my questions, nor do I expect you to. When one looks at how anthropogenic CO2 is dwarfed by natural sources, and how trivial the reduction of human sourced CO2 would be under even the most extreme leftist proposals, one understands why warmists cannot be taken seriously.

You're fighting something that so far, has produced only benefits instead of the projected harm, using tactics that won't work yet will cost trillions upon trillions.

Certainly looks like the Humpback whales are benefitting from all that increased CO2-enhanced phytoplankton in Antarctica. I'd hang out longer too if the food was that good. Hey, isn't this "greening" of the planet from increased CO2 exactly what the much maligned Dr. Happer from Princeton predicted?

Originally Posted by SailOar

What I see as the current biggest problem is the insanely stupid intransigence of many Republicans and fundamentalist Christians (often one and the same). If that log jamb can be picked loose there is a possibility that clever scientists and engineers, supported by government coffers, can come up with a technological solution that won't send us back to the Dark Ages... Maybe...

Ah yes, the now all too familiar pattern of blaming Republicans, religious faith, ignorant Americans, skeptical scientists, oil cos., Heritage Foundation, and the "insanely stupid intransigence" of people and institutions who happen to hold different opinions on the existence and impact of CC. Pretty sure ridiculous attacks like these insult every principle of freedom of speech, religion & association embodied in the First Amendment and enshrined throughout the free world. Why not just stick to the science? After all, aren't you convinced that 91-99% of it is already on your side?

Originally Posted by SailOar

So sorry to hear that. I would have been happy to give you the benefit of the doubt and call you a skeptic instead.

So sorry to hear what? That someone has a good faith disagreement of opinion with you about a highly complex subject? SailChic is a professional engineer. What exactly are your credentials to judge?

Now wait for it . . . here comes another repeat Jack-post citing the "study" explaining why engineers have such difficulty comprehending the warmists' view on CC.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Isn't it interesting that the left has the same solution for every problem...Tax it. Sin taxes on Sugary Soda. Sin taxes on booze. Sin taxes on Carbon. Sin taxes on Luxury Yachts. Sin taxes on the miles you drive.
It's just more evidence that this MMGW has nothing to do with the Environment, but is just another way to get more money to fund the never ending tentacles of Government...politics Baby...that's all it is.

And the sin taxes on everything you listed except luxury yachts amounts to a highly REgressive tax on poor people. Do the politicians not care, or not understand Macroeconomics 101?

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Don't worry, he will be back...he always is....

Are some starting to understand why I use the Term MMGW Cultist?
Reason, facts, critical analysis of data...none of that matters to the Internet Activists of the MMGW movement. All that matters is the emotion of saving mother Gia.

What I have found most surprising is the emotional personalization of a scientific and public policy issue, the reluctance to engage in meaningful debate, the sense of superiority in holding the "warmest" position, and the desire to bully and intimidate any dissent. It all sounds pretty weak to me, and difficult to keep a more open mind.