Climate and Weather

espola said:
You don't accept? Do you think anyone should care about your poor feelings?
Click to expand...
Poor feelings?
Apparently you do, cause here you are responding to me... ya jack ass
How's that for poor feelings?
 
Last edited:
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Why's you switch out Gilligan? Since the baseline is a running average, what's above it and below it will change. So what's minus and what's plus in your subsequent post only tells you which way the baseline is trending. But you're right that the absolute amplitude between the high and low points over a time period is indeed a fixed fluctuation value that you can look at. The magnitude of metemperature change has certainly been larger over earth history. But the rate of change right now is what draws attention. Fastest rate of change over the entire Holocene according to the models and proxies. JMO we'll ride out whatever may or may not be in store and muddle along. It's what we do. But if we keep talking like this Iz is going to come charging in here with alarm this and alarm that like there's a herd of badgers digging up his kalo patch and trying to scratch their way into his chicken coop. So we need to find a way to cast a long cold eye. If you're the type to mull over a good paper, consider the last stand of the ichthyosaurs about a 100 million years ago. You can read all about it here, and its a freebie (PMC link upper right).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26953824

Increasingly genetically bottlenecked, climate changing faster than they could adapt, what's a lizard-like fish to do? Old Charlie stole the handle and the train it won't stop going no way to slow down.
Click to expand...
That's funny you brought up the badger herd. They are not the problem. It's the wild pigs. But we did put a couple of badgers in the imu last week. Was some ono brah! No chicken coops for my fighters. If they can't survive outside the coop, they'll never make it in the ring.
 
Wez said:
What makes the "arguments" against ACC even dumber, is it doesn't even matter if mankind is responsible for the warming trend we're seeing. Many of policy proposals make sense even if it's just natural change in the Climate. The deniers are fighting against the best interests of mankind regardless.
Click to expand...
The deniers don't exist. Is that an "if" in your post?
 
Wez said:
Ironic you say that about me, in light of Climate Science deniers being wholly funded by fossil fuel interests...
Click to expand...
I think you left a trail of denial in the air when you flew to Hawaii and back a few months ago. Nothing like cursing the fossil fuel industry and funding it at the same time Wez.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Feels right?
What are you talking about?
You mean like eliminating valedictorians, and keeping score, and participation trophies for all?
Or paying someone $15.00 to ask if you want fries with that order?
You mean like that?
What exactly do you mean?

Tell us Wez, what are going to do today to stop climate change?
Will you eliminate fossil fuel use today?
Will sell your automobile today and ride a bike.
Will you stop eating meat, as live stock are considered large producers of co2 "and in fact accounts for at least half of all human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs), according to Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change" in the latest issue of World Watch magazine." http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6297

What are you gonna do to stop climate change?
Click to expand...
He's probably planning another trip to Hawaii.
 
espoola said:
If I were to guess, I may deduce that large, warm blooded, "reptiles", may have gone bye bye, due to a lack of food. I know, duh..
Cold blooded true reptiles can go for long periods without food, and smaller warm blooded animals need less to sustain them.
Food shortage is my guess.
Climate, or a series of cataclysmic events, even parasitic alien invaders in cigar shaped, or disc shaped crafts.
Click to expand...
Amen for large warm blooded reptiles. They keep our homes warm in the winter, cool in the summer.
 
espoola said:
Point is, co2 is a bit player in the overall picture, and anthropogenic co2 is a prop somewhere on the set, but not on the main scientific stage.Anthropogenic co2 does, however, take top billing in the political science category.
Click to expand...

You will have to clarify what you mean by overall picture. The scientific community is focused on anthropogenic CO2. Its not the absolute numbers so much but the ratio of sources to sinks. The relatively small contribution of atmospheric CO2 from human related activities (compared to global CO2 flux from natural sources) is driving a net increase over what, geologically, is a small period of time. It clearly emerges as the forcing variable in global energy budget modelling, the latest iteration of which is the CMIP5. A complete list of simulations run through CMIP5 leading up to AR5 can be found here. I am also attaching the AR5 carbon cycle graphic that shows net sources and sinks for atmospheric CO2.

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/Taylor_CMIP5_design.pdf

AR5 is a document intended for the public and, in particular, policy makers. I've heard it said that the summaries are written according to the average time it takes for a legislator to take a dump. I know he's a busy man, but maybe our friend Bernie Sanders will stop by and tell us if that is true.

carbon_cycle_IPCC_AR5.jpg
 
espoola said:
When a more thoughtful, and congenial tone is directed my way, Gilligan or My favorite martian, will reply equally thoughtfully, and even more congenially, as evidenced by my last two replies to you, Professor.
Click to expand...

Jousting was meant to be a chivalrous sport.
 
Wez said:
I'm not claiming Scientific knowledge. Unlike the right, that prefers notions that feel right, I prefer to listen to what experts have to say.
Click to expand...

I guess I agree and disagree at the same time. There's just this ocean of information out there. I know at some point it gets too specialized, and some of its crap and so forth, but much is comprehensible. And when you have kids and a professional life to balance its tough to have time for idle intellectual tangents. But when we end up, collectively, basically wallowing around in Mr. Johnson's stock pond, there's just no fun in it. You mentioned something earlier about hoping for a different experience and I guess I was just thinking about that. Me too.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
I guess I agree and disagree at the same time.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with a discussion that involves various levels of agreement. It's when armchair scientists spout debunked talking points in response to a perceived liberal left notion, that I get annoyed. The Science shouldn't be a left or right thing. Too often it is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top