Federal Government Confirms Nearing Apocalypse -- it's very hard to dismiss this. - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14971174
Sivad wrote: you could still do your slum tourism and take snapshots of all the smiling faces trapped in poverty and squalor, but those smiling faces would be the ones that paid the most for your glib liberalism.

Oh …. lighten up Jack. Do you spend most of your time in real life being pissed off at everything or do you use pofo for venting? I wonder if you have a sense of humor and, if so, what you find funny. I am a photographer and have been photographing the human face for decades. I find the human face endlessly fascinating and have 30,000 or so pics on my hard drive. You will, no doubt, find something to hate or be angry about this.

42nd Street, N.Y.C. 1972

Image
#14971201
Crantag wrote:My post was completely consistent with your wording. So you are the fool. At best, you misrepresented what you wanted to say.



Then you are actually illiterate. There is no other way to read that sentence, anyone that can read above a 6th grade level can understand what it's saying. And the claim isn't even controversial, all the alarmists can come up with to counter it is some vague bullshit about thermal inertia and climate lag. The fact that you aren't even familiar with that claim means you're also science illiterate on top of illiterate illiterate. :lol:
#14971205
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is almost certainly not true, if we simply took the time to transition properly.



It's absolutely true, there is no way to maintain our standard of living without coal. My carbon footprint is probably 1/10th of the average Westerner and if we got rid of coal even anti-consumerist minimalists like me would experience a steep decline in living standards. Without coal billions of people would be condemned to short, miserable lives of crushing poverty .
#14971223
Sivad wrote:Then you are actually illiterate. There is no other way to read that sentence, anyone that can read above a 6th grade level can understand what it's saying. And the claim isn't even controversial, all the alarmists can come up with to counter it is some vague bullshit about thermal inertia and climate lag. The fact that you aren't even familiar with that claim means you're also science illiterate on top of illiterate illiterate. :lol:

Trippling down now are you? A 30% rise in carbon led to 75% increase in temperature of what a doubling of carbon was projected to produce.

That is what you said.

You are a right moron if you thought that this was a consistent anti-global warming argument, or if you think I'm wrong about my criticism.

If the case was a 100% rise in carbon led to only a 75% rise in temperature for a doubling of carbon, you citing this would still be a weak argument, because projections are by nature imprecise.

What you cited was evidence of a more-than expected rise in temperatures compared to carbon emissions, based on projections.

That you can't see this speaks lowly of yourself, and is pretty well grounds for dismissing anything you have to say on the subject.
#14971230
Sivad wrote:CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by only about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2.

If I may try to improve the sentence, then ---
CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by only about 75% [which is] {+0.6 °C (1.08 °F)} of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. I added the [which is] and the {...}. I hope this is what you intended.
Part 1 ---
I'll use my engineering training to try to estimate what is going on here.
1] If 0.6°C (1.08 °F) of heating is 75% of what increasing ppm of CO2 from 275 to 550ppm; then a simple linear relationship means that ________. [I could not create equations to solve the sentence.]
2] If Z equals the temp. that 550ppm will make the air reach and 0.6°C is 0.75 times Z, then Z (the temp. the air will reach with 550ppm) is just 0.8°C higher than the temp. in 1800 AD.
3] This figure of just a 0.8°C increase in temp. is ridiculous. The actual figure after enough time has passed to reach the new equilibrium is more like a 5°C increase, not 0.8°C.
4] Therefore, your source is just dumb.

Part 2 ---
Like Crantag said, you failed to provide a link to a source. Therefore we can't really tell what the terms in this sentence mean. Therefore, we get to decide what they mean, within reason.
1] Start with "pre-industrial". Some videos I've seen go with this meaning 1750, others 1800, others 1850,and some even the average of 1850 and 1900. If we go with the literal meaning of the words then either 1750 or 1800 make the most sense.
2] If we go with 1800, THEN 0.6°C (1.08 °F) of warming is way TOO LITTLE.
. . My sources would put this at 1.2°C, about double the figure you asserted.
3] OK, I'll accept another of your numbers, so the increase from 275ppm to 412ppm now, is about 30% more CO2 in the air. [However, you have ignored the additional CO2 in the oceans and the heating of the oceans. But, I'll let you slide on this because I don't know their effects either.]
4] In another thread you asserted that it is BS to use "thermal inertia" as the reason that the full amount of atmospheric heating has not been seen yet.
. . So, you think that if you put a skillet with 1.5 inches of water (under a lid) in it onto a stove burner and set the heat to 'pretty hot', that the water will reach the temp. that the fire under it will finally heat it to in a 'short' time.
. . Yes, the pan of water is much smaller than all the air in/around the world; and the stove burner is hotter or cooler than the heat that is forcing the temp. of the air to rise. Therefore, it is hard for me to say how fast the air should rise in temp. compared to the water in the pan.
. . It seems plain to me that gradually turning up the heat of the stove burner is a better simulation of gradually adding CO2 to the air.
. . So, I assert that it is not BS to talk about "thermal inertia".

So, Sivad, you quoted a figure of about half the heating we have seen and then called BS on an actual real effect that any cook can explain to you. I deduce that the source you used leaves a lot to be desired in terms of accuracy. In other words it is biased. IStM.

[BTW, I agree with you that the sentence doesn't mean what Crantag thought it means, but I agree with Crantag that the sentence is confusing because I also read it the way he did. I just assumed that I had gotten confused by it and didn't attack you or the sentence. The info in the sentence is plainly wrong and so confused that I could not make equations to solve it.]
#14971232
Crantag wrote:Trippling down now are you? A 30% rise in carbon led to 75% increase in temperature of what a doubling of carbon was projected to produce.

That is what you said.



No it's not. Why not just quote me directly? :knife:

This is not hard, co2 is 30% higher but the temperature is only 75% of what it should be according to the expected value for a doubling of co2. It's not 75% of the total for a doubling, it's 75% of the total adjusted for a 30% rise.

You people kill me, the shit you pull is beyond ludicrous.
#14971238
Steve_American wrote:If I may try to improve the sentence, then ---
CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by only about 75% [which is] {+0.6 °C (1.08 °F)} of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. I added the [which is] and the {...}. I hope this is what you intended.


The expected value for a doubling of C02 is 3C(or at least it was before the IPCC dispensed with averaging the range). Co2 has gone up 30% since the late 19th century. The climate has warmed about .8C over that time(roughly 30% of the expected value for a doubling). But we know that the full .8C cannot be attributed to Co2, at most only .6C is attributable to Co2. .6C is 75% of the expected .8C
#14971305
Sivad wrote:It's absolutely true, there is no way to maintain our standard of living without coal.


I can think of at least one large, industrialised, first world region that does not use coal at all. So no, coal is not necessary for our moden lives.

My carbon footprint is probably 1/10th of the average Westerner and if we got rid of coal even anti-consumerist minimalists like me would experience a steep decline in living standards. Without coal billions of people would be condemned to short, miserable lives of crushing poverty .


Since no one is arguing that we should get rid of coal and not replace it with anything, this is not a good point.
#14971307
Here's another one:

The Arctic has been warmer over the last five years than at any time since records began in 1900, and the region is warming at twice the rate as the rest of the planet, scientists said Tuesday.

The warmer Arctic air causes the jet stream to become “sluggish and unusually wavy,” the researchers said. That has possible connections to extreme weather events elsewhere on the globe, including last winter’s severe storms in the United States.

The jet steam normally acts as a kind of atmospheric spinning lasso that encircles and contains the cold air near the pole; a weaker, wavering jet stream can allow Arctic blasts to travel south in winter and can stall weather systems in the summer, among other effects.

The more rapid warming in the upper north, known as Arctic amplification, is tied to many factors, including the simple fact that snow and ice reflect a lot of sunlight, while open water, which is darker, absorbs more heat. As sea ice melts, less ice and more open water create a “feedback loop” of more melting that leads to progressively less ice and more open water.

Tiny bits of ocean plastic, which can be ingested by marine life, are proliferating at the top of the planet. “Concentrations in the remote Arctic Ocean are higher than all other ocean basins in the world,” the report said. The so-called microplastics are also showing up in Arctic sea ice. Scientists have found samples of cellulose acetate, used in making cigarette filters, and particles of plastics used in bottle caps and packaging material. About 8 million metric tons of plastic are thrown into the ocean annually. Of those, 236,000 tons are microplastics– tiny pieces of broken-down plastic smaller than your little fingernail
#14971313
Pants-of-dog wrote:I can think of at least one large, industrialised, first world region that does not use coal at all. So no, coal is not necessary for our moden lives.



Since no one is arguing that we should get rid of coal and not replace it with anything, this is not a good point.



The bottom line is coal is the cheapest source of energy available and even it is too expensive for most of the world. You take away coal and lots of people will suffer horribly. So you jokers better make damn sure your case is solid before proceeding with your emission reduction schemes because they're gonna hurt a lot of people.
#14971344
Sivad wrote:The bottom line is coal is the cheapest source of energy available


I think biomass is, actually. Specifically, the use of dung and wood by people in the developing world who have no access to electricity.

and even it is too expensive for most of the world. You take away coal and lots of people will suffer horribly. So you jokers better make damn sure your case is solid before proceeding with your emission reduction schemes because they're gonna hurt a lot of people.


In terms of creating and using infrastructure for access to electricity, coal requires a higher amount of energy investment than hydroelectric, wind or nuclear over the life cycle of the project.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/informati ... tment.aspx

See table 2.

So, in regions where coal or other fossil fuels are being used, the best soltion would be a transition from coal to hydro, wind, or nuclear, depending on geography and whether or not that government could be trusted with nuclear power.
#14971345
Sivad wrote:No it's not. Why not just quote me directly? :knife:

This is not hard, co2 is 30% higher but the temperature is only 75% of what it should be according to the expected value for a doubling of co2. It's not 75% of the total for a doubling, it's 75% of the total adjusted for a 30% rise.

You people kill me, the shit you pull is beyond ludicrous.

I won't be replying to you anymore.

I'll let the arithmetics-literates judge for themselves.
#14971347
Sivad wrote:CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by only about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2.


Please provide a link to wherever you got this information.

This way, we can tell if your argument is correct.
#14971494
Sivad wrote and Crantag quoted:
No it's not. Why not just quote me directly? :knife:

This is not hard, co2 is 30% higher but the temperature is only 75% of what it should be according to the expected value for a doubling of co2. It's not 75% of the total for a doubling, it's 75% of the total adjusted for a 30% rise.

You people kill me, the shit you pull is beyond ludicrous.


Crantag wrote:I won't be replying to you anymore.

I'll let the arithmetics-literates judge for themselves.

Crantag, I agree with you. The original sentence and the new sentence by Sivad are impossible to understand.

Not to mention his claim that a doubling to (I assume) 550ppm of CO2 will lead to just a 3 deg. C increase in temp. if it is held at 550ppm for 100 years --- is IMHO bogus.
#14971502
Polar Bears Are Doing Fine! ...Despite Global Warming Hysteria

Published on Dec 31, 2012

Dr. Mitch Taylor gives a lecture on Polar Bear and Global Warming misinformation.
He has 30 years experience as a Polar Bear biologist.


Published on Feb 27, 2017

In spite of claims that polar bear populations are facing pressure from loss of Arctic summer sea ice, their numbers have in fact grown. In this short video, Dr. Susan Crockford summarises the evidence that polar bears are far more resiliant than has been assumed by those who have turned the animal into an icon of global warming.
#14971504
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide a link to wherever you got this information.

This way, we can tell if your argument is correct.


:lol: Which of those figures do you think are in dispute? They all come from NASA and IPCC. The problem we keep running into is you people just don't know anything about climate change.

Actually those figures are a bit dated. Atmospheric Co2 is now closer to 45% pre-industrial levels and the warming from anthropogenic emissions can't be more than .55C. I was actually being generous. That's why Curry, Lindzen, Bates, and other prominent climatologists have revised ECS down to between .5C- 1.65C. The IPCC estimate is way too high according to empirical reality.
#14971512
Steve_American wrote:
Crantag, I agree with you. The original sentence and the new sentence by Sivad are impossible to understand.


:knife:

Not to mention his claim that a doubling to (I assume) 550ppm of CO2 will lead to just a 3 deg. C increase in temp. if it is held at 550ppm for 100 years --- is IMHO bogus.


That's not my claim, it's the IPCC estimate. :lol:

Actually I shouldn't average the range because as stated in the IPCC AR5 "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies", but the likely range according to the AR5 is 1.5C - 4.5C.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 50
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I'd be totally happy for us to send ground troop i[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]