Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

188
Banjo Lovers Online


Page:  First Page   Previous Page   ...  73   74   75  76  77   78   79  ...   Next Page   Last Page (83) 

Nov 14, 2017 - 9:32:34 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by prooftheory

Paul, you are playing with me right? It says right in my post that we are talking about comparing points of anomaly, i.e 5% vs 8%.


 

You still can not compare different months......and percentage of what...summer or winter extent ?     better you stay with the graphs I think.......

Nov 15, 2017 - 12:35:23 AM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3013 posts
Joined Feb 7, 2008

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

Nothing has happened already, Paul. The arctic ice extent anomaly is still at about two standard deviations, it did not get any closer to the mean.
It doesn't surprise me that your prediction is wrong. It doesn't even surprise me that you won't admit you are wrong.


 

OK.....So these graphs.....are.....oil company propaganda ?   OK......Funny, you where happy to accept Piomas data, when the data was showing growing anomalies....perhaps you don't understand anomaly graphs..the Arctic volume has actually jumped several points in this graph...so I guess you can criticize my " prediction " by being....wrong.....due to it being underestimated....so funny.

 


Have a look at the latest graphs on this interactive site, Paul and you will find that both arctic and antarctic sea ice extent  is at about 2 standard deviation. That means that your prediction has not become reality so far.

Edited by - JoeDownes on 11/15/2017 00:50:47

Nov 15, 2017 - 3:57:54 AM

1283 posts
Joined Jul 28, 2015

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
quote:
Originally posted by prooftheory

Paul, you are playing with me right? It says right in my post that we are talking about comparing points of anomaly, i.e 5% vs 8%.


 

You still can not compare different months......and percentage of what...summer or winter extent ?     better you stay with the graphs I think.......


Fine, this is why I asked you to clarify what you mean by "point" because I don't know and it isn't a term that gets used as you do anywhere else, so far as I have been able to find.  Please go ahead and calculate what you think the "point anomaly" was for June 2016 and now and let's find out if you were actually right.  The graphs that you keep putting up do not allow us to actually compare the global ice extent which is what you were making your claim about.   You can't just add the gap between the two lines in each of your graphs at June 2016 and now.   Prove yourself right.  The numbers are there.

Nov 15, 2017 - 6:57:02 AM

1283 posts
Joined Jul 28, 2015

Again, the statistics I actually know how to do are not much relevance to this situation but here is an explanation of normalized anomalies: http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/dochelp/StatTutorial/Climatologies/index.html

Nov 15, 2017 - 9:37:52 AM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by prooftheory
quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
quote:
Originally posted by prooftheory

Paul, you are playing with me right? It says right in my post that we are talking about comparing points of anomaly, i.e 5% vs 8%.


 

You still can not compare different months......and percentage of what...summer or winter extent ?     better you stay with the graphs I think.......


Fine, this is why I asked you to clarify what you mean by "point" because I don't know and it isn't a term that gets used as you do anywhere else, so far as I have been able to find.  Please go ahead and calculate what you think the "point anomaly" was for June 2016 and now and let's find out if you were actually right.  The graphs that you keep putting up do not allow us to actually compare the global ice extent which is what you were making your claim about.   You can't just add the gap between the two lines in each of your graphs at June 2016 and now.   Prove yourself right.  The numbers are there.


 

That would be 365 calculations you want me to do...wouldn't it ?  It's still...better to just look and understand what the graphs are telling you.   Aren't you just a little surprised I called this one ( below ) exactly?  The 2017 volume gained over 2000 cub meters on 2011 in about 6 months... It does show that the people that research this stuff know what they are talking about....don't you think ?   Check out the DMI Arctic temp graphs...they are completely in sync with the ice extent graphs...( allow for different time lags for the freezing and warming seasons )......pretty simply stuff really....don't know why anybody would take issue on it...there is enough papers and books been written on it.


 

Nov 15, 2017 - 10:47:08 AM

1283 posts
Joined Jul 28, 2015

Paul, when I look at that graph and I compare the difference in the lines for mid-June 2016 and mid-June 2011, I see that there was more ice in mid-June 2016 than in mid-June 2011, i.e. the pink line is above the yellow line, by what I would guess is 500 kms or so. When I look at the end of the red line October 2017 and compare it to the yellow line I see that the red line is still slightly above the red line but not as much. Eyeballing it I would say 250 kms. I don't like eyeballing it and I realize that the graph isn't using normalized anomalies, which is what you would have to do in order to actually make the comparison. That's why I was trying to use actual numbers.

You seem to think that the prediction you made was that at some point after June 2016 there would be an ice recovery. That isn't what you were claiming. You were claiming in June 2016 that the anomaly was a product of heat already in the ocean and that the La Nina would get reduce that anomaly. That is not what happened. What happened was that the heat from the El Nino was not even baked into the June 2016 anomaly yet. We didn't start to see the results from the El Nino until starting around October 2016. Yes, there has been some ice recovery since last year but that doesn't get around the fact that there is still less ice now than there was at that point, irrespective of La Nina. You may claim that you didn't account for the delayed effect of El Nino on the ice and that you expect there to be a further recovery in the coming months, but that was not your prediction at the time. From my perspective all I see is that there was a downward blip from El Nino last winter which was slightly recovered from but that we are still losing ice.

Nov 15, 2017 - 3:03:53 PM

2368 posts
Joined Oct 17, 2009

I thought the year and a half prediction as odd...  Comparing June to Oct is not straightforward, can be deceptive. Volume anomalies in the past decade have been showing a pattern with steep early increase in May/June ... then stalls and gradually decreases thru rest of season; the new pattern is not just El Nino years.

IIRC, Arctic Sea Ice Forum had discussion the why of this (and stalls) a few years ago, mostly due to insolation. (and should probably expect various other stalls as overall ice declines)

Extent (and area) on the other hand progresses differently... where the larger anomalies show up later in the year. A similar problem will exist in trying to compare different months. From April trend of  -2.49% per decade; to September with -12.84% per decade.  (and that pattern has been slightly shifting in past 10 years).

Using statistical tools, such as standard deviation of mean is thus  a bit more useful for analysis. The interquartile/interdecile analysis is probably better as it is against the median, and suited when the samples are showing trending toward one side.

FWIW the impact or description/progression of ENSO as cause; one can compare against past ENSO events. (there are scientific studies that have done so, attribute to other teleconnections, and other factors).

edit- Just as comparison raw anomalies - NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Extent vs mean
June 2016 -1.36 million km2 = -11.37%
Oct. 2017 -1.64 million km2 =  -19.54% 
But due to the climate weighting/trend, percent should drop over the next few months; by April something like -7%; and then go up again. (no voodoo, clairvoyance, magic 8 ball predictions... just physics and statistics)

Edited by - banjoak on 11/15/2017 15:14:10

Nov 15, 2017 - 3:33:25 PM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3013 posts
Joined Feb 7, 2008

These are the points that Paul referred to in his prediction.

"If a data distribution is approximately normal then about 68 percent of the data values are within one standard deviation of the mean (mathematically, μ ± σ, where μ is the arithmetic mean), about 95 percent are within two standard deviations (μ ± 2σ), (...)."

You can look up the current sea ice extent's standard deviation on this interactive graph. Clickon +-2 standard deviations on the menu. Thusfar it seems like Paul's predictions are unlikely to become reality.

Edited by - JoeDownes on 11/15/2017 15:38:38

Nov 15, 2017 - 4:00:52 PM

2368 posts
Joined Oct 17, 2009

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass
quote:
Originally posted by banjoak

As far as Antarctic, which was not covered in Arctic Sea Ice predictions; somewhat different dynamics and scenario and at this time perhaps less significant. That said the last year has shown unexpected overall decline... below 2 SD; is currently below 2 SD, and second lowest (after 2016). It should be expected to diminish the anomaly thru melt season (it almost always completely melts out). It could easily expand out again. It's too short of time frame to determine trend. (so far)

Global Sea Ice (balance of both poles), well below 2 SD, second lowest.


 

Your graph shows a 1,000,000 sq km increase in global ice extent from,  November 2016 to November 2017.     This is caused , as I've said, by the warm 2015 ENSO SSTs, ( that can be seen on your graph from January 2016 through to about mid August 2017 )......dissipating its heat. ( from about September 2017 on...)

You may be falling for the slight of hand...with the red color being used for the years 2016 and 2017...below you can see were the  November 2016 extent lies.....

.


Thanks for your high horse expertise offer to school me on graphs... but I think traditional educated/experienced experts have supplied me with, and I have shown a pretty fair grasp at reading comprehension, and understanding graphs, and statistics/standard deviation (and not falling for slight of hand, spin, con men, BSers, or pretend experts). 

I understood which line was which, as illustrated by my comment that Nov...  2017 is second lowest (after 2016). Simply pointing out that it is way below 2 SD; a good point to evaluate and analyze past predictions and explanations.

If you want to believe that the progression follows what you predicted over the last 2 years...(and believe thus confirms your understanding/explanations as how) -  then that's what you want to believe.

Nov 15, 2017 - 7:32:36 PM
like this

1283 posts
Joined Jul 28, 2015

I think it is important that everybody recognize that when it comes to Paul actually making measurable predictions that they fail. Basically, Paul has what he thinks is the truth and as long as he is able to squint at the graphs and convince himself that his ideas are right, then he tells himself that he is making accurate predictions. On the other hand if any model that a AGW believer ever proposes as a worst case scenario happens to be false then for Paul this is confirmation that the AGW hypothesis is false. He brags constantly about how great his predictions are when they just don't work. He looks at graphs that clearly show a warming trend and pretends that it just isn't there. I really hope than anyone reading this thread will look at the actual number and even look at the actual graphs that he is posting and see that he is either lying to us outright or just lying to himself. There is no reasonable interpretation of the prediction that he made at the beginning of this thread where it can be interpreted as true. Everybody who is on the fence - Brad - look at the numbers and see.

Nov 15, 2017 - 11:37:39 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by prooftheory

Paul, when I look at that graph and I compare the difference in the lines for mid-June 2016 and mid-June 2011, I see that there was more ice in mid-June 2016 than in mid-June 2011, i.e. the pink line is above the yellow line, by what I would guess is 500 kms or so. When I look at the end of the red line October 2017 and compare it to the yellow line I see that the red line is still slightly above the red line but not as much. Eyeballing it I would say 250 kms. I don't like eyeballing it and I realize that the graph isn't using normalized anomalies, which is what you would have to do in order to actually make the comparison. That's why I was trying to use actual numbers.

You seem to think that the prediction you made was that at some point after June 2016 there would be an ice recovery. That isn't what you were claiming. You were claiming in June 2016 that the anomaly was a product of heat already in the ocean and that the La Nina would get reduce that anomaly. That is not what happened. What happened was that the heat from the El Nino was not even baked into the June 2016 anomaly yet. We didn't start to see the results from the El Nino until starting around October 2016. Yes, there has been some ice recovery since last year but that doesn't get around the fact that there is still less ice now than there was at that point, irrespective of La Nina. You may claim that you didn't account for the delayed effect of El Nino on the ice and that you expect there to be a further recovery in the coming months, but that was not your prediction at the time. From my perspective all I see is that there was a downward blip from El Nino last winter which was slightly recovered from but that we are still losing ice.


 

I did not claim that the 2015 El Nino warm SSTs would reach the Arctic instantly,  ( that's impossible )   It took about a year for the warm SSTs to get there from late 2015 ..ie about mid September 2016 and dissipated about June 2017...as the Piomass graph shows.

On June 2016 I said anomalies would drop within 1.5 years .....Mid June 2017  ( Piomass graph )  is within 1.5 years.

.


 

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 11/15/2017 23:44:18

Nov 16, 2017 - 12:03:08 AM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

You're looking at the largest 4 month Arctic ice volume increase since 2002 ( at least )....why aren't ya all happy ? it's a good thing...isn't it ?


 

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 11/16/2017 00:04:29

Nov 16, 2017 - 12:22:33 AM

2368 posts
Joined Oct 17, 2009

This graph shows what I mentioned above; more the volume dip evolving over 15 years.
(as well as the trend of decline)

Might note that anomaly on Oct 1, 2017 was statistically same as June 1, 2016.

Didn't notice any prediction that indicated the huge increase of anomaly over the time and then return.

Then again, volume was not predicted... indeed rejected as not measurements. As Frank noted - the prediction was Arctic Sea Ice Extent.

Edited by - banjoak on 11/16/2017 00:27:11

Nov 16, 2017 - 1:21:28 AM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by banjoak

This graph shows what I mentioned above; more the volume dip evolving over 15 years.
(as well as the trend of decline)

Might note that anomaly on Oct 1, 2017 was statistically same as June 1, 2016.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Nope.....Oct 1 is a anomaly at about 7000 cub Km.......and June 1 is an anomaly on about 22,000 Cub Km.      So 1st of Oct is compared to all other 1st of Octobers mean from the years 1979 to 2000 ( in that graph )   Check out the DMI volume graph below and you will see it. 

  


 

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 11/16/2017 01:34:24

Nov 16, 2017 - 1:42:25 AM

2368 posts
Joined Oct 17, 2009

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass

I did not claim that the 2015 El Nino warm SSTs would reach the Arctic instantly,  ( that's impossible )   It took about a year for the warm SSTs to get there from late 2015 ..ie about mid September 2016 and dissipated about June 2017...as the Piomass graph shows.

On June 2016 I said anomalies would drop within 1.5 years .....Mid June 2017  ( Piomass graph )  is within 1.5 years.

.


Not really sure what exactly you ever claimed... you rather avoided specifics.

It sure seems you claimed the large record low extent starting Feb 1, 2016; huge drop through May 2016... was due to El Nino (trade winds and all).

Staring June 11, 2016

 "what you would expect in the years around the time of a big El Nino", as well claimed  "we are now entering the La Nina phase of the cycle...so you should be sweet."

"Check the satellite data......it is within 2 points of normal levels" (well no, it wasn't)

Continued to make many similar claims in June (and thru melt season) about how the graphs were showing La Nina kicked in, the trade winds, showing the ice going back to normal.

"Rising ( to the North ) Jet stream latitudes, La Nina phase of the ENSO oscillation,  low Sun spot activity and high Cosmic ray count, cooling off sea surface temperatures from the El Nino and the coming July Sun Aphelion"

"it is heading back to NORMAL levels for JUNE in about the year 2000."

Seemed to continue to claim that the ice anomaly was  decreasing, global temperatures rapidly decreasing... arguing against and berating those posts/graphs/data explanations that suggested otherwise.

Do note that in explaining the 1 point, was not as Standard Deviation (later confirmed not knowing what that is) -

"my graphs are ice extent anomalies and the terminology used for points of reference are one million square kilometers."

So "ice extent anomalies will drop by a factor of about 1 point within 1.5 years  and a further 1 point in about 2.5 years." -  would mean the ice extent needs to be within about 200,000 km2 of the mean in about month?

If you want to believe it will match you predictions and claims, then that's what you want to believe.

Nov 16, 2017 - 1:53:42 AM

2368 posts
Joined Oct 17, 2009

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass

Nope.....Oct 1 is a anomaly at about 7000 cub Km.......and June 1 is an anomaly on about 22,000 Cub Km.      So 1st of Oct is compared to all other 1st of Octobers mean from the years 1979 to 2000 ( in that graph )   Check out the DMI volume graph below and you will see it. 

  


I was referring to the graph you posted. Now you are changing graphs (different methodology).

Note that the DMI graph is showing actual seasonal volume, not anomaly. So 22,000 and 7,000 is the actual amount, as what one would expect in different months. (more volume in winter than summer).

The PIOMAS graphs you posted show anomaly, how much it has been deviating from the mean; or what should be average for the date.

As well note DMI is only showing the last 15 years, a mean of only 2004-2013; so that will reduce anomaly vs the longer period.

But believe what you want to believe, whatever makes you feel good.

 

edit - for Nov 1 - sure looks like not much thick ice (just by Canadian Arpeggio, Fram) and a lot of open water in the Chukchi, Bering, Barents and Greenland Seas. Wonder what old Capt Cook would think, or them old Svalbard whalers.

Edited by - banjoak on 11/16/2017 02:10:00

Nov 16, 2017 - 5:50:35 AM

rinemb Players Union Member

USA

9710 posts
Joined May 24, 2005

If or when it is decided that eliminating sources of GW or forces of GW will not be enough, scientists have been introducing various methods of global or regional or hemispheric human-induced processes to reduce global warming.  This has been popularly named "geoengineering."  Geoengineering methods introduced as possible global solutions, gives me much concern regarding unintended consequences.  Geoengineering will likely be fertile ground for politics, greed, money, power, and bad science.  Below are two papers with teasers and  links.  Many others are published or likely to be published.  Brad

Solar geoengineering refers to a range of proposed methods for counteracting global warming by artificially reducing sunlight at Earth’s surface. The most widely known solar geoengineering proposal is stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), which has impacts analogous to those from volcanic eruptions. Observations following major volcanic eruptions indicate that aerosol enhancements confined to a single hemisphere effectively modulate North Atlantic tropical cyclone (TC) activity in the following years. Here we investigate the effects of both single-hemisphere and global SAI scenarios on North Atlantic TC activity using the HadGEM2-ES general circulation model and various TC identification methods. We show that a robust result from all of the methods is that SAI applied to the southern hemisphere would enhance TC frequency relative to a global SAI application, and vice versa for SAI in the northern hemisphere. Our results reemphasise concerns regarding regional geoengineering and should motivate policymakers to regulate large-scale unilateral geoengineering deployments.

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01606-0

Proposals to reduce the effects of global warming by imitating volcanic eruptions could have a devastating effect on global regions prone to either tumultuous storms or prolonged drought, new research has shown.
Geoengineering - the intentional manipulation of the climate to counter the effect of global warming by injecting aerosols artificially into the atmosphere - has been mooted as a potential way to deal with climate change.
However new research led by climate experts from the University of Exeter suggests that targeting geoengineering in one hemisphere could have a severely detrimental impact for the other.

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-artificially-cooling-planet-risky-strategy.html

Nov 16, 2017 - 6:07:23 PM

rinemb Players Union Member

USA

9710 posts
Joined May 24, 2005

I was actually looking up equatorial jet stream information and what affects them and how they impact weather...when i came across this article posted today.  Covers some basics and predictions, but the final comment caught my attention.  And, if scientists and climatologists still debate weather episodes, how do we have confidence in global CC?  But this brief article does address some of the recent discussion here.

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-la-nia-affect-winter.html

final comment in article:

So far there's no evidence that climate change is affecting ENSO, says Barnston. Sea surface temperatures are rising in the western and central Pacific Ocean, but it's not clear what effect that would have on ENSO. Some researchers think it could make El Niño more common, while others think the opposite could happen—that climate change could make La Niña more common. However, scientists haven't observed an increase in La Niña yet, says Barnston. "There's a lot of debate about it."

Nov 16, 2017 - 11:02:56 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by prooftheory

I think it is important that everybody recognize that when it comes to Paul actually making measurable predictions that they fail. Basically, Paul has what he thinks is the truth and as long as he is able to squint at the graphs and convince himself that his ideas are right, then he tells himself that he is making accurate predictions. On the other hand if any model that a AGW believer ever proposes as a worst case scenario happens to be false then for Paul this is confirmation that the AGW hypothesis is false. He brags constantly about how great his predictions are when they just don't work. He looks at graphs that clearly show a warming trend and pretends that it just isn't there. I really hope than anyone reading this thread will look at the actual number and even look at the actual graphs that he is posting and see that he is either lying to us outright or just lying to himself. There is no reasonable interpretation of the prediction that he made at the beginning of this thread where it can be interpreted as true. Everybody who is on the fence - Brad - look at the numbers and see.


 

I get it now......So there's no such thing as    " the ENSO effect on the Arctic and Antarctic " ?.....boy...... will all those scientists be pissed when they realize they have wasted their lives studying something that doesn't exist....and imagine the problem with erasing all those papers and books that have been published on the subject over the years.

On the plus side....I'm very flattered that you keep contributing the teleconnections and thermohaline mechanism theory of the ENSO effect on the polar regions.... to being my... "idea".  

Nov 17, 2017 - 12:19:19 AM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by banjoak
Not really sure what exactly you ever claimed... you rather avoided specifics.

 


Hmmm...specifics...The ENSO effect on the polar regions is a very confusing subject even if you make some effort to understand it.....and no chance unless you do.

When an El Nino forms...the teleconnection component effect on ice extent/volume ( change in long range atmospheric weather patterns ) occurs within a short time, while the Thermalhaline circulation component effect takes much longer to pick up the warm El Nino SSTs.   These lags are also complicated by the fact that they get out of sync with the seasonal freeze and thaw cycle, and sometimes La Nina forcings are still in effect before the El Nino forcing has abated. ( prooftheory missed that bit out in my prediction quote ).

The result is ( normally ) a hard to decipher seemingly random coming and going of Antarctic ( lesser so Arctic )  ice extent and volume from different regions with different timelines, with the associated almost concurrent... pubic confusing headlines of ice growth and ice depletion.

 It's been a nightmare for researches to understand patterns.... but a better understanding is now emerging, partly thanks to the large 2015 El Nino and it's relatively slow dissipation and the longer time  interval between the slow forming of a stronger La Nina ( this year )   So the signals have been, stronger, with less " noise " and separate enough to be defined more clearly, and studied more closely than previous ENSO events.   I'm looking forward to reading the papers in a year or two.

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 11/17/2017 00:29:15

Nov 17, 2017 - 12:28:18 AM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3013 posts
Joined Feb 7, 2008

Brad, if you don't like geoengineering you should like CO2 regulations. You always focus on what is still being discussed, instead of focusing on what we know pretty sure already.
Paul won't admit that he was wrong, it's part of his personality I guess.

Nov 17, 2017 - 12:44:17 AM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

Brad, if you don't like geoengineering you should like CO2 regulations. You always focus on what is still being discussed, instead of focusing on what we know pretty sure already.
 


 

Joe...you have never said what we should do about CO2...or at where you would like to see the levels.  So nobody has got any idea what that "pretty sure" thing even is.  I've included a graph for you...at what levels would you be happy ?   If the science is really settled...then you need to be specific on what you want us engineers to do about it.  


 

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 11/17/2017 00:47:49

Nov 17, 2017 - 1:32:21 AM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

See....your problem ( real or not ).... is.... The levels of emissions is irrelevant to the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere...the level of emissions is only relevant to the rate that accumulation takes place.

It works the same way as filling a bucket with water, using a teaspoon or a cup....makes no difference to the outcome....just takes longer with a teaspoon.

As you can see by that graph above...even the rise about year 1900 was going up....was there some magic thing that was going to make it settle at a certain level ? say 300 ppm... 350 ppm.... 400 ppm......No.... even at year 1900 emission levels, the accumulation levels would have eventually reached exactly the same levels as with emissions from the year 2017.

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 11/17/2017 01:46:41

Nov 17, 2017 - 2:44:03 PM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3013 posts
Joined Feb 7, 2008

We can make an effort to transition to 100% clean and renewable energy as soon as possible. Regulation worked for the ozone layer, so why not for global warming?
If we would have continued to use organohalogen compounds like we used to, the hole in the ozone layer would still be growing.

Edited by - JoeDownes on 11/17/2017 14:47:56

Nov 17, 2017 - 3:05:49 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3565 posts
Joined May 16, 2012

quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

We can make an effort to transition to 100% clean and renewable energy as soon as possible. Regulation worked for the ozone layer, so why not for global warming?
If we would have continued to use organohalogen compounds like we used to, the hole in the ozone layer would still be growing.


It's not the same thing at all...as I've pointed out above.   What will they use the 100% clean energy for ?...not make cement...not produce iron and exploit minerals...not make the same consumer goods and distribute them around the world....not produce plastics...or textiles..or home building products...not mine for rare elements..not use automation for food producing...etc...etc.....it's impossible to stop CO2 accumulation.

How exactly do you think we are going to get CO2 emissions accumulations below the natural carbon cycle ?   It's so funny that no one talks about accumulation.  It's kind of like.....the AGW true agenda,  dirty little secret.

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 11/17/2017 15:09:02

Page:  First Page   Previous Page   ...  73   74   75  76  77   78   79  ...   Next Page   Last Page (83) 

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.71875