Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

502
Banjo Lovers Online


Page:  First Page   Previous Page   ...  75   76   77  78  79   80   81  ...   Next Page   Last Page (102) 

Nov 19, 2017 - 6:06:06 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

So..I think all that means...They have no freaking idea.

Nov 19, 2017 - 6:19:55 PM
likes this

Brian T

Canada

13581 posts since 6/5/2008

Hush up. You're on the right track but the words will never match the music.
Give it 50-75 years. Sit and watch. Only hindsight will tell you who was right
and they're gonna be dead, too.

Nov 20, 2017 - 12:26:03 AM
likes this

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3059 posts since 2/7/2008

Brad, did you ask your colleague about the shape of his graph?
Paul, if the professor of international energy and climate change at University College London says keeping warming below catastrophic temperatures is 'just doable', I tend to believe him or her and not you.

Nov 20, 2017 - 4:44:51 AM

rinemb Players Union Member

USA

9980 posts since 5/24/2005

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass

So..I think all that means...They have no freaking idea.


Yea, that is about right, by me as well.  I should expand my "unsettled science" to unsettled mitigation methods, unsettled costs, unsettled politics.  Sounds like a great recipe for some folks to make a lot of money.  Sorry, for the sarcasm. ;-) 

Though I might continue to remark, we are learning and gaining knowledge fast, and ok, ok, I think our knowledge to be gained will be a hockey stick on a graph.  Are we happy now.  Brad

Nov 20, 2017 - 9:52:12 AM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3059 posts since 2/7/2008

Who are the folks that will make more money, and just as important to the issue, who are the folks that will make less money?

Nov 20, 2017 - 1:10:11 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

quote:
Originally posted by JoeDownes

Paul, if the professor of international energy and climate change at University College London says keeping warming below catastrophic temperatures is 'just doable', I tend to believe him or her and not you.


Once again Joe....it ain't my idea...The information I posted is main stream science. ( IPCC )  You can find it on the net yourself.   The " just doable " scenario of the UCL is likely to be what Brad and I have just laid out ( I'll see if I can find their numbers )  Most papers on the subject conclude something like..." reductions many times less than 1990 emissions is required "   How many times is never stipulated.

The idea that something is " just doable " means total world cooperation.  Using the benchmark of your own personal effort...how likely is it, the worlds population will revert back to a previous historical level of technological convenience ?.   Answer ....absolutely no chance at all.

We are only about one third into the industrial revolution ( my guess ) .Why do you think it's fair that you should have all the advantages of a modern economy...while 1/4 of the worlds population doesn't even have electricity ?     I suppose we could maintain half of the worlds population in a primitive state...it would be a quaint holiday to visit a perpetual third world....and their cheap economies would make buying trinkets, to show your friends back home, very affordable.

Nov 21, 2017 - 12:43:26 AM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3059 posts since 2/7/2008

It's not the idea to use less energy, but to use clean energy.

Dec 6, 2017 - 10:17:37 AM

rinemb Players Union Member

USA

9980 posts since 5/24/2005

I offer this recent paper (posted online Nov. 2017) for discussion, with the question: Is sea level really rising-in alarming rates? 
Full disclosure...I have not looked into the credibility of the authors, and would welcome any comments regarding the authors.  Brad

Abstract

Background
The sea level records since the start of the twentieth century show oscillations with many periodicities up to multi-decadal. The sea level may then change because of local factors such as subsidence or uplift, and global factors such as mass addition and thermal expansion of the oceans.
Purpose
We use non-aligned data from the tide gauges of Aden, and the tide gauges of Mumbai and Karachi, to reconstruct the most likely pattern of sea levels for these three locations of the west Indian Ocean.
Methods
Linear and parabolic fittings of monthly average mean sea levels (MSL) from the different tide gauges of the three locations were carried out. Alignment of the different data sets based on historical information, similarity of patterns, and break point alignment was done.
Results
Analysis of the tide gauge data of Aden, Yemen shows that without arbitrary alignment of data, Aden exhibits very stable sea level conditions like those in Mumbai, India and Karachi, Pakistan, without any significant sea level trend.
Conclusion
The reconstructed tide gauge records of Aden, Mumbai and Karachi are perfectly consistent with multiple lines of evidence from other key sites of the Indian Ocean including Qatar, Maldives, Bangladesh and Visakhapatnam. The sea levels have been stable since the start of the twentieth century in Aden similar to Karachi and Mumbai.

"...Contrary to the adjusted data from tide gauges and the unreliable satellite altimeter data, properly examined data from tide gauges and other sources such as coastal morphology, stratigraphy, radiocarbon dating, archaeological remains, and historical documentation indicate a lack of any alarming sea-level rise in recent decades for all the Indian Ocean (Mörner 2007, 2010, 2014, 2016a). All the key sites indicate a sea-level rise of about zero mm/year, at least over the last 50 years (Mörner 2007, 2010, 2014, 2016a). Goa has changes in sea level almost identical to those obtained in the Maldives and in Bangladesh even over longer time windows. Mumbai and Visakhapatnam on opposite sides of the Deccan Plateau also suggest a virtually stable sea-level condition in the last 50 years. In Qatar, the coastal records indicate a long-term stability of the present coastal regime (Mörner 2015a, b, 2016b)..."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z

Edited by - rinemb on 12/06/2017 10:19:18

Dec 6, 2017 - 10:44:02 AM

1557 posts since 7/28/2015
Online Now

Hopefully, the delayed effects of la nina will start showing up more clearly in the winter.

Dec 6, 2017 - 3:16:14 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

quote: Originally posted by prooftheory

Hopefully, the delayed effects of la nina will start showing up more clearly in the winter.


 

Are you making a prediction Frank ?

Dec 6, 2017 - 3:59:41 PM

1557 posts since 7/28/2015
Online Now

Nope. I'll be quite concerned though if we don't have any evidence of la nina cooling because to me that will mean that the warming trend stronger than la nina cooling. My understanding of the situation is very naive though.

Dec 6, 2017 - 8:45:02 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

I think you are pretty safe Frank....over half of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions were between 1988 to 2014 , ( see below right ) and according to your graph ( below left ) the global temperature didn't go up during that time.    So whether we have a cooling effect from la Nina ...or not...you don't need to be concerned about CO2 being a cause.




Edited by - nakigreengrass on 12/06/2017 20:49:32

Dec 6, 2017 - 9:15:51 PM

1557 posts since 7/28/2015
Online Now

Paul, it seems to me that you recently wrote that you had concerns about the long term trend of CO2 in the atmosphere even though you don't think it causes global warming, but simply because you view it as possibly getting to a point where it would cause other problems. Did I understand that correctly?

Dec 6, 2017 - 10:22:23 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

quote:
Originally posted by prooftheory

Paul, it seems to me that you recently wrote that you had concerns about the long term trend of CO2 in the atmosphere even though you don't think it causes global warming, but simply because you view it as possibly getting to a point where it would cause other problems. Did I understand that correctly?


Yes..it would eventually accumulate to levels over 2000 ppm and beyond.....at that level, there will be problems for flora and fauna ( about the year 2250 ).    But...until then ( about the yr 2250 )....As long as the Western economies are... not ... destroyed by AGW alarmism...Western high technologies will take care of the atmospheric and emission problems. 

The main danger that we face at this time.....is not GW,   but.... the over reaction to the CO2 problem, with the inherent danger that the Western economies and industrial capabilities will be degraded and handed over to ...other less developed and emerging third world economies ( e.t.w.e ).   The  e.t.w.e.  are likely to be less worried about environmental damage, as the drive for higher standards of living will be their paramount concern.   This fact is why your government made the very good decision not to transfer billions in carbon funds to other countries economies.  It is not what you want to do...and will likely increase the rate of the accumulation of CO2, because of increasing development of those countries...and it will make it more difficult for the West to do anything about it.

Edited by - nakigreengrass on 12/06/2017 22:38:18

Dec 7, 2017 - 1:47:19 AM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3059 posts since 2/7/2008

quote:
Originally posted by rinemb

I offer this recent paper (posted online Nov. 2017) for discussion, with the question: Is sea level really rising-in alarming rates? 
Full disclosure...I have not looked into the credibility of the authors, and would welcome any comments regarding the authors.  Brad


They seem to have messed up basic statistics in a 2017 paper.

"If we use their method to estimate the acceleration, we get the same value at all times — as we should — but it’s the wrong value. Their method estimates the acceleration is equal to 1, when we already know it’s equal to 2.

How bad is it, when their method of estimating slope and acceleration can’t get it right even for noise-free data?"

Here's another review of one their papers.

"In our opinion PO16 was not peer-reviewed adaquately; otherwise many of our earlier points would have been addressed and corrected before publication. (...) One of us (Hunter, 2014) had been involved in comments on a previuos debatable paper (Parker, Saad, Salen and Lawson, 2013) by one of the authors with a similar experience of editorial standards that could be improved upon."

Dec 7, 2017 - 1:57:39 AM

JoeDownes

Netherlands

3059 posts since 2/7/2008

Brad, getting all your GW news from Breitbart will give you a skewed picture. I'm sure you are aware of this.

Dec 7, 2017 - 11:09:34 AM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

You can argue about semantics all you want....but until you have an explanation for the lack of correlation with sea level rise and CO2 rise...you have not got an argument to support AGW.


 

Dec 7, 2017 - 2:04:36 PM

rinemb Players Union Member

USA

9980 posts since 5/24/2005

I was hoping to debate the paper's content, but, yes, I did welcome comments regarding the authors. I presented the actual paper, so as long as I avoided any published commentary on the paper, I do not see the relevance of how I found the link. I read many professional bulletins and yes, also the commentary publications. (on both sides of the issue)  I have learned to use those sources at times for access to their professional links included. I know that is how many of us, many of you also find source papers for information and discussion.  After all, us skeptics and deniers have to do more digging to find free-access papers to support an argument.

My take is that, while I understand the difficulty of splicing many data sets into one common set, I also understand to scientific need to, and common practice to do so. In my profession we do it all of the time. And, therefore, I see the abuse that is too often committed. This paper illustrates/argues how data can/may be incorrectly connected or perhaps unethically connected. Ethically, any splicing of data sets in the science industry should be fully disclosed and described. In business, this also gets into fiduciary responsibility, eh.

Alas, I would be the first to dismiss interest in this particular paper if the authors were sufficiently impugned.  Brad

Dec 7, 2017 - 5:14:56 PM

1557 posts since 7/28/2015
Online Now

Here's an article for you, Brad.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672

Dec 8, 2017 - 9:07:59 AM

2454 posts since 10/17/2009

quote:
Originally posted by nakigreengrass

You can argue about semantics all you want....but until you have an explanation for the lack of correlation with sea level rise and CO2 rise...you have not got an argument to support AGW.


That graph shows one location, not global.

Both this graph and previous ones (trying to compare GtCO2 and MSU temp) are pretty odd apples/oranges attempts of correlation. Not sure how anyone would try to use different measurers and scale resolutions to figure out any correlation to anything. And unrelated to how actual science experts explain.

But believe whatever makes you feel good.

Edited by - banjoak on 12/08/2017 09:09:52

Dec 8, 2017 - 9:28:57 AM

2454 posts since 10/17/2009

JAXA DATA as at 6 Dec 2017
Has moved from 3rd lowest Nov average) to now in 2nd (behind 2016 quite unusual year). Outside the interdecile range.

On average extent gain is 66 % done.

Extent is below average over the Atlantic side of the Arctic, primarily in the Barents and Kara Seas, but far below average, record low extent,  in the Chukchi Sea.

Antarctic, now in melt season, remains 2nd lowest, as well outside interdecile range.

Dec 8, 2017 - 9:37:51 AM

2454 posts since 10/17/2009

quote:
Originally posted by prooftheory

Hopefully, the delayed effects of la nina will start showing up more clearly in the winter.


A few weeks ago, many agencies from around world projected 2017 likely to be either second or third warmest year, behind 2016 and 2015 (both had el nino months). Quite remarkable considering no el nino months, and starting/ending with la nina conditions. 

Dec 8, 2017 - 11:00:46 AM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

quote:
Originally posted by banjoak
Both this graph and previous ones (trying to compare GtCO2 and MSU temp) are pretty odd apples/oranges attempts of correlation. Not sure how anyone would try to use different measurers and scale resolutions to figure out any correlation to anything. And unrelated to how actual science experts explain.

 


Well..the image at below right is global sea level rise, from the "experts"...and the image below left. is CO2 emissions.... from experts....( you can put your own experts in, if it makes any difference )   

   Now...you say " how the experts explain ".. that.   Well that's the thing ....they don't.      See...if CO2 caused GW...shouldn't you see at least a tiny reaction to it ?  Say..a temperature spike about 1945 when the CO2 emissions surged ...problem is..."experts " tell us the global temperature went down about 1945 to 1970....and they ( experts ) haven't explained how that could happen either.




Dec 8, 2017 - 11:33:21 AM

1557 posts since 7/28/2015
Online Now

They (the experts) have explained the purported drop in temperature after 1945:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06982

Dec 8, 2017 - 1:33:26 PM

nakigreengrass

New Zealand

3816 posts since 5/16/2012

quote:
Originally posted by prooftheory

They (the experts) have explained the purported drop in temperature after 1945:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06982

 


Sorry...No..they haven't..using calibration errors to explain the unexplainable ...is....convenient....but....  the ice core data supporting the accepted cooling between 1945 to 1970...is even more.... inconvenient.    The graph below, is typical of ice core graphs taken from all around the world...and there is many papers about the .3 degree C drop in temperature evident in the proxies.    And..of course there's still the issue of any correlation between emissions and sea level.


 

Page:  First Page   Previous Page   ...  75   76   77  78  79   80   81  ...   Next Page   Last Page (102) 

Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.8007813