Climate and Weather

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...
 
Wez said:
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...
Click to expand...
Itʻs not a left or right thing. Look at the actions before you wallow in the words.
 
Bruddah IZ said:
Why would I mean that?
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Since there's no way there was sufficient dinosaur biomass to create our planetary reserves of oil bearing shales, coal deposits, etc. The carbon comes from unfathomable numbers of little tiny creatures and plants. Unless you've got a way for birds to keep your house warm and cool. Or Nessie in a sheltered cove working a water wheel. But maybe I misunderstood you.
 
EvilGoalie 21 said:
Hmmm. Since there's no way there was sufficient dinosaur biomass to create our planetary reserves of oil bearing shales, coal deposits, etc. The carbon comes from unfathomable numbers of little tiny creatures and plants. Unless you've got a way for birds to keep your house warm and cool. Or Nessie in a sheltered cove working a water wheel. But maybe I misunderstood you.
Click to expand...

Except for Sinclair Oil.

http://blog.retroplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/Dino_Sinclair_Oil.jpg

http://www.charlesphoenix.com/wp-content/uploads/2004/11/sinclair_gas_station.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top