U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-09-2016, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
28,819 posts, read 27,441,907 times
Reputation: 11537

Advertisements

Check this out...

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/09...ce-trump-nasa/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-09-2016, 04:22 PM
 
32,803 posts, read 32,470,556 times
Reputation: 12806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
  • Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures, a sample size which would result in a margin of error of 11 percentage points.

Impressive, most people wouldn't bother. Did you know the number beforehand or did you have to look it up?





Quote:
Perhaps you should comb through this first and then let's hold that discussion.
Perhaps not. What is the definition of "significant" as it applies to climate? If man has been able to change climate at all even if the consequences were negligible that could be significant, yes?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2016, 04:31 PM
 
32,803 posts, read 32,470,556 times
Reputation: 12806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Cleric View Post
5 years ago a Stanford study concluded this transition could be done fairly quickly. The world can be powered by alternative energy in 20-40 years, Stanford researcher says
Anything is possible with an endless amount of money. This is a pie in the sky idea. Here is your threshold:

It's 0 degrees out in the northeast US, cloudy and windless all day. Utilities are hitting record demand at 7AM and it's going to be like that for the next two weeks. This is a very plausible scenario.

Do you understand the capacity and storage required to meet this demand?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2016, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
7,191 posts, read 2,410,299 times
Reputation: 4231
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Impressive, most people wouldn't bother. Did you know the number beforehand or did you have to look it up?
I'm not most people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Perhaps not.
Then don't make suggestions if you are not willing to live up to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
What is the definition of "significant" as it applies to climate? If man has been able to change climate at all even if the consequences were negligible that could be significant, yes?
It's clear you don't know what you are talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2016, 07:09 PM
 
32,803 posts, read 32,470,556 times
Reputation: 12806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
I'm not most people.
I guess we can assumme you had to look it up, for the record I knew that because I read it years ago.

Quote:
Then don't make suggestions if you are not willing to live up to them.
My suggestion was we discuss it specifically citing question 2, I posed to you a valid and reasoned point about question 2. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence and an understanding of how poll questions can be formulated to illicit a desired response will understand the point I'm making.

Your response is:


Quote:
It's clear you don't know what you are talking about.
Translation "I have no valid and reasoned response so I'll just hurl an insult to make myself feel superior."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2016, 07:22 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
59,692 posts, read 49,053,882 times
Reputation: 49724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josseppie View Post
We have till 2035 to get off fossil fuels and that is plenty of time.

A report from Climate Action Tracker notes that buying gas-powered cars will have to stop by 2035. That's if we want to achieve the 2 degrees Celsius target aimed by world leaders at the Paris summit last year.

The link: Report: We Only Have Until 2035 to Get Rid of Gasoline Engines
The idea that we have 2 degrees Celsius leeway is wishful thinking. I think that was the OP's point, and I think he's right.

We've already entered into the feeback loop warned about in the 80's, where warming will accelerate exponentially, due to drought, leading to increased forest fires, dumping more CO2 in the air, causing ever-accelerating warming. And that's not taking into consideration the methane gas problem. The Paris process didn't take that into consideration, either.

We're toast, people. Only the Boomers have a chance of getting out of here without being fried or starved, amid mass panic, and possibly even some of them won't make it in peace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2016, 08:18 PM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
7,191 posts, read 2,410,299 times
Reputation: 4231
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
I guess we can assumme you had to look it up, for the record I knew that because I read it years ago.
Sure go ahead and assume. Why would I expect anything different from you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
My suggestion was we discuss it specifically citing question 2, I posed to you a valid and reasoned point about question 2. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence and an understanding of how poll questions can be formulated to illicit a desired response will understand the point I'm making.
If you think scientists don't understand what the word "significant" means then you really have no point to make.

Sure go ahead and raise questions about the phrasing of the questions and the methodology of the survey, its really a mute point because the results were not significantly different from other surveys of scientists. Over time, such surveys have shown that increasingly large percentages of scientists believed that anthropogenic (human-generated) greenhouse gas emissions affected climate change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Translation "I have no valid and reasoned response so I'll just hurl an insult to make myself feel superior."
LOL no translation was required.

Perhaps you are confused by the term "significant" but most educated people...especially academic scientists know what it means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2016, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Not far from Fairbanks, AK
15,328 posts, read 24,107,955 times
Reputation: 10771
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
The idea that we have 2 degrees Celsius leeway is wishful thinking. I think that was the OP's point, and I think he's right.

We've already entered into the feeback loop warned about in the 80's, where warming will accelerate exponentially, due to drought, leading to increased forest fires, dumping more CO2 in the air, causing ever-accelerating warming. And that's not taking into consideration the methane gas problem. The Paris process didn't take that into consideration, either.

We're toast, people. Only the Boomers have a chance of getting out of here without being fried or starved, amid mass panic, and possibly even some of them won't make it in peace.
My answer is to enjoy this wonderful time of warmth while we still have it

Dang! With the wood stove going at full blast, I forgot that is was around -20 outside. I am dreaming of some fast global warming, at least next summer (by June next year, I hope).

By the way, we will send some cold Alaska air to some of you next week. Not global warming however, just regional freeze some behinds stuff:
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weathe...-week/70000208

That said, what we should do to stop all of the CO stuff is for humans to exterminate all other life (plants and animals), then stop breathing.

Last edited by RayinAK; 12-09-2016 at 10:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2016, 06:23 AM
 
32,803 posts, read 32,470,556 times
Reputation: 12806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora View Post
Sure go ahead and assume. Why would I expect anything different from you?
If you think scientists don't understand what the word "significant" means then you really have no point to make.
I'm sure they know the meaning of the word significant which can be defined as noteworthy. The dilemma I posed is if man has had any influence on climate at all is that "significant" or noteworthy.


Quote:
because the results were not significantly different from other surveys of scientists.
The Anderegg study for example using highly questionable methodology that unilaterally assigns an opinion to scientists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2016, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Pacific 🌉 °N, 🌄°W
7,191 posts, read 2,410,299 times
Reputation: 4231
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
I'm sure they know the meaning of the word significant which can be defined as noteworthy. The dilemma I posed is if man has had any influence on climate at all is that "significant" or noteworthy.
Take a good look around this planet, then add on the data and of course it's significant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
The Anderegg study for example using highly questionable methodology that unilaterally assigns an opinion to scientists.
I'm sure scientists are not the easiest bunch to dupe.

No matter how you want to slice and dice it the fact is over time, such surveys have shown that increasingly large percentages of scientists believed that anthropogenic (human-generated) greenhouse gas emissions affected climate change.

You don't need to rely on polls to understand that human-generated greenhouse gas emission are responsible for what we are seeing today.

Instead you should be looking at the actual data that demonstrates this. Start with the past 800,000 years of CO2 levels and track that up trough today. Pay special attention to the timeline around the start of the Industrial Revolution and track this up through today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top