If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:45:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:59:21 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:36:51 +0100, Chris wrote: On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson wrote: Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution? It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to eliminate the production of CO2. Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man. What then is the end of the game you have in mind? Sustainable, renewable energy. OK. Understood. You are not focussed on total elimination of anthropogenic CO2. In that case we do not have any real argument. I doubt anyone has that as a priority. We know very well that as long as CO2 levels are maintained at certain levels the effects are climate change will be minimal. I think we are all agreed about that. The argument is about what is that 'certain level'. -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over thelast 100 years
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:45:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:59:21 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:36:51 +0100, Chris wrote: On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson wrote: Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution? It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to eliminate the production of CO2. Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man. What then is the end of the game you have in mind? Sustainable, renewable energy. OK. Understood. You are not focussed on total elimination of anthropogenic CO2. In that case we do not have any real argument. I doubt anyone has that as a priority. We know very well that as long as CO2 levels are maintained at certain levels the effects are climate change will be minimal. I think we are all agreed about that. The argument is about what is that 'certain level'. There's no argument. Below 400ppm of CO2 means temperature increases by 1.5-2.0 degrees max, which is tolerable. Obviously the lower the better. The problem is we've already breached 400ppm. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:06:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:45:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:59:21 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:36:51 +0100, Chris wrote: On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson wrote: Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution? It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to eliminate the production of CO2. Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man. What then is the end of the game you have in mind? Sustainable, renewable energy. OK. Understood. You are not focussed on total elimination of anthropogenic CO2. In that case we do not have any real argument. I doubt anyone has that as a priority. We know very well that as long as CO2 levels are maintained at certain levels the effects are climate change will be minimal. I think we are all agreed about that. The argument is about what is that 'certain level'. There's no argument. Below 400ppm of CO2 means temperature increases by 1.5-2.0 degrees max, which is tolerable. Obviously the lower the better. The problem is we've already breached 400ppm. That is very arguable. The data is dubious. The mathematics is probably erronius. The absence physical evidence for the underlying theory is conspicuous. It fails the Feynman test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU Coincidence is not causation. -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over thelast 100 years
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:06:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 12:45:31 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:59:21 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 09:36:51 +0100, Chris wrote: On 20/09/2019 01:36, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 12:34:51 -0500, Char Jackson wrote: Hypothetical example: If you could move 300 million homes off of the electric grid and onto solar or wind-powered electricity, you wouldn't see that as a net gain because the factories have been left behind? Does a solution have to be all or nothing before it can be called a solution? It certainly would reduce CO2 but its a fail if you are trying to eliminate the production of CO2. Elimination of CO2 production is not the end game. Straw man. What then is the end of the game you have in mind? Sustainable, renewable energy. OK. Understood. You are not focussed on total elimination of anthropogenic CO2. In that case we do not have any real argument. I doubt anyone has that as a priority. We know very well that as long as CO2 levels are maintained at certain levels the effects are climate change will be minimal. I think we are all agreed about that. The argument is about what is that 'certain level'. There's no argument. Below 400ppm of CO2 means temperature increases by 1.5-2.0 degrees max, which is tolerable. Obviously the lower the better. The problem is we've already breached 400ppm. That is very arguable. Hardly. The absolute numbers, maybe, but we are definitely we're in the window where if we don't make significant changes now we're facing a very unstable future. The data is dubious. The data are sound and the evidence is all around us. Only someone with their head in the sand would fail to acknowledge it. The mathematics is probably erronius. The absence physical evidence for the underlying theory is conspicuous. It fails the Feynman test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU Coincidence is not causation. Very glib. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100 years
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:27:45 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: --- snip --- There's no argument. Below 400ppm of CO2 means temperature increases by 1.5-2.0 degrees max, which is tolerable. Obviously the lower the better. The problem is we've already breached 400ppm. That is very arguable. Hardly. The absolute numbers, maybe, but we are definitely we're in the window where if we don't make significant changes now we're facing a very unstable future. The data is dubious. The data are sound and the evidence is all around us. Only someone with their head in the sand would fail to acknowledge it. The ata is not sound and this can be seen by anyone who looks at it. It has been considerably adjusted (AKA tampered with) over the years so that the records of the past you see today bear little resemblance to those for the same period 50 years ago. The adjustments alays make the past cooler when in fact some years were even hotter than now, particularly in the 1930s. The mathematics is probably erronius. The absence physical evidence for the underlying theory is conspicuous. It fails the Feynman test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU Coincidence is not causation. Very glib. And also very true. -- Eric Stevens There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Maximal temperatures in the US have DECREASED over the last 100years
On 25/09/2019 04:44, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 07:27:45 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: --- snip --- There's no argument. Below 400ppm of CO2 means temperature increases by 1.5-2.0 degrees max, which is tolerable. Obviously the lower the better. The problem is we've already breached 400ppm. That is very arguable. Hardly. The absolute numbers, maybe, but we are definitely we're in the window where if we don't make significant changes now we're facing a very unstable future. The data is dubious. The data are sound and the evidence is all around us. Only someone with their head in the sand would fail to acknowledge it. The ata is not sound and this can be seen by anyone who looks at it. It has been considerably adjusted (AKA tampered with) over the years If there is a sound to adjust data then it isn't tampering. As our knowledge of the data improves so does how to best work with it. so that the records of the past you see today bear little resemblance to those for the same period 50 years ago. The adjustments alays make the past cooler when in fact some years were even hotter than now, particularly in the 1930s. As per above historical data interpretations can justifiably differ from more recent interpretations. The mathematics is probably erronius. The absence physical evidence for the underlying theory is conspicuous. It fails the Feynman test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KmimDq4cSU Coincidence is not causation. Very glib. And also very true. And completely irrelevant to the topic in hand. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|