NEOH Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I haven't seen a thread on geoengineering in the CC forum... so if there is one please feel free to delete this. JB shared the following story from Forbes - http://www.forbes.co...global-warming/ Definitely an interesting read and worthy of discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 You must have posted the wrong link - this one is a denialist rant from a right wing publication that only mentions geoengineering in the last few paragraphs. Perhaps you were trying for this link? http://www.arctic-methane-emergency-group.org/#/response/4558229020 About half a page down they address the issue. BTW they are scientists - not blogers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 this one is a denialist rant from a right wing publication This nonsense has no place in the CC forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 This nonsense has no place in the CC forum. Right - that's why I figured he mistakenly put up the wrong link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 BethesdaWX, IMO, the opinion piece was largely political, not scientific, in nature. For example, it claimed: ...the Progressives’ argument that, because the effects of climate change are potentially so disastrous, we should surrender our freedom and move to a centrally planned world economy managed by experts, “just in case”? That's a political claim, and an exaggerated one at that. Seeking a coordinated policy approach on climate change is not the same thing as calling for a centrally planned world economy. Coordination is not uncommon in the international arena. Central banks have had coordinated policy responses to the financial crisis and its after-effects. WTO is an institution under which common trade rules are agreed (not imposed) by sovereign states and enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 untrue. the serious scientific community--i.e. not Watts and his ilk--are very interested in this subject and there is a lot of legit work being done on it. I'll find some papers this evening. This is a science forum, so we abide by the scientific method...calling others right wing deniers is 100% political crap. By the scientific method, AGW is a hypothesis. The null hypothesis cannot be scientifically disproven, hence all change in climate falls into the line of hypothesis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 BethesdaWX, IMO, the opinion piece was largely political, not scientific, in nature. For example, it claimed: That's a political claim, and an exaggerated one at that. Seeking a coordinated policy approach on climate change is not the same thing as calling for a centrally planned world economy. Coordination is not uncommon in the international arena. Central banks have had coordinated policy responses to the financial crisis and its after-effects. WTO is an institution under which common trade rules are agreed (not imposed) by sovereign states and enforced. I agree with you 100%. Both sides are full of political crap. The "extremes" found in the debate are usually political, while those tied to hard nosed science are not claiming CAGW, nor denying that CO2 is a GHG and has increased due to our activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 This is a science forum, so we abide by the scientific method...calling others right wing deniers is 100% political crap. By the scientific method, AGW is a hypothesis. The null hypothesis cannot be scientifically disproven, hence all change in climate falls into the line of hypothesis. " Even the Warmists Don't Believe In Global Warming" by your reasoning this article is 100% political crap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I haven't seen a thread on geoengineering in the CC forum... so if there is one please feel free to delete this. JB shared the following story from Forbes - http://www.forbes.co...global-warming/ Definitely an interesting read and worthy of discussion. You're joking, right? Except that it is not funny. Far to many think along the same lines of political paranoia as the writer of that article. That must include you if you mistakenly embrace that article on "geoengineering" for serious consideration in posting on a science forum. It's conspiracy theory at its worst, and you called my credibility into question? If asked my opinion, I would want this thread removed immediately as inappropriate to the discussion of climate change.....or geoengineering for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 " Even the Warmists Don't Believe In Global Warming" by your reasoning this article is 100% political crap I never said the article wasn't political crap either...it s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 I agree with you 100%. Both sides are full of political crap. The "extremes" found in the debate are usually political, while those tied to hard nosed science are not claiming CAGW, nor denying that CO2 is a GHG and has increased due to our activities. Who on here is pushing CAGW as more likely than other degrees of scientifically determined potential change? What is CAGW anyway? 5-6C / >1 meter sea level rise. Are you saying those potential outcomes are unlikely even if we drive CO2 up to say....800ppm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Geoengineering could, I think, be an interesting topic for discussion. I can't imagine that anyone who didn't realize that we are headed for increased warming would have any opinion other than "No way Jose", and I have no problem allowing them that opinion - assuming they voice it, we note it and go on with our discussion. Personally I'm not up to speed on the various schemes being proposed, and would be interested in any information that has been put forth. Are there any that are available for immediate deployment? Are any reasonably efficient cost wise, and are any of them reasonably safe to utilize? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Who on here is pushing CAGW as more likely than other degrees of scientifically determined potential change? What is CAGW anyway? 5-6C / >1 meter sea level rise. Are you saying those potential outcomes are unlikely even if we drive CO2 up to say....800ppm? I don't know who is/does, and frankly I don't care to pick out those individuals. I don't care about the delusional "consensus", either, even if there were a consensus it is unrelated to science in the name of hypothesis. You can have 20K scientists on one side and 1k on the other side yet it means nothing through the scientific method in hypothetical analysis. If you need to breach the scientific method to push an opinion base's validity that is a bad sign already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 If you need to breach the scientific method to push an opinion base's validity that is a bad sign already. You learned this from Christy et al 2011? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 You learned this from Christy et al 2011? good one hahah!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I don't know who is/does, and frankly I don't care to pick out those individuals. I don't care about the delusional "consensus", either, even if there were a consensus it is unrelated to science in the name of hypothesis. You can have 20K scientists on one side and 1k on the other side yet it means nothing through the scientific method in hypothetical analysis. If you need to breach the scientific method to push an opinion base's validity that is a bad sign already. The consensus is this: The Earth is warming and mankind's activities are the primary reason for that warming. The world's climate scientists almost universally agree such is the case. There is no mention of how much warming or what the implications are or will be. Just what exactly is it about the science which does not conform to the scientific method? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 The consensus is this: The Earth is warming and mankind's activities are the primary reason for that warming. Consensus is irrelevant to science, don't bring it up again. There are thousands of skeptical scientists. If a consensus existed it still a stupid superficial mask. The world's climate scientists almost universally agree such is the case. There is no mention of how much warming or what the implications are or will be. No they don't. Even if they did, it'd be more funny. Not only do GCM's not have the ability to recreate long term trends in the AO, or pin down the causation of ENSO, but also there is no explanation for why warming has abated in a statistically notable sense since the middle of last decade. 3.7W/m^2 is irrelevant if the gas is not well dispersed. Even if it is, the entire principle of the GHE within the atmospheric window is not properly accounted for. I'm working on a long write up to post here. Just what exactly is it about the science which does not conform to the scientific method? The null hypothesis cannot be scientifically disproven via the scientific method, and the warming we've seen CAN be explained by other means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOH Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 You're joking, right? Except that it is not funny. Far to many think along the same lines of political paranoia as the writer of that article. That must include you if you mistakenly embrace that article on "geoengineering" for serious consideration in posting on a science forum. It's conspiracy theory at its worst, and you called my credibility into question? If asked my opinion, I would want this thread removed immediately as inappropriate to the discussion of climate change.....or geoengineering for that matter. No, you're joking, right? Oh wait, threads such as "OMG I have a bad feeling about this", or "how big is your bunker" are more productive to the topic. Tell the forum Rusty - If you so strongly believe in AGW like you have stated countless times, why is it a joke to discuss ways in which to fix the perceived problem? Also, tell the forum why geoengineering is a conspriracy theory? Why are scientists who so strongly believe in man made GW against discussing this? Political paranoia? C'mon, people in glass houses should not throw stones. You completely destroyed your credibility with that ridiculous post. Congrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOH Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 Geoengineering could, I think, be an interesting topic for discussion. I can't imagine that anyone who didn't realize that we are headed for increased warming would have any opinion other than "No way Jose", and I have no problem allowing them that opinion - assuming they voice it, we note it and go on with our discussion. Personally I'm not up to speed on the various schemes being proposed, and would be interested in any information that has been put forth. Are there any that are available for immediate deployment? Are any reasonably efficient cost wise, and are any of them reasonably safe to utilize? Terry - Good to hear you are interested in discussing this topic. A complete 360 from your first post but good nonetheless. The garbage in the link you provided was no better than what I posted. I personally liked #4 - 4. To achieve these urgent goals, it is necessary (as has been urged by peace and social groups for many years) that the vast amounts of funds and human resources devoted to the military and aerospace industries be diverted to the great enterprise of stabilizing the Arctic, protecting our planet, and rescuing our future. I don't know why these people are called alarmists?! Rescuing our future? Laughable at best. Maybe the "climate scientists" from around the world should convene in Bora Bora for the next summit. Surely this would be the right place to hold a summit, as it is inexpensive to get there, and reduces carbon emissions. So called scientists looking for all expenses paid getaway to continue propogating big business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Geoengineering could, I think, be an interesting topic for discussion. I can't imagine that anyone who didn't realize that we are headed for increased warming would have any opinion other than "No way Jose", and I have no problem allowing them that opinion - assuming they voice it, we note it and go on with our discussion. Personally I'm not up to speed on the various schemes being proposed, and would be interested in any information that has been put forth. Are there any that are available for immediate deployment? Are any reasonably efficient cost wise, and are any of them reasonably safe to utilize? Siberian Seas Seethe Swamp Smell Light a match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOH Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 Light a match. Thanks for responding for Terry, and posting a random image. I'll await his response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 No, you're joking, right? Oh wait, threads such as "OMG I have a bad feeling about this", or "how big is your bunker" are more productive to the topic. Tell the forum Rusty - If you so strongly believe in AGW like you have stated countless times, why is it a joke to discuss ways in which to fix the perceived problem? Also, tell the forum why geoengineering is a conspriracy theory? Why are scientists who so strongly believe in man made GW against discussing this? Political paranoia? C'mon, people in glass houses should not throw stones. You completely destroyed your credibility with that ridiculous post. Congrats. Now I know you are joking. Either that our you are just stupid. I really do think it's the former though! Why do you insist on mixing politics with science? Maybe you don't see a distinction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Thanks for responding for Terry, and posting a random image. I'll await his response. Sorry Siberian Seas Seethe Swamp Smell http://planeta.moy.s...011-12-19-11793 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Terry - Good to hear you are interested in discussing this topic. A complete 360 from your first post but good nonetheless. The garbage in the link you provided was no better than what I posted. I personally liked #4 - 4. To achieve these urgent goals, it is necessary (as has been urged by peace and social groups for many years) that the vast amounts of funds and human resources devoted to the military and aerospace industries be diverted to the great enterprise of stabilizing the Arctic, protecting our planet, and rescuing our future. I don't know why these people are called alarmists?! Rescuing our future? Laughable at best. Maybe the "climate scientists" from around the world should convene in Bora Bora for the next summit. Surely this would be the right place to hold a summit, as it is inexpensive to get there, and reduces carbon emissions. So called scientists looking for all expenses paid getaway to continue propogating big business. Take your mocking of climate science elsewhere. You are not funny in the least. You must be a very angry person. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Which ever it was, your's came into being second in line. First there was the science, then came the response....you are part of the response...and a perverse one at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 As I said before, I do think trying in some way to remediate some of the damage we've done might be a way out of this mess. Personally I'm leery of schemes that add airborne pollution (sulfur) but open to just about anything else. Beth - It's noted that you think that the problems will sort themselves out so I can't think of anything else you could add to this thread that could be helpful. Neoh - You started the thread, I assume with good intentions, but seem to be saying that you don't believe in the whole premise. Am I wrong about this - do you want to continue to explore various options? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 .Beth - It's noted that you think that the problems will sort themselves out so I can't think of anything else you could add to this thread that could be helpful. When you say "the problems", that right there is where we diverge. I don't think anything is "wrong" with our climate. Obviously whatever CO2 man has emmited since the middle of last decade has not led to warming. Climate models predicted warming even with ENSO. Climate models cannot simulate long term cycles in the AO. They cannot determine the causation of ENSO correctly. Until we have a causation for ENSO pretty much locked down we can forget about trying to predict anything related to the thermal budget. The geomag sun correlates to ENSO, specifically El Nino (La Nina seems to be an internal negative feedback to El Nino)(All warmings occur faster than cooling in the climate, whether it be the interglacial cycle, 1 year El Nino followed by mutli-year La Nina, so on, but ONLY when the forcing change is external in origin for clear reasoning...ENSO follows this). I'm aware, it doesn't = causation, but the possible mechanism ties right into the change in the kinetic budget that starts the process. If the geomag sun is responsible for ENSO, then AGW theory is pretty much a dead duck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 You position has already been noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I googled "geomag sun" and it led me to this page http://www.ramocafe.com/ BB, is this your hosting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I googled "geomag sun" and it led me to this page http://www.ramocafe.com/ BB, is this your hosting? You're not even funny anymore, your posts towards me have all been worthless crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Beth Can you take your comments elsewhere. This thread is about Geoenginering - You have already made your position known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.