History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man. :(
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/05/glaciers-draining-antarctic-basin-destabilized-big-sea-level-rise-all-but-certain/
Quote
Glaciers draining Antarctic basin destabilized, big sea level rise all but certain
There's little that will stop continued retreat of Antarctic glaciers.
by John Timmer - May 13 2014, 4:12am KST
Today, researchers at UC Irvine and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory have announced results indicating that glaciers across a large area of West Antarctica have been destabilized and that there is little that will stop their continuing retreat. These glaciers are all that stand between the ocean and a massive basin of ice that sits below sea level. Should the sea invade this basin, we'd be committed to several meters of sea level rise.
Even in the short term, the new findings should increase our estimates for sea level rise by the end of the century, the scientists suggest. But the ongoing process of retreat and destabilization will mean that the area will contribute to rising oceans for centuries.
The press conference announcing these results is ongoing. We will have a significant update on this story later today.
UPDATE (2:05pm CDT):
The glaciers in question are in West Antarctica, and drain into the Amundsen Sea. On the coastal side, the ends of the glacier are actually floating on ocean water. Closer to the coast, there's what's called a "grounding line," where the weight of the ice above sea level pushes the bottom of the glacier down against the sea bed. From there on, back to the interior of Antarctica, all of the ice is directly in contact with the Earth.
That's a rather significant fact, given that, just behind a range of coastal hills, all of the ice is sitting in a huge basin that's significantly below sea level. In total, the basin contains enough ice to raise sea levels approximately four meters, largely because the ice piled in there rises significantly above sea level.
Because of this configuration, the grounding line of the glaciers that drain this basin act as a protective barrier, keeping the sea back from the base of the deeper basin. Once ocean waters start infiltrating the base of a glacier, the glacier melts, flows faster, and thins. This lessens the weight holding the glacier down, ultimately causing it to float, which hastens its break up. Since the entire basin is below sea level (in some areas by over a kilometer), water entering the basin via any of the glaciers could destabilize the entire thing.
Thus, understanding the dynamics of the grounding lines is critical. Today's announcements have been driven by two publications. One of them models the behavior of one of these glaciers, and shows that it has likely reached a point where it will be prone to a sudden retreat sometime in the next few centuries. The second examines every glacier draining this basin, and shows that all but one of them are currently losing contact with their grounding lines.
Ungrounded
The data come from two decades worth of data from the ESA's Earth Remote Sensing satellites. These include radar that performs two key functions: peers through the ice to get a sense of the terrain that lies buried under the ice near the grounding line. And, through interferometry, it tracks the dynamics of the ice sheet's flow in the area, as well as its thinning and the location of the grounding line itself. The study tracks a number of glaciers that all drain into the region: Pine Island, Thwaites, Haynes, and Smith/Kohler.
As we've covered previously, the Pine Island Glacier came ungrounded in the second half of the past decade, retreating up to 31km in the process. Although this was the one that made headlines, all the glaciers in the area are in retreat. Thwaites saw areas retreat up to 14km over the course of the study, Haynes retracted by 10km, and the Smith/Kohler glaciers retreated by 35km.
The retreating was accompanied by thinning of the glaciers, as ice that had been held back above sea levels in the interior spread forward and thinned out. This contributed to sea level rise, and the speakers at the press conference agreed that the new data shows that the recently released IPCC estimates for sea level rise are out of date; even by the end of this century, the continuation of this process will significantly increase the rate of sea level rise we can expect.
The real problem, however, comes later. Glaciers can establish new grounding lines if there's a feature in the terrain, such as a hill that rises above sea level, that provides a new anchoring point. The authors see none: "Upstream of the 2011 grounding line positions, we find no major bed obstacle that would prevent the glaciers from further retreat and draw down the entire basin." In fact, several of the existing grounding lines are close to points where the terrain begins to slope downward into the basin.
For some of the glaciers, the problems are already starting. At Pine Island, the bottom of the glacier is now sitting on terrain that's 400 meters deeper than where the end rested in 1992, and there are no major hills between there and the basin. As far as the Smith/Kohler glaciers, the grounding line is 800 meters deeper and "its ice shelf pinning points are vanishing."
What's next?
As a result, the authors concluded that these glaciers are essentially destabilized—unless something changes radically, they're destined for retreat into the indefinite future. But what will the trajectory of that retreat look like? In this case, the data doesn't directly help. It needs to be fed into a model that projects the current melting into the future. Conveniently, a different set of scientists has already done this modeling.
The work focuses on the Thwaites glacier, which appears to be the most stable: there are 60-80km before between the existing terminus and the deep basin, and two or three ridges within that distance that will allow the formation of new grounding lines.
The authors simulated the behavior of Thwaites using a number of different melting rates. These ranged from a low that approximated the behavior typical in the early 90s, to a high rate of melt that is similar to what was observed in recent years. Every single one of these situations saw the Thwaites retreat into the deep basin within the next 1,000 years. In the higher melt scenarios—the ones most reflective of current conditions—this typically took only a few centuries.
The other worrisome behavior is that there appeared to be a tipping point. In every simulation that saw an extensive retreat, rates of melting shifted from under 80 gigatonnes of ice per year to 150 gigatonnes or more, all within the span of a couple of decades. In the later conditions, this glacier alone contributed half a centimeter to sea level rise—every year.
And, as the authors of this paper noted, the Thwaites is only part of the picture for this area of Antarctica. Should sea water enter the deep basin due to the failure of a different glacier, the behavior of the Thwaites would be irrelevant. In fact, it could even be destabilized from behind if the ice within the basin breaks up fast enough.
Pretty much everyone involved in the work seems to agree with the implications: the glaciers in this area are no longer stable, and we've entered a period where centuries of sea level rise appears to be irreversible. We can probably influence the trajectory by limiting climate change, giving us centuries of relative stability, but the details of that will likely depend on the other glaciers that drain this basin. It's a good bet that those will soon be subjected to the sort of modeling that was done for the Thwaites.
:yeah:
History also shows again and again that this kind of thing happens before man has even evolved, and has happened before during the existence of men on earth. :(
I am not sure who to blame the global warming of 7000-3000 BP on; temperatures were then as warm as, and sea levels as high as, those predicted by the doubling of current CO2 levels. I am sure someone, somewhere, will find some excuse to blame it on "the folly of man" or some such bogus bullshit. :lol:
Yes, man should look for a way to mitigate the consequences of his own actions on the earth's environment, but moaning abut "the folly of man" isn't one of those ways. And it is smart to consider whether mitigating the effects is more effective than than eliminating the causes, rather than just assuming that the way forward is to somehow minimize CO2 emissions.
If bleating were thinking, the environmental movement would be full of Einsteins.
:lol:
By incorrectly stating facts, Grumbler has proven that Global warming is both a conspiracy against America and a religion that has declared Jihad on Capitalism.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2014, 08:23:33 AM
I am not sure who to blame the global warming of 7000-3000 BP on
British Petroleum of course.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 14, 2014, 09:00:19 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2014, 08:23:33 AM
I am not sure who to blame the global warming of 7000-3000 BP on
British Petroleum of course.
But which one? There are 7000-3000 to choose from.
I, for one, welcome my soon-to-be beachfront property.
I remember some map that someone made using google where you could see how much the sea need to rises for somewhere to be beachfront.
The seas need to rise 4m for my house to be beach front, onto a River, not the Atlantic.
I just checked and my house is 8m above sea level, so I'll probably need to keep polluting for a little while more.
My house sits on a mountain top. For safety.
Quote from: The Brain on May 14, 2014, 10:16:13 AM
My house sits on a mountain top. For safety.
You seriously want us to believe it has nothing to do with mountain goats?
My house is at 742 feet above sea level. :(
Kentucky is HIGH
Quote from: Caliga on May 14, 2014, 11:34:19 AM
My house is at 742 feet above sea level. :(
Pffft do you really want to live on the East Coast again?
Realistically speaking, what can we do?
Nothing.
When can we do it?
Now.
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2014, 11:37:01 AM
Pffft do you really want to live on the East Coast again?
I'd be ok with it if it was in the extreme southern portion of said coast. :sleep:
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 14, 2014, 11:36:57 AM
Kentucky is HIGH
Nigga please. That's not high, even for Kentucky. The highest point in Kentucky is Black Mountain @ 4,145 feet.
For my immediate area it is high, though. The Ohio Valley at Louisville is normally at like 460 feet or something. I live up in the hills above all the smog. :cool:
Quote from: Scipio on May 14, 2014, 11:56:34 AM
Realistically speaking, what can we do?
A quick search shows a large number of websites which recommend ways you can reduce your carbon emissions.
Ocean levels that will rise over hundreds of years may not seem a pressing concern. But if you look at the effect the acidification of the oceans is having right now, you might be a bit less dismissive.
Quote from: celedhring on May 14, 2014, 10:13:59 AM
I just checked and my house is 8m above sea level, so I'll probably need to keep polluting for a little while more.
Don't pollute too much; I'm at 6 m. :(
( The highest point in the peninsular of Florida is about 90 m. See Disney while you can; we're DOOMED!)
I live at 2200 meters. Pollute away.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: The Brain on May 14, 2014, 10:16:13 AM
My house sits on a mountain top. For safety.
You seriously want us to believe it has nothing to do with mountain goats?
Yes. There's lovely deer here though. :)
Quote from: PDH on May 14, 2014, 12:31:54 PM
I live at 2200 meters. Pollute away.
You'll just have to deal with refugees clogging traffic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 12:12:44 PM
Ocean levels that will rise over hundreds of years may not seem a pressing concern. But if you look at the effect the acidification of the oceans is having right now, you might be a bit less dismissive.
That's a huge worry of mine.
And I find it strange that normally intelligent posters dismiss the human component in climate change from the off.
Climate Central has this map that let's you look at the world with up to 10 feet increase in sea level. My apartment still isn't on the waterfront with that amount of increase.
http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/
Quote from: Norgy on May 14, 2014, 01:04:07 PM
That's a huge worry of mine.
And I find it strange that normally intelligent posters dismiss the human component in climate change from the off.
It's political.
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2014, 01:08:41 PM
Climate Central has this map that let's you look at the world with up to 10 feet increase in sea level. My apartment still isn't on the waterfront with that amount of increase.
http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/
Man. Bummer about Galveston.
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2014, 01:17:55 PM
Quote from: Norgy on May 14, 2014, 01:04:07 PM
That's a huge worry of mine.
And I find it strange that normally intelligent posters dismiss the human component in climate change from the off.
It's political.
I will give the benefit of the doubt and think it has to do with lack of knowledge. One thing that had an impact on my view was the recent IPCC reports. I am looking forward (if that is the right term in this context) to their report due in October which is to be a synthesis of all the scientific work to date. We have Mongers to thank for bringing those reports (and others) to the attention of the forum :)
Quote from: Norgy on May 14, 2014, 01:04:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 12:12:44 PM
Ocean levels that will rise over hundreds of years may not seem a pressing concern. But if you look at the effect the acidification of the oceans is having right now, you might be a bit less dismissive.
That's a huge worry of mine.
And I find it strange that normally intelligent posters dismiss the human component in climate change from the off.
Robots are a more pressing concern.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 01:53:36 PM
I will give the benefit of the doubt and think it has to do with lack of knowledge.
I think it has little to do with lack of knowledge and more to do with lack of immediacy. There is no immediate personal impact, so political tribal declarations and attempts at internet cleverness is more important than gaining an understanding of the facts of the matter.
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2014, 01:19:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2014, 01:08:41 PM
Climate Central has this map that let's you look at the world with up to 10 feet increase in sea level. My apartment still isn't on the waterfront with that amount of increase.
http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/
Man. Bummer about Galveston.
It already got wasted a hundred years ago. Everybody left lives on stilts or in boats.
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2014, 01:57:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 01:53:36 PM
I will give the benefit of the doubt and think it has to do with lack of knowledge.
I think it has little to do with lack of knowledge and more to do with lack of immediacy. There is no immediate personal impact, so political tribal declarations and attempts at internet cleverness is more important than gaining an understanding of the facts of the matter.
I mostly feel helpless on the issue of global warming and its effects. I'm already a low-emissions person by developed world standards just by virtue of my income and lifestyle; thinking about it in depth makes me anxious; and I do find it pretty complicated to understand, other than that it's a major problem.
So I have to admit I do unintentionally cabin it off in my mind and don't treat with the requisite seriousness, mostly as a mental protective measure. I have a feeling others do this too.
I am a longtime advocate of humanity moving to underground cities powered by nuclear fission. I like to think I'm doing my part.
Quote from: Norgy on May 14, 2014, 01:04:07 PM
That's a huge worry of mine.
That's a huge worry of anyone who has studied the issue. Again, though, it is unclear as to whether mitigation of the effects would be more cost-effective than reduction of the cause.
QuoteAnd I find it strange that normally intelligent posters dismiss the human component in climate change from the off.
I find it strange that normally intelligent posters assume that they know far more about the human component in climate change than they do, and that they also believe that the answers to the challenges of climate change can fit on bumper stickers.
To want to discuss the human component in climate change, and to consider multiple approaches to its solution, is not unintelligent. It simply is departure from the religion which states that Man=Bad. Climate change is not the morality tale the bleaters want it to be.
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2014, 01:17:55 PM
Quote from: Norgy on May 14, 2014, 01:04:07 PM
That's a huge worry of mine.
And I find it strange that normally intelligent posters dismiss the human component in climate change from the off.
It's political.
Sometimes, it is. Other times, it is just intelligence rejecting dogma (to the extent that my comments, for instance, are read by the religious as an attempt to "dismiss the human component in climate change from the off").
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 14, 2014, 03:02:07 PM
So I have to admit I do unintentionally cabin it off in my mind and don't treat with the requisite seriousness, mostly as a mental protective measure. I have a feeling others do this too.
Well it is one of the things that inspired me to be an engineer and part of the reason I want to go into power. If I actually end up helping anything is another story :P
Ok Jacob, you have convinced me. Or rather Grumbler's posts did. It was an attempt at internet cleverness after all.
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2014, 01:57:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 01:53:36 PM
I will give the benefit of the doubt and think it has to do with lack of knowledge.
I think it has little to do with lack of knowledge .... There is no immediate personal impact, so political tribal declarations and attempts at internet cleverness is more important than gaining an understanding of the facts of the matter.
Actually, this is
exactly how I view the bleaters. No one (and by this i actually mean no one, as far as any of the publicly released literature goes) understands exactly what causes climate change, how much of what we are seeing in terms of climate change is due to human efforts, or how much an effective program to reduce the causes of climate change would cost. No one. Further, no one knows how effective various methods of reducing the impact of climate change would be, how much they would cost, or how to make either the prediction models or the amelioration models more accurate.
Given all of this, it is foolish to believe that you have the knowledge of the best way to combat climate change. And yet people are bleating about "the folly of man" when the course we have taken may prove to be the wisest one so far.
Personally, I suspect that the effort to validate any given model or series of models is going to be vastly expensive (tens of billions, and maybe hundreds of billions, of dollars per year for a decade or more). We'd be smart to know what models those are and what would validate them. Bleating about man's foolishness and self-importantly claiming that you support the end of global warming without doing a thing about it are just wastes of breath in the face of the effort needed to get the information needed.
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2014, 03:25:18 PM
Well it is one of the things that inspired me to be an engineer and part of the reason I want to go into power.
Wow, someone ate his Nietzsche Pops this morning.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2014, 03:39:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2014, 03:25:18 PM
Well it is one of the things that inspired me to be an engineer and part of the reason I want to go into power.
Wow, someone ate his Nietzsche Pops this morning.
Erm? Am I one of the Übermensche or something? I do have blue eyes.
Oh...power. :lol: Not that sort of power. I have a will to generate watts.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 14, 2014, 03:02:07 PM
I mostly feel helpless on the issue of global warming and its effects. I'm already a low-emissions person by developed world standards just by virtue of my income and lifestyle; thinking about it in depth makes me anxious; and I do find it pretty complicated to understand, other than that it's a major problem.
So I have to admit I do unintentionally cabin it off in my mind and don't treat with the requisite seriousness, mostly as a mental protective measure. I have a feeling others do this too.
You, and every other smart person, naturally feel helpless, because you don't know anything. Attempts to get around this ignorance just expose you to the fact that no one else knows anything, either, and those who know why they know know that learning the answers will be hugely expensive.
How much would it cost to cut US CO2 emission by, say, 50% over the next ten years? Would that cut actually tell us which model is right, and therefor tell us whether cutting emissions is better than dealing with the consequences of emissions? If so, it could be the best investment in the history of mankind, even if the cost is a trillion dollars, and
even if it tells us that man's contribution to climate change is insignificant. Just the knowing is worth it.
That's what we should be doing in terms of climate change. Not bleating about the folly of man or patting ourselves on the back for declaring that any deviation from the religious line about Bad Man is merely "an attempt at internet cleverness."
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2014, 03:25:18 PM
Well it is one of the things that inspired me to be an engineer and part of the reason I want to go into power. If I actually end up helping anything is another story :P
As an engineer, you understand that the difference between helping only yourself and helping all of mankind is just a difference of scale, right? :P
Quote from: Valmy on May 14, 2014, 03:42:52 PM
Erm? Am I one of the Übermensche or something? I do have blue eyes.
Oh...power. :lol: Not that sort of power. I have a will to generate watts.
;)
Anyway if you do happen to seize power, let me be your driver.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2014, 03:43:52 PM
That's what we should be doing in terms of climate change. Not bleating about the folly of man or patting ourselves on the back for declaring that any deviation from the religious line about Bad Man is merely "an attempt at internet cleverness."
We have met the enemy and he is us :weep:
grumbler, what's your take on the IPCC report?
Is it part of the bleating in your view or do you consider it reasonable inquiry and analysis given available facts?
Scientific consensus vs grumbler and derspiess. :)
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on May 14, 2014, 03:02:07 PM
I mostly feel helpless on the issue of global warming and its effects. I'm already a low-emissions person by developed world standards just by virtue of my income and lifestyle; thinking about it in depth makes me anxious; and I do find it pretty complicated to understand, other than that it's a major problem.
So I have to admit I do unintentionally cabin it off in my mind and don't treat with the requisite seriousness, mostly as a mental protective measure. I have a feeling others do this too.
Same.
Quote from: Norgy on May 14, 2014, 04:00:53 PM
Scientific consensus vs grumbler and derspiess. :)
I'm not making any arguments in this thread.
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2014, 03:51:23 PMAnyway if you do happen to seize power, let me be your driver.
God knows I would need one. :P
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2014, 01:57:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 14, 2014, 01:53:36 PM
I will give the benefit of the doubt and think it has to do with lack of knowledge.
I think it has little to do with lack of knowledge and more to do with lack of immediacy. There is no immediate personal impact, so political tribal declarations and attempts at internet cleverness is more important than gaining an understanding of the facts of the matter.
+1
Quote from: derspiess on May 14, 2014, 04:19:03 PM
Quote from: Norgy on May 14, 2014, 04:00:53 PM
Scientific consensus vs grumbler and derspiess. :)
I'm not making any arguments in this thread.
Watt?
While I don't want to excuse Russia, I cannot help but feel, at least a little bit, kind of "oh well" about whatever happens to the Ukraine.
Fundamentally, a state has to be strong enough to protect itself - at least at some nominal level that makes it's existence actually credible. The Ukraine is so thoroughly corrupt and screwed up that they seem to completely lack the ability to protect themselves from largely disorganized bandits, basically. Yes, I am aware that those are in fact a bunch of d-bags, some of which are being supported by Russia, if not actually Russian. But the reason that works is because the Ukraine is so incredibly weak that such a transparent farce is actually effective.
Russia is still the ogre here, but to some extent the Ukraine has largely defined itself as not being a viable political entity.
I have decided that I am not going to care about global warming. There is nothing I can do that will have a material impact on the outcome.
Climate Change: Fairy tales for the 21th century.
Quote from: Monoriu on May 14, 2014, 04:51:07 PM
I have decided that I am not going to care about global warming. There is nothing I can do that will have a material impact on the outcome.
Buy carbon offsets. The ones I sell come with a fancy certificate made from hemp paper.
I should really get into the Green industry.
Those faggots are making billions!
I missed you Siege :)
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2014, 04:33:54 PM
While I don't want to excuse Russia, I cannot help but feel, at least a little bit, kind of "oh well" about whatever happens to the Ukraine.
Fundamentally, a state has to be strong enough to protect itself - at least at some nominal level that makes it's existence actually credible. The Ukraine is so thoroughly corrupt and screwed up that they seem to completely lack the ability to protect themselves from largely disorganized bandits, basically. Yes, I am aware that those are in fact a bunch of d-bags, some of which are being supported by Russia, if not actually Russian. But the reason that works is because the Ukraine is so incredibly weak that such a transparent farce is actually effective.
Russia is still the ogre here, but to some extent the Ukraine has largely defined itself as not being a viable political entity.
You do realize that climate change will affect other countries than Ukraine?
Quote from: The Brain on May 14, 2014, 05:04:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2014, 04:33:54 PM
Russia is still the ogre here, but to some extent the Ukraine has largely defined itself as not being a viable political entity.
You do realize that climate change will affect other countries than Ukraine?
Ukraine's failure to defend against the continued encroachment of climate change is just further proof that it is no longer a viable political entity. :(
Oh my, Grumbler is in fine form today.
Quote from: The Brain on May 14, 2014, 05:04:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2014, 04:33:54 PM
While I don't want to excuse Russia, I cannot help but feel, at least a little bit, kind of "oh well" about whatever happens to the Ukraine.
Fundamentally, a state has to be strong enough to protect itself - at least at some nominal level that makes it's existence actually credible. The Ukraine is so thoroughly corrupt and screwed up that they seem to completely lack the ability to protect themselves from largely disorganized bandits, basically. Yes, I am aware that those are in fact a bunch of d-bags, some of which are being supported by Russia, if not actually Russian. But the reason that works is because the Ukraine is so incredibly weak that such a transparent farce is actually effective.
Russia is still the ogre here, but to some extent the Ukraine has largely defined itself as not being a viable political entity.
You do realize that climate change will affect other countries than Ukraine?
I thought we didn't care much about Ukraine because we don't think changes in its political climate will affect us.
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2014, 03:59:11 PM
grumbler, what's your take on the IPCC report?
Is it part of the bleating in your view or do you consider it reasonable inquiry and analysis given available facts?
I think that the IPCC reports have been too enthusiastic about the idea that climate change is caused by human activity (and thus can be reversed by different human activity), but that is a result of the lack of knowledge forcing them into making assumptions, plus their own biases. I'd like their conclusions to be true, but don't think that the science is there to support that, yet.
I don't think that they are in a position to recommend the sort of climate change experiment I propose. That will have to come from the policy-making science types in the various governments.
Quote from: garbon on May 14, 2014, 06:20:43 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 14, 2014, 05:04:13 PM
Quote from: Berkut on May 14, 2014, 04:33:54 PM
While I don't want to excuse Russia, I cannot help but feel, at least a little bit, kind of "oh well" about whatever happens to the Ukraine.
Fundamentally, a state has to be strong enough to protect itself - at least at some nominal level that makes it's existence actually credible. The Ukraine is so thoroughly corrupt and screwed up that they seem to completely lack the ability to protect themselves from largely disorganized bandits, basically. Yes, I am aware that those are in fact a bunch of d-bags, some of which are being supported by Russia, if not actually Russian. But the reason that works is because the Ukraine is so incredibly weak that such a transparent farce is actually effective.
Russia is still the ogre here, but to some extent the Ukraine has largely defined itself as not being a viable political entity.
You do realize that climate change will affect other countries than Ukraine?
I thought we didn't care much about Ukraine because we don't think changes in its political climate will affect us.
I will give the benefit of the doubt and think it has to do with lack of knowledge.
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2014, 08:49:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2014, 03:59:11 PM
grumbler, what's your take on the IPCC report?
Is it part of the bleating in your view or do you consider it reasonable inquiry and analysis given available facts?
I think that the IPCC reports have been too enthusiastic about the idea that climate change is caused by human activity (and thus can be reversed by different human activity), but that is a result of the lack of knowledge forcing them into making assumptions, plus their own biases. I'd like their conclusions to be true, but don't think that the science is there to support that, yet.
I don't think that they are in a position to recommend the sort of climate change experiment I propose. That will have to come from the policy-making science types in the various governments.
:lol:
Grumbler - anti sciencer
Incidentally this is too big of an issue to let Grumbler get away with his usual bull shit.
His assertion that the IPCC is forced to make assumptions based on their bias because they lack knowledge, here is how the IPCC described how they arrived at the conclusions in their 2013 report:
QuoteThe degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the author teams' evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). Confidence in the validity of
a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement1. Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgment2. Where appropriate,
findings are also formulated as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers. (See Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details about the specific language the IPCC uses to communicate uncertainty).
Regarding Grumblers assertion that the IPCC concluded the climate change is caused by human activity and thus assumes it can be reversed by different human activity. He should read working group III's report which:
Quoteassesses the options for mitigating climate change and their underlying technological, economic and institutional requirements. It transparently lays out risks, uncertainty and ethical foundations of climate change mitigation policies on the global, national and sub-national level, investigates mitigation measures for all major sectors and assesses investment and finance issues
It is the ignorance of poeple like Grumbler bleating on about how the scientists dont know what they are saying that is the real problem here folks.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 11:49:07 AM
Incidentally this is too big of an issue to let Grumbler get away with his usual bull shit.
His assertion that the IPCC is forced to make assumptions based on their bias because they lack knowledge, here is how the IPCC described how they arrived at the conclusions in their 2013 report:
QuoteThe degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the author teams' evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). Confidence in the validity of
a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement1. Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgment2. Where appropriate,
findings are also formulated as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers. (See Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details about the specific language the IPCC uses to communicate uncertainty).
Regarding Grumblers assertion that the IPCC concluded the climate change is caused by human activity and thus assumes it can be reversed by different human activity. He should read working group III's report which:
Quoteassesses the options for mitigating climate change and their underlying technological, economic and institutional requirements. It transparently lays out risks, uncertainty and ethical foundations of climate change mitigation policies on the global, national and sub-national level, investigates mitigation measures for all major sectors and assesses investment and finance issues
It is the ignorance of poeple like Grumbler bleating on about how the scientists dont know what they are saying that is the real problem here folks.
I'm just going to leave this here, since it is clear that the IPCC report doesn't actually challenge any of my statements at all, but you childishly insist that it does, for reasons I think anyone can figure out.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 11:49:07 AM
Incidentally this is too big of an issue to let Grumbler get away with his usual bull shit.
His assertion that the IPCC is forced to make assumptions based on their bias because they lack knowledge, here is how the IPCC described how they arrived at the conclusions in their 2013 report:
QuoteThe degree of certainty in key findings in this assessment is based on the author teams' evaluations of underlying scientific understanding and is expressed as a qualitative level of confidence (from very low to very high) and, when possible, probabilistically with a quantified likelihood (from exceptionally unlikely to virtually certain). Confidence in the validity of
a finding is based on the type, amount, quality, and consistency of evidence (e.g., data, mechanistic understanding, theory, models, expert judgment) and the degree of agreement1. Probabilistic estimates of quantified measures of uncertainty in a finding are based on statistical analysis of observations or model results, or both, and expert judgment2. Where appropriate,
findings are also formulated as statements of fact without using uncertainty qualifiers. (See Chapter 1 and Box TS.1 for more details about the specific language the IPCC uses to communicate uncertainty).
Regarding Grumblers assertion that the IPCC concluded the climate change is caused by human activity and thus assumes it can be reversed by different human activity. He should read working group III's report which:
Quoteassesses the options for mitigating climate change and their underlying technological, economic and institutional requirements. It transparently lays out risks, uncertainty and ethical foundations of climate change mitigation policies on the global, national and sub-national level, investigates mitigation measures for all major sectors and assesses investment and finance issues
It is the ignorance of poeple like Grumbler bleating on about how the scientists dont know what they are saying that is the real problem here folks.
I don't know... it seems out of character for grumbler :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2014, 12:26:45 PM
I'm just going to leave this here
That is wise of you given the bs position you took.
Quote from: Jacob on May 15, 2014, 12:28:47 PM
I don't know... it seems out of character for grumbler :hmm:
exactly. I don't debate a lot of issues here because I don't know enough about them. I know something about this, though, and base my conclusions on what is publicly available.
I don't think CC has read (or maybe he has read and just doesn't understand) what I have written on the topic, but nothing I have said contradicts the IPCC reports. His claims that they do are just that; claims, without substance.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 10:59:34 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2014, 08:49:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2014, 03:59:11 PM
grumbler, what's your take on the IPCC report?
Is it part of the bleating in your view or do you consider it reasonable inquiry and analysis given available facts?
I think that the IPCC reports have been too enthusiastic about the idea that climate change is caused by human activity (and thus can be reversed by different human activity), but that is a result of the lack of knowledge forcing them into making assumptions, plus their own biases. I'd like their conclusions to be true, but don't think that the science is there to support that, yet.
I don't think that they are in a position to recommend the sort of climate change experiment I propose. That will have to come from the policy-making science types in the various governments.
:lol:
Grumbler - anti sciencer
This is sort of like when he pretends to be a lawyer.
Grumbler. Your criticisms regarding the IPCC were so baseless that when confronted with the facts all you can do is assert you were right all along.
Keen readers of this forum will detect the patented Grumbles drop roll and cover strategy on this one.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2014, 12:50:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 10:59:34 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2014, 08:49:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 14, 2014, 03:59:11 PM
grumbler, what's your take on the IPCC report?
Is it part of the bleating in your view or do you consider it reasonable inquiry and analysis given available facts?
I think that the IPCC reports have been too enthusiastic about the idea that climate change is caused by human activity (and thus can be reversed by different human activity), but that is a result of the lack of knowledge forcing them into making assumptions, plus their own biases. I'd like their conclusions to be true, but don't think that the science is there to support that, yet.
I don't think that they are in a position to recommend the sort of climate change experiment I propose. That will have to come from the policy-making science types in the various governments.
:lol:
Grumbler - anti sciencer
This is sort of like when he pretends to be a lawyer.
Its similar. Normally what happens there is he asserts a legal principle; some kind soul explains to him he doesn't have it quite right; he attacks the kind soul; kind soul posts the authority showing Grumbles he was wrong; Grumbles claims he was right all along and that people just didnt understand his first position.
I have fond memories of Grumbles doing a 180 on the law of defamation a while back and then claiming his ending position was exactly what he stated at the beginning. We just didnt understand his brilliance the first time.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 12:52:08 PM
Grumbler. Your criticisms regarding the IPCC were so baseless that when confronted with the facts all you can do is assert you were right all along.
Keen readers of this forum will detect the patented Grumbles drop roll and cover strategy on this one.
:yawn: This dog of your just don't hunt. I've said that i do not disagree with the IPCC (I merely point out that the biases of the scientists working on it are clearly in favor of there being solutions to the causes of climate change and that affects the assumptions that they must make), but you insist that I don't know what I am talking about and in reality i am making "criticisms." Here's a news flash: all science involves assumptions, and all reports contain bias. It is not a "criticism" to address either topic.
I think it is clear to everyone here but Raz which of the two of us better understands my position, and Raz thinks that it is you.
Stop Stalking me.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2014, 01:12:21 PM
Stop Stalking me.
Not only is he reading your posts now, I think he likes you. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on May 14, 2014, 03:35:27 PM
Further, no one knows how effective various methods of reducing the impact of climate change would be, how much they would cost, or how to make either the prediction models or the amelioration models more accurate.
Given all of this, it is foolish to believe that you have the knowledge of the best way to combat climate change.
Here's one amelioration model:
Quote
Leave It to Beavers
Learn how beavers are being recruited to reverse the effects of global warming and water shortages. Premieres Wednesday, May 14, on PBS.
A growing number of scientists, conservationists and grass-roots environmentalists have come to regard beavers as overlooked tools when it comes to reversing the disastrous effects of global warming and world-wide water shortages.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/leave-it-to-beavers/leave-it-to-beavers/8836/ (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/leave-it-to-beavers/leave-it-to-beavers/8836/)
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 01:16:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2014, 01:12:21 PM
Stop Stalking me.
Not only is he reading your posts now, I think he likes you. ;)
He's like a teenage girl who calls up a boy to tell him she's not talking to him.
I hope everyone is enjoying the Raz/CC lovefest as much as I am. It's pretty hilarious.
Unfortunately for Raz's little snits and CC's little shits, I've never said I am ignoring Raz. I only said I was no longer responding to him.
So, their little-girl tittlefest is based, like so many other their other assertions, on ignorance of the facts. That's one of the things that makes them so special as posters. :lol:
:lmfao:
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2014, 02:18:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 01:16:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2014, 01:12:21 PM
Stop Stalking me.
Not only is he reading your posts now, I think he likes you. ;)
He's like a teenage girl who calls up a boy to tell him she's not talking to him.
He really likes you! This is like two of your posts in a row he will deny reading.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 03:13:13 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2014, 02:18:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 01:16:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2014, 01:12:21 PM
Stop Stalking me.
Not only is he reading your posts now, I think he likes you. ;)
He's like a teenage girl who calls up a boy to tell him she's not talking to him.
He really likes you! This is like two of your posts in a row he will deny reading.
Quoting to preserve for prosperity.
CC's posts will somebody be worth a lot of money? For blackmail once he become rich and famous?
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2014, 03:34:56 PM
CC's posts will somebody be worth a lot of money? For blackmail once he become rich and famous?
No, just to prevent him from claiming that he never believed that I would "deny reading" some post here. I think that there is plenty of evidence here (over the course of years) that I read Raz's posts, even if I don't respond to them. I have never "denied" that I read them. That's a foolish idea, perpetuated only by CC and Raz. It is amusing, nothing more.
You really ought to read some of Raz's posts, they're often pretty funny.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 15, 2014, 03:43:20 PM
You really ought to read some of Raz's posts, they're often pretty funny.
:hmm: I might try that. Something new... that's rare on languish.
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2014, 03:41:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2014, 03:34:56 PM
CC's posts will somebody be worth a lot of money? For blackmail once he become rich and famous?
No, just to prevent him from claiming that he never believed that I would "deny reading" some post here. I think that there is plenty of evidence here (over the course of years) that I read Raz's posts, even if I don't respond to them. I have never "denied" that I read them. That's a foolish idea, perpetuated only by CC and Raz. It is amusing, nothing more.
Wow, you really care :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2014, 03:41:17 PM
Quote from: Valmy on May 15, 2014, 03:34:56 PM
CC's posts will somebody be worth a lot of money? For blackmail once he become rich and famous?
No, just to prevent him from claiming that he never believed that I would "deny reading" some post here. I think that there is plenty of evidence here (over the course of years) that I read Raz's posts, even if I don't respond to them. I have never "denied" that I read them. That's a foolish idea, perpetuated only by CC and Raz. It is amusing, nothing more.
The thing is, you do respond. Like you are now. You just do it in a weird passive-aggressive way. And you have said your are ignoring me, (presumably you put me on ignore when we had that feature, since you said you did).
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 04:02:11 PM
Wow, you really care :hug:
I do. You are one of the funniest and most reliable posters here. The only question with you is whether you are reduced to ad homs in your third post of a debate, or whether you hold off to the fourth. I enjoy it when you run out of logical arguments and get to the personal attacks. This thread is a prime example. Entertainment is one of the reasons i post here, and you are highly entertaining, so of course I care. Thanks for being here. :hug:
:lol: Quality thread.
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2014, 05:21:06 PM
Entertainment is one of the reasons i post here
And you are very entertaining. So please carry on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2014, 05:21:06 PM
Entertainment is one of the reasons i post here
And you are very entertaining. So please carry on.
You can be sure I will. Now, please get back to where you were arguing that I was an "anti sciencer" for arguing in favor of spending a trillion dollars to validate climate prediction models! :lol:
That was some quality entertainment. :contract:
Climate Change is a conspiracy to let the rest of the world to catch up to the US.
Climate Change is a conspiracy intended to hold us back.
Climate Change is a weapon.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motifake.com%2Fimage%2Fdemotivational-poster%2F0909%2F3-new-us-navy-ships-navy-ships-reagan-clinton-obama-demotivational-poster-1254312871.jpg&hash=6565ba586885d44741fab5431e96867a0981e78d)
Quote from: Siege on May 15, 2014, 06:09:20 PM
Climate Change is a conspiracy to let the rest of the world to catch up to the US.
Climate Change is a conspiracy intended to hold us back.
Climate Change is a weapon.
Did Grumbler hack your account again?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 07:41:37 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 15, 2014, 06:09:20 PM
Climate Change is a conspiracy to let the rest of the world to catch up to the US.
Climate Change is a conspiracy intended to hold us back.
Climate Change is a weapon.
Did Grumbler hack your account again?
Quoted to preserve for posterity.
The USS Ronald Reagan periodically forgets what it's mission is and gets lost at sea. When this happens the tug, USS Nancy Reagan, has to go out and drag it back to port.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2014, 05:37:11 PM
:lol: Quality thread.
I'm happy how it all turned out.
Ihope you enjoyed your little blunder session with Raz, CC, but let's get back on topic. As I recall, you were about to explain your claim that I was an "anti sciencer" for arguing in favor of spending a trillion dollars to validate climate prediction models.
Or, if you'd like, you can skip the pretense of being interested in a logic-based debate and go straight to the ad hom stage.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 15, 2014, 10:24:22 PM
The USS Ronald Reagan periodically forgets what it's mission is and gets lost at sea. When this happens the tug, USS Nancy Reagan, has to go out and drag it back to port.
The USS Reagan gets lost at sea because it navigates by astrology.
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2014, 07:57:11 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 15, 2014, 07:41:37 PM
Quote from: Siege on May 15, 2014, 06:09:20 PM
Climate Change is a conspiracy to let the rest of the world to catch up to the US.
Climate Change is a conspiracy intended to hold us back.
Climate Change is a weapon.
Did Grumbler hack your account again?
Quoted to preserve for posterity.
I am thrilled that you wish to preserve my words of wisdom.
Quote from: grumbler on May 16, 2014, 06:13:48 AM
As I recall, you were about to explain your claim that I was an "anti sciencer"
I appreciate your sprint away from your position that the IPCC is making it up based on their bias.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2014, 10:57:46 AM
I am thrilled that you wish to preserve my words of wisdom.
You were about to explain your claim that I was an "anti sciencer" for arguing in favor of spending a trillion dollars to validate climate prediction models. Pray continue, if you can.
Quote from: grumbler on May 16, 2014, 11:27:23 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2014, 10:57:46 AM
I am thrilled that you wish to preserve my words of wisdom.
You were about to explain your claim that I was an "anti sciencer" for arguing in favor of spending a trillion dollars to validate climate prediction models. Pray continue, if you can.
Grumbles. As I said, I appreciate you want to deflect as much as you can from the rather bizarre comments you made about the IPCC. You explained your position rather well. It was bizarre but clearly explained.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2014, 12:19:50 PM
Grumbles. As I said, I appreciate you want to deflect as much as you can from the rather bizarre comments you made about the IPCC. You explained your position rather well. It was bizarre but clearly explained.
Actually, you made your claim after I explained my trillion-dollar scientific experiment. The only possible rationale for you to claim that I was an "anti sciencer" at that point (other than a misbelief on your part that scientific experiments are "anti-sciencer") was that I mentioned the fact that scientific studies involve assumptions and bias. That's a truly bizarre basis for determining who is an "anti-sciencer" since it would include
all of the authors of the IPCC study! :lol:
If you now accept that scientific experiments, assumptions, and bias are part of science, then we have nothing further to discuss. You can go back to cackling with Raz over your delusion that I don't read his posts and I can go back to discussing the science of climate change with adults like Jake.
Ok Grumber. Lets start with this nice bit of anti intellectual anti science tripe you spouted.
QuoteNo one (and by this i actually mean no one, as far as any of the publicly released literature goes) understands exactly what causes climate change, how much of what we are seeing in terms of climate change is due to human efforts, or how much an effective program to reduce the causes of climate change would cost. No one. Further, no one knows how effective various methods of reducing the impact of climate change would be, how much they would cost, or how to make either the prediction models or the amelioration models more accurate.
Actually the IPCC report knows quite a lot about both the human causes of climate change and futher a whole report was done analyzing (and costing) the various methods that might be used to reduce the our impact on climate change. Further quite a lot of work has been done to make the models they use more accurate and precise. In fact the degree of confidence in the model is now very high.
But of course one needs to ignore all of this science to make your point.
On the bright side you would make one hell of a commentator for Fox News.
I really think it would be more productive to discuss how Grumbler has a crush on me.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 16, 2014, 05:30:48 PM
I really think it would be more productive to discuss how Grumbler has a crush on me.
He certainly tries to get your attention.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 16, 2014, 04:03:46 PM
Actually the IPCC report knows quite a lot about both the human causes of climate change and futher a whole report was done analyzing (and costing) the various methods that might be used to reduce the our impact on climate change. Further quite a lot of work has been done to make the models they use more accurate and precise. In fact the degree of confidence in the model is now very high.
I'm not sure what "the IPCC report knows" means here. The report is a report; it cannot "know" anything. The IPCC itself knows some things about the human causes of climate change, but not enough (yet) to accurately guide policies. That's what i consider essential. Whether the IPCC knows "quite a lot' is, of course, entirely subjective and trivial.
Of course "quite a lot of work' has been done on the modelling; modelling is the first priority in science once observations are made. A number of models currently exist. The IPCC itself uses AIM, MESSAGE, ASF, and IMAGE, and multiple "storylines" containing their assumptions (though only A1/A1B, A2, B1, and B2 are usedin the Fourth Assessment). Your confidence in any given model (and especially given the fact that you don't even seem to realize that there are multiple models) is not of much interest or significance. The models yield similar trends, but the specifics (which would guide policy) are different. Further, these models are primarily tested against the past; only a few global events have occurred within the predictive envelope of any of the models, and their predictive performance was only grossly correct. Further, observable sea level rise is above the levels predicted by any of the models. Obviously, improvements in the models need to be made, and that is going to be fabulously expensive given the variables that have to be controlled.
QuoteBut of course one needs to ignore all of this science to make your point.
One needs to ignore your pseudoscience in order to make my point. One needs to ignore climate science in order to make yours.
QuoteOn the bright side you would make one hell of a commentator for Fox News.
On the bright side, you would be able to replace Glenn Beck and his bullshit. Your use of The Big Lie is very similar to his, while your weaseling is even more amusing.
Anyway, let's leave cRazy cAnuck and raz to titter among themselves about how much attention I am paying to them, and look at the big question:
How much is it worth to validate the climate models enough to allow them to guide policy?
There are three elements that I think should be relatively easy to agree upon:
1. the models do not, as yet, have sufficient predictive ability to guide policy choices between reducing global warming, and dealing with its effects
2. We (the human race) do not, realistically, have the resources to do both things completely
3. Resources spent on stopping global warming cannot, in any realistic analysis, be used to deal with the effects of global warming, and vice-versa.
Given the above truths, and the truth that policy-makers are not going to throw the kinds of resoiurces beghind either policy choice without some assurance that the resources will have a predictable impact, I will make the following assertion:
There is no more critical issue facing our entire civilization today than the issue of developing a valid model to predict how climate change policies will affect the habitability of the planet.
To validate a scientific model means that we have to control one or more key variables in a sort of grand "science experiment" that allows us to test the predictive accuracy of our models. The one that seems most amenable to this, I would argue, is CO2 emissions. We have the technology to change the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The cheapest change to implement would, of course, be to radically increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and see which models predict most accurately the effect of that on atmospheric temperatures. However, that seems to me to be a rather poor way of testing the models, akin to testing the effects of antibiotics on patients with a fever by giving the patient more infections. Reducing CO2 by a suffient amount to be measurable in modelling terms will cost a lot, though; small decreases (such as are currently being planned) will likely be lost in the noise. It seems to me that we need to create a deliberate and radical change to achieve the kinds of clear answers we are looking for.
The IPCC's Fourth Assessment report list some possible means of mitigating climate change (both level of change and impact of change) summarized here: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms4.html (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms4.html). Notable are the variabilities in both level-of-effort needed and effects of changes. The 2013 report doesn't have this level of detail yet, as far as I can find.
So, how do we introduce such a radical change as i am calling for? It seems to me that we need to spend a shitload of resources on implementing some key measures like aerosol reduction, carbon capture (both synthetic and natural - as in more tree cover), and less CO2 production from power plants. The CO2 issue is probably more important for our needs in the reduction of ocean acidification, because the IPCC points out that even reductions in emissions isn't going to affect the greenhouse gas effect within the timespan of our civilization.
Equally importantly, we need to ask how to pay for this experiment. What are you willing to give up to conduct it?
No thanks.
Nada
I'm astonished by Yi's and Garbon's negative response to Grumbler's proposal, you could have knocked me over with a feather.
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2014, 05:03:34 PM
you could have knocked me over with a feather.
Noted for future reference.
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2014, 05:03:34 PM
I'm astonished by Yi's and Garbon's negative response to Grumbler's proposal, you could have knocked me over with a feather.
A feather from one of these, perchance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_white_pelican
grumbler hates on penguins.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 17, 2014, 05:29:50 PM
grumbler hates on penguins.
Anyone who wears a tuxedo to dine on fish deserves the hating.
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2014, 05:03:34 PM
I'm astonished by Yi's and Garbon's negative response to Grumbler's proposal, you could have knocked me over with a feather.
I'd sacrifice Tim.
Quote from: derspiess on May 18, 2014, 10:13:09 AM
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2014, 05:03:34 PM
I'm astonished by Yi's and Garbon's negative response to Grumbler's proposal, you could have knocked me over with a feather.
I'd sacrifice Tim.
For a Klondike Bar.
Quote from: garbon on May 17, 2014, 05:04:53 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 17, 2014, 05:03:34 PM
you could have knocked me over with a feather.
Noted for future reference.
Surely you mean "quoted for posterity".
I must admit amusement (but no surprise at all) that my attempt to have an intellectual discussion regarding climate change and the specific challenge it faces re; modelling has gone precisely nowhere, while the bickering and posturing remain precisely as popular as before my post.
See, Jake, this is why I seldom try here; languishites Like CC think themselves smart, but they lack any serious intellectual chops. They can insult me and make up arguments to attribute to me, but they cannot actually address my arguments in intellectual terms. The best they can do is claim that I am an "anti-sciencer" and that, since I want to validate scientific models (models whose predctive abilities the IPCC report itself discusses as inadequate for many purposes), I am claiming that "the scientists dont know what they are saying." CC cannot even see how ironic it is that I am using, in fact, the scientific method while he uses the pop culture approach! :lol:
The good news is that there are intellectual sites out there where i can discuss this. :) I will resume considering languish a forum for lightweights, and will resume posting only lightweight material.
I only post items weighing less than 5 pounds.
grumbler's a pretty big deal over at the community.aarp.org forums. He owns the Shuffleboard Megathread.
Quote from: grumbler on May 19, 2014, 07:00:05 AM
I must admit amusement (but no surprise at all) that my attempt to have an intellectual discussion regarding climate change and the specific challenge it faces re; modelling has gone precisely nowhere, while the bickering and posturing remain precisely as popular as before my post.
See, Jake, this is why I seldom try here; languishites Like CC think themselves smart, but they lack any serious intellectual chops. They can insult me and make up arguments to attribute to me, but they cannot actually address my arguments in intellectual terms. The best they can do is claim that I am an "anti-sciencer" and that, since I want to validate scientific models (models whose predctive abilities the IPCC report itself discusses as inadequate for many purposes), I am claiming that "the scientists dont know what they are saying." CC cannot even see how ironic it is that I am using, in fact, the scientific method while he uses the pop culture approach! :lol:
The good news is that there are intellectual sites out there where i can discuss this. :) I will resume considering languish a forum for lightweights, and will resume posting only lightweight material.
Well to speak to your post, I'm not sure why that plan is preferable to say just continuing efforts to move away from fossil fuels. I don't see where the political will would come to undertake your grand experiment.