IT IS 3 (now 2) MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
We've added millions of years worth of sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere over the span of one human lifetime. Who honestly thinks this doesn't have negative consequences for the world? C'mon, man.
 
So how is the ice doing on Greenland?

From the GRACE gravity based mass measurement:

Grace_curve_La_EN_20160300.png
 
GetOffYourGas said:
Correlation /= Causation

Yes!

And for those who actually are "into" evaluating terms of CC models in various programming languages, "not equal" is:

C / C++ / Python - ! =
Pascal - < >
SQL - Not Equal

For those still using a Fortran complier - .NEQV

But then again, that very basic logical expression even for many, e.g. the naive NY/LA Times reader, CNN viewer, doesn't exist.
 
lorenfb said:
GetOffYourGas said:
Correlation /= Causation

Yes!

And for those who actually are "into" evaluating terms of CC models in various programming languages, "not equal" is:

C / C++ / Python - ! =
Pascal - < >
SQL - Not Equal

For those still using a Fortran complier - .NEQV

But then again, that very basic logical expression even for many, e.g. the naive NY/LA Times reader, CNN viewer, doesn't exist.

Yes, I probably should have used the more recognizable C format. I write VHDL for a living, and /= is VHDL syntax. I also write a lot of MatLab code, which is ~=. Gotta love programming languages - they all must be just a little different. Reminds me of this:

standards.png
 
WetEV said:
GetOffYourGas said:
I write VHDL for a living, and /= is VHDL syntax.

And I thought you were a Verilog kind of guy. Sorry. The important question is emacs or vi?

Verilog is so west-coast. And everyone knows that vi is the editor to know, since it is always available. Yes, I use vi even if I'm on Windows.
 
As usual, all the anecdotal info, graphical data, tabular reports, & etc will not result in any type
of convergence of views on the CC issue other than reinforcing the widely held divergent views
expressed throughout this thread. So without a valid and robust scientific methodology, 
i.e. an extensive longitudinal time series CC model and an analysis over many many decades,
conclusions will continue to be meaningless and conjecture will continue for the most part.
To date, CC models have proven to be problematic and deficient as discussed up-thread.
Only with an irrefutable mathematical equation or model will the CC issue converge on
meaningful/useful data. So presently, threads such as this one will continue to "Go nowhere fast".

At least the last few posts were not kinda "blood boiling". We all do have a little commonality
and some agreement - most own a Leaf.
 
Only with an irrefutable mathematical equation or model will the CC issue converge on meaningful/useful data.

That really isn't how the primate brain operates. Convergence will only occur when there is continuous (not continual, continuous) severe damage from extreme weather over most of the globe. At that point most human brains will re-categorize climate change from "hypothetical future threat" to "immediate threat." The response, though, will more likely be global war than a unified positive effort to stop what, at that point, will be unstoppable. We are doomed, because it just rains water (or doesn't) instead of lions. Lions we'd recognize as a threat...
 
LeftieBiker said:
Only with an irrefutable mathematical equation or model will the CC issue converge on meaningful/useful data.

That really isn't how the primate brain operates.

I agree. We developed mathematics as math is useful, but much of math is alien to our normal thought process.

All models are wrong, if you look close enough. Good models provide understanding, testable predictions, and allow exploration of alternatives.

The vast flow of money and power associated with fossil fuels complicates everything. Even as current climate models are very good, there is a whole industry devoted to denial of climate science.


LeftieBiker said:
Convergence will only occur when there is continuous (not continual, continuous) severe damage from extreme weather over most of the globe. At that point most human brains will re-categorize climate change from "hypothetical future threat" to "immediate threat."

I hope you are wrong. That point is far too late in time. The time needed to change the economic system is on the order of decades, and the climate system will continue to worsen for centuries. We need, somehow, to "converge" earlier. Wish us luck, we need it.
 
I've come to believe the severe damage that climate change will cause to our environment over the next 50 years is fait accompli. The damage will cease only once coal, oil, and NG fuels have played out. Recovery of the atmosphere will occur many decades later. Who knows the number of species that will be lost or the very long term damage that will have been done to the oceans.
 
Solar panels creating an e-waste nightmare:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449026/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy

Looks like nuclear is a better way to go.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
Solar panels creating an e-waste nightmare:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449026/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy

Looks like nuclear is a better way to go.

You might want to consider the source of your article before coming to such conclusions. We still (after almost 9 decades) do not have any idea how to deal with nuclear waste. Hanford in WA state is leaking sh!t all of the time. Multiply that by the number of other reactors and their wastes from other countries. This does not even take into account the deadly radiation from Chernobyl or Fukushima.
The solar problem that the National Review speaks of will be less deadly in 90 years than nuclear waste will be. Once enough panels are ready to be recycled technology will scale out to take care of the problem. Can the same be said for nuclear?
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
downeykp said:
You might want to consider the source of your article before coming to such conclusions.
I'll hold off on any conclusions until it's confirmed by CNN... wait, never mind

Oh nice. And the news channel of record is? Wait, wait. Fox. They get everything right.
 
WetEV said:
RegGuheert said:
- CO2 CANNOT heat the water of the Earth's oceans.

A blanket can't warm you. It just keeps you from losing heat.

that is how everything works. you make your own heat. the house you live in only allows you to retain more of it. But the reality is this is a perfect example of how any one fact or set of facts can be manipulated to suit one's POV.

Covering your head with a plastic bag won't prevent you from breathing but it will kill you as soon as the CO reaches a certain level. We ALL should be well beyond this point.
 
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998. This is in comparison to the previous version 3 of the lower tropospheric temperature (TLT) data published in 2009.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998

NASA-Satellites-2016-1-1024x878.png
 
Back
Top