Page 63 of 70 FirstFirst ... 13536162636465 ... LastLast
Results 621 to 630 of 694

Thread: The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

  1. Top | #621
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    25,764
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    68,237
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post

    "I believe, no matter what the facts are."

    You're the cultist, @angelo.



    Based on your posting history, your science literacy is such that you couldn't tell a beaker from a bunsen burner.
    Of course, Professor bigfield is the standard bearer of scientific knowledge on this forum. What would an illiterate center right layman such as myself know!
    Is this a rhetorical question or are we actually supposed to answer this based on your posting history on this and a few other subjects?

  2. Top | #622
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    11,889
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    30,102
    Rep Power
    55
    We? In angelo's pocket or something like that?

    Actually a illiterate center layman probably has enough money for someone to post in his stead since, as his poser claims, angelo's illiterate.

    ... too fine a point .....

  3. Top | #623
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,608
    Rep Power
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by fromderinside View Post
    We? In angelo's pocket or something like that?

    Actually a illiterate center layman probably has enough money for someone to post in his stead since, as his poser claims, angelo's illiterate.

    ... too fine a point .....
    Actually it should read ..an illiterate... just sayin'. Oh the irony.

  4. Top | #624
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Lebanon, OR
    Posts
    7,491
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    24,320
    Rep Power
    81
    Climate change escalating so fast it is 'beyond point of no return' | The Independent - New study rewrites two decades of research and author says we are 'beyond point of no return'
    Global warming is beyond the “point of no return”, according to the lead scientist behind a ground-breaking climate change study.

    The full impact of climate change has been underestimated because scientists haven't taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment.

    Dr Thomas Crowther’s report has concluded that carbon emitted from soil was speeding up global warming.
    From faster decomposition from increasing temperature.

    A proposed way around CO2 increase is "regenerative agriculture", more-or-less growing a lot of crop plants and plowing them under. The crop plants can also be roasted to make "biochar", a kind of charcoal. That will keep the crop-plant remains from decomposing.

  5. Top | #625
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    11,790
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    17,496
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post

    Both of which you're the expert of course. Especially climate science. A Martin Reese or a Prof Freeman would have nothing on your expert knowledge.
    Martin Rees? Freeman Dyson? If you're going to name-drop, at least get the names correct.

    Fucked if I know why you name-dropped Martin Rees.

    As for Freeman Dyson: Dyson says that "all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated."

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/...lobal-warmimg/

    He also goes on to say:

    I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.
    Dyson goes on to explain what he means by "what is really happening": he believes climate scientists have not accounted for land use change, and he believes that human land use can absorb all of the carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels. However he adds the caveat that we need to invent new land use techniques that will increase our ability to capture carbon.

    Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. If we plant crops without plowing the soil, more of the biomass goes into roots which stay in the soil, and less returns to the atmosphere. If we use genetic engineering to put more biomass into roots, we can probably achieve much more rapid growth of topsoil. I conclude from this calculation that the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology. No computer model of atmosphere and ocean can hope to predict the way we shall manage our land.
    Basically, Dyson's view is "all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated" because we'll invent our way out of the problem, with land use change and genetic engineering.

    Last I checked, Dyson was a professor of physics, not an expert in land use or genetic engineering. So why the fuck should I care what he thinks?

    Climate science is not Freeman Dyson's field of expertise.
    Land use is not Freeman Dyson's field of expertise.
    Genetic engineering is not
    Freeman Dyson's field of expertise.

    Just because someone is a expert in one thing doesn't make them an expert in everything else.
    Exactly how many expert climate scientists, not counting the janitor and students do you think inhabit the IPPC? And please don't mention the discreteted Michael Mann and his "Climagate" co conspirators at the Uni of East Anglia. ."

  6. Top | #626
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,837
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,587
    Rep Power
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post

    Martin Rees? Freeman Dyson? If you're going to name-drop, at least get the names correct.

    Fucked if I know why you name-dropped Martin Rees.

    As for Freeman Dyson: Dyson says that "all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated."

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/...lobal-warmimg/

    He also goes on to say:



    Dyson goes on to explain what he means by "what is really happening": he believes climate scientists have not accounted for land use change, and he believes that human land use can absorb all of the carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels. However he adds the caveat that we need to invent new land use techniques that will increase our ability to capture carbon.

    Changes in farming practices such as no-till farming, avoiding the use of the plow, cause biomass to grow at least as fast as this. If we plant crops without plowing the soil, more of the biomass goes into roots which stay in the soil, and less returns to the atmosphere. If we use genetic engineering to put more biomass into roots, we can probably achieve much more rapid growth of topsoil. I conclude from this calculation that the problem of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem of land management, not a problem of meteorology. No computer model of atmosphere and ocean can hope to predict the way we shall manage our land.
    Basically, Dyson's view is "all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated" because we'll invent our way out of the problem, with land use change and genetic engineering.

    Last I checked, Dyson was a professor of physics, not an expert in land use or genetic engineering. So why the fuck should I care what he thinks?

    Climate science is not Freeman Dyson's field of expertise.
    Land use is not Freeman Dyson's field of expertise.
    Genetic engineering is not
    Freeman Dyson's field of expertise.

    Just because someone is a expert in one thing doesn't make them an expert in everything else.
    Exactly how many expert climate scientists, not counting the janitor and students do you think inhabit the IPPC? And please don't mention the discreteted Michael Mann and his "Climagate" co conspirators at the Uni of East Anglia. ."
    Your judgment of scientific expertise is about as useful as a steakhouse review from a vegetarian.

  7. Top | #627
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    22,032
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,509
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post

    Exactly how many expert climate scientists, not counting the janitor and students do you think inhabit the IPPC? And please don't mention the discreteted Michael Mann and his "Climagate" co conspirators at the Uni of East Anglia. ."
    Your judgment of scientific expertise is about as useful as a steakhouse review from a vegetarian.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  8. Top | #628
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    26,018
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    122,770
    Rep Power
    98
    Quote Originally Posted by angelo View Post
    Exactly how many expert climate scientists, not counting the janitor and students do you think inhabit the IPPC? And please don't mention the discreteted Michael Mann and his "Climagate" co conspirators at the Uni of East Anglia. ."
    You realize they were completely exonerated? "Climategate" was a case of taking things out of context, nothing more.

  9. Top | #629
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,608
    Rep Power
    14
    Hurricane models and models' that predict local weather have gotten very good. It is the same science used to forecast climate change.

  10. Top | #630
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    11,790
    Archived
    5,706
    Total Posts
    17,496
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    Climate change escalating so fast it is 'beyond point of no return' | The Independent - New study rewrites two decades of research and author says we are 'beyond point of no return'
    Global warming is beyond the “point of no return”, according to the lead scientist behind a ground-breaking climate change study.

    The full impact of climate change has been underestimated because scientists haven't taken into account a major source of carbon in the environment.

    Dr Thomas Crowther’s report has concluded that carbon emitted from soil was speeding up global warming.
    From faster decomposition from increasing temperature.

    A proposed way around CO2 increase is "regenerative agriculture", more-or-less growing a lot of crop plants and plowing them under. The crop plants can also be roasted to make "biochar", a kind of charcoal. That will keep the crop-plant remains from decomposing.
    Of course we could place a cork in every cows arse so as as to stop them farting as well.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •