Remember me
▼ Content

economic



Page 1 of 3123>
economic27-05-2019 23:30
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
Renewable energy is too little too late. We need additional measures.
Greatly reducing world GDP will greatly reduce CO2 emissions.
Building renewable facilities will produce CO2 but reducing spending will not.
27-05-2019 23:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
Renewable energy is too little too late. We need additional measures.
Greatly reducing world GDP will greatly reduce CO2 emissions.
Building renewable facilities will produce CO2 but reducing spending will not.


So I take it that you feel any economic activity at all is evil.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-05-2019 23:43
27-05-2019 23:59
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
That's quite an exaggeration Parrot. I'm focusing on science and solutions rather than making moral judgements which i think can get you off focus in this issue.
28-05-2019 00:44
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
keepit wrote:
That's quite an exaggeration Parrot.

Not an exageration
I'm focusing on science
which laws of science in paticular?
and solutions
you mean like elimination all economic activity?
rather than making moral judgements
you've already made them
which i think can get you off focus in this issue.
I am very focused on those that are trying to destroy the freedom and liberty we have in the name of a hoax.

Welcome to Climate Debate...please stick around a while. I always find it fascinating to learn what makes people ignore science just to jump on a religious or political bandwagon.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
28-05-2019 00:53
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
IB - Which laws of science are you focusing on?
Do you think saying, "elimination of all economic activity" is not an exaggeration?
Also, what moral judgements have i made?
What makes you think i want to destroy freedom and liberty? Get real IB.
28-05-2019 01:14
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
keepit wrote:
IB - Which laws of science are you focusing on?

I'm wondering what science it is that supports a need to reduce emissions.(though you haven't said it, I am assuming those emissions that cause global warming or climate change, in your opinion).
Do you think saying, "elimination of all economic activity" is not an exaggeration?
No, I do not. Cheap fuel is the life blood of any economy. Nearly all economic activity in the industrialized world relies on it. You want it gone.
Also, what moral judgements have i made?

You want GDP reduced. What will be eliminated? How will you decide what gets the ax?
What makes you think i want to destroy freedom and liberty?

I doubt you are advocating voluntary reductions. If so then I apologize.
Get real IB.
Just keeping it real.

By the way, I am not IB...not even close. He is SO much wiser than me!!!


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 28-05-2019 01:16
28-05-2019 01:19
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
keepit wrote:
Renewable energy is too little too late. We need additional measures.
Greatly reducing world GDP will greatly reduce CO2 emissions.
Building renewable facilities will produce CO2 but reducing spending will not.


If we greatly reduce spending, there would be fewer jobs. Most people don't have enough land to grow their own food, not live in areas where they can hunt or forage. No jobs, no food, unless the government is going to provide free food (Soylent Green?), along side the free healthcare, and free college education. Not sure how the government is going to pay for the free stuff forever, since less spending, fewer jobs, means they collect less taxes. Unless, they raise the rates, tax more stuff.

Really not sure about the reason why we need to stop using Fossil Fuels anyway, in such a hurry, if at all. So far, most of the renewable sources, aren't very efficient, and take up a lot of real estate, for what little they do produce. Not one of the alternative energy sources, can be used in every location either. Can't exactly just have everybody move to places where renewable sort of works okay, and only use electricity during daytime production hours.

Farming and ranching help preserve the environment, and ecosystem. Reduces over-harvesting natural food sources, or completely destroying resources that aren't food. Hungry people tend to be food-greedy, and sort of forget, they need to leave a little, to replenish the stock.

Reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is a dangerous proposition, and really isn't carefully considered by most. Plants are our most basic food sources. Pretty much everything feeds off plants, or something that eats plants, or both. CO2 plays a more important role in food availability, plants are healthier, faster growing, more productive, yield more food. Look up CO2 augmentation in greenhouse food production sometime. Usually in the range of 1200 to 2000 ppm. The current atmospheric CO2 is around 400 ppm, and that's too much? One or two degrees temperature increase, over a hundred year span, isn't anything to get worked up over, we've survived hot periods many times in the past, we'll adapt just fine. Remember it's an average, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to get hotter, could also mean less cold during the winter, less difference between nighttime/daytime (10-20 degrees, anywhere on the planet) temperatures.

Rather than wasting time, energy, and resources on fighting CO2, we'd be much better off adapting to any potential climate changes.

We are already past the point where every human can just go off, and fend for themselves in the wild. Life is a lot of work, people living off the grid, and raise their own food, work pretty hard for it. Most people work pretty hard, to earn what they need (food, water, shelter). Can't work, if there aren't many jobs. Not many jobs, if people don't have money to spend.
28-05-2019 01:47
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
Harvey H55 - you say a lot including "we should just adapt to climate change".
Good grief, the glaciers and the arctic ocean are melting as you can see from satellite photos. As i understand it, if the Ross Ice Shelf in the antarctic melts enough to break off it will cause the world's ocean to rise by 10 feet in a hurry. Think about a 10 foot rise in sea level. Think about the amount of reconstruction that would have be done to to compensate for that. I don't think humanity could handle it without extreme hardship, misery, and death. Do you not believe the Ross Ice Shelf will break off, do you not believe the ice in Greenland will melt? I'm not making any case about renewables right now because i think we're in danger of the melting i just mentioned and i think any investment causes CO2. I think a reduction in economic activity would be safer.
28-05-2019 02:41
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
What is the problem with CO2?
It's really quite simple. First the sun pours heat onto the Earth. Then the Earth radiates enough heat back into outer space to maintain a constant temperature on Earth. The problem occurs when the level of CO2 in the atmosphere gets too high. When this happens, the Earth is prevented from releasing the heat back into outer space. As a result the Earth heats up and the problems begin. The science of this is undeniable.
28-05-2019 02:47
James___
★★★★☆
(1468)
keepit wrote:
What is the problem with CO2?
It's really quite simple. First the sun pours heat onto the Earth. Then the Earth radiates enough heat back into outer space to maintain a constant temperature on Earth. The problem occurs when the level of CO2 in the atmosphere gets too high. When this happens, the Earth is prevented from releasing the heat back into outer space. As a result the Earth heats up and the problems begin. The science of this is undeniable.


Are you ITN or IBDaMann? You use the same logic which is undeniable.
RE: are IBD or who28-05-2019 02:51
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
I'm neither of those two. I'm just me, keepit. Not sure what logic you're talking about?
28-05-2019 11:16
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
keepit wrote:
Harvey H55 - you say a lot including "we should just adapt to climate change".
Good grief, the glaciers and the arctic ocean are melting as you can see from satellite photos. As i understand it, if the Ross Ice Shelf in the antarctic melts enough to break off it will cause the world's ocean to rise by 10 feet in a hurry. Think about a 10 foot rise in sea level. Think about the amount of reconstruction that would have be done to to compensate for that. I don't think humanity could handle it without extreme hardship, misery, and death. Do you not believe the Ross Ice Shelf will break off, do you not believe the ice in Greenland will melt? I'm not making any case about renewables right now because i think we're in danger of the melting i just mentioned and i think any investment causes CO2. I think a reduction in economic activity would be safer.


Ice floats... Ice melts and reforms every year, more or less. Not sure how sea levels can be measured. Most of the sinking islands I've seen in the media, seemed to be suffering more from beach erosion, something common here in Florida. Seems like all the melting since the Al Gore movie, the seas should have risen enough to be quite obvious by now. Either way, I learned to swim at a young age, good skill to learn if you live near water, great exercise too.

Humanity is already suffering hardships and misery, we all die eventually, just part of living, it's tough. Do you think less economic activity, is going to reduce people's pain? People need certain things to survive. These things cost money. If you don't have a job, producing something to sell, you don't have money, to buy the things you need. We need food, water, and shelter, which can be had for free, though a little risky, and not ideal either. Homeless people seem to get by just fine without jobs. Personally, I like to know what and when, my next meal is going to be, preferably without waiting in line at a shelter, or rummaging around in a dumpster, trashcans. I prefer food and water, that I have a reasonable expectation that it isn't spoiled, contaminated, or tampered with. I like having a roof over my head, on a regular basis.

CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmospheric gasses. I've been meaning to look it up, but the volume of the atmosphere is going to be quite large. That tiny amount isn't enough to effect anything on a catastrophic scale, let a lone be accurately measured. CO2 has only been measured since 1958, and at not too many places around the world. Basically start measuring it, it's a crisis!!! Doesn't it seem like a huge leap? 400 ppm million isn't much, even less impressive, when you look at how many millions of parts available to fill in the atmosphere. For CO2 to have this much influence on anything, it would have to create energy, which it can't. If it did, wouldn't that solve all our energy needs?

Isn't less economic active the actual goal of Climate Change. High taxes, and less money to spend, means more people dependent on humanitarian aid, basically a global welfare/food stamp system, which would be best handled under a single government...
28-05-2019 14:58
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote: Renewable energy is too little too late.

... for what?

keepit wrote:We need additional measures.

... for what?

I have to tell you, judging by how all the Marxists I have met open exactly this way, by insisting that we must act to address some completely undefined problem/threat ... I'm going to have to guess that you are a Marxist as well.

All we need to verify is that your "solution" involves poor economics and a certain disdain for the welfare of others.

Let's see ...

keepit wrote: Greatly reducing world GDP will greatly reduce CO2 emissions.

We want neither. Harming the global economy would be disastrous for millions upon millions of people. Reducing atmospheric plant food would reduce plant life and crop yields and there are already millions upon millions of people starving, and many animals around the globe dying of starvation.

Only someone who hates humanity and who hates life in general would wish that upon the planet.

By the way, "world GDP" is an oxymoron. I think you meant "global aggregate GNP."

keepit wrote: Building renewable facilities will produce CO2 but reducing spending will not.

Aren't all facilities renewable?

keepit wrote: I'm focusing on science and solutions rather than making moral judgements which i think can get you off focus in this issue.

I read your post three times just to be certain. There was no science in it. I also noticed that you presented no problem requiring any solution.

Did you have a point beyond your hatred for life on earth?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-05-2019 15:15
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote: Good grief, the glaciers and the arctic ocean are melting as you can see from satellite photos.

You cannot see ice melting in a satellite photo.

keepit wrote: Think about a 10 foot rise in sea level.

Allow me to paraphrase: "Everybody panic, fear, worry, ... and panic some more."

keepit wrote: Think about the amount of reconstruction that would have be done to to compensate for that. I don't think humanity could handle it without extreme hardship, misery, and death.

Allow me to paraphrase: "Everybody panic, fear, worry, ... and panic some more."

keepit wrote: Do you not believe the Ross Ice Shelf will break off, do you not believe the ice in Greenland will melt?

The reason there is presently so much ice in the Ross Ice Shelf and in Greenland is because the ice mass continues to grow, not diminish. It is strange that you can look at all that ice and still be gullible enough to believe that it is somehow disappearing.

keepit wrote: I'm not making any case about renewables right now because i think we're in danger of the melting i just mentioned and i think any investment causes CO2.

Then you should be very happy to learn that for every gram of ice that melts another gram freezes. The earth's quantity of water hasn't gone anywhere and the science you want to use tells us the earth's average global temperature isn't changing. CO2 is a very good thing, owing to the fact that it is a life-essential compound.

You don't need to worry/fear/panic/be terror-stricken anymore.


keepit wrote: I think a reduction in economic activity would be safer.

Absolutely! Let's take Venezuela global! [smileys omitted to protect the gullible]


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-05-2019 16:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
HarveyH55 wrote: Ice floats... Ice melts and reforms every year, more or less.

You hit the nail on the head.

HarveyH55 wrote:Not sure how sea levels can be measured.

It really cannot be measured.

1) Waves are constant and establish a permanent margin of error.
2) Then there are tides which add another substantial component to the margin of error.
3) "Sea Level" is a designation relative to landmarks, which are constantly moving/rising/sinking relative to each other as well as to the sea level.

Continents move at a rate of inches per year. Land rises and sinks at a rate of inches per year. All of it. Everywhere. We want so badly to pretend that land does not move/shift/adjust/erode and we wish that there just aren't any waves in the ocean.

But I bet that you would have no problem finding a Marxist who will assure you that we have satellites that "know" the sea level to within millimeters. When you do, tell me if you fall for it.

HarveyH55 wrote: Most of the sinking islands I've seen in the media, seemed to be suffering more from beach erosion, something common here in Florida.

Exactly. Sand is trucked in to replace the lost sand and the beach is restored, right?

A few summers ago I had the opportunity to visit a beach that I frequented as a teenager during summer break. I notice that the surf is the same distance from the life guard stations as it was when I was a kid, and the stations are stil in the same place as they have always been. I cannot understand how a rational person could be made to believe that the sea level is catastrophically rising.

Incidentally, there's a concrete breakwater on the Barceloneta beach at Barcelona (Spain) [41°22'47.6"N 2°11'21.7"E] built in 1992, a decade before Gore began shouting ... and anyone visiting the beach can see that the sea level still rises to the same level on the breakwater as when it was constructed.

Incidentally in the early 1950s the British built a military base on an atoll whose highest point was/is less that two meters above the water. The base still exists and there has been no perceptible rise in sea level. It takes a special kind of gullible to believe that the ocean is catastrophically rising.

HarveyH55 wrote: Seems like all the melting since the Al Gore movie, the seas should have risen enough to be quite obvious by now.

I'm sure you've heard the phrase "Do the math!" ... well I did the math. There's a principle in geometry called "similar triangles" that can be used to show how one inch in sea level rise translates into, say eleven inches surf advancement if the slope of the beach is such. If Gore's claim that the ocean was rising at a rate of a few inches every year were true then the surf at the aforementioned beach would be washing up against the lifeguard stations ... which it is not.

HarveyH55 wrote: CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmospheric gasses. I've been meaning to look it up, but the volume of the atmosphere is going to be quite large. That tiny amount isn't enough to effect anything on a catastrophic scale, let a lone be accurately measured. CO2 has only been measured since 1958, and at not too many places around the world.

Exactly. One of those places is at the mouth of a volcano (Mauna Loa) that's spewing out CO2. They are measuring the output of a volcano and claiming it is the total atmospheric average. Does that seem scientific to you?

HarveyH55 wrote: Basically start measuring it, it's a crisis!!! Doesn't it seem like a huge leap? 400 ppm million isn't much, even less impressive, when you look at how many millions of parts available to fill in the atmosphere.

Wait! Panic! The atmosphere is 80% NITROGEN! How are we still alive? We should tax the chit out of ourselves before we go beyond THE TIPPING POINT! It might even be too late already!

HarveyH55 wrote: For CO2 to have this much influence on anything, it would have to create energy, which it can't.

Exactly. You hit upon the great violation of the 1st LoT perpetrated by advocates of "Greenhouse Effect."

HarveyH55 wrote: If it did, wouldn't that solve all our energy needs?

Not only that, great chefs would cook by spraying CO2 onto their food. They would develop advanced airbrush techniques for applying CO2 to perfection.

HarveyH55 wrote: Isn't less economic active the actual goal of Climate Change.

Bingo. Destroy the economy! It's the Church of Marxism.

HarveyH55 wrote: High taxes, and less money to spend, means more people dependent on humanitarian aid, basically a global welfare/food stamp system, which would be best handled under a single government...

It looks like you weren't fooled by anything in the post. Good job.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-05-2019 16:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote:The problem occurs when the level of CO2 in the atmosphere gets too high. When this happens, the Earth is prevented from releasing the heat back into outer space.

Are you saying that CO2 reduces the earth's radiance? Or does CO2 only reduce the earth's radiance when the level is "too high"? What is CO2 level that is "too high"?

keepit wrote: As a result the Earth heats up and the problems begin. The science of this is undeniable.

What do you mean by "heat"? You used the term "heat" to mean one thing in the first quote above and then to mean something else in the second.

From the MANUAL

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

Heat Content: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat content" is a powerful obfuscation of the term "heat." Whereas "heat" can shift between meaning "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient, the term "heat content" can refer to multiple terms at the same time, greatly minimizing the warmizombie's need to backpedal when questioned about his argument's semantics.


Science is certainly undeniable ... you should try some.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-05-2019 17:29
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
Harvey - you said a lot so i'll just hit on a few high spots for economy of time's sake.
"Ice floats" and "learn to swim" for example.
"Homeless people get along just fine" and "CO2 % is small so it isn't enough to have much effect" for a couple more examples.
"Global welfare is best handled by one world govt" for another example of things you say.
Are these things meant to make a case against global warming? If you think they do, it's time for you to read some books rather learn to swim.
28-05-2019 17:46
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
IBDaMann - the word "heat" does have more than one meaning. In sicence that is totally acceptable. Just look at the context in which a word is used.
Also, the accusations you make aren't going to win any arguments. "Marxist, hate humanity, etc. for examples. They're false accusations.
You argument about needing more CO2 so we don't run out of food is interesting. It's true that vegetation where i live is increasing. The problem is that the ice is melting and the ocean will (and is) rise which will cause extreme economic hardship.
It's an emergency in progress and has to be dealt with.
28-05-2019 19:15
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
keepit wrote:
Harvey - you said a lot so i'll just hit on a few high spots for economy of time's sake.
"Ice floats" and "learn to swim" for example.
"Homeless people get along just fine" and "CO2 % is small so it isn't enough to have much effect" for a couple more examples.
"Global welfare is best handled by one world govt" for another example of things you say.
Are these things meant to make a case against global warming? If you think they do, it's time for you to read some books rather learn to swim.


I do read quite a lot. Swimming is the near perfect exercise, works most every muscle in your body. Once you lose the bear gut, you might get a shot of working the other...

So, you think the climate, and melting ice is a crisis. Humanity is set for some hardships of epic proportions... Why make it worse, with screwing up the economy? Isn't dealing with the prophesized environmental damage going to be challenging enough, you like to add some economic woes to plate. Guess there would be plenty enough room, since people would have little to nothing else to put on them.

It's already hot where I live, another one or two degrees isn't going to make much difference. I prefer a warmer climate, and hope that extra heat comes mostly in the winter. Although, I do appreciate a couple months break from mowing the lawn each year, it be much nicer to grow my garden all year long. Be so cool not having to rip up dead plants, and start over every year.

There is really nothing in the IPCC report that scares me. It's the temperature differential that drives weather events. Hurricanes have mellowed out quite a bit since 2004. Last year, they start using storm names on subtropical storms, just to raise the count some. There really has been any mass melting of polar ice, seems about the same, varies a little every year. Doesn't just melt, and gone forever. Glaciers are leftovers from the last ice age, surprising so many have survived this long. Melting, is mostly what glaciers do, and always have. Some people just have an inflated ego, in terms of what mankind has done, and can do with this huge hunk of rock, that's been support life for a very long time. Do you thing man evolved to be near hairless, because it was helped them survive in a cold environment? Everything I'm see, points to a much warmer earth, before the ice age, that kill off a lot of less adaptable species. Also tend to believe that it was much more plant friendly (high level of CO2). Lot of massive critters running around, had to feed on something, in large quantities, and often. I think we are just nearing the peak of recovery from the ice age, and likely to head into global cooling soon after. But not really a crisis, it'll be a thousand years or more.
28-05-2019 19:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:Greatly reducing world GDP will greatly reduce CO2 emissions.
Building renewable facilities will produce CO2 but reducing spending will not.

keepit wrote:
That's quite an exaggeration Parrot. I'm focusing on science and solutions rather than making moral judgements which i think can get you off focus in this issue.


You say I'm exaggerating???



The Parrot Killer
28-05-2019 19:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
IB - Which laws of science are you focusing on?
Do you think saying, "elimination of all economic activity" is not an exaggeration?
Also, what moral judgements have i made?
What makes you think i want to destroy freedom and liberty? Get real IB.


IBdaMann has not yet responded to this thread at this point. Who are you talking to?

I think 'elimination of all economic activity' is an exaggeration. One YOU made. It is also a moral judgement YOU have made. YOU have stated that you want to destroy freedom and liberty, for that is the only way you are going to hope to shut down economic activity.

You don't know what 'reality' even means.


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2019 19:43
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4611)
keepit wrote: IBDaMann - the word "heat" does have more than one meaning. In sicence that is totally acceptable.

"Heat" is not a science term. Ambiguity is never acceptable in science.

You still have not specified any problem that needs to be solved and you haven't mentioned a single word of any science.

keepit wrote: Just look at the context in which a word is used.

I did, and you swapped semantics as I pointed out. Consistency is absolutely mandatory in science.

keepit wrote: Also, the accusations you make aren't going to win any arguments. "Marxist, hate humanity, etc. for examples. They're false accusations.

You aren't the judge of any arguments. Marxists hate humanity; it's just a fact. At least you acknowledge that you are a Marxist.

keepit wrote: You argument about needing more CO2 so we don't run out of food is interesting.

That's not what I said. I wrote that we have a very real hunger problem on our planet, with millions starving. Reducing atmospheric plant food can only make the problem worse.

The Marxist solution is to let sufficient people die of starvation until there is enough food for the people that are left. Venezuela anyone?

keepit wrote: The problem is that the ice is melting and the ocean will (and is) rise which will cause extreme economic hardship.

Your problem is purely a mental thing. Stop thinking about ice that is melting and focus on all the ice that is forming. Problem solved.

By the way, why do you believe the ocean is rising? Were you simply told to believe it ... and you obeyed? Did you not read my response to HarveyH55? I outlined some things a reasonable person can do to verify that the ocean is not rising to any perceptable extent. I take it you have not done any of those things.

keepit wrote: It's an emergency in progress and has to be dealt with.

Ooooh, an emergency! An undefined emergency that requires us to panic and fear and worry, right? Would the solution involve paying taxes to the government?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
28-05-2019 19:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
Harvey H55 - you say a lot including "we should just adapt to climate change".

People adapt to different weather all the time. There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.
keepit wrote:
Good grief, the glaciers and the arctic ocean are melting as you can see from satellite photos.

Both the Arctic and the Antarctic have a greater winter ice extent this year than last year. No one is monitoring the world's glaciers. Did you know some of them are growing, including right here in the Pacific Northwest?
keepit wrote:
As i understand it, if the Ross Ice Shelf in the antarctic melts enough to break off it will cause the world's ocean to rise by 10 feet in a hurry.

It can't. It's floating. A good hunk of it breaks away pretty much every year, just like usual. It refreezes again in the winter.
keepit wrote:
Think about a 10 foot rise in sea level.

Zero.
1) floating ice, if it melts does not change sea level at all
2) the Ross Ice shelf isn't big enough, even if were not floating.
keepit wrote:
Think about the amount of reconstruction that would have be done to to compensate for that.
I don't think humanity could handle it without extreme hardship, misery, and death.

Why?
keepit wrote:
Do you not believe the Ross Ice Shelf will break off,

It does every summer. It refreezes every winter. Big hairy deal.
keepit wrote:
do you not believe the ice in Greenland will melt?

The ice in Greenland is not melting.
keepit wrote:
I'm not making any case about renewables right now

Yes you are, liar.
keepit wrote:
because i think we're in danger of the melting i just mentioned

Because you have been listening to the priests of the Church of Global Warming.
keepit wrote:
and i think any investment causes CO2.

CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.
keepit wrote:
I think a reduction in economic activity would be safer.

So you still advocate shutting down the economy to satisfy your paranoia. Don't think so.


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2019 19:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
I'm neither of those two. I'm just me, keepit. Not sure what logic you're talking about?


I'm not sure either. He denies logic.


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2019 19:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Harvey H55 - you say a lot including "we should just adapt to climate change".
Good grief, the glaciers and the arctic ocean are melting as you can see from satellite photos. As i understand it, if the Ross Ice Shelf in the antarctic melts enough to break off it will cause the world's ocean to rise by 10 feet in a hurry. Think about a 10 foot rise in sea level. Think about the amount of reconstruction that would have be done to to compensate for that. I don't think humanity could handle it without extreme hardship, misery, and death. Do you not believe the Ross Ice Shelf will break off, do you not believe the ice in Greenland will melt? I'm not making any case about renewables right now because i think we're in danger of the melting i just mentioned and i think any investment causes CO2. I think a reduction in economic activity would be safer.


Ice floats... Ice melts and reforms every year, more or less. Not sure how sea levels can be measured. Most of the sinking islands I've seen in the media, seemed to be suffering more from beach erosion, something common here in Florida. Seems like all the melting since the Al Gore movie, the seas should have risen enough to be quite obvious by now. Either way, I learned to swim at a young age, good skill to learn if you live near water, great exercise too.

Humanity is already suffering hardships and misery, we all die eventually, just part of living, it's tough. Do you think less economic activity, is going to reduce people's pain? People need certain things to survive. These things cost money. If you don't have a job, producing something to sell, you don't have money, to buy the things you need. We need food, water, and shelter, which can be had for free, though a little risky, and not ideal either. Homeless people seem to get by just fine without jobs. Personally, I like to know what and when, my next meal is going to be, preferably without waiting in line at a shelter, or rummaging around in a dumpster, trashcans. I prefer food and water, that I have a reasonable expectation that it isn't spoiled, contaminated, or tampered with. I like having a roof over my head, on a regular basis.

CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the atmospheric gasses. I've been meaning to look it up, but the volume of the atmosphere is going to be quite large. That tiny amount isn't enough to effect anything on a catastrophic scale, let a lone be accurately measured. CO2 has only been measured since 1958, and at not too many places around the world. Basically start measuring it, it's a crisis!!! Doesn't it seem like a huge leap? 400 ppm million isn't much, even less impressive, when you look at how many millions of parts available to fill in the atmosphere. For CO2 to have this much influence on anything, it would have to create energy, which it can't. If it did, wouldn't that solve all our energy needs?

Isn't less economic active the actual goal of Climate Change. High taxes, and less money to spend, means more people dependent on humanitarian aid, basically a global welfare/food stamp system, which would be best handled under a single government...


Sea level cannot be measured. There is no valid reference point. CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2019 19:59
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
Let me just say as politely as possible - read a few books on climate change. I Try not to listen too much to anecdotal info, rather i try to listen to scientific theory. It's easy to see how much theory a person has read.
You don't really have to look at thermometers and ocean level to understand the problem. The basic thing you need to know is that the sun pours heat onto the earth with sunlight, which has a certain wavelength. The atmosphere lets that wavelenth heat in. But then the earth radiates that heat back out in the form of infrared radiation. The problem is that CO2 reduces the amount of infrared wavelengh heat that can be released and therefore the earth and the oceans heat up. Then the ice starts to melt. The economic disaster from the oceans rising 10 feet is SOOO much greater than the economic problems from a shrinking economy.

The problem is that we've been brainwashed for so long to think that we neeed to expand the economy. That is the CEO's talking to us and the politicians.
I know, and i agree that we don't like govt intervention but this is an emergency in progress.
28-05-2019 20:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
IBDaMann - the word "heat" does have more than one meaning.

Only one. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.
keepit wrote:
In sicence that is totally acceptable.

Science has only one definition of heat.
keepit wrote:
Just look at the context in which a word is used.

Context does not change the meaning of 'heat'.
keepit wrote:
Also, the accusations you make aren't going to win any arguments. "Marxist, hate humanity, etc. for examples. They're false accusations.

You are advocating a one world dictatorship or oligarchy in order to control the economy. That is Marxism, whether you deny being a Marxist or not.
keepit wrote:
You argument about needing more CO2 so we don't run out of food is interesting.

Apparently you do not understand the beneficial role of CO2 with plants.
keepit wrote:
It's true that vegetation where i live is increasing.

How do you know? I doubt you did your homework on this too.
keepit wrote:
he problem is that the ice is melting

1) The ice isn't melting.
2) Floating ice does not raise sea level when it melts.
3) There isn't enough energy available to melt all the ice.
4) It is not possible to measure the global sea level. There is no reference point.
5) Local sea levels are not changing, other than tidal activity and land movement.

keepit wrote:
and the ocean will (and is) rise which will cause extreme economic hardship.

There is no indication ocean levels are rising at various local sites. It is not possible to measure a global sea level.
keepit wrote:
It's an emergency in progress and has to be dealt with.

Don't panic.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-05-2019 20:11
28-05-2019 20:24
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
keepit wrote: You don't really have to look at thermometers and ocean level to understand the problem.


Don't have time for this today but just had to interrupt with this little headline.

Do NOT attempt to monitor the temperature with a thermometer!!!
28-05-2019 20:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
What is the problem with CO2?
It's really quite simple. First the sun pours heat onto the Earth.

Heat is not contained in anything. The correct phraseology is to say the Sun heats the Earth by radiance.
keepit wrote:
Then the Earth radiates enough heat back into outer space to maintain a constant temperature on Earth.

The Earth heats surrounding space by radiance also. With a constant output from the Sun, and a constant distance from the Sun, Earth will remain at the same temperature.
keepit wrote:
The problem occurs when the level of CO2 in the atmosphere gets too high.

The amount of CO2 makes no difference.
keepit wrote:
When this happens, the Earth is prevented from releasing the heat back into outer space.

Not possible. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law,
radiance = constant * emissivity constant * temperature ^ 4

In other words, radiance is proportional to temperature. It is never inversely proportional to temperature, as you are arguing. It does not matter what is radiating or the composition of its makeup.

CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.
keepit wrote:
As a result the Earth heats up and the problems begin.

Science disagrees with you.
keepit wrote:
The science of this is undeniable.

The science of this is theories like the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the laws of thermodynamics, which you are ignoring. These are theories of science. It is not possible to trap or store heat. It is not possible to trap energy. All you can do is convert some of it to potential energy, which has no temperature. There is always heat.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-05-2019 21:19
28-05-2019 20:43
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
keepit wrote:
Let me just say as politely as possible - read a few books on climate change. I Try not to listen too much to anecdotal info, rather i try to listen to scientific theory. It's easy to see how much theory a person has read.
You don't really have to look at thermometers and ocean level to understand the problem. The basic thing you need to know is that the sun pours heat onto the earth with sunlight, which has a certain wavelength. The atmosphere lets that wavelenth heat in. But then the earth radiates that heat back out in the form of infrared radiation. The problem is that CO2 reduces the amount of infrared wavelengh heat that can be released and therefore the earth and the oceans heat up. Then the ice starts to melt. The economic disaster from the oceans rising 10 feet is SOOO much greater than the economic problems from a shrinking economy.

The problem is that we've been brainwashed for so long to think that we neeed to expand the economy. That is the CEO's talking to us and the politicians.
I know, and i agree that we don't like govt intervention but this is an emergency in progress.


CO2 isn't a two-way mirror, it's going to do the same thing to radiation coming in, as going out, no difference. It's only 0.04% of the atmosphere, and not spread out in an even, thin layer. Even if it was, there would only be enough to cover a small fraction of the surface. Really need to do some math on volume and surface area sometime. Atmosphere is something like 200 miles thick in places... Oh, and of course, the sun only shines on one side of the planet, whole dark half not being addressed here.
28-05-2019 20:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
Let me just say as politely as possible - read a few books on climate change.

I've already studied the scripture of the Church of Global Warming. I know what it says.
keepit wrote:
I Try not to listen too much to anecdotal info, rather i try to listen to scientific theory.

Yet you give anecdotal info and deny science.
keepit wrote:
It's easy to see how much theory a person has read.

Irrelevant. Reading is not science or religion.
keepit wrote:
You don't really have to look at thermometers

Yes you do. That's the only way you can measure temperature. Unfortunately, there are not enough thermometers to measure the temperature of the Earth.
keepit wrote:
and ocean level to understand the problem.

Yes you do.That's the only way to measure the so-called ocean rise you are claiming. Unfortunately, it is not possible to measure the sea level of the Earth.
keepit wrote:
The basic thing you need to know is that the sun pours heat onto the earth with sunlight, which has a certain wavelength. The atmosphere lets that wavelenth heat in. But then the earth radiates that heat back out in the form of infrared radiation. The problem is that CO2 reduces the amount of infrared wavelengh heat that can be released and therefore the earth and the oceans heat up.

Not possible You are again ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no term for frequency in the equation.

Absorption of surface infrared light by CO2 or anything else does not warm the Earth. You are now ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics by creating energy out of nothing.

keepit wrote:
Then the ice starts to melt.

The ice is not melting.
keepit wrote:
The economic disaster from the oceans rising 10 feet is SOOO much greater than the economic problems from a shrinking economy.

Your paranoia induced by your religion is not cause to shut down global economic activity.
keepit wrote:
The problem is that we've been brainwashed for so long

Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR problem. You have become a fundamentalist believer in the Church of Global Warming, which stems from the Church of Karl Marx.
keepit wrote:
to think that we neeed to expand the economy.

The economy expands or shrinks on it's own. YOU don't get to control it. You are not a dictator.
keepit wrote:
That is the CEO's talking to us and the politicians.

Economic activity is more than just CEOs an politicians. False dichotomy fallacy.
keepit wrote:
I know, and i agree that we don't like govt intervention but this is an emergency in progress.

Don't panic. There is no emergency.


The Parrot Killer
28-05-2019 21:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Let me just say as politely as possible - read a few books on climate change. I Try not to listen too much to anecdotal info, rather i try to listen to scientific theory. It's easy to see how much theory a person has read.
You don't really have to look at thermometers and ocean level to understand the problem. The basic thing you need to know is that the sun pours heat onto the earth with sunlight, which has a certain wavelength. The atmosphere lets that wavelenth heat in. But then the earth radiates that heat back out in the form of infrared radiation. The problem is that CO2 reduces the amount of infrared wavelengh heat that can be released and therefore the earth and the oceans heat up. Then the ice starts to melt. The economic disaster from the oceans rising 10 feet is SOOO much greater than the economic problems from a shrinking economy.

The problem is that we've been brainwashed for so long to think that we neeed to expand the economy. That is the CEO's talking to us and the politicians.
I know, and i agree that we don't like govt intervention but this is an emergency in progress.


CO2 isn't a two-way mirror, it's going to do the same thing to radiation coming in, as going out, no difference. It's only 0.04% of the atmosphere, and not spread out in an even, thin layer. Even if it was, there would only be enough to cover a small fraction of the surface. Really need to do some math on volume and surface area sometime. Atmosphere is something like 200 miles thick in places... Oh, and of course, the sun only shines on one side of the planet, whole dark half not being addressed here.


Absorption of infrared light by CO2 does not warm the Earth. It radiates energy just like the surface does. CO2 absorbs only a narrow spectrum of the infrared light emitted by the surface. The surface is cooled by emitting infrared light, even if that light is absorbed by CO2.

He is creating energy out of nothing, in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 28-05-2019 21:18
28-05-2019 22:08
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
Such a load of false accusation :
Paranoid
Panicked
Marxist
Advocating dictatorship
Good grief, get a grip. I'm not any of that, i'm just trying to do a service. Please try to keep that in mind.
Here's a little analogy so you can understand better. When the paramedic comes for an emergency, is the paramedic panicked? When the fighter pilot goes to fight a dictator, is the fighter pilot paranoid or marxist or panicked, etc.?
I'd much rather talk about the science of climate than trade false accusations.
28-05-2019 22:17
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
By the way, the Stephan Boltzman law doesn't take into account the heat trapping effect of CO2. It's true that the earth radiates as much heat as was taken in but the heat gets trapped in the atmosphere by CO2. Then the earth and the oceans heat up.
Also, by the way, a warming ocean expands which is an increase in sea level. You don't have to measure the sea level if you don't want to, just realize the scientific principle that heated things (the ocean)expand.
Also, the volume of water in the Ross Ice Shelf is great enough to raise the sea level 10 feet.
Also, it isn't the CO2 that is heating up the earth and ocean, the CO2 is just holding in the heat that the sun sent to us.
28-05-2019 23:04
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1173)
keepit wrote:
By the way, the Stephan Boltzman law doesn't take into account the heat trapping effect of CO2. It's true that the earth radiates as much heat as was taken in but the heat gets trapped in the atmosphere by CO2. Then the earth and the oceans heat up.
Also, by the way, a warming ocean expands which is an increase in sea level. You don't have to measure the sea level if you don't want to, just realize the scientific principle that heated things (the ocean)expand.
Also, the volume of water in the Ross Ice Shelf is great enough to raise the sea level 10 feet.
Also, it isn't the CO2 that is heating up the earth and ocean, the CO2 is just holding in the heat that the sun sent to us.


Yeah, I kind of question the application of Stefan Boltzmann equation, when applied to Earth, seems to leave out a bunch of relative stuff. Seemed more of a philosophical type theory, rather than science. Just not something I want to spend a great deal of my spare time studying, just to debate the fine details, which seems to be the main point of it. Philosophy wasn't one of my favorite subjects in college.

Wouldn't what little CO2 we have, hold heat coming in, before it reaches the surface, preventing the surface from warming, though just a tiny, insignificant percentage. One CO2 molecule can only do so much, it can't create energy, nor is it directional. Just not enough CO2 to do anything we could actually measure. Only way it could, is if it had some means to amplify, which requires additional energy, which isn't created. It's kind of why I could never make it all the way through any IPCC report, they only tell part of it, leave things out, miss us data, and math. I suppose if I chased down the dozens of articles cited, I might be able to get some of the questions answered. But they cite articles, that just barely mention Climate Change in the summary, sort of obligatory for the grant money, not any relevance to the work. The key works are probably behind a pay wall, which is why I never got to read them. Not paying for something I can't look at, no point of paying, if I already looked it over... I never saw any reference to a margin of error on any of the many graphs, or table of filters applied to smooth them. I can read science, when it's objective, and complete, all the facts and figures included. It's very distracting, to have to stop, go find a paper, or six, just to find a few things, that should have been include, as standard practice. Any opinion and subjectivity should be only be in the conclusion, not the entire report. The paper should simply report the findings, leave the interpretation to the reader. Just doesn't read like any science papers I've read before, or since. Guess I survive 'New Math', guess I'll have to get use to 'New Science'.
28-05-2019 23:27
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
Harvey,
The thing is, the heat coming in to earth is at a higher frequency than CO2 in the atmosphere can hold back so it does reach the earth and heats the earth and oceans up. But when the earth radiates that energy back out, it radiates it at a lower frequency (infrared) which can't get through the CO2 as easily, so the heat is trapped in the atmosphere and the earth and oceans heat up. Ice then melts, oceans rise etc.
It has happened many times in the distant path and there's nothing we know of that can stop the macro trends. But, what we can do is stop the near term effects (2-3 hundred years or less) and thereby stop the sea level rise in the near term.
29-05-2019 01:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
Such a load of false accusation :
Paranoid
Panicked
Marxist
Advocating dictatorship
Good grief, get a grip. I'm not any of that,

You are all of that. Don't lie, not even to yourself.
keepit wrote:
i'm just trying to do a service. Please try to keep that in mind.

Attempting to implement Marxism is not a service. Pushing your religion is not a service either.
keepit wrote:
Here's a little analogy so you can understand better. When the paramedic comes for an emergency, is the paramedic panicked?

False equivalence. Paramedics are not using religion to push visions of global doom.
keepit wrote:
When the fighter pilot goes to fight a dictator, is the fighter pilot paranoid or marxist or panicked, etc.?

False equivalence. Fighter pilots do not use religion to push visions of global doom.
keepit wrote:
I'd much rather talk about the science of climate

There is no science of climate. 'Climate' is a subjective term. It is not quantifiable. Science only deals with the quantifiable.
keepit wrote:
than trade false accusations.

They are not false accusations. It is what you are arguing for. Perhaps you don't realize it, but you are doing nothing more than copying what was told to you by Marxists.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 01:09
keepit
★★★☆☆
(488)
Come on Parrot. Get real.
29-05-2019 01:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
By the way, the Stephan Boltzman law doesn't take into account the heat trapping effect of CO2.

It is not possible to trap heat. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If temperature goes up, radiance MUST go up as well. You cannot reduce radiance without decreasing the temperature of an object (like the Earth).
keepit wrote:
It's true that the earth radiates as much heat as was taken in but the heat gets trapped in the atmosphere by CO2. Then the earth and the oceans heat up.

Paradox. The only way for Earth to lose energy is by radiant heating of nearby space. To say as must heat goes out as comes in, and then to say less heat goes out than comes in is a paradox. Which is it, dude? (Hint: See the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the first law of thermodynamics.
keepit wrote:
Also, by the way, a warming ocean expands which is an increase in sea level.

The oceans have no reason to become warmer with the same sunlight on them.
keepit wrote:
You don't have to measure the sea level if you don't want to,

You can't measure global sea level anyway.
keepit wrote:
just realize the scientific principle that heated things (the ocean)expand.

You are denying science. You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the laws of thermodynamics.
keepit wrote:
Also, the volume of water in the Ross Ice Shelf is great enough to raise the sea level 10 feet.

Zero. Floating ice, if it melts, does not change sea level at all. You can do this experiment yourself with ice cubes and a glass of water.
keepit wrote:
Also, it isn't the CO2 that is heating up the earth and ocean, the CO2 is just holding in the heat that the sun sent to us.

It is not possible to hold or trap heat. Heat is not contained in anything. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer
29-05-2019 01:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
By the way, the Stephan Boltzman law doesn't take into account the heat trapping effect of CO2. It's true that the earth radiates as much heat as was taken in but the heat gets trapped in the atmosphere by CO2. Then the earth and the oceans heat up.
Also, by the way, a warming ocean expands which is an increase in sea level. You don't have to measure the sea level if you don't want to, just realize the scientific principle that heated things (the ocean)expand.
Also, the volume of water in the Ross Ice Shelf is great enough to raise the sea level 10 feet.
Also, it isn't the CO2 that is heating up the earth and ocean, the CO2 is just holding in the heat that the sun sent to us.


Yeah, I kind of question the application of Stefan Boltzmann equation, when applied to Earth, seems to leave out a bunch of relative stuff.

Nope. It covers everything. There is no 'other stuff'.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Seemed more of a philosophical type theory, rather than science.

It is not philosophy. It is a theory of science. Philosophy defines what things like 'science' or 'religion' is. It is not about the theories of science themselves.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just not something I want to spend a great deal of my spare time studying, just to debate the fine details, which seems to be the main point of it. Philosophy wasn't one of my favorite subjects in college.

Not surprising. Many colleges horribly suck at teaching philosophy.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Wouldn't what little CO2 we have, hold heat coming in, before it reaches the surface,

It is not possible to hold or trap heat. Heat is not contained in anything.
HarveyH55 wrote:
preventing the surface from warming, though just a tiny, insignificant percentage.

If CO2 absorbs incoming sunlight, it still warms the atmosphere.
HarveyH55 wrote:
One CO2 molecule can only do so much, it can't create energy, nor is it directional. Just not enough CO2 to do anything we could actually measure.

CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth using surface radiance from Earth. It's like saying that a ball will bounce higher than the height it was dropped at.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Only way it could, is if it had some means to amplify, which requires additional energy, which isn't created.
[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
It's kind of why I could never make it all the way through any IPCC report, they only tell part of it, leave things out, miss us data, and math. I suppose if I chased down the dozens of articles cited, I might be able to get some of the questions answered. But they cite articles, that just barely mention Climate Change in the summary, sort of obligatory for the grant money, not any relevance to the work. The key works are probably behind a pay wall, which is why I never got to read them. Not paying for something I can't look at, no point of paying, if I already looked it over... I never saw any reference to a margin of error on any of the many graphs, or table of filters applied to smooth them. I can read science, when it's objective, and complete, all the facts and figures included. It's very distracting, to have to stop, go find a paper, or six, just to find a few things, that should have been include, as standard practice. Any opinion and subjectivity should be only be in the conclusion, not the entire report. The paper should simply report the findings, leave the interpretation to the reader. Just doesn't read like any science papers I've read before, or since. Guess I survive 'New Math', guess I'll have to get use to 'New Science'.



The Parrot Killer
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate economic:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
economic1604-06-2019 19:11
A new Stanford study shows the economic cost of climate change is more global inequality024-04-2019 03:05
In California, Rising Seas Pose a Bigger Economic Threat Than Wildfires, Quakes027-03-2019 17:50
Articles
Appendix B - Calculating The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact