Author Topic: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal  (Read 438 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2017, 04:37:26 am »
now member TimG, let's be clear here. You have taken extreme liberties in posturing with your linked article; specifically you state, "NOAA says"... "The NOAA does not state"... while speaking for, as you say, "actual scientists like the ones at NOAA", etc. Somehow you missed the disclaimer attached to your own linked article; this disclaimer:
Quote
Disclaimer: This draft is an evolving research assessment and not a final report. The analyses presented have not yet been peer reviewed and do not represent official positions of ESRL, NOAA, or DOC.

I've not been able to find a final published peer-reviewed version of your linked article and am willing to state one doesn't exist - certainly you can prove me wrong - yes? Now, although your linked article's author is, for the most part accepting of AGW and impacts on climate change, he takes a most significant departure in regards certain extreme events like hurricanes and (most) droughts; and accordingly, has become somewhat the go-to reference for "skeptics/contrarians"... particularly those willing to ignore his overall acceptance of AGW.

Speaking of: Contrarian NOAA Meteorologist Martin Hoerling: Freak Heat Wave ĎA Darn Good Outcomeí --- https://thinkprogress.org/contrarian-noaa-meteorologist-martin-hoerling-freak-heat-wave-a-darn-good-outcome-764f7f03f0db/

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2017, 04:43:56 am »
Sandy was a storm that happened before and will happen again. It is delusional to suggest that the damage was materially different because of some unmeasurable influence from the slight warming to date.

Lets look at Sandy again to better understand how complex the entire attribution problem is. Let's start with a link to a source you should fine reasonably credible:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/repository/entry/show/PSD+Climate+Data+Repository/Public/Interpreting+Climate+Conditions+-+Case+Studies/Climate+Change+and+Hurricane+Sandy?entryid=98c8065f-d639-496a-a684-fe4762e1d1be

Now the NOAA says two important things:

1) They affirm my statements that there is no evidence that climate climate change has not increased the number of hurricanes nor will they necessarily increase in the future.

2) They note that SLR is the only factor that might have influenced the damage done by Sandy but they also note that a portion of the SLR has nothing to do with AWG.

The NOAA does not state (but they should have) is the SLR is less than the daily tide and the storm surge happened to coincide with an abnormally high tide so was the surge caused by climate change or the non-AGW portion of the SLR or the high tide? Take any one of those away and the damage would have been a lot less.
having put the appropriate perspective on your linked author/article reference and false statements/claims, you so ignorantly miss the most salient point concerning Hurricane Sandy; i.e., what caused its most dramatic tracking shift from a continued north-easterly trajectory where it would have normally diminished under a cold water influence... to a westward tracking turn that ran counter to more than a century of Northeastern history? Notwithstanding the abnormally warmer ocean water off the eastern coast, consensus attribution for the dramatic and radical western turn is one associated with "Greenland blocking"... notwithstanding impacts became an issue of "storm surge" rather than your misplaced references to SLR (sea level rise).

- Climate change and extreme weather linked to high pressure over Greenland --- https://phys.org/news/2016-04-climate-extreme-weather-linked-high.html

- A climatological assessment of Greenland blocking conditions associated with the track of Hurricane Sandy and historical North Atlantic hurricanes --- http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.4018/abstract

now I do find one quote from your linked article's author somewhat interesting, somewhat telling in the context of your misinterpretation and improper summary statements on SLR; specifically... it's one where your linked author actually speaks to surge and SLR in the same statement:
Quote
"HOERLING: There is a nice historical record of the tide level at the Battery just below Manhattan that goes back to 1850s. And that time series, which is fairly complete up to current, shows a rise in the total sea level of about one foot in the 150 years of that record. Now, we have 14-foot rise related to Sandy. So one foot out of 14 may not be something that is critical. But it may very well be in the sense that that last foot maybe the foot that moved the water into very prone areas."

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #32 on: December 06, 2017, 10:39:52 pm »
having put the appropriate perspective on your linked author/article reference and false statements/claims, you so ignorantly miss the most salient point concerning Hurricane Sandy;
This harping on completely irrelevant details while ignoring the main points presented is your modus operandi. You depend on it for your pointless declarations that any argument you disagree with 'refuted' simply because you can't deal with the substance of the arguments presented. In this case the substance is the NOAA quite clearly states there is no evidence that climate change is affecting the number of storms and the only possible climate change effect is the change in sea level but even that effect is debatable for the reasons related to the tides and historical records (as unreliable as they are). The  argument trying to link a single storm event to pressure changes over Greenland stinks of post hoc rationalization and would require decades more of data before it could be considered to be credible link. It certainly cannot refute the points that the NOAA did make.

One of the aspects of these forums that you don't seem to understand is no matter how many links you post to carefully selected blogs and newspaper articles you are only presenting someone else's opinion. This is true even if you cherry pick some peer reviewed papers where the caveats and limitations of the analysis are usually not available in the public abstracts.  I have stopped posting my own links because I realized their is no point with these topics because most readers do not have the desire or ability to assess each link on the merits of the argument and instead rely on tribal affiliation to determine which sources to treat as credible (In the past, I was naive and believed that most people were interested in understanding different POVs rather than simply seeking affirmation of positions they already hold).

Ironically - I believe you know that too which is why you try to overwhelm any dissent from your AGW religion with volumes text knowing that many people will not read it carefully and are only looking for an excuse to ignore information that may require them to rethink their position.

Personally, I have no idea what the consequences will be from CO2 but I have so much contempt for the field of climate science because of their obsession with enforcing a "consensus" for political reasons that I do not believe that scientists working in the field are capable of providing a honest assessment of the state of knowledge. I also suspect that the CO2 will disappear as an issue in the same way that the 'population bomb' disappeared as an issue in the 70-80s. i.e. a combination of improvements in technology and unexpected social change eliminated the problem without any special intervention by governments.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2017, 11:12:34 pm by TimG »

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2017, 12:21:15 am »
This harping on completely irrelevant details while ignoring the main points presented is your modus operandi. You depend on it for your pointless declarations that any argument you disagree with 'refuted' simply because you can't deal with the substance of the arguments presented. In this case the substance is the NOAA quite clearly states there is no evidence that climate change is affecting the number of storms and the only possible climate change effect is the change in sea level but even that effect is debatable for the reasons related to the tides and historical records (as unreliable as they are). The  argument trying to link a single storm event to pressure changes over Greenland stinks of post hoc rationalization and would require decades more of data before it could be considered to be credible link. It certainly cannot refute the points that the NOAA did make.

One of the aspects of these forums that you don't seem to understand is no matter how many links you post to carefully selected blogs and newspaper articles you are only presenting someone else's opinion.

no - I quoted the caveat attached to your linked article... it most certainly is not "the NOAA"... it's simply a non-peer reviewed draft article; I noted as much and challenged you to present an actual journal published version of it. So, where is it? Would you like that caveat re-quoted for you? What in this disclaimer gives you the continued audacity to emphasize your interpretation as associated with, "the NOAA"?

Quote
the attached disclaimer that member TimG refuses to accept/acknowledge: This draft is an evolving research assessment and not a final report. The analyses presented have not yet been peer reviewed and do not represent official positions of ESRL, NOAA, or DOC.

You put all your fake-skeptic emphasis on SLR, while ignoring the actual damaging aspect - that of storm surge. Notwithstanding, you now choose to ignore the impact of Greenland --- riddle me this: what caused the hurricane to dramatically shift from its, per typical/per norm, northeast tracking? What caused that, hey! It was heading into cold(er) water and would have dissipated, per norm... what caused it to shift westerly - dramatically west? Why so quiet on that front, hey?

you keep beaking off about the "number" of storms - even having the audacity to state, "the NOAA agrees with you"  ;D As you know, there isn't a scientific body/group (or individuals, as I'm aware) that suggests frequency of hurricanes has been affected. For some strange reason you keep harping on this yet have (purposely) ignored intensity - why so, hey! I mean, other than being the disingenuous denier that you are.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 12:40:55 am by waldo »

Offline waldo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3760
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2017, 12:31:19 am »
Personally, I have no idea what the consequences will be from CO2 but I have so much contempt for the field of climate science because of their obsession with enforcing a "consensus" for political reasons that I do not believe that scientists working in the field are capable of providing a honest assessment of the state of knowledge. I also suspect that the CO2 will disappear as an issue in the same way that the 'population bomb' disappeared as an issue in the 70-80s. i.e. a combination of improvements in technology and unexpected social change eliminated the problem without any special intervention by governments.

you have no idea of the consequences? Really? That sure hasn't stopped you from denying that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal causal tie to GW/climate change. You're a one-trick pony with your perpetual denigration of the collective world-wide body of scientists. You've been repeatedly challenged to "name your names" - name the rogues gallery that you pin your denial around... that emboldens you to ignore the need for mitigation... that you rely upon to champion your, "do nothing/delay at all costs" agenda? Just name the names - sure you can! As I've stated, even if you drop a half-dozen or so names... go for a dozen even... what about the thousands upon thousands of other scientists who dedicate their lives to science without regard to your fake narrative about politicization?

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2017, 06:28:06 am »
I noted as much and challenged you to present an actual journal published version of
Scientific peer review is a scam! Itís how climate alarmists push their agenda and keep out dissenting viewpoints! /s

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2017, 06:30:22 am »
you have no idea of the consequences? Really?
Tim believes you canít ever know he consequences until something happens. He doesnít believe in science because it deals in likelihoods. In other words, Tim would step in front of a truck on the highway because you canít truly know what will happen, then deal with the consequences later. Thatís his approach to climate science.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2017, 07:52:24 am »
Tim believes you canít ever know he consequences until something happens. He doesnít believe in science because it deals in likelihoods. In other words, Tim would step in front of a truck on the highway because you canít truly know what will happen, then deal with the consequences later. Thatís his approach to climate science.
Holy Strawman Batman! The problem the AWG religion followers is they don't acknowledge the uncertainty. They claim that catastrophic consequences are a foregone conclusion or they plug a random number out of a hat (i.e. use a computer model that is completely depended on numerous assumptions about unknowns) and claim this random number is a a definitive statement of the probability of catastrophic consequences. At the same time these same alarmists refuse to consider that their pet policies have negative consequences too and ignore or minimize them.

IOW - you don't give a damn about the science of 'probabilities' or have any appreciation for how little we really know. You have simply decided what conclusion you like and ignore any thing that suggests that your pet conclusions is not necessarily reasonable and label anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your pet conclusions as 'anti-science'.

Offline cybercoma

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2017, 10:21:29 am »
Donít talk about logical fallacies then come at me with ďAGW religion.Ē Youíre clueless.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #39 on: December 07, 2017, 01:06:36 pm »
Donít talk about logical fallacies then come at me with ďAGW religion.Ē Youíre clueless.
AGW is a modern day religion complete with dogma (reduction targets, solar/wind) and rituals (indulgences a.k.a carbon offsets). I would love to have a discussion with people who actually care about the science instead of proselytizing but they are few and far between.

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8045
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2017, 01:11:23 pm »
AGW is a modern day religion complete with dogma (reduction targets, solar/wind) and rituals (indulgences a.k.a carbon offsets). I would love to have a discussion with people who actually care about the science instead of proselytizing but they are few and far between.

Around 93% of climate scientists agree that AGW is occurring so you shouldn't have trouble finding one. The main difference between the experts is how fast it is happening. 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2017, 02:09:00 pm »
Around 93% of climate scientists agree that AGW is occurring so you shouldn't have trouble finding one. The main difference between the experts is how fast it is happening.
This is a perfect example of why it is so difficult to have a sensible discussion on this topic.

First: I have never said that AGW is not occurring yet you repeat this nonsense because it allows you pretend I am more unreasonable that I am and provide an excuse so you can refuse to to look at the arguments I actually make.

Second: how often do you take the predictions of 'experts' as truth when it comes to economics? Most people do not. Yet all of the claims of consequences from AGW are based on economic computer models. Yet people like you seem to expect people to treat these predictions as "truth" simply because the byline says 'climate' instead of 'economics'? Why should I treat the opinions of self defined experts as facts?
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 02:16:27 pm by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8045
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2017, 03:07:08 pm »
This is a perfect example of why it is so difficult to have a sensible discussion on this topic.

First: I have never said that AGW is not occurring yet you repeat this nonsense because it allows you pretend I am more unreasonable that I am and provide an excuse so you can refuse to to look at the arguments I actually make.

Second: how often do you take the predictions of 'experts' as truth when it comes to economics? Most people do not. Yet all of the claims of consequences from AGW are based on economic computer models. Yet people like you seem to expect people to treat these predictions as "truth" simply because the byline says 'climate' instead of 'economics'? Why should I treat the opinions of self defined experts as facts?

First, the arguments you attempt to make seem to simply contradict that you do believe the scientists who study climate science. And trying to conflate economics to climate change isn't much of an argument. We all know that economic predictions are all over the map and based largely on guesswork. Hard to predict how and when and why people will open their wallets for instance. Science is more based on what is actually happening. And with climate science  for instance, it's observing  satellite photos which show how much of the arctic ice cap is not there any more, or how fast the Greenland glacier is melting. None of that is not based on speculation. it's based on fact. As I previously said there are some differences among climate scientists as to best methods for trying to fix the problem, but there is consensus that it is happening.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2017, 06:24:17 pm »
And trying to conflate economics to climate change isn't much of an argument.
ROTFL - you really have no clue how climate scientists come up with their projections do you? Any claim of a model that estimates future consequences is first and foremost an economic model because the consequences are a question of economics. IOW - you must agree that "climate projections" are nothing but guesswork since you conceded that is all that economic  models are. This is progress.

As I previously said there are some differences among climate scientists as to best methods for trying to fix the problem, but there is consensus that it is happening.
The opinion of climate scientists on what to do is as relevant as the opinion of a bus driver because they do not have the engineering knowledge required to determine what is the most cost effective course of action. And given the fact that we agree that predictions of future consequences are nothing but guesswork that puts some limits on how much hardship we should endure today to deal with the problem.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2017, 06:34:17 pm by TimG »

Offline Omni

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8045
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2017, 07:23:09 pm »
ROTFL - you really have no clue how climate scientists come up with their projections do you? Any claim of a model that estimates future consequences is first and foremost an economic model because the consequences are a question of economics. IOW - you must agree that "climate projections" are nothing but guesswork since you conceded that is all that economic  models are. This is progress.
The opinion of climate scientists on what to do is as relevant as the opinion of a bus driver because they do not have the engineering knowledge required to determine what is the most cost effective course of action. And given the fact that we agree that predictions of future consequences are nothing but guesswork that puts some limits on how much hardship we should endure today to deal with the problem.

I see you didn't bother to read the article I linked. Typical of those who don't like to find out they're wrong. Your second notion is quite simple to unravel as well, the scientists educate the engineers on what needs to be achieved and let them then use their knowledge to effect it. Here's a simple example: let's say your driving home and steam starts to emanate from under the hood, you can determine something is wrong but you're not mechanically inclined, so what would YOU do? Pull into a garage and let a mechanic fix the problem.