Author Topic: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal  (Read 440 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4239
Re: Technical Solutions - CO2 Removal
« Reply #30 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"?

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 The analyses presented have not yet been peer reviewed and do not represent official positions of ESRL, NOAA, or DOC.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 »