If you're someone who wants to confront climate science contrarian types, this will be worth your time. I dare say valuable background for your future endeavors. Others need not waste their time.
The Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine series would be a much better use of your time. {fixed typos and other edits 2/20/16, 12:45 PM}
_______________________________________________
Dude writes:
I think you're in the mood for battle. I've read your blog post. Nobody with half a brain, outside of yourself, believes carbon dioxide has historically been the primary global climatic driver. Co2 traps a little heat, but it is not the primary driver.
ENSO is a massive signal in comparison. Maybe we should say ENSO drives climate?
___________________
CC: How can you say that considering those were NASAGoddard videos and data, not mine?
_______________________________________________
Dude: Some, and I disagree with these, believe that Co2 drives our current climate. Now comes the easy part. Please provide evidence that Co2 drives climate today, but if you stray from empiracles... You lose.
___________________
That's pretty confusing not sure what you're claiming.
We are talking about complex systems science that won't submit themselves to your simplistic disingenuous lab bench expectations.
Where is your empirical evidence showing that experiments establishing CO2's "greenhouse properties" are wrong?
Then perhaps - can you explain why we have dozens of modern marvels that would be impossible without that thorough empirical understanding of how greenhouse gases behave in the atmosphere?
_______________________________________________
Dude: Models are fine to test your empiracles, but a simulated earth is not actually real. Now provide evidence that Co2 in its current atmospheric concentration causes catastrophe; again if you use a simulation to prove your point, you are merely commenting on the simulation. Reality is a little more nuanced. And isn't it possible that the real world may hold undiscovered (or not well understood) variables which once understood and implemented into models change the outcomes?
___________________
What's that nonsense supposed to mean? "...that CO2 in its current atmospheric concentrations causes catastrophe."
No one has said that CO2 in it's current concentrations is causing catastrophe. They say current concentrations cause increasing warming of our global climate engine, and that will have cascading consequences.
In fact, rarely do scientists talking in those terms, it's always the Republican/libertarian PR Machine pumping that emotion dripping canard. The reality is about trends, vectors. Hotter oceans and the hurricane intensifies and becomes that much more catastrophic when it slams into people.
In fact, rarely do scientists talking in those terms, it's always the Republican/libertarian PR Machine pumping that emotion dripping canard. The reality is about trends, vectors. Hotter oceans and the hurricane intensifies and becomes that much more catastrophic when it slams into people.
Rising sea levels and one day, when the elements are lined up, nuisance flooding bursts into a catastrophically destructive flood event, then it's over and all's well with the world you pretend. Unless another one is right behind it while seas continue rising. Which they certainly will, as the global ocean inches up its coasts in a dance with local geophysical conditions.
What's with the setting up impossible expectations? Like the malicious lawyer at work, not anyone interested in understanding or teaching about our actual real physical planet.
_______________________________________________
Dude: Some time ago, an idiot submitted Pal et Al as evidence for Co2's Catastrophic concentration. Where the paper fails...here's a hint, how does a changing geography effect flooding? How can papers make stupid glaring omissions and still be trumpeted by scores of idiot zealots? But try another paper, please. If it passes then we have a something to talk about.
Here let's see if you can listen to a real expert try to explain "systems science" it might help you understand what you are missing.
Science & Distortion - Stephen Schneider discusses "Systems Science"
Plomomedia | Global Climate News | 12:00
_______________________________________________
Dude: Some time ago, an idiot submitted Pal et Al as evidence for Co2's Catastrophic concentration. Where the paper fails...here's a hint, how does a changing geography effect flooding? How can papers make stupid glaring omissions and still be trumpeted by scores of idiot zealots? But try another paper, please. If it passes then we have a something to talk about.
It's clear you admire Karl et Al 2015, just say the word and I'll rip it apart for you.
___________________
Please have at Karl et al. 2015 - I'm listening.
Who makes you such a judge of character? Why all that venom?
_______________________________________________
37 minutes later:
Dude: Storm's and droughts and heat waves... Two of these are trending in the wrong direction to prove your point.
___________________
Wow, you kidding me!? Have you no conception of our dependence on the timing and intensity of rain fall? Having drought during planting season and then receiving a summer's worth of rain in a couple days during harvest season, doesn't balance out. It's comments like that, that convince me you are disconnected from our planet's physical reality.
_______________________________________________
Dude: As well the earth is greening. Maybe greening is the catastrophe?
___________________
Your so flippant about it. It's impossible to communicate with people like you because your so damned arrogant and disconnected from the land and all the things great and small that have to come together to make a healthy farm or forest or biosphere, or even city for that matter.
_______________________________________________
Dude: Dynamic state of balance? Are you high? Please provide proof the world has ever achieved a dynamic state of balance...it is a coupled non linear chaotic system.
___________________
Can you explain why you think a "non linear chaotic system" can not be considering a thing of dynamic balance? Let me try to explain it using our bodies as an example of a system in dynamic balance.
Your body has a myriad of systems that depend on a certain range of conditions and available resources. Think salt, sugar, blood oxygen/CO2, just to mention the most obvious, but the list goes on and on. Those my friend are dynamics balances! When they change the whole feels different, behaves different. Our planet is only different in that it can handle a much wider range of conditions. Thing is creation and evolution and biospheres are all about dynamic balances in motion, and it doesn't preclude change.
Consider extinction events, the existing balance get's perturbed, the existing creatures can't cope, Earth and life and the evolutionary process marches on and creation continues. Earth will be just fine, we're the ones in trouble.
We have upset that balance with our increased greenhouse gases (to name just one of our profound impacts upon Earth's biosphere.) resulting in the atmosphere's increasing insulating ability. Pure physics. Everything else under it, is subservient to that reality.
What we do know is that humanity has introduced huge increases in a major component of this massive system that shall shift the dynamic non linear chaotic behavior of the system.
_______________________________________________
Dude: Please provide proof that humanity is ill equipped to adaptations. Is everything you write bullshit? Please write something which does not resemble bullshit.
___________________
Not at all. Is trash-talk all you can come up with?
Well considering many of our leaders and population refuse to appreciate the solid fact that we collectively are responsible for radically altering this Earth we depend on, it's not a good sign.
____________________________
I do this because I'm appalled at the tenor of the dialogue, it would be cool if this exercise can help some on their journey to better appreciating this wonderful planet of ours and to confront the rampant lying that's going on at YouTube.}
Cheers, Peter
No comments:
Post a Comment