A Climate Hero.

[ding]

I simply don't know what that value is.

I rest my case. There's no transparency.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I rest my case. There's no transparency.

When you say "no transparency" you seem to be saying that everything must be made understandable to the least educated people who have no technical expertise.

By that reasoning your entire career was one of non-transparency. OR, more likely it was simply a highly specialized and technical field that not all people are familiar with.

Of course EVERYTHING YOU ASKED can be found somewhere. It just needs to be understood by the person reading.

When people complain about transparency it is usually in regards to something intentionally hidden as opposed to something that the reader simply fails to understand.

Mineralogy isn't "non-transparent" even if you, yourself, are unfamiliar with mineralogy. If I threw a chunk of kunzite in front of you would it be clear to you the implications of that in regards to other conversations we've had on this forum? If not does that mean there's "hidden" information? Or would it be simply your ignorance of that particular field.

(BTW: Kunzite is a form of spodumene which is one of the ores of Li from hard rock mining of that element. We spoke about it elsewhere on the forum. I brought it up as an example of how you may lack specific knowledge in the area but it is in no way "hidden" from you.)

 

[ding]

When you say "no transparency" you seem to be saying that everything must be made understandable to the least educated people who have no technical expertise.

By that reasoning your entire career was one of non-transparency. OR, more likely it was simply a highly specialized and technical field that not all people are familiar with.

Of course EVERYTHING YOU ASKED can be found somewhere. It just needs to be understood by the person reading.

When people complain about transparency it is usually in regards to something intentionally hidden as opposed to something that the reader simply fails to understand.

Mineralogy isn't "non-transparent" even if you, yourself, are unfamiliar with mineralogy. If I threw a chunk of kunzite in front of you would it be clear to you the implications of that in regards to other conversations we've had on this forum? If not does that mean there's "hidden" information? Or would it be simply your ignorance of that particular field.

(BTW: Kunzite is a form of spodumene which is one of the ores of Li from hard rock mining of that element. We spoke about it elsewhere on the forum. I brought it up as an example of how you may lack specific knowledge in the area but it is in no way "hidden" from you.)

I'm not asking them to explain each of their components. I'm only asking that they show each value of the components. That way it will be obvious to everyone that the feedback they are adding on is 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 itself.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm not asking them to explain each of their components. I'm only asking that they show each value of the components. That way it will be obvious to everyone that the feedback they are adding on is 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 itself.

I believe that is discussed in painful detail in the literature. There have been a VERY LARGE number of papers written on the estimates of climate sensitivity of CO2 and what goes into that.

It is not being hidden from you, it is there. I am not in a position to make sense of the details of the physics of radiation transfer.

 

[ding]

I believe that is discussed in painful detail in the literature.

And yet you don't know it. I don't need painful detail. I just need for them to be transparent with their reporting.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

And yet you don't know it.

I believe I've established that I do not know all things. But thanks.

I don't need painful detail. I just need for them to be transparent with their reporting.

They are transparent. It is up to YOU to learn what they are talking about if it causes you concern.

Remember many posts ago when you started peppering me with random esoteric questions about how much pressure on a drill stem or whatever? You weren't being "opaque", you were just relying on the technical details that would be most familiar to YOUR FIELD of petroleum engineering.

Because I don't know anything about how much formation pressure or mud density or gamma signature from the well log for a producing zone, etc. doesn't mean that the information is being hidden from me in some way. It's there and for anyone with sufficient expertise it can be found and is freely available. Literally. You can find the articles for free in libraries or often online.

It's transparent.

 

[ding]

I believe I've established that I do not know all things. But thanks.

I'm not asking for all things. I am asking for one thing. One thing you are passionate about, right?

You are literally proving my point that the IPCC isn't transparent when a person who is as passionate about climate change as you doesn't even know what the numerical difference is between the GHG effect of CO2 and climate sensitivity.

So would it shock you to know the feedback they calculate is 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 itself?

 

[ding]

It's transparent.

And yet, you, a person who cares deeply about this subject doesn't have a clue. So not so transparent.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

I'm not asking for all things. I am asking for one thing. One thing you are passionate about, right?

You are literally proving my point that the IPCC isn't transparent when a person who is as passionate about climate change as you doesn't even know what the numerical difference is between the GHG effect of CO2 and climate sensitivity.

So would it shock you to know the feedback they calculate is 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 itself?

And yet, you, a person who cares deeply about this subject doesn't have a clue. So not so transparent.

I have pointed you to a paper explicitly discussing the absorption coefficient. So presumably you can calculate it for yourself.

Why do you not do so? You seem to care about this topic. If this is a serious bone of contention to you then it is up to you to calculate it.

 

[ding]

I have pointed you to a paper explicitly discussing the absorption coefficient. So presumably you can calculate it for yourself.

Why do you not do so? You seem to care about this topic. If this is a serious bone of contention to you then it is up to you to calculate it.

Would it shock you to know the feedback they calculate is 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 itself?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Would it shock you to know the feedback they calculate is 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 itself?

No.

Have you ever been on a Zoom call where someone has their speaker and mic on at the same time as the room speakers and mics? It can get PAINFULLY loud.

 

[ding]

No.

Have you ever been on a Zoom call where someone has their speaker and mic on at the same time as the room speakers and mics? It can get PAINFULLY loud.

Evaporative cooling, increasing cloud reflection, decreasing water vapor from cloud formation, decreasing water vapor in the upper troposphere, increased heat flow into outer space and increased ocean mixing sequestering extra heat in the deep ocean say it's ridiculous.

How else do you believe the earth cooled for the last 50 million years when CO2 levels were significant;y higher than today?

 

[westwall]

Not even close. The earth will be fine. There's a possibility some ecosystem collapse could result in some animals going extinct. The real danger is how it will decimate our economies and societies.

Collapse your agricultural infrastructure (which is VERY climate dependent) and the wheels fall off pretty fast.

Create a humanitarian crisis due to resource issues and a huge movement of people will strain surrounding economies the breaking point.

What if we slow down or re-arrange the AMOC (the circulation in the Atlantic that is responsible for the Gulf Stream) and you drop the local temperatures in Europe leading to an economic collapse of our main trading partner.

There's a lot of heavy disasters that can happen and the earth will be A-OK in the long run. It's US that are not guaranteed a seat at the table.

And yet, PROVABLY, mankind has made it through "extreme heat" and "extreme cold" in the past 200,000 years without the benefit of technology. Me thinks you have no clue.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

And yet, PROVABLY, mankind has made it through "extreme heat" and "extreme cold" in the past 200,000 years without the benefit of technology. Me thinks you have no clue.

Your hypothesis is incorrect. Humanity has normally fared quite poorly when there is a relatively sudden change in their climate. In fact history is littered with examples of complete collapse of civilizations due to climate change (local obviously). The Mayan Empire suffered through multidecadal droughts in mesoAmerica by effectively disbanding. Their society destroyed.

Sudden climate change can and usually DOES result in extreme stress on the society and the economy of that society.

Humans will probably even survive THIS upcoming climate change. Who knows? One thing we know will LIKELY happen is the decimation of most of our societies. If that isn't significant to you or worthy of concern then I am afraid there is little to discuss.

History is a great teacher.

 

[westwall]

Your hypothesis is incorrect. Humanity has normally fared quite poorly when there is a relatively sudden change in their climate. In fact history is littered with examples of complete collapse of civilizations due to climate change (local obviously). The Mayan Empire suffered through multidecadal droughts in mesoAmerica by effectively disbanding. Their society destroyed.

Sudden climate change can and usually DOES result in extreme stress on the society and the economy of that society.

Humans will probably even survive THIS upcoming climate change. Who knows? One thing we know will LIKELY happen is the decimation of most of our societies. If that isn't significant to you or worthy of concern then I am afraid there is little to discuss.

History is a great teacher.

Indeed. History IS a great teacher. You should read some. Mankind survived the heat spells, and more importantly he has survived an ice age.

You are simply wrong, and too stupid to understand real science.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

Indeed. History IS a great teacher. You should read some. Mankind survived the heat spells, and more importantly he has survived an ice age.

Human society didn't settle into permanent settlements until near the end of the last ice age and even then it was in the middle east.

So, yes, HUMANITY survived coming out of an ice age, but that doesn't mean society looked even remotely like it does today.

That's my point.

You are simply wrong, and too stupid to understand real science.

It sounds like the ONLY thing that would be bad about AGW in your estimation is if it resulted in the deaths of all humans. OK. Fair enough. Personally the collapse of our society sounds pretty bad to me.

Since AGW will likely NOT kill every man woman and child your scenario is clearly fine even if AGW is real. It won't be any skin off your nose if your grandchildren are forced to live under some possibly worse economic conditions than you are. You had a good ride and you didn't see any problems because only the absolute elimination of all human beings would count as a problem by your measuring.

 

[haveatit]

So in other words, you can't name ONE single thing that he said that you disagree with?

You didn't really expect me to read bullshit did you. That scientists are somehow fudging the numbers to make human caused global warming seem to be a reality is an old song paid for by those causing human caused global warming and sung by their paid stooges. Try singing a new one.

 

[haveatit]

Again... they are using models to explain why the thermometer reads one thing instead of another.

What part of this do you not understand?

BS.

 

[haveatit]

Indeed. History IS a great teacher. You should read some. Mankind survived the heat spells, and more importantly he has survived an ice age.

You are simply wrong, and too stupid to understand real science.

History is bullshit.

 

[westwall]

History is bullshit.

Yeah, when it proves you are a liar, or an idiot, or a bigot, and you want to repeat the failures of your past heroes, history can indeed be difficult for you.

Amazingly enough you classify as all three. That's pretty hard, and yet you succeeded.