Global warming - Page 10

AlpineZone

Page 10 of 22 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 214

Thread: Global warming

  1. #91
    Tuna - I said I'd pm you but never did. Having looked back through the posts, I'll just say "+1" to Rogman's post (+1 more or less...)...


  2. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Los View Post
    Tuna - I said I'd pm you but never did. Having looked back through the posts, I'll just say "+1" to Rogman's post (+1 more or less...)...
    works for me
    2016/2017: * = powder day
    Berkshire East [January 16, February 10]
    Bolton Valley [January 1, February 5*, February 19]
    Burke [December 17*, January 28*]
    Heavenly [March 5*, March 11]
    Jay Peak [January 29*, April 9]
    Jiminy Peak [November 26]
    Killington [December 4, December 10, April 8*, April 15]
    Kirkwood [March 8]
    Mad River Glen [February 25]
    Magic [February 13*]
    Mt Rose [March 7*]
    Mountain Snow [April 3]
    Northstar [March 10]
    Okemo [November 23]
    Pico [January 7*, February 18, March 19]
    Smuggler’s Notch [January 22]
    Stratton [February 4]
    Stowe [January 21]
    Sugarbush [January 2]
    Telluride [March 27, March 28*]
    Whiteface [February 12]

  3. #93
    Tin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    ZooMass Slamherst
    Posts
    2,971
    Funny to see both sides when in reality the best researchers on both sides agree "we really don't know what the hell is going on". How we approach that unknown in either a "safe than sorry" or "continue as planned" method is then turned into "We are all going to die!" or "Hippy Liberals!".

    Being skeptical of science in moderation is key.
    Last edited by Tin; Jan 11, 2017 at 11:26 AM.
    My couch might pull out but I send it.

  4. #94
    When does plain common sense take precedence when details make people bicker? The earth is like a fish bowl. It's finite in size and resources. When the fish reproduce to the point it's clogged with fish - do you think the fish bowl environment is affected? Of course. You need a bigger filter and probably other aquatic fixes I don't know about. So to deny that the human population growth (coupled with the resources that seem to be in greater consumption with modern life) has no affect on the climate is stupid. To what extent? Who knows. We were covered in 2 miles of ice 10000 years ago - the earth swings without us humans messing with it. So what if scientists don't know the whole truth. I'd rather gamble they know stuff I don't and proceed with measures that help the earth. What is the harm? Really... Industries and economics change continually - bummer if someone loses a job over it - but that's life with progress.

  5. #95
    there are some who believe that this is not a gamble......

    The plot below show the results using a "singular spectrum analysis" a fancy term/technique to separate seasonal or cyclic trends from measured data. The CO2 emission growth rate has been flat since the early 2000s. The interesting point is around 2003, China ramp up their economy, so the fossil fuel emission growth rate increased by a factor of two or more. you can see this in right most plot, black dash line. If humans are the cause of the CO2 emission, the data left most plot would not show a flat trend. yet the measured data has been flat from ~ 2000 to present. However there is small residual trace the author calls the "airborne fraction" which is attributed to humans but this quantity has been recently deceasing.

    The main point is the results fails to show fossil fuel emission causing the growth of measured CO2 emissions. And no, this was not funded by Exxon nor Mobil.


    I rather be @ss noodling

  6. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by jack97 View Post
    there are some who believe that this is not a gamble......

    The plot below show the results using a "singular spectrum analysis" a fancy term/technique to separate seasonal or cyclic trends from measured data. The CO2 emission growth rate has been flat since the early 2000s. The interesting point is around 2003, China ramp up their economy, so the fossil fuel emission growth rate increased by a factor of two or more. you can see this in right most plot, black dash line. If humans are the cause of the CO2 emission, the data left most plot would not show a flat trend. yet the measured data has been flat from ~ 2000 to present. However there is small residual trace the author calls the "airborne fraction" which is attributed to humans but this quantity has been recently deceasing.

    The main point is the results fails to show fossil fuel emission causing the growth of measured CO2 emissions. And no, this was not funded by Exxon nor Mobil.


    you should always post source for this data. Just because they will say it is fake or from a funder of dubious motives

    another thing was back in the 70's geologists thought we would run out of oil by now. Just sayin. Science is not always what it seems.
    Live, Ski or Die Trying!!!
    "Life is not measured by the numbers of breaths we take, but by the ski runs that take our breath away."

    SKI THE EAST!!!!!!

  7. #97
    [QUOTE=jack97;966632]there are some who believe that this is not a gamble......

    The plot below show the results using a "singular spectrum analysis" a fancy term/technique to separate seasonal or cyclic trends from measured data. The CO2 emission growth rate has been flat since the early 2000s. The interesting point is around 2003, China ramp up their economy, so the fossil fuel emission growth rate increased by a factor of two or more. you can see this in right most plot, black dash line. If humans are the cause of the CO2 emission, the data left most plot would not show a flat trend. yet the measured data has been flat from ~ 2000 to present. However there is small residual trace the author calls the "airborne fraction" which is attributed to humans but this quantity has been recently deceasing.

    The main point is the results fails to show fossil fuel emission causing the growth of measured CO2 emissions. And no, this was not funded by Exxon nor Mobil.

    NO, your interpretation of the plot and data is wrong.

    Plot 1A does show a flat trend from 2000- ~2014, what that means is that the rate of CO2 growth has been steady at about 2 ppm/yr for that time. the amount of CO2 in the atm is still increasing!

    For 2016 increase is about 3.2 ppm/yr, so growth rate is increasing again.

    Plot 1b shows fossil fuel emission increasing, and the airborne fraction decreasing. The data presented in the article by the authors attribute this to increased rates of terrestrial uptake of CO2 for a variety of reasons.

    The scientific objective of this article was to demonstrate that the ongoing enhancement of CO2 uptake by the terrestrial biosphere is slowing the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.
    which it does.
    Further, enhanced uptake by either terrestrial or oceanic sinks is not likely to continue too much into the future. my opinion.

    literature cited:
    Keenan, T. F. et al. Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake. Nat. Commun. 7, 13428 doi: 10.1038/ncomms13428 (2016)


    Hope this helps

  8. #98
    [QUOTE=LONGBOARDR;966649]
    Quote Originally Posted by jack97 View Post
    there are some who believe that this is not a gamble......

    The plot below show the results using a "singular spectrum analysis" a fancy term/technique to separate seasonal or cyclic trends from measured data. The CO2 emission growth rate has been flat since the early 2000s. The interesting point is around 2003, China ramp up their economy, so the fossil fuel emission growth rate increased by a factor of two or more. you can see this in right most plot, black dash line. If humans are the cause of the CO2 emission, the data left most plot would not show a flat trend. yet the measured data has been flat from ~ 2000 to present. However there is small residual trace the author calls the "airborne fraction" which is attributed to humans but this quantity has been recently deceasing.

    The main point is the results fails to show fossil fuel emission causing the growth of measured CO2 emissions. And no, this was not funded by Exxon nor Mobil.

    NO, your interpretation of the plot and data is wrong.

    Plot 1A does show a flat trend from 2000- ~2014, what that means is that the rate of CO2 growth has been steady at about 2 ppm/yr for that time. the amount of CO2 in the atm is still increasing!

    For 2016 increase is about 3.2 ppm/yr, so growth rate is increasing again.

    Plot 1b shows fossil fuel emission increasing, and the airborne fraction decreasing. The data presented in the article by the authors attribute this to increased rates of terrestrial uptake of CO2 for a variety of reasons.

    The scientific objective of this article was to demonstrate that the ongoing enhancement of CO2 uptake by the terrestrial biosphere is slowing the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.
    which it does.
    Further, enhanced uptake by either terrestrial or oceanic sinks is not likely to continue too much into the future. my opinion.

    literature cited:
    Keenan, T. F. et al. Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake. Nat. Commun. 7, 13428 doi: 10.1038/ncomms13428 (2016)


    Hope this helps
    Plot 1b was taken from an updated data set from the Global Carbon Project, below shows the growth rate. Causality for a physical process applies even when considering a linear operation such as rate of growth. Meaning if humans are causing the CO2 growth, we should have some of the fossil fuel rate of growth in the CO2 emission data set.

    I rather be @ss noodling

  9. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Puck it View Post
    you should always post source for this data. Just because they will say it is fake or from a funder of dubious motives

    another thing was back in the 70's geologists thought we would run out of oil by now. Just sayin. Science is not always what it seems.
    They also thought that we would way warmer too.

    Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app
    2012-2013 (39)
    2013-2014 (36)
    2014-2015 (51)
    2015-2016 (47)

    2016-2017 target - 50

    If you take what the mountain gives you, you will always have fun!

  10. #100
    Edd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newmarket, NH
    Posts
    4,252
    SkiFanE's fishbowl comparison seems apt. Seems a bit self destructive to decide to take zero precautions when we have indicators that something is wrong.

    My personal opinion, nothing of substance will be done until a massive catastrophe occurs. Humans are lazy; they must be smacked in the face so that they pay attention.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:48 AM.