Riposte to the Darla climate thread

The Dude said:
Dung, what do you drive?
How big is your house?
How many times a year do you fly?
Click to expand...


Is this the game where we pretend that should live the life of Saul of Tarsus in order to support legislative efforts to minimize the environmental harm without being accused of hypocrisy?
 
Dungheap said:
Median is different from "at most." That ain't nitpickery. I mean, to make your statement truthful you have to change it to "However, one recent study showed that the median tempeartue increase resulting from a doubling of CO2 is 1.6C." And that's completely different from "However it has now pretty much been proved that a doubling in CO2 results in a 2 degree C rise at most."

And we're not even beginning to talk about the long tail outside of the 90 and 95 percent confidence intervals, which we really should if we're talking the most severe impact of a doubling in CO2. You know, the "at most" temperature increase.
Click to expand...

Man, you are truly desperate to find some fault, so what will you make with this from NASA? Happy nitpicking!!

The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO[SUB]2[/SUB] levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today's 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64°C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot – thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3°C cooler compared to the present sims.

International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently devoted to keeping global warming limited to 2°C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO[SUB]2[/SUB] to 450 ppm – or less in many analyses – a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2°C.
Click to expand...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Read it yourself you lazy fuck, you've got the link!!
Click to expand...

Actually, I have a link to a piece purporting to characterize the findings of the study, not a link to the study. Is the reported 1.64 an "at most" figure? Was the purpose of the study to assess the effect of a doubling of CO2 or were they studying something else such that the accuracy of he baseline was less than crucial, rather the delta from that baseline was the important measure?

Like I've said previously, your entire a schtick is confirmation bias cranked up to 11. There is no credible basis for the claim that it has pretty much been proven that doubling CO2 will produce "at most" an increase of 2C in global temperatures. None.
 
The Dude said:
...what do you drive?
How big is your house?
How many times a year do you fly?
Click to expand...

  • Daily driver '12 Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland: high grade leather (dead cows) and wood (dead trees) everywhere;
  • Wife's '12 BMW: more dead trees and dead cows.
  • Toy: '64 Thunderbird, custom full grain leather upholstery (at least two dead cows), wood inlays (more dead trees), chrome everywhere (toxins!), 6.4 liter BIG BLOCK V8, oiling modifications, decked, balanced, forged pistons, 9.5 compression ratio, hydraulic roller cam, average 12 mpg on 93 octane.
  • House 1: 4100 square feet, all brick colonial
  • House 2: 2800 square feet vacation home, custom timber framing, commute weekly just to burn gas.
  • Fly at least four times/ year: Europe with the wife, out west to go skiing with the family, a few trips to visit family...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top