aonsquared

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    166

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Posts posted by aonsquared

  3. Just now, brenthutch said:

    AKA "I can't back my claims up, so I will run away"

    I will give you one more chance.

    You claimed "the safest strategy is to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to provide civilization with a stable climate"  and "predictability is good for us"   Please let me know what level of CO2 would produce a stable and predictable climate and give examples of that stability and predictability at that level of CO2 in the past. 

    (the best thing for you to do now is to admit you were wrong and just move on)

     

    Oh, I would LOVE to be wrong. Really, seriously I wish I was wrong.

    But you don't even know what "stability" means. You don't know statistics, probability, or logic. I've proven your points contradictory and hypocritical again and again. So far you've admitted only the most glaring one when you had no other escape.

    Go and respond to DJL, because you're wrong there as well.

  4. Just now, DJL said:

    Yet the proof you provided for why there are fewer wildfires doesn't support that and says it's because we're farming more land.  Also, while plants may swell with water when there's rain, that doesn't mean it's so much that they hold onto it through the high temp summer months during which these fires are happening.

    He misunderstood every single one of his links, and they're just abstracts.

  5. 11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

    A better question is "what IS  going wrong" 

    Fewer climate related deaths?  More global food production?  Fewer global wildfires?  On and on...……….

    If things are getting better at a 20x climate change, why wouldn't a sane person want a 40x climate change?

    I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how the Little Ice Age (at 280ppm CO2) was a better climate than the balmy conditions we now have.

    BTW, still waiting for Aonnoying (sp?) to respond

    Not going to waste my time. Since you don't even understand the TITLES of papers you reference to, have extremely sloppy and contradictory arguments, exhibit no understanding of statistics, mathematics, or basic science, why should I do your work for you? Even if I did provide an example, you wouldn't understand its implications.

    Stop your lazy googling and go back to school.

  6. 11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

    Yep I'm guilty of not reading the entire paper, did a quick lazy google search and found a couple of links.  When I made the comment about observation vs modeling I wasn't referring to that particular paper, I was referring to the observation that the number of fires and the area burned have declined during this century.  Let me say that again, the number of fires and the area burned have declined NOT increased as predicted by AGW theory.  Prediction does not agree with observation? Theory busted.

    :rofl: you are the last person who can disprove a theory you don't understand :rofl:

    You did a quick lazy google search is exactly that - lazy. You're not interested in the truth, you only want snippets that agree with your pre-formed views.

    Unless you work MUCH harder, it will remain easy for me to pick your arguments apart. "Lazy google search" is a lame excuse for being wildly wrong.

  8. 2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

    Yep I'm guilty of not reading the entire paper, did a quick lazy google search and found a couple of links.  When I made the comment about observation vs modeling I wasn't referring to that particular paper, I was referring to the observation that the number of fires and the area burned have declined during this century.  

    It wasn't even an entire paper, it was an abstract. And the word "Model" was in the title.

    Try harder.

  10. · Edited by aonsquared

    9 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

    Can you send me some proper, peer reviewed and published scientific papers on how increased atmospheric CO2 has lead to MORE wildfires MORE hurricanes, MORE drought and MORE floods?  Not predictions, not models, actual observation of phenomenon outside the range of natural variability and ruling out any other driver other than CO2.

    First: why are you putting claims in my mouth then demanding proof of it?

    Second: I want to explain how you misunderstood your own references. In your first link you said:

    34 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

    Read the link above, it is an OBSERVATION, not a SIMULATION.  Do you realize there is a difference?

    Let's start with the TITLE of the paper:

    "Response of vegetation cover to CO2 and climate changes between Last Glacial Maximum and pre-industrial period in a dynamic global vegetation model"

    This model is one of the many computer models that you are so critical of, why use one now?

  11. 2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

     

    I have a high school diploma and took a science class in tenth grade.

    I really appreciate you trying to read proper scientific papers. Really, I do. We need more people doing that.

    But you misunderstood them badly, and this is because you need a more solid foundation in analysing these papers and methods. It will take a lot more hard work and years of study - not just an afternoon googling. Hopefully if you do this you'll appreciate more the hard work people put into these studies.

  12. 2 minutes ago, DJL said:

    And the article you linked said it's because of an increase in land used for agriculture not because of any of the reasons you've provided.

    Exactly. He's posting links to articles that contain none of his points...completely misunderstanding the abstracts.

    It's sad to watch his brain try to over-exert itself trying to do "research" when he's so condescending towards actual scientists.

  13. · Edited by aonsquared

    2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

    Read the link above, it is an OBSERVATION, not a SIMULATION.  Do you realize there is a difference?  AGW theory predicted MORE wildfires, we got less.  As Richard Feynman said "If it disagrees with experiment (or observation), it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science"

    Nope, from your link:

    Quote

    In this study, we simulate the distribution of vegetation under three CO2 levels for two climate states, the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and Pre-industrial (PI) climate with fire activated or deactivated using the ORCHIDEE-MICT DGVM.

    It seems YOU don't know the difference between observation and simulation.

    You haven't answered my question, what is your scientific and educational background?

  15. 6 hours ago, brenthutch said:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379119301945

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JD027749

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379110003768

    So it is just a case of weather + arson = wildfires

    The fertilization effect of CO2 actually REDUCES the threat of wildfires

     

    You pretend to understand scientific writing, but you don't.

    1. You trust models now? This paper is about a SIMULATION. But then inconsistency is your thing.
    2. You didn't understand the abstract. Read it again.
    3. You also didn't understand this abstract. Read it again, ESPECIALLY the last sentence.

    Do you even have any scientific training or background? Or is it all just Fox news?

  16. 9 hours ago, BIGUN said:

    That is exciting. And, I think anyone who doesn't start investing in EV now is going to miss out on a very lucrative portfolio. I am in the process of building out an electric golf cart for use in my area. We can use them here on roads that are 35 MPH or less. One thing I struggle with and maybe you can enlighten me (I am not an engineer type, but have been interested in this since 2008). I simply do not understand how EV can have moving parts, but it isn't possible to have some kind of "generator" on it to re-charge it for virtually unlimited time & mileage in a single trip. BillV tried to explain this to me one time - but, I'm still not tracking. 

    Personally, I think once they were self-charging - the EV world would increase exponentially.   

    The "generator" is actually used now for regenerative braking in electric cars. (disc brakes are now just a backup on electrics, so instead of having to change pads every 10-20,000 miles they last 100,000 or more, and there is much less brake dust in the air)

    IF things were 100% efficient, yes you would never have to recharge an electric car. But you have friction losses, air resistance and efficiency losses. But tech is getting better quickly - Tesla is actually buying the entire world's supply of SiC mosfets, a new type of transistor that's a lot more efficient than plain silicon.

    There's an electric aircraft thread in General Skydiving Discussions which is probably better for this topic :)

    • Like 1

  17. 2 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

    So,  I see you've been dragged down to a circular argument for the past couple of pages. Can I encourage you to take a more linear approach to the issue and continue educating those of us interested in learning more. On a similar note; I read this and thought you might find it interesting. 

    https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/796252481/worlds-largest-asset-manager-puts-climate-at-the-center-of-its-investment-strate

    . 

    :`D

    That actually just popped into my news feed - it's a good start! Renewables actually make better financial sense now.

    Like how various revolutions have been won without a proper military, the flexible free market approach may eventually overcome the lack of government support on this issue.

    For example, electric cars actually have a lot of other benefits over traditional ones - less brake wear, MUCH higher reliability, lower fuel cost. As an aerospace engineer, I was sceptical at first about electric aircraft - but now I'm quite excited by the cost savings that could be achievable (see the NASA X-57 Maxwell:https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-109.html)

    BUT...really, governments should still chip in more. Or, at the very least, help remove legal obstacles and enable a level playing field (meaning no fossil fuel subsidies).

    In any case, I had to speak up as the inconsistencies in the anti-AGW propaganda were just too glaring to ignore. Hopefully now it's back to work in helping get better technology out.

  20. Just now, brenthutch said:

    Why don't you restate your argument (this is the second time I have asked).  

    1. CO2 emissions from human activity are causing the climate to change due to increased absorption of solar energy.
      1. now while the exact effect is difficult to predict, this will make more energy available to drive weather systems such as hurricanes.
      2. following the laws of thermodynamics the long term effect will be higher average temperatures.
      3. there may also be feedback mechanisms that may either dampen this large input of extra energy, or feedback mechanisms that could amplify this input.
      4. The fluid dynamics of the earth's oceans and atmosphere appears to be an unstable system. This can be reasonably deduced from the Navier-Stokes equations.
      5. kicking a large unstable system with a large extra amount of energy (from CO2) has the potential to put the earth into extremes of hot OR cold as seen in the past fossil record.
    2. Following from 1.5, due to the large uncertainties and large changes that could result from this CO2 forcing, the safest strategy is to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to provide civilisation with a stable climate.
      1. If we don't, it means that changes to precipitation, weather systems and temperatures will be hard to predict and might not follow past cycles.
      2. Predictability is good for us. Farmers like it so they can create farms where it won't suddenly stop raining, etc.
      3. Predictability is good for business. For example, skiing businesses sometimes have no snow one winter, then too much snow the next. In both cases, they can't earn money. Much better to have a constant predictable snowfall.
      4. Stability is good for saving money. If sea levels rose for whatever reason, cities like New York, London will suddenly have to move, and it will be very expensive. Not to mention how hissy people get with mass immigration.

    Got it?

     

  21. 36 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

    No it’s bit more nuanced than that.  I will break it down for you.

    1. No evidence of: more floods, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes,(AKA the Four Horsemen of the climate apocalypse) tornadoes, desertification, a Midwest dust bowl, mass population evacuations, polar bear extinction, or an ice free Arctic by 2013.

    2. The increase in CO2 and tiny bit of warming that we have had, is not an existential threat and has thus far been been beneficial. (Less deserts, more food, (exactly the opposite of what was predicted))

    3. CO2 mitigation efforts are nothing more than futile gestures that hamstring economic development and reduce our ability to deal with disasters when they do occur.  (Carbon footprint and deaths from natural disasters have an inverse relationship)

    Basically, it should be:

    1) You see no evidence of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). (You only mention the Four Horsemen/apocalypse to bait people)

    2) The increase of CO2 and WARMING we had is....blah blah blah (now see how it's incompatible with 1?)

    Have fun!

  22. 15 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

    No it’s bit more nuanced than that.  I will break it down for you.

    1. No evidence of: more floods, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes,(AKA the Four Horsemen of the climate apocalypse) tornadoes, desertification, a Midwest dust bowl, mass population evacuations, polar bear extinction, or an ice free Arctic by 2013.

    2. The increase in CO2 and tiny bit of warming that we have had, is not an existential threat and has thus far been been beneficial. (Less deserts, more food, (exactly the opposite of what was predicted))

    3. CO2 mitigation efforts are nothing more than futile gestures that hamstring economic development and reduce our ability to deal with disasters when they do occur.  (Carbon footprint and deaths from natural disasters have an inverse relationship)

    1) Is again a strawman argument - again, quote me directly and address my arguments directly. If these are hallucinations, I would highly recommend seeing a neurologist.

    2) Again, this is not consistent with your position in 1).

    3) This is a fallacy called ad hoc, ergo prompter hoc.

    You also seem to like declaring yourself the winner, and declaring that you're right. You seem very insecure...