livendive

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    15,576

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by livendive

  1. rushmc

    *********>What IS to blame . . . .as I asked, who

    Wait a minute. Did you switch from Type I denier to Type II again?




    I am just asking if you blame man for the change as you described or
    as I believe
    is it natural change?

    Is the CO2 level passing 400ppm a natural change too?

    It is reported that it has been higher

    So, your point?

    Reported by whom, and how long ago?

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  2. You don't seem to understand that there's a difference between a belief supported by observation and science and one that's just a "gut instinct". While you may believe that this is nothing out of the ordinary, you can't point to the historical record for a bunch of similar instances that corroborate your perception of "ordinary."

    Public policy should be predicated on observable reality, not gut instincts or faith. I'm similarly opposed to using religion as a basis for government, because while any particular set of beliefs may, in fact, be correct, the lack of confirmation by observation and science renders all of them equally inferior to that which can be shown logically.

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  3. rushmc



    I am just asking if you blame man for the change as you described or
    as I believe
    is it natural change?



    You are entitled to that belief, however it seems fine on gut instinct rather than any data in the historical record or scientifically credible theory. Thus, making decisions on the basis of such a belief is akin to making medical decisions on the presumption of an afterlife... Okay for you individually, but unreasonable for the larger population.

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  4. I'm with lawrocket on this one. You can't blame global warming for a solitary weather event or for short interval weather patterns. The have always been storms, warmer years, and cooler years, and none of them are individually indicative of a trend. Collectively, sure. A pattern of storms more frequent or more severe than the historical record indicates something going on, as does a substantial collection of years warmer or cooler than normal, but alone they don't mean anything other than it was windy, warm, or cold.

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  5. lawrocket

    [Reply]Because it seems pretty clear to me that in an era of unprecedented carbon concentrations, we also have unprecedented warmth across the globe, as would be expected by if AGW is occurring.



    The problem is that there are too many exceptions. As kelpdiver said previosuly, there have been too many predictions over the last 25 years that have not been borne out. The current trend falls BELOW the zeroi-emissions scenarios that have been presented. That's a problem.

    A few years ago a climate scientist stated that the Arctic would be ice free by the end of summer, 2013. He said that may even be "consercative.". Right now the ice extent is normal or slightly above. No telling where it will end up, but "ice free" seems really unlikely. How many times have we hit a "tipping point" onlyto hear a few months later that we are nearing a tipping point?

    Dave - you've been really reasonable and I appreciate all you add to this.



    NASA said in 2008 that the arctic could be mostly ice-free by 2013. They said earlier this month that it could be ice free by 2015. Does a difference of 2 years, or even 10 or 15 years affect the underlying premise that a warming planet is melting arctic sea ice faster than models predicted? Pinning a particular year, or even 5 year span to an occurrence is just opening yourself up to criticism if weather makes it not happen. Hedging with "may" or "might" gets a different flavor of criticism. Personally, I look at the underlying premise and care a bit less about the details, but I'm not committed to finding any flaw I can point a finger at as evidence that "the scientists are WRONG". I'll read analyses, look at data, and see if it passes a red-face test.

    I mentioned some of kelpdiver's predictions earlier...what one guy, or a group of quacks puts out can generally be taken with a grain of salt. Peer reviewed analyses that self-identify the uncertainty they contain and any identified gaps are much more reliable. Still, let's assume for a second that you're correct, and every commonly touted model is so wrong as to be ignored. Would that change the underlying premise that with increasing CO2 comes increasing temperature? Because I'm pretty sure the data indicate such a correlation and I'm aware of no reputable alternate theory to AGW that suggests this will not occur. Whether the climate warms by 0.5C or 5.0C by 2050 doesn't change the fact that, in addition to burning through finite resources and contributing to air pollution, human activities are having an effect that could spiral outside of our control due to natural positive feedbacks that we don't completely understand.

    So, I'll ask again, what is the downside to building smarter, more resilient communities, decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels through conservation and adding renewable energy capacity, and trying to ensure developing countries have a feasible path that skips the whole "burn a ton of coal" phase? What are the risks associated with such an approach that are greater than the ones we currently face? There are knowns and unknowns on both sides, but the unknowns on the side of pursuing a synergistic relationship with our planet seem dramatically less threatening than the unknowns on the side of continuing business as usual and hoping for the best despite substantial evidence to the contrary.

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • The doomsday scenario you're referring to is a life without power period, without regard to source. And nobody (reasonable) is proposing that we simply close the valves. A future energy portfolio with better representation from the renewable sector will not magically materialize, it will be built up over time. I'm advocating that we continue current efforts in that regard and accelerate them where feasible, that's all. It's not a lack of energy, it's just a migration from very carbon-intensive to less carbon-intensive.

    As for snowpack, in the Sierra Nevadas it's decreased by about 10% over the last century (source). In the Cascades, if we remove the variability associated with annual-interdecadal weather patterns, the loss between 1930 and 2007 averaged 2% per decade, or 16% overall (it's much higher if we included the weather stuff...48% between 1950 and 1997). Note it is this snowpack that feeds the largest single power plant in the country (Grand Coulee dam) and that allows Washington to get 70+ percent of its electricity from water (and sell excess energy to California for much of the summer).

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • rushmc

    ***Are you saying that you do not believe CO2 emissions have any effect on global temperature? On what sound theory do you base this opinion?

    Blues,
    Dave



    Based on the last 10 years of data, I think the effect is minimal if not less


    The last 10 years, ranked according to their warmth relative to all years in the meteorological record (circa 1895) by NOAA and NASA:

    2003: NOAA 4, NASA 4
    2004: NOAA 9, NASA 9
    2005: NOAA 2, NASA 2
    2006: NOAA 6, NASA 6(T)
    2007: NOAA 8, NASA 6(T)
    2008: NOAA 14, NASA 8
    2009: NOAA 7, NASA 6(T)
    2010: NOAA 1, NASA 1
    2011: NOAA 11, NASA 11
    2012: NOAA 10, NASA 10

    What about those rankings suggests to you that the globe is cooling? Or that CO2 concentrations and global climate are minimally correlated if at all? Because it seems pretty clear to me that in an era of unprecedented carbon concentrations, we also have unprecedented warmth across the globe, as would be expected by if AGW is occurring.

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • My argument (I can't speak for others) has not been of the "Oh my god we're doomed" variety, and I don't know of anyone who's made tenable arguments including 50' sea rise, endless hurricanes, or the disappearance of snow. I believe in adaptation first, that is, building smarter and implementing policies that will likely be resilient against the most plausible predictions of climate change. Further, a gradual weening off carbon emissions, i.e. slowing our roll, will make for less air pollution, potentially contribute less to climate change, and make finite resources last longer. What is the downside here?

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • rushmc


    Sorry
    I know I should leave your religion alone[:/][:/]



    You seem to have a poor definition of "religion". FYI - It's generally considered to be "belief that is predicated on faith alone, rather than observation." You know, kinda like when you "Me too" to any post aggreeing with your opiniong and "Nuh uh" to any post disagreeing, regardless of the merits or flaws in the information included in those posts?

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • As I have said all along, adapting to the inevitable is the first course off action. Mitigating our contribution (i.e. not making the problem worse) comes second. Nobody yet to argue reasonably "but what about all the good that comes from maximizing our CO2 emissions and burning through our fossil fuels as quickly as we can?"

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • You wouldn't know data if it was wearing a name tag identifying it as an android lieutenant commander assigned to the USS Enterprise, and your attempts to snipe are so poorly written that all we can do is shake our heads and guess at what you were probably trying to say. Do you even know the difference between mitigation and adaptation? And do you believe both are impossible?

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • rushmc

    ***What are the huge cross-cutting impacts of this? Will it significantly affect weather? Agriculture? Energy supply & demand? Public health?

    What could we do to mitigate this? Oh yeah, absolutely nothing.

    What adaptations might be suggested (besides "don't put roads at <10' msl, or do ensure they're designed to withstand occasional flooding")

    Red herring.

    Blues,
    Dave



    Same answer for cutting carbon

    I'm sure you've been more wrong in the past, but I don't remember it.

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • You realize the effects are additive, right? If the seas are "rising" relative to the US as a result of plate tectonics, AND they're getting more water as a result of melting ice sheets, what possible argument could there be against smarter and more resilient development of coastal areas?

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • What are the huge cross-cutting impacts of this? Will it significantly affect weather? Agriculture? Energy supply & demand? Public health?

    What could we do to mitigate this? Oh yeah, absolutely nothing.

    What adaptations might be suggested (besides "don't put roads at <10' msl, or do ensure they're designed to withstand occasional flooding")

    Red herring.

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • StreetScooby

    An even smaller subset(?) will agree that having government policies based upon said "models", especially considering those policies will do nothing towards solving the problem and give the government more power over our lives, cannot be justified.



    Part of a government's role is to plan for an unknown future. I know of no reasonable adults who would agree that throwing darts to guess at that future is a wiser course of action than using the best models available.

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • AdD

    I'm going to chime in here too, I have 7 reserve rides in 3500 jumps, I will fight to the hard deck, not for financial consideration but because the reserve is a last line of defense, I have resolved a number of mals without cutting away. Do I trust the reserve, yes, but I would rather keep its use to a minimum.



    Just to state what I'm sure you already know, but every hundred feet you spending fighting a problem on your main main is a hundred feet you won't have to deal with any problems on your reserve.

    I've chopped a spinner at 10k, knowing I had zero chance of recovering it and some chance of reducing my capacity to respond later due to diminished faculties. When you know, you know.

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • Which credible theory accepted by the scientific community suggests that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations will result in lower global temperatures?

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • The IRS, because it's the only one that involved intentional wrong-doing, even if the effects are being ridiculously overstated. The ends don't justify the means, but I think the easy solution is to do away with tax-exempt status for all such organizatins, regardless of their political perspective.

    I'm fine with using surveillance to find who in the government is releasing classified information to reporters.

    Bengazi was unfortunate, but far worse happens in the US every single day. It's just a bunch of people trying to use 4 deaths to make a political point (the same people who criticized Cindy Sheehan for doing the same).

    I don't know enough about "Fast and Furious" to have an opinion.

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)

  • How were they "closed down"? As far as I know, they were perfectly capable of getting their messages out, but with some uncertainty as to the tax status of their "profits".

    Speaking of which, why do organizations on either side even care about taxable status? Even if they were not granted tax exempt status, shouldn't all of their receipts go toward their expenses, thereby negating any signifant taxable "profit"? I can understand that they might raise more money one year with the intention of spending it the following year, but I suspect there's an accounting tool that could handle that (off-setting previous year gains with subsequent year losses). I don't know, whether you're for or against a woman's right to abortion (e.g.), any donations made to you in support of that position should be spent getting that message out, thus no taxable proceeds should remain.

    Blues,
    Dave
    "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
    (drink Mountain Dew)