Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

[flack]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Nope. Have you heard of man-made space debris?
There's no place like home, the Earth that you could physically go to.
Get real.

Yet!

[SpaceBlues]

flack wrote:

<quoted text> Yep and they track every bit of it. There is a company, I forget from where, that is about to launch a few debris cleaning satellites. They will orbit the earth be maneuvered to catch space debris. Once they catch as much as they can they be sent back into the atmosphere to burn up on re-entry.

LOL.

Have you heard of pollution?

Combustion with oxygen?

Burn baby, burn.

;-(

[SpaceBlues]

flack wrote:

<quoted text> Yet!

Never!

True.

[Teddy R]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
It's all based on the science, which you don't have a clue about, so anything else you have to say is worthless.
You've simply decided that reality is bound to conform to your lifelong ideology, which of course is arrogant and stupid.
There really is no fool like an old fool.

Sure, the natural and annthropogenic forcings and the global climate response is "all based on the science" (of which I in fact have a fairly comprehensive understanding, thanks very much). You and I have no disagreement whatsoever on this front, as much as that seems to shock and disappoint you.

But when it comes to actually effecting real and significant CHANGES to the anthropomorphic forcings on a global scale - no, it's not "all based on the science." That is your delusion. Making such changes a reality is not even a little "based on the science." Such changes will come about because of public and private finance, engineering, economics, technology, management, and politics - or not at all. And speaking as someone who has spent a few decades engineering, managing, and organizing finance and public/political support for some of the most massive human changes to the planet to date, it pains me to have to tell you that in this arena - you have no clue, and your sanctimonious "science lessons" and baying for vague "action now!" are worthless.

Your role, as a scientist, in actually effecting real and significant CHANGES to the anthropomorphic forcings on a global scale, is to present the convincing scientific evidence on what the priority targets are - and then shut up and try to stay out of the way of those who actually know how to get it done. Analyze the measured effects of changes as they are implemented and give us progress reports, and advice on desirable course corrections we should consider. Make yourself useful.

Oh - and drop the ridiculous charade that your scientific knowledge and predictive power of this highly complex system is flawless, and incapable of error. It just makes you sound silly. Have the honesty to fess up as you revise and improve your analyses and tweak your models based on improved scientific understanding. We'll understand - it's your insistence on defending your "science" as unassailable dogma and your climatic models as perfect that's not understandable.

Buck up, son - as I think I've reassured you before - your youthful hubris and self-assurance is only a temporary condition - you'll grow out if it.

Selah.

[Largelanguage]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>It's not always about you.

What?!? I don't need your advise ok.

[SpaceBlues]

You're a bitter man, Teddy.

[Largelanguage]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure, the natural and annthropogenic forcings and the global climate response is "all based on the science" (of which I in fact have a fairly comprehensive understanding, thanks very much). You and I have no disagreement whatsoever on this front, as much as that seems to shock and disappoint you.
But when it comes to actually effecting real and significant CHANGES to the anthropomorphic forcings on a global scale - no, it's not "all based on the science." That is your delusion. Making such changes a reality is not even a little "based on the science." Such changes will come about because of public and private finance, engineering, economics, technology, management, and politics - or not at all. And speaking as someone who has spent a few decades engineering, managing, and organizing finance and public/political support for some of the most massive human changes to the planet to date, it pains me to have to tell you that in this arena - you have no clue, and your sanctimonious "science lessons" and baying for vague "action now!" are worthless.
Your role, as a scientist, in actually effecting real and significant CHANGES to the anthropomorphic forcings on a global scale, is to present the convincing scientific evidence on what the priority targets are - and then shut up and try to stay out of the way of those who actually know how to get it done. Analyze the measured effects of changes as they are implemented and give us progress reports, and advice on desirable course corrections we should consider. Make yourself useful.
Oh - and drop the ridiculous charade that your scientific knowledge and predictive power of this highly complex system is flawless, and incapable of error. It just makes you sound silly. Have the honesty to fess up as you revise and improve your analyses and tweak your models based on improved scientific understanding. We'll understand - it's your insistence on defending your "science" as unassailable dogma and your climatic models as perfect that's not understandable.
Buck up, son - as I think I've reassured you before - your youthful hubris and self-assurance is only a temporary condition - you'll grow out if it.
Selah.

Your last statement was correct, but uncalled for. Buck up yourself.

[Fair Game]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure, the natural and annthropogenic forcings and the global climate response is "all based on the science" (of which I in fact have a fairly comprehensive understanding, thanks very much).

LOL.

I stopped reading there.

Hadaway and shite.

[SpaceBlues]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL.
I stopped reading there.
Hadaway and shite.

You read him very well at first blush when he appeared all of a sudden in the forum.

There are many guys like him. They misunderstand how well-trained scientists are today. They should remember how easy it was to land great jobs at their time due to racism.

[Teddy R]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text> Let's break it apart in my way.
[1] Ignorance is not bliss. Name calling aside.

Show me or point me to the fully realistic, affordable, politically feasible global plan of action and realistic calculations of the costs and projected results in terms of change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I can be convinced.

All we've seen so far are calls for vaguely defined action with no specific implementation planning, useless jibber jabber at UN forums, and spurious cost-benefit calculations that completely ignore opportunity costs. That, and projections showing essentially nil reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentrations even in the most optimistic cases because of the extremely long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text> [2] There's no hurry in your venture into the cold. There are already flood maps out there you could use.
Seriously, let's get back to your
"a set of practical, affordable, politically feasible "actions" that can be taken in a meaningful timeframe and that will actually make any real difference in the future global average temperature trajectory."
What would be palatable as in % of GNP?

Too simplistic, as certain interventions have differing effects on future GDP growth. Also, opportunity costs of forced uneconomic allocations of GDP must be fully considered - 1% of GDP diverted into AGW mitigation initiatives means 1% of GDP that is consequently not spent on other things that improve the human condition, wealth, health, lifespan, etc.

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>I could start the list:
1. Prefer peace over warring. This plan would save $ trillions globally even in 20 years. Plus it reduces fossil-fuel usage and its harms.
And you?

Wonderful. Beautiful dream. I'm with you, bro - all the way.

I just have one small question - what's the specific concrete action plan you have in mind that will change hundreds of thousands of years of genetically-programmed human behaviors in 6 billion people - tribes and nations making war on each other for women, water, wealth, slaves, prestige, whatever?

[Teddy R]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL.
I stopped reading there.
Hadaway and shite.

Yes. Of course you did.

[Northie]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Show me or point me to the fully realistic, affordable, politically feasible global plan of action and realistic calculations of the costs and projected results in terms of change in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I can be convinced.
All we've seen so far are calls for vaguely defined action with no specific implementation planning, useless jibber jabber at UN forums, and spurious cost-benefit calculations that completely ignore opportunity costs. That, and projections showing essentially nil reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentrations even in the most optimistic cases because of the extremely long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere.
<quoted text>
Too simplistic, as certain interventions have differing effects on future GDP growth. Also, opportunity costs of forced uneconomic allocations of GDP must be fully considered - 1% of GDP diverted into AGW mitigation initiatives means 1% of GDP that is consequently not spent on other things that improve the human condition, wealth, health, lifespan, etc.
<quoted text>
Wonderful. Beautiful dream. I'm with you, bro - all the way.
I just have one small question - what's the specific concrete action plan you have in mind that will change hundreds of thousands of years of genetically-programmed human behaviors in 6 billion people - tribes and nations making war on each other for women, water, wealth, slaves, prestige, whatever?

You know what research is, so do some. Rather than simply whine about the lack of proposed solutions to greenhouse warming of the earth, why not look them up?

McKinsey is one of several organizations doing extensive work on this, including country-by-country cost/benefit analyses for numerous solutions: http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/sustai...

You might look up Nicholas Stern, Martin Weitzman or any number of other economists who have calculated efficient courses of action.

But first you'll have to climb out of that box in which your career so comfortably nestled you.

[Teddy R]

Northie wrote:

<quoted text>
You know what research is, so do some. Rather than simply whine about the lack of proposed solutions to greenhouse warming of the earth, why not look them up?
McKinsey is one of several organizations doing extensive work on this, including country-by-country cost/benefit analyses for numerous solutions: http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/sustai...
You might look up Nicholas Stern, Martin Weitzman or any number of other economists who have calculated efficient courses of action.
But first you'll have to climb out of that box in which your career so comfortably nestled you.

You've previously linked the McKinsey study last year, we've already discussed it before and its flawed methodology - lack of full opportunity cost analysis, and the authors' own admission of using incestuous data from a narrow circle of researchers all recycling the same single source data among themselves. Not a robust study.

Remember?

These are economists' theoretical studies of magically wished-into-place "solutions" without any treatment of the very large political and practical barriers to actually implementing them.

Academic. Not a practical or implementable action plan for which political or financial backing could be mobilized.

[Wallop10]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Not a practical or implementable action plan for which political or financial backing could be mobilized.

You appear to place no $$ value on having a livable, healthy planet.

Like the fable's miser who killed the goose who laid the golden eggs -- in order to get all those golden eggs out now for himself.

[PHD]

Wallop10 wrote:

<quoted text>
You appear to place no $$ value on having a livable, healthy planet.
Like the fable's miser who killed the goose who laid the golden eggs -- in order to get all those golden eggs out now for himself.

More useless scientific science fiction useless babble cut and paste BS. Will it ever end?

[PHD]

It will not work walloped10 we know its you with more scientific science fiction useless cut and paste BS. Will it ever end?

[Teddy R]

SpaceBlues wrote:

You're a bitter man, Teddy.

Yes. I am. You noticed ...

[Teddy R]

Largelanguage wrote:

<quoted text>
Your last statement was correct, but uncalled for. Buck up yourself.

Well - let's review the post I was responding to:

"... science, which you don't have a clue about ... anything else you have to say is worthless ... arrogant and stupid ... There really is no fool like an old fool."

Hmmm. No - I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there, Large - may I call you Large?

The last statement in my post that you found "uncalled for" was quite reserved in comparison.

FG may be a punk, but she's a very smart one - and clearly anyone who can dish it out like he does routinely can certainly take it. I doubt she's weeping her eyes out in hurt over anything I've posted to him.

But thanks for your concern. Always good to check oneself from time to time.

[Teddy R]

Wallop10 wrote:

<quoted text>
You appear to place no $$ value on having a livable, healthy planet.
Like the fable's miser who killed the goose who laid the golden eggs -- in order to get all those golden eggs out now for himself.

You seem to place no reputational value on refraining from posting bullsh!t strawmen.

Homo sapiens has been exploiting resources for essentially short-term gain over long-run consequences for millenia, and will continue to do so indefinitely. It's what the species does, and why it has been so fabulously successful as a species. I do not judge - I merely observe.

So you're attacking my character and blaming me personally for the behavior of an entire species, merely because I make this simple observation?

Not guilty, your Honor.

[Fair Game]

Teddy R wrote:

Homo sapiens has been exploiting resources for essentially short-term gain over long-run consequences for millenia, and will continue to do so indefinitely.

Sometimes human beings pull up an put the long term consequences over short term gains.

The latest example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

Before that, acid rain and CFCs.

Will human beings take the short term gains and screw up the environment for their grandchildren?

Well, there are plenty of greedy lying bastards who'd like to do so.