Reputation

[DUST2DEATH]

Yes, Oil companies reputations and climate change

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tillerson-climatechange-idUSKBN16L06J?il=0

[Fox]

I agree with Gipothegip, and I don't think it's just nature or humans causing it... I think it's both. Though I do think humans are more the cause, like 60 - 40 ratio.

 

And I will risk my reputation on that statement.

[nitnoid]

The Earth is a greater force than man. It will correct itself in the way it sees fit, much to man's chagrin.

[Aurelius]

1. I call into question the extrapolation models used to show how much of an increase we've had since 1750. The best data is clearly that which has been accurately measured and recorded. (ie that over the last ~50 years?)

 

2. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

3. It's observable that there is a problem with the acidification of the oceans. Perhaps a greater focus on cleaning up the problem now should be made, rather than determining what the cause is. Priority one - fix it. Priority two - determine source of problem and reduce/eliminate it if possible.

 

Temperature changes affect gas solubility and pH levels (generally speaking, as temps increase, solubility goes down and pH goes up.) What if the sun has entered a high output cycle? I think we would see, as a result, many of the symptoms we have today.

 

With all that said, let me be entirely clear - most people, countries, and corporations are crap caretakers of our planet. So while I'm not convinced that humans are the cause of our environmental problems, I am convinced that we need to do a better job of cleaning up our messes. We should have a net neutral footprint, but... "the love of money is the root of all evil."

 

-A

[DUST2DEATH]

1. I call into question the extrapolation models used to show how much of an increase we've had since 1750. The best data is clearly that which has been accurately measured and recorded. (ie that over the last ~50 years?)

 

 

hourly co2 readings since 1970's isnt extrapolation.

 

"Background hourly clean-air CO2 as measured at Cape Grim. The blue hourly data

represent thousands of individual measurements. To obtain clean air measurements, the

data are filtered for only times when weather systems have come across the Southern

Ocean, and thus the air is not influenced by local sources of♥pollution"

[Aurelius]

hourly co2 readings since 1970's isnt extrapolation.

 

"Background hourly clean-air CO2 as measured at Cape Grim. The blue hourly data

represent thousands of individual measurements. To obtain clean air measurements, the

data are filtered for only times when weather systems have come across the Southern

Ocean, and thus the air is not influenced by local sources of♥pollution"

 

I never said it was.

 

I'm referring to your cited source 3rd page, 3rd pp, 4th page 1st pp.

 

-A

[Roland]

The Earth is a greater force than man. It will correct itself in the way it sees fit, much to man's chagrin.

 

Statements like that result in M Night Shyamalan movies. Please stop now....

[DUST2DEATH]

I never said it was.

 

I'm referring to your cited source 3rd page, 3rd pp, 4th page 1st pp.

 

-A

 

Im looking, but Im not sure which you are referring to of the statements made so, these ones?? (highlighted)

[DUST2DEATH]

Have you guys met SAM?

 

https://www.facebook.com/techinsider/videos/709609839237375/

 

facebook vid, dont need an account if you dont have one to view.

[Aurelius]

No - sorry - just what you posted previously, not the whole report. It's hard to tell with this - but the lines I'm referring to are:

 

"The global mean C)2 level in 2015 was 399 ppm - a 44 per cent increase from the concentration of 278 ppm around the year 1750, and likely the highest level in at least the past two million years."

 

"CO2 concentrations have risen over the last 1000 years as show by the red dots and orange line."

 

I'm bringing into question the accuracy of the extrapolation back 250/1000 years. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'm also not willing to say it's right.

 

I'm completely onboard with the data captured since the 70's. Any of the factors (that I can think of) that might skew the data appear to have been accounted for (population density, location, buildings, etc.) and so it seems to me to be good, solid data - we have a problem, no doubt in my mind about that.

 

But to attribute the primary source of the problems to humans - I'm not ready to conclude that. Until I've done some more investigation on other hypothesis, I can't say which is or is not the source of the problem.

 

There's a lot more to be said on the topic, but I'm tired and this has really gone OT

 

-A

[DUST2DEATH]

 

"The global mean C)2 level in 2015 was 399 ppm - a 44 per cent increase from the concentration of 278 ppm around the year 1750, and likely the highest level in at least the past two million years."

 

"CO2 concentrations have risen over the last 1000 years as show by the red dots and orange line."

 

I'm bringing into question the accuracy of the extrapolation back 250/1000 years. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I'm also not willing to say it's right.

 

 

-A

 

Oh, I see. No extrapolation again. Its all from testing stable ice core samples from antartica and other locations.

All the readings are here

 

2016 SoE Atmosphere Annual mean concentrations of greenhouse gases observed by CSIRO at Cape Grim, Tasmania, and from air extracted from Antarctic firn and ice cores, 1500-2015

 

 

NOAA and the UK do the same testing from locations near them also, if you wish to verify from those sources (if you can still find the NOAA data that is).

[xercesblue]

[Gazz]

How does that work?

 

Do human bodies contain enough excess bones to make up for the loss of limbs that some humans clearly suffer?

That's how an average works. If some numbers are lower than average, an equal portion must be higher than average.

[Fox]

How does that work?

 

Do human bodies contain enough excess bones to make up for the loss of limbs that some humans clearly suffer?

That's how an average works. If some numbers are lower than average, an equal portion must be higher than average.

But it was a pic on the internet, so it must be true.

[Gipothegip]

How does that work?

 

Do human bodies contain enough excess bones to make up for the loss of limbs that some humans clearly suffer?

That's how an average works. If some numbers are lower than average, an equal portion must be higher than average.

 

I think that's a median. A bunch of numbers could be low, but a few very high will still raise the average.

 

Say the typical person has enough bones for themselves, but a handful had enough bones for hundreds of people. The mathematically average person would have more bones than necessary.

 

The mathematically average person in this case could also be a mutant or a serial killer. Isn't it suspicious they have all those bones?

 

Anyway... I think when people say average and aren't talking about statistics they mean typical.

 

But it was a pic on the internet, so it must be true.

 

Pictures, or it didn't happen.

 

There was a picture, so it happened

[Guppycur]

I suspect rounding is the solution to this problem...

[Glimpse]

I suspect rounding is the solution to this problem...

 

Yes, let's round up a large sample size and get to work counting!

[DUST2DEATH]

How does that work?

 

Do human bodies contain enough excess bones to make up for the loss of limbs that some humans clearly suffer?

That's how an average works. If some numbers are lower than average, an equal portion must be higher than average.

 

amputees + prosthetics.

 

-1 +1

[xercesblue]

Really? No one has made the joke about having at least one extra bone they're willing to donate to someone else in need?

[MutilatorJuice]

Really? No one has made the joke about having at least one extra bone they're willing to donate to someone else in need?

 

That...that was your moment. Missed opportunity

[DUST2DEATH]

Really? No one has made the joke about having at least one extra bone they're willing to donate to someone else in need?

 

[DUST2DEATH]

We are now in truly uncharted territory

 

[xercesblue]

Hey I soft-balled the joke in I wasn't going to take it from someone else.

[MutilatorJuice]

I just can't wrap my head around the fact that all you have to do is step out your front door to notice that the weather is changing. Here in the US Midwest the change, to me, has been most noticeable for winter. Now it's just cold most days, with a severe lack of snow. 20 years ago, there was always pretty constant snowfall and accumulation. Shoot, 2 weeks ago we almost hit 70°, which is ridiculous. Anyone with a basic attention to their surroundings will agree something is off and not quite right. Sure the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, but not so fast that you'd notice it in your lifetime. Environmental change is crazy slow when compared to our perception of time and not something you should really see happening decade to decade.

[TSBX]

So what's the running count now, asking for a friend.