Social Cost of Carbon

[rushmc 23]

I have mentioned more than once on this site I am skeptical of the data.
Not for the reasons in the link I am providing by the measurement system the alarmists hangs their hat on is flawed at best. An MSA would prove me wrong but that will not happen.

Now this (which is really nothing new either)

http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i26/USGS-finds-data-fraud-closes.html

Quote

Alleged misconduct and data manipulation at a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) laboratory may have affected thousands of environmental quality measurements processed between 2008 and 2014, according to the Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General (OIG).


As many as 24 research projects, representing some $108 million in funding for the laboratory, may have been impacted, OIG said earlier this month. “At least seven reports have been delayed, and to date, one report has been retracted.”


The misconduct, which was discovered by USGS management in 2014, involves analyses performed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry by the Inorganic Section of the USGS Energy Geochemistry Laboratory in Lakewood, Colo.


“Some data were manipulated both to correct for calibration failures and to improve results of standard reference materials and unknowns” and raw data were not retained, USGS says.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Not for the reasons in the link I am providing by the measurement system the alarmists hangs their hat on is flawed at best.

That explains your position very well.

[Anachronist 2]

brenthutch

***Hey guys, I'm a scientist (not joking), I can answer these questions. Ask away, please be specific and I can give links to primary literature.

What questions?

About carbon emissions and the chemistry of how it interacts with the environment. There seems to be a great deal of lack of understanding as well as a complete absence of reputable sources.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

Neither of the above statements is a sentence. Do you understand what they mean or would you like for me to write an essay on vernacular communication?

Jeez I'd love to see you try. It'd be hilarious.

But anyway, you still don't see the problem. The grammar is irrelevant, it's the words that are wrong.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

Quote

Not for the reasons in the link I am providing by the measurement system the alarmists hangs their hat on is flawed at best.

That explains your position very well.

You do not even know what an MSA is do you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

rushmc

***

Quote

Not for the reasons in the link I am providing by the measurement system the alarmists hangs their hat on is flawed at best.

That explains your position very well.

You do not even know what an MSA is do you?

Only an elitist would know what that is.

[rushmc 23]

SkyDekker

******

Quote

Not for the reasons in the link I am providing by the measurement system the alarmists hangs their hat on is flawed at best.

That explains your position very well.

You do not even know what an MSA is do you?

Only an elitist would know what that is.

Actually, anyone who claims to be in science or deals in statistics knows exactly what it is.

Now you are calling them enlists?

I learned about it during my Six Sigma training.
It is very important when you are dealing with collected data and how good said data really is.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>Actually, anyone who claims to be in science or deals in statistics knows exactly what
>it is. Now you are calling them enlists?

Not even being able to spell your taunts reduces the effectiveness of your claim that people should know exactly what a specific term means.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Actually, anyone who claims to be in science or deals in statistics knows exactly what
>it is. Now you are calling them enlists?

Not even being able to spell your taunts reduces the effectiveness of your claim that people should know exactly what a specific term means.

More typical Bill

But then you would not wish to talk about the flawed and corrupt measurement system here, would you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Anachronist 2]

I'm gonna have to agree with the conservatives on the semantics thing. There is no language authority and attempting to invoke one or posit English ought to be a certain way is in fact an elitist and unnecessary assertion.

The purpose of teaching English in schools and having a basic model of its use is to facilitate communication, not impose obsolete rules. Once it leaves the school, it is the property of those who use it. Vernacular is by its very nature, correct.

You should read this

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The purpose of teaching English in schools and having a basic model of its use is to facilitate communication, not impose obsolete rules.

Agreed. Problem is that Rush's version of English is spoken/understood by very few, if any at all, making communication difficult.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

The purpose of teaching English in schools and having a basic model of its use is to facilitate communication,

Right, and RushMc's english is quite regularly so, so, so bad that no-one knows what he's trying to say. And I genuinely do mean that. It's not that it's not grammatically correct, it's that you can't even read between the lines or make any assumptions, it's literally indecipherable. What's more, he will then refuse to restate his position and accuse those who can't understand him of being condescending liberal elitists.

Then another large portion of his posts are not quite as bad, but still require some level of creative interpretation from the reader. And then if you've interpreted it in the wrong way (and remember, he will always refuse to clarify) he whines and moans that it's your fault for twisting his words.

All of which means that when people pick on Rushmc for no spell english good, there's previous. A lot of previous

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 226]

Anachronist

******Hey guys, I'm a scientist (not joking), I can answer these questions. Ask away, please be specific and I can give links to primary literature.

What questions?

About carbon emissions and the chemistry of how it interacts with the environment. There seems to be a great deal of lack of understanding as well as a complete absence of reputable sources.

Is the buildup of carbon going to adversely affect the majority of people on the planet?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 444]

Like this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

[SkyDekker 1,465]

brenthutch

Like this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

yes



"But the researchers say the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.

They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.

The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms."

[brenthutch 444]

Greening of the planet = observable fact
Potential downsides = speculation

[billvon 3,120]

>Greening of the planet = observable fact
>Potential downsides = speculation

Warming of the planet = observable fact
Rising seas = observable fact

Potential upsides = speculation

[brenthutch 444]

News flash! The planet has been warming and sea levels have been rising since the last Ice Age, long before man burnt his first lump of coal.

[wmw999 2,589]

Absolutely true. And species have been going extinct since before the last ice age, and most people have been physically uncomfortable and/or hungry and/or sick for the vast majority of the time since the last ice age.

I thought the idea was to keep the improvements in living standards, not piss them away. Or, even better, piss away others' living standards so that we can keep out own.

Heavy fertilization in the Midwest makes corn (grown for fuel, not food ) grow quickly. Is it irrelevant that the outflow of all that fertilization seems to be associated with increasingly large dead zones in the Gulf each year? Or is it only important if you, personally, eat Gulf shrimp, or are a fisherman?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,120]

>News flash! The planet has been warming and sea levels have been rising since the
>last Ice Age, long before man burnt his first lump of coal.

It has (of course) warmed since the last ice age, but it's actually been cooling since about the 1600's. Then when we did start burning those lumps of coal, the climate started warming more and more rapidly. We are now warming at historically unprecedented rates.

From NOAA:
====================
Climate has changed on all time scales throughout Earth’s history. Some aspects of the current climate change are not unusual, but others are. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate. Current global temperatures are warmer than they have ever been during at least the past five centuries, probably even for more than a millennium. If warming continues unabated, the resulting climate change within this century would be extremely unusual in geological terms. Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past climate changes were natural in origin whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.

. . .all published reconstructions find that temperatures were warm during medieval times, cooled to low values in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and warmed rapidly after that. The medieval level of warmth is uncertain, but may have been reached again in the mid-20th century, only to have likely been exceeded since then. These conclusions are supported by climate modelling as well. Before 2,000 years ago, temperature variations have not been systematically compiled into large-scale averages, but they do not provide evidence for warmer-than-present global annual mean temperatures going back through the Holocene. There are strong indications that a warmer climate, with greatly reduced global ice cover and higher sea level, prevailed until around 3 million years ago.

A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest temperature changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes.
===================

[brenthutch 444]

How can NOAA acknowledge the "pause" while simultaneously claiming temperature rise is rapid and unprecedented?

[billvon 3,120]

>How can NOAA acknowledge the "pause" while simultaneously claiming temperature rise
>is rapid and unprecedented?

The same way you can acknowledge the US has a debt problem even though some days the debt goes down due to specific large transactions. OVERALL the debt is going up, and OVERALL the temperature rise is rapid and unprecedented.

[brenthutch 444]

billvon

>How can NOAA acknowledge the "pause" while simultaneously claiming temperature rise
>is rapid and unprecedented?

The same way you can acknowledge the US has a debt problem even though some days the debt goes down due to specific large transactions. OVERALL the debt is going up, and OVERALL the temperature rise is rapid and unprecedented.

Can you give an example of our debt going down?