WalkingOrders

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Another one of those oh it's all so complicated apparently reasonable statemens.. But actually a lot of climate theory isn't all that complicated at all. At least not relatively. Take Global Warming and Greenhouse gases. As I posted earlier in this thread an enterprising young scientist took a look at global warming models all the way back to the 1970's. 10 of the models predicted the rise in warming correctly without any modification. But there were another 5 models including that of James Hansen, that didn't predict correctly. This was because they estimated incorrectly how much greenhouse gas was going to be created by human activity. But guess what? When the correct amounts were plugged into their models, they turned out to be very accurate. The really big picture isn't as complex as denialists would make out. Of course it's baffling to some such as Judith Curry, who predicted global cooling for an era that has seen record warmth.

And the same goes for the oceans. As the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the level of dissolved CO2 in the water will also increase. That's fairly basic chemistry.  This lowers the PH which in turns makes it harder for basic forms of sea life to make shells.

And of course, as the oceans warm, O2 concentrations are decreasing. Already populations of fish are moving north (when they can) leaving tropical seas with less and less species of fish. The kelp forests of Tasmania have virtually disappeared thanks to warming. And the same is happening to California's.

Actually it's all pretty complicated research the subject at Judithcurry.com there are far better teachers over there, again, writing on all sides of the minutia to the big picture. 

57 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

WRONG! The quotes and info about her I got from climatedepot.com which is a major denialist website.

Have to strength of your convictions to put them to the test. Read for yourself instead of believing what any website is telling you. That is what knowledge is; Judithcurry.com Belief is a religion

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Which means what? That because plants can use high levels of CO2 therefore it's a general truth that as life forms adapt, they retain the adaptations that they had before. Do you understand that oxygen was once poisonous to most life? Are you saying that because life was once adapted to an atmosphere and water without oxygen that that as life forms adapt, they retain the ability to live without oxygen?

And just recently it was found that with the rise of industrialization the shells of various microscopic forms of sea life have been getting thinner. And now Dungeness crabs are apparently under threat.

I just want to say that unless you are reading the actual study, you do not know. See my post above about this article we are discussing in this thread. It's like reading about the loss of bees. Sometimes there are many reasons. Sometimes they cancel each other out, or multiply. So unless you read the actual study, and the study is then considered the end all be all, then we have a situation that is under study, with potentials that are unknown, as with most of science. I am not saying that Dungeness crabs are not under threat,as it would mirror other reports regarding shellfish. Oysters as I said above, but I do not remember the details of that study, but I no longer believe anything unless I am reading the study directly as opposed to the magazine articles reporting on the study. Again see my summary last page on this article

5 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

no it aint, the plants wants 1500 ppm co2 to this day,

ask a professional greenhouse operator.

i havnt read about aquarium operators but i would suspect at least some has experimented with pumping in co2, with positive effects

The ocean acts as a sink for CO2 and I think this is an equilibrium issue. Without going back over the research acidification is linked, but there are other mechanisms at play in the oceans in that dying animals release CO2, and debate of how much CO2 the oceans can store etc. I am not weighing in to state anything other then there are lots of unknowns on this.  I have also read that high CO2 leads to death of certain sea life like Oysters, and other shellfish for example.

On 2/21/2020 at 8:53 AM, earlinclaifornia said:

Big difference from trump claiming everything is sweet. Infrasructure, his healthcare and the wall Mexico will pay all completed promises. See you back here on election eve.

I wonder how much it is costing Mexico to keep troops permanently deployed on their southern border?

Bottom line, as can be viewed in my post above regarding this article, is that non-alarming research papers, are used by alarmist writers to effect public policy and to fundraise, a whole slew of party platform positions, all tied to "you must vote for us to save the world!"

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Right. That's the way it works with leaks. You wait for the official body to release the text to confirm.  Please, even the Telegraph which is about as right wing and denialist a publication as any out there accepts the factuality of this. What's more, Morgan hasn't made any denials.

read my post below about this article we are discussing and you will learn a bit more about the way this works

Early on I posted this but I will again but this time I will be more specific.

This is the Headline of the Article we are discussing in this thread. Read it carefully:

“Global warming causing 'irreversible' mass melting in Antarctica - scientist”

A Reuters summary reads:

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Global warming was leading to an “irreversible” mass melting of the Antarctic ice and purging carbon from the atmosphere was the only solution to slow the process, an Australian climate scientist told Reuters on Wednesday.

Inside of the article, however, we find this: (My bolds for emphasis)

“Recent human activity has intensified global warming, which could result in a mass melting...”

“The study showed the world could lose most of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which rests on the seabed and is fringed by floating ice, in a warmer world. “

“What we’re seeing with the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, that this starting of the melt, once we reach a certain threshold, will continue despite our efforts to stop it,” she told Reuters.

“The team hopes to continue the research to determine how quickly the ice sheets responded...”

“If hotter temperatures were to sustain they could cause an extreme global sea level rise. “

The Rest of the article contains a series of unsupported assumptions. Obviously political and aimed at the Australian Government.

Now I ask you, to please read the bolds above and ask yourself these questions what does COULD mean?

What is the certain threshold?

What have they determined? Anything? How fast?

What does IF...were to sustain mean? For how long? What temperatures? Do you see the smoke and mirrors here?

I am not claiming that the research pointed to in this article is not valid, and even perhaps correct, it could very well be, but the article that is using this research is absolute garbage designed to instill fear and present the research in a manner which is simply untrue.

I direct your attention again to the articles title and summary. Remember – this article – is NOT the research. You would have to read the paper directly.

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I gave you a link to the IPCC report. What more do you want?

Do you think, that i have not read, or need you to provide me links to the IPCC reports? If you do not know what you are advocating then what are you doing here? You cannot provide a specific of what YOU think should happen? Quantified into terms that make sense in reality? As in I need 150 bricks to build a wall? Not potentially some bricks at some point?

31 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

I suggest you take up your grievance with Ms Curry, via her website. Let me know how you get on.

That requires the ability to be humble, and to have a mind that desires to search for truth rather then be told. It requires the ability to admit to what one does not know, and again, the desire to learn; To not be afraid of what may be found in the search.

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Because why? She's on record as being massively wrong and obviously being misleading. For instance her claim that global temperatures hadn't risen since 1998. I hope she was lying about that one. Because if not, it would mean that she didn't know that a huge el nino had resulted in a big rise in average global surface temperature. And that would mean she's utterly incompetent.

Because you are sitting here badmouthing her with articles from Leftist alarmist websites and groups, and then trying to debate us over her viewpoint like a smart guy, but she is literally two clicks away from you. If you think you know more then her, or perhaps would like details of her current positions, go over there and have at it. The point we have in following her is that Science is NOT settled. Now stop arguing her points with us and go over there and see what is going on. but warning to you. Fools are not suffered well over there, and that goes for EITHER SIDE of any argument you wish to present.  It's rather daunting over there, and you can get your ass handed to you rather quickly if you go in trying to claim you know what you do not know. And I learned that from personal experience. 

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

First off, where in the Paris accords is there any specification about giving money to certain nations? Stop making things up.

 

Thank you. Now you have just admitted you have no idea what we are talking about here.

36 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Mine was easy to forgive. After all, I acknowledged the error and corrected it. But even though Judith Curry won't even acknowledge she was massively wrong, I wouldn't put it past you to not just forgive her, but to forget that she ever got it so wrong in the first place.

Have a chat with her. Judithcurry.com

49 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And foremost amongst these would-be destroyers of the capitalist system is none other than J.P. Morgan, the global investment house which is quite possibly the single biggest capitalist investor in and lender to fossil fuel companies. And here is what a recently written leaked report of theirs said:

JP Morgan warns of end to human life in climate report

An explosive new report sees economists at the bank calling for a global carbon tax

 

The human race could cease to exist without massive worldwide action to tackle global warming, economists at JP Morgan have warned in a hard-hitting report on the "catastrophic" potential of climate change.

In an alarming document sent to clients, they said that deaths, immigration and conflicts will soar as the planet heats and water supplies dry up. Famines will increase and species will be wiped out.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/02/21/jp-morgan-warns-end-human-life-leaked-climate-report/

 

World's Biggest Investor in Fossil Fuel Says Climate Change May End 'Human Life as We Know It'

The leaked report from JPMorgan Chase argues that the use of fossil fuel, which it funds, is causing climate change.

The world's biggest fossil fuel funder — JPMorgan Chase — has noted in an internal report leaked to Extinction Rebellion that the company "cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened."

https://interestingengineering.com/worlds-biggest-investor-in-fossil-fuel-says-climate-change-may-end-human-life-as-we-know-it

 

Get the source document please direct from JP Morgan Chase.

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Judith Curry endorsed the view that the period from 2000 to 2030 would be one of global cooling. instead so far the 2 completed decades have turned out to be the warmest on record. She's a crank.

Curry warned of possible global cooling. “We also see a cooling period starting around the turn of the (21st) century.” She also suggested that the “current cool phase will continue until the 2030s.” [Also see: Scientists and Studies predict ‘imminent global COOLING’ ahead – Drop in global temps ‘almost a slam dunk’]

https://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/16/climatologist-dr-judith-curry-warns-of-decades-of-global-cooling-the-current-cool-phase-will-continue-until-the-2030s/

Are you debating with Judith Curry? You can do that you know, over here, she responds: Judithcurry.com

55 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Stop falsifying what most activists are saying. What they are saying is that if we don't drastically reduce fossil fuel consumption by 2030 the consequence will be a lot worse for humanity. This is also the view of the IPCC which has called for drastic reductions in fossil fuel use in order to keep the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees centigrade and mitigate the damage that will be caused by global warming.

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

Stop accusing me of falsifying anything. And please be more specific as to what exactly you are advocating here.  What do you mean " A drastic reduction" can you quantify that please in percentage terms?  Also 2030, that is exactly 10 years away, so can you also please be specific on what you mean by  "consequences will be a lot worse for humanity"? Thank you

8 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Bloomberg's not going anywhere until after the convention. You don't have to have the most votes or be on the ballot to control the outcome. In America, everything is for sale.  Speaking of which, I think a major impetus for Bloomberg's run is to offload his media empire.

Offload his media empire? He does not need to run for President to do that. He can just put it all up for sale. Bloomberg fizzles on Super Tuesday. The hushed sound of money vaporizing into thin air.

8 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Bloomberg's not going anywhere until after the convention. You don't have to have the most votes or be on the ballot to control the outcome. In America, everything is for sale.  Speaking of which, I think a major impetus for Bloomberg's run is to offload his media empire.

Nice try but no cigar. While it's true that electors can jump around, a guy trailing out the end is not going to stand a chance. After Super Tuesday he will be gone. As gone as gone can get.

Thank God the snow is melting.

I pray he gets well soon. 

1 hour ago, Doznotdiz said:

1. How long before insurance applies to Non-Imm “O”?

2. You have to leave the country to get the “O” visa, and then (apparently) pay an agent to transfer it to 1-year equivalent.

3. Insurance policies (approved by immigration) are available for 7,500 or 15,000 baht annually - but of course they have high excesses.

There are currently no plans made public that say that they are going to apply insurance to Type O.  Again, insurance prices are contingent upon age. And very GREATLY by age. And also companies approved on the list - some of them are global and some of the worlds largest. Not ripoff companies.

1 hour ago, Doznotdiz said:

1. How long before insurance applies to Non-Imm “O”?

2. You have to leave the country to get the “O” visa, and then (apparently) pay an agent to transfer it to 1-year equivalent.

3. Insurance policies (approved by immigration) are available for 7,500 or 15,000 baht annually - but of course they have high excesses.

you do not have to pay an agent - ever for anything - that has to do with immigration. You can do things yourself. The way to go from OA to O is not known to me, but I would go to immigration and simply ask. Perhaps bring a trusted Thai interpreter. But Agents are never needed or demanded by immigration.

1 hour ago, KhunBENQ said:

That's almost a magnitude less than published prices.

I know that similar kind of insurance had been acknowledged via an "agent".

But no way fulfilling the requirements (400k inpatient, 40k outpatient).

The insurance pricing is going to vary with your age. Numbers posted here regarding cost are meaningless unless tied to age, and conditions.