Environment & Energy

AverageJoe90

(10,745 posts)

109. Well, if you want my honest opinion, it isn't so much "good".....

Reply to NoOneMan (Reply #108)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:35 AM

Nov 2012

As just plain neutral.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

122 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"It's worse than we thought." Sound familiar? [View all] wtmusic Nov 2012 OP

Kinda. However, the main problem seems to have been..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #1

carbon sequestration from you again? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #2

The main problem seems to have been GliderGuider Nov 2012 #3

I think you nailed it cprise Nov 2012 #9

Dayum. joshcryer Nov 2012 #11

What negative feedbacks, exactly? NickB79 Nov 2012 #4

I'm no scientist, but they are out there. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #5

So you personally don't know of a single specific negative feedback mechanism? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #6

Yeah, sure, uh-huh. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #7

I'm much less skeptical than he, and I know of several... cprise Nov 2012 #8

I can agree that negative feedbacks are probably still somewhat poorly understood, but..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #10

Then why are positive feedbacks so much better known? nt cprise Nov 2012 #12

Because there's been a lot more research done on them, that's why. n/t AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #13

If you think scientists are biased, just say so. cprise Nov 2012 #14

Frankly, I don't believe there is bias involved. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #15

So its just bad luck that a whole scientific field for several decades at least cprise Nov 2012 #16

Well..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #17

You've never seen any proof that they've been doing research into negative feedbacks? GliderGuider Nov 2012 #18

No, I didn't say that research hadn't been done(duh!). I did say NOT ENOUGH research. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #19

So we're back to this old schtick-- cprise Nov 2012 #20

At least I'll admit when I was wrong. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #27

Yeah, and the fucking models "need more data." joshcryer Nov 2012 #21

Well, as I said I could be wrong. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #23

Not "could be." "Are." You are 100% wrong. joshcryer Nov 2012 #25

I never said that the science "wasn't good", as you claim. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #26

The trend is scientific reticence. They're downplaying the effects. joshcryer Nov 2012 #29

They did downplay it a while back, but not nearly so much anymore. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #32

"Awhile back?" The fucking NSIDC head said that sea ice won't melt until the 2030s! joshcryer Nov 2012 #33

*Sigh*. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #36

If I drop a weight, it will fall to the ground. joshcryer Nov 2012 #41

Well, but the problem is, AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #43

This message was self-deleted by its author XemaSab Nov 2012 #47

So, would you like us to lie about what's going on? GliderGuider Nov 2012 #46

If you'd looked at the research, you'd see that plenty has been done. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #22

"You are casting uncertainty and doubt on the whole AGW awareness effort through your presence here" AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #24

Redirection of the criticism is a time-honoured technique. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #28

I certainly am. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #30

OK, Mr. Average GliderGuider Nov 2012 #31

I got answers for that. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #34

So your solution is to keep diddling because you don't fucking know. joshcryer Nov 2012 #38

No, I'm actually for action whenever possible. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #44

The Cold War is a lousy comparison GliderGuider Nov 2012 #40

I'm not a doomer either. I'm a goddamn alarmist. joshcryer Nov 2012 #35

Again, Josh, the worst case may happen. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #37

The time frame is short, Joe. joshcryer Nov 2012 #39

Yeah, as if the US is going to leave its shale oil in the ground. joshcryer Nov 2012 #87

If enough people stand up, there is hope for change. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #88

Wildly optimistic. Most people don't want to pay higher energy prices. joshcryer Nov 2012 #91

Well..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #93

Depends where you're asking. joshcryer Nov 2012 #98

You think I don't get it. You THINK. But I do. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #103

I'm not saying things can't change, I am saying they are unlikely to change. joshcryer Nov 2012 #112

Hey Joshcryer, As a technologist, ... CRH Nov 2012 #55

As far as my prediction, it's going to be geoengineering. joshcryer Nov 2012 #90

Thank you joshcryer for your post, ... CRH Nov 2012 #122

You want us to worry more about someone exploring positive feedbacks to their logical conclusion cprise Nov 2012 #42

RealClimate has some interesting articles (radical understatement) GliderGuider Nov 2012 #45

Not quite 100% probability. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #48

Check my edit above about Martin Hoffert's paper. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #49

TBH, having read the paper, 25 does seem to be a tad on the high side........ AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #54

By what analysis do you arrive at those 15% and 25% to 30% figures? GliderGuider Nov 2012 #50

True to a point, but so does your assertion of near 100% probability as well. n/t AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #51

Sure, but at least mine has historical precedent to back it up. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #52

Not quite. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #53

Was the Clean Air Act like telling an entire nation they will have to be 10% poorer? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #56

No, and look at what happened when CFC production stopped in the mid-'90s. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #57

Then its incomparable NoOneMan Nov 2012 #59

It's not just that. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #61

This is false, as observed in objective reality NoOneMan Nov 2012 #62

There's just one problem with your argument: Alternative fuels have been barely implemented at all. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #63

Its pretty clear with some logic NoOneMan Nov 2012 #65

Economic rules aren't the only factor, though. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #72

"And we can keep building & developing. We just need to do it in a smarter way," NoOneMan Nov 2012 #74

You don't have to chop down every forest to grow hemp...... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #75

I guess we can leave a forest or two to stroke our greenie-ego. NoOneMan Nov 2012 #76

Hemp can be grown on most farmland, btw. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #77

You mean the places we use for food now? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #78

BTW, philosophically speaking, what is so good about the growth you think we need? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #80

I can see the argument with population growth....... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #82

Again, what's so "good" about this growth we must continue? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #84

Well, it IS true that curbing population growth wouldn't solve this problem alone........ AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #106

So this infinite "growth" is good because of what again? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #108

Well, if you want my honest opinion, it isn't so much "good"..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #109

Im glad we agree that growth isn't good NoOneMan Nov 2012 #111

Regarding finite carrying capacity: NoOneMan Nov 2012 #89

Why do you believe that I think it SHOULD support "infinite" growth? AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #97

No, hydrocarbons are from solar energy NoOneMan Nov 2012 #100

"Ah, you are only thinking in terms of human life and locally." Not really. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #104

A good question NoOneMan Nov 2012 #107

Well, again, that's why I advocate for smarter growth. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #110

The funny thing about all this is... NoOneMan Nov 2012 #117

Yes they do exist, and I acknowledge that. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #119

What room do we have for reforestation? Where are we going to plant the hemp? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #120

Re: "I really wonder if you have taken time to step back and look at the entire system..." AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #121

Regarding carbon intensity, that graph painted an incorrectly rosy picture GliderGuider Nov 2012 #67

Okay. But is failure really inevitable? AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #86

There are a number of fundamental problems with your argument. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #58

Well..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #60

I am one of those who think that the worst-case scenarios are the dominant probability. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #64

Okay, here's one scenario. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #73

Replacing the world's oil supply with hemp oil at 1.75 bbl/acre/year GliderGuider Nov 2012 #79

*Some* of this may be true, but hemp can be grown with food crops, and in fact, is a food crop...... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #81

Can hemp be grown in the Canadian Tundra? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #85

Not in the Tundra itself, but definitely to some extent in the SubArctic north, right around........ AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #92

So 40%-50% of Sweden's GDP comes from exporting to countries who also cut their emissions? NoOneMan Nov 2012 #95

And? Your point is? AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #101

The point is that your example does not illustrate energy reduction resulted in a GDP increase NoOneMan Nov 2012 #102

Trade in hemp won't make the global situation better GliderGuider Nov 2012 #96

There's a big problem with powering down, though: It's still a "silver bullet" type situation. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #105

So we keep growing, we just nibble at the edges a bit? GliderGuider Nov 2012 #114

Let's hope this report sticks with the science as the others have done..... AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #115

Of course it will stick with the science. GliderGuider Nov 2012 #116

I would certainly hope so. AverageJoe90 Nov 2012 #118

Many feedbacks are those we can't predict AldoLeopold Nov 2012 #71

This is why we NEED nuclear energy XemaSab Nov 2012 #66

Shit-disturber... GliderGuider Nov 2012 #68

You ever notice that the rabid antinukes XemaSab Nov 2012 #69

Yes, but being Canadian I'm too polite to mention it... nt GliderGuider Nov 2012 #70

The irony, of course, being that coal is more radioactive. joshcryer Nov 2012 #83

While we're pointing fingers cprise Nov 2012 #94

I call 'em diminishers. joshcryer Nov 2012 #99

The biggest pro-nuke figures were also the biggest coal figures? wtmusic Nov 2012 #113