Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 101

Thread: CIA closes its climate change offices

  1. #51
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: CIA closes its climate change offices

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    Out of curiosity, do you think that this balanced just happened?

    It seems reasonable that the balance occurred in this very dynamic system because the variety of things that eat CO2 caught up with the variety of things that emit CO2.

    The level of CO2 rose precipitously after the latest Ice Age ended. This occurred because areas that were under glaciers warmed, thawed and released the sequestered CO2 that the Frozen Tundra, even that outside of Lambeau Field, was holding.

    Right now, today, the thawing bogs of Siberia are releasing more CO2 sequestered there than the combined industry of the USA.

    This tells us two things: 1) The Frozen tundra of the Siberian bogs locked through recorded history in perm frost once grew various Carbon based life forms, but that was before they froze. We are warming to the point at which they were before they froze and: 2) The contribution made by Man to the atmosphere is really pretty small as a apart of the whole.
    Several quick things:

    1. The difference between emissions and absorption has not, at least as far as paleoclimate records go, been stable. Imbalances have occurred.
    2. In the past, a warming (very likely tied to rising solar insolation) triggered the release of greenhouse gases e.g., from melting permafrost. Emissions exceeded absorption.
    3. Those greenhouse gases amplified the warming.
    4. Once the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases peaked (usually after solar insolation had been decreasing), absorption exceeded increases.
    5. Cooling commenced.

    Today, human activities have boosted emissions of greenhouse gases (natural + human). Although the human contribution is small relative to nature's contribution, it tipped the balance where emissions now regularly exceed absorption. The result is rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

    Prior to this development, there had been a general cooling trend in the Arctic, related to slowly declining solar insolation. Solar insolation continues to decline. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that the cooling in the Arctic abruptly stopped sometime after 1900 and then reversed. Today, the Arctic might be as warm as it has been in nearly 5,000 years (some uncertainty exists). This warming, even as the trigger might be the marginal contribution from human activities, has led to growing releases of greenhouse gases from the permafrost. That process is a response to Arctic warming regardless of the causation of such warming.

    In terms of policy, difficult trade-offs exist. If nations immediately and dramatically scale back use of fossil fuels, the energy supply will be less reliable and energy will be substantially more costly. The economic costs would be high and some nations would lock themselves in a suboptimal state of development (materially lower living standards than would otherwise be the case). No country is giving consideration to such an approach. If nations take a "business as usual" approach, atmospheric greenhouse concentrations might double from pre-industrial levels. Costs associated with that outcome would likely be significant. They are difficult to quantify. A middle course would involve robust R&D and increased efficiency/conservation. Atmospheric concentrations would still rise for the time being, but could level off earlier. Ultimately, humanity will need to have alternatives given the finite supply of fossil fuels, and when one considers geopolitical risks associated with the location of energy resources (excepting those in Canada, the U.S., and some more stable areas), such a middle course might be the least costly and far less disruptive than the first policy path and less costly than the second.

    Ultimately, nations will have to make decisions that are in their best interest. Their choices will impact one another. Given the differences in national interests, different nations are likely to adopt different policy courses.

  2. #52
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,758

    Re: CIA closes its climate change offices

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    Out of curiosity, do you think that this balanced just happened?

    It seems reasonable that the balance occurred in this very dynamic system because the variety of things that eat CO2 caught up with the variety of things that emit CO2.

    The level of CO2 rose precipitously after the latest Ice Age ended. This occurred because areas that were under glaciers warmed, thawed and released the sequestered CO2 that the Frozen Tundra, even that outside of Lambeau Field, was holding.

    Right now, today, the thawing bogs of Siberia are releasing more CO2 sequestered there than the combined industry of the USA.

    This tells us two things: 1) The Frozen tundra of the Siberian bogs locked through recorded history in perm frost once grew various Carbon based life forms, but that was before they froze. We are warming to the point at which they were before they froze and: 2) The contribution made by Man to the atmosphere is really pretty small as a apart of the whole.
    No, it doesn't tell us that.

    Because you're leaving out all the CO2 that nature absorbs.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  3. #53
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: CIA closes its climate change offices

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Several quick things:

    1. The difference between emissions and absorption has not, at least as far as paleoclimate records go, been stable. Imbalances have occurred.
    2. In the past, a warming (very likely tied to rising solar insolation) triggered the release of greenhouse gases e.g., from melting permafrost. Emissions exceeded absorption.
    3. Those greenhouse gases amplified the warming.
    4. Once the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases peaked (usually after solar insolation had been decreasing), absorption exceeded increases.
    5. Cooling commenced.

    Today, human activities have boosted emissions of greenhouse gases (natural + human). Although the human contribution is small relative to nature's contribution, it tipped the balance where emissions now regularly exceed absorption. The result is rising atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.

    Prior to this development, there had been a general cooling trend in the Arctic, related to slowly declining solar insolation. Solar insolation continues to decline. Nevertheless, the literature suggests that the cooling in the Arctic abruptly stopped sometime after 1900 and then reversed. Today, the Arctic might be as warm as it has been in nearly 5,000 years (some uncertainty exists). This warming, even as the trigger might be the marginal contribution from human activities, has led to growing releases of greenhouse gases from the permafrost. That process is a response to Arctic warming regardless of the causation of such warming.

    In terms of policy, difficult trade-offs exist. If nations immediately and dramatically scale back use of fossil fuels, the energy supply will be less reliable and energy will be substantially more costly. The economic costs would be high and some nations would lock themselves in a suboptimal state of development (materially lower living standards than would otherwise be the case). No country is giving consideration to such an approach. If nations take a "business as usual" approach, atmospheric greenhouse concentrations might double from pre-industrial levels. Costs associated with that outcome would likely be significant. They are difficult to quantify. A middle course would involve robust R&D and increased efficiency/conservation. Atmospheric concentrations would still rise for the time being, but could level off earlier. Ultimately, humanity will need to have alternatives given the finite supply of fossil fuels, and when one considers geopolitical risks associated with the location of energy resources (excepting those in Canada, the U.S., and some more stable areas), such a middle course might be the least costly and far less disruptive than the first policy path and less costly than the second.

    Ultimately, nations will have to make decisions that are in their best interest. Their choices will impact one another. Given the differences in national interests, different nations are likely to adopt different policy courses.


    A rational and logical statement. Thank you.

  4. #54
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: CIA closes its climate change offices

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    No, it doesn't tell us that.

    Because you're leaving out all the CO2 that nature absorbs.

    It doesn't tell us one or the other or both?

  5. #55
    Educator Klown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-14-12 @ 04:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    982

    Re: CIA closes its climate change offices

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    Again, I'm unable to see any connection to what I wrote and your response.
    Precisely because it was what is referred to in the Forensice Sciences as a "total quasi fabricated trigger"

    And the snare has revealled something very important about WHY you pretend to Deny the science of AGW

    Congratulations code1211

  6. #56
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: CIA closes its climate change offices

    We're the second most hated country in the world, only Israel beats us out for intervention and lethality.

    Israel has daily terrorist problems, both external across the border and internal. They catch most of these guys. And so does our CIA. Do they **** up? You bet. Do they protect us from bad guys? Yes, they do.

    A climate change office is also a cover when we spy on our allies. They used to use Trade Representatives as their curtain but hey, we're in the 21st century now.

  7. #57
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: CIA closes its climate change offices

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    You think that overstatement is the thing that makes a Liberal ignore something? That's interesting. Do ever listen to Liberals?
    I don't speak for liberals, or conservatives for that matter. The point is the situation isn't the way you and others are painting it. It is being overhyped. And for some reason, some don't get that such hyperbole doesn't make reality what you want it to be. Until something real and tangible presents itself, it's mostly just a tantrum.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #58
    Si vis pacem, para bellum
    Μολὼν λαβέ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    09-29-17 @ 11:22 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    6,914

    Re: CIA closes its climate change offices

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    According to your article, they had one to study security implications. I believe they do this with nearly anything they can envision possible threats growing from.
    Frosty the snowman?
    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Generalizations are stupid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Steel View Post
    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with guns.

  9. #59
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: CIA closes its climate change offices

    Quote Originally Posted by Klown View Post
    Precisely because it was what is referred to in the Forensice Sciences as a "total quasi fabricated trigger"

    And the snare has revealled something very important about WHY you pretend to Deny the science of AGW

    Congratulations code1211


    Your Latin is Greek to me.

  10. #60
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,589

    Re: CIA closes its climate change offices

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I don't speak for liberals, or conservatives for that matter. The point is the situation isn't the way you and others are painting it. It is being overhyped. And for some reason, some don't get that such hyperbole doesn't make reality what you want it to be. Until something real and tangible presents itself, it's mostly just a tantrum.


    I'm not so sure that Chris Stevens held that view as he was being killed by the attacking mob or the RPG's or the Mortar fire hoping for 7 hours that the thousands of military personnel within about a 1 hour flight might be dispatched to protect civilians in a was zone. I'm not so sure that when he asked for additional security, he felt completely safe or when he witnesses the several incidents that led up to this one.

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •