377 Pacific Rim Uprising says:
24 Mar 2018 at 11:27 PM
If you are going for finest contents like
me, just pay a quick visit this web page all the time
since it offers quality contents, thanks
That appears to be botspam, possibly for a movie, much of the linked page not in English
Don’t click the link if you don’t have your antivirus and antimalware tools up to date, just in case.
Killian @400.
You insist that I know exactly what you mean by the term “strict constructionist” but you are plain wrong (again). It is not a term I am familiar with. My ridiculously big multi-volume dictionary gives three definitions for ‘constrictionist’, none of which are any help as here at RC I am not one who ‘practises or advocates construction.’ And the added explanation you provide @387/388 (You say “If it hasn’t been measured, it doesn’t exist in your world.”) simply confuses the situation (and is wrong).
So I give up on trying to interpret the labels you so hoplessly scatter about and as instructed dutifully address the central “point” you set out @387/388.
@387, under the rider that the finding of Knoblauch et al (2018)“is accurate”, you cite the paper as saying “the risk of significant CH4 emissions this century is substantially higher than believed” previously. And @388 you cite the paper as saying “that future emissions should be higher than other studies have found.”
But that isn’t really what the paper says and, as I shall explain, it isn’t actually true.
You will note the paper refers to Supplimenatary Table 6 and this Table 6 quantifies projected carbon emissions from meltng permafrost by 2100 under RCP8.5 as being in the range of 6.4Gt(Ceq) to 30.6Gt(Ceq). This value-range is “substantially lower“ than other projections. Schuur et al (2015) review a number of similar projections and find a range of 37Gt(C) to 174Gt(C) under PCR8.5 by 2100. Thus Knoblauch et al are projecting values below the values found elsewhere.
Another request from you @400 is that that I let you know when I “actually have a question” for you. Surely you appreciate that questions are often marked by symbols called ‘question marks’. Thus the following @378 would be a question – “Simply, is there any actual evidence that supports arctic methane skyrocketry theories?” as would the following @393 also be a series of questions – “So can a “systemic analyst” identify any flaws in such linen-clothed logic? Is there further evidence not yet considered? Is there some lack of exactitude that has any significant bearing on the conclusion?”
nigeljsays
Killian @402
No you miss the point. The only reliable source off knowledge about this world is science based. Even historical knowledge is based on an application of careful use of available evidence. Even knowledge you gain in your job as you go along needs to be gained in a scientific and objective way as much as possible, to be truly useful.
The rest is instinct, religious, myth, anecdotal, personal and is therefore all unreliable. It may serve as a useful starting point, but it has to be subjected to scientific scrutiny wherever possible.
You are engaging in magical thinking. And you are totally unclear what you mean leaving others to have to guess, as usual.
Can you expand on the link–what you think is valuable, what you think irrelevant or counterproductive? (I would expect, for instance, that the food forest concept–even though apparently as cash crop–might be an example of the first, and the emphasis on large financing instruments to facilitate regenerative agriculture might be an example of the second, but I’d rather not guess.)
Er… 393.
#391 nigelj said “If it hasn’t been measured, it doesn’t exist in your world.’
So perhaps in your world ghosts and fairies are real?
How do you so completely miss the point so often? The comment was about other forms of knowledge other than strict scientific inquiry, FYI.
Really, please stop nipping at my heels.
#399, nigel–
Yes, fossil fuel is getting to be a bit like the restaurant in the old joke:
“The food is poisonous, and the portions too small!”
Will regenerative change hundreds of years?
No.
https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/funding-farmers-tackle-climate-change
That appears to be botspam, possibly for a movie, much of the linked page not in English
Don’t click the link if you don’t have your antivirus and antimalware tools up to date, just in case.
[Response: fixed. thanks – gavin]
Killian @400.
You insist that I know exactly what you mean by the term “strict constructionist” but you are plain wrong (again). It is not a term I am familiar with. My ridiculously big multi-volume dictionary gives three definitions for ‘constrictionist’, none of which are any help as here at RC I am not one who ‘practises or advocates construction.’ And the added explanation you provide @387/388 (You say “If it hasn’t been measured, it doesn’t exist in your world.”) simply confuses the situation (and is wrong).
So I give up on trying to interpret the labels you so hoplessly scatter about and as instructed dutifully address the central “point” you set out @387/388.
@387, under the rider that the finding of Knoblauch et al (2018) “is accurate”, you cite the paper as saying “the risk of significant CH4 emissions this century is substantially higher than believed” previously. And @388 you cite the paper as saying “that future emissions should be higher than other studies have found.”
But that isn’t really what the paper says and, as I shall explain, it isn’t actually true.
You will note the paper refers to Supplimenatary Table 6 and this Table 6 quantifies projected carbon emissions from meltng permafrost by 2100 under RCP8.5 as being in the range of 6.4Gt(Ceq) to 30.6Gt(Ceq). This value-range is “substantially lower“ than other projections.
Schuur et al (2015) review a number of similar projections and find a range of 37Gt(C) to 174Gt(C) under PCR8.5 by 2100. Thus Knoblauch et al are projecting values below the values found elsewhere.
Another request from you @400 is that that I let you know when I “actually have a question” for you. Surely you appreciate that questions are often marked by symbols called ‘question marks’. Thus the following @378 would be a question – “Simply, is there any actual evidence that supports arctic methane skyrocketry theories?” as would the following @393 also be a series of questions – “So can a “systemic analyst” identify any flaws in such linen-clothed logic? Is there further evidence not yet considered? Is there some lack of exactitude that has any significant bearing on the conclusion?”
Killian @402
No you miss the point. The only reliable source off knowledge about this world is science based. Even historical knowledge is based on an application of careful use of available evidence. Even knowledge you gain in your job as you go along needs to be gained in a scientific and objective way as much as possible, to be truly useful.
The rest is instinct, religious, myth, anecdotal, personal and is therefore all unreliable. It may serve as a useful starting point, but it has to be subjected to scientific scrutiny wherever possible.
You are engaging in magical thinking. And you are totally unclear what you mean leaving others to have to guess, as usual.
#404, Killian–
Can you expand on the link–what you think is valuable, what you think irrelevant or counterproductive? (I would expect, for instance, that the food forest concept–even though apparently as cash crop–might be an example of the first, and the emphasis on large financing instruments to facilitate regenerative agriculture might be an example of the second, but I’d rather not guess.)