4 ms·

Let me ask you a question. Do you ask those who have done the study those questions and if so, what were their responses? Did they answer and if they did not, w

Let me ask you a question. Do you ask those who have done the study those questions and if so, what were their responses? Did they answer and if they did not, what do you draw from that? I work from the basis of there are no stupid questions. Some are difficult, some are annoying, some of them challenging and some are unanswerable, but none of them are stupid.

DoctorOetker 8y ago
I also don't like how any question not draped with otherwise agreement is automatically thought of as bigotry. I didn't take the time to read all the comments in this thread but I did not have the impression you were trying to "debunk climate change" to the contrary, you seemed to accept the presence of problems, but desire more open access to the datasets and presumably tutorials and explanations on how to reproduce analysis (think kaggle scripts). You correctly point out the danger of inefficient or insufficient diagnosis and treatment of the problems. In a sense you seem to hint at counterintuitive policies, where the straightforward policy would be more costly (and hence the difference in cost could have been spent otherwise on more monitoring or treatment). Regarding CO2 monitoring on a worldwide scale, it is indeed a problem scientists and engineers are dealing with. None of your downvoters point out any of the found solutions for the problem you visualize, but they do have the time to downvote you, which imho is not entirely fair, so I will take a little time to respond on that front: they use remote sensing of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), molecules have their own spectra (normal spectra or raman spectra), imaging satellites equiped with lasers take "pictures" of the concentrations of the species under study. These need to be callibrated (at least during the start of their program, and probably periodically throughout the satellite's mission). They can use selected ground stations, or airborne labs measuring CO2 levels. Then the whole picture can be interpreted. There's a lot of unhelpful vile, I presume mostly coming from ex-denialists. There's that saying that goes like: at first they laugh at you, then they vehemently oppose you, and then they not only agree, but pretend they were on the side of history all along... These ex-denialists lack the knowledge to help others see the light, but are more than willing to poop "in the name of their new team" on anyonne who seems to be still in denial...

DoctorOetker 8y ago

I also don't like how any question not draped with otherwise agreement is automatically thought of as bigotry. I didn't take the time to read all the comments in this thread but I did not have the impression you were trying to "debunk climate change" to the contrary, you seemed to accept the presence of problems, but desire more open access to the datasets and presumably tutorials and explanations on how to reproduce analysis (think kaggle scripts). You correctly point out the danger of inefficient or insufficient diagnosis and treatment of the problems. In a sense you seem to hint at counterintuitive policies, where the straightforward policy would be more costly (and hence the difference in cost could have been spent otherwise on more monitoring or treatment). Regarding CO2 monitoring on a worldwide scale, it is indeed a problem scientists and engineers are dealing with. None of your downvoters point out any of the found solutions for the problem you visualize, but they do have the time to downvote you, which imho is not entirely fair, so I will take a little time to respond on that front: they use remote sensing of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), molecules have their own spectra (normal spectra or raman spectra), imaging satellites equiped with lasers take "pictures" of the concentrations of the species under study. These need to be callibrated (at least during the start of their program, and probably periodically throughout the satellite's mission). They can use selected ground stations, or airborne labs measuring CO2 levels. Then the whole picture can be interpreted. There's a lot of unhelpful vile, I presume mostly coming from ex-denialists. There's that saying that goes like: at first they laugh at you, then they vehemently oppose you, and then they not only agree, but pretend they were on the side of history all along... These ex-denialists lack the knowledge to help others see the light, but are more than willing to poop "in the name of their new team" on anyonne who seems to be still in denial...