Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Let me explain, the actual, real world, effects of increasing CO2 concentrations on the atmosphere are not following the predictions of any model that has been used. They have totally eliminated the models that predicted a large increase in temperature, have fallen outside the range of models that showed a moderate increase, and are about to drop out of even the conservative models that predicted a small, but steady, increase. These models are what the doomsayers used to base their call for action on, but the observed data shows that they are wrong.
How do you account for the much larger increases from 200k, 300k, 400k years ago? Were dinosaurs burning fossil fuels? Perhaps microbial life was industrialized and we haven't discovered that? What is your theory on this, I would be interested to know?
Natural cycles. No one has ever denied they existed.
However, we _know_, from the isotope ratio measurements, that the current increase is due to human action. This is 100% certain, not debatable by any rational person. And we also know the current _rate_ of increase is unlike anything seen in the past, which such increases took place over a span of tens of thousands years.
What we know is that the current contribution of man to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a lot higher than at anytime in the past. What we do not know is exactly how the increased levels of a trace gas is going to affect temperature. What we can surmise from fairly comparing the actual evidence to existing computer models is that temperatures are falling off the lower end of all but the most conservative predictions. We also know that, if this trend continues, even those models will fail in a few years.
That actually means that what we know is the same thing most climate scientists are now saying, we really don't know enough to say that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will be catastrophic. Even if it is, the Earth, and humans, will survive.
Ha ha! Do you have even the slightest clue what you are talking about? Judging by your posts, I'd say no.
When his whiny BS gets refuted, PredFan pisses himself and runs.
PredFan, your measure has been taken, as you've been found wanting. You tried to bluff your way through by parroting your cult's idiot mantras. But since your cult never told you how to deal with intelligent people who could shred your stupidity, you're left flailing babbling your 'tard theories about the socialist conspiracy in a vain attempt to cover your retreat.
What we know is that the current contribution of man to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a lot higher than at anytime in the past. What we do not know is exactly how the increased levels of a trace gas is going to affect temperature. What we can surmise from fairly comparing the actual evidence to existing computer models is that temperatures are falling off the lower end of all but the most conservative predictions. We also know that, if
First, you make the major logical blunder of assuming models are the only thing showing the warming.
Second, you get it wrong concerning how accurate the models are. When adjusted for ENSO, the models are very accurate. At best, all you can claim is that the models don't do El Nino/La Nina right now, which everyone already knows. It's just not relevant to the overall warming, which the models have predicted spot-on. And it's not just the models. It's the decades of correct predictions across many fields that has given AGW science such credibility.
First, I made no such blunder. The blunder you made was entirely misreading my post.
Let me explain, the actual, real world, effects of increasing CO2 concentrations on the atmosphere are not following the predictions of any model that has been used. They have totally eliminated the models that predicted a large increase in temperature, have fallen outside the range of models that showed a moderate increase, and are about to drop out of even the conservative models that predicted a small, but steady, increase. These models are what the doomsayers used to base their call for action on, but the observed data shows that they are wrong.
In other words, the actual changes are much less drastic that the doomsayers predicted, and scientists are saying that even the conservative models will be wrong unless something happens in the next few years. That does not mean that there is no climate change occurring, it simply means that we cannot predict the temperatures at all.
Let me emphasize a point I made earlier in the thread, so far the most accurate prediction of the temperature came from a scientists that used a logarithmic prediction in 1938.
When did I run? I'm right here dumbass
Because they allow cleaner forms of electricity production (i.e. less CO2 emissions) to replace dirtier forms of electricity production (i.e. more CO2 emissions).
Wind produces less CO2 emissions than coal, for instance. It is also cheaper, incidentally.
Wrong on both counts. It requires tremendous amounts of CO2 to produce large scale windmills and they are far more expensive to operate than fossil fuel powered power stations.
One windmill that cost 21,000 has generated a whopping 4 BUCKS in savings!
Now that's a greeeeat return on investment!
"Nearly two years after Reno started installing energy-producing windmills at city facilities from downtown to Stead, some have proven to be better at generating electricity than others despite claims made by manufacturers.
The city's seven windmills have so far saved Reno $2,785 in energy costs after generating 25,319 kilowatt-hours of electricity. The windmills were installed between April and October 2010 and cost about $1 million out of a $2.1 million federal energy grant given to the city that was part of the stimulus package approved by Congress in February 2009.
That's according ..."
http://www.rgj.com/article/20120314...living-up-manufacturers-claims?nclick_check=1
But, as we all know, the manufacture and construction of fossil fuel-power plants produces NO CO2 AT ALL! It's a FOOKING MIRACLE I TELL YOU!
There is nothing about the construction of a wind generator that produces any significant amount of CO2. To insist otherwise is simple dishonesty. Or ignorance. The "dirtiest" component in that regard would be concrete. Newer designs have replaced almost all concrete with steel. "All wind turbines recover their complete full-cycle energy cost in the first few (usually three) months of operation." - Ohio State Edu link below
The Ohio Wind Working Group (OWWG), a forum on wind energy development, says the state has the potential to generate 66,000 megawatts, enough to power the state twice over. That's how much money Ohio can save with wind energy, all of it. In 2006 wind energy in the state generated $250 million worth of electricity and created 1,700 jobs. "By 2030, Ohio could benefit from $7.6 billion revenue from the wind industry," says the OWWG.
Read more: How Much Money Will the Wind Farms Save Ohio? | eHow
More good reading at:
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Companion/E21.3.pdf.xpdf
Picking up on a point made by Westwall...
I thought it might be worth looking at the REAL numbers...
Nearly two in three Americans (63%) believe global warming is happening. Relatively few only 16 percent believe it is not. However, since Fall 2012, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is happening has dropped 7 points to 63%, likely influenced by the relatively cold winter of 2012-13 in the United States and an unusually cold March just before the survey was conducted.
Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain of their convictions than those who do not. Of the 63% of Americans who believe global warming is happening, most say they are very (33%) or extremely sure (27%). By contrast, of the unconvinced, fewer are very (28%) or extremely sure of their view (18%).
Global warming is also perceived as a threat to people in developing countries (55%, down 9 points since September 2012, but similar to March 2012), in other modern industrialized countries (53%, down 4 points since September, but up 4 points since March 2012), and in the United States (52%, down 5 points since September, but up 6 points since March 2012).
- See more at: Americans? Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 | Yale Project on Climate Change Communication
99% of the people don't understand some very basic facts about Climate Change and the scam surrounding it.
The vast majority of climate scientists and a very strong majority of all other scientists believe that global warming is primarily caused by human GHG emissions. I find that point considerably more significant than the opinions of the public.
Well there is the root of your problem. You don't know the difference between a real scientist and someone who has what amounts to a liberal science degree. Engineers live applied science. If you want to know what happens in the physical world, ask an engineer, not an academic.
Bullshit. Most engineers are myopic and fairly helpless outside of their specialty. I know that, as an engineer.
Climate science requires generalism. You need physics, chemistry, biology, and loads and loads of statistics. Engineers don't have that. Especially the statistics. An engineering BS requires one basic statistics course, which is laughably inadequate for the sciences. Even the damn psychologists, about as "soft" as you can get, are far better statisticians than the engineers.
What a lot of engineers do have is stupid unwarranted arrogance. They know a lot about their little thing, so they incorrectly assume they must know everything.
Well there is the root of your problem. You don't know the difference between a real scientist and someone who has what amounts to a liberal science degree. Engineers live applied science. If you want to know what happens in the physical world, ask an engineer, not an academic.
Bullshit. Most engineers are myopic and fairly helpless outside of their specialty. I know that, as an engineer.
Climate science requires generalism. You need physics, chemistry, biology, and loads and loads of statistics. Engineers don't have that. Especially the statistics. An engineering BS requires one basic statistics course, which is laughably inadequate for the sciences. Even the damn psychologists, about as "soft" as you can get, are far better statisticians than the engineers.
What a lot of engineers do have is stupid unwarranted arrogance. They know a lot about their little thing, so they incorrectly assume they must know everything.
Let me explain, the actual, real world, effects of increasing CO2 concentrations on the atmosphere are not following the predictions of any model that has been used. They have totally eliminated the models that predicted a large increase in temperature, have fallen outside the range of models that showed a moderate increase, and are about to drop out of even the conservative models that predicted a small, but steady, increase. These models are what the doomsayers used to base their call for action on, but the observed data shows that they are wrong.
Let me explain. You're just totally wrong, being that you're parroting denialist cult nonsense. Hence, your whole line of reasoning is senseless.
Remember, you can't just waltz in and snow the reason-based community by yanking claims out of your ass. That fools the rubes, but not the intelligent people.
In the future there will be little to no change in the climate. The powers that be at the time will pronounce that the reason that the climate is the same is because of the efforts that the scientists and politicians, mainly Al Gore and Barack Obama, put in way back then.
It's complete garbage, but that is how they will sell it to the masses.
Well there is the root of your problem. You don't know the difference between a real scientist and someone who has what amounts to a liberal science degree. Engineers live applied science. If you want to know what happens in the physical world, ask an engineer, not an academic.
Bullshit. Most engineers are myopic and fairly helpless outside of their specialty. I know that, as an engineer.
Climate science requires generalism. You need physics, chemistry, biology, and loads and loads of statistics. Engineers don't have that. Especially the statistics. An engineering BS requires one basic statistics course, which is laughably inadequate for the sciences. Even the damn psychologists, about as "soft" as you can get, are far better statisticians than the engineers.
What a lot of engineers do have is stupid unwarranted arrogance. They know a lot about their little thing, so they incorrectly assume they must know everything.
Yeah.. That's why my buds at Lockheed Martin can work on a Space Probe one day and the next -- be consulting on projects involving kidney dialysis.. Because they are so "inflexable" in their knowledge.
Me--Myself? I've worked in hospitals, in secret facilities I can't tell you about, at Kennedy Space Center, satellite and weather analysis facilities and deciphering dolphin speech with SeaWorld and the Navy.
Yeah --- intensive backgrounds are nearly UNHEARD of in engineering and science -- idiot..
Why do think that TED TALKS is so freaking amazing and popular? Because tech people are single use morons like yourself???
In the future there will be little to no change in the climate. The powers that be at the time will pronounce that the reason that the climate is the same is because of the efforts that the scientists and politicians, mainly Al Gore and Barack Obama, put in way back then.
It's complete garbage, but that is how they will sell it to the masses.
And what has this got to do with the other 206 countries on earth?
You do realise that most conservative governments confirm climate change, don't you?
How do you explain that?
I always love it when posters shriek that climate scientists have faked research to get government funding....and you then remind them that these units are in countries with conservative governments....!!!
In the future there will be little to no change in the climate. The powers that be at the time will pronounce that the reason that the climate is the same is because of the efforts that the scientists and politicians, mainly Al Gore and Barack Obama, put in way back then.
It's complete garbage, but that is how they will sell it to the masses.
And what has this got to do with the other 206 countries on earth?
You do realise that most conservative governments confirm climate change, don't you?
How do you explain that?
I always love it when posters shriek that climate scientists have faked research to get government funding....and you then remind them that these units are in countries with conservative governments....!!!
QW -
I love it when you claim that a government is NOT conservative simply because it fits your agenda.
I can list 10 countries off the top of my head with clearly, openly conservative governments who fund climate research. Why do you deny it?
We both know why - the whole basis of denial is political. The FACT that most conservative politicians understand climate science makes you look ridiculous.
Keep dreaming guy. It really is funny...
Let me explain. You're just totally wrong, being that you're parroting denialist cult nonsense. Hence, your whole line of reasoning is senseless.
Remember, you can't just waltz in and snow the reason-based community by yanking claims out of your ass. That fools the rubes, but not the intelligent people.
You have been presented with legitimate data to show there is absolutely nothing abnormal about spikes in atmospheric CO2,
I'm bored with you continually hurling insults at people and acting like you have some kind of special insight the rest of us just don't have
You have been presented with legitimate data to show there is absolutely nothing abnormal about spikes in atmospheric CO2,
Seriously?
Do you HONESTLY think this looks like some normal cyclical change? Honestly?
I think we both know that you don't think that.
I'm bored with you continually hurling insults at people and acting like you have some kind of special insight the rest of us just don't have
But he does have insight you don't have, because he has read more than you have. It isn't special - most people have read this stuff well enough not to post that CO2 is harmless, anyway.
You have been presented with legitimate data to show there is absolutely nothing abnormal about spikes in atmospheric CO2,
Seriously?
Do you HONESTLY think this looks like some normal cyclical change? Honestly?
I think we both know that you don't think that.
I'm bored with you continually hurling insults at people and acting like you have some kind of special insight the rest of us just don't have
But he does have insight you don't have, because he has read more than you have. It isn't special - most people have read this stuff well enough not to post that CO2 is harmless, anyway.
