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.
Right. All tax deductions are subsidies to them.
Exactly, which is why the obsession with CO2 makes little sense.
The geologic record is littered with examples of warming and cooling trends that were not driven by CO2 or orbital forcing.
No. I think I will applaud you for that.
I'd much rather rely upon nuclear than wind and solar to base load the electrical grid.
I don't believe it does as much as the distribution and topography of the landmasses and how landmasses affect the circulation of the oceans especially in the polar regions.
Why do you always look for simplification? Why does one thing always have to be "in control"? The climate is a complex system that is affected by lots of different factors.
they believe that tax breaks is equivalent to subsidies. Ding, can't make it up.
Here is the definition of subsidy. A sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. You will notice that the key distinction is to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.Economists also say that subsidies can and do include tax breaks. They amount to much the same thing: money back in the revenue bucket. These are often called "indirect subsidies" by economists.
But what are economists other than "experts in their field", so we all know that the collective hive-mind of Dunning-Kruger "Scientists" here on USMB know better than the experts.
Sure, but they regularly tune their models to eliminate natural forcings so they can isolate the effect of CO2 and the feedback of CO2 which I disagree with.Have you not read the IPCC or the literature? You DO realize don't you that a WIDE VARIETY of forcings are investigated, right? I mean you can literally see it EXPLICITLY in the IPCC reports.
You're talking to a false religion.
Jo
I'm not anti-development. I'm anti-BFI. Base loading the electric grid with technologies that are inherently unreliable because they produce electricity intermittently is a bad fucking idea (BFI).Why are you so anti-development? I understand your job wasn't one of research and development, but I'm surprised at how resistant you are to the further development of other technologies.
Ironic for an engineer, especially.
I think maybe you need to learn more oceanography. Thermohaline circulation plays an important role in supplying heat to the polar regions. It influences the rate of sea ice formation near the poles, which in turn affects other aspects of the climate system (such as the albedo, and thus solar heating, at high latitudes). So please tell me how thermohaline circulation plays a role in global warming when thermohaline circulation serves to prevent global cooling?You really need to learn more oceanography.
If you were familiar with the climate science topic you'd also know that the models are all "atmospheric-ocean coupled models" and that's because the oceans are EXTREMELY important in climate.
It isn't the continental landmasses that are re-distributing heat in the various latitudes. It's ocean currents.
It really does seem that every time we start to talk about thermohaline circulation you zone out. Almost as if you can't even see the words, let alone understand them.
I think maybe you need to learn more oceanography.
Thermohaline circulation plays an important role in supplying heat to the polar regions. It influences the rate of sea ice formation near the poles, which in turn affects other aspects of the climate system (such as the albedo, and thus solar heating, at high latitudes). So please tell me how thermohaline circulation plays a role in global warming when thermohaline circulation serves to prevent global cooling?
The ocean is less important to the planet's climate than the landmasses
Yes, they are which is why it's surprising they have oversimplified evaporitve cooling, cloud formation and precipitation to create a positive feedback that is 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 alone.It's because complex systems are hard to understand.
You could have fooled me because if any of that were true I would have expected you to be able to explain why I am wrong rather than just make a claim that I am wrong.Sorry, ding, but I worked for a year as an oceanographic lab tech. Even did a research cruise. You are focusing, again, on ONE THING in a much larger complex system. Utterly incorrect. Beyond wrong. You are so out of your depth on all these things it's not funny.
Sure, but they regularly tune their models
I reject their understanding of the feedback and how they perform their modeling. I don't reject the greenhouse effect.
Yes, they are which is why it's surprising they have oversimplified evaporitve cooling, cloud formation and precipitation to create a positive feedback tat is 2 to 3 times greater than the GHG effect of CO2 alone.
You could have fooled me because if any of that were true I would have expected you to be able to explain why I am wrong rather than just make a claim that I am wrong.
The IPCC relies upon models to publish their reports.The IPCC does not make any models themselves. No one is tuning their models to fraudulently hide anything or make anything what it isn't. You do not understand the detail of the systems (you don't even know what the IPCC itself does) so you are without any standing in this debate.
The models relied upon by the IPCC in their published reports use urban temperature data which incorrectly attributes the urban heat effect from concrete and waste heat from electricity to atmospheric CO2.The IPCC does not make any models themselves. No one is tuning their models to fraudulently hide anything or make anything what it isn't. You do not understand the detail of the systems (you don't even know what the IPCC itself does) so you are without any standing in this debate.
The models relied upon by the IPCC in their published reports use the low variability solar output dateset (left panel) instead of the high variability solar output dateset (right panel) used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This effectively results in incorrectly eliminating the sun as a cause for the recent warming trend.The IPCC does not make any models themselves. No one is tuning their models to fraudulently hide anything or make anything what it isn't. You do not understand the detail of the systems (you don't even know what the IPCC itself does) so you are without any standing in this debate.
