Green energy, solar and wind are collapsing....it can't happen fast enough.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Jesus Todd, you've really gotten pathetic.

At least I'm not molesting the data like Michael Mann.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, I gave up what-about-ism when I was 13. Do you really WANT to look like such a juvenile? Michael Mann could be the next Hitler but it doesn't change the fact that Roy Spencer is a liar and an idiot.

Liar and idiot, still better than Hitler. Still better than a deadbeat.

 

[ding]

Roy Spencer is a liar and an idiot. That is why he comes to different conclusions than 99% of the climate scientists on the planet. He's papers are regularly and soundly refuted. And, as I've noted here before, he has never had the slightest involvement in the development of an general climate models. He HAS produced multiple, egregiously manipulated plots attempting to score some points. But since he gets caught every time, the only thing its done is utterly destroy whatever professional reputation he ever possessed. For the last decade he's been a pariah.

 

[ding]

Roy Spencer is a liar and an idiot. That is why he comes to different conclusions than 99% of the climate scientists on the planet. He's papers are regularly and soundly refuted. And, as I've noted here before, he has never had the slightest involvement in the development of an general climate models. He HAS produced multiple, egregiously manipulated plots attempting to score some points. But since he gets caught every time, the only thing its done is utterly destroy whatever professional reputation he ever possessed. For the last decade he's been a pariah.

All because you can't tell me how much is radiative forcing from CO2 and how much is from feedback from the radiative forcing of CO2.

You are a joke.

 

[ding]

Jesus Todd, you've really gotten pathetic.

Says the guy who has no clue how large the butterfly effect (i.e. feedback) is from CO2.

 

[sparky]

All three is impossible, as should be obvious.

The only "green energy" that even comes close to that is hydro. But it is already proven, and people can't push fake hydro schemes as a way to scam money out of the government.

The ultimate capitalist axiom Blues...

Please elaborate. What liberals, what conclusions, what data?

irrelevant Crick...

It's not that the greens lie, cheat and censor their opposition, it's
that their "solutions" are even worse than their science.

as such, the market has spoken.......~S~

 

[Crick]

Says the guy who has no clue how large the butterfly effect (i.e. feedback) is from CO2.

You might want to look that up. Edward Lorenz.

 

[ding]

You might want to look that up. Edward Lorenz.

I already know. 2 to 3 times. But it's their lack of transparency and your abundance of ignorance that is concerning.

 

[ding]

You might want to look that up. Edward Lorenz.

Why haven't you looked it up, Al Gore?

 

[Crick]

Why haven't you looked it up, Al Gore?

Embarrassed?

The Butterfly Effect originated with the work of Edward Lorenz on an early climate model. Lorenz was running a simulation but had to quit for the night. He copied down several parameters from his model to ten decimal places. He came back the next morning and started it up with those values but the simulation went off the rail due his having only used the first ten decimals. Lorenz commented that it was as if the flap of a butterfly's wing might cause a tornado.

That you didn't know that does not argue well that we should be listening to your opinion regarding GCMs.

 

[ding]

Embarrassed?

The Butterfly Effect originated with the work of Edward Lorenz on an early climate model. Lorenz was running a simulation but had to quit for the night. He copied down several parameters from his model to ten decimal places. He came back the next morning and started it up with those values but the simulation went off the rail due his having only used the first ten decimals. Lorenz commented that it was as if the flap of a butterfly's wing might cause a tornado.

That you didn't know that does not argue well that we should be listening to your opinion regarding GCMs.

I'm not embarrassed at all. You should be for not knowing they lump feedback in with the radiative forcing component of CO2, not knowing the feedback was 2-3 times greater than the radiative forcing of CO2 and for not investigating it yourself when it was brought to your attention.

 

[Crick]

I'm not embarrassed at all. You should be for not knowing they lump feedback in with the radiative forcing component of CO2, not knowing the feedback was 2-3 times greater than the radiative forcing of CO2 and for not investigating it yourself when it was brought to your attention.

Please go read TS.3 in The Physical Science Basis before you stick your foot any further down your own throat.

 

[westwall]

I'm not embarrassed at all. You should be for not knowing they lump feedback in with the radiative forcing component of CO2, not knowing the feedback was 2-3 times greater than the radiative forcing of CO2 and for not investigating it yourself when it was brought to your attention.

Now you understand why I no longer respond to the troll. It is dishonest, and stupid. A dangerous combo.

 

[ding]

Please go read TS.3 in The Physical Science Basis before you stick your foot any further down your own throat.

And that will disprove what I said how?

 

[ding]

Now you understand why I no longer respond to the troll. It is dishonest, and stupid. A dangerous combo.

Yeah, I know. He ignores his incongruities and dismisses his defeats.

 

[Crick]

And that will disprove what I said how?

Are you under the impression that increasing your knowledge will harm you in some way? Open the thing and start reading. See what its about. If it's too scary, put it down.

 

[ding]

Are you under the impression that increasing your knowledge will harm you in some way? Open the thing and start reading. See what its about. If it's too scary, put it down.

All I need from you is for you to admit which component you believe is larger; radiative forcing from CO2 or the feedback from radiative forcing of CO2. And by how much. Is that so hard for you to do?

 

[Crick]

Read TS.3.

End of conversation.

 

[JBG]

The goal isn't to produce more, reliable, cheaper, efficient energy....the goal of the left is to limit access to energy to give them more control over the life choices we have....

Hopefully the scam of green energy will collapse at an accelerated rate...

Green Dreams Going Up In Smoke

Wind and solar are both terrible methods of generating electricity, both expensive and unreliable. The one thing that can make the situation worse is the drive to electrify everything, including mo…

www.powerlineblog.com

Amen to that; and I am a left-wing Democrat. This is all about pulling the plug on the "affluent society" and not about the environment.

MSN

www.msn.com

~S~

Great song!

 

[ding]

Read TS.3.

I don't need to.

1. I already know that their models are magnifying the radiative forcing effect of CO2 by 2 to 3 times.
2. I already know that feedback isn't broken out in their radiative forcing component map.
3. I already know why it's not. A 2 to a 3 time magnification of the radiative forcing of CO2 is ridiculous and would draw many many questions about the veracity of their models.

Is it really a surprise they have had to admit their models are running too hot?