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.
Nope, coal fired or NG powered plants aren't producing power 100 feet or more in the air dumbass. It costs a great deal to get people to do that type of work. Also if a big storm comes the FF or NG powered plants don't risk coming apart and becoming a large projectile. Again INSURANCE!
The fact is, if you remove the government subsidies and/or the carbon taxes, there is no place that wind power produces energy anywhere nearly as cheaply or as efficiently as coal, natural gas, and oil. And since we are in no imminent danger of running out of any of the carbon based fuels, it seems the smart thing would be to focus technology on minimizing any environmental damage from the use of them rather than forcing less efficient stuff on us.
When wind energy or solar energy or any other energy source becomes more profitable than carbon based energy, we will see newer forms of energy replacing the old. Profit is a powerful motive to produce new products that work better than the old ones.
To compare costs, first fossil fueled plants have to be charged the cost of the consequences of their choices. The wars to defend their supplies, the consequences of dumping their waste into our atmosphere. That will be done by some version of carbon taxes. Then we'll let economics decide the issue. But, business has already decided. Nobody is investing in fossil fuels anymore. All investment is going to sustainable.
There are only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth.
Energy balance. The earth and atmosphere around it are perfectly insulated by the vacuum that surrounds the atmosphere. Only radiant energy in, only radiant energy out. They must be equal. If more energy is coming in, than going out, warming will occur. If less is coming in than going out cooling will occur.
Radiant energy in comes only from the sun.
Radiant energy out is proportional to the absolute temperature of earth as seen by space.
The more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the less radiant energy out.
Increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must decrease radiation out. That must cause the absolute temperature to rise, until energy out equals energy in once more.
That's the whole story. Of course how the earth, with all of its components and materials and dynamics achieve continual energy balance is a complicated thing. That it has to, as a reaction to higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, is a simple given.
There are only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth.
Energy balance. The earth and atmosphere around it are perfectly insulated by the vacuum that surrounds the atmosphere. Only radiant energy in, only radiant energy out. They must be equal. If more energy is coming in, than going out, warming will occur. If less is coming in than going out cooling will occur.
Radiant energy in comes only from the sun.
Radiant energy out is proportional to the absolute temperature of earth as seen by space.
The more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the less radiant energy out.
Increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must decrease radiation out. That must cause the absolute temperature to rise, until energy out equals energy in once more.
That's the whole story. Of course how the earth, with all of its components and materials and dynamics achieve continual energy balance is a complicated thing. That it has to, as a reaction to higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, is a simple given.
There are *only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth.*
Energy balance. The earth and atmosphere around it are perfectly insulated by the vacuum that surrounds the atmosphere. Only radiant energy in, only radiant energy out. They must be equal. If more energy is coming in, than going out, warming will occur. If less is coming in than going out cooling will occur.*
Radiant energy in comes only from the sun.*
Radiant energy out is proportional to the absolute temperature of earth as seen by space.*
The more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the less radiant energy out.
Increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must decrease radiation out. That must cause the absolute temperature to rise, until energy out equals energy in once more.*
That's the whole story. Of course how the earth, with all of its components and materials and dynamics achieve continual energy balance is a complicated thing. That it has to, as a reaction to higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, is a simple given.
I WUV YU, YU WUV ME, We're a happy family...*
1) Climate sensitivity Numbers
2) CO2 Forcing Function (log nature)
3) FEEDBACK mechanisms..*
Sorry Johnny --- I've got to give you an "F"...*
No discussion of the REAL climate drivers in YOUR AGW theory. And an apparent assumption that the models are predicting temp rise based SOLELY on CO2 in the atmosphere WITHOUT the 3 things I listed above. In TRUTH --- YOUR AGW theory is a lot more complicated than you state (there are mORE than 3 complications) and requires you to believe that a 2degC change in surface forcing FROM ANY CAUSE --- would set off a chain of catastrophic feedbacks resulting in 1000 plagues. Bummer eh? The planet you live on is a suicidal bomb...*
The effect from CO2 ALONE ---- would make this whole issue --- a literal snooze.. Before you ARGUE that point with me --- I suggest you work a bit. To AVOID my itchy trigger finger this week...
I forget, what was your explaination for the correlation between CO2 and temp
in last 100 years or so? *Coincidence?
Who's was optical computing? Was that you or Westwall?
Well considering your level of understanding of correlation versus causation, the temp rise also correlates well with 49 other factors. Like the average mature size of farmed salmon for instance. Why don't you go back a few pages and try to hurt me with an INTELLIGENT rebuttal to the observation that CO2 forcing is NOT a temperature rise without a "Climate Sensitivity number to account for the earth's surface thermal properties.. And tthat YOUR THEORY of GW, can't decide whether this number is closer to 1 or 5 --- but they PRETEND that their graphs and models are "RIGHT SPOT ON"...*
Do a little work sucker. And YES --- I have 4 or 5 published papers on Optical Computing. Just ONE of the areas I've been blessed to work in.. Yu wanna discuss? Or just badger?
Be glad to do any number of OTHER areas I've done research and engineering in.. But let's do all that in PMessaging eh?
Respond CAREFULLY -- my anger about losing my Civil Liberties and my country is making me more NEG today than usual....
Why would you want me to "hurt" you? What id wrong with you?
I'm not the one trying to play myself of as being brilliant.*
So you have published papers on optical computing, whoopty doo. *So why are you wasting your time on an internet forum?
What, you get put in a mental hospital?
Lots of things can be correlated without causality. *CPI is correlated with population growth. *But its meaningless because the are both simply functions that are grounded in exponential growth and they are part of entirely different systems. *This leads us nowhere as it simply says that in general, there are correlations that aren't causal. Woopty do...*
That's not the issue of interest. *The issue of interest is why is temp correlated with CO2 in the last century.
Here, I'll give you a basic clue to causality. *When two quantities of the same system are correlated, the probability is that there is a causal factor between the two.
No, seriously, what is wrong with you? *Why are you so pissed of at the world that your looking for some random person to take it out on?
Do you seriously think anyone is going to find you interesting or fun like this?
There are only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth.
Energy balance. The earth and atmosphere around it are perfectly insulated by the vacuum that surrounds the atmosphere. Only radiant energy in, only radiant energy out. They must be equal. If more energy is coming in, than going out, warming will occur. If less is coming in than going out cooling will occur.
Radiant energy in comes only from the sun.
Radiant energy out is proportional to the absolute temperature of earth as seen by space.
The more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the less radiant energy out.
Increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must decrease radiation out. That must cause the absolute temperature to rise, until energy out equals energy in once more.
That's the whole story. Of course how the earth, with all of its components and materials and dynamics achieve continual energy balance is a complicated thing. That it has to, as a reaction to higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, is a simple given.
I WUV YU, YU WUV ME, We're a happy family...
1) Climate sensitivity Numbers
2) CO2 Forcing Function (log nature)
3) FEEDBACK mechanisms..
Sorry Johnny --- I've got to give you an "F"...
No discussion of the REAL climate drivers in YOUR AGW theory. And an apparent assumption that the models are predicting temp rise based SOLELY on CO2 in the atmosphere WITHOUT the 3 things I listed above. In TRUTH --- YOUR AGW theory is a lot more complicated than you state (there are mORE than 3 complications) and requires you to believe that a 2degC change in surface forcing FROM ANY CAUSE --- would set off a chain of catastrophic feedbacks resulting in 1000 plagues. Bummer eh? The planet you live on is a suicidal bomb...
The effect from CO2 ALONE ---- would make this whole issue --- a literal snooze.. Before you ARGUE that point with me --- I suggest you work a bit. To AVOID my itchy trigger finger this week...
There are only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth.
Energy balance. The earth and atmosphere around it are perfectly insulated by the vacuum that surrounds the atmosphere. Only radiant energy in, only radiant energy out. They must be equal. If more energy is coming in, than going out, warming will occur. If less is coming in than going out cooling will occur.
Radiant energy in comes only from the sun.
Radiant energy out is proportional to the absolute temperature of earth as seen by space.
The more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the less radiant energy out.
Increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must decrease radiation out. That must cause the absolute temperature to rise, until energy out equals energy in once more.
That's the whole story. Of course how the earth, with all of its components and materials and dynamics achieve continual energy balance is a complicated thing. That it has to, as a reaction to higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, is a simple given.
I WUV YU, YU WUV ME, We're a happy family...
1) Climate sensitivity Numbers
2) CO2 Forcing Function (log nature)
3) FEEDBACK mechanisms..
Sorry Johnny --- I've got to give you an "F"...
No discussion of the REAL climate drivers in YOUR AGW theory. And an apparent assumption that the models are predicting temp rise based SOLELY on CO2 in the atmosphere WITHOUT the 3 things I listed above. In TRUTH --- YOUR AGW theory is a lot more complicated than you state (there are mORE than 3 complications) and requires you to believe that a 2degC change in surface forcing FROM ANY CAUSE --- would set off a chain of catastrophic feedbacks resulting in 1000 plagues. Bummer eh? The planet you live on is a suicidal bomb...
The effect from CO2 ALONE ---- would make this whole issue --- a literal snooze.. Before you ARGUE that point with me --- I suggest you work a bit. To AVOID my itchy trigger finger this week...
The concepts that you hope to hide the truth behind, have to do with how the closed system rearranges itself to achieve the required energy balance. But, energy balance is a requirement. And therefore when all is said and done higher concentrations of atmospheric co2 must drive the endpoint of higher global absolute temperature as seen by space. There may be thousands of other drivers of global temperature also but they are irrelevant to this discussion.
Higher concentrations of greenhouse gasses will warm the earth.
Well considering your level of understanding of correlation versus causation, the temp rise also correlates well with 49 other factors. Like the average mature size of farmed salmon for instance. Why don't you go back a few pages and try to hurt me with an INTELLIGENT rebuttal to the observation that CO2 forcing is NOT a temperature rise without a "Climate Sensitivity number to account for the earth's surface thermal properties.. And tthat YOUR THEORY of GW, can't decide whether this number is closer to 1 or 5 --- but they PRETEND that their graphs and models are "RIGHT SPOT ON"...*
Do a little work sucker. And YES --- I have 4 or 5 published papers on Optical Computing. Just ONE of the areas I've been blessed to work in.. Yu wanna discuss? Or just badger?
Be glad to do any number of OTHER areas I've done research and engineering in.. But let's do all that in PMessaging eh?
Respond CAREFULLY -- my anger about losing my Civil Liberties and my country is making me more NEG today than usual....
Why would you want me to "hurt" you? What id wrong with you?
I'm not the one trying to play myself of as being brilliant.*
So you have published papers on optical computing, whoopty doo. *So why are you wasting your time on an internet forum?
What, you get put in a mental hospital?
Lots of things can be correlated without causality. *CPI is correlated with population growth. *But its meaningless because the are both simply functions that are grounded in exponential growth and they are part of entirely different systems. *This leads us nowhere as it simply says that in general, there are correlations that aren't causal. Woopty do...*
That's not the issue of interest. *The issue of interest is why is temp correlated with CO2 in the last century.
Here, I'll give you a basic clue to causality. *When two quantities of the same system are correlated, the probability is that there is a causal factor between the two.
No, seriously, what is wrong with you? *Why are you so pissed of at the world that your looking for some random person to take it out on?
Do you seriously think anyone is going to find you interesting or fun like this?
All you need to know is:
1) I am here for 2 reasons.. To LEARN * and To dispell Bullshit scientific pronouncents and misrepresentations of technology to consumers. That's a MORAL obligation I have to preserve the independence and honesty of science and technology..*
2) This is NOT a game to me. I take it as seriously as my REAL work.
3) I have the patience of a saint when folks want to actually discuss the topic.. I quickly get sketchy and edgey when anyone attempts to assert tons of crap and doesn't defend it or respond to my questions..*
So -- I'm over in Energy trying to dispell the myth that E. Musk's EV charging stations are "solar powered". And how it's just WONDERFUL if you can charge one EV in 20 minutes using the equivalent electrical power of 2 or 3 subdivisions full of houses to do it.
Also exposing the Govt propagated myth about the efficiencies of incandescent bulbs.*
People have actually decided that Bullshit tastes good. An they have a huge appetite for this "spin" and agiprop.. My goal is like Michelle Obama's -- to get America back on an Arugulla diet with less sugar and rat crap....
Why would you want me to "hurt" you? What id wrong with you?
I'm not the one trying to play myself of as being brilliant.*
So you have published papers on optical computing, whoopty doo. *So why are you wasting your time on an internet forum?
What, you get put in a mental hospital?
Lots of things can be correlated without causality. *CPI is correlated with population growth. *But its meaningless because the are both simply functions that are grounded in exponential growth and they are part of entirely different systems. *This leads us nowhere as it simply says that in general, there are correlations that aren't causal. Woopty do...*
That's not the issue of interest. *The issue of interest is why is temp correlated with CO2 in the last century.
Here, I'll give you a basic clue to causality. *When two quantities of the same system are correlated, the probability is that there is a causal factor between the two.
No, seriously, what is wrong with you? *Why are you so pissed of at the world that your looking for some random person to take it out on?
Do you seriously think anyone is going to find you interesting or fun like this?
All you need to know is:
1) I am here for 2 reasons.. To LEARN * and To dispell Bullshit scientific pronouncents and misrepresentations of technology to consumers. That's a MORAL obligation I have to preserve the independence and honesty of science and technology..*
2) This is NOT a game to me. I take it as seriously as my REAL work.
3) I have the patience of a saint when folks want to actually discuss the topic.. I quickly get sketchy and edgey when anyone attempts to assert tons of crap and doesn't defend it or respond to my questions..*
So -- I'm over in Energy trying to dispell the myth that E. Musk's EV charging stations are "solar powered". And how it's just WONDERFUL if you can charge one EV in 20 minutes using the equivalent electrical power of 2 or 3 subdivisions full of houses to do it.
Also exposing the Govt propagated myth about the efficiencies of incandescent bulbs.*
People have actually decided that Bullshit tastes good. An they have a huge appetite for this "spin" and agiprop.. My goal is like Michelle Obama's -- to get America back on an Arugulla diet with less sugar and rat crap....
Which would be all great, if it had any bearing on reality. *You've created some mythical
antcedant in your own mind, that you regail against endessly.
I need go no further than "I quickly get sketchy and edgey when anyone attempts to assert tons of crap " to ask the simple question, "what, or who, are you talking about?"
There are millions of sad stories in life about people who bet the whole paycheck on a sure thing only to have the nag stumble and lose. Some blame the nag, but I, the gambler.
While it's rediculous to compare science and horses the point is that in the beginning, science starts with people speculating as to whether this or that will turn out to be true.
But, real scientists don't invest themselves in the outcome, only in the learning.
A lot has been learned in the last 20 years about many topics related to climatology. Learning is all good, but it doesn't replace or contradict what's been discovered and proven before.
The simple precepts of radiation still are. A body receiving radiation from a warmer source gets warmer. Not forever, but until it is forced by its temperature to radiate away the same amount of energy as it is receiving.
Always. No exceptions.
Every molecule of co2 in the atmosphere increases the odds that it will encounter a passing photon of long wave radiation on it's way out to space from the warmed earth radiating it. If their meeting occurs in a certain way, the photon adds energy to the molecule and raises its temperature. That higher absolute temperature gets dissipated by the molecule radiating it away in all directions. About half out in space, and half back to earth.
Net effect? More molecules of co2 in the atmosphere, less escaping long wave radiation. The same incoming shortwave solar radiation, but less escaping longwave radiation, can only produce one effect. The closed earth system must become warmer until energy balance is re-achieved.
No histrionics. No chest pounding. No care about who bet on what horse. Simply the acceptance of what must be.
Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.
Wind does need back-up, as does solar, which increasingly in Europe is Natural Gas.
It isn't a grid "nightmare", it's something which Europe already deals with on a day-to-day basis without much fuss.
Solar tends to be VERY predictable, and also has the advantage of being available through peak times. Wind is obviously less predictable, but it still generates more than 50% of the energy needs of some major EU economies at peak times.
You are arguing with tiny minds who have been pursuaded that mankind is dumb, solutions are impossible, the monsters in the closets rule, we must each protect our stash because growth is a thing of the past, and somehow all smart people ended up in business and all dumb people in government.
It's a mindset delivered daily to the nation's Lazy Boys, remote controlling the media boxes, to maximum opinionating and minimum informing.
The non thinkers paradise.
They are a major indictment of our education system.
It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward.
I don't know when the last flat earther died, perhaps he hasn't yet, but those who think that science can be manipulated to support their personal agendas always lose. Mankind doesn't invent truth, they learn it. The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants.
Investors understand and those who are placing their bets now are betting on sustainable. There are still more politics to be applied to getting those who got wealthy from fossil fuels to pay all of their own bills rather than dump them on the taxpayers. But as the republican party has chosen extinction over adaption the noise will die away pretty quickly.
And, "An Inconvenient Truth", will be regarded by history as the prescient work that it was.
Prescient? Really? 9 SIGNIFICANT ERRORS OF FACT, 35 lesser errors of fact and you claim it is prescient? Then you insult those of us with real education to back up our observations? You ignorant little twerp go back to your moms basement.
There are *only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth.*
Energy balance. The earth and atmosphere around it are perfectly insulated by the vacuum that surrounds the atmosphere. Only radiant energy in, only radiant energy out. They must be equal. If more energy is coming in, than going out, warming will occur. If less is coming in than going out cooling will occur.*
Radiant energy in comes only from the sun.*
Radiant energy out is proportional to the absolute temperature of earth as seen by space.*
The more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the less radiant energy out.
Increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must decrease radiation out. That must cause the absolute temperature to rise, until energy out equals energy in once more.*
That's the whole story. Of course how the earth, with all of its components and materials and dynamics achieve continual energy balance is a complicated thing. That it has to, as a reaction to higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, is a simple given.
I WUV YU, YU WUV ME, We're a happy family...*
1) Climate sensitivity Numbers
2) CO2 Forcing Function (log nature)
3) FEEDBACK mechanisms..*
Sorry Johnny --- I've got to give you an "F"...*
No discussion of the REAL climate drivers in YOUR AGW theory. And an apparent assumption that the models are predicting temp rise based SOLELY on CO2 in the atmosphere WITHOUT the 3 things I listed above. In TRUTH --- YOUR AGW theory is a lot more complicated than you state (there are mORE than 3 complications) and requires you to believe that a 2degC change in surface forcing FROM ANY CAUSE --- would set off a chain of catastrophic feedbacks resulting in 1000 plagues. Bummer eh? The planet you live on is a suicidal bomb...*
The effect from CO2 ALONE ---- would make this whole issue --- a literal snooze.. Before you ARGUE that point with me --- I suggest you work a bit. To AVOID my itchy trigger finger this week...
Ergo, there has been no rise in CO2 global mean temperature...
There are only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth.
Energy balance. The earth and atmosphere around it are perfectly insulated by the vacuum that surrounds the atmosphere. Only radiant energy in, only radiant energy out. They must be equal. If more energy is coming in, than going out, warming will occur. If less is coming in than going out cooling will occur.
Radiant energy in comes only from the sun.
Radiant energy out is proportional to the absolute temperature of earth as seen by space.
The more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the less radiant energy out.
Increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must decrease radiation out. That must cause the absolute temperature to rise, until energy out equals energy in once more.
That's the whole story. Of course how the earth, with all of its components and materials and dynamics achieve continual energy balance is a complicated thing. That it has to, as a reaction to higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, is a simple given.
I WUV YU, YU WUV ME, We're a happy family...
1) Climate sensitivity Numbers
2) CO2 Forcing Function (log nature)
3) FEEDBACK mechanisms..
Sorry Johnny --- I've got to give you an "F"...
No discussion of the REAL climate drivers in YOUR AGW theory. And an apparent assumption that the models are predicting temp rise based SOLELY on CO2 in the atmosphere WITHOUT the 3 things I listed above. In TRUTH --- YOUR AGW theory is a lot more complicated than you state (there are mORE than 3 complications) and requires you to believe that a 2degC change in surface forcing FROM ANY CAUSE --- would set off a chain of catastrophic feedbacks resulting in 1000 plagues. Bummer eh? The planet you live on is a suicidal bomb...
The effect from CO2 ALONE ---- would make this whole issue --- a literal snooze.. Before you ARGUE that point with me --- I suggest you work a bit. To AVOID my itchy trigger finger this week...
The concepts that you hope to hide the truth behind, have to do with how the closed system rearranges itself to achieve the required energy balance. But, energy balance is a requirement. And therefore when all is said and done higher concentrations of atmospheric co2 must drive the endpoint of higher global absolute temperature as seen by space. There may be thousands of other drivers of global temperature also but they are irrelevant to this discussion.
Higher concentrations of greenhouse gasses will warm the earth.
Why would you want me to "hurt" you? What id wrong with you?
I'm not the one trying to play myself of as being brilliant.*
So you have published papers on optical computing, whoopty doo. *So why are you wasting your time on an internet forum?
What, you get put in a mental hospital?
Lots of things can be correlated without causality. *CPI is correlated with population growth. *But its meaningless because the are both simply functions that are grounded in exponential growth and they are part of entirely different systems. *This leads us nowhere as it simply says that in general, there are correlations that aren't causal. Woopty do...*
That's not the issue of interest. *The issue of interest is why is temp correlated with CO2 in the last century.
Here, I'll give you a basic clue to causality. *When two quantities of the same system are correlated, the probability is that there is a causal factor between the two.
No, seriously, what is wrong with you? *Why are you so pissed of at the world that your looking for some random person to take it out on?
Do you seriously think anyone is going to find you interesting or fun like this?
All you need to know is:
1) I am here for 2 reasons.. To LEARN * and To dispell Bullshit scientific pronouncents and misrepresentations of technology to consumers. That's a MORAL obligation I have to preserve the independence and honesty of science and technology..*
2) This is NOT a game to me. I take it as seriously as my REAL work.
3) I have the patience of a saint when folks want to actually discuss the topic.. I quickly get sketchy and edgey when anyone attempts to assert tons of crap and doesn't defend it or respond to my questions..*
So -- I'm over in Energy trying to dispell the myth that E. Musk's EV charging stations are "solar powered". And how it's just WONDERFUL if you can charge one EV in 20 minutes using the equivalent electrical power of 2 or 3 subdivisions full of houses to do it.
Also exposing the Govt propagated myth about the efficiencies of incandescent bulbs.*
People have actually decided that Bullshit tastes good. An they have a huge appetite for this "spin" and agiprop.. My goal is like Michelle Obama's -- to get America back on an Arugulla diet with less sugar and rat crap....
Which would be all great, if it had any bearing on reality. *You've created some mythical
antcedant in your own mind, that you regail against endessly.
I need go no further than "I quickly get sketchy and edgey when anyone attempts to assert tons of crap " to ask the simple question, "what, or who, are you talking about?"
There are millions of sad stories in life about people who bet the whole paycheck on a sure thing only to have the nag stumble and lose. Some blame the nag, but I, the gambler.
While it's rediculous to compare science and horses the point is that in the beginning, science starts with people speculating as to whether this or that will turn out to be true.
But, real scientists don't invest themselves in the outcome, only in the learning.
A lot has been learned in the last 20 years about many topics related to climatology. Learning is all good, but it doesn't replace or contradict what's been discovered and proven before.
The simple precepts of radiation still are. A body receiving radiation from a warmer source gets warmer. Not forever, but until it is forced by its temperature to radiate away the same amount of energy as it is receiving.
Always. No exceptions.
Every molecule of co2 in the atmosphere increases the odds that it will encounter a passing photon of long wave radiation on it's way out to space from the warmed earth radiating it. If their meeting occurs in a certain way, the photon adds energy to the molecule and raises its temperature. That higher absolute temperature gets dissipated by the molecule radiating it away in all directions. About half out in space, and half back to earth.
Net effect? More molecules of co2 in the atmosphere, less escaping long wave radiation. The same incoming shortwave solar radiation, but less escaping longwave radiation, can only produce one effect. The closed earth system must become warmer until energy balance is re-achieved.
No histrionics. No chest pounding. No care about who bet on what horse. Simply the acceptance of what must be.
It's painfully clear that deniers are not educated enough to understand that they have nothing to stand on. They have bet on the wrong horse simply because he was, they thought, cheaper. Wrong on all counts. Wrong on the science, wrong on the economics, wrong on the path forward.
I don't know when the last flat earther died, perhaps he hasn't yet, but those who think that science can be manipulated to support their personal agendas always lose. Mankind doesn't invent truth, they learn it. The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants.
Investors understand and those who are placing their bets now are betting on sustainable. There are still more politics to be applied to getting those who got wealthy from fossil fuels to pay all of their own bills rather than dump them on the taxpayers. But as the republican party has chosen extinction over adaption the noise will die away pretty quickly.
And, "An Inconvenient Truth", will be regarded by history as the prescient work that it was.
The universe simply doesn't care what humanity wants. Investors understand and those who are placing their bets now are betting on sustainable.
There are *only a couple of principles that you have to know to understand that increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses have to warm the earth.*
Energy balance. The earth and atmosphere around it are perfectly insulated by the vacuum that surrounds the atmosphere. Only radiant energy in, only radiant energy out. They must be equal. If more energy is coming in, than going out, warming will occur. If less is coming in than going out cooling will occur.*
Radiant energy in comes only from the sun.*
Radiant energy out is proportional to the absolute temperature of earth as seen by space.*
The more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, the less radiant energy out.
Increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must decrease radiation out. That must cause the absolute temperature to rise, until energy out equals energy in once more.*
That's the whole story. Of course how the earth, with all of its components and materials and dynamics achieve continual energy balance is a complicated thing. That it has to, as a reaction to higher concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gasses, is a simple given.
I WUV YU, YU WUV ME, We're a happy family...*
1) Climate sensitivity Numbers
2) CO2 Forcing Function (log nature)
3) FEEDBACK mechanisms..*
Sorry Johnny --- I've got to give you an "F"...*
No discussion of the REAL climate drivers in YOUR AGW theory. And an apparent assumption that the models are predicting temp rise based SOLELY on CO2 in the atmosphere WITHOUT the 3 things I listed above. In TRUTH --- YOUR AGW theory is a lot more complicated than you state (there are mORE than 3 complications) and requires you to believe that a 2degC change in surface forcing FROM ANY CAUSE --- would set off a chain of catastrophic feedbacks resulting in 1000 plagues. Bummer eh? The planet you live on is a suicidal bomb...*
The effect from CO2 ALONE ---- would make this whole issue --- a literal snooze.. Before you ARGUE that point with me --- I suggest you work a bit. To AVOID my itchy trigger finger this week...
Ergo, there has been no rise in CO2 global mean temperature...
