The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[PMZ]

Deniers offer no proof. Only poitical cynicism. Not a problem as only they are paying attention to what they wish was true.

So what are they saying? Burning fossil fuels doesn't create CO2 as waste? CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Greenhouse gasses don't absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation? Energy balance is a myth? They have evidence that something has changed since the last time that we had the projected levels of GHG in the atmosphere and therefore they will act differently this time than last?

No. They say that they wish GHG's at the projected levels were benign. They would prefer the climate not to change. They wish that the past was guaranteed forever.

Now that's big ego!

 

[westwall]

Deniers offer no proof. Only poitical cynicism. Not a problem as only they are paying attention to what they wish was true.

So what are they saying? Burning fossil fuels doesn't create CO2 as waste? CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Greenhouse gasses don't absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation? Energy balance is a myth? They have evidence that something has changed since the last time that we had the projected levels of GHG in the atmosphere and therefore they will act differently this time than last?

No. They say that they wish GHG's at the projected levels were benign. They would prefer the climate not to change. They wish that the past was guaranteed forever.

Now that's big ego!

You are absolutely correct. The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory". A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.

 

[RollingThunder]

Deniers offer no proof. Only poitical cynicism. Not a problem as only they are paying attention to what they wish was true.

So what are they saying? Burning fossil fuels doesn't create CO2 as waste? CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Greenhouse gasses don't absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation? Energy balance is a myth? They have evidence that something has changed since the last time that we had the projected levels of GHG in the atmosphere and therefore they will act differently this time than last?

No. They say that they wish GHG's at the projected levels were benign. They would prefer the climate not to change. They wish that the past was guaranteed forever.

Now that's big ego!

You are absolutely correct. The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory". A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.

Those are your pathetic denier cult myths and, as always, they are totally wrong. You're just too brainwashed and retarded to look at the evidence, no mater how many times it is shown to you.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I found this article which is kind of good news / bad news.

Major methane release is almost inevitable - environment - 21 February 2013 - New Scientist

1) permafrost will not melt just yet.
2) It will melt when we get a rise of 0.7 degrees in the global temperature ( some 50-70 years in the future.

... so we still have time to take some measures to cover ourselves from this upcomming disaster.

 

[PMZ]

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The walleyedretard clings to his denier cult dogmas without any regard to any facts or evidence. Anyone who is actually following the science knows that many of the early predictions proved accurate and that the main way that they have "failed" was in being too conservative. The climate scientists didn't expect the Arctic ice cap to melt away so soon or so rapidly, they didn't expect that Greenland would begin melting so fast or so much and they didn't expect that Antarctica would begin losing ice mass so soon. In many other areas things are happening much faster than they expected 30 or 40 years ago. Don't expect the denier cultists to acknowledge that though, no matter how much evidence you show them. Their cultic myths and dogmas seem much more real to them in their little private bizarroworld than what is actually happening in the real world.

Oh, I know. It's really dark where they keep their heads. It is very odd.

I just enjoyed making larger font than he.

Show us an accurate prediction.

One of the statistical inferences that we've all pretty much accepted is that smoking increases one's odds of getting lung cancer. From this, is it possible to say that Uncle Harry's lung cancer was caused by his smoking?

Absolutely not. He may have been one of those unlucky enough to get lung cancer whether or not he smoked.

Does that mean that it's safe to smoke? Absolutely not. The correlation between the incidence of lung cancer between smokers and non-smokers is clear.

Same with extreme weather and AGW.

The more fossil fuels that we burn, the higher will be the concentration of GHG's in the atmosphere. The higher the concentration of GHG's, the warmer our climate will be. The warmer our climate is, the more extreme our weather is.

There simply is no evidence to the contrary. if you have evidence, report it. If not, accept it.

 

[itfitzme]

You are absolutely correct. The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory". A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.

Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen. The walleyedretard clings to his denier cult dogmas without any regard to any facts or evidence. Anyone who is actually following the science knows that many of the early predictions proved accurate and that the main way that they have "failed" was in being too conservative. The climate scientists didn't expect the Arctic ice cap to melt away so soon or so rapidly, they didn't expect that Greenland would begin melting so fast or so much and they didn't expect that Antarctica would begin losing ice mass so soon. In many other areas things are happening much faster than they expected 30 or 40 years ago. Don't expect the denier cultists to acknowledge that though, no matter how much evidence you show them. Their cultic myths and dogmas seem much more real to them in their little private bizarroworld than what is actually happening in the real world.

Oh, I know. *It's really dark where they keep their heads. *It is very odd.*

I just enjoyed making larger font than he.

Show us an accurate prediction.

So you can't prove it. *Come on, one, just one little old failed prediction. You said it, now back it up or eat your own bs.*

Your all talk and avoidance, living in a little fantacy land of unicorns, glitter and trolls. *Like a little teenage girl.

 

[westwall]

Deniers offer no proof. Only poitical cynicism. Not a problem as only they are paying attention to what they wish was true.

So what are they saying? Burning fossil fuels doesn't create CO2 as waste? CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Greenhouse gasses don't absorb and re-radiate long wave radiation? Energy balance is a myth? They have evidence that something has changed since the last time that we had the projected levels of GHG in the atmosphere and therefore they will act differently this time than last?

No. They say that they wish GHG's at the projected levels were benign. They would prefer the climate not to change. They wish that the past was guaranteed forever.

Now that's big ego!

You are absolutely correct. The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory". A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.

Those are your pathetic denier cult myths and, as always, they are totally wrong. You're just too brainwashed and retarded to look at the evidence, no mater how many times it is shown to you.

And yet you can't present a single repeatable experiment, nor can you give us one single piece of empirical data to support what you say. Hell, you're so fucking stupid you don't even know what empirical means.

And we should listen to a troll like you why?

 

[itfitzme]

Frankly, in '09 I examined this an understood that, at least, the warming part was true. The deniers were cherry picking data.

I was not clear on the anthro part or the future consequences.

A month or so ago, I wasn't exactly sure about it all. Thanks to the deniers here, I know now. They couldn't have done a better job of convincing me that the anthro part is absolutely correct. And given their near perfect negative correlation with the facts, they serve as my best predictor of the future of climate change.

I think, perhaps, the predictions have underestimated global warming by failing to account for the amount of hot air the deniers produce.

How is it that some people can do worse than random chance? You have to really work at it.

 

[westwall]

I found this article which is kind of good news / bad news.

Major methane release is almost inevitable - environment - 21 February 2013 - New Scientist

1) permafrost will not melt just yet.
2) It will melt when we get a rise of 0.7 degrees in the global temperature ( some 50-70 years in the future.

... so we still have time to take some measures to cover ourselves from this upcomming disaster.

Oh my gosh, the fact that the temps during the Holocene Thermal Maximum were 8 degrees warmer (at minimum) than today, and nothing bad happened back then doesn't give you pause?

I mean c'mon dude you're supposed to be a thinking person right? then why the hell don't you think. It's not hard. Only the anti science prophets of doom don't want you to think. That's why they try and prevent any discussion about their ridiculous theory.

A thinking person, and as we all know the quintuple trolls don't think, would wonder why it is that the sceptics (who are the supposed anti science "deniers") want for there to be the maximum amount of information exchange and the maximum amount of research into the claims. While the supposed science supporters are the ones who wish to go full PRAVDA and deny ANYONE the ability to do research that even might be against their precious little theory.

You want anti-science religious dogma with a dose of totalitarian politics thrown in...I give you the anti-scientific revisionists who kick and scream and whine and snivel any time their so called science is challenged.

EVERY claim they have ever made when it has actually been looked at has failed the test. Every single one and yet you religious fanatics ignore that and continue on with your anti scientific persecution of those who disagree with you.

That's politics, not science, and is the lysenkoism of this era. Look it up.

 

[itfitzme]

You are absolutely correct. The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory". A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.

Those are your pathetic denier cult myths and, as always, they are totally wrong. You're just too brainwashed and retarded to look at the evidence, no mater how many times it is shown to you.

And yet you can't present a single repeatable experiment, nor can you give us one single piece of empirical data to support what you say. Hell, you're so fucking stupid you don't even know what empirical means.

And we should listen to a troll like you why?

Dude, you can't produce a single one that hasn't. You just keep trying to distract from that.

There is your single task.

You are absolutely correct. The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory". A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.

Show us one prediction that has not been accurate.

If you can't you are all bs. You want to make vague and unsubstantiated statement, you just don't want to stand by them.

 

[westwall]

Frankly, in '09 I examined this an understood that, at least, the warming part was true. The deniers were cherry picking data.

I was not clear on the anthro part or the future consequences.

A month or so ago, I wasn't exactly sure about it all. Thanks to the deniers here, I know now. They couldn't have done a better job of convincing me that the anthro part is absolutely correct. And given their near perfect negative correlation with the facts, they serve as my best predictor of the future of climate change.

I think, perhaps, the predictions have underestimated global warming by failing to account for the amount of hot air the deniers produce.

How is it that some people can do worse than random chance? You have to really work at it.

Wrong as usual....

 

[westwall]

Those are your pathetic denier cult myths and, as always, they are totally wrong. You're just too brainwashed and retarded to look at the evidence, no mater how many times it is shown to you.

And yet you can't present a single repeatable experiment, nor can you give us one single piece of empirical data to support what you say. Hell, you're so fucking stupid you don't even know what empirical means.

And we should listen to a troll like you why?

Dude, you can't produce a single one that hasn't. You just keep trying to distract from that.

There is your single task.

You are absolutely correct. The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory". A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.

Show us one prediction that has not been accurate.

If you can't you are all bs.

You made the claim idiot. That means you have to back it up. That's the way science works jackass. Look up the scientific method some time.

 

[itfitzme]

And yet you can't present a single repeatable experiment, nor can you give us one single piece of empirical data to support what you say. *Hell, you're so fucking stupid you don't even know what empirical means.

And we should listen to a troll like you why?

Dude, you can't produce a single one that hasn't. *You just keep trying to distract from that.

There is your single task.

You are absolutely correct. The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory". A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.

Show us one prediction that has not been accurate.

If you can't you are all bs.

You made the claim idiot. *That means you have to back it up. *That's the way science works jackass. *Look up the scientific method some time.

You made the claims.

Back up your statements of

"every prediction we have ever made has failed, but believe us anyway"

and*

The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory".

Back em up.

 

[westwall]

Dude, you can't produce a single one that hasn't. *You just keep trying to distract from that.

There is your single task.



Show us one prediction that has not been accurate.

If you can't you are all bs.

You made the claim idiot. *That means you have to back it up. *That's the way science works jackass. *Look up the scientific method some time.

You made the claims.

Back up your statements of

"every prediction we have ever made has failed, but believe us anyway"

and*

The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory".

Back em up.

I don't have to. You made the claim that they are accurate. Show us.

 

[itfitzme]

And yet you can't present a single repeatable experiment, nor can you give us one single piece of empirical data to support what you say. *Hell, you're so fucking stupid you don't even know what empirical means.

And we should listen to a troll like you why?

Dude, you can't produce a single one that hasn't. *You just keep trying to distract from that.

There is your single task.

You are absolutely correct. The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory". A more catastrophic example of poor science would be hard to provide.

Show us one prediction that has not been accurate.

If you can't you are all bs.

You made the claim idiot. *That means you have to back it up. *That's the way science works jackass. *Look up the scientific method some time.

You made the claim idiot. *That means you have to back it up. *That's the way science works jackass. *Look up the scientific method some time.

You made the claims.

Back up your statements of



and*

The AGW cult has never produced a single accurate repeatable experiment or presented a single piece of empirical data to support their "theory".

Back em up.

I don't have to. *You made the claim that they are accurate. *Show us.

I don't have to.

 

[itfitzme]

The basis for AWG

The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Alternatively graph

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

 

[PMZ]

People educated and interested in science seem typically interested in sharing the insights that their education and experience allow them. And learning more in the process. Natural, I guess.

Clearly we see among these pages a lot of that going on. Some of it effectively, depending both on the recipient and the scientist. Some of it a waste of everybody's time and effort.

While there are many perspectives from which to approach the extent to which ongoing teaching efforts should be pursued, the most pragmatic is political.

Politically, the efforts to find the least expensive path to, and the least expensive satisfaction of the demand for, sustainable, benign, and efficient energy to the point of use are underway. Doers are doing. Perhaps not as effectively as could be, but progress is rarely pretty. In typical fashion, the path is bumpy, twisty, with never ending uphills and many fewer compensatory downhills.

When the customer says "yes" it's best to stop selling.

Here's one stake in the ground as a record of progress.

Google "Cresecent Dunes power tower, Tonopah, Nevada".

110 megawatts, with zero fuel costs, zero ongoing emissions, matched to peak demand from Las Vegas, 12 hours per day.

The Flat Earth Society will never go away, but in our democracy they've already been rendered irrelevent. Impotent.

The action now is in progress, not stasis. The discussion is about engineering and investment, not the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Our past and future will be as different as night and day. We've learned again not to take Mother Nature for granted, and to use our unique intelligence to solve our problems realistically. Not based on what we wish was true.

Progress.

 

[PMZ]

The fourth is past, of course, but the time is always right for a reminder to those who would drag us down.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/v/6TPgJSZf5Vw?version=3&autohide=1&autoplay=1[/ame]

 

[itfitzme]

Solar power - Sacramento Municipal

"SMUD has been a leader in solar power for more than 25 years. SMUD built the nation’s first utility-scale solar array at Rancho Seco in 1984, which generated enough electricity to power 2,200 single-family homes or 3.2 megawatts."

SMUD produces 19% of its power through*green technology.

(LINK:SMUD SOLAR SACRAMENTO CA)

SMUD

Sacramento Municipal Utility District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[IanC]

The basis for AWG

The basis for AWG is that CO2 and temperature have increased together, it is empirical.

This is the history is increasing temp and CO2.

That CO2 absorbs infared radiation is the basis for the fact that the correlation is causal. It is a testable, empirical fact.

If something has happened repeatedly, in the past, then it is expected to happen in the future. Most people learn this as a child. When you hit your head against something and it hurts, you learn that hitting your head in the future will hurt again. *It's empirical.

Empirical correlation plus empirical demonstration equals causality. CO2 plus temperature equals global warming.

It's really just that simple.

Alternatively graph

zFacts on Controversial Topics

Index of /pub/data/cmb/images/indicators

while I believe CO2 has had some small part in the warming trend, I know that your graphs exaggerate both the magnitude and the correlation by choosing the optimum offsets and scales to maximise the visual effect. you are taking one factor out of many and theorizing that it is the main controlling agent of temperature. not only does CO2 not totally control temperature but to a large extent temperature controls CO2.