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.
That's a reasonable outlook actually.. I'm a moderate skeptic. I believe the contribution from CO2 has been blown waaaay out of proportion and the contributions from other climate drivers have been purposely manipulated to minimize them..*
Which brings me to --- I don't accept ANYTHING from skepticalscience.com unless I first don a complete Class 3 biocontainment outfit and respirator. I posted the accepted merging of proxy records and recent measurements, and skepticalscience does a hachet job on dates and ranges with values I've never seen before. It's called data mangling.
Although 0.14% of Solar radiation might sound trivial --- it works out to about 1.0W/meter2. Which is about almost 1/3 of the 3 or 4W/m2 that we're looking for to explain the rise.*
But what's interesting to me is that the AGW clan is NOW trying to explain away why the warming is taking a pause. So they suddenly discover that the earth land and oceans take a while to heat and cool.. And we might NOT be looking for a correlation with IMMEDIATE time coincidence. THere might be a considerable DELAY between the power forcing function being applied and a temperature change GLOBALLY. So WHEN did the TSI start to level off? About 20 years ago. How long are the AGW clan now saying the oceans will take to absorb heat and equalize? About 20 to 40 years..
Anyway -- you're right. At some point (((Some say in the next 22 yr solar cycle))) we might be glad that we warmed the planet by 1degF in your lifetime..*
The climate isn't as fragile as AGW theory says it is. And that's a good thing..
It hasn't "taken a pause". *It is still within the bounds of the predicted variance. *What you can't explain is over 100 years, 1880 to 2000+, of warming that is caused by increasing CO2. *
I get it at 0.00922 with Excel, at a p-value that is almost zero, and 76% R^2. *When the IPCC does it, including El Nino, volcanos, sulfates, solar output, and CO2, their's is way better than I could ever hope for. And I know what they are doing, because I know how the science works.
All you have is some rough calculations of based on solar output that the IPCC already includes, and no predictions, no confidence levels, and cherry picking of data. *And you still have, by your calculations, 66% to go.
Why not do it the right way and do the multivariate regressions? *The statistics was developed decades ago.
Horseshit... Complete and utter horseshit...*
The only P-value you've ever taken is on the poddy..*
You "get it at 0.00922" FOR WHAT???? exactly..*
If you're talking about the 33% figure that I tossed for TSI influence on surface radiative forcing.. I don't have 66% to go.. I can pull the exact same horseship that your AGW heroes pull and claim that my 33% is AMPLIFIED by their projected Climate Sensitivity amplifications of 4 and 5 that they pulled out of their P-Values on the poddy.
What works for amplifying CO2 --- works to amplify ANY OTHER RADIATIVE FORCING function don't it???
Really? *Where is it? *Show it to me. *Science is based on the Scientific Method. *Show me in the Scientific Method where no discussion is allowed for a so called "settled" science. *Hell show me ANY science that is "settled".
I must say I am VERY pleased that you are so desperate that you spend so much time here trying to convert the pagans to your religion. *We must be doing a bang up job 'cause you are here all the time!
Plenty of discussion goes on in science. But you have to actually have a knowledge of science that is at the level necessary for the discussion. *It's like when the whole family gets together for Thanksgiving. *The grownups sit at the grownup table and the kids sit at the kids table.
If I were to sit at a table of professional climatologists, I'd shut the f up. *The difference is eight years, at least, to a PhD plus more time spent working in the field.
Newton's Laws of motion are settled. Einstien's Theory of General Relativity. *These are settled. *There are huge amounts of science that is settled. *To get a bachelor's and master's degree in any particular scientific field and specialty, all you study is settled scientific principles.
You have to know the difference between what is settled and what isn't.
They're all pissed off because not a single scientist asked Rush Limbaugh for his opinion. Not a single one.
Plenty of discussion goes on in science. But you have to actually have a knowledge of science that is at the level necessary for the discussion. *It's like when the whole family gets together for Thanksgiving. *The grownups sit at the grownup table and the kids sit at the kids table.
If I were to sit at a table of professional climatologists, I'd shut the f up. *The difference is eight years, at least, to a PhD plus more time spent working in the field.
Newton's Laws of motion are settled. Einstien's Theory of General Relativity. *These are settled. *There are huge amounts of science that is settled. *To get a bachelor's and master's degree in any particular scientific field and specialty, all you study is settled scientific principles.
You have to know the difference between what is settled and what isn't.
I hope that we can settle this tonight so we'll know whether to let airplanes fly in the morning. If they're built according to designs that are just WAGs instead of settled aeronautical science, I'd vote for keeping them on the ground.
If they built airplanes with computer models of your quality the plane would burst into flames as soon as the engines were fired up.
Do a linear regression and see what you get.
Let us know what the coefficients, p-value, R^2, and confidence intervals for the regression line are.
Do both the line and log fit. *That'll be interesting.
I KNOW what I will get for the past decade.. There's nothing there. But it's not unique.. There was also nothing from about 1935 to 1975..*
Too bad I can't have THIS VIDEO as an avi.. You can see the trend line averaged over 10 years wander all over the place.. From "nothing" to significant and back to "nothing"...*
Global Warming: Temperature vs CO2 concentration on Vimeo
That's what ya got ---- nothing..
Cherry picking isn't how it works. *You use all the data or you don't do it at all. *And, you have to verify tue statistical significance, or it means nothing. If you want to do the science, you have to do it right. *Otherwise, don't do it at all.
Because, when you do it wrong, you get bs like that video, or this
Look, if you want to be an idiot, that's fine by me. The world will keep getting warmer either way.
I KNOW what I will get for the past decade.. There's nothing there. But it's not unique.. There was also nothing from about 1935 to 1975..*
Too bad I can't have THIS VIDEO as an avi.. You can see the trend line averaged over 10 years wander all over the place.. From "nothing" to significant and back to "nothing"...*
Global Warming: Temperature vs CO2 concentration on Vimeo
That's what ya got ---- nothing..
Cherry picking isn't how it works. *You use all the data or you don't do it at all. *And, you have to verify tue statistical significance, or it means nothing. If you want to do the science, you have to do it right. *Otherwise, don't do it at all.
Because, when you do it wrong, you get bs like that video, or this
Look, if you want to be an idiot, that's fine by me. The world will keep getting warmer either way.
You're OK being an idiot? *Well if that floats your boat then I guess you can be a full blown idiot. *You do that pretty well......everything else not so good
The real reason for using "green energy" is political....Most allll of the "green energy" producers are big corporate interests, like GE.The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.
Quit being a rube.
OK...And what if you're wrong then?....Are millions of people frozen to death around the globe worth your pseudo-scientific central planner gamble?Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.
I insist the real reason for using green energy should be reducing pollution, yes , large corporations will beneffit , but that is just the nature of capitalism. Some companies will do worse ( oil companies ) and others like GE will do better. No rocket science there.
If we find the Earth is going to enter a cooling we will find a way to heat it up.
It is easier to heat it up than to cool it down .
I hope that we can settle this tonight so we'll know whether to let airplanes fly in the morning. If they're built according to designs that are just WAGs instead of settled aeronautical science, I'd vote for keeping them on the ground.
If they built airplanes with computer models of your quality the plane would burst into flames as soon as the engines were fired up.
Go figure out the difference between a ppb and a ppm. Start with which is larger.
If they built airplanes with computer models of your quality the plane would burst into flames as soon as the engines were fired up.
Go figure out the difference between a ppb and a ppm. Start with which is larger.
Ummmm, I'm the one that pointed it out to YOU nimrod. You're really not good at this are you trolling blunder!
There's nothing to give up."We"?!?!....You got a turd in your pocket?
That's not how science works, buttpipe.
You prove that you're right...With quantifiable, verifiable and repeatable scientific evidence.
The doubters are under no obligation to accept your pseudo-scientific Malthusian declinist fable at face value and disprove it.
Give it up. *You lost already. *Now you are just making yourself look too stupid to know when to quit.
If your not sure, go ask Dr. Roy. He can model it for you.
You Malthusian declinist misanthropes have absolutely no objective, reproducible, quantifiable, verifiable and falsifiable science.
You're the one who needs to give up, Dudley.
That's a reasonable outlook actually.. I'm a moderate skeptic. I believe the contribution from CO2 has been blown waaaay out of proportion and the contributions from other climate drivers have been purposely manipulated to minimize them..
Which brings me to --- I don't accept ANYTHING from skepticalscience.com unless I first don a complete Class 3 biocontainment outfit and respirator. I posted the accepted merging of proxy records and recent measurements, and skepticalscience does a hachet job on dates and ranges with values I've never seen before. It's called data mangling.
Although 0.14% of Solar radiation might sound trivial --- it works out to about 1.0W/meter2. Which is about almost 1/3 of the 3 or 4W/m2 that we're looking for to explain the rise.
But what's interesting to me is that the AGW clan is NOW trying to explain away why the warming is taking a pause. So they suddenly discover that the earth land and oceans take a while to heat and cool.. And we might NOT be looking for a correlation with IMMEDIATE time coincidence. THere might be a considerable DELAY between the power forcing function being applied and a temperature change GLOBALLY. So WHEN did the TSI start to level off? About 20 years ago. How long are the AGW clan now saying the oceans will take to absorb heat and equalize? About 20 to 40 years..
Anyway -- you're right. At some point (((Some say in the next 22 yr solar cycle))) we might be glad that we warmed the planet by 1degF in your lifetime..
The climate isn't as fragile as AGW theory says it is. And that's a good thing..
It hasn't "taken a pause". It is still within the bounds of the predicted variance. What you can't explain is over 100 years, 1880 to 2000+, of warming that is caused by increasing CO2.
I get it at 0.00922 with Excel, at a p-value that is almost zero, and 76% R^2. When the IPCC does it, including El Nino, volcanos, sulfates, solar output, and CO2, their's is way better than I could ever hope for. And I know what they are doing, because I know how the science works.
All you have is some rough calculations of based on solar output that the IPCC already includes, and no predictions, no confidence levels, and cherry picking of data. And you still have, by your calculations, 66% to go.
Why not do it the right way and do the multivariate regressions? The statistics was developed decades ago.
Horseshit... Complete and utter horseshit...
The warming HAS taken a pause.. BY ANY measure of significance over at LEAST the last 12 years. We are looking at the 0.0XdegC/decade digit to see any significance.
The only P-value you've ever taken is on the poddy..
You "get it at 0.00922" FOR WHAT???? exactly..
If you're talking about the 33% figure that I tossed for TSI influence on surface radiative forcing.. I don't have 66% to go.. I can pull the exact same horseship that your AGW heroes pull and claim that my 33% is AMPLIFIED by their projected Climate Sensitivity amplifications of 4 and 5 that they pulled out of their P-Values on the poddy.
What works for amplifying CO2 --- works to amplify ANY OTHER RADIATIVE FORCING function don't it???
I'm not the one claiming that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are going to be the complete ruin of mankind, you are....Therefore the onus is on you to provide proof.There's nothing to give up.Give it up. *You lost already. *Now you are just making yourself look too stupid to know when to quit.
If your not sure, go ask Dr. Roy. He can model it for you.
You Malthusian declinist misanthropes have absolutely no objective, reproducible, quantifiable, verifiable and falsifiable science.
You're the one who needs to give up, Dudley.
When are you going to reveal your "objective, reproducible, quantifiable, verifiable and falsifiable science"?
The real reason for using "green energy" is political....Most allll of the "green energy" producers are big corporate interests, like GE.
Quit being a rube.
OK...And what if you're wrong then?....Are millions of people frozen to death around the globe worth your pseudo-scientific central planner gamble?
I insist the real reason for using green energy should be reducing pollution, yes , large corporations will beneffit , but that is just the nature of capitalism. Some companies will do worse ( oil companies ) and others like GE will do better. No rocket science there.
If we find the Earth is going to enter a cooling we will find a way to heat it up.
It is easier to heat it up than to cool it down .
Actually it is far easier to cool it down. Detonate enough nukes and the particulates in the atmosphere will cool this place right down. Warming it back up would be far, far beyond our ability. I do agree on the renewables. I just want them to compete on a level field. We should use the fossil fuels we have (because they are way cheaper than the renewables and will be for the foreseeable future) and research the renewables in a proper way.
The problem with renewables is the government chooses who wins and who loses, thus there is no consequence for having a bad product. Why do you think the solar industry hasn't advanced beyond what it was when I installed my solar system 28 years ago. When I built my system I was able to get 11% efficiency which is fine for emergencies but you can't run a home off of it. I also have a water wheel and that is awesome till winter kicks in.
Solar now is averaging 13%. After that many years that is simply ridiculous.
The real reason for using "green energy" is political....Most allll of the "green energy" producers are big corporate interests, like GE.The real reason for using green energy and green tech is achieving some independence from large corporations and reducing pollution. I am not really sure if man will have the capability to control weather or if it will be able to achieve such goal in a responsible way.
Quit being a rube.
OK...And what if you're wrong then?....Are millions of people frozen to death around the globe worth your pseudo-scientific central planner gamble?Nature is full of surprises : The sun migh just go into a low radiation period ... and maybe then we will be trying to produce mass amounts of co2 and methane to avoid another ice age.
I insist the real reason for using green energy should be reducing pollution, yes , large corporations will beneffit , but that is just the nature of capitalism. Some companies will do worse ( oil companies ) and others like GE will do better. No rocket science there.
If we find the Earth is going to enter a cooling we will find a way to heat it up.
It is easier to heat it up than to cool it down .
It hasn't "taken a pause". It is still within the bounds of the predicted variance. What you can't explain is over 100 years, 1880 to 2000+, of warming that is caused by increasing CO2.
I get it at 0.00922 with Excel, at a p-value that is almost zero, and 76% R^2. When the IPCC does it, including El Nino, volcanos, sulfates, solar output, and CO2, their's is way better than I could ever hope for. And I know what they are doing, because I know how the science works.
All you have is some rough calculations of based on solar output that the IPCC already includes, and no predictions, no confidence levels, and cherry picking of data. And you still have, by your calculations, 66% to go.
Why not do it the right way and do the multivariate regressions? The statistics was developed decades ago.
I do recall a couple of charts showing the average surface temperature stabilizing during the last 12 years or so.
As per my hypothesis ( glaciar melts cooling down the Earth) , I am waiting until the end of the summer to see the total greenland ice melt. If the melt is almost as big as last year's melt I think my hypothesis could be plausible . If the melt is lower, it will most likely be wrong ( e.g. there is some other factor contributing to Earth's cooling)... so let's wait and see how things play out.
Plenty of discussion goes on in science. But you have to actually have a knowledge of science that is at the level necessary for the discussion. *It's like when the whole family gets together for Thanksgiving. *The grownups sit at the grownup table and the kids sit at the kids table.
If I were to sit at a table of professional climatologists, I'd shut the f up. *The difference is eight years, at least, to a PhD plus more time spent working in the field.
Newton's Laws of motion are settled. Einstien's Theory of General Relativity. *These are settled. *There are huge amounts of science that is settled. *To get a bachelor's and master's degree in any particular scientific field and specialty, all you study is settled scientific principles.
You have to know the difference between what is settled and what isn't.
I hope that we can settle this tonight so we'll know whether to let airplanes fly in the morning. If they're built according to designs that are just WAGs instead of settled aeronautical science, I'd vote for keeping them on the ground.
If they built airplanes with computer models of your quality the plane would burst into flames as soon as the engines were fired up.
I'm not the one claiming that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are going to be the complete ruin of mankind, you are....Therefore the onus is on you to provide proof.There's nothing to give up.
You Malthusian declinist misanthropes have absolutely no objective, reproducible, quantifiable, verifiable and falsifiable science.
You're the one who needs to give up, Dudley.
When are you going to reveal your "objective, reproducible, quantifiable, verifiable and falsifiable science"?
Are really this dense or are you just playing stupid?
I'm not the one claiming that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are going to be the complete ruin of mankind, you are....Therefore the onus is on you to provide proof.When are you going to reveal your "objective, reproducible, quantifiable, verifiable and falsifiable science"?
Are really this dense or are you just playing stupid?
So without any science that explains what's right, you just somehow intuitively know what is wrong. Intuitively. That sounds to me exactly as likely to be right as a blind guess. Merely that which you want to be true.
In other words, of zero credibility.
That's exactly there are no doers paying any attention to the likes of you. The investors and engineers and politicians are doing what our future demands instead of participating in your circle jerk.
I'm not the one claiming that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are going to be the complete ruin of mankind, you are....Therefore the onus is on you to provide proof.
Are really this dense or are you just playing stupid?
So without any science that explains what's right, you just somehow intuitively know what is wrong. Intuitively. That sounds to me exactly as likely to be right as a blind guess. Merely that which you want to be true.
In other words, of zero credibility.
That's exactly there are no doers paying any attention to the likes of you. The investors and engineers and politicians are doing what our future demands instead of participating in your circle jerk.
LOL, dude do you actually read some of the crap you write?
You must be high.. You just tried to pass off responsibility to prove your own claim using circle talk... Damn man, sober up..
I insist the real reason for using green energy should be reducing pollution, yes , large corporations will beneffit , but that is just the nature of capitalism. Some companies will do worse ( oil companies ) and others like GE will do better. No rocket science there.
If we find the Earth is going to enter a cooling we will find a way to heat it up.
It is easier to heat it up than to cool it down .
Actually it is far easier to cool it down. Detonate enough nukes and the particulates in the atmosphere will cool this place right down. Warming it back up would be far, far beyond our ability. I do agree on the renewables. I just want them to compete on a level field. We should use the fossil fuels we have (because they are way cheaper than the renewables and will be for the foreseeable future) and research the renewables in a proper way.
The problem with renewables is the government chooses who wins and who loses, thus there is no consequence for having a bad product. Why do you think the solar industry hasn't advanced beyond what it was when I installed my solar system 28 years ago. When I built my system I was able to get 11% efficiency which is fine for emergencies but you can't run a home off of it. I also have a water wheel and that is awesome till winter kicks in.
Solar now is averaging 13%. After that many years that is simply ridiculous.
The efficiency is what it is depending on materials. Reducing the cost is what everybody is working on. Very successfully. And energy storage.
Actually it is far easier to cool it down. Detonate enough nukes and the particulates in the atmosphere will cool this place right down. Warming it back up would be far, far beyond our ability. I do agree on the renewables. I just want them to compete on a level field. We should use the fossil fuels we have (because they are way cheaper than the renewables and will be for the foreseeable future) and research the renewables in a proper way.
The problem with renewables is the government chooses who wins and who loses, thus there is no consequence for having a bad product. Why do you think the solar industry hasn't advanced beyond what it was when I installed my solar system 28 years ago. When I built my system I was able to get 11% efficiency which is fine for emergencies but you can't run a home off of it. I also have a water wheel and that is awesome till winter kicks in.
Solar now is averaging 13%. After that many years that is simply ridiculous.
The efficiency is what it is depending on materials. Reducing the cost is what everybody is working on. Very successfully. And energy storage.
Sure they are. I have been actively researching a replacement for my system as it is worn out so I have almost 30 years of reference material to review. Cost is down thanks to tax subsidies. Take those away and the cost is actually more. Storage has improved but not by a great deal. Maybe 15% over the last 30 years. You think that's good?
Efficiency is based on design and materials. The theoretical maximum efficiency is 28%, the best I've ever seen in the lab is 24% but the best available for the general public is 13%. Once again a 2% increase in efficiency over 30 years is pathetic. But I can see your standards are low....very, very low.
