The global warming thread. Is it for real?

[gslack]

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..

Another, classic example, of nothing. Not. A. Thing.

Are there really people out there who believe that posts like this say anything at all other than to attest to Slacksack's lack of character as well as his inability to debate even the most rudimentary science?

LOL, they state facts about YOU moron... You are a pathetic lying troll, who cannot write a coherent and sensible post. Sequestered CO2 rather than carbon, the long-winded rants or speeches that talk in circles and say nothing, and you just tried to deny your responsibility to prove your own arguments validity...

Yeah, that's you that did that socko...ROFL

 

[itfitzme]

Heres to mush winning!!!!

I took a look at your charts . Strange I've got other costs for 2017

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So acording to my link solar is 2.5 times more expensive than gas.
And wind is 50% more expensive than gas but has a price which can be comparable with coal.


If solar can go down from 0.15 to 0.10 it will be cheaper to have cars fueled by solar + electricity than gasoline.

Convert gallon to kilowatt-hours - Conversion of Measurement Units

1 gallon @ 3.6 ( the average us price ) = 36 kwh
This means the price of energy 1 kwh using gasoline is 0.10.

And please , don't get me started with batteries. I expect they will not be needed by 2015.

Cheaper green energy storage solution invented by Calgary profs - Technology & Science - CBC News

The last one is rocket fuel. Use to do that as a kid. Of course, it was crude and the instructions didn't include liquifying is and creating a rocket, just collecting the gasses in test tubes.

" For example, the shuttle uses liquid hydrogen as its fuel and liquid oxygen as the oxidizer. The hot gases produced by the combustion escape rapidly through the cone-shaped nozzle, thus producing thrust" -Nasa-

The huge white plume is simply water, as the oxygen combines with hydrogen.

 

[Oddball]

When are you going to reveal your "objective, reproducible, quantifiable, verifiable and falsifiable science"?

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.

Wow...you really suck at the critical/analytical thinking thing, dontcha?

I don't need intuition to recognize that you have no science that passes scientific acid tests, which have been the standard for literally centuries.

The onus is on you and the warmerists scaremongers to prove yourselves right, with physically quantifiable, verifiable and reproducible evidence, not upon anyone else to prove a negative.

That's how science works, Miss South Carolina.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

Wow...you really suck at the critical/analytical thinking thing, dontcha?

I don't need intuition to recognize that you have no science that passes scientific acid tests, which have been the standard for literally centuries.

The onus is on you and the warmerists scaremongers to prove yourselves right, with physically quantifiable, verifiable and reproducible evidence, not upon anyone else to prove a negative.

That's how science works, Dudley.

Nobody is required to exceed the standard that you present.

So, you're stupid is sufficient as proof for you.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Wow...you really suck at the critical/analytical thinking thing, dontcha?

I don't need intuition to recognize that you have no science that passes scientific acid tests, which have been the standard for literally centuries.

The onus is on you and the warmerists scaremongers to prove yourselves right, with physically quantifiable, verifiable and reproducible evidence, not upon anyone else to prove a negative.

That's how science works, Miss South Carolina.

Nobody is required to exceed the standard that you present.

So, you're stupid is sufficient as proof for you.

Nobody said about exceeding them, Captain Strawman.

Problem is that you warmerist goobers can't come anywhere close to meeting those standards.

 

[itfitzme]

Wow...you really suck at the critical/analytical thinking thing, dontcha?

I don't need intuition to recognize that you have no science that passes scientific acid tests, which have been the standard for literally centuries.

The onus is on you and the warmerists scaremongers to prove yourselves right, with physically quantifiable, verifiable and reproducible evidence, not upon anyone else to prove a negative.

That's how science works, Miss South Carolina.

Nobody is required to exceed the standard that you present.

So, you're stupid is sufficient as proof for you.

Nobody said about exceeding them, Captain Strawman.

Problem is that you warmerist goobers can't come anywhere close to meeting those standards.

Like i said, by your standards of proof, "You're stupid."

 

[Oddball]

I have repeatedly told you my standards...Which are also standards of science that have stood for hundreds of years.

If you continue claiming that you have science when your "science" can't even get in the same area code as those standards, yet carry on as though your "science" is incontrovertible, then you are stupid...Stupid.

 

[Old Rocks]

As usual you ignore the one major problem with "sustainable' societies. Eventually they will experience a natural disaster and when that happens they collapse. It has happened un-countable times throughout history, and just like you guys ignore science, you also ignore history.

Just don't come whining to us when you can't get any food at the supermarket.

I find it hard to recall any "sustainable societies" from the past, let alone a sustainable society which has collapsed.

To the best of my knowldge sustainable societies are a new development .

I would appreciate if you supported your statement with some examples , and links ( or book references ).

ALL societies from antiquity would classify as sustainable. Read about them and learn....

BS.

"Collapse", Jared Diamond
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Succeed-Revised-Edition/dp/0143117009]Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed: Revised Edition: Jared Diamond: 9780143117001: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[Old Rocks]

I have repeatedly told you my standards...Which are also standards of science that have stood for hundreds of years.

If you continue claiming that you have science when your "science" can't even get in the same area code as those standards, yet carry on as though your "science" is incontrovertible, then you are stupid...Stupid.

LOL. Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world says your 'Standards' are bullshit.

Love it when the anti-science crowd claims science.

 

[SSDD]

I find it hard to recall any "sustainable societies" from the past, let alone a sustainable society which has collapsed.

To the best of my knowldge sustainable societies are a new development .

I would appreciate if you supported your statement with some examples , and links ( or book references ).

Every tribe of nomadic or semi nomadic hunter gatherers have been, by defninition, sustainable societies...and history has shown time and time again that a natural disaster, even a small one by our standards is enough to send them into extinction.

 

[SSDD]

Nobody said about exceeding them, Captain Strawman.

Problem is that you warmerist goobers can't come anywhere close to meeting those standards.

So far, he can't even recite the statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and say how it might apply to the greenhouse effect hypothesis. Most sixth graders could do that if asked.

 

[PMZ]

L.....M.....B.....O


Even "Nature" magazine ( of all places) is even saying climateology predictions are frequently incorrect.....their record "abysmal".

yuk......yuk.........

Climate change: The forecast for 2018 is cloudy with record heat : Nature News & Comment

What are all of the non-climatologists predicting?

Continued cooling for the next 20 years at minimum. Worst case scenario is a 200 year cold trend leading to another Maunder Minimum. We'll have a good gauge on that within the next 5 years.....though based on how rapidly the climatologists have been backing away from their "onward and upward" temp meme, they may already think it's happening.

Why would anyone pay attention to the climate predictions of non-climatologists? That's the equivalent of going to a Fortune Teller.

 

[PMZ]

As usual you ignore the one major problem with "sustainable' societies. Eventually they will experience a natural disaster and when that happens they collapse. It has happened un-countable times throughout history, and just like you guys ignore science, you also ignore history.

Just don't come whining to us when you can't get any food at the supermarket.

I find it hard to recall any "sustainable societies" from the past, let alone a sustainable society which has collapsed.

To the best of my knowldge sustainable societies are a new development .

I would appreciate if you supported your statement with some examples , and links ( or book references ).

ALL societies from antiquity would classify as sustainable. Read about them and learn....

Again your limitation is language. "Sustainable" means capable of existing for the long term. Anything that can't exist over the long run is called "unsustainable".

 

[PMZ]

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.

Wow...you really suck at the critical/analytical thinking thing, dontcha?

I don't need intuition to recognize that you have no science that passes scientific acid tests, which have been the standard for literally centuries.

The onus is on you and the warmerists scaremongers to prove yourselves right, with physically quantifiable, verifiable and reproducible evidence, not upon anyone else to prove a negative.

That's how science works, Miss South Carolina.

The onus is on anyone who asserts anything to provide evidence that what they are asserting is supported by real factual evidence and a plausible theory that explains logically how the evidence in the context of the theory leads to the assertion. You are asserting that AGW does not exist and have been completely unable to supply any evidence of that, or a theory as to how GHGs in the atmosphere avoid causing AGW.

In other words, loser, you got nothing.

And based on that fact, you get nothing, as in terms of respect.

You've earned every bit of it.

 

[PMZ]

I find it hard to recall any "sustainable societies" from the past, let alone a sustainable society which has collapsed.

To the best of my knowldge sustainable societies are a new development .

I would appreciate if you supported your statement with some examples , and links ( or book references ).

Every tribe of nomadic or semi nomadic hunter gatherers have been, by defninition, sustainable societies...and history has shown time and time again that a natural disaster, even a small one by our standards is enough to send them into extinction.

Every sustainable anything has demonstrated that by sustaining.

 

[flacaltenn]

Heres to mush winning!!!!

I took a look at your charts . Strange I've got other costs for 2017

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So acording to my link solar is 2.5 times more expensive than gas.
And wind is 50% more expensive than gas but has a price which can be comparable with coal.


If solar can go down from 0.15 to 0.10 it will be cheaper to have cars fueled by solar + electricity than gasoline.

Convert gallon to kilowatt-hours - Conversion of Measurement Units

1 gallon @ 3.6 ( the average us price ) = 36 kwh
This means the price of energy 1 kwh using gasoline is 0.10.

And please , don't get me started with batteries. I expect they will not be needed by 2015.

Cheaper green energy storage solution invented by Calgary profs - Technology & Science - CBC News

You certainly have that last part right. Battery Buggies will be viewed as an interesting antique in 40 years IF we just allow a hydrogen fuel sector to develop naturally in the market. ALREADY showing great signs in Europe and 4 Major car manufacturers are going into PRODUCTION qty of fuel cell cars by 2015..

It not only solves the enviro concerns of battery disposal/recycling, but it fixes charge times, grid loading, AND can be the solution for using solar and wind OFF GRID --- to make hydrogen. That would be a perfect way to store energy from these flaky sources.

I'll take some Govt research funds for pure H2 R&D, but the FEDs need to BACK OFF trying to WISH engineering into fruition and meddling with winners and losers...

 

[PMZ]

Nobody said about exceeding them, Captain Strawman.

Problem is that you warmerist goobers can't come anywhere close to meeting those standards.

So far, he can't even recite the statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and say how it might apply to the greenhouse effect hypothesis. Most sixth graders could do that if asked.

"Admitting heat to be a form of energy, the second law asserts that it is impossible, by the unaided action of natural processes, to transform any part of the heat of a body into mechanical work, except by allowing heat to pass from that body into another at a lower temperature. Clausius, who first stated the principle of Carnot in a manner consistent with the true theory of heat, expresses this law as follows: -
It is impossible for a self-acting machine, unaided by any external agency, to convey heat from one body to another at a higher temperature."

"Thomson gives it a slightly different form: -"

"It is impossible, by means of inanimate material agency, to derive mechanical effect from any portion of matter by cooling it below the temperature of the coldest of the surrounding objects."

"And again, later on in The Theory of Heat (page 328), Maxwell has this to say:
One of the best established facts in thermodynamics is that it is impossible in a system enclosed in an envelope which permits neither change of volume nor passage of heat, and in which both the temperature and pressure are everywhere the same, to produce any inequality of temperature or of pressure without the expenditure of work.
A more modern statement of this classical second law may look more complicated, but means the same thing:
Processes in which the entropy of an isolated system would decrease do not occur, or, in every process taking place in an isolated system, the entropy of the system either increases or remains constant
That version of the 2nd law comes from the textbook An Introduction to Thermodynamics, the Kinetic Theory of Gases, and Statistical Mechanics (2nd edition), by Francis Weston Sears, Addison-Wesley, 1950, 1953, page 111 (Chapter 7, "the Second Law of Thermodynamics").
The phrase isolated system means that neither energy nor matter may enter or leave the system; it is an embodiment of the word "unaided" as used by Maxwell & Clausius. If the system is not isolated, then energy can get in, and so can "aid". Hence, isolation is required to uphold the restriction "unaided". The manner in which the "transition" is accomplished is irrelevant; all possible transitions are allowed."

"In the earlier paper On the Definition of Entropy, we already encouterd the equation that defines change in classical entropy, S = Q/T. The 2nd law contrains the change in entropy (S) so as to give us the fundamental equation for the 2nd law, in classical thermodynamics."

From http://www.tim-thompson.com/entropy2.html

 

[westwall]

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.

Wow...you really suck at the critical/analytical thinking thing, dontcha?

I don't need intuition to recognize that you have no science that passes scientific acid tests, which have been the standard for literally centuries.

The onus is on you and the warmerists scaremongers to prove yourselves right, with physically quantifiable, verifiable and reproducible evidence, not upon anyone else to prove a negative.

That's how science works, Dudley.

Nobody is required to exceed the standard that you present.

So, you're stupid is sufficient as proof for you.

Wake up! Pay attention Miss South Carolina! You must MEET the standards set by the scientific community. You havn't. Your standards are SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER than would be acceptable for even a high school lab class.

 

[PMZ]

Heres to mush winning!!!!

I took a look at your charts . Strange I've got other costs for 2017

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So acording to my link solar is 2.5 times more expensive than gas.
And wind is 50% more expensive than gas but has a price which can be comparable with coal.


If solar can go down from 0.15 to 0.10 it will be cheaper to have cars fueled by solar + electricity than gasoline.

Convert gallon to kilowatt-hours - Conversion of Measurement Units

1 gallon @ 3.6 ( the average us price ) = 36 kwh
This means the price of energy 1 kwh using gasoline is 0.10.

And please , don't get me started with batteries. I expect they will not be needed by 2015.

Cheaper green energy storage solution invented by Calgary profs - Technology & Science - CBC News

You certainly have that last part right. Battery Buggies will be viewed as an interesting antique in 40 years IF we just allow a hydrogen fuel sector to develop naturally in the market. ALREADY showing great signs in Europe and 4 Major car manufacturers are going into PRODUCTION qty of fuel cell cars by 2015..

It not only solves the enviro concerns of battery disposal/recycling, but it fixes charge times, grid loading, AND can be the solution for using solar and wind OFF GRID --- to make hydrogen. That would be a perfect way to store energy from these flaky sources.

I'll take some Govt research funds for pure H2 R&D, but the FEDs need to BACK OFF trying to WISH engineering into fruition and meddling with winners and losers...

My Prius adjusts its energy storage or release about every second depending on braking, acceleration, incline, speed and torque demands, wind, etc. That requires batteries.

 

[westwall]

I find it hard to recall any "sustainable societies" from the past, let alone a sustainable society which has collapsed.

To the best of my knowldge sustainable societies are a new development .

I would appreciate if you supported your statement with some examples , and links ( or book references ).

Every tribe of nomadic or semi nomadic hunter gatherers have been, by defninition, sustainable societies...and history has shown time and time again that a natural disaster, even a small one by our standards is enough to send them into extinction.

Every sustainable anything has demonstrated that by sustaining.

Until they failed. The societies that succeeded..the ones we read about, are those that provided more for their citizens. Those are the societies that had a built in safety margin.
The ones you talk about are those that we know of thanks to archeology.