goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 09, 2013, 08:22:12 AM

Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 09, 2013, 08:22:12 AM
Doesn't the whole man made climate change hysteria fall apart?

(http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 10, 2013, 01:03:50 PM
BUT THE MODELS ARE MADE FROM SCIENCES!!!

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 10, 2013, 02:34:47 PM
So the models are all wrong, and "over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar." (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions) These are not good days for the carbon alarmists. Seems like about all they've got left is some hope that all the warming is "hiding deep in the oceans."

I'm hard pressed to think of a bigger fraud promoted by such a significant chunk of the "scientific community" for as long as this has. Any ideas?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWmeister on June 10, 2013, 05:12:54 PM
If you can :dnr: a graph, then :dnr:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 10, 2013, 10:08:41 PM
If you can :dnr: a graph, then :dnr:

Willful ignorance, yay.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cire on June 10, 2013, 10:17:07 PM
Another reason to plant trees at bsfs
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on June 11, 2013, 07:05:41 AM
Another reason to plant trees at bsfs

yep
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 11, 2013, 09:28:57 AM
Hot off the presses, this isn't from the Onion - it's the New York Times: What to Make of a Warming Plateau (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0). Some of the best excerpts:

Quote
As unlikely as this may sound, we have lucked out in recent years when it comes to global warming. The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.

Oh, we just got lucky! Reminds of the Time or Newsweek (I think) article a few years back that attributed the lull in warming to the "earth fighting back." :lol:

Quote
The slowdown is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists. :lol: True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.

But given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, [$$$] the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

So... the science isn't settled? And I love the "the warming's gotta be hiding deep in the ocean!" meme. Congrats Democrats - man made global warming has become your Iraq WMD.

Quote
As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.

Rarely do they mention that most of the warmest years in the historical record have occurred recently. Moreover, their claim depends on careful selection of the starting and ending points. The starting point is almost always 1998, a particularly warm year because of a strong El Niño weather pattern.

Scientists and statisticians reject this sort of selective use of numbers, and when they calculate the long-term temperature trends for the earth, they conclude that it continues to warm through time. Despite the recent lull, it is an open question whether the pace of that warming has undergone any lasting shift.

So now the skeptics are the ones "cherry picking" the numbers?!?! This, from the crowd that conveniently ignores pre-industrial age eras of much higher temperatures?!?! :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 11, 2013, 09:48:00 AM
Willful ignorance, yay.

 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 11, 2013, 09:59:08 AM
Assume some of you have read this?

http://www.lomborg.com/publications/cool_it
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 11, 2013, 10:02:59 AM
Breaking: Global Warming has been spotted!!!

(http://magickcanoe.com/nova/seamonsters-1-large.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on June 11, 2013, 10:21:05 AM
kick their asses k-s-u-w
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 11, 2013, 11:33:40 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/QycL1JO.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/pq9NjD9.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/QGGu2Jm.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/bikHSmm.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 11, 2013, 01:08:04 PM
I'm not an alarmist by any means, but the Earth is indeed warming.  Climate change is a real thing.  14 of the last 15 years have been the hottest average global temperatures on record.  The chance that that is just a coincidence is less than 1 divided by all of the stars in the universe.


 :nerd:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 11, 2013, 01:08:50 PM
Here is an artist's rendition of global warming. We'd better enact a trillion dollar carbon tax immediately. It might devastate the economy, but it's a small price to pay compared with what this thing will do.

(http://theseamonster.net/wp-content/uploads/death-of-a-sea-monster1.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 11, 2013, 01:09:21 PM
You should read that book I linked.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 11, 2013, 01:15:52 PM
Here is an artist's rendition of global warming. We'd better enact a trillion dollar carbon tax immediately. It might devastate the economy, but it's a small price to pay compared with what this thing will do.



A carbon tax creates a disincentive for a negative externality (pollution), which lowers CO2 levels, improves the environment, and lowers health care costs in the long run.  Replace the federal income tax with a carbon tax, and I think both sides would be happy. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 11, 2013, 01:49:31 PM
I'm not an alarmist by any means, but the Earth is indeed warming.  Climate change is a real thing.  14 of the last 15 years have been the hottest average global temperatures on record.  The chance that that is just a coincidence is less than 1 divided by all of the stars in the universe.


 :nerd:

By "hottest on record" you mean in the last 150 or so years since we have had accurate thermometers in some parts of the world.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 11, 2013, 02:08:42 PM
I'm not an alarmist by any means, but the Earth is indeed warming.  Climate change is a real thing.  14 of the last 15 years have been the hottest average global temperatures on record.  The chance that that is just a coincidence is less than 1 divided by all of the stars in the universe.


 :nerd:

You should probably be made aware that the graph starting this thread shows that your punitive carbon tax would have little to no affect on global temperatures.  I don't thinks it's even in dispute that a punitive carbon tax would have a devastating effect on the US economy.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 11, 2013, 02:16:43 PM
Here is an artist's rendition of global warming. We'd better enact a trillion dollar carbon tax immediately. It might devastate the economy, but it's a small price to pay compared with what this thing will do.

A carbon tax creates a disincentive for a negative externality (pollution), which lowers CO2 levels, improves the environment, and lowers health care costs in the long run.  Replace the federal income tax with a carbon tax, and I think both sides would be happy.

Oh, so now we're switching from climate change to simply improving air quality? Good thing this carbon tax will apply to China.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on June 11, 2013, 02:36:39 PM
I can't WAIT till we have orange air we can swim through like China can.


I am sure that does wonders for prolonging the human life span.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cire on June 11, 2013, 02:55:25 PM
it seems to me that the whole "are we the ones doing it?" argument is semantics.  No?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on June 11, 2013, 03:01:32 PM
Here is an artist's rendition of global warming. We'd better enact a trillion dollar carbon tax immediately. It might devastate the economy, but it's a small price to pay compared with what this thing will do.

A carbon tax creates a disincentive for a negative externality (pollution), which lowers CO2 levels, improves the environment, and lowers health care costs in the long run.  Replace the federal income tax with a carbon tax, and I think both sides would be happy.

Oh, so now we're switching from climate change to simply improving air quality? Good thing this carbon tax will apply to China.



You guys are all dumbasses, Global Dimming:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/understanding-global-dimming.html

Quote
Like enormous clouds of volcanic ash, some forms of air pollution can significantly reduce the amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface and lower temperatures. Climate researcher James Hansen estimates that "global dimming" is cooling our planet by more than a degree Celsius (1.8°F) and fears that as we curb these types of air pollution, global warming may escalate to a point of no return. Here, trace the historic events that lead to our understanding of global dimming.
:horrorsurprise: :horrorsurprise:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 11, 2013, 03:16:19 PM
(http://americas-next-top-model.download-tvshows.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/americas-next-top-model.jpg)

WHAT IF THEY'RE ALL WRONG
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on June 11, 2013, 03:17:33 PM
the left has no time for your science k-s-u-w
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OK_Cat on June 11, 2013, 03:19:07 PM
if the models are all wrong, you must call cheech and chong

(http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/14150483/Cheech++Chong.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 11, 2013, 03:28:50 PM
What's so funny about the ocean thing?  I don't want to miss out on anything super hilarious. 


And why does the graph only focus on the (mis)match between models and atmospheric observations in the tropics?

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf) 

Quote
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
...
While these data are
consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale,
discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.
...
Tropical Temperature Results (20°S to 20°N)
• Although the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in
the troposphere, some observational data sets show the opposite behavior. Almost all model
simulations show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface. This difference between
models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from
errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second
explanation is favored, but the issue is still open.

That report was co authored by John Christy, the same guy that made the graph.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 11, 2013, 04:03:22 PM
WRT global dimming:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/contrails-reduce-daily-temperature-range
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 11, 2013, 04:29:44 PM
What's so funny about the ocean thing?  I don't want to miss out on anything super hilarious. 


And why does the graph only focus on the (mis)match between models and atmospheric observations in the tropics?

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf) 

Quote
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
...
While these data are
consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale,
discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.
...
Tropical Temperature Results (20°S to 20°N)
• Although the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in
the troposphere, some observational data sets show the opposite behavior. Almost all model
simulations show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface. This difference between
models and observations may arise from errors that are common to all models, from
errors in the observational data sets, or from a combination of these factors. The second
explanation is favored, but the issue is still open.

That report was co authored by John Christy, the same guy that made the graph.

What branch of science is the garbage in garbage out branch?  I mean, the earth is only covered by a little water, so probably not relevant.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 12, 2013, 09:55:55 AM
What's so funny about the ocean thing?  I don't want to miss out on anything super hilarious.

Because the klimate krazies will leave no stone unturned trying to find that elusive warming. The latest peer-reviewed study suggests it may be hiding in peoples' ovens. Crazy stuff.

And why does the graph only focus on the (mis)match between models and atmospheric observations in the tropics?

Two reasons: First because, as the article you excerpted explains, most of the models predicted that the most warming would indeed occur in the troposphere. Thus, it was only fair to compare apples to apples. Second, atmospheric measurements are more reliable than surface-based measurements, which are more prone to variability based on changes in land use as opposed to "climate change."

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: MeatSauce on June 12, 2013, 10:12:06 AM
K-S-U-Wildcats!, are you a "global warming is a hoax" guy or a "I'm skeptical about the amount of warming the increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing" guy?

and:
Because the klimate krazies will leave no stone unturned trying to find that elusive warming. The latest peer-reviewed study suggests it may be hiding in peoples' ovens. Crazy stuff.
why do repubs sub in K's for C's like this?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 12, 2013, 10:53:27 AM
Most conservatives out there are victims of confirmation bias.  That's why they cling to outlier opinions and studies that are funded by special interest groups, instead of accepting the scientific consensus. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 12, 2013, 10:53:57 AM
K-S-U-Wildcats!, are you a "global warming is a hoax" guy or a "I'm skeptical about the amount of warming the increasing atmospheric CO2 is causing" guy?

Is global warming a "hoax?" I guess it depends on your definition. The planet has maybe warmed by about 1/2 degree Celsius since 1970, though this is of, course, and is only as reliable as the data collected (see surface weather station concerns). The Earth warms and cools over time.

Yes, I'm very skeptical as to how much of this warming is attributable to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, recently reported observations (now even in the NYT, no less) indicates that we should all be skeptical about this. That's what this thread is about.

why do repubs sub in K's for C's like this?

I dunno. K just seems kookier than C.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 12, 2013, 10:56:27 AM
Most conservatives out there are victims of confirmation bias.  That's why they cling to outlier opinions and studies that are funded by special interest groups, instead of accepting the scientific consensus.

:lol: Confirmation bias has nothing to do with ideology. I would suggest, however, that liberals are more prone to groupthink, as your post aptly demonstrates. Science is not about "consensus" versus "outlier" opinions. Is the hypothesis supported by observations, or not? That's all that matters. As Dr. Spencer's work indicates, the hypotheses of the climate models is terribly flawed.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 12, 2013, 11:02:18 AM
Most conservatives out there are victims of confirmation bias.  That's why they cling to outlier opinions and studies that are funded by special interest groups, instead of accepting the scientific consensus.

:lol: Confirmation bias has nothing to do with ideology. I would suggest, however, that liberals are more prone to groupthink, as your post aptly demonstrates. Science is not about "consensus" versus "outlier" opinions. Is the hypothesis supported by observations, or not. As Dr. Spencer's work indicates, the hypotheses of the climate models is terribly flawed.


So it's Dr. Spencer vs. 97% of climate scientists, then?  Sounds like an outlier opinion/study. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2013, 11:06:52 AM
It's a few "outliers" against the politically and funding motivated herd.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 12, 2013, 11:07:11 AM
Most conservatives out there are victims of confirmation bias.  That's why they cling to outlier opinions and studies that are funded by special interest groups, instead of accepting the scientific consensus.

:lol: Confirmation bias has nothing to do with ideology. I would suggest, however, that liberals are more prone to groupthink, as your post aptly demonstrates. Science is not about "consensus" versus "outlier" opinions. Is the hypothesis supported by observations, or not. As Dr. Spencer's work indicates, the hypotheses of the climate models is terribly flawed.


So it's Dr. Spencer vs. 97% of climate scientists, then?  Sounds like an outlier opinion/study.

Here, maybe if I do it in larger type:

Science is not about "consensus" versus "outlier" opinions. Is the hypothesis supported by observations, or not? That's all that matters. As Dr. Spencer's work indicates, the hypotheses of the climate models is terribly flawed.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 12, 2013, 11:08:05 AM
14 of the past 15 years have been the hottest years on record.  Seems like the science is legit. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2013, 11:10:45 AM
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
 
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
 
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated
 
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
 
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
 
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
 
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
 
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
 
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
 
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
 
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
 
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
 
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen
 
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.
 
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.
 
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming.  The upward trends since 1979 continues.
 
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.
 
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.
 
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing.  Fires have declined.
 
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.
 
(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years
 
(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.
 
(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998
 
(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” - is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.
 
(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 12, 2013, 11:11:56 AM
Like I said, confirmation bias. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2013, 11:15:20 AM
Like I said, confirmation bias.

You only parrot the warmist propaganda

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 12, 2013, 11:19:50 AM
Like I said, confirmation bias.

You only parrot the warmist propaganda


Yep, I tend to believe science over outlier opinions and studies funded by special interest groups. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2013, 11:22:46 AM
Like I said, confirmation bias.

You only parrot the warmist propaganda


Yep, I tend to believe science over outlier opinions and studies funded by special interest groups.

I tend to believe the people who actually study the lemming herd scientists all lining up at the trough to get their hands on billions of dollars of research funding . . . the same people who work hard to thwart, misdirect, hide and obfuscate the situation when they are caught manipulating data to generate an outcome that will only garner them more research funding.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 12, 2013, 11:25:10 AM
Like I said, confirmation bias.

You only parrot the warmist propaganda


Yep, I tend to believe science over outlier opinions and studies funded by special interest groups.

I tend to believe the people who actually study the lemming herd scientists all lining up at the trough to get their hands on billions of dollars of research funding . . . the same people who work hard to thwart, misdirect, hide and obfuscate the situation when they are caught manipulating data to generate an outcome that will only garner them more research funding.


What would you say if the Koch brothers funded a study that confirmed climate change? 


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/28/602151/bombshell-koch-funded-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-on-the-high-end-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2013, 11:26:19 AM
I couldn't care less about the Koch Brothers.   They are puny in comparison to what agenda based gov't scientists are getting to fund research to provide to political appointees to advance agendas.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 12, 2013, 11:29:18 AM
I couldn't care less about the Koch Brothers.   They are puny in comparison to what agenda based gov't scientists are getting to fund research to provide to political appointees to advance agendas.


So all of the research is bullshit, then, except for the research that meets your confirmation bias standard? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2013, 11:33:45 AM
I couldn't care less about the Koch Brothers.   They are puny in comparison to what agenda based gov't scientists are getting to fund research to provide to political appointees to advance agendas.


Like I said, confirmation bias.  You're going to be a climate change denier until the day you die.

Not a denier at all, I just listen to both sides rather than only siding with people who have clearly shown a willingness to allow politics, propaganda and a strong desire to live a life off the public largesse to guide their "science".   

The military/industrial/intelligence complex needs their bogeyman to keep their over $1 billion dollars in annual funding.   The Warmist Propagandists need their scare mongering to keep their millions/billions in funding.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 12, 2013, 11:42:01 AM
I couldn't care less about the Koch Brothers.   They are puny in comparison to what agenda based gov't scientists are getting to fund research to provide to political appointees to advance agendas.


Like I said, confirmation bias.  You're going to be a climate change denier until the day you die.

Not a denier at all, I just listen to both sides rather than only siding with people who have clearly shown a willingness to allow politics, propaganda and a strong desire to live a life off the public largesse to guide their "science".   

The military/industrial/intelligence complex needs their bogeyman to keep their over $1 billion dollars in annual funding.   The Warmist Propagandists need their scare mongering to keep their millions/billions in funding.


Oh okay... so you're not a denier, you just choose to believe the studies that are funded by little energy companies like Exxon Mobil and Shell instead of the studies that are funded by the public.  Makes sense.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 12, 2013, 11:43:01 AM
What's so funny about the ocean thing?  I don't want to miss out on anything super hilarious.

Because the klimate krazies will leave no stone unturned trying to find that elusive warming. The latest peer-reviewed study suggests it may be hiding in peoples' ovens. Crazy stuff.
Huge stone.  Obvious place to look.  Still don't get it. 

And why does the graph only focus on the (mis)match between models and atmospheric observations in the tropics?

Two reasons: First because, as the article you excerpted explains, most of the models predicted that the most warming would indeed occur in the troposphere. Thus, it was only fair to compare apples to apples. Second, atmospheric measurements are more reliable than surface-based measurements, which are more prone to variability based on changes in land use as opposed to "climate change."

1. John Christy et al. report that atmospheric data provide a good match for the models.  Except for the tropics, where the mismatch is most likely due to data errors. 
2. John Christy makes a chart that only shows the tropical discrepancy which, again, he said is probably an artifact of bad data.   
3. Roy Spencer throws the chart onto his blog.
4. K-S-U-Wildcats! sees blog.  Declares all the models wrong.  Claims that this particular set of data was cherry picked because of its superior reliability. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 12, 2013, 11:44:02 AM
I have never seen any study funded by Exxon or Mobil Beems, but that piece of Warmist propaganda is a long and tired triste and has proven to out dated and miniscule in the grand scheme of all REAL climate study.

The Fraud of "consensus science".

http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/204-exposed-academic-fraud-in-new-climate-science-consensus-claim.html

Mr. Cook, who owns and runs the controversial and confusingly named alarmist blog, Skeptical Science, is Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, Australia. His paper, appearing in the journal "Environmental Research Letters"  has added real irony for its claim that there really is "a striking discrepancy between public perception and reality."
 
But as more independent analysts look into Cook's claims the less reliable they seem. Another scientist quick to report being misrepresented by the new study is Dr. Nicola Scafetta who spoke of the “ utter dishonesty” at work. While Dr. Nir J. Shaviv of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, when asked whether Cook's study reliably reported his paper, replied “Nope… it is not an accurate representation.”
 
Now Cook's “97% consensus” study is being met by a backlash from the very heart of European green policy. Once solidly pro-green Germany sees its flagship news magazine, Spiegel Online, quick to throw cold water over Cook's claims.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 12, 2013, 12:42:13 PM
Dax, just stop.  You're too smart of a guy to not know that energy companies and billionaires like the Koch brothers are funding "studies" to refute the scientific consensus on climate change.  The funny thing is that the study from the Koch brothers actually backlashed, and confirmed what scientists have been reporting all along. 

I won't deny that there are global warming alarmists out there who take things to the other side of the extreme, but that's an entirely different conversation.  America's still trying to get to the point where a majority of the population believes that climate change is real.  People aren't having the necessary conversations about what we can actually do (if anything) to combat climate change.  Instead, the focus is on whether or not it's a hoax.  The scientific consensus is being disregarded by a significant portion of the population, and it's 100% politically motivated and perpetrated by the big energy companies. 

For a guy who knows everything there is to know about conspiracy theories, you're completely in the dark when it comes to the climate change debate in this country.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 12, 2013, 01:28:35 PM
You're too smart of a guy to not know that energy companies and billionaires like the Koch brothers are funding "studies" to refute the scientific consensus on climate change.  The funny thing is that the study from the Koch brothers actually backlashed, and confirmed what scientists have been reporting all along. 


Jesus Christ, naivete and delusion wrapped up in a tight little package.

FWIW, big energy has their hands deep in the "green" energy kitty
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 12, 2013, 01:47:11 PM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 12, 2013, 02:20:29 PM
Koch Bros:  okay Mr. Scientist, I'm going to pay you sacks of my dirty, filthy, hydrocarbon soaked cash to perform a study that shows climate change is bullshit.

Mr. Scientist:  You've got yourself a deal.

[One year later the Koch Bros. hydrocarbon tainted study is published by Mr. Scientist showing climate change is exactly as some guy says 97% of scientists say it is]

Koch Bros:  Waaauuuhhhht?!?!?  Mr. Scientist, we had a deal you bad person!

Mr. Scientist:  I know, I'm sorry, but I couldn't help it.

Koch Bros:  That's okay, thanks anyways.  Here are your sacks of money.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on June 12, 2013, 02:37:46 PM
I still really really want orange air that you can swim through.

We really need to shut down the EPA as I want to drink green water too.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 12, 2013, 02:44:59 PM
You're too smart of a guy to not know that energy companies and billionaires like the Koch brothers are funding "studies" to refute the scientific consensus on climate change.  The funny thing is that the study from the Koch brothers actually backlashed, and confirmed what scientists have been reporting all along. 


Jesus Christ, naivete and delusion wrapped up in a tight little package.

FWIW, big energy has their hands deep in the "green" energy kitty


Of course big energy is investing in green energy.  As long as it's profitable, why wouldn't they?  That has nothing to do with the fact that big energy wants to prevent legislation that will increase production costs and place more restrictions on pollution and CO2 emissions.  The sad thing is that these political groups and corporations have been successful in convincing fools like yourself that the scientific consensus is a hoax.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: illBisonYourdele on June 12, 2013, 03:33:09 PM
someone please tell me what this means....

"Over hundreds of millennia, Arctic permafrost soils have accumulated vast stores of organic carbon -- an estimated 1,400 to 1,850 petagrams of it (a petagram is 2.2 trillion pounds, or 1 billion metric tons). That's about half of all the estimated organic carbon stored in Earth's soils. In comparison, about 350 petagrams of carbon have been emitted from all fossil-fuel combustion and human activities since 1850. Most of this carbon is located in thaw-vulnerable topsoils within 10 feet (3 meters) of the surface.

Current climate models do not adequately account for the impact of climate change on permafrost and how its degradation may affect regional and global climate. Scientists want to know how much permafrost carbon may be vulnerable to release as Earth's climate warms, and how fast it may be released."
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 12, 2013, 03:54:58 PM
Scientific consensus is an oxymoron, like jumbo shrimp or great recession.

Bmwjhawk is a taggermoron, tagging senseless talking points all over the pit like some vandal would tag a picture of boobs or a male genitals on the sidewalk or a brick wall.  He doesn't know what any of it means, but he's sure it belongs there.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 12, 2013, 04:01:31 PM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 12, 2013, 04:43:24 PM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.

Feel free to elaborate.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 12, 2013, 04:47:36 PM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 12, 2013, 04:49:44 PM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 12, 2013, 05:33:51 PM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

Do the models say the greenhouse gases are increasing, therefore it's getting hotter? Or, are the greenhouse gases increasing as a result of it getting hotter due to increased solar activity? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 12, 2013, 05:53:35 PM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

So you're saying that global temps aren't following the laws of thermodynamics? Holy crap. What's next to go? Gravity? We're so mumped.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on June 12, 2013, 08:48:38 PM
Koch Bros:  okay Mr. Scientist, I'm going to pay you sacks of my dirty, filthy, hydrocarbon soaked cash to perform a study that shows climate change is bullshit.

Mr. Scientist:  You've got yourself a deal.

[One year later the Koch Bros. hydrocarbon tainted study is published by Mr. Scientist showing climate change is exactly as some guy says 97% of scientists say it is]

Koch Bros:  Waaauuuhhhht?!?!?  Mr. Scientist, we had a deal you bad person!

Mr. Scientist:  I know, I'm sorry, but I couldn't help it.

Koch Bros:  That's okay, thanks anyways.  Here are your sacks of money.

I think this might be the best fake sugar dick post of all time.  no sarcasm.  Bravo.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 12, 2013, 09:06:11 PM
Koch Bros:  okay Mr. Scientist, I'm going to pay you sacks of my dirty, filthy, hydrocarbon soaked cash to perform a study that shows climate change is bullshit.

Mr. Scientist:  You've got yourself a deal.

[One year later the Koch Bros. hydrocarbon tainted study is published by Mr. Scientist showing climate change is exactly as some guy says 97% of scientists say it is]

Koch Bros:  Waaauuuhhhht?!?!?  Mr. Scientist, we had a deal you bad person!

Mr. Scientist:  I know, I'm sorry, but I couldn't help it.

Koch Bros:  That's okay, thanks anyways.  Here are your sacks of money.

I think this might be the best fake sugar dick post of all time.  no sarcasm.  Bravo.

I enjoyed it, too.  I could see it as a "tom the dancing bug" cartoon
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 12, 2013, 09:48:52 PM
man, the rate at which we're destroying this planet's biological diversity is sickening. everyone with an understanding of evolution has to agree with that much.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 12, 2013, 11:07:29 PM
man, the rate at which we're destroying this planet's biological diversity is sickening. everyone with an understanding of evolution has to agree with that much.

I would agree with this, but the elephant in the room is the human population explosion, not carbon dioxide. Until it becomes politically correct to talk about it, the destruction will continue, especially in the third world.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 12, 2013, 11:33:10 PM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

Do the models say the greenhouse gases are increasing, therefore it's getting hotter? Or, are the greenhouse gases increasing as a result of it getting hotter due to increased solar activity?

They are models. They don't say anything. There is a measurable increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that quantity is increasing. If you are going to model the climate, you have to account for that. The reason for the increase in greenhouse gas is completely irrelevant, but if you think the activities of man have absolutely nothing to do with it, you have your head in the sand.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 12, 2013, 11:35:06 PM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

So you're saying that global temps aren't following the laws of thermodynamics? Holy crap. What's next to go? Gravity? We're so mumped.

You couldn't possibly be this stupid.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 13, 2013, 12:40:25 AM
I would agree with this, but the elephant in the room is the human population explosion, not carbon dioxide. Until it becomes politically correct to talk about it, the destruction will continue, especially in the third world.

we're like children.  stupid, stupid, stupid little children.  eff you, michigancat and dominique sutton.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 13, 2013, 07:48:54 AM
Smock is just spewing forth warmest propaganda about "Big Oil" and forgetting that entire sections of federal agencies engaged in climate research are receiving millions in taxpayer funding have been lead by Warmist Propagandists at the beck and call of those with the power of the purse string and a political agenda.


 



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 13, 2013, 08:04:14 AM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

So you're saying that global temps aren't following the laws of thermodynamics? Holy crap. What's next to go? Gravity? We're so mumped.

You couldn't possibly be this stupid.

Just having a little fun with your smug statement that man made global warming theory is just "the laws of thermodynamics." The models are the hypotheses for man made global warming. The hypothesis is everything in science. Because the models are wrong, this indicates that the "science" of man made global warming is shaky at best, as even the NYT must concede in the article linked above.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 09:29:46 AM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

So you're saying that global temps aren't following the laws of thermodynamics? Holy crap. What's next to go? Gravity? We're so mumped.

You couldn't possibly be this stupid.

Just having a little fun with your smug statement that man made global warming theory is just "the laws of thermodynamics." The models are the hypotheses for man made global warming. The hypothesis is everything in science. Because the models are wrong, this indicates that the "science" of man made global warming is shaky at best, as even the NYT must concede in the article linked above.

The models are not set up to prove or disprove climate change. The changes in the atmosphere do that. The models are set up to try to predict the effects, and of course they are not perfect.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2013, 09:49:06 AM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.

Feel free to elaborate.

Well the thermal conductivity of CO2 is 0.105 (W/m*K).  Air is 0.0243 (both at 0 deg C).  So it appears air is a better insulator than carbon dioxide.  How in the world is air with an increased concentration of CO2 trapping heat?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on June 13, 2013, 10:22:55 AM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.

Feel free to elaborate.

Well the thermal conductivity of CO2 is 0.105 (W/m*K).  Air is 0.0243 (both at 0 deg C).  So it appears air is a better insulator than carbon dioxide.  How in the world is air with an increased concentration of CO2 trapping heat?

The "lifetime in the atmosphere" of CO2 is much higher than O2, for example.  Basically, based on the oxygen and carbon cycles, oxygen is cycled through more quickly and develops offsets that have a net loss in heat, whereas CO2 has a slower cycle and develops a net gain in heat.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 13, 2013, 10:37:55 AM

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Funny. That's what the models said would happen too.

Well, it's probably a good sign that the models are following the laws of thermodynamics.

So you're saying that global temps aren't following the laws of thermodynamics? Holy crap. What's next to go? Gravity? We're so mumped.

You couldn't possibly be this stupid.

Just having a little fun with your smug statement that man made global warming theory is just "the laws of thermodynamics." The models are the hypotheses for man made global warming. The hypothesis is everything in science. Because the models are wrong, this indicates that the "science" of man made global warming is shaky at best, as even the NYT must concede in the article linked above.

The models are not set up to prove or disprove climate change. The changes in the atmosphere do that. The models are set up to try to predict the effects, and of course they are not perfect.

That's what a hypothesis is, dumbass. It's a prediction, based on a theory. You then test to see whether the prediction is accurate. That is science. The man made global warming hypotheses - i.e., the models - are wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 13, 2013, 10:56:24 AM
link?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 11:03:36 AM
That's what a hypothesis is, dumbass. It's a prediction, based on a theory. You then test to see whether the prediction is accurate. That is science. The man made global warming hypotheses - i.e., the models - are wrong.

You are almost right here, but at the same time you are very wrong. I have never seen a scientific model that just completely nails something like the weather. When the model is off, you look at the inputs and try to figure out where you went wrong. Without actually knowing what those inputs were vs the actual physical conditions today, we cannot really say whether these models are good or not.

I will ask this, though. What do you think contributes to a location's climate?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 13, 2013, 11:06:54 AM
That's what a hypothesis is, dumbass. It's a prediction, based on a theory. You then test to see whether the prediction is accurate. That is science. The man made global warming hypotheses - i.e., the models - are wrong.

You are almost right here, but at the same time you are very wrong. I have never seen a scientific model that just completely nails something like the weather. When the model is off, you look at the inputs and try to figure out where you went wrong. Without actually knowing what those inputs were vs the actual physical conditions today, we cannot really say whether these models are good or not.

I will ask this, though. What do you think contributes to a location's climate?

God.  God makes it how it should be so that we can dominate the Earth's ass and make it as much of our bitch as we can. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 11:15:13 AM
http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Buying/Help_Should_we_buy_a_home_in_a_year_flood_plain-129057 (http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Buying/Help_Should_we_buy_a_home_in_a_year_flood_plain-129057)

Quote

Help! Should we buy a home in a 100-year flood plain?

Asked by Cathy, 30033 • Tue May 26, 2009

We have found a great house, unfortunately it's one of the lowest houses on the street and it's in an AE Zone / 100-year flood plain. The creek is 200 feet behind the house. The seller has lived in the house for 10 years and the house has never flooded. Our insurance company has quoted us $1658 per year for additional flood insurance. Does this seem high? Will it be hard for us to resell this house given the flood zone location?
0 votes • Share • Follow Question • Flag • Home Buying in 30033

Is this just another case of those dumbass scientists getting it wrong yet again? Probably. The place hasn't flooded in more than 10 years!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on June 13, 2013, 11:25:58 AM
CNS gets it

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 13, 2013, 11:28:12 AM
http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Buying/Help_Should_we_buy_a_home_in_a_year_flood_plain-129057 (http://www.trulia.com/voices/Home_Buying/Help_Should_we_buy_a_home_in_a_year_flood_plain-129057)

Quote

Help! Should we buy a home in a 100-year flood plain?

Asked by Cathy, 30033 • Tue May 26, 2009

We have found a great house, unfortunately it's one of the lowest houses on the street and it's in an AE Zone / 100-year flood plain. The creek is 200 feet behind the house. The seller has lived in the house for 10 years and the house has never flooded. Our insurance company has quoted us $1658 per year for additional flood insurance. Does this seem high? Will it be hard for us to resell this house given the flood zone location?
0 votes • Share • Follow Question • Flag • Home Buying in 30033

Is this just another case of those dumbass scientists getting it wrong yet again? Probably. The place hasn't flooded in more than 10 years!

Good analogy. Spot on. :facepalm: A 100 year flood plain is an area that has a 1% chance of flooding in any given year. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that man made global warming models projected much greater warming than has actually occurred. The hypotheses are wrong, and must be re-examined.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 13, 2013, 11:57:06 AM
Cathy is going to wish she didn't buy that place when all the ice melts and that creek backs up and swallows her entire house.  Neighbors should be stoked though.  New neighborhood lake complete with structure at bottom for fish habitat.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 13, 2013, 12:19:27 PM
That's what a hypothesis is, dumbass. It's a prediction, based on a theory. You then test to see whether the prediction is accurate. That is science. The man made global warming hypotheses - i.e., the models - are wrong.

You are almost right here, but at the same time you are very wrong. I have never seen a scientific model that just completely nails something like the weather. When the model is off, you look at the inputs and try to figure out where you went wrong. Without actually knowing what those inputs were vs the actual physical conditions today, we cannot really say whether these models are good or not.

I will ask this, though. What do you think contributes to a location's climate?

This is why I always laugh when warmers like beems and algore say "the science is done, and anyone that doesn't believe is a denier!"  Climate isn't really a science at this point, and may never be. It's really an art.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 13, 2013, 12:30:28 PM
CO2 MAY be causing AGW/Climate Change, it MAY be influencing AGW/Climate Change . . . other forms of Greenhouse Gases MAY be causing/influencing AGW/Climate Change.

Yes, it is absolutely laughable when the warmist run around saying the "science is settled" and calling anyone who rightfully says there's no way the "science is settled" a "DENIER".

Warmists parrot the same thing over and over again . . . it's as if all other forms of climate forcing, natural variability etc. etc. don't exist.   In their world there can only be on cause for "Climate Change" CO2 (or other Greenhouse Gases). 

I just re-read a number of the ClimateGate emails (likely "hacked" by a Whistle Blower) and it's laughable to think that anyone still trumpets "out of context" and things of that ilk to explain those frauds.   It was concentrated effort of manipulation, obfuscation, fraud and scientific thuggery . . . and some of those guys are lucky they either weren't fined significantly if not sent to jail for a little while for their clear violation of FOIA (related UK) laws.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2013, 01:14:43 PM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.

Feel free to elaborate.

Well the thermal conductivity of CO2 is 0.105 (W/m*K).  Air is 0.0243 (both at 0 deg C).  So it appears air is a better insulator than carbon dioxide.  How in the world is air with an increased concentration of CO2 trapping heat?

The "lifetime in the atmosphere" of CO2 is much higher than O2, for example.  Basically, based on the oxygen and carbon cycles, oxygen is cycled through more quickly and develops offsets that have a net loss in heat, whereas CO2 has a slower cycle and develops a net gain in heat.

We're focused on the trapping of the heat first.  Then we'll get into your chemistry voo doo.  I bid you good day, sir! 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 13, 2013, 01:39:21 PM
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2013, 01:43:28 PM
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

I'm interested to know:


- is any perceived change a net good or bad?
- what's the threshold (of our contribution) for giving a damn?
- are there more pressing problems we ought to solve first with the resources dedicated to answering the first two?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on June 13, 2013, 01:46:04 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 13, 2013, 02:01:01 PM
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

Who in the eff is saying humans don't impact the environment?   That's just a dumbass lowest common denominator statement that warmists use to garner attention . . . tossing around 97%, "consensus science" and "undeniable truth".   Of course it's an undeniable truth that human beings impact environment and thus likely IMPACT climate, what scientist would even attempt to debate that?    The problem the warmest scare mongers have is that they want to pin "climate change" on to mankind and mankind alone, and in most cases, specifically to one naturally existing gas.  That's absolutely absurd.   Don't try and dance around your clear leanings with such all inclusive statements.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 13, 2013, 02:19:18 PM
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

Who in the eff is saying humans don't impact the environment?
  That's just a dumbass lowest common denominator statement that warmists use to garner attention . . . tossing around 97%, "consensus science" and "undeniable truth".   Of course it's an undeniable truth that human beings impact environment and thus likely IMPACT climate, what scientist would even attempt to debate that?    The problem the warmest scare mongers have is that they want to pin "climate change" on to mankind and mankind alone, and in most cases, specifically to one naturally existing gas.  That's absolutely absurd.   Don't try and dance around your clear leanings with such all inclusive statements.


Quit playing dumb.  A huge portion of the population thinks that climate change is a hoax.  Visit Texas sometime if you don't believe me.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 13, 2013, 02:19:49 PM
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

Who in the eff is saying humans don't impact the environment?   That's just a dumbass lowest common denominator statement that warmists use to garner attention . . . tossing around 97%, "consensus science" and "undeniable truth".   Of course it's an undeniable truth that human beings impact environment, what scientist would even attempt to debate that?    The problem the warmest scare mongers have is that they want to pin "climate change" on to mankind and mankind alone, and in most cases, specifically to one naturally existing gas.  That's absolutely absurd.   Don't try and dance around your clear leanings with such all inclusive statements.

Exactly. To say that "97% agree, it's just matter of how much" - even if that were true - is completely meaningless. First, "consensus" is not science. Second, there's a hellofalotof difference between, hypothetically, man made CO2 emissions contributing 10% of the increase in warming versus 90% (warming of maybe a whopping half degree Celsius, no less). Third, whomever among the "97%" create the climate models have drastically overstated the impact of such emissions on temperature.

This isn't just some academic debate. Policy with far reaching consequences is being made on these flawed models. The billions spent on subsidies to "green" energy is a fart in the wind compared to the cost of the regulatory burdens imposed.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2013, 02:22:27 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on June 13, 2013, 02:29:26 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.

okay, thanks!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 13, 2013, 02:31:51 PM
97% of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.  How much we're contributing is up for debate, but there's no doubt that humans are responsible for at least some of the increase in average global temperature.  I have never once claimed that climate science is an exact science, or that every single model is the exact replica of the Earth's future climate.  Those are strawmen arguments that weak-minded people use to dilute and suppress the discussion.

Every living thing on Earth contributes to climate change, and the climate has always been changing since the dawn of time. 100% of scientists will agree that the sun and ocean currents contribute nearly all of the factors that affect climate. Human activities certainly contribute an infinitesimal amount of input into the equation, but certainly not enough to warrant monetary penalties on anyone or anything. We all want clean air, and we should be working on clean fuels, but not at the public's expense. The person or company that discovers these technologies will become very rich, and I can guarantee there are private entities working on it now, without any tax dollars. 

Al Gore and academia are in it for the money, and the government is in it for the power.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 02:43:33 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.

I'm pretty sure that I did not, but whatever floats your boat I guess.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on June 13, 2013, 02:44:16 PM
What do you think should be done then KSUW?

Should we get rid of the EPA and let the free market decide what is acceptable levels of toxins in the environment?
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 13, 2013, 02:52:47 PM
Like I said, confirmation bias.

You only parrot the warmist propaganda


Yep, I tend to believe science over outlier opinions and studies funded by special interest groups.

Because government isn't a special interest group.  Isn't it liberals that are always occupying things and complaining they can't afford lobbyist? 

The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

Do greenhouse gases not also reflect heat?  If not, would additional heat generated cause more water vapor, which does indeed reflect heat? 

Seems to me, this should have always been about air quality and general health, instead of fear mongering and doom and gloom scenarios.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on June 13, 2013, 02:55:33 PM
What do you think should be done then KSUW?

Should we get rid of the EPA and let the free market decide what is acceptable levels of toxins in the environment?

What a great idea!

Yours truly,

David & Charles Koch
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2013, 02:59:31 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.

I'm pretty sure that I did not, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

Was really just a misuse of terminology.  But, part of my larger point was that people aren't generally educated enough to make an informed decision.  All they can do is agree or disagree.  And whichever they do is lacking any sort of substantiated conviction.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 13, 2013, 03:13:01 PM
What do you think should be done then KSUW?

Should we get rid of the EPA and let the free market decide what is acceptable levels of toxins in the environment?

This isn't about abolishing the EPA, which does good valuable work. Did you know that the EPA's regulation of CO2 as a "pollutant" is a fairly recent development? A good start would be to reverse that decision, and get the EPA out of the business of regulating CO2. This has nothing to do with "clean" air. CO2 is not a particulate pollutant. The only reason we're regulating it is because of the severe overreaction to flawed alarmist climate models discussed herein.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 13, 2013, 03:31:20 PM
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Attribution50-65_med.jpg)

Quote
The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors).  The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming.  Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.  The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect).  The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink).  The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on June 13, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.

I'm pretty sure that I did not, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

Was really just a misuse of terminology.  But, part of my larger point was that people aren't generally educated enough to make an informed decision.  All they can do is agree or disagree.  And whichever they do is lacking any sort of substantiated conviction.

okay, because it looked like you thought you just single handedly disproved the greenhouse effect by googling the thermal conductivity of air and co2.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 03:53:17 PM

Do greenhouse gases not also reflect heat?  If not, would additional heat generated cause more water vapor, which does indeed reflect heat? 

Seems to me, this should have always been about air quality and general health, instead of fear mongering and doom and gloom scenarios.

They do reflect heat, much like glass on a greenhouse. Also, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 13, 2013, 04:07:57 PM

Do greenhouse gases not also reflect heat?  If not, would additional heat generated cause more water vapor, which does indeed reflect heat? 

Seems to me, this should have always been about air quality and general health, instead of fear mongering and doom and gloom scenarios.

They do reflect heat, much like glass on a greenhouse. Also, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
I'm sorry, I haven't been paying attention.  What side are you arguing for?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 13, 2013, 04:08:28 PM
jesus, emo. the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with insulation. Even global warming deniers accept the greenhouse effect as science. And they also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)

Never said it did, Nuts Kicked did, and I was in the process of refuting that.  Thanks for playing though.

I'm pretty sure that I did not, but whatever floats your boat I guess.

Was really just a misuse of terminology.  But, part of my larger point was that people aren't generally educated enough to make an informed decision.  All they can do is agree or disagree.  And whichever they do is lacking any sort of substantiated conviction.

okay, because it looked like you thought you just single handedly disproved the greenhouse effect by googling the thermal conductivity of air and co2.

No.  Would be awesome though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 04:12:21 PM

Do greenhouse gases not also reflect heat?  If not, would additional heat generated cause more water vapor, which does indeed reflect heat? 

Seems to me, this should have always been about air quality and general health, instead of fear mongering and doom and gloom scenarios.

They do reflect heat, much like glass on a greenhouse. Also, water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
I'm sorry, I haven't been paying attention.  What side are you arguing for?

science
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 13, 2013, 04:15:48 PM
Whose?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 04:24:51 PM
Whose?

Those who understand how the greenhouse effect works.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 13, 2013, 04:33:16 PM
The same ones that accurately predicted the doom and gloom scenario's we're currently experiencing?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 04:38:04 PM
The same ones that accurately predicted the doom and gloom scenario's we're currently experiencing?

Yes, of course.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 13, 2013, 04:53:08 PM
So the ones that grossly over estimated feedback amplifications to the point that it lead everyone in the 80's to believe we'd be at disastrous levels by now. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 13, 2013, 05:05:33 PM
So the ones that grossly over estimated feedback amplifications to the point that it lead everyone in the 80's to believe we'd be at disastrous levels by now.

I really doubt they overestimated the feedback. That would have all been rooted in hard science that really isn't up for debate. They probably mis-estimated the inputs. Modeling is really hard. You need to know the inputs to judge the model. For instance, if the rise in CO2 and water vapor levels in the atmosphere was not as rapid as estimated, that is a potential reason for the model being wrong. There are also things that happen in space, population changes, changes in forested areas, deserts, etc. that are very difficult to account for. So if you really want to see if the scientists were wrong, I would suggest looking at each individual model and seeing what was assumed, then comparing that data to the real world. A good model is always an accurate portrayal of what will happen under a given set of circumstances. Getting those circumstances to actually match what ends up happening in the real world is very hard to do, though. Nobody can do it with any consistency.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: MeatSauce on June 13, 2013, 05:12:18 PM
The concept isn't that hard to understand. Greenhouse gases trap heat. The quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing. Therefore, the earth is going to get hotter. LOL at going out with thermometers and tracking global temperature to try to prove anything. That's the global weather, not climate.

You don't know what you're talking about quite yet but you're headed in the right direction.

Feel free to elaborate.

Well the thermal conductivity of CO2 is 0.105 (W/m*K).  Air is 0.0243 (both at 0 deg C).  So it appears air is a better insulator than carbon dioxide.  How in the world is air with an increased concentration of CO2 trapping heat?

The "lifetime in the atmosphere" of CO2 is much higher than O2, for example.  Basically, based on the oxygen and carbon cycles, oxygen is cycled through more quickly and develops offsets that have a net loss in heat, whereas CO2 has a slower cycle and develops a net gain in heat.

We're focused on the trapping of the heat first.  Then we'll get into your chemistry voo doo.  I bid you good day, sir!
Well, then lets focus on the correct thermal principal.  Convection.  conduction isn't that big of a player except from the surface to less than an inch above the ground.  But on to the CO2 specifically:  It absorbs infrared light in the atmosphere.  The "air" absorbs all non-blue light, thus it contains the infrared complement, that is in turn absorbed by the CO2.  The net radiation of infrared from the earth if ~400 W/m2 and in the upper limites of the atmosphere, it radiatess ~ 250 W/m2, with smoething like 150 W/m2 absorbed in the atmosphere itself.   Now, based on the isotopes of carbon found, the amount of carbon produced into the atmosphere over the past 150 years is approx. 500billion metric tons, enough to increase the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 30%.  280ppm to 390ppm....should be higher, right?  Thanks ocean, for taking the rest.
^^all of this is not debateable.

what is debateable is this:  the increased CO2/greenhouse gases have increased the amount of energy by 2.5 W/m2.  Some released chemicals actually provide a cooling effect ~(0.9) W/m2......and that's where the 1.5 W/m2 that gets tossed around comes from.  This creates a flux of energy available, which cause weird weather, ice cap stuff, and actually some positive(temporary or LT, who knows) and a 0.75 C warmer for each W/m2 that is found.  That's the crux of the argument.  Is that numver accurate? What does an increase mean? I dunno.





Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 13, 2013, 05:15:42 PM
Hmmm.   So,  if there is indeed a feedback amplification, wouldn't we be seeing the evidence for it?  Stratospheric hotspots & a decrease in outgoing radiation?  This data is and has been collected for at the very least 10 years.  There are no stratospheric hotspots and all of the models predicting outgoing radiation have been completely opposite of reality.  This suggest there is no amplification, thus th models are wrong.  No one in the scientific community is debating whether CO2 is a GHG,  the debate is about how the millions of feedbacks effect predictions. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 13, 2013, 10:18:34 PM
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Attribution50-65_med.jpg)

Quote
The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors).  The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming.  Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming.  The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect).  The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink).  The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.

I can't decide if the Skeptical Science website is more like the Onion or the National Inquirer.

Nice work huserl  :thumbs:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 14, 2013, 08:06:19 AM
I'm shocked that you feel that way.  Seems pretty fantastic to me. 
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ (http://www.skepticalscience.com/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 14, 2013, 08:29:35 AM
You do realize its essentially that Australian quack's blog, right?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 14, 2013, 09:14:10 AM
I realize that it's John Cook's site.  Not sure why he's a quack.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 14, 2013, 09:46:50 AM
I realize that it's John Cook's site.  Not sure why he's a quack.   

Have not read the studies, but the results seem dubious at best. For one, man made emissions of CO2 only amount to a tiny fraction of all "greenhouse gases," so it makes little sense that they are between a "100% and 175%" "contributor to global warming." What does that even mean?

Second, if these studies were correct, then you would expect global warming to have increased over the last 15 years as man made CO2 emissions have continued to increase, but they haven't.

So again, we return to the point: the global warming hypotheses (the models) are wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 14, 2013, 10:06:50 AM
Second, if these studies were correct, then you would expect global warming to have increased over the last 15 years as man made CO2 emissions have continued to increase, but they haven't.

If you lol at the krazy idea that ocean temperatures are relevant I can see how you might believe this.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 14, 2013, 10:38:24 AM
Second, if these studies were correct, then you would expect global warming to have increased over the last 15 years as man made CO2 emissions have continued to increase, but they haven't.

If you lol at the krazy idea that ocean temperatures are relevant I can see how you might believe this.

Ok, so never mind the models that predicted skyrocketing temps in the atmosphere. We were just kidding about that. But we're totally confident that the warming is hiding deep in the oceans, or possibly Mars. Got it? Thanks.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 14, 2013, 12:17:40 PM
Second, if these studies were correct, then you would expect global warming to have increased over the last 15 years as man made CO2 emissions have continued to increase, but they haven't.

If you lol at the krazy idea that ocean temperatures are relevant I can see how you might believe this.

One of the bloggers that run that site did thank the oceans and other CO2 absorbing inanimate objects for doing such a good job of cleaning up our mess.   :love:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 14, 2013, 03:29:21 PM
And here we go again, more horrendous policy based on flawed global warming theory: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html) Gotta cool down those oceans, stat!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 14, 2013, 03:47:10 PM
And here we go again, more horrendous policy based on flawed global warming theory: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html) Gotta cool down those oceans, stat!

Is this where electric rates "necessarily skyrocket"?  That will be great for electric car sales.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on June 14, 2013, 04:07:13 PM
And here we go again, more horrendous policy based on flawed global warming theory: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html) Gotta cool down those oceans, stat!


The surface temperature of the Earth has increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in just the past 50 years or so.  How much longer should we wait before we start trying to limit our CO2 output?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 14, 2013, 04:32:07 PM
And here we go again, more horrendous policy based on flawed global warming theory: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html) Gotta cool down those oceans, stat!


The surface temperature of the Earth has increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in just the past 50 years or so.  How much longer should we wait before we start trying to limit our CO2 output?

You mean the CO2 output that amounts to a fraction 1% of all "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere? I dunno, maybe until we actually have a more reliable indication that man made CO2 actually has an effect of any significance on global warming.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on June 14, 2013, 04:38:20 PM
And here we go again, more horrendous policy based on flawed global warming theory: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html) Gotta cool down those oceans, stat!


The surface temperature of the Earth has increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in just the past 50 years or so.  How much longer should we wait before we start trying to limit our CO2 output?

Link?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 14, 2013, 05:11:33 PM
Ol Bill Happer, Nobel Prize winning scientist guy at Princeton says we're in a CO2 deficit state. 

Warmists are very upset, discrediting campaign is intense.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 14, 2013, 05:24:25 PM
I took the day off Tuesday to go to the beach and the water was rough ridin' cold. The warming isn't hiding there.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 17, 2013, 09:13:45 AM
I think you guys are jumping to the conclusion that a warming Earth is a bad thing. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 17, 2013, 09:29:47 AM
I think you guys are jumping to the conclusion that a warming Earth is a bad thing.

I'm not, but I prefer to focus just on the junk science that is man made global warming theory.

Extreme heat or cold are both bad things for the human species, but humans have generally prospered during relatively warm periods. The cold... not so much.

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ice_sheets.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on June 17, 2013, 09:36:16 AM
I think you guys are jumping to the conclusion that a warming Earth is a bad thing.

I'm not, but I prefer to focus just on the junk science that is man made global warming theory.

Extreme heat or cold are both bad things for the human species, but humans have generally prospered during relatively warm periods. The cold... not so much.

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/ice_sheets.png)


The world is only 6000 years old though.

This graphic is a hoax.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 17, 2013, 09:41:12 AM
As for the oceans, the warm/cooling thing isn't the only issue. 

acidity levels rising. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mortons toe on June 17, 2013, 11:40:38 AM
acidity levels rising.

maybe we can can make up some of these...
(http://media.whatifoundtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/cow-fart11.jpg)
but for fish pee pee  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 17, 2013, 10:23:09 PM
And here we go again, more horrendous policy based on flawed global warming theory: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-13/obama-tells-keystone-foes-he-will-unveil-climate-measures.html) Gotta cool down those oceans, stat!

Is this where electric rates "necessarily skyrocket"?  That will be great for electric car sales.

It's absolutely rough ridin' criminal that thing hasn't been approved yet.  So rough ridin' stupid. The apologists are even out of excuses.

Every day we get reminded how incompetent this sycophant is.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on June 28, 2013, 02:02:52 PM
So scientists overwhelmingly think there is global warming/climate change and politicians overwhelmingly think the opposite.  Pretty interesting stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 28, 2013, 02:03:28 PM
also, it's hotter than eff today.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on June 28, 2013, 02:05:11 PM
So scientists overwhelmingly think there is global warming/climate change and politicians overwhelmingly think the opposite.  Pretty interesting stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc)

#teamscience
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 28, 2013, 03:00:11 PM
So scientists overwhelmingly think there is global warming/climate change and politicians overwhelmingly think the opposite.  Pretty interesting stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc)

There are more than just 2 camps, and the term "denier" is extremely derogatory. Takes away from any argument progressives may have.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 28, 2013, 03:02:20 PM
So scientists overwhelmingly think there is global warming/climate change and politicians overwhelmingly think the opposite.  Pretty interesting stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc)

There are more than just 2 camps, and the term "denier" is extremely derogatory. Takes away from any argument progressives may have.

"You don't agree with us 100% and fall in lock step immediately, YOU'RE A DENIER"!!

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on June 28, 2013, 05:25:53 PM
also, it's hotter than eff today.

It's supposed to get over 130 in death valley this weekend, at least you don't live there.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 28, 2013, 05:48:06 PM
Death valley record is 134 about 100 years ago. I'd like to know what they were doing to cause that high temp back then. More people smoking pipes back then? Horse gas?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: p1k3 on June 28, 2013, 06:11:40 PM
Death valley record is 134 about 100 years ago. I'd like to know what they were doing to cause that high temp back then. More people smoking pipes back then? Horse gas?

racism
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 29, 2013, 09:33:29 AM
So scientists overwhelmingly think there is global warming/climate change and politicians overwhelmingly think the opposite.  Pretty interesting stuff.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/06/26/2202141/the-anti-science-climate-denier-caucus-113th-congress-edition/?mobile=nc)

#teamscience

It's cute when libtards cite websites like thinkprogress or mediamatters in support of their opinions.

Like a soviet citing pravda in support of the position the USSR is winning the cold war, or Colin Powell citing his own NYT editorial when stating the NYT agrees with him.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 01, 2013, 07:38:14 AM
Death valley record is 134 about 100 years ago. I'd like to know what they were doing to cause that high temp back then. More people smoking pipes back then? Horse gas?

most likely a faulty reading. I don't think it's broke > 130 since.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 01, 2013, 04:11:10 PM
Can anyone think of another instance where so many people just ignored the scientific consensus?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 01, 2013, 04:15:26 PM
Can anyone think of another instance where so many people just ignored the scientific consensus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 01, 2013, 05:03:15 PM
Can anyone think of another instance where so many people just ignored the scientific consensus?

"Scientific Consensus" is an oxymoron, kind of like "Smart Beems." I've pointed this out a number of times, but you just can't seem to get it through your thick skull. Consensus means nothing to science - if the hypothesis is wrong, it's wrong, and the prevailing hypotheses (the models) for the sensitivity of global temperature to man made CO2 emissions are wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 01, 2013, 06:12:09 PM
You are delusional if you think there's no such thing as scientific consensus.  The models have been incredibly accurate, with some even underestimating the extent of the increase in surface temperature.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 01, 2013, 07:02:03 PM
Lots of poor weather station siting, old instruments in many weather stations with a warm bias, loss of rural weather stations with bias towards urban heat islands.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 01, 2013, 10:08:28 PM
If we've learned anything from this thread, its that OregonSmock has read the entire Twilight series, twice.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 02, 2013, 12:32:07 PM
If we've learned anything from this thread, its that OregonSmock has read the entire Twilight series, twice.


wut 


 :confused:


If anyone believes in fairy tales, it's the anti-science, praise Jesus crew. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 06, 2013, 02:27:08 PM
If we've learned anything from this thread, its that OregonSmock has read the entire Twilight series, twice.


wut 


 :confused:


If anyone believes in fairy tales, it's the anti-science, praise Jesus crew.

Says the anti-science, anti-capitalist, enviro-nazi and his praise Obama crew

Don't worry child, the consensus is that twilight is a great book, for your demographic.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 08, 2013, 09:42:28 AM
Quote
World War I brought a global demand for wheat, prompting many to settle unclaimed, marginal lands in the southern prairies. In a region where most counties generally got less than 20 inches of rain, salesmen assured buyers that the chancellor at the University of Kansas had promised the land was undergoing a permanent climate change that would increase precipitation. The act of plowing actually brought the rains, people were told. - See more at: http://agfax.com/2012/11/09/new-1930s-dust-bowl-documentary-how-did-the-catastrophe-happen/#sthash.sFFHZPBd.dpuf

Welp.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 08, 2013, 11:12:25 AM
Quote
World War I brought a global demand for wheat, prompting many to settle unclaimed, marginal lands in the southern prairies. In a region where most counties generally got less than 20 inches of rain, salesmen assured buyers that the chancellor at the University of Kansas had promised the land was undergoing a permanent climate change that would increase precipitation. The act of plowing actually brought the rains, people were told. - See more at: http://agfax.com/2012/11/09/new-1930s-dust-bowl-documentary-how-did-the-catastrophe-happen/#sthash.sFFHZPBd.dpuf

Welp.

This was the scientific consensus of the day, so you can't really blame them. They believed dust particles in clouds would bring more rain.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 08, 2013, 08:13:17 PM
I liked it better when the solution to CO2 was "plant a tree" (insert wsc non sequiter),and not "drive all fossil fuels out of business with oppressive taxes while taking the bottom 80% income earners down with them."

I thought I heard the tree lines you see all over the Midwest were a result of planting to prevent future dust bowls, not sure if true.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 08:43:42 AM
I liked it better when the solution to CO2 was "plant a tree" (insert wsc non sequiter),and not "drive all fossil fuels out of business with oppressive taxes while taking the bottom 80% income earners down with them."

I thought I heard the tree lines you see all over the Midwest were a result of planting to prevent future dust bowls, not sure if true.

I think they are mostly wind blocks. The dust bowls will return when the Ogallala runs dry.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 10:03:57 AM
Tons of trees (windblocks) were planted as part of the New Deal.  Get people to work, prevent dust from blowing.  If/when the Ogallala runs dry I think the chance for a dust bowl returning is diminished because it won't be feasible to farm most of that land.  It'll (hopefully) return to native prairie.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 10:08:22 AM
Tons of trees (windblocks) were planted as part of the New Deal.  Get people to work, prevent dust from blowing.  If/when the Ogallala runs dry I think the chance for a dust bowl returning is diminished because it won't be feasible to farm most of that land.  It'll (hopefully) return to native prairie.

It would be a whole lot more feasible to dryland farm the plains today than it was in the 1930s.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 10:09:08 AM
Agree.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 10:10:45 AM
Also just did a bunch of reading on the Playa Lakes.  Holy crap, very interesting.  Also, if (big if) we just keep them in good shape the Ogallala is fine.  But we are probably totally mumped anyway.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 10:15:56 AM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 10:18:03 AM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 10:42:37 AM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 11:09:32 AM
If we've learned anything from this thread, its that OregonSmock has read the entire Twilight series, twice.


wut 


 :confused:


If anyone believes in fairy tales, it's the anti-science, praise Jesus crew.

Says the anti-science, anti-capitalist, enviro-nazi and his praise Obama crew

Don't worry child, the consensus is that twilight is a great book, for your demographic.



wut


This is the kind of post a mental midget makes when he can't discuss things reasonably like an adult.  So much pent up anger and aggression from our resident teabagger.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 09, 2013, 11:21:15 AM
Don't forget kids, our own K-State Scientists have concluded that higher C02 Levels mean that plants, particularly food crops are able to fight through the challanges of dry conditions easier. 

Newsflash and pro-tip:  Global Warming, Global Cooling, Climate Change, what have you.   We're still going to have droughts.

Reminder:  Cold almost means certain death for the majority of the population.   Hot . . . much better chance of survival and adaptability.    Earth has been hotter before, and it's been much, much colder before.   Natural Variability . . . now the new chuch of "Climate Change".



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on July 09, 2013, 11:30:14 AM
Also just did a bunch of reading on the Playa Lakes.  Holy crap, very interesting.  Also, if (big if) we just keep them in good shape the Ogallala is fine.  But we are probably totally mumped anyway.

We're totally mumped in Kansas. 

http://hercules.kgs.ku.edu/geohydro/wizard/wizardregional.cfm

0-bama  :shakesfist:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 12:51:42 PM
If we've learned anything from this thread, its that OregonSmock has read the entire Twilight series, twice.


wut 


 :confused:


If anyone believes in fairy tales, it's the anti-science, praise Jesus crew.

Says the anti-science, anti-capitalist, enviro-nazi and his praise Obama crew

Don't worry child, the consensus is that twilight is a great book, for your demographic.



wut


This is the kind of post a mental midget makes when he can't discuss things reasonably like an adult.  So much pent up anger and aggression from our resident teabagger.
Since my post was a parody of yours, I think you just called yourself a mental midget.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 12:54:27 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on July 09, 2013, 12:55:56 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

not 100% sure you have a strong grasp on what unintended consequence means here
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 01:01:48 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

not 100% sure you have a strong grasp on what unintended consequence means here

Shut up, libtard.  You are clueless.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 01:03:31 PM
holy crap :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 01:07:01 PM
Also just did a bunch of reading on the Playa Lakes.  Holy crap, very interesting.  Also, if (big if) we just keep them in good shape the Ogallala is fine.  But we are probably totally mumped anyway.

We're totally mumped in Kansas. 

http://hercules.kgs.ku.edu/geohydro/wizard/wizardregional.cfm

0-bama  :shakesfist:

Can't see it.   :dunno:  Link to well water data?  I pull that up off water.weather.gov.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 01:08:30 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

not 100% sure you have a strong grasp on what unintended consequence means here

Shut up, libtard.  You are clueless.


Looks like the mental midget is getting pissed. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 01:09:14 PM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?

Doubt it.  If we didn't grow it someone else would (Canada, Russia, China).  There's more potential supply at this point than demand. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 01:13:30 PM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?

Doubt it.  If we didn't grow it someone else would (Canada, Russia, China).  There's more potential supply at this point than demand.


Are you really implying that importing most of our food supply would somehow be less expensive than supplying it ourselves?


 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 01:13:46 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

not 100% sure you have a strong grasp on what unintended consequence means here

Shut up, libtard.  You are clueless.


Looks like the mental midget is getting pissed.

Not sure you remember, but you dubbed yourself the mental midget here.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 01:15:47 PM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?

Doubt it.  If we didn't grow it someone else would (Canada, Russia, China).  There's more potential supply at this point than demand.


Are you really implying that importing most of our food supply would somehow be less expensive than supplying it ourselves?


 :lol:

Yeah, name one thing we make here that we also import where the import isn't more expensive.


What a rough ridin' dolt.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 01:17:32 PM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?

Doubt it.  If we didn't grow it someone else would (Canada, Russia, China).  There's more potential supply at this point than demand.

They aren't growing it now because we subsidize it to the point that they cannot compete with our prices. Drop the subsidies, and those other countries will start growing grain at the market rate, which is much higher than we are paying right now. We also lose our biggest export as a nation.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 01:21:40 PM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?

Doubt it.  If we didn't grow it someone else would (Canada, Russia, China).  There's more potential supply at this point than demand.


Are you really implying that importing most of our food supply would somehow be less expensive than supplying it ourselves?


 :lol:

Yeah, name one thing we make here that we also import where the import isn't more expensive.


What a rough ridin' dolt.


The mental midget doesn't understand the difference between agricultural commodities and durable goods. 


 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 01:25:50 PM
Ben would benefit from doing a little research before he posts.

 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 01:29:35 PM
Ben would benefit from doing a little research before he posts.

 :lol:


Says the mental midget who wants to export all of our food supply to countries like Russia and China.


 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 01:37:02 PM
Ben would benefit from doing a little research before he posts.

 :lol:


Says the mental midget who wants to export all of our food supply to countries like Russia and China.


 :lol:

To be fair, he wants to stop exporting to them and import food from them at whatever price is profitable for them to grow it (a much higher price than we are paying to grow our own).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 01:43:52 PM
To be fair, I said nothing of the sort.  Ben is grasping at straws and looking like a complete Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), which is pretty much his m.o.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 01:44:53 PM
Plant wind farms and allow the taxpayers of that area to eat crap in electricity rates so the people living in an area that should have never been settled can continue living there in perpetuity.

Unintended consequences of the federal govts "investments" galore!  Free land to farm yields settlement. Ethanol green energy causes irrigated corn to grow in a place it can't grow, diminishing the only reliable water source.  Wind to prop it upon the end. Meanwhile, we all pay more for water, food and energy.  Yay federal govt

Actually, you are paying far less for food due to high plains farming, and what good would this reliable water source be if the land had never been settled in the first place as you suggest?

Doubt it.  If we didn't grow it someone else would (Canada, Russia, China).  There's more potential supply at this point than demand.

They aren't growing it now because we subsidize it to the point that they cannot compete with our prices. Drop the subsidies, and those other countries will start growing grain at the market rate, which is much higher than we are paying right now. We also lose our biggest export as a nation.

I agree.  That's why I said if we don't grow it someone else will.

I'm not advocating for stopping farming out there, I'm just debunking some theories on why we shouldn't.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 01:45:44 PM
Ben would benefit from doing a little research before he posts.

 :lol:


Says the mental midget who wants to export all of our food supply to countries like Russia and China.


 :lol:

To be fair, he wants to stop exporting to them and import food from them at whatever price is profitable for them to grow it (a much higher price than we are paying to grow our own).


Right.  China and Russia would essentially own our food supply, because we'd be importing from them and not producing any of our own.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 01:48:59 PM
But not at ridiculously higher prices than we pay today. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on July 09, 2013, 01:51:42 PM
this thread did a nose dive off the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) cliff. and it was already cruising down Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) blvd to begin with.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 09, 2013, 01:54:54 PM
But not at ridiculously higher prices than we pay today.


It's basic supply and demand.  There's no way you could decrease the food supply by that much and expect prices to remain stable.  Also, when imports > exports, GDP decreases.  Importing most or all of the food supply is a truly horrible idea.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 01:55:33 PM
Per Bens billboard on Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) blvd, the entire nations food supply comes from the panhandle of Oklahoma. In other words, a dirt farmer in Oklahoma feeds 300 million people + you!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 01:55:59 PM
But not at ridiculously higher prices than we pay today.

If their prices weren't higher, we would be importing from them today.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 01:59:29 PM
But not at ridiculously higher prices than we pay today.


It's basic supply and demand.  There's no way you could decrease the food supply by that much and expect prices to remain stable.  Also, when imports > exports, GDP decreases.  Importing most or all of the food supply is a truly horrible idea.

Listen fuckwad, I'm not saying it's a good idea.  It's just rough ridin' stupid to think that just because we don't make it ourselves it's going to cost more.  There is plenty of land ready to go to make up for what we don't produce.  It's happened a lot the last couple years with the drought.  Bottom line, our Big Macs aren't going to cost $8 if we stop growing wheat in the western third of Kansas.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 02:01:25 PM
But not at ridiculously higher prices than we pay today.


It's basic supply and demand.  There's no way you could decrease the food supply by that much and expect prices to remain stable.  Also, when imports > exports, GDP decreases.  Importing most or all of the food supply is a truly horrible idea.

With all of the subsidies on both sides and import tariffs, I'd say simple supply and demand is a misstatement.  Also, we are already one of the worlds largest importers of wheat.


My point all along is that less wheat was being grown due to a false increase in
 demand for irrigated corn caused by ethanol and resulting in a declining watershed for all crops in that region forever.
But you're too stupid to listen and were derailed by your petty anger and ignorance.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 02:30:54 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I was helping you by adding to your list, because for the most part I agree with you on this topic. Although I don't think federal crop insurance was designed as an incentive to grow dryland corn where it has never grown well so the farmer can just collect insurance. Lots of farmers grow crops they really don't expect to produce because of crop insurance.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 02:33:49 PM
Does crop insurance cover much more than the cost of the inputs? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 09, 2013, 02:35:06 PM
Lots of farmers grow crops they really don't expect to produce because of crop insurance.

no they don't.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 02:36:03 PM
Does crop insurance cover much more than the cost of the inputs? 

It covers enough for people to plant dryland corn specifically to collect insurance.

Lots of farmers grow crops they really don't expect to produce because of crop insurance.

no they don't.

Yes they do.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 02:36:16 PM
Does crop insurance cover much more than the cost of the inputs?

I think it's based on your average yield over the past 5 years. I don't think planting dryland corn and planning on raking in crop insurance dollars is a very good business model.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 02:38:12 PM
Does crop insurance cover much more than the cost of the inputs?

I think it's based on your average yield over the past 5 years. I don't think planting dryland corn and planning on raking in crop insurance dollars is a very good business model.

You are correct.  Also factors in what your neighbors made.  Also you still have to cut it and it pays the difference.  But it doesn't factor in the opportunity cost of planting something that would have made more money.  So yes it's a stupid business model.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 02:41:50 PM
Quote
Some farmers say they plant corn because in the really good year, it’ll have a higher yield peak. Sorry. The data say something else. In the super optimum years, sorghum and corn do equally as well.

One thing I have noticed, though, is with certain farmers, corn is the crop of choice in the really bad years—because it dies so well. They don’t like grain sorghum because it really does have much better drought tolerance. It’ll hang on and hang on and hang on while corn just gives up.

These farmers openly promote corn for dire conditions because it makes their crop insurance plans and returns work so much better. But honestly, guys, I don’t think this is how we want to present our industry to the public. Planned failure really does not look good—especially to a skeptical public who has always struggled to understand farm subsidies and crop insurance subsidies.

http://www.kansasagland.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=4838:plant-corn-or-milo&Itemid=55

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 02:44:55 PM
same guy

http://www.kansasagland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5010:is-this-crop-insurance-abuse&catid=51:vance-ehmke&Itemid=55
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 02:47:45 PM
Quote
This Websense category is filtered: Web and Email Spam. Sites in this category may pose a security threat to network resources or private information, and are blocked by your organization.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 02:48:42 PM
Quote
Wheat and More….or less

Remember the old saying…you can’t trust a dog to watch your lunch.

 

Well, in driving around the western Kansas neighborhood recently, it seems that’s exactly what we did. We told the dog to watch our lunch…and he ate it.

 

For every rule, there’s someone willing to break it. And among that crowd, there are those smooth talkers who can make it sound like a good business decision. To them, it’s just business. Others are even cheered on because they put one over on the government. Still others consider this a form of innovation. But it’s wrong. And at the end of the day, everybody pays.

 

Over the past several years, I and others have watched a growing trend with concern—and that is to continually push the fence on crop insurance abuse.

 

The big trend here in semi arid western Kansas this past fall was to plant “continuous wheat” immediately after harvesting dryland corn. And in many cases, the corn itself was also a failure. I call this 5-minute fallow but the crop insurance industry calls it continuous wheat because it will be harvested the following year.

 

What happened this past fall was classic. Because of the on-going drought, there was zero topsoil moisture and zero subsoil moisture after the summer row crop. Almost April, much of this wheat that was planted in these disastrous conditions has not even come up.

 

But why would you plant a crop that has almost l00% odds of failure? Because you can make a heck of a lot of money doing it…off crop insurance. Here’s how it works. My insurance agent says with a T yield of 27 bushels per acre, with 85% coverage and a wheat price of $7.15, the farmer’s share of the premium is $45/acre. He can easily put in the wheat crop for less than $20 giving him a total investment of just $65/acre.

 

Now with $165 in coverage and with high odds of failure, the farmer will almost triple his investment—and will certainly net $100/acre. For every quarter of ground, he’ll get an insurance check for $26,000.

 

But wait. The good news doesn’t stop here. We get to combine these very generous insurance loss payments with payments from other government programs like the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Program (SURE) or Congress’s disaster program. In SURE, the farmer gets paid again for the identical losses that had already been covered by crop insurance. Overall, it makes this type of activity incredibly profitable.

 

So who are the winners? The farmers doing it, of course. After they get their hefty checks, they’ll just fallow the ground and plant it to wheat the next fall—just like everybody else was going to do. I’ve even heard some of these farmers joke about using extremely low seeding rates to help ensure poor stands. Then in the spring when they’re “topdressing”, they’ll add a glug or two of Roundup herbicide to make sure the wheat gets sick and that the crop fails.

 

Yet sabotage is rarely needed. KSU researcher Alan Schlegel, Tribune Experiment Station, says this is a very risky rotation and simply getting a stand is very difficult.

 

While this is irritating to me and other farmers, even insurance agents who are selling policies to these farmers are disturbed by it. One said these farmers are clearly taking advantage of the system. “It’s just not right. And it’s bad for the crop insurance industry.”

 

I agree. The crop insurance industry is one of the casualties—not only their actuarial integrity, but their professional integrity.

 

What about the integrity of the farmer. Is this ethical? A quick acid test on ethics is to simply ask: Is anyone being hurt by these actions? Without a doubt.

 

Beyond the crop insurance industry, the US taxpayers clearly got a bloody nose. As we all know, crop insurance is heavily subsidized with normally 65 to 75% of insurance premiums paid for by the Federal government.

 

Who else gets hurt? Neighboring farmers….big time. To cover the losses, everybody’s rates go up and everybody’s coverage goes down. Not only that, this type of activity reflects very badly on farmers in general. The skeptical public really does have reason to wonder if all farmers are crooks.

 

And let’s not overlook the landlords. In many cases, older out-of-state landowners have cash rented their land. But part of their equity in the ground is their crop yield history, yield guarantees and insurance values which these planned-failure farmers consider theirs for the taking. That looks good on your Schedule F—screwed 80 and 90-year old landlords who trusted you.

 

In my mind, there is no question about the ethics of this. But is this legal? Is this a crime? In trying to find an answer to that question, I talked to a lot of people. One of them said when you sign an insurance contract, you agree to use best management practices and to do everything possible to make this a successful crop. That does not include planting wheat under disastrous conditions where the crop has no chance. This is fraud. This farmer cannot look you in the eye and say he intended to plant a crop that would succeed.

 

These farmers may say with the current high price, it justifies the risk of putting in the crop. Who knows, it could start raining and we could get a wonderful crop out of the deal. That’s true and that’s one of the nice things about having farmed for 35 years because I have seen that happen. And it was one year out of 35. Those are pretty good odds—if you’re betting on failure.

 

While we’re on this point, I didn’t say you couldn’t plant the crop. If you want to run the risk, go right ahead. But I sure don’t think the American taxpayer or your neighbor or your landlord has to share in your risk.

 

The whole system is weakened by these excesses. Because of the individuals practicing these high risk and non traditional rotations—especially under extreme conditions where failure is almost guaranteed—regulatory agencies are forced into more and more stringent restrictions on coverage and rates, all of which can have a chilling effect on legitimate farmers wanting to adopt new and innovative production practices.

 

All of this leaves us with one question. If USDA and the crop insurance industry continue to allow this, do we all now have to start using these very suspect crop production practices and rotations just so we can remain competitive with the over zealous farmers? That’s not a world I want to be part of.
- See more at: http://www.kansasagland.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5010:is-this-crop-insurance-abuse&catid=51:vance-ehmke&Itemid=55#sthash.LGGf1QNW.dpuf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 09, 2013, 02:51:10 PM
Quote
This Websense category is filtered: Web and Email Spam. Sites in this category may pose a security threat to network resources or private information, and are blocked by your organization.

Websense is a terrible product.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 02:51:32 PM
http://lubbockonline.com/stories/100198/LD0675.shtml
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 09, 2013, 03:00:28 PM
Quote
Some farmers say they plant corn because in the really good year, it’ll have a higher yield peak. Sorry. The data say something else. In the super optimum years, sorghum and corn do equally as well.

One thing I have noticed, though, is with certain farmers, corn is the crop of choice in the really bad years—because it dies so well. They don’t like grain sorghum because it really does have much better drought tolerance. It’ll hang on and hang on and hang on while corn just gives up.

These farmers openly promote corn for dire conditions because it makes their crop insurance plans and returns work so much better. But honestly, guys, I don’t think this is how we want to present our industry to the public. Planned failure really does not look good—especially to a skeptical public who has always struggled to understand farm subsidies and crop insurance subsidies.

http://www.kansasagland.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=4838:plant-corn-or-milo&Itemid=55

Well, yeah, if you are going to have a total loss, corn is probably better insurance-wise than milo because you will get to that total loss faster and have less input costs in the process. It's still going to devastate your 5-year average yield, though. Farmers aren't planting corn with the expectation of collecting the insurance. They are planting corn because on a good year, they will make a lot more money than milo, and on a bad year, the insurance is still there as a safety net.

I don't farm, so I'm sure that some of what I said may not be accurate, but the idea that there are a bunch of farmers out there just planting corn with the expectation of intentionally letting it die so they can collect insurance just doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on July 09, 2013, 03:07:23 PM
A fraction of a percent of the 2.2 million farmers took advantage of loopholes (that were closed) while the rest planted an extensively researched and modified high-end product with the most demand.  And LOL at milo since its domestic demand has been cut in half the last 35 years.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 09, 2013, 03:34:51 PM
Sys would argue here that if you don't put restrictions on the insurance payouts it'd be more efficient and better for everyone, fraud be damned.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 09, 2013, 05:02:45 PM
michigan, what you posted (i didn't open your link) is insurance fraud.  that has nothing to do with subsidies, other than obviously it's more profitable if your costs are lower, but you can defraud private insurance just as easily as subsidized.


here's a good paper on crop insurance that i just googled.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~bkgoodwi/papers/goodwin_final.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 09, 2013, 05:11:27 PM
it's also, like someone else said, a stupid business model.  weather prediction is getting amazingly good, but it's still very poor for over 10 days forward.  one good fall rain and they could have planted a crop and gotten whatever yields the rest of the year's weather would have given them.  the guy is acting like it was a given that they couldn't produce a crop the following year.  that's complete bullshit.  this year's ks wheat was pretty bad, for example, what would you be willing to bet regarding next year's harvest?  i'll take either side of the bet on +/- average yield.
Title: Re: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 05:17:47 PM
michigan, what you posted (i didn't open your link) is insurance fraud.  that has nothing to do with subsidies, other than obviously it's more profitable if your costs are lower, but you can defraud private insurance just as easily as subsidized.


here's a good paper on crop insurance that i just googled.

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~bkgoodwi/papers/goodwin_final.pdf

I don't think it's fraud, but  farmers are definitely taking risks they wouldn't have if the government didn't subsidize their premiums.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 09, 2013, 05:51:48 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I was helping you by adding to your list, because for the most part I agree with you on this topic. Although I don't think federal crop insurance was designed as an incentive to grow dryland corn where it has never grown well so the farmer can just collect insurance. Lots of farmers grow crops they really don't expect to produce because of crop insurance.

My rant was about unintended consequences of foolish government policy (recently coined "investment").  Crop insurance is not an unintended consequence of the settlement of a desert for farming crops that don't belong there, on the contrary it is a calculated incentive to encourage responsible farming (eg hedging risk to ensure there is opp capital for the next growwing season) to ensure a more stable food supply, and has its own unintended consequences.

 I'm glad you agree with me, and clearly you should more often, but you added nothing to my point.  All you tried to do was partisan the argument up by injecting what you believe to be a Republican pet project and mute the stupidity of your Democrat party.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 09, 2013, 05:53:21 PM
Don't forget the federally backed crop insurance programs, FSD.

Michigancat, please explain how affirmative legislation like farm subsidies qualifies as an "unintended consequence"?  Seems awfully intended to me.

Your Master,
Sugar Dick

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I was helping you by adding to your list, because for the most part I agree with you on this topic. Although I don't think federal crop insurance was designed as an incentive to grow dryland corn where it has never grown well so the farmer can just collect insurance. Lots of farmers grow crops they really don't expect to produce because of crop insurance.

My rant was about unintended consequences of foolish government policy (recently coined "investment").  Crop insurance is not an unintended consequence of the settlement of a desert for farming crops that don't belong there, on the contrary it is a calculated incentive to encourage responsible farming (eg hedging risk to ensure there is opp capital for the next growwing season) to ensure a more stable food supply, and has its own unintended consequences.

 I'm glad you agree with me, and clearly you should more often, but you added nothing to my point.  All you tried to do was partisan the argument up by injecting what you believe to be a Republican pet project and mute the stupidity of your Democrat party.


OK
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on July 10, 2013, 09:13:10 AM
re-reading what dax just posted dax realizes that dax could have done a better job with his first person narrative
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 10, 2013, 09:44:33 AM
It's seems that Rusty and SD took some grumpy pills.

sad

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on July 10, 2013, 10:22:14 AM
It's seems that Rusty and SD took some grumpy pills.

sad

read my post in a super happy voice. that's how I typed it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 10, 2013, 10:24:47 AM
I have no idea what the eff dax is talking about. :D
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Brock Landers on July 10, 2013, 10:53:20 AM
I think he's just saying the FCIC is a giant clusterfuck.

Also I'm not sure if he was the guy with the grievance or if that was a coworker.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: yoman on July 11, 2013, 09:17:14 AM
I have no idea what the eff dax is talking about. :D

I feel like this is a common theme of this blog. But I love his posts anyway.
Title: Re: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 11, 2013, 09:24:03 AM
I have no idea what the eff dax is talking about. :D

I feel like this is a common theme of this blog. But I love his posts anyway.

yes, they're always a treat
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 16, 2013, 10:31:34 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324425204578599743078256264.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 16, 2013, 12:23:28 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/07/12/201502003/episode-472-the-one-page-plan-to-fix-global-warming
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: yoman on July 19, 2013, 08:02:20 AM
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/6

June was the 340th consecutive month of above average temperatures  :dunno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 19, 2013, 11:32:46 AM
Check out the blurb at the bottom that doesn't fit the agenda.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/6 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/6)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 19, 2013, 12:46:08 PM
Check out the blurb at the bottom that doesn't fit the agenda.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/6 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/6)

there were two paragraphs.  a top one and a bottom one.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 19, 2013, 12:56:44 PM
I know it's crazy for Warmist to comprehend, because for the Warmist all roads lead to AGW/CO2. 

But the earth might just be going through a warming period, but then again, there hasn't been any significant rise in global mean temps for well over a decade (which has the Warmist agenda in a quite a tizzy), and the current actual temp trend is almost a half to a full degree below the Hockey Stick model. 

But considering that we have but a tiny blip of actual real temp (and even that is up for debate based on the ongoing investigations into weather station siting) measurements relative to Earth's history, we should immediately jump to conclusions and impose radical changes, rather than a well thought out gradual and sustained reduction in carbon emissions.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 19, 2013, 02:08:19 PM
Check out the blurb at the bottom that doesn't fit the agenda.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/6 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global-snow/2013/6)

there were two paragraphs.  a top one and a bottom one.

The 2 sentences about the southern hemisphere ice increasing.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: chum1 on July 19, 2013, 02:14:31 PM
Good news.  I'd take Antarctica over the stupid North Pole all day long.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 19, 2013, 06:43:56 PM
The 2 sentences about the southern hemisphere ice increasing.

that was half the article.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 19, 2013, 10:06:55 PM
I saw a movie once that showed what happens when the caps melt, the earth turns on its side :runaway:
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on July 20, 2013, 10:00:33 AM
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/6

June was the 340th consecutive month of above average temperatures  :dunno:

I think everyone agrees that, regardless of human activity, the earth will warm at some rate.  Global warming alarmist and global warming skeptics only disagree on how quickly warming will occur.  So far, alarmist have been wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 22, 2013, 08:13:37 AM
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/6

June was the 340th consecutive month of above average temperatures  :dunno:

I think everyone agrees that, regardless of human activity, the earth will warm at some rate.  Global warming alarmist and global warming skeptics only disagree on how quickly warming will occur.  So far, alarmist have been wrong.

You are dead wrong here. There is nothing that everyone agrees with.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 22, 2013, 09:44:33 AM
I saw a movie once that showed what happens when the caps melt, the earth turns on its side :runaway:

Was the Waterworld? I like that movie.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on July 25, 2013, 06:35:23 PM
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/there-lake-north-pole.html

I love the shift from denial to natural causes.  Can't wait for the next line of bullshit.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 25, 2013, 06:40:57 PM
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/there-lake-north-pole.html

I love the shift from denial to natural causes.  Can't wait for the next line of bullshit.

See, I knew the blurb on the noaa sight above would be missed.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 25, 2013, 09:12:35 PM
Wow, hadn't heard the  "the ice caps are a white T-shirt and the ocean is a black T-shirt" and "the ice cap is a sun reflecting force field" analogies.  :lol:  nice find ednksu.

At this point, I think its safe to say these guise are just making thing up as they go along
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on July 25, 2013, 09:49:24 PM
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/there-lake-north-pole.html

I love the shift from denial to natural causes.  Can't wait for the next line of bullshit.

See, I knew the blurb on the noaa sight above would be missed.
LULZ only and idiot would see those trends as inverse. 

Also which hemisphere has the majority of industrial production?  What that coriolis effect do?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 26, 2013, 12:49:24 AM
http://www.treehugger.com/climate-change/there-lake-north-pole.html

I love the shift from denial to natural causes.  Can't wait for the next line of bullshit.

See, I knew the blurb on the noaa sight above would be missed.
LULZ only and idiot would see those trends as inverse. 

Also which hemisphere has the majority of industrial production?  What that coriolis effect do?

LOL, you're digging deep now.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 26, 2013, 05:50:30 AM
Some who study arctic ice and the significant impact that ocean currents have on them are saying we've passed through a regularly occurring ice minimum cycle and arctic ice extent will be trending back up. 

But never let a good "crisis" go to waste, right?

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 26, 2013, 07:04:00 AM
North Pole...375 miles south...same thing.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/weathermatrix/did-the-media-just-prove-north-pole-is-not-melting/15739869
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 12:40:11 PM
Who needs climate scientists when you've got bloggers and other deniers out there to do all the "scientific" research?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 26, 2013, 12:54:29 PM
Warmist Dictatorship:  Listen to no one else but us.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 01:06:22 PM
Warmist Dictatorship:  Listen to no one else but us.


Why go to the doctor when you can just hit up your neighborhood blogger?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 26, 2013, 01:10:22 PM
I put all my trust in treehugger.com. NOAA can suck it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 01:17:09 PM
I put all my trust in treehugger.com. NOAA can suck it.


nationalgeographic.com and NASA.com = "treehugger.com" in the eyes of a denier.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 26, 2013, 01:26:14 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 01:35:41 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404



Quote
Professor Rowan Sutton, of Reading University, said computer simulations or models of possible future climate scenarios often show periods of ten years with no warming trend - some even show pauses of 20-25 years.

And Professor Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said observations and models showed that on average there were - or would be - two pauses in warming every century.

I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this "message" about pauses had not been communicated widely.

So where does this leave us, as greenhouse gases emissions keep rising but the temperature does not?

Dr Peter Stott, of the Met Office, pointed out that 12 of the 14 warmest years have occurred since the year 2000 and says that other indicators - like the decline in Arctic sea ice of 12.9% per decade and losses of snow cover and glaciers - still point to a process of manmade warming.

But what about another possibility - that the calculations are wrong?

What if the climate models - which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming - exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

Dr Stott conceded that the projections showing the most rapid warming now look less likely, given recent observations, but that others remain largely unchanged.

A Met Office briefing document, released at the briefing, says that, even allowing for the temperatures of the last decade, the most likely warming scenario is only reduced by 10% - so "the warming that we might have expected by 2050 would be delayed by only a few years".

Overall, it concludes, the pause "does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century."

In other words, global warming is still on.

But until the pause can be properly explained, many people will take a lot of convincing - especially if the pause lasts longer than expected.


Interesting. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 26, 2013, 01:41:07 PM
Translation:  They really don't know, but they'll keep throwing around words like "consensus" and "deniers" to fit a political agenda.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 02:28:28 PM
Translation:  They really don't know, but they'll keep throwing around words like "consensus" and "deniers" to fit a political agenda.


Science has a political agenda, ladies and gentlemen.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 26, 2013, 02:49:09 PM

115 scientists, including a Nobel Laureate (that person is a Democrat) told Obama about a year ago that there is no definitive proof that human emissions are responsible for Global "warming" or "Climate Change", Obama now apparently references those scientists with his broad brush political agenda as "flat earthers".   

So yes Beems, politics has now entered science on the Warmist side.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 26, 2013, 03:20:01 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404



Quote
Professor Rowan Sutton, of Reading University, said computer simulations or models of possible future climate scenarios often show periods of ten years with no warming trend - some even show pauses of 20-25 years.

And Professor Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said observations and models showed that on average there were - or would be - two pauses in warming every century.

I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this "message" about pauses had not been communicated widely.

So where does this leave us, as greenhouse gases emissions keep rising but the temperature does not?

Dr Peter Stott, of the Met Office, pointed out that 12 of the 14 warmest years have occurred since the year 2000 and says that other indicators - like the decline in Arctic sea ice of 12.9% per decade and losses of snow cover and glaciers - still point to a process of manmade warming.

But what about another possibility - that the calculations are wrong?

What if the climate models - which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming - exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

Dr Stott conceded that the projections showing the most rapid warming now look less likely, given recent observations, but that others remain largely unchanged.

A Met Office briefing document, released at the briefing, says that, even allowing for the temperatures of the last decade, the most likely warming scenario is only reduced by 10% - so "the warming that we might have expected by 2050 would be delayed by only a few years".

Overall, it concludes, the pause "does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century."

In other words, global warming is still on.

But until the pause can be properly explained, many people will take a lot of convincing - especially if the pause lasts longer than expected.


Interesting.

Mother nature has put global warming on "pause!" Mother nature is "fighting back!" Eywa has heard you Beems! EYWA HAS HEARRRRD YOU!!! :excited:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 03:28:00 PM
Science has a liberal bias, guys.  In Drudge Report we trust.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 26, 2013, 03:29:54 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404

Is the met office the one where the "scientists" were caught just a few years ago talking about how to best "hide the decline?" I think it was. I'm pretty sure that was it. Right?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 26, 2013, 03:54:41 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404



Quote
Professor Rowan Sutton, of Reading University, said computer simulations or models of possible future climate scenarios often show periods of ten years with no warming trend - some even show pauses of 20-25 years.

And Professor Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said observations and models showed that on average there were - or would be - two pauses in warming every century.

I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this "message" about pauses had not been communicated widely.

So where does this leave us, as greenhouse gases emissions keep rising but the temperature does not?

Dr Peter Stott, of the Met Office, pointed out that 12 of the 14 warmest years have occurred since the year 2000 and says that other indicators - like the decline in Arctic sea ice of 12.9% per decade and losses of snow cover and glaciers - still point to a process of manmade warming.

But what about another possibility - that the calculations are wrong?

What if the climate models - which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming - exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

Dr Stott conceded that the projections showing the most rapid warming now look less likely, given recent observations, but that others remain largely unchanged.

A Met Office briefing document, released at the briefing, says that, even allowing for the temperatures of the last decade, the most likely warming scenario is only reduced by 10% - so "the warming that we might have expected by 2050 would be delayed by only a few years".

Overall, it concludes, the pause "does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century."

In other words, global warming is still on.

But until the pause can be properly explained, many people will take a lot of convincing - especially if the pause lasts longer than expected.


Interesting.

More questions than answers.  Maybe they just need more tax dollars for more studies.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 26, 2013, 03:57:43 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/K7PSJC4.png)

#TEAM BLOGGERS
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 26, 2013, 04:50:51 PM
Incredible scientific research there.  I may seek your expertise on the fundamentals of particle physics as well.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on July 26, 2013, 06:38:24 PM
https://www.facebook.com/NASAClimateChange

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/311642_10151721437673076_87363939_n.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Global_co2_emissions_graph.png)



eff facts when you have rhetoric!!!!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 26, 2013, 07:42:34 PM
that's, like, really suggestive of a tight correlation.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 26, 2013, 08:52:18 PM
I'm glad our mid 1900s carbon emissions were pud.  unlike our current ones.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 26, 2013, 09:26:10 PM
that's, like, really suggestive of a tight correlation.

Yeah, NASA and the Japanese Meteorology Dept were doing god's work back in the 1880's
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 26, 2013, 09:27:30 PM
LOL, at anyone that doesn't think this debate is 99% political.  One side wants to raise taxes, the other doesn't.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on July 26, 2013, 11:30:29 PM
LOL, at anyone that doesn't think this debate is 99% political.  One side wants to raise taxes, the other doesn't.
and one side doesn't have to breath exclusively through their mouths

(http://thefrugalgirls.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Breathe-Right-Strips-Free-Sample.jpg)
see if you can fake it brah
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on July 27, 2013, 09:28:49 AM
http://mises.org/daily/5892

Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on July 27, 2013, 09:43:13 AM
To expand on political motivation

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZuh4_A5kw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3NZuh4_A5kw#

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on July 27, 2013, 09:59:13 AM
To expand on political motivation

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZuh4_A5kw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3NZuh4_A5kw#

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans (http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans)

Quote
According to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change.

Evans has published an article for the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises Instutute, a right-wing free-market think tank.

I wish dax would post more theories/facts from reputable sources.  What we do know is that HeinzBallz source is completely unreliable.

More on "rocket scientist" Dr. David Evans:

Quote
In US academic and industry parlance, "rocket scientist" means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions. The term arose for people who *could* do rocket science, not those who literally build rockets.Thus the term "rocket scientist" means someone with a PhD in physics, electrical engineering, or mathematics (or perhaps a couple of other closely related disciplines), from MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and maybe a few other institutions.

I did a PhD in electrical engineering at Stanford in the 1980s. Electrical engineering is your basic high tech degree, because most high technology spawned from electrical information technology. I specialized in signal processing, maths, and statistics.
The definition provided by Evans would appear to be at odds with the conventional use of the term 'rocket scientist' which according to various sources is "One specializing in the science or study of rockets and their design." For example, here's an entry on Answers.com about Hermann Oberth a famous Rocket Scientist who published a book about rocket travel into outer space in 1932 and is considered one of 3 founding fathers of modern rocketry and astronautics.

Evans also claims to be "building a word processor for Windows." DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft Corp. and they have confirmed that he does not work for Microsoft Corporation.


I would find a more reputable source.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 27, 2013, 02:41:02 PM
It's really sad that so many people are willing to completely dismiss the scientific consensus in favor of some right wing blogger who works for Big Oil.  We deserve extinction at this point.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 27, 2013, 03:35:41 PM
It's really sad that so many people are willing to completely dismiss the scientific consensus in favor of some right wing blogger who works for Big Oil.  We deserve extinction at this point.

Exhibit A for the political argument.  What a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). Please stop breathing, youare suffocating us with your CO2
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on July 27, 2013, 06:25:59 PM
To expand on political motivation

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZuh4_A5kw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3NZuh4_A5kw#

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans (http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans)

Quote
According to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change.

Evans has published an article for the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises Instutute, a right-wing free-market think tank.

I wish dax would post more theories/facts from reputable sources.  What we do know is that HeinzBallz source is completely unreliable.

More on "rocket scientist" Dr. David Evans:

Quote
In US academic and industry parlance, "rocket scientist" means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions. The term arose for people who *could* do rocket science, not those who literally build rockets.Thus the term "rocket scientist" means someone with a PhD in physics, electrical engineering, or mathematics (or perhaps a couple of other closely related disciplines), from MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and maybe a few other institutions.

I did a PhD in electrical engineering at Stanford in the 1980s. Electrical engineering is your basic high tech degree, because most high technology spawned from electrical information technology. I specialized in signal processing, maths, and statistics.
The definition provided by Evans would appear to be at odds with the conventional use of the term 'rocket scientist' which according to various sources is "One specializing in the science or study of rockets and their design." For example, here's an entry on Answers.com about Hermann Oberth a famous Rocket Scientist who published a book about rocket travel into outer space in 1932 and is considered one of 3 founding fathers of modern rocketry and astronautics.

Evans also claims to be "building a word processor for Windows." DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft Corp. and they have confirmed that he does not work for Microsoft Corporation.


I would find a more reputable source.

:DNR:

Anyone who refers to Ludwig Von Mises as right winged doesn't know what they're talking about. Bet they would also say Ayn Rand was a commie. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Goldbrick on July 27, 2013, 07:02:38 PM
Doesn't matter whether its real or not. There has been no legitimate (read: non-insane) solution or trade-off suggested for what we should do to combat any of it.

And since the 'solutions' typically involve far leftist drivel its pretty easy to see the politics involved isn't solely on the right.

Consensus is also utterly meaningless in science. Scientific history is simply a list of former things that once had 'consensus' until they were found not to be so. Given how deeply complex this issue is, and how incredibly incompetent so many of the leading advocates have been, there is plenty of reason to simply do nothing and wait.

My money says we won't be sorry should we choose to do nothing.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on July 27, 2013, 07:18:06 PM
To expand on political motivation

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZuh4_A5kw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D3NZuh4_A5kw#

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans (http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans)

Quote
According to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change.

Evans has published an article for the Alabama-based Ludwig von Mises Instutute, a right-wing free-market think tank.

I wish dax would post more theories/facts from reputable sources.  What we do know is that HeinzBallz source is completely unreliable.

More on "rocket scientist" Dr. David Evans:

Quote
In US academic and industry parlance, "rocket scientist" means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions. The term arose for people who *could* do rocket science, not those who literally build rockets.Thus the term "rocket scientist" means someone with a PhD in physics, electrical engineering, or mathematics (or perhaps a couple of other closely related disciplines), from MIT, Stanford, Caltech, and maybe a few other institutions.

I did a PhD in electrical engineering at Stanford in the 1980s. Electrical engineering is your basic high tech degree, because most high technology spawned from electrical information technology. I specialized in signal processing, maths, and statistics.
The definition provided by Evans would appear to be at odds with the conventional use of the term 'rocket scientist' which according to various sources is "One specializing in the science or study of rockets and their design." For example, here's an entry on Answers.com about Hermann Oberth a famous Rocket Scientist who published a book about rocket travel into outer space in 1932 and is considered one of 3 founding fathers of modern rocketry and astronautics.

Evans also claims to be "building a word processor for Windows." DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft Corp. and they have confirmed that he does not work for Microsoft Corporation.


I would find a more reputable source.

:DNR:

Anyone who refers to Ludwig Von Mises as right winged doesn't know what they're talking about. Bet they would also say Ayn Rand was a commie.

Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand have quite a bit in common.  Which was the bloggers point.   

But feel free to take the word of a self-described "rocket scientist" who is a charlatan.  I mean if you believe what he is saying, I'm not sure how you view that particular individual as anything better than a self-important opportunist.  He has misrepresented himself, he continued to do so after being confronted.  If that is who you offer up as an expert with an important critique then maybe you should find some better evidence.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on July 27, 2013, 08:31:13 PM

Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand have quite a bit in common.  Which was the bloggers point.   

Mises was an anarcho capitalist; Ayn Rand believed in extremely limited government.    Therefore, if anarcho capitalism is right wing, then the tea party are nothing but a bunch of pinko's. 

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on July 27, 2013, 08:37:38 PM

Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand have quite a bit in common.  Which was the bloggers point.   

Mises was an anarcho capitalist; Ayn Rand believed in extremely limited government.    Therefore, if anarcho capitalism is right wing, then the tea party are nothing but a bunch of pinko's.

You are terrible at logic.  Your first sentence matches what I said your second sentence was a non-sequitor.  I can see why you like reading random self-proclaimed experts.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on July 27, 2013, 09:07:22 PM

Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand have quite a bit in common.  Which was the bloggers point.   

Mises was an anarcho capitalist; Ayn Rand believed in extremely limited government.    Therefore, if anarcho capitalism is right wing, then the tea party are nothing but a bunch of pinko's.

You are terrible at logic.  Your first sentence matches what I said your second sentence was a non-sequitor.  I can see why you like reading random self-proclaimed experts.

I don't think you know what a non-sequitur is, nor do you know what anarcho capitalism is.  Perhaps you could form some more run on sentences to attack my intellect though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on July 27, 2013, 09:12:12 PM

Ludwig Von Mises and Ayn Rand have quite a bit in common.  Which was the bloggers point.   

Mises was an anarcho capitalist; Ayn Rand believed in extremely limited government.    Therefore, if anarcho capitalism is right wing, then the tea party are nothing but a bunch of pinko's.

You are terrible at logic.  Your first sentence matches what I said your second sentence was a non-sequitor.  I can see why you like reading random self-proclaimed experts.

I don't think you know what a non-sequitur is, nor do you know what anarcho capitalism is.  Perhaps you could form some more run on sentences to attack my intellect though.

lol
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 28, 2013, 12:50:53 AM
Doesn't matter whether its real or not. There has been no legitimate (read: non-insane) solution or trade-off suggested for what we should do to combat any of it.

i posted the solution about a week ago.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: PandaXpanda on July 28, 2013, 02:43:33 AM
yep. Like to read. Not this.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: yoman on July 31, 2013, 10:49:17 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/25/newser-north-pole-lake/2586469/

This could be a thing.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 31, 2013, 11:01:40 AM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/25/newser-north-pole-lake/2586469/

This could be a thing.

Isn't this the thing that is actually 375 miles south of the north pole because of drifting ice/camera location?  But is being mistakenly reported as the north pole?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 31, 2013, 12:20:27 PM
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the+0.07 to+0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required toreach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
 Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on July 31, 2013, 01:10:59 PM
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 31, 2013, 01:32:26 PM
NOAA a politicized gov't agency in every sense of the word is not the be all and end all on the topic.   

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on July 31, 2013, 01:33:46 PM
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the+0.07 to+0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required toreach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
 Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010).

http://jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00082.1 (http://jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00082.1)

A recent article published in the Journal of Coastal Research analysed a number of different sea-level records and
reported that they found no acceleration of sea-level rise. We show that this is due to their focusing on records that are
either too short or only regional in character, and on their specific focus on acceleration since the year 1930, which
represents a unique minimum in the acceleration curve. We find that global sea-level rise is accelerating in a way
strongly correlated with global temperature. This correlation also explains the acceleration minimum for time periods
starting around 1930; it is due to the mid-twentieth-century plateau in global temperature.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 31, 2013, 01:35:29 PM
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html)

How does the sea level go way down in the same area where it is trending up? Looks like measuring sea level in fractions of millimeters is a ridiculous exercise. Damn ocean water won't stay still!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 31, 2013, 01:59:31 PM
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the+0.07 to+0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required toreach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
 Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010).

http://jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00082.1 (http://jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11-00082.1)

A recent article published in the Journal of Coastal Research analysed a number of different sea-level records and
reported that they found no acceleration of sea-level rise. We show that this is due to their focusing on records that are
either too short or only regional in character, and on their specific focus on acceleration since the year 1930, which
represents a unique minimum in the acceleration curve. We find that global sea-level rise is accelerating in a way
strongly correlated with global temperature. This correlation also explains the acceleration minimum for time periods
starting around 1930; it is due to the mid-twentieth-century plateau in global temperature.


If you follow climate research you'll find claims about others research all over the place . . . data sets are too: big, small, local, regonal, global, flawed etc. etc.

What the conclusion really is, it's a really complex topic and so to claim some sort of scientific consensus is, in a word, aburd and frankly anti-scientific.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 31, 2013, 02:00:49 PM
Hmmmm, I see a trend.

(http://i.imgur.com/65Atps9.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on July 31, 2013, 02:03:50 PM
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html (http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html)

How does the sea level go way down in the same area where it is trending up? Looks like measuring sea level in fractions of millimeters is a ridiculous exercise. Damn ocean water won't stay still!

This post made me smile  :D

Damn ocean water!    :lol:
Title: Re: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on July 31, 2013, 11:05:02 PM
Hmmmm, I see a trend.

(http://i.imgur.com/65Atps9.png)
DNR almost all of this thread, but this chart says right on it that the linear trend (up? down? Who knows?) is removed... So what's the point?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 01, 2013, 10:41:20 AM
It's the seasonal trend that's removed.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 03, 2013, 03:16:06 PM
This abstract of a recent scientific study (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/03n7mtr482x0r288/) seems a much more plausible explanation of global temperature increase than the short term reasoning of CO2 emissions.

Quote
Are Global Mean Temperatures Significantly Affected by Long-Term Lunar Atmospheric Tides?

Ian R. G. Wilson1
1Liverpool Plains Daytime Astronomy Centre, Curlewis, NSW, Australia

Abstract
Wilson and Sidorenkov find that there are four extended pressure features in the summer (DJF) mean sea-level pressure (MSLP) anomaly maps that are centred between 30 and 50° S and separated from each other by approximately 90° in longitude. In addition, they show that, over the period from 1947 to 1994, these patterns drift westward in longitude at rates that produce circumnavigation times that match the 18.6 year lunar Draconic cycle. These type of pressure anomaly pattern naturally produce large extended regions of abnormal atmospheric pressure that pass over the semi-permanent South Pacific sub-tropical high roughly once every ~ 4.5 years. These moving regions of higher/lower than normal atmospheric pressure increase/decrease the MSLP of the semi-permanent high pressure system, temporarily increasing/reducing the strength of the East-Pacific trade winds. This leads to conditions that preferentially favor the onset of La Niña/El Niño events that last for approximately 30 years. Wilson and Sidorenkov find that the pressure of the moving anomaly pattern changes in such a way as to favor La Niña over El Niño events between 1947 and 1970 and favor El Niño over La Niña events between 1971 and 1994. This is in agreement with the observed evolution of the El Niño/ La Niña events during the latter part of the 20th century. They speculate that the transition of the pattern from a positive to a negative pressure anomaly follows a 31/62/93/186 year lunar tidal cycle that results from the long-term interaction between the Perigee-Syzygy and Draconic lunar tidal cycles. Hence, the IPCC needs to take into consideration the possibility that long term Lunar atmospheric tides could be acting as a trigger to favor either El Niño or La Niña conditions and that these changes in the relative frequency of these two type of events could be responsible for much of the observed changes in the world mean temperature during the 20th century.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on August 03, 2013, 03:34:31 PM
john doug, why can't you just accept that humans are contributing to climate change?  Do you really think that emitting hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases on an annual basis wouldn't effect the Earth?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: p1k3 on August 03, 2013, 03:35:11 PM
blame trees, imo.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on August 03, 2013, 03:35:51 PM
blame trees, imo.


wut
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: p1k3 on August 03, 2013, 03:39:29 PM
blame trees, imo.


wut

sorry i've been drinking. Mods delete thread thx
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 03, 2013, 04:42:40 PM
john doug, why can't you just accept that humans are contributing to climate change?  Do you really think that emitting hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases on an annual basis wouldn't effect the Earth?

I don't necessarily discount that CO2 emissions do in some way affect the well being of the atmosphere, I just don't subscribe to the dire warnings of coming disasters, and in turn, the money grab of the federal and state governments. There are much larger variables in play that are conveniently ignored.

If governments around the world were serious about getting us off oil and other fossil fuels, they would put up a prize in the form of a world wide patent and royalties for the first true renewable fuel that is economically feasible to power vehicles and power plants. They would also give tax credits to those companies and individuals for any money spent during proven research and development until the winner is chosen. We just might get a car that runs on salt water.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 04, 2013, 01:16:56 AM

If governments around the world were serious about getting us off oil and other fossil fuels, they would put up a prize in the form of a world wide patent and royalties for the first true renewable fuel that is economically feasible to power vehicles and power plants. They would also give tax credits to those companies and individuals for any money spent during proven research and development until the winner is chosen. We just might get a car that runs on salt water.

What part of this statement is not the case currently?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on August 04, 2013, 11:25:41 AM

If governments around the world were serious about getting us off oil and other fossil fuels, they would put up a prize in the form of a world wide patent and royalties for the first true renewable fuel that is economically feasible to power vehicles and power plants. They would also give tax credits to those companies and individuals for any money spent during proven research and development until the winner is chosen. We just might get a car that runs on salt water.

What part of this statement is not the case currently?

Probably going to need that one world government first.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on August 13, 2013, 09:05:33 PM
lulz http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/north-carolina-legislature-sea-level-rising_b_1567213.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 13, 2013, 09:24:24 PM
lulz http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/north-carolina-legislature-sea-level-rising_b_1567213.html

Stop reading the Huff Post you moron
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on August 13, 2013, 09:29:26 PM
lulz http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/north-carolina-legislature-sea-level-rising_b_1567213.html

Stop reading the Huff Post you moron
If you have the law on your side, pound the law. 
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have neither on your side pound the table. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 13, 2013, 09:33:54 PM
lulz http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-schiffman/north-carolina-legislature-sea-level-rising_b_1567213.html

Stop reading the Huff Post you moron
If you have the law on your side, pound the law. 
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have neither on your side pound the table.

Interesting if true, bizzaro brad
Title: Re: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on August 14, 2013, 12:18:30 AM
This abstract of a recent scientific study (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/03n7mtr482x0r288/) seems a much more plausible explanation of global temperature increase than the short term reasoning of CO2 emissions.

Quote
Abstract

Just curious as to what your background is that causes you to believe this is a more plausible explanation? Not saying it is or it isn't.  I'm a pretty scientific minded person, but I don't feel like, nor do I suspect anyone else on this blog is, I am qualified enough to make educated comments on the complicated science at play here. As such, it really intrigues me when people take such strong stands on such issues.

For a while, human induced CO2 looked like a slam dunk as the direct cause of climate change. As science has progressed, some holes, or at least major questions have been exposed. That is how it is supposed to work 99% of the time.

I don't see any reason to suspect the moon tide theory to be any different, and it blows my mind how many people seem to think they are some kind of climate change expert because they took an atmospheric chemistry class once, or read up on some selective summaries of scientific papers online.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

Title: Re: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 14, 2013, 12:54:16 AM
This abstract of a recent scientific study (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/03n7mtr482x0r288/) seems a much more plausible explanation of global temperature increase than the short term reasoning of CO2 emissions.

Quote
Abstract

Just curious as to what your background is that causes you to believe this is a more plausible explanation? Not saying it is or it isn't.  I'm a pretty scientific minded person, but I don't feel like, nor do I suspect anyone else on this blog is, I am qualified enough to make educated comments on the complicated science at play here. As such, it really intrigues me when people take such strong stands on such issues.

For a while, human induced CO2 looked like a slam dunk as the direct cause of climate change. As science has progressed, some holes, or at least major questions have been exposed. That is how it is supposed to work 99% of the time.

I don't see any reason to suspect the moon tide theory to be any different, and it blows my mind how many people seem to think they are some kind of climate change expert because they took an atmospheric chemistry class once, or read up on some selective summaries of scientific papers online.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 4

Your right. We'll look back on this time and laugh at ourselves for thinking we were so narcissistic to believe we could control the climate. Hopefully we won't have destroyed the world economy trying to change it.

Sun, moon, and ocean currents run the climate. Everything else just follows along. We are pretty insignificant for now, but if our population growth doesn't slow down, the earth isn't going to sustain us. This is the real issue of this century, not a little solar cycle.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on August 14, 2013, 10:25:48 AM
Warmer today than yesterday.   :ohno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 14, 2013, 11:26:42 AM
A real climate issue is growing larger.   That is the dead zone in the Gulf, caused by nutrient run off.

Land use is a far, far, far bigger issue that "global warming".    Land use has significant impact on climate challanges often pinned solely to AGW by Warmists.   A major problem.

Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on August 14, 2013, 11:31:16 AM
A real climate issue is growing larger.   That is the dead zone in the Gulf, caused by nutrient run off.

Land use is a far, far, far bigger issue that "global warming".    Land use has significant impact on climate challanges often pinned solely to AGW by Warmists.   A major problem.

A lot of deniers are in the anti-abortion, be fruitful and multiply crowd.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 14, 2013, 11:36:34 AM
A real climate issue is growing larger.   That is the dead zone in the Gulf, caused by nutrient run off.

Land use is a far, far, far bigger issue that "global warming".    Land use has significant impact on climate challanges often pinned solely to AGW by Warmists.   A major problem.

A lot of deniers are in the anti-abortion, be fruitful and multiply crowd.

Okay
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on August 14, 2013, 11:41:15 AM
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-08/13/c_132627590.htm (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-08/13/c_132627590.htm)


Quote
BEIJING, Aug. 13 (Xinhua) -- The sweltering summer of 2013 is going on record as the hottest summer in China since 1961.

According to a Monday microblog post by the National Meteorological Center (NMC), temperatures have reached or exceeded 35 degrees Celsius for an average of 25.3 days in eight provinces and municipalities since July 1, marking the greatest number of hot days recorded during the period since 1961.

Extreme heat has resulted in at least 40 deaths in south China, according to local government reports. Over ten people died from heatstroke in Shanghai during the period.


 :popcorn:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 14, 2013, 12:11:20 PM
Since 1961.  :dunno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 14, 2013, 12:24:32 PM
Since 1961.  :dunno:

Makes you wonder what we did to cause the heat in '61.  :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 14, 2013, 12:34:04 PM
Warmist Logic:  Weather is Not Climate:  Unless it fits our agenda

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on August 14, 2013, 01:06:19 PM
Would a measured, significant increase in global surface temperature since, let's say, the Industrial Revolution, be a sign that perhaps the planet is warming?  A yes or no answer will suffice. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 14, 2013, 01:09:42 PM
Would a measured, significant increase in global surface temperature since, let's say, the Industrial Revolution, be a sign that perhaps the planet is warming and that it's civilized man's fault?  A yes or no answer will suffice.

No.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 14, 2013, 02:10:33 PM
Would a measured, significant increase in global surface temperature since, let's say, the Industrial Revolution, be a sign that perhaps the planet is warming?  A yes or no answer will suffice.

you would need to post a graph with the values, then I will post another graph that shows how ridiculously minute your graph is when compared with long term values.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 14, 2013, 03:09:30 PM
I know it doesn't fit the warmist agenda, but there's a very large group of scientist who say we're still warming from the last ice age.

Remember, the alarmist scientists (some of whom are still around) said we were most assuredly headed to another ICE AGE back in the 1970's, cover story on many major magazines.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 14, 2013, 03:44:13 PM
I know it doesn't fit the warmist agenda, but there's a very large group of scientist who say we're still warming from the last ice age.

Remember, the alarmist scientists (some of whom are still around) said we were most assuredly headed to another ICE AGE back in the 1970's, cover story on many major magazines.

Whew! we averted that tragedy by burning shitloads of coal rather than sprinkling it all over the ice caps.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on August 14, 2013, 04:01:42 PM
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 14, 2013, 04:22:04 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/QycL1JO.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/pq9NjD9.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/QGGu2Jm.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/bikHSmm.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 14, 2013, 04:53:42 PM
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1)

Who said anything about there being a consensus on the subject, but it's absolute fact that some so called "leading" climate (and related) scientists of the time were saying that the earth was headed for another ice age, and could very well be.   

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 14, 2013, 05:37:47 PM
(http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2013/06/Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif)
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on August 15, 2013, 07:14:28 AM
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-08/13/c_132627590.htm (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2013-08/13/c_132627590.htm)


Quote
BEIJING, Aug. 13 (Xinhua) -- The sweltering summer of 2013 is going on record as the hottest summer in China since 1961.

According to a Monday microblog post by the National Meteorological Center (NMC), temperatures have reached or exceeded 35 degrees Celsius for an average of 25.3 days in eight provinces and municipalities since July 1, marking the greatest number of hot days recorded during the period since 1961.

Extreme heat has resulted in at least 40 deaths in south China, according to local government reports. Over ten people died from heatstroke in Shanghai during the period.


 :popcorn:

Cool anecdote bro, check this one out

Quote
WICHITA. AUGUST 2013 (Heinballz) The summer of 2013 is going on record as the coolest summer in Kansas since a long time ago.

According to several personal accounts of native Ta towners, the summer of 2013 will go down as the mildest summer in recent history, only exceeding 100 degrees less than half a dozen times.

Weather forecaster Tanner Swift remarks: "Don't like the weather in Kansas? Wait five minutes."  LOL Tanner, LOL indeed.

Extreme mildness of temperatures has resulted in countless annoying exchanges of pleasantries by many co-workers; such as: "how about this weather?"  Or "Suppose we're going to have a summer this year?" Or "I'm walking the wrong way, I should be golfing today!" Or the more recent: "feels like football season"

Awesome news!  China should be more like us!  We fixed global warming!

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on August 15, 2013, 08:14:22 AM
Ironically, this could be used as a reason we should be worried, right?  If we've changed the climate that much since 1977 and all!  :ohno: :ohno: :ohno:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1)

Who said anything about there being a consensus on the subject, but it's absolute fact that some so called "leading" climate (and related) scientists of the time were saying that the earth was headed for another ice age, and could very well be.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on August 15, 2013, 09:18:34 AM
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1)

Who said anything about there being a consensus on the subject, but it's absolute fact that some so called "leading" climate (and related) scientists of the time were saying that the earth was headed for another ice age, and could very well be.

The lit review I linked to turned up seven cooling papers.  Seven.  7. 
(http://i1349.photobucket.com/albums/p745/husserl1/19de580c-c9e2-49da-a427-5f37591afeac_zpsc3aaad16.jpg)

Remember, the alarmist scientists (some of whom are still around) said we were most assuredly headed to another ICE AGE back in the 1970's, cover story on many major magazines.

To me this reads like you were implying that there was a paradigm shift in the alarmist scientific community, and that agw might just be the latest alarmist fad.  That would be false, but I can understand why you would have posted it. 

Were you just trying to say that there was a minority position that received a disproportionate amount of media attention but was quickly discredited and ignored by the scientific community?  That would be true, but I can't understand why you would have posted it.   

I  mean, maybe someone could draw a parallel between the 70's coolers and today's deniers, but that would be a weird thing for sonofdaxjones to do. 
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on August 15, 2013, 10:31:18 AM
Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Institutional Control on August 15, 2013, 10:38:54 AM
Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?

This is why people don't take you seriously.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on August 15, 2013, 12:14:27 PM
Cooler today than yesterday bros. we are good.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on August 15, 2013, 01:39:06 PM
Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?

This is why people don't take you seriously.

I've been pumping my chair full of greenhouse gasses ALL DAY
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 15, 2013, 02:09:03 PM
Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?

This is why people don't take you seriously.

I've been pumping my chair full of greenhouse gasses ALL DAY

 :sdeek:
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on August 15, 2013, 06:41:43 PM
Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?

This is why people don't take you seriously.


Some people take me seriously; sorry you're so closed off that you're incapable of having perspective.

I'm not vegan nor am I advocating for it, but methane is a much larger contributor to greenhouse gasses.  The point I was making, is if your sole concern is for global warming, why are you stuck on CO2?  Wouldn't you be looking for all avenues of reducing greenhouse gases?

Seems like you were just sold a bill o goods and all you're capable of doing is parroting propagandistic bullshit. Kind of hard to take people seriously when they have no critical thinking skills. :dunno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on August 16, 2013, 02:15:32 PM
Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?

This is why people don't take you seriously.


Some people take me seriously; sorry you're so closed off that you're incapable of having perspective.

I'm not vegan nor am I advocating for it, but methane is a much larger contributor to greenhouse gasses.  The point I was making, is if your sole concern is for global warming, why are you stuck on CO2?  Wouldn't you be looking for all avenues of reducing greenhouse gases?

Seems like you were just sold a bill o goods and all you're capable of doing is parroting propagandistic bullshit. Kind of hard to take people seriously when they have no critical thinking skills. :dunno:


Methane is terrible.  So are CFC's and HFC's.  We need to reduce all of those harmful pollutants as much as we can.  CO2 is focused on more heavily because it accounts for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (related to human activities).  Electric generation, transportation, and various industries contribute the most to U.S. CO2 production.

(http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/gases-co2.png)
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: HeinBallz on August 16, 2013, 08:11:43 PM

Wondering why methane is never brought up by alarmist.  Wouldn't the world be better if we were all vegan?

This is why people don't take you seriously.


Some people take me seriously; sorry you're so closed off that you're incapable of having perspective.

I'm not vegan nor am I advocating for it, but methane is a much larger contributor to greenhouse gasses.  The point I was making, is if your sole concern is for global warming, why are you stuck on CO2?  Wouldn't you be looking for all avenues of reducing greenhouse gases?

Seems like you were just sold a bill o goods and all you're capable of doing is parroting propagandistic bullshit. Kind of hard to take people seriously when they have no critical thinking skills. :dunno:


Methane is terrible.  So are CFC's and HFC's.  We need to reduce all of those harmful pollutants as much as we can.  CO2 is focused on more heavily because it accounts for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (related to human activities).  Electric generation, transportation, and various industries contribute the most to U.S. CO2 production.

(http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/ghgemissions/gases-co2.png)

I see I wrote larger contributor; my mistake. Methane is a pretty destructive greenhouse gas and if If you wanted to, you could mention the amount of co2 created as a by-product to support the beef industry.

 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 18, 2013, 02:57:10 PM
http://www.wunderground.com/news/climate-change-may-help-redwood-trees-thrive-20130818
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 18, 2013, 04:20:47 PM
Serious questions: is climate change the new vernacular for global warming, or are they desperate things?  Is CO2 allegedly the primary cause of one or both?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 18, 2013, 04:34:41 PM
Serious questions: is climate change the new vernacular for global warming?

yes.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 24, 2013, 11:47:26 PM
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2495

go east, young man.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 26, 2013, 09:30:06 AM
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2495

go east, young man.

It's pretty ridiculous to drive on I-70 west of Denver and see the 'rado just chugging and churning water like crazy, and then to realize that not a drop makes it to the ocean.  Vegas should be imploded or at least relocated to Reno.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on August 26, 2013, 10:00:57 AM
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2495

go east, young man.

It's pretty ridiculous to drive on I-70 west of Denver and see the 'rado just chugging and churning water like crazy, and then to realize that not a drop makes it to the ocean.  Vegas and Phoenix should be imploded or at least relocated to Reno.
Fyp
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 28, 2013, 02:19:55 PM
How 'bout this "summer" we're having? Hardly scientific, but here's a fun chart in advance of the latest hysterical report from the UN:

(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_436-aug-27-08-29.jpg)

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on August 28, 2013, 03:14:37 PM
China has been experiencing record droughts, but yeah, it hasn't been a total heat bomb in the US, so I guess we're good?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 28, 2013, 03:23:50 PM
How 'bout this "summer" we're having? Hardly scientific, but here's a fun chart in advance of the latest hysterical report from the UN:

(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_436-aug-27-08-29.jpg)

I would expect that chart to be more hockey sticky in the last 20 years.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Institutional Control on August 28, 2013, 03:25:41 PM
How 'bout this "summer" we're having? Hardly scientific, but here's a fun chart in advance of the latest hysterical report from the UN:

(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_436-aug-27-08-29.jpg)

I would expect that chart to be more hockey sticky in the last 20 years.

You're a terrible moderate, jtmhtd.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 28, 2013, 03:25:59 PM
China has been experiencing record droughts, but yeah, it hasn't been a total heat bomb in the US, so I guess we're good?

That is the rough ridin' spirit!  :excited:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on August 28, 2013, 03:45:48 PM
(http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2013/06/Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif)
We rough ridin' WAY overdid the 5 things.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 28, 2013, 03:58:44 PM
(http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2013/06/Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif)
We rough ridin' WAY overdid the 5 things.

 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 28, 2013, 04:01:08 PM
How 'bout this "summer" we're having? Hardly scientific, but here's a fun chart in advance of the latest hysterical report from the UN:

(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_436-aug-27-08-29.jpg)

I would expect that chart to be more hockey sticky in the last 20 years.

You're a terrible moderate, jtmhtd.

I'm one of those wacko center-wing moderates.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 28, 2013, 07:49:19 PM
(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_436-aug-27-08-29.jpg)

been hot in fresno, tho.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 28, 2013, 09:54:40 PM
(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/screenhunter_436-aug-27-08-29.jpg)

been hot in fresno, tho.

sorry bro, unusually cool in sd county this summer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 28, 2013, 10:04:33 PM
been hot in fresno, tho.

sorry bro, unusually cool in sd county this summer.

 :cry:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on September 03, 2013, 12:12:55 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 04, 2013, 06:23:27 AM
Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 04, 2013, 09:18:42 AM
that article is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 04, 2013, 12:17:21 PM
Warmists . . . The New Denialists

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 04, 2013, 01:32:08 PM
Warmists . . . The New Denialists

dax, the article is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) (or written for an intended audience of retards), if you read the article and didn't pick up on that, then you need to work on reading comprehension.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 04, 2013, 01:44:06 PM
i think it's important to be able to retain the ability to detect bullshit, even when it is spewed in support of a thesis you favor.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on September 04, 2013, 01:51:08 PM
If I plant a redwood this weekend, will it me big enough to drive my car through by next fall?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 04, 2013, 02:48:03 PM
The Bullshit detector went off a long time ago sys . . . when the warmists/propagandists tried to foist this "consensus" bullshit on the rest of us.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on September 06, 2013, 03:05:04 PM
lib university study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904161219.htm
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on September 06, 2013, 03:29:53 PM
lib university study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904161219.htm

Quote
"We don't know what the future holds," Barkley said. "The research does not predict climate change, or forecast future weather conditions. Instead, it shows the predicted change in Kansas wheat yields if we were to experience a 1 degree (C) increase (1.8 degrees F) in temperature. If the average temperature does increase, this research helps us to understand the potential impact on wheat production."
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 06, 2013, 03:37:49 PM
Same lib school did a study that said that a higher CO2 content climate allows wheat to survive and produce in dry conditions.




Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on September 06, 2013, 03:59:31 PM
Same lib school did a study that said that a higher CO2 content climate allows wheat to survive and produce in dry conditions.

how well do the people that eat the wheat survive in higher CO2 content climates?   :excited:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on September 06, 2013, 04:14:21 PM
lib university study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904161219.htm

Quote
"We don't know what the future holds," Barkley said. "The research does not predict climate change, or forecast future weather conditions. Instead, it shows the predicted change in Kansas wheat yields if we were to experience a 1 degree (C) increase (1.8 degrees F) in temperature. If the average temperature does increase, this research helps us to understand the potential impact on wheat production."


also,

Quote
"Given weather trends in recent years, climate change is expected to increase temperatures, and this is likely to lower wheat yields in Kansas," Barkley said.

:dunno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on September 06, 2013, 04:30:08 PM
lib university study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904161219.htm

Quote
"We don't know what the future holds," Barkley said. "The research does not predict climate change, or forecast future weather conditions. Instead, it shows the predicted change in Kansas wheat yields if we were to experience a 1 degree (C) increase (1.8 degrees F) in temperature. If the average temperature does increase, this research helps us to understand the potential impact on wheat production."


also,

Quote
"Given weather trends in recent years, climate change is expected to increase temperatures, and this is likely to lower wheat yields in Kansas," Barkley said.

:dunno:

Add another wheat researcher/expert to the climate change consensus.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on September 06, 2013, 04:31:26 PM
That makes it 0.11% consensus
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 06, 2013, 06:17:59 PM
lib university study:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130904161219.htm

Quote
"We don't know what the future holds," Barkley said. "The research does not predict climate change, or forecast future weather conditions. Instead, it shows the predicted change in Kansas wheat yields if we were to experience a 1 degree (C) increase (1.8 degrees F) in temperature. If the average temperature does increase, this research helps us to understand the potential impact on wheat production."


also,

Quote
"Given weather trends in recent years, climate change is expected to increase temperatures, and this is likely to lower wheat yields in Kansas," Barkley said.

:dunno:

I love this kind of comment regarding climate.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: kim carnes on September 06, 2013, 11:22:40 PM
Same lib school did a study that said that a higher CO2 content climate allows wheat to survive and produce in dry conditions.

how well do the people that eat the wheat survive in higher CO2 content climates?   :excited:

Wgaf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: gatoveintisiete on September 07, 2013, 12:56:35 AM
How is it that dax is so good and the rest of you are so bad?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 09, 2013, 09:21:30 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)

Quote
A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent. The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions)

Quote
When it comes to climate science reporting, the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph are only reliable in the sense that you can rely on them to usually get the science wrong. This weekend's Arctic sea ice articles from David Rose of the Mail and Hayley Dixon at the Telegraph unfortunately fit that pattern.

Both articles claimed that Arctic sea ice extent grew 60 percent in August 2013 as compared to August 2012. While this factoid is technically true, it's also largely irrelevant. For one thing, the annual Arctic sea ice minimum occurs in September – we're not there yet. And while this year's minimum extent will certainly be higher than last year's, that's not the least bit surprising.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 09, 2013, 12:52:29 PM
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/975 (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/975)


Quote
The melting of sea ice in the Arctic is well on its way toward its annual "minimum," that time when the floating ice cap covers less of the Arctic Ocean than at any other period during the year. While the ice will continue to shrink until around mid-September, it is unlikely that this year’s summer low will break a new record. Still, this year’s melt rates are in line with the sustained decline of the Arctic ice cover observed by NASA and other satellites over the last several decades.

“Even if this year ends up being the sixth- or seventh-lowest extent, what matters is that the 10 lowest extents recorded have happened during the last 10 years,” said Walt Meier, a glaciologist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “The long-term trend is strongly downward.”

The icy cover of the Arctic Ocean was measured at 2.25 million square miles (5.83 million square kilometers) on Aug. 21. For comparison, the smallest Arctic sea ice extent on record for this date, recorded in 2012, was 1.67 million square miles (4.34 million square kilometers), and the largest recorded for this date was in 1996, when ice covered 3.16 millions square miles (8.2 million square kilometers) of the Arctic Ocean.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 09, 2013, 02:28:56 PM
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/975 (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/975)


Quote
The melting of sea ice in the Arctic is well on its way toward its annual "minimum," that time when the floating ice cap covers less of the Arctic Ocean than at any other period during the year. While the ice will continue to shrink until around mid-September, it is unlikely that this year’s summer low will break a new record. Still, this year’s melt rates are in line with the sustained decline of the Arctic ice cover observed by NASA and other satellites over the last several decades.

“Even if this year ends up being the sixth- or seventh-lowest extent, what matters is that the 10 lowest extents recorded have happened during the last 10 years,” said Walt Meier, a glaciologist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “The long-term trend is strongly downward.”

The icy cover of the Arctic Ocean was measured at 2.25 million square miles (5.83 million square kilometers) on Aug. 21. For comparison, the smallest Arctic sea ice extent on record for this date, recorded in 2012, was 1.67 million square miles (4.34 million square kilometers), and the largest recorded for this date was in 1996, when ice covered 3.16 millions square miles (8.2 million square kilometers) of the Arctic Ocean.

Well, in the last year we have had a huge increase, so we should all assume the next ice age is coming. How are we going to stop it?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 09, 2013, 02:53:21 PM
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/975 (http://climate.nasa.gov/news/975)


Quote
The melting of sea ice in the Arctic is well on its way toward its annual "minimum," that time when the floating ice cap covers less of the Arctic Ocean than at any other period during the year. While the ice will continue to shrink until around mid-September, it is unlikely that this year’s summer low will break a new record. Still, this year’s melt rates are in line with the sustained decline of the Arctic ice cover observed by NASA and other satellites over the last several decades.

“Even if this year ends up being the sixth- or seventh-lowest extent, what matters is that the buzz lowest extents recorded have happened during the last buzz years,” said Walt Meier, a glaciologist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. “The long-term trend is strongly downward.”

The icy cover of the Arctic Ocean was measured at 2.25 million square miles (buzz.83 million square kilometers) on Aug. 21. For comparison, the smallest Arctic sea ice extent on record for this date, recorded in 2012, was 1.67 million square miles (4.34 million square kilometers), and the largest recorded for this date was in 1996, when ice covered fizz.16 millions square miles (8.2 million square kilometers) of the Arctic Ocean.

Well, in the last year we have had a huge increase, so we should all assume the next ice age is coming. How are we going to stop it?


No. 


Quote
Watching the summertime dynamics of the Arctic ice cap has gained considerable attention in recent years as the size of the minimum extent has been diminishing – rapidly. On Sept.16, 2012, Arctic sea ice reached its smallest extent ever recorded by satellites at 1.32 million square miles (3.41 million square kilometers). That is about half the size of the average extent from 1979 to 2010.

Sea ice extent is a measurement of the area of the Arctic Ocean where ice covers at least 15 percent of the ocean surface. For additional information about the evolution of the sea ice cover, scientists also study the sea ice "area," which discards regions of open water among ice floes and only takes into account the parts of the Arctic Ocean completely covered by ice. On Aug. 21, 2013, the Arctic sea ice area was 1.98 million square miles (5.12 million square kilometers).

This year’s melting season included a fast retreat of the sea ice during the first half of July. But low atmospheric pressures and clouds over the central Arctic kept temperatures up north cooler than average, slowing down the plunge.

With about three weeks of melting left, the summer minimum in 2013 is unlikely to be a record low, said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at Goddard and coordinating lead author of the Cryosphere Observations chapter of the upcoming report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“But average temperatures in the Arctic fluctuate from one week to another, and the occurrence of a powerful storm in August, as happened in 2012, could cause the current rate of decline to change significantly,” Comiso said.

This year, the Arctic has witnessed a few summer storms, but none of them as intense as the cyclone that took place in August 2012.

“Last year’s storm went across an area of open water and mixed the smaller pieces of ice with the relatively warm water, so it melted very rapidly,” Meier said. “This year, the storms hit in an area of more consolidated ice. The storms this year were more typical summer storms; last year’s was the unusual one.”

The Arctic sea ice cap has significantly thinned over the past decade and is now very vulnerable to melt, Comiso said. The multiyear ice cover, consisting of thicker sea ice that has survived at least two summers, has declined at an even faster rate than younger, thinner ice.

Meier said that a thinner, seasonal ice cover might behave more erratically in the summer than multiyear ice.

“First-year ice has a thickness that is borderline: It can melt or not depending on how warm the summer temperatures are, the prevailing winds, etcetera,” Meier said. “This year’s conditions weren’t super-favorable for losing ice throughout spring and summer; last year they were. Whereas with multiyear ice, it takes unusual warm conditions to melt it, which is what we’ve seen in the most recent years.”


On the opposite side of the planet, Antarctic sea ice, which is in the midst of its yearly growing cycle, is heading toward the largest extent on record, having reached 7.45 million square miles (19.3 million square kilometers) on Aug. 21. In 2012, the extent of Antarctic sea ice for the same date was 7.08 million square miles (18.33 million square kilometers). The phenomenon, which appears counter-intuitive but reflects the differences in environment and climate between the Arctic and Antarctica, is currently the subject of many research studies. Still, the rate at which the Arctic is losing sea ice surpasses the speed at which Antarctic sea ice is expanding.

The sea ice minimum extent analysis produced at Goddard – one of many satellite-based scientific analyses of sea ice cover – is compiled from passive microwave data from NASA's Nimbus-7 satellite, which operated from late October 1978 to August 1987, and the U.S. Department of Defense's Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, which has been used to extend the Nimbus 7 sea ice record onwards from August 1987. The record, which began in November 1978, shows an overall downward trend of 14.1 percent per decade in the size of the minimum summer extent, a decline that accelerated after 2007.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 09, 2013, 03:12:37 PM
I thought we were talking short term weather conditions?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on September 09, 2013, 03:25:59 PM
Did you guys feel that rough ridin' warming this weekend? Jesus Christ, sweat city everywhere.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 09, 2013, 10:42:55 PM
I've decided that talking about this is actually more boring a speculative than talking about the regular weather.

Like hanging out at the Casey's in some podunk town, only the fat old farmers are libtards and won't drink the regular coffee.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on September 10, 2013, 02:58:00 PM
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-down-in-global-warming/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 10, 2013, 03:38:09 PM
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-down-in-global-warming/

Haha

Quote
Alexander says:   
September 10, 2013 at 9:50 am   

I would like to point out that some of the factors indicated in this article as causes of the warming slowdown–solar activity, decadal cycles, volcanic eruptions, water vapor, etc.– are all potential contributing factors that were completely dismissed, with a sense of derision and mockery, by the “AGW alarmist” community when they were raised by critics of the AGW hypothesis to question the more catastrophic climate change predictions and the idea that all of the climate change was the fault of humans only.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 10, 2013, 04:21:07 PM
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/09/examining-the-recent-slow-down-in-global-warming/

Straight to the bottom:

Quote
There have been a number of new papers that use recent atmospheric, ocean, and surface temperature observations to argue that climate sensitivity may be lower than previously estimated (e.g. closer to 2 C than 4 C). These studies tend to be rather sensitive to the time period chosen, and a future warm decade could considerably change the picture. As with many things in science, there is still significant uncertainty surrounding climate sensitivity, and different approaches can obtain fairly different results. However, the longer the current slow-down continues, the more questions will arise about whether GCMs are getting either multi-decadal variability or climate sensitivity wrong.

What is clear is that there is still much we don’t understand about the many different factors impacting Earth’s climate system, especially over periods as short as a decade.

Quote
Al Gore: The Science is Settled. Now shut the eff up, raise your taxes, and invest in my green energy companies.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on September 19, 2013, 09:21:31 AM
Let's just assume for a second that industrialized man is causing (or at least contributing in a significant manor) global climate change.  What do we do about it?  What must be done to have a large enough affect to a) stop the trend of change, and b) reverse it to pre-industrialization times?  Will a world effort be required, or is the US/Canada and western Europe enough?  Will products/services from non-conforming countries be charged a steep tariff or embargoed all together? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 19, 2013, 11:17:29 AM
i posted a proposed solution a while back in the thread.  basically some smart economist types modeled that a worldwide carbon tax would solve the problem at little to no cost.

tax neutral, so you cut other taxes by the same amount as you institute the carbon tax.  credits to poor, so not regressive.  not really that difficult of a problem, other than (still!) not having a world govt.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 19, 2013, 11:39:46 AM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 19, 2013, 11:42:33 AM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 19, 2013, 11:52:11 AM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.


The "stratoshield" concept is obviously only necessary in the case that the Earth's surface temperature continues to increase to unsustainable levels.  Under that scenario, shortened growing seasons will be the least of our concerns.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on September 19, 2013, 11:56:16 AM
i posted a proposed solution a while back in the thread.  basically some smart economist types modeled that a worldwide carbon tax would solve the problem at little to no cost.

tax neutral, so you cut other taxes by the same amount as you institute the carbon tax.  credits to poor, so not regressive.  not really that difficult of a problem, other than (still!) not having a world govt.

Which page?  I'd like to read it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 19, 2013, 12:03:49 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.


The "stratoshield" concept is obviously only necessary in the case that the Earth's surface temperature continues to increase to unsustainable levels.  Under that scenario, shortened growing seasons will be the least of our concerns.

But too much cooling will trump too much warming nearly every time.  Cool/Cold is almost certain death.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 19, 2013, 12:09:34 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.


The "stratoshield" concept is obviously only necessary in the case that the Earth's surface temperature continues to increase to unsustainable levels.  Under that scenario, shortened growing seasons will be the least of our concerns.

But too much cooling will trump too much warming nearly every time.  Cool/Cold is almost certain death.


No crap, Sherlock.  That's why this "stratoshield" device is essentially a long, thin pipe that stretches up to the stratosphere and can be turned on/off. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 19, 2013, 12:23:28 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Shorten growing seasons, that'll be a huge help.


The "stratoshield" concept is obviously only necessary in the case that the Earth's surface temperature continues to increase to unsustainable levels.  Under that scenario, shortened growing seasons will be the least of our concerns.

But too much cooling will trump too much warming nearly every time.  Cool/Cold is almost certain death.


No crap, Sherlock.  That's why this "stratoshield" device is essentially a long, thin pipe that stretches up to the stratosphere and can be turned on/off.

Don't cancel your subscription to Popular Science

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 19, 2013, 12:39:23 PM
Which page?  I'd like to read it.

it was a planet money podcast.  easier to link it again than find my post.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/07/12/201502003/episode-472-the-one-page-plan-to-fix-global-warming
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 19, 2013, 09:03:28 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

:lol:  I think plan B is earth shaped ray bans

So stupid
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on September 20, 2013, 12:27:32 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do :dunno: , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 20, 2013, 02:38:35 PM
I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all all were.

Please don't lump me or other conservatives in with the klimate krazies. Anyway, you don't have to wait for the future. You can laugh at them right now.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 20, 2013, 06:42:15 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do :dunno: , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 22, 2013, 02:35:51 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323665504579032934293143524.html?mod=WSJ__MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 24, 2013, 12:11:01 PM
I love how I get attacked by the crazy nut jobs for simply mentioning an alternative solution to climate change.  These morons are completely averse to anything that comes from outside of their little right wing bubble.  So sad.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 24, 2013, 12:46:42 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do :dunno: , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.


There are extremists on both sides of the debate.  The Earth was cooling back in the 70's and a lot of it had to do with CFCs and aerosols that were polluting the atmosphere.  The Montreal Protocol eliminated the use of CFCs for the most part and here we are today with a warmer climate. 

The extremists on the denial side of the debate don't believe that humans have any sort of affect on our environment, and a significant portion of those people believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.  That's why this debate is going nowhere and the special interest groups on the denier side have so much more leverage than they really should.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 24, 2013, 01:47:50 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do :dunno: , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.


There are extremists on both sides of the debate.  The Earth was cooling back in the 70's and a lot of it had to do with CFCs and aerosols that were polluting the atmosphere.  The Montreal Protocol eliminated the use of CFCs for the most part and here we are today with a warmer climate. 

The extremists on the denial side of the debate don't believe that humans have any sort of affect on our environment, and a significant portion of those people believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.  That's why this debate is going nowhere and the special interest groups on the denier side have so much more leverage than they really should.

sounds like we need to put CFCs back in aerosols.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 24, 2013, 01:50:10 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323665504579032934293143524.html?mod=WSJ__MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsForth

This was a really good article, sys.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 24, 2013, 01:53:29 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do :dunno: , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.


There are extremists on both sides of the debate.  The Earth was cooling back in the 70's and a lot of it had to do with CFCs and aerosols that were polluting the atmosphere.  The Montreal Protocol eliminated the use of CFCs for the most part and here we are today with a warmer climate. 

The extremists on the denial side of the debate don't believe that humans have any sort of affect on our environment, and a significant portion of those people believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.  That's why this debate is going nowhere and the special interest groups on the denier side have so much more leverage than they really should.

sounds like we need to put CFCs back in aerosols.


They are mainly HCFCs now, and they're found mostly in refrigerants.  The biggest problem is that they do a ton of damage to the ozone layer, not that they cool the Earth necessarily.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 24, 2013, 02:57:47 PM
This was a really good article, sys.

grantham is a really smart man.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 24, 2013, 03:16:46 PM
Golly, which elite goEMAW poster has been talking about the control of the resource rich Central Asian (and it's periphery which would include North Africa) region of the world, and trying to explain to you folks that the U.S.'s 'rent-a-mob' aka Al Quada is really just excuse for the United States to exert hegemony, topple regimes, destabilize regions, (which when needed lessons state control over natural resources) and bolster other regimes (despite their horrible human rights track records).   

While Morocco has been off my personal radar, it's time to start doing some research to find out if the Constitutional Monoarchy of Morocco will stand the test of time in the, dare I say, new world order.   Or will they get Libya'd, Syria'd, Balkanized or Iraq'd??

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 24, 2013, 03:42:18 PM
This was a really good article, sys.

grantham is a really smart man.


Yes he is.  Thanks for sharing.  This part pretty much echoes what I've been saying on this board for years now:

 
Quote
Q: Why is this problem so hard for us to deal with? You've railed against short-termism.

A: A career politician has a very short horizon. They're not really interested in problems that go out five or 10 years. Secondly, you have what they call the discount-rate effect, which is a dollar in 10 years has a much lower value to a corporation than a dollar today. So they're only interested, at the corporate level, in the short term. And politicians, in the very short term. And you have a vested-interest effect. In other words, it's very hard to get change when the people who are benefitting very nicely, thank you, from the current situation don't want it. If the oil industry is making a bundle, which they are, they don't want to change to a system that recognizes climate change and the need to have a tax on carbon. And they can fund right-wing think tanks, and they do.

So you have vested interests fighting like mad to keep the situation the way it is. And that's always the case. So change is difficult, and with our politicians with the short-term election problems, it's nearly impossible. And when they depend so much on campaign contributions, and they find the campaign contributions come so much from the vested interests, the financial world, but more particularly the energy world, it's a bloody miracle anything gets done.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on September 25, 2013, 03:22:00 PM
sys is correct.  A global carbon tax would be the best solution, but it would be incredibly hard to enforce. 

Another viable solution I've recently read about is the "stratoshield."  It's a geo-engineering concept that basically lowers the Earth's surface temperature by emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, essentially mimicking the function of a super volcano.  It would be relatively cheap to install two of these at each pole (probably a few billion dollars or so).  This idea played out naturally in 1991 with eruption of Mount Pinatubo, which sent sulfur dioxide pouring into the stratosphere, and measurably cooled the Earth for around two years (by about 0.5 degrees F).

Yes this seems perfect.  A bunch of dudes building a tube that will put sulfur dioxide in the air at each pole.  What could possibly go wrong with this.  I really don't want to live forever (maybe I do :dunno: , but I would love to be able to look back from the future and see what a bunch of dumbasses we all were.

Pretty chilly today for this time of year btw.

All you need to do is go back to the 70's and the coolers fear mongering. They were planning on covering the polar ice caps with coal dust to heat things up. The same morons are still at work.


There are extremists on both sides of the debate.  The Earth was cooling back in the 70's and a lot of it had to do with CFCs and aerosols that were polluting the atmosphere.  The Montreal Protocol eliminated the use of CFCs for the most part and here we are today with a warmer climate. 

The extremists on the denial side of the debate don't believe that humans have any sort of affect on our environment, and a significant portion of those people believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.  That's why this debate is going nowhere and the special interest groups on the denier side have so much more leverage than they really should.

sounds like we need to put CFCs back in aerosols.


They are mainly HCFCs now, and they're found mostly in refrigerants.  The biggest problem is that they do a ton of damage to the ozone layer, not that they cool the Earth necessarily.

Oooh, the ozone layer. Remember back in the 80's when we were creating a giant hole in it and were all going to fry if we didn't hurry up and do something about it?  I stopped using hairspray to help, pretty sure that fixed the problem. Your welcome.

Pretty normal temps today, looks like we are good.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 25, 2013, 03:45:17 PM
I thought it was mostly just the Australians who were going to fry.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 25, 2013, 09:12:45 PM
Speaking of phony environmental catastrophes, I wonder how many people have died of malaria because of the DDT ban? But the science was settled....
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 25, 2013, 10:55:01 PM
Speaking of phony environmental catastrophes, I wonder how many people have died of malaria because of the DDT ban? But the science was settled....

speaking of Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) talking points with no basis in reality...
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on September 25, 2013, 11:01:27 PM
are humans responsible for ocean acidification? i'm not sure if humans are able to affect the enviro on that scale or not. anyone?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 26, 2013, 09:05:04 AM
I like how the guy who thinks we should be building a smoke stack on the north and south pole to stop global climate warming change is calling people crazy and delusional.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on September 26, 2013, 08:39:08 PM
I like how the guy who thinks we should be building a smoke stack on the north and south pole to stop global climate warming change is calling people crazy and delusional.

I think we should build the giant stacks AND black stuff all over the glaciers.  That should make everyone happy. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on September 27, 2013, 12:07:03 PM
Gotta love how the whackos attack me for simply mentioning an alternative solution to climate change.  A cost effective solution that wouldn't totally crush the economy.  The idea comes from a think tank in Seattle that includes some of the smartest humans on the planet, many of whom helped develop Microsoft.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: kim carnes on September 27, 2013, 02:47:38 PM
Microsoft is a hot pile of garbage
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on September 27, 2013, 03:50:15 PM
Gotta love how the whackos attack me for simply mentioning an alternative solution to climate change.  A cost effective solution that wouldn't totally crush the economy.  The idea comes from a think tank in Seattle that includes some of the smartest humans on the planet, many of whom helped develop Microsoft.

I am 100% behind your Lego towers Beems.  Let's cool this bitch down.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 28, 2013, 08:48:43 AM
 :lol:

Oh, beams.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 30, 2013, 08:36:40 AM
HEADLINE: Top MIT Climate Scientist Concurs With Post On goEMAW.com (http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientist-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/)

Quote
Not all scientists are panicking about global warming — one of them finds the alarmism “hilarious.”

A top climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lambasted a new report by the UN’s climate bureaucracy that blamed mankind as the main cause of global warming and whitewashed the fact that there has been a hiatus in warming for the last 15 years.

“I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed it was 95 percent sure that global warming was mainly driven by human burning of fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases. The I.P.C.C. also glossed over the fact that the Earth has not warmed in the past 15 years, arguing that the heat was absorbed by the ocean.

“Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean,” Lindzen added. “However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans.”

“However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued. “Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.”
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 30, 2013, 08:44:49 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/23/u-s-and-europe-tried-to-cover-up-data-showing-lack-of-global-warming/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/23/u-s-and-europe-tried-to-cover-up-data-showing-lack-of-global-warming/)

Quote
Leaked documents obtained by the Associated Press show that the U.S. government and several European governments tried to get climate scientists to downplay the lack of global warming over the past 15 years.

The highly anticipated United Nations report on global warming is expected to affirm the link between human activity and global warming, but scientists are still having trouble explaining away the lull in rising global temperatures over the past 15 years despite rapidly rising greenhouse gas levels.

The lull in global warming has been noted by skeptics to show the flaws behind the science and the theory that human activities, primarily through burning fossil fuels, causes global temperatures to rise.

This has some governments worried, reports the AP, as documents show that the U.S. government along with some European nations tried to convince the report’s authors to downplay the lack of warming over the past 15 years.

The AP reports that “Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries.”

“The U.S. also urged the authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean,” the AP noted. “Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for any statistics. …Using 1999 or 2000 as a starting year would yield a more upward-pointing curve. Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for skeptics.”

Concern by governments over the lull in warming comes ahead of the deadline the world has set for reaching a global climate agreement in 2015. This report would serve as the scientific underpinning of such an agreement.

“This is the culmination of four years’ work by hundreds of scientists, where governments get a chance to ensure the summary for policymakers is clear and concise in a dialogue with the scientists who wrote it, and have the opportunity to raise any topics they think should be highlighted,” Jonathan Lynn, a spokesman for the UN’s climate authority, told the AP.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 01, 2013, 01:38:06 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 01, 2013, 01:57:01 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.

Yeah, we probably just should have abandoned the port that handles the greatest volume of cargo in the United States.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 01, 2013, 02:55:19 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.

Yeah, we probably just should have abandoned the port that handles the greatest volume of cargo in the United States.

by definition, wouldn't the port be at or above sea level? I'm talking about re-building all the shacks that were below sea level.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 01, 2013, 02:57:14 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.

Yeah, we probably just should have abandoned the port that handles the greatest volume of cargo in the United States.

by definition, wouldn't the port be at or above sea level? I'm talking about re-building all the shacks that were below sea level.

It's hard to have a large port without a large city.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 01, 2013, 03:03:31 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.

Yeah, we probably just should have abandoned the port that handles the greatest volume of cargo in the United States.

by definition, wouldn't the port be at or above sea level? I'm talking about re-building all the shacks that were below sea level.

It's hard to have a large port without a large city.

That port only accounts for 8.3% of the country's tonnage.  It'll find another place to land bro.

SOURCE:  http://web.archive.org/web/20070104212555/http://www.aapa-ports.org/files/Statistics/2004_US_PORT_CARGO_TONNAGE_RANKINGS.xls

ETA:  My math was wrong.  8.4%.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 01, 2013, 03:07:13 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.

Yeah, we probably just should have abandoned the port that handles the greatest volume of cargo in the United States.

by definition, wouldn't the port be at or above sea level? I'm talking about re-building all the shacks that were below sea level.

It's hard to have a large port without a large city.

That port only accounts for 8.3% of the country's tonnage.  It'll find another place to land bro.

What did the US spend on rebuilding New Orleans? What would it cost to increase capacity at some other port by more than 240,000,000 tons and then build infrastructure to transport that cargo? I think it most likely is more cost effective to just send aid to New Orleans every 50 years or so, but I would honestly like to see some kind of cost comparison if there is one that actually exists.

What is the solution to all of the exports that are floated down the Mississippi to the Port of New Orleans? Railroad to Houston?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on November 01, 2013, 03:11:03 PM
ahh yes..."The weather is SO MUCH MORE EXTREME" argument.  ugh.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 01, 2013, 03:18:42 PM
ahh yes..."The weather is SO MUCH MORE EXTREME" argument.  ugh.

I know, it's so idiotic, and yet the President of the United States is leading the charge! (Though he's certainly not reducing his own carbon emissions from Air Force One - he'll be the most traveled (and vacationed) president in history by the time his 8 years are up).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 01, 2013, 03:26:25 PM
:facepalm: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/1/obama-orders-government-prep-global-warming/)

Quote
President Obama issued an executive order Friday directing a government-wide effort to boost preparation in states and local communities for the impact of global warming.

The action orders federal agencies to work with states to build “resilience” against major storms and other weather extremes. For example, the president’s order directs that infrastructure projects like bridges and flood control take into consideration climate conditions of the future, which might require building structures larger or stronger — and likely at a higher price tag.

“The impacts of climate change — including an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, an increase in wildfires, more severe droughts, permafrost thawing, ocean acidification and sea-level rise — are already affecting communities, natural resources, ecosystems, economies and public health across the nation,” the presidential order said. “The federal government must build on recent progress and pursue new strategies to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience.”

I wonder if this means we should stop rebuilding cities below sea level? Or wait, I think Obama promised he would lower the sea levels. Never mind.

Yeah, we probably just should have abandoned the port that handles the greatest volume of cargo in the United States.

by definition, wouldn't the port be at or above sea level? I'm talking about re-building all the shacks that were below sea level.

It's hard to have a large port without a large city.

That port only accounts for 8.3% of the country's tonnage.  It'll find another place to land bro.

What did the US spend on rebuilding New Orleans? What would it cost to increase capacity at some other port by more than 240,000,000 tons and then build infrastructure to transport that cargo? I think it most likely is more cost effective to just send aid to New Orleans every 50 years or so, but I would honestly like to see some kind of cost comparison if there is one that actually exists.

Fair questions.  My perspective is that the government shouldn't be much involved in insuring, building/re-building, owning, and operating these ports.  Free market, man.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 01, 2013, 03:39:37 PM
Fair questions.  My perspective is that the government shouldn't be much involved in insuring, building/re-building, owning, and operating these ports.  Free market, man.

Didn't the free market decide to locate New Orleans at the mouth of the Mississippi River? I think it makes a lot of sense for the government to speed the process of rebuilding important cities by providing disaster relief. Not spending that money comes at a big cost to the US government as well, in the form of lost revenues.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 01, 2013, 03:41:58 PM
Saving money by spending it.  :excited:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 01, 2013, 03:45:03 PM
Saving money by spending it.  :excited:

Isn't that how investments work?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 01, 2013, 04:12:04 PM
Saving money by spending it.  :excited:

 :Chirp:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 05, 2013, 04:12:18 PM
A little nervous guys. Took DogSF for a walk last night. Grabbed a "heavy jacket" expecting it to be pretty chilly. Ended up losing the jacket and DogSF panted quite a bit. It's November guys, we should at least be wearing semi heavy jackets by now. I'm thinking we should start putting black stuff on the glaciers immediately like Beems said.

-source- DogSF and SF's walk last night.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 05, 2013, 04:29:44 PM
A little nervous guys. Took DogSF for a walk last night. Grabbed a "heavy jacket" expecting it to be pretty chilly. Ended up losing the jacket and DogSF panted quite a bit. It's November guys, we should at least be wearing semi heavy jackets by now. I'm thinking we should start putting black stuff on the glaciers immediately like Beems said.

-source- DogSF and SF's walk last night.

Actually, that was for the 70's ice age scare. For the current warming scare, Beems wants to build giant smokestacks and pump some other chemicals into the stratosphere to help cool things down.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 06, 2013, 12:29:56 PM
really cold today.  DogSF wouldn't even go out to pee.

we are fine guys

Source - DogSF peed on my carpet at little  :curse:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 06, 2013, 09:58:32 PM
Keep in mind, the people pushing AGW, are the same people telling you fracking is damaging your drinking water.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 14, 2013, 11:35:07 AM
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2013-on-track-to-be-seventh-warmest-year-since-1850-16738


Keep in mind, the people pushing AGW, are the same people telling you fracking is damaging your drinking water.
you might actually be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 14, 2013, 12:15:27 PM
Edna might be the most uninformed misinformed person on earth (which of course includes the pit), and I find that remarkable.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 15, 2013, 09:48:33 AM
The 7th warmest year in the last 163 years, a mere tiny pin hole on the time line of the Earth, where we know it's been warmer than has been in the last 163 years and and we know it's been much colder than the last 163 years.   Yet Warmists want to nail the "warming" (which some entities question, inlcuding questioning the current gov't methods of measuring temps) entirely on the back of a trace gas.   Amazing.

Some other news.   This year to date has seen one of the lowest ebbs in extreme weather in the United States in recorded history.

Tornado activity: Trendline is for 2013 to have the fewest tornadoes ever recorded (Will be blamed on climate change, after above average year was blamed on climate change a few years ago.  Of course historical trendline discussion by Warmists almost wholly dismisses factors like-Weather radar technology, urban sprawl, more eyes on the sky/numbers of storm chasers etc. etc.).   

The U.S. Historical Climatology Network of weather stations while likely record that 2013 will have the fewest number of above 90 degree days ever recorded by the stations on this network in one calendar year.

The U.S. will likely be hit by zero storms at Hurricane strength in 2013. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 15, 2013, 10:33:49 AM
Like dax, I'm also confused as to how the 7th hottest year in the last 163 is dispositive of anything.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on November 22, 2013, 08:43:15 PM
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2013-on-track-to-be-seventh-warmest-year-since-1850-16738


Keep in mind, the people pushing AGW, are the same people telling you fracking is damaging your drinking water.
you might actually be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

With EDN on this one.  Pumping chemicals in the ground puts chemicals in the ground.  Pretty certain of this. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on December 06, 2013, 10:28:31 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/05/report-scientists-predict-a-century-of-global-cooling/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/05/report-scientists-predict-a-century-of-global-cooling/)

 :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 06, 2013, 10:57:19 AM
Just taking a quick check: are there any libtards on here who still believe in AGW?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 06, 2013, 11:15:12 AM
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2013-on-track-to-be-seventh-warmest-year-since-1850-16738


Keep in mind, the people pushing AGW, are the same people telling you fracking is damaging your drinking water.
you might actually be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

With EDN on this one.  Pumping chemicals in the ground puts chemicals in the ground.  Pretty certain of this.

That makes 2 Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) troglodytes.  Anyone else want to out themselves?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 06, 2013, 11:24:31 AM
Just taking a quick check: are there any libtards on here who still believe in AGW?

I don't think greenhouse gases follow party lines.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 06, 2013, 12:51:16 PM
I think conservatives are much more skeptical of the "proof" that is offered by climate models. They are simply an educated guess, and they have all been wrong, so far. The parameters and data are constantly changed to manipulate the desired outcome.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 06, 2013, 12:58:31 PM
Just taking a quick check: are there any libtards on here who still believe in AGW?

I don't think greenhouse gases follow party lines.

Ok, we'll pretend this is true. :lol: Anybody on here, conservative or libtard (:lol:, ok, sorry, here we go), who still believes in AGW?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 06, 2013, 01:15:16 PM
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2013-on-track-to-be-seventh-warmest-year-since-1850-16738


Quote
The pace of sea level rise varies regionally. In some parts of the world, such as in Manila in the Philippines, sinking land combined with rising seas is creating coastal flooding concerns even in the absence of a major storm.

Can somebody explain this statement to me? I thought all of the oceans in the world were connected, so how can the average sea level be different, or rise faster, in one part of the world than another?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 06, 2013, 01:27:08 PM
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2013-on-track-to-be-seventh-warmest-year-since-1850-16738


Quote
The pace of sea level rise varies regionally. In some parts of the world, such as in Manila in the Philippines, sinking land combined with rising seas is creating coastal flooding concerns even in the absence of a major storm.

Can somebody explain this statement to me? I thought all of the oceans in the world were connected, so how can the average sea level be different, or rise faster, in one part of the world than another?

I guess you've never been to the beach. When I was last year, the sea was constantly changing level by a few feet. It was pretty unsettling.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 06, 2013, 01:33:29 PM
Just taking a quick check: are there any libtards on here who still believe in AGW?

I don't think greenhouse gases follow party lines.

Ok, we'll pretend this is true. :lol: Anybody on here, conservative or libtard (:lol:, ok, sorry, here we go), who still believes in AGW?

Well, I'm a conservative who believes in AGW. I mean good grief, how could you not believe in greenhouse gases?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 06, 2013, 01:58:09 PM
Just taking a quick check: are there any libtards on here who still believe in AGW?

I don't think greenhouse gases follow party lines.

Ok, we'll pretend this is true. :lol: Anybody on here, conservative or libtard (:lol:, ok, sorry, here we go), who still believes in AGW?

Well, I'm a conservative who believes in AGW. I mean good grief, how could you not believe in greenhouse gases?

Are you referring to gasses such as CO2 and H2O? First, AGW is premised on the (increasingly questionable) theory of the greenhouse effect. Thus, to argue that AGW must be true because of "greenhouse gasses" is circular reasoning and, frankly, idiotic. Second, if gasses such as CO2 are indeed "greenhouse gasses" that cause the earth to warm, then why does the earth not continue to warm despite increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? Again, calling something a "greenhouse gas" does not make it so. Third, you're about as conservative as Megan McCain.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on December 06, 2013, 02:10:40 PM
(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/YearlySurfaceTempAnom1880-2010.jpg)

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/DecadelTempAnom1880-200.jpg)

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/OceanicNinoIndex1950-2010.jpg)

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/oceanprofile_tempBalmaseda1960-2008.jpg)

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 06, 2013, 02:14:01 PM
megan mcain smack  :surprised:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 06, 2013, 05:48:11 PM
Just taking a quick check: are there any libtards on here who still believe in AGW?

I don't think greenhouse gases follow party lines.

Ok, we'll pretend this is true. :lol: Anybody on here, conservative or libtard (:lol:, ok, sorry, here we go), who still believes in AGW?

Well, I'm a conservative who believes in AGW. I mean good grief, how could you not believe in greenhouse gases?

Are you referring to gasses such as CO2 and H2O? First, AGW is premised on the (increasingly questionable) theory of the greenhouse effect. Thus, to argue that AGW must be true because of "greenhouse gasses" is circular reasoning and, frankly, idiotic. Second, if gasses such as CO2 are indeed "greenhouse gasses" that cause the earth to warm, then why does the earth not continue to warm despite increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? Again, calling something a "greenhouse gas" does not make it so. Third, you're about as conservative as Megan McCain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_list_of_greenhouse_gases

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Looks like pretty concrete science to me.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 06, 2013, 07:37:51 PM
You should go back and reread the beginning if this thread. The hypotheses of "greenhouse gas" theory are wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on December 06, 2013, 07:49:36 PM
You should go back and reread the beginning if this thread. The hypotheses of "greenhouse gas" theory are wrong.

"the earth is too big and there are too many inputs to know what is causing the warming and ocean acidification and other effects of the fossil fuels that make exxon and shell and bp and chevron some of the richest corporations in the world" - conservatives unless there is a hiccup in the trend, then they pretend to be scientifically literate and honest all of a sudden.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 06, 2013, 11:17:52 PM
You should go back and reread the beginning if this thread. The hypotheses of "greenhouse gas" theory are wrong.

"the earth is too big and there are too many inputs to know what is causing the warming and ocean acidification and other effects of the fossil fuels that make exxon and shell and bp and chevron some of the richest corporations in the world" - conservatives unless there is a hiccup in the trend, then they pretend to be scientifically literate and honest all of a sudden.

http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true (http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true)

Quote
I've got to confess, though, I found this result surprising. As I pushed the button to run the analysis on my computer, I fully expected I'd be shown a modest negative correlation between identifying with the Tea Party and science comprehension.

But then again, I don't know a single person who identifies with the Tea Party.  All my impressions come from watching cable tv -- & I don't watch Fox News very often -- and reading the "paper" (New York Times daily, plus a variety of politics-focused internet sites like Huffington Post & Politico). 

I'm a little embarrassed, but mainly I'm just glad that I no longer hold this particular mistaken view.

Of course, I still subscribe to my various political and moral assessments--all very negative-- of what I understand the "Tea Party movement" to stand for. I just no longer assume that the people who happen to hold those values are less likely than people who share my political outlooks to have acquired the sorts of knowledge and dispositions that a decent science comprehension scale measures.

(http://www.culturalcognition.net/storage/tpscic.png?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1381858984005)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 07, 2013, 01:48:44 AM
You should go back and reread the beginning if this thread. The hypotheses of "greenhouse gas" theory are wrong.

Oh, so greenhouse gases do not exist? That's a great argument, K-S-U. You should get far with that one.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 07, 2013, 02:52:29 AM
You should go back and reread the beginning if this thread. The hypotheses of "greenhouse gas" theory are wrong.

Oh, so greenhouse gases do not exist? That's a great argument, K-S-U. You should get far with that one.

(http://images.clipartof.com/small/1068462-Moodie-Character-Covering-His-Ears-Poster-Art-Print.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 07, 2013, 07:57:46 AM
You should go back and reread the beginning if this thread. The hypotheses of "greenhouse gas" theory are wrong.

Oh, so greenhouse gases do not exist? That's a great argument, K-S-U. You should get far with that one.

I'm pretty sure you're not trolling, which is sad, so I'll try to explain this to you again. Of course gasses such as CO2 and H2O exist. The extent to which they have a "greenhouse effect," however, has been overestimated at best. Again, the models that predicted temperatures would rise as greater concentrations of these "greenhouse gasses" entered the atmosphere are wrong.

AGW theory is premised on "greenhouse effect" theory. Thus, your argument that AGW theory is valid because of "greenhouse gasses" is circular reasoning and idiotic. You fit right in among your libtard brothers and sisters.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on December 07, 2013, 11:34:15 AM
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true (http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/10/15/some-data-on-education-religiosity-ideology-and-science-comp.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true)

Quote
1.  Tea party members are like everyone else, as far as I can tell, when it comes to science comprehension.

Is this something to be proud of?  I don’t think so. It means that if we were to select a tea-party member at random, there would be a 50% chance he or she would say that “antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria” and less than a 40% chance that he or she would be able to correctly interpret data from a simple experiment involving a new skin-rash treatment.

2.  Because tea-party members are “just like everyone else,” they too have among their number some individuals who combine a high degree of scientific knowledge with an impressively developed capacity for engaging in critical reasoning.

But because they are like everyone else, these high "science comprehending" tea-party members will be more likely to display politically biased misinterpretations of empirical data than people who display a lower "science comprehension" apptitude. The greater their capacity to engage in analytical thinking, the more systematically they will use that capacity to ferret out evidence congenial to their predispositions and block out and rationalize away everything else.

Moreover, because others who share their values very sensibly rely on them when trying to keep up with what’s known to science, these high science-comprehending tea-party members -- just like high science-comprehending "Democrats" and "Republicans'" and "libertarians" and "socialists" et al.-- will play a principal role in transmitting the reason-effacing pathogens that pervade our polluted science communication environment.


3. Also like everyone else, tea-party members can be expected, as a result of living in a contaminated science communication environment, to behave in a manner that evinces not only an embarrassing deficiency in self-awareness but also an exceedingly ugly form of contempt for others , thereby amplifying the dynamics that are depriving them along with all the other culturally diverse citizens in the Liberal Republic of Science of the full benefit that this magnificent political regime uniquely confers on reasoning, free individuals.

4. Finally, because they are like everyone else, some of the individuals who have used their reason and freedom to join with others in a project they call the “tea-party” movement realize that they have exactly the same stake in repulsing this repulsive pathology as those individuals who’ve used their reason and their freedom to form associations like the “Democratic Party,” the “Republic Party,” the “Libertarian Party,” the “Socialist Party” etc.

very interesting reading(that is from a link in john dougie's article). it's like a next level dunning-kruger syndrome. all intelligence does is give us greater means to confirm our bias.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on December 07, 2013, 02:13:09 PM
just saw an article on the same subject.  about a paper with data showing that people showed a pretty high degree of inability to process information that conflicted with their preconceived ideals/beliefs.  no difference between left v right leaning individuals in that.  also no difference in smart v dumb people (that is smart people were still better at it, but the degree that they were impaired when they held conflicting beliefs was the same).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 07, 2013, 09:49:42 PM
Yearly temperature anamolies of nearly 1 degree  :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on December 09, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2013-on-track-to-be-seventh-warmest-year-since-1850-16738


Keep in mind, the people pushing AGW, are the same people telling you fracking is damaging your drinking water.
you might actually be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

With EDN on this one.  Pumping chemicals in the ground puts chemicals in the ground.  Pretty certain of this.

That makes 2 Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) troglodytes.  Anyone else want to out themselves?

Not sure what this means, but still pretty sure putting stuff in the ground makes it go in the ground. No disputing this, sorry.  Also know people that shazbot! and stuff and they laugh that this is even a talking point. 

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2013, 10:06:09 AM
It's not just unseasonably cold here - it snowed on the pyramids yesterday. http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-snow-israel-egypt-20131213,0,1691393.story#axzz2nMzV6vMp (http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-snow-israel-egypt-20131213,0,1691393.story#axzz2nMzV6vMp) Can we pump some more "greenhouse gas" into the atmosphere already? This is no fun.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on December 13, 2013, 10:59:31 AM
just saw an article on the same subject.  about a paper with data showing that people showed a pretty high degree of inability to process information that conflicted with their preconceived ideals/beliefs.  no difference between left v right leaning individuals in that.  also no difference in smart v dumb people (that is smart people were still better at it, but the degree that they were impaired when they held conflicting beliefs was the same).

you should read "Thinking Fast and Slow".
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 30, 2013, 03:05:34 PM
Ship of fools (climate change scientists) stranded in heavy ice during the peak of Antarctic summer.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/27/world/antarctica-ship-stuck/ (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/27/world/antarctica-ship-stuck/)

I thought Al Gore said the ice caps would be much smaller by now?  :dunno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on December 30, 2013, 03:06:44 PM
Ship of fools (climate change scientists)

 :thumbs:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 30, 2013, 03:50:38 PM
Ship of fools (climate change scientists)

 :thumbs:

My favorite Robert Plant song (post LZ)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 30, 2013, 05:02:00 PM
Quote
They went in search evidence of the world’s melting ice caps, but instead a team of climate scientists have been forced to abandon their mission … because the Antarctic ice is thicker than usual at this time of year.

The scientists have been stuck aboard the stricken MV Akademik Schokalskiy since Christmas Day, with repeated sea rescue attempts being abandoned as icebreaking ships failed to reach them.

Now that effort has been ditched, with experts admitting the ice is just too thick. Instead the crew have built an icy helipad, with plans afoot to rescue the 74-strong team by helicopter.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531159/Antarctic-crew-build-ice-helipad-help-rescuers.html#ixzz2p0BOO8Sv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 30, 2013, 07:42:47 PM
I will admit, that is pretty funny.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on December 31, 2013, 12:46:15 PM
Ship of fools (climate change scientists)

 :thumbs:

My favorite Robert Plant song (post LZ)

There was a bar in NYC named Ship of Fools that used to host the K-State watch partys. It closed, tho.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 03, 2014, 01:21:25 PM
:lol: Rachel Maddow is not amused.

(http://photos.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/606x404-39575075f3cc62e90f18c07d7378336d.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 03, 2014, 06:11:11 PM
The irony is just too funny. Now the rescue ship is stuck in the ice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/10548690/Antarctic-rescue-ship-now-stuck-in-ice.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/10548690/Antarctic-rescue-ship-now-stuck-in-ice.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on January 03, 2014, 08:11:12 PM
It's like you guys have never even seen The Day After Tomorrow.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 03, 2014, 09:27:38 PM
:lol: Rachel Maddow is not amused.

(http://photos.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/606x404-39575075f3cc62e90f18c07d7378336d.jpg)

She appears to have lost weight, yet gained androgyny. How is this possible?!?!?  Warmingesque anamoly???
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 04, 2014, 03:28:25 PM
It's like you guys have never even seen The Day After Tomorrow.

I did, but it wasn't as funny as "An Inconvenient Truth".
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 04, 2014, 05:39:15 PM
Great thread title
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 05, 2014, 08:59:15 AM
Seemed appropriate for thread...

(http://www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/01/Not-Ice-copy.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 06, 2014, 03:43:12 AM
The other interesting things is, the explorer they were seeking to copy sailed right into the region on seas with very little ice back in January 1912.  Today, the ships are stuck in ice and 70 miles short of where Mawson sailed into Commonwealth Bay Antarctica on open waters over 100 years ago. 



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 06, 2014, 09:07:19 AM
The other interesting things is, the explorer they were seeking to copy sailed right into the region on seas with very little ice back in January 1912.  Today, the ships are stuck in ice and 70 miles short of where Mawson sailed into Commonwealth Bay Antarctica on open waters over 100 years ago.

Greenhouse gases are just a fact. They cause the earth to warm like a greenhouse. Everybody knows this. The warming is obviously hiding somewhere - probably deep in the ocean, way below where all this additional ice seems to be forming. One of these years, it's gonna be drier and hotter than "normal," and then you'll see!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 06, 2014, 01:28:39 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 06, 2014, 02:07:44 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on January 06, 2014, 03:16:15 PM
Count me on team global warming.  This sucks
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 06, 2014, 03:28:17 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

But all roads do not lead back to AGW, and that's what Warmist Propaganda wants everyone to believe.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on January 06, 2014, 03:32:35 PM
Quote
Jesse Ferrell ?@Accu_Jesse 6m

via @accumancuso : Al Gore's Book "Inconvenient Truth" available new on Amazon today for $0.01 http://ow.ly/siWgd
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 06, 2014, 03:58:21 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

(1) You don't know that, and (2) you can't say by how much, so isn't that comment both stupid and irrelevant?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 06, 2014, 04:51:14 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

(1) You don't know that, and (2) you can't say by how much, so isn't that comment both stupid and irrelevant?

I absolutely do know that. I guess maybe if you are replacing the lost CO2 with some other greenhouse gas, then the earth would retain as much heat as it is now, but that is pretty irrelevant.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 06, 2014, 05:06:32 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

(1) You don't know that, and (2) you can't say by how much, so isn't that comment both stupid and irrelevant?

I absolutely do know that.

You absolutely don't. Nobody does. The "greenhouse effect" is a theory. It is not a fact.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 06, 2014, 05:08:42 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

(1) You don't know that, and (2) you can't say by how much, so isn't that comment both stupid and irrelevant?

I absolutely do know that.

You absolutely don't. Nobody does. The "greenhouse effect" is a theory. It is not a fact.

 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 06, 2014, 05:19:12 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

Nobody has proven that increased CO2 concentration causes global warming, or, if the increased CO2 concentration is caused by global warming.

Historically, increased CO2 is a lagging indicator, not leading.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 06, 2014, 06:34:30 PM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

Nobody has proven that increased CO2 concentration causes global warming, or, if the increased CO2 concentration is caused by global warming.

Historically, increased CO2 is a lagging indicator, not leading.

Well, that can't be true. Nuts is absolutely certain!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 06, 2014, 11:37:37 PM
What are we doing as a world to keep the sun from burning out?  Are there any models?  If so, are any of them not wrong?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 07, 2014, 08:23:48 AM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

Nobody has proven that increased CO2 concentration causes global warming, or, if the increased CO2 concentration is caused by global warming.

Historically, increased CO2 is a lagging indicator, not leading.

Well, that can't be true. Nuts is absolutely certain!

It's not like CO2 levels are the only thing that affect earth temperatures.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 07, 2014, 08:46:58 AM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

Nobody has proven that increased CO2 concentration causes global warming, or, if the increased CO2 concentration is caused by global warming.

Historically, increased CO2 is a lagging indicator, not leading.

Well, that can't be true. Nuts is absolutely certain!

It's not like CO2 levels are the only thing that affect earth temperatures.

Oh, just the only taxable thing?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 07, 2014, 08:52:09 AM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

Nobody has proven that increased CO2 concentration causes global warming, or, if the increased CO2 concentration is caused by global warming.

Historically, increased CO2 is a lagging indicator, not leading.

Well, that can't be true. Nuts is absolutely certain!

It's not like CO2 levels are the only thing that affect earth temperatures.

Oh, just the only taxable thing?

Maybe. I think you could probably tax water vapor fairly easily, too.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 07, 2014, 11:14:24 AM
In the Warmest World, "normal" is approximately 150 years.   Earth is approximately 4.5 Billion Years Old any discussion about the Earth being colder (it has been) or warmer (it has been) shall not be recognized.   Nor shall discussion about the Earth being in a state of relative CO2 deficit compared to other periods in its entire history.

The earth is definitely warmer than it would be with less CO2 in the atmosphere, though.

Nobody has proven that increased CO2 concentration causes global warming, or, if the increased CO2 concentration is caused by global warming.

Historically, increased CO2 is a lagging indicator, not leading.

Well, that can't be true. Nuts is absolutely certain!

It's not like CO2 levels are the only thing that affect earth temperatures.

Oh, just the only taxable thing?

Maybe. I think you could probably tax water vapor fairly easily, too.

Taxing clouds seems silly, especially since they will actually cool the Earth as the natural warming cycles wax and wane.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 07, 2014, 11:32:07 AM
it's dry (and hot) as hell here.  those dumbasses should have sailed this way.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 07, 2014, 11:46:02 AM
are the gE scientists giving equal weight to the record setting highs being experienced from oslo to irkutsk?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 07, 2014, 12:17:24 PM
are the gE scientists giving equal weight to the record setting highs being experienced from oslo to irkutsk?

actual temperature doesn't seem to matter to the climate change crowd any more since the average global temps have stabilized over the last 15 years. I think that's why the don't call it global warming any longer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 07, 2014, 01:13:48 PM

are the gE scientists giving equal weight to the record setting highs being experienced from oslo to irkutsk?

actual temperature doesn't seem to matter to the climate change crowd any more since the average global temps have stabilized over the last 15 years. I think that's why the don't call it global warming any longer.
I can't tell if that is a yes or a no.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 07, 2014, 01:33:43 PM

are the gE scientists giving equal weight to the record setting highs being experienced from oslo to irkutsk?

actual temperature doesn't seem to matter to the climate change crowd any more since the average global temps have stabilized over the last 15 years. I think that's why the don't call it global warming any longer.
I can't tell if that is a yes or a no.

Temperatures are meaningless to climate changers.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on January 07, 2014, 03:20:16 PM

are the gE scientists giving equal weight to the record setting highs being experienced from oslo to irkutsk?

actual temperature doesn't seem to matter to the climate change crowd any more since the average global temps have stabilized over the last 15 years. I think that's why the don't call it global warming any longer.
I can't tell if that is a yes or a no.

Temperatures are meaningless to climate changers.

are they meaningful to you?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 07, 2014, 03:31:23 PM

are the gE scientists giving equal weight to the record setting highs being experienced from oslo to irkutsk?

actual temperature doesn't seem to matter to the climate change crowd any more since the average global temps have stabilized over the last 15 years. I think that's why the don't call it global warming any longer.
I can't tell if that is a yes or a no.

Temperatures are meaningless to climate changers.

are they meaningful to you?

Only if it's too hot or too cold.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 07, 2014, 09:00:15 PM
Quote
Jesse Ferrell ?@Accu_Jesse 6m

via @accumancuso : Al Gore's Book "Inconvenient Truth" available new on Amazon today for $0.01 http://ow.ly/siWgd

It's a book :O
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 08, 2014, 05:00:08 AM
(https://scontent-b-atl.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1604662_10151854636315966_1736061788_n.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on January 08, 2014, 11:56:46 AM
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/article_9444fff2-74fd-11e3-b5b0-001a4bcf887a.html (http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opinion/article_9444fff2-74fd-11e3-b5b0-001a4bcf887a.html)

Quote
Use of motivated reasoning to deny human-caused climate change is a belief system akin to a superstition but with an end goal; it is not founded on science, logical reasoning, and evidence. Myerowitz’s op-ed demonstrates all of the characteristics of motivated reasoning.

So let’s examine some of his contrived logic and claims in detail. First, if, as he claims, the climate isn’t warming, then he needs to explain why the heat content of the atmosphere, ocean, and land is increasing, why glaciers are retreating almost everywhere in the world, why sea level is rising, why the mass of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is declining, and why the minimum extent of Arctic sea is declining.

Secondly, if it isn’t warming, then claiming that there is a normal cyclical change in climate plus a small contribution of man-made warming is itself a contradiction of that claim.

Thirdly, if the theory of man-made global warming is “not a very good one,” how does he know the contribution of man-made warming is small? The fact is that climate models predict the observed increase in global average temperatures since 1951 only if human-caused climate forcing is included in the models. When the models are forced only with known natural sources, such as changes in solar input, the models fail to accurately predict the observed temperature increase. Fourthly, if there is a “normal cyclical change, then what is his explanation of the mechanism causing the change? Any change in climate is due to a change in the Earth’s energy balance, and saying it’s a “natural cyclical change” is not an explanation of the cause, but instead is a description of a pattern caused by something.

 Myerowitz ignores the fact that his claims are refuted by an extensive body of observational data and evidence assessed in the recently released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013 report on the physical science basis of climate change. This report authored by 259 climate experts is an extensive analysis of the current state-of-knowledge about climate change. It is based on results of the latest findings and conclusions of published, peer-reviewed studies conducted by climate experts all over the world.

The evidence cited and discussed in the report all points to the same conclusion: Our entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance caused primarily by the rising concentration of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere from fossil fuel combustion and other human activities. Due to this imbalance, the Earth’s climate is warming, resulting in warming of the atmosphere and oceans and changes in many other climate conditions.

The report’s conclusions particularly relevant to Myerowitz’s claims are: 1) “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.” 2) “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” 3) “The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.” (By “extremely likely,” the report’s authors mean 95-100 percent certainty.)

While Myerowitz acknowledges his awareness of this report, which is easily accessible, he ignores its conclusions because they contradict his claims. The only thing he offers to support his bogus claims is more bogus claims. For example, he asserts that there has been “no change in global temperature of our planet since 1998.” The fact is that analyses of surface temperature data, which are collected at thousands of weather stations and on ocean buoys and ships show the global average surface temperature over the land and the oceans has gotten warmer since 1998, and the average decadal surface temperature of the globe has increased every consecutive decade over the past 30 years. All 10 of the warmest years of record beginning in 1850 have occurred since 1997.

http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/ (http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/)

Quote
Unsurprisingly, the extreme cold has brought out the climate change skeptics, who point to the freeze and the recent snowstorms and say, essentially, “nyah-nyah.” Now this is where I would usually point to the fact that the occasional cold snap—even one as extreme as much of the U.S. is experiencing now—doesn’t change the overall trajectory of a warming planet. Weather is what happens in the atmosphere day to day; climate is how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time. Winters in the U.S. have been warming steadily over the past century, and even faster in recent decades, so it would take more than a few sub-zero days to cancel that out.

But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles. Usually the fast winds in the vortex—which can top 100 mph (161 k/h)—keep that cold air locked up in the Arctic. But when the winds weaken, the vortex can begin to wobble like a drunk on his fourth martini, and the Arctic air can escape and spill southward, bringing Arctic weather with it. In this case, nearly the entire polar vortex has tumbled southward, leading to record-breaking cold, as you can see in this weatherbell.com graphic:

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/files/2014/01/500_mb_Mon_night.jpg)

That disruption to the polar vortex may have been triggered by a sudden stratospheric warming event, a phenomenon Rick Grow explained at the Washington Post a few days ago:

    "Large atmospheric waves move upward from the troposphere — where most weather occurs — into the stratosphere, which is the layer of air above the troposphere. These waves, which are called Rossby waves, transport energy and momentum from the troposphere to the stratosphere. This energy and momentum transfer generates a circulation in the stratosphere, which features sinking air in the polar latitudes and rising air in the lowest latitudes. As air sinks, it warms. If the stratospheric air warms rapidly in the Arctic, it will throw the circulation off balance. This can cause a major disruption to the polar vortex, stretching it and — sometimes — splitting it apart."

(MORE: November Was Cold, But the Climate Keeps Warming)

What does that have to do with climate change? Sea ice is vanishing from the Arctic thanks to climate change, which leaves behind dark open ocean water, which absorbs more of the heat from the sun than reflective ice. That in turn is helping to cause the Arctic to warm faster than the rest of the planet, almost twice the global average. The jet stream—the belt of fast-flowing, westerly winds that essentially serves as the boundary between cold northern air and warmer southern air—is driven by temperature difference between the northerly latitudes and the tropical ones. Some scientists theorize that as that temperature difference narrows, it may weaken the jet stream, which in turns makes it more likely that cold Arctic air will escape the polar vortex and flow southward. Right now, an unusually large kink in the jet stream has that Arctic air flowing much further south than it usually would.

Still, this research is fairly preliminary, in part because extreme Arctic sea ice loss is a fairly recent phenomenon, so scientists don’t have the long data sets they need to draw more robust conclusions about the interaction between Arctic warming and cold snaps. In fact, the most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that it was likely that the jet stream would shift towards the north as the climate warmed, and that the polar vortex would actually contract, even as a 2009 study found that sudden stratospheric warming events are becoming more frequent, which in turn seems to be driven by the rapid loss in Arctic sea ice.

And while a muddle like that would seem to make the science less rather than more reliable, it’s actually one more bit of proof that climate change is real. Global warming is sometimes thought of more as “global weirding,” with all manner of complex disruptions occurring over time. This week’s events show that climate change is almost certainly screwing with weather patterns ways that go beyond mere increases in temperature—meaning that you’d be smart to hold onto those winter coats for a while longer.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on January 08, 2014, 11:59:56 AM
http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2014/01/of-course-global-warming-caused-todays.html

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2014/01/does-cold-wave-imply-anything-about.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 08, 2014, 01:04:44 PM
Beeems, there is more antarctic ice now than ever before. Your blogger is a GW shill.

(http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 08, 2014, 01:15:02 PM
Poor time magazine getting caught up in hype again.

(http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/files/2014/01/two_time_magazine_in_one_1-7-14-1-big.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on January 08, 2014, 03:03:22 PM
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm)

The proof that man-made CO2 is causing global warming is like the chain of evidence in a court case. CO2 keeps the Earth warmer than it would be without it. Humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. And there is empirical evidence that the rising temperatures are being caused by the increased CO2.

The Earth is wrapped in an invisible blanket

It is the Earth’s atmosphere that makes most life possible. To understand this, we can look at the moon. On the surface, the moon’s temperature during daytime can reach 100°C (212°F). At night, it can plunge to minus 173°C, or -279.4°F. In comparison, the coldest temperature on Earth was recorded in Antarctica: ?89.2°C (?128.6°F). According to the WMO, the hottest was 56.7°C (134°F), measured on 10 July 1913 at Greenland Ranch (Death Valley).

Man could not survive in the temperatures on the moon, even if there was air to breathe. Humans, plants and animals can’t tolerate the extremes of temperature on Earth unless they evolve special ways to deal with the heat or the cold. Nearly all life on Earth lives in areas that are more hospitable, where temperatures are far less extreme.

Yet the Earth and the moon are virtually the same distance from the sun, so why do we experience much less heat and cold than the moon? The answer is because of our atmosphere. The moon doesn’t have one, so it is exposed to the full strength of energy coming from the sun. At night, temperatures plunge because there is no atmosphere to keep the heat in, as there is on Earth.

The laws of physics tell us that without the atmosphere, the Earth would be approximately 33°C (59.4°F) cooler than it actually is.

This would make most of the surface uninhabitable for humans. Agriculture as we know it would be more or less impossible if the average temperature was ?18 °C. In other words, it would be freezing cold even at the height of summer.

The reason that the Earth is warm enough to sustain life is because of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These gases act like a blanket, keeping the Earth warm by preventing some of the sun’s energy being re-radiated into space. The effect is exactly the same as wrapping yourself in a blanket – it reduces heat loss from your body and keeps you warm.

If we add more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the effect is like wrapping yourself in a thicker blanket: even less heat is lost. So how can we tell what effect CO2 is having on temperatures, and if the increase in atmospheric CO2 is really making the planet warmer?

One way of measuring the effect of CO2 is by using satellites to compare how much energy is arriving from the sun, and how much is leaving the Earth. What scientists have seen over the last few decades is a gradual decrease in the amount of energy being re-radiated back into space. In the same period, the amount of energy arriving from the sun has not changed very much at all. This is the first piece of evidence: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

(http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg)

Total Earth Heat Content from Church et al. (2011)

What can keep the energy in the atmosphere? The answer is greenhouse gases. Science has known about the effect of certain gases for over a century. They ‘capture’ energy, and then emit it in random directions. The primary greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapour, nitrous oxide and ozone – comprise around 1% of the air.

This tiny amount has a very powerful effect, keeping the planet 33°C (59.4°F) warmer than it would be without them. (The main components of the atmosphere – nitrogen and oxygen – are not greenhouse gases, because they are virtually unaffected by long-wave, or infrared, radiation). This is the second piece of evidence: a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere.

For our next piece of evidence, we must look at the amount of CO2 in the air. We know from bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that before the industrial revolution, the amount of CO2 in the air was approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In June 2013, the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Hawaii announced that, for the first time in thousands of years, the amount of CO2 in the air had gone up to 400ppm. That information gives us the next piece of evidence; CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years.

(http://www.sksforum.org/image.php?t=11005&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsksforum.org%2Fimage.php%3Fu%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.skepticalscience.com%252Fimages%252FCO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif)

Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

The Smoking Gun

The final piece of evidence is ‘the smoking gun’, the proof that CO2 is causing the increases in temperature. CO2 traps energy at very specific wavelengths, while other greenhouse gases trap different wavelengths.  In physics, these wavelengths can be measured using a technique called spectroscopy. Here’s an example:

(http://www.sksforum.org/image.php?t=11005&u=http%3A%2F%2Fsksforum.org%2Fimage.php%3Fu%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.skepticalscience.com%252Fimages%252FGreenhouse_Spectrum.gif)

Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).

The graph shows different wavelengths of energy, measured at the Earth’s surface. Among the spikes you can see energy being radiated back to Earth by ozone (O3), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20). But the spike for CO2 on the left dwarfs all the other greenhouse gases, and tells us something very important: most of the energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelength of energy captured by CO2.

Summing Up

Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.

Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.

Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.

And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.

The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 08, 2014, 03:52:21 PM
I'm going to plant my living Christmas tree this weekend for you beems. Should soak up a little CO2.

(http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/gases-in-atemosphere.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 08, 2014, 04:05:18 PM
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/28/is-earth-in-energy-deficit/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 08, 2014, 09:36:52 PM
I'm going to plant my living Christmas tree this weekend for you beems. Should soak up a little CO2.

(http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/gases-in-atemosphere.jpg)

what kind is it?  i've heard that sometimes they sell pinus pinea as living xmas trees, but i haven't seen that myself.  i've also heard that they don't transplant well and it's best to grow them from seed.  it's hard to tell what's true and what's fiction, sometimes.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 08, 2014, 09:37:15 PM
BMW is one dumb mother rough rider.

Also, those time article  :ROFL:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 08, 2014, 10:19:18 PM
I'm going to plant my living Christmas tree this weekend for you beems. Should soak up a little CO2.

(http://www.kidsgeo.com/images/gases-in-atemosphere.jpg)

what kind is it?  i've heard that sometimes they sell pinus pinea as living xmas trees, but i haven't seen that myself.  i've also heard that they don't transplant well and it's best to grow them from seed.  it's hard to tell what's true and what's fiction, sometimes.

It's an Aleppo (Pinus halepensis) that is used for landscaping in the warmer parts of the county. Last year I bought a Monterey pine (Pinus radiata)  and it did great with lots of new growth until September, then just dried up in a 2 week time span. I'm not sure if it was lack of water when I went on vacation or it got some type of disease.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 08, 2014, 11:59:11 PM
prolly got too hot.  the aleppo should be bulletproof, but i dunno if its seeds taste good.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 11, 2014, 09:39:06 AM
(http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/01/580x383xDevil-and-Warming-copy-600x397.jpg.pagespeed.ic._JEz5vJ2nM.webp)

(http://3-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/01/502x500xGore-selfie-copy.jpg.pagespeed.ic.gugjWZalNq.webp)

(http://1-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/01/580x377xIce-Irony-copy-600x390.jpg.pagespeed.ic.H0IVu3WV4r.webp)

(http://2-ps.googleusercontent.com/h/www.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2014/01/470x374xRegulate-Everything-copy.jpg.pagespeed.ic.sHvmydOlPU.webp)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 11, 2014, 12:05:31 PM
Wrong thread
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 14, 2014, 09:14:20 PM
Politics as usual. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114 (http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114)

Quote
Senate Democrats pledging to get more aggressive on climate change will soon pressure the major TV networks to give the topic far greater attention on the Sunday talking-head shows.

Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, are gathering colleagues' signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they're ignoring global warming.

"It is beyond my comprehension that you have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, that their Sunday shows have discussed climate change in 2012, collectively, for all of eight minutes," Sanders said, citing analysis by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America.

Sanders mentioned the letter during a press conference with most other members of Senate Democrats' new, 19-member Climate Action Task Force, and he elaborated on it in a brief interview afterward.

"Sunday news shows are obviously important because they talk to millions of people, but they go beyond that by helping to define what the establishment considers to be important and what is often discussed during the rest of the week," he said.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 14, 2014, 10:26:02 PM
Liberal media in action . . .
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 15, 2014, 01:14:31 PM
Wait, the government can tell the media what to put on TV?  :Wha:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on January 17, 2014, 08:28:32 PM
Politics as usual. http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114 (http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/democrats-plan-to-pressure-tv-networks-into-covering-climate-change-20140114)

Quote
Senate Democrats pledging to get more aggressive on climate change will soon pressure the major TV networks to give the topic far greater attention on the Sunday talking-head shows.

Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, are gathering colleagues' signatures on a letter to the networks asserting that they're ignoring global warming.

"It is beyond my comprehension that you have ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox, that their Sunday shows have discussed climate change in 2012, collectively, for all of eight minutes," Sanders said, citing analysis by the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for America.

Sanders mentioned the letter during a press conference with most other members of Senate Democrats' new, 19-member Climate Action Task Force, and he elaborated on it in a brief interview afterward.

"Sunday news shows are obviously important because they talk to millions of people, but they go beyond that by helping to define what the establishment considers to be important and what is often discussed during the rest of the week," he said.

This is more terrifying than global warmingchange
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 18, 2014, 07:59:49 AM
Has anyone ever read a "Live Science" article linked off Yahoo news. Good lord :facepalm:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on January 21, 2014, 02:26:41 PM
from liberal rag NASA

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-term-climate-warming-trend/#.Ut69kmQo73R

(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/19d8wfbcuuzbdgif/ku-xlarge.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The1BigWillie on January 21, 2014, 03:49:07 PM
I like it warmer.  I like the ocean. More warm more ocean.  Win Win.

 :Woohoo:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 21, 2014, 07:04:39 PM
I like how libtards are unable to distinguish between AGW and the weather and have no concept as to how old earth is (even though they hate Jesus and are certain its more than 2014 years old)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 21, 2014, 07:24:06 PM
the world's leading physicists are wrong about AGW and i am right because jesus and rush and some republicans in the house said so.
:lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 21, 2014, 10:51:22 PM
that map is fake.  you can tell because there isn't a persistent orange blob obscuring central california.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 21, 2014, 11:58:05 PM
that map is fake.  you can tell because there isn't a persistent orange blob obscuring central california.

I need rain  :impatient:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on January 22, 2014, 09:35:15 AM
is that super hot pocket of Brazil caused by all the super hot chicks in thongs? JUST LOOK AT THOSE BOZANGAZZZZZZIP
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cire on January 22, 2014, 09:47:05 AM
4th warmest year on record
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on January 27, 2014, 10:52:21 AM
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/01/26/dnt-canadian-pipeline-explosion.cbc.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 27, 2014, 11:03:45 AM
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/01/26/dnt-canadian-pipeline-explosion.cbc.html

 :dunno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on January 27, 2014, 11:06:00 AM
KSU Wildcats is all about getting dat pipe so we don't have tanker car fires any more.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 27, 2014, 11:09:47 AM
KSU Wildcats is all about getting dat pipe so we don't have tanker car fires any more.

That was a natural gas pipeline that exploded. Oil pipelines don't explode on their own and are much, much safer than rail.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on January 27, 2014, 11:16:20 AM
KSU Wildcats is all about getting dat pipe so we don't have tanker car fires any more.

That was a natural gas pipeline that exploded. Oil pipelines don't explode on their own and are much, much safer than rail.

Seems safe to me!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 27, 2014, 12:39:58 PM
pipelines are more efficient than trains or anything else, so not using them is stupid.  which pipeline, train or tanker has blown up or spilled most recently is just noise.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on January 27, 2014, 12:45:23 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 27, 2014, 01:04:34 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0)

The most ridiculous, least informative article I've read in a long time.

The world is overpopulated and nothing short of forced sterilization will fix what's truly wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 27, 2014, 01:09:00 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0)

The most ridiculous, least informative article I've read in a long time.

The world is overpopulated and nothing short of forced sterilization will fix what's truly wrong.

Remember when mocat calculated that everyone in the world would have room to just move to Texas? Oh, man. :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The1BigWillie on January 27, 2014, 02:28:14 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0)

The most ridiculous, least informative article I've read in a long time.

The world is overpopulated and nothing short of forced sterilization will fix what's truly wrong.

Remember when mocat calculated that everyone in the world would have room to just move to Texas? Oh, man. :lol:

Actually I think it was New Hampshire.   :Ugh:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on January 27, 2014, 03:18:32 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/science/earth/threat-to-bottom-line-spurs-action-on-climate.html?_r=0)

The most ridiculous, least informative article I've read in a long time.

The world is overpopulated and nothing short of forced sterilization will fix what's truly wrong.



#teameconomist


Quote
Although many Republicans oppose the idea of a price or tax on carbon pollution, some conservative economists endorse the idea. Among them are Arthur B. Laffer, senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan; the Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw, who was economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign; and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the head of the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, and an economic adviser to the 2008 presidential campaign of Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican.

“There’s no question that if we get substantial changes in atmospheric temperatures, as all the evidence suggests, that it’s going to contribute to sea-level rise,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. “There will be agriculture and economic effects — it’s inescapable.” He added, “I’d be shocked if people supported anything other than a carbon tax — that’s how economists think about it.”
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 27, 2014, 04:25:19 PM
Haven't checked this thread in a while. Are there any scientific studies saying the global temperature isn't rising yet?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on January 27, 2014, 04:55:11 PM
the world is nowhere close to over populated
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Mr Bread on January 27, 2014, 05:27:59 PM
the world is nowhere close to over populated

subjective
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 27, 2014, 06:26:04 PM
pipelines are more efficient than trains or anything else, so not using them is stupid.  which pipeline, train or tanker has blown up or spilled most recently is just noise.

This. I can't believe there's even a debate on the utility of pipelines compared to train, truck, etc.

Also this :

http://news.msn.com/us/more-oil-spilled-from-trains-in-2013-than-in-previous-4-decades
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 27, 2014, 06:36:45 PM
the world is nowhere close to over populated

subjective

subjective yes (i subjectively completely disagree), also objectively wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 27, 2014, 06:42:25 PM
Haven't checked this thread in a while. Are there any scientific studies saying the global temperature isn't rising yet?

Yeah

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on January 27, 2014, 07:30:07 PM
the world is nowhere close to over populated

subjective

subjective yes (i subjectively completely disagree), also objectively wrong.

Objectively, how close are we (humans on earth) to overpopulated?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 27, 2014, 09:49:04 PM
Objectively, how close are we (humans on earth) to overpopulated?

our ability to measure the degree of overpopulation is imprecise, but we can record and evaluate some measurements.

43% of the earth's land surface is altered by human use.
25% of the world's primary production is used my humans.

obviously, much of the earth's land mass is inhabitable and/or marginally usable for humans, and just as obviously, we already concentrate our use in the most advantageous regions.  there's a lot of slop, but it is unambiguous that we use a much greater % than 43% of the land surface's potential to support humans.

primary production is an even sloppier figure.  humans can use some production more intensively, some more efficiently, and significantly increase (or decrease) the total.  nonetheless there are physical limits on primary production and we already monopolize a substantial proportion.

although a value judgement, and hence subjective, i assume that the notion that we do not wish to limit the economic prospects of the current and future human population to a third-world lifestyle rather than one more closely resembling our own is widespread enough that we can also consider as objective the notion that we must also include the expansion of resource use by the current population as part and parcel to growth in population size.


neither of the above metrics speak to real, but difficult to measure, concepts such as climate change, ecosystem services or loss of biodiversity (resilience), all of which impose other limits on the sustainable expansion of the human population.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on January 27, 2014, 10:28:23 PM
thanks, sys. I appreciate your thorough answer. It would be a very interesting study to me to see, at the current global population level, what the equilibrium sustainable standard of living would be with all people being at an equal standard. Obviously 7 billion at suburban omaha levels would smoke the planet in an instant, but maybe all of us could spread out and thrive forever at rural arkansas levels? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 28, 2014, 09:00:33 AM
thanks, sys. I appreciate your thorough answer. It would be a very interesting study to me to see, at the current global population level, what the equilibrium sustainable standard of living would be with all people being at an equal standard. Obviously 7 billion at suburban omaha levels would smoke the planet in an instant, but maybe all of us could spread out and thrive forever at rural arkansas levels?

Spreading out is not the most efficient way for us to live.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 28, 2014, 01:37:39 PM
Objectively, how close are we (humans on earth) to overpopulated?

our ability to measure the degree of overpopulation is imprecise, but we can record and evaluate some measurements.

43% of the earth's land surface is altered by human use.
25% of the world's primary production is used my humans.

obviously, much of the earth's land mass is inhabitable and/or marginally usable for humans, and just as obviously, we already concentrate our use in the most advantageous regions.  there's a lot of slop, but it is unambiguous that we use a much greater % than 43% of the land surface's potential to support humans.

where did you get these figures?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 28, 2014, 01:42:48 PM
google.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 28, 2014, 02:24:40 PM
Seems legit
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 28, 2014, 02:29:27 PM
If you add up the ag, pasture, and urban land use, it comes up to about the 43% sys used. 8.9 billion by 2050  :sdeek:

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/article/i1052-5173-22-12-4.htm (http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/article/i1052-5173-22-12-4.htm)

(http://i.imgur.com/jy0hOlX.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 28, 2014, 03:04:50 PM
Seems legit

weird comment.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 28, 2014, 03:11:02 PM
If you add up the ag, pasture, and urban land use, it comes up to about the 43% sys used. 8.9 billion by 2050  :sdeek:

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/article/i1052-5173-22-12-4.htm (http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/article/i1052-5173-22-12-4.htm)

(http://i.imgur.com/jy0hOlX.gif)

Looks like it's actually 51%:

http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/22/12/table/i1052-5173-22-12-4-T01.pdf

Although almost half of that total is "Permanent meadows and pastures (mostly uncultivated)".

I think changes in diet could really improve the efficiency of cultivated land. A very high percentage of grain grown (especially in the US) goes to feed livestock:

http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights22
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 28, 2014, 03:16:37 PM
You don't say Rusty.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on January 28, 2014, 08:01:08 PM
The Ever-Persistent, Always-Destructive Myth of Overpopulation (http://blog.acton.org/archives/64932-ever-persistent-always-destructive-myth-overpopulation.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Mr Bread on January 29, 2014, 11:59:25 AM
The Ever-Persistent, Always-Destructive Myth of Overpopulation (http://blog.acton.org/archives/64932-ever-persistent-always-destructive-myth-overpopulation.html)

I do appreciate that they mock the doomsday overpopulation folks throughout history for their flawed projections, yet they proudly trot out their own that population will peak and them decline.  Myth!?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Mr Bread on January 29, 2014, 12:04:58 PM
Objectively, how close are we (humans on earth) to overpopulated?

Can't really say.

ho hum
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 29, 2014, 01:31:04 PM
Is overpopulation going to become (or already) a liberal vs conservative thing?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 29, 2014, 08:02:52 PM
Is overpopulation going to become (or already) a liberal vs conservative thing?

if enough people ever start to care about it, it will.  people now just need to be careful not to advocate a position their party affiliation will force them to abandon.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Stupid Fitz on January 30, 2014, 02:05:02 PM
It's over fellas. I just saw that NASA gif thingy where the giant orange blob has been overtaking us for the last 6 years. It has been an honor friends.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 30, 2014, 04:34:10 PM
Is overpopulation going to become (or already) a liberal vs conservative thing?

if enough people ever start to care about it, it will.  people now just need to be careful not to advocate a position their party affiliation will force them to abandon.

Wait - so are conservatives supposed to believe in this crap, or not?

And wasn't this a big thing back in the 60s? I think they predicted the world would be some sort of zombie apocalypse by the 80s.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 30, 2014, 04:43:47 PM
Is overpopulation going to become (or already) a liberal vs conservative thing?

if enough people ever start to care about it, it will.  people now just need to be careful not to advocate a position their party affiliation will force them to abandon.

Wait - so are conservatives supposed to believe in this crap, or not?

And wasn't this a big thing back in the 60s? I think they predicted the world would be some sort of zombie apocalypse by the 80s.

Well, I certainly believe that the population of the earth will continue to increase until we no longer have ample food and resources to facilitate that growth, but you are free to believe whatever fantasy you like.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 30, 2014, 04:48:05 PM
I certainly believe that the population of the earth will continue to increase until we no longer have ample food and resources to facilitate that growth.

a lot of the newer projections are predicting that population growth will abate and either plateau or decline.  don't recall well, but i think around 2050 or so.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 30, 2014, 04:49:29 PM
Wait - so are conservatives supposed to believe in this crap, or not?

you'll have to wait until you're told what to think, just like everyone else.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 30, 2014, 04:53:42 PM
I certainly believe that the population of the earth will continue to increase until we no longer have ample food and resources to facilitate that growth.

a lot of the newer projections are predicting that population growth will abate and either plateau or decline.  don't recall well, but i think around 2050 or so.

What is the reasoning for the plateau, though? The projections that I have seen would make the 2050 populations pretty hard to feed without a renewed interest in farming coupled with some pretty radical advances in ag technology.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 30, 2014, 04:59:06 PM
What is the reasoning for the plateau, though?

declining birth rates in developing countries.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 30, 2014, 05:11:11 PM
What is the reasoning for the plateau, though?

declining birth rates in developing countries.

That seems like a pretty big leap in logic to me, but I hope they are right.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2014, 09:22:30 PM
What is the reasoning for the plateau, though?

declining birth rates in developing countries.

That seems like a pretty big leap in logic to me, but I hope they are right.

Declining birth rates in developed countries is a fact. If an country is developing, its a pretty safe bet its birth rate will decline.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 30, 2014, 09:29:58 PM
What is the reasoning for the plateau, though?

declining birth rates in developing countries.

That seems like a pretty big leap in logic to me, but I hope they are right.

Declining birth rates in developed countries is a fact. If an country is developing, its a pretty safe bet its birth rate will decline.

I'm not saying it's not going to happen. I'm just saying that a model that relies on a change in human behavior seems a whole lot less reliable than a model that relies on a proven scientific theory being accurate.

Can you give an example of a developing country that is going to be fully developed in 30 years?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2014, 09:35:21 PM
What is the reasoning for the plateau, though?

declining birth rates in developing countries.

That seems like a pretty big leap in logic to me, but I hope they are right.

Declining birth rates in developed countries is a fact. If an country is developing, its a pretty safe bet its birth rate will decline.

I'm not saying it's not going to happen. I'm just saying that a model that relies on a change in human behavior seems a whole lot less reliable than a model that relies on a proven scientific theory being accurate.

Can you give an example of a developing country that is going to be fully developed in 30 years?

We'll find out in 30 years, its just a projection like "the models"
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CHONGS on January 30, 2014, 09:36:14 PM
Wait - so are conservatives supposed to believe in this crap, or not?

you'll have to wait until you're told what to think, just like everyone else.
just a fantastic response... Goddamn  sys I salute you.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on January 31, 2014, 01:29:32 AM
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_HIGHLIGHTS.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 31, 2014, 08:12:18 AM
This is what I was thinking of. 1968. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb) :runaway:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/da/The_Population_Bomb.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 31, 2014, 08:13:59 AM
Wait - so are conservatives supposed to believe in this crap, or not?

you'll have to wait until you're told what to think, just like everyone else.

I'll go ahead and assume that conservatives aren't going to subscribe to this latest knee-jerk hysteria. If some of them do, I'll just call them RINOs.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on February 06, 2014, 02:08:20 PM
coulda gone in the investing thread, i'm putting it here.


http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/GMO_QtlyLetter_ALL_4Q2013.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: DeoKat on February 09, 2014, 01:54:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5-Mw5_EBk0g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5-Mw5_EBk0g)

not sorry if luked
:lol:  This 10:10 thing sounds familiar  :jeffy:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 19, 2014, 06:07:50 PM
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1401/1401.8235.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 19, 2014, 07:40:30 PM
Anyone else find it ironic that the people who constantly say "the science is settled" denigrate their detractors by calling them the "flat earth society".
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 19, 2014, 11:16:35 PM
Anyone else find it ironic that the people who constantly say "the science is settled" denigrate their detractors by calling them the "flat earth society".

Yes, and the "denier" thing is hilarious. "How can you deny that my theory is fact!?"
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2014, 01:14:01 PM
The science is settled regarding the greenhouse effect. I agree it is ridiculous to say science is settled on the impact humans have on the greenhouse effect and that anyone saying they know with a high degree of certainty what will happen with the climate (either way) is very foolish.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on February 27, 2014, 12:32:02 PM
http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 27, 2014, 12:57:50 PM
http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

These kinds of statements drive me crazy. Zero proof to back it up.

Quote
Increases in the atmospheric concentrations of these gases cause Earth to warm by trapping more of this heat. Human activities - especially the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution - have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by about 40%, with more than half the increase occurring since 1970.

Then you read an article like this one (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-circulation-may-have-released-co2-at-end-of-ice-ages/) that puts into perspective how tiny the amount of human generated CO2 is relative to the total amount of CO2 in the world. We still have little clue as to how the oceans, winds and currents work.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on February 27, 2014, 01:01:57 PM
Quote
Increases in the atmospheric concentrations of these gases cause Earth to warm by trapping more of this heat. Human activities - especially the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution - have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by about 40%, with more than half the increase occurring since 1970.

maybe you should read more closely.  there is evidence that supports every point in that statement.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 27, 2014, 01:18:30 PM
Quote
Increases in the atmospheric concentrations of these gases cause Earth to warm by trapping more of this heat. Human activities - especially the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the Industrial Revolution - have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations by about 40%, with more than half the increase occurring since 1970.

maybe you should read more closely.  there is evidence that supports every point in that statement.

I don't see any evidence stated in that article.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on February 27, 2014, 01:25:33 PM
I don't see any evidence stated in that article.

the graphs (all were cited, i believe)?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 27, 2014, 01:27:59 PM
Looks like an old fashioned who can find evidence in that article-off.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 27, 2014, 02:36:39 PM
This may have already been mentioned, but the global warming hypotheses (the models) projected far greater warming than has actually occurred, and the warming now appears to have leveled off and is possibly even declining (to the extent such "global temperature" can and have been accurately measured), despite spewing more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Huh.

Aside from the broken models, the best evidence that the klimate krazies are losing the debate is their increasing unwillingness to debate at all, resorting more and more to histrionic name calling and demands for censorship. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/02/26/alarmists-lame-outrage-highlights-strength-of-krauthammers-climate-skepticism/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/02/26/alarmists-lame-outrage-highlights-strength-of-krauthammers-climate-skepticism/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 27, 2014, 05:42:29 PM
So is the more extreme weather (hot and cold) just cyclical?  God is angry at us?   God is happy with us and wants us to have a lot of exciting weather?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 27, 2014, 05:59:42 PM
So is the more extreme weather (hot and cold) just cyclical?  God is angry at us?   God is happy with us and wants us to have a lot of exciting weather?

It's actually normal weather.  There was nothing super about sandy. It had happened before. Why do you think we got manhattan island so cheap?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on February 27, 2014, 10:03:21 PM
So is the more extreme weather (hot and cold) just cyclical?  God is angry at us?   God is happy with us and wants us to have a lot of exciting weather?

?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on February 27, 2014, 11:43:51 PM
So is the more extreme weather (hot and cold) just cyclical?

?

summer & winter (earth orbiting sun for you conservative dems).  yes, roughly cyclical (6 months).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 04, 2014, 05:17:54 AM
Insanity. 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/06/bill-gates-climate-scientists-geoengineering
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 04, 2014, 06:07:06 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/25/geoengineering-side-effects-potentially-disastrous-scientists
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 04, 2014, 08:47:15 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/25/geoengineering-side-effects-potentially-disastrous-scientists

Unintended consequences are a cornerstone on liberal groupthink politics, and I would expect this to be no different.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 04, 2014, 02:43:36 PM
Neat picture. Guess what this is?

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/04/article-0-1C05881400000578-796_964x601.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on March 04, 2014, 03:00:04 PM
Neat picture. Guess what this is?

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/03/04/article-0-1C05881400000578-796_964x601.jpg)

Shopped
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 04, 2014, 03:49:36 PM
Niagra?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 04, 2014, 10:02:00 PM
Fragglerock?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 04, 2014, 10:07:26 PM
It is Niagra, but Fragglerock was a pretty smart guess.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on March 05, 2014, 12:51:34 AM
It's cold = global warming is a myth
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 05, 2014, 05:39:51 AM
Hey now, the IPCC used the scientific term "extremely likely" in regards to CO2 emissions causing "Climate Change".   So the science is "settled".

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 11, 2014, 03:31:08 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-climate-change-helped-genghis-khan-scientists-believe-a-sudden-period-of-warmer-weather-allowed-the-mongols-to-invade-with-such-success-9182580.html

Historians and Archeologists believe there was a small but vocal Green Movement within the Mongol hordes who were actually given a brief seat at the leadership table to air their grievances and concerns about the emissions from burning wood and animal flatulence.   Ultimately Khan tabled the discussion, beheaded the Green spokesperson and raided Afghanistan.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on March 31, 2014, 08:28:12 AM
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/pr_wg2/140330_pr_wgII_spm_en.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on March 31, 2014, 10:07:31 AM
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/pr_wg2/140330_pr_wgII_spm_en.pdf

Not good at all.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 31, 2014, 10:16:52 AM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 31, 2014, 11:47:30 AM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 31, 2014, 03:24:11 PM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.

 :pray:  (I'm not so sure it is, tho, 50%....)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on March 31, 2014, 03:44:35 PM
i wish the fiscal conservatives had a better understanding of science so they could help make better decisions regarding the economic impact of AGW.  :frown:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 31, 2014, 06:14:15 PM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.

 :pray:  (I'm not so sure it is, tho, 50%....)

Most forecasts are at 60+% and the latest ones are at 75%.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ELNINO1-638x371.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on March 31, 2014, 06:15:31 PM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.

 :pray:  (I'm not so sure it is, tho, 50%....)

Most forecasts are at 60+% and the latest ones are at 75%.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ELNINO1-638x371.jpg)

agenda driven, can't trust any of that nonsense
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on March 31, 2014, 06:22:27 PM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.

http://www.producer.com/2014/02/unusual-el-nino-may-deliver-hot-dry-summer-in-west/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 31, 2014, 06:31:25 PM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.

 :pray:  (I'm not so sure it is, tho, 50%....)

Most forecasts are at 60+% and the latest ones are at 75%.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ELNINO1-638x371.jpg)

agenda driven, can't trust any of that nonsense

Actual measurements untouched by a computer model or liberal brain.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/fig011.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on March 31, 2014, 06:50:35 PM
Is it ever going to rain in SW KS?  I swear.  Pisses me off.

El Nino coming.

 :pray:  (I'm not so sure it is, tho, 50%....)

Most forecasts are at 60+% and the latest ones are at 75%.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/ELNINO1-638x371.jpg)

agenda driven, can't trust any of that nonsense

Actual measurements untouched by a computer model or liberal brain.

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/fig011.jpg)

lol, sounds like you're in the pocket of big weather instruments.  who do you think makes those things?  AGENDA DRIVEN HEATHENS THAT'S WHO
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 31, 2014, 07:06:35 PM
That's a good point, seven. Those weather instruments are calibrated based upon unproven scientific laws and theories. They cannot be trusted.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on April 03, 2014, 05:54:05 AM
I absolutely cannot get enough of "pocket of BIG X" posts. They do for me what Steve Dave trying to make Katdaddy heel posts do for stevesie
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 06, 2014, 08:59:25 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/national-climate-assessment_n_5270541.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/national-climate-assessment_n_5270541.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 06, 2014, 09:03:10 AM
I always laugh when I see a link to the Huffington Post. I never click on it though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 06, 2014, 09:21:26 AM
http://www.globalchange.gov/ (http://www.globalchange.gov/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 06, 2014, 09:39:14 AM
I always laugh when I see a link to the Huffington Post. I never click on it though.

you should, it shows the President all sweaty because of climate change.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 06, 2014, 11:04:52 AM
http://www.globalchange.gov/ (http://www.globalchange.gov/)

Uhggg, cap & trade is going to kill the already anemic GDP. This is horrible. People that think the weather is any worse now than it was 100 years ago are morons.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 06, 2014, 11:06:18 AM
http://www.globalchange.gov/ (http://www.globalchange.gov/)

Uhggg, cap & trade is going to kill the already anemic GDP. This is horrible. People that think the weather is any worse now than it was 100 years ago are morons.

You're a rough ridin' idiot.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 06, 2014, 11:26:13 AM
http://www.globalchange.gov/ (http://www.globalchange.gov/)

Uhggg, cap & trade is going to kill the already anemic GDP. This is horrible. People that think the weather is any worse now than it was 100 years ago are morons.

You're a rough ridin' idiot.

 :eye:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 06, 2014, 11:27:40 AM
http://www.globalchange.gov/ (http://www.globalchange.gov/)

Uhggg, cap & trade is going to kill the already anemic GDP. This is horrible. People that think the weather is any worse now than it was 100 years ago are morons.

You're a rough ridin' idiot.

 :eye:

 :adios:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 06, 2014, 03:59:00 PM
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/05/130510-earth-co2-milestone-400-ppm/)

Climate Milestone: Earth’s CO2 Level Passes 400 ppm
Greenhouse gas highest since the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer.


(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/670/cache/atmospheric-co2-reach-400-ppm-carbon-dioxide-climate-change_67022_990x742.jpg)

Two teams of scientists at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii have been measuring carbon dioxide concentration there for decades, and have watched the level inch toward a new milestone.

An instrument near the summit of Mauna Loa in Hawaii has recorded a long-awaited climate milestone: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there has exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history.

The last time the concentration of Earth's main greenhouse gas reached this mark, horses and camels lived in the high Arctic. Seas were at least 30 feet higher—at a level that today would inundate major cities around the world.

The planet was about 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer. But the Earth then was in the final stage of a prolonged greenhouse epoch, and CO2 concentrations were on their way down. This time, 400 ppm is a milepost on a far more rapid uphill climb toward an uncertain climate future.

Two independent teams of scientists measure CO2 on Mauna Loa: one from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the other from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The NOAA team posted word on its web site this morning before dawn Hawaii time: The daily average for May 9 was 400.03 ppm. The Scripps team later confirmed the milestone had been crossed.

The Scripps team is led by Ralph Keeling, son of the late Charles David Keeling, who started the Mauna Loa measurements in 1958. Since then the "Keeling curve," showing the steady climb in CO2 levels caused primarily by burning fossil fuels, has become an icon of climate change.

When the elder Keeling started at Mauna Loa, the CO2 level was at 315 ppm. When he died in June 2005, it was at 382. Why did he keep at it for 47 years, fighting off periodic efforts to cut his funding? His father, he once wrote, had passed onto him a "faith that the world could be made better by devotion to just causes." Now his son and the NOAA team have taken over a measurement that captures, more than any other single number, the extent to which we are changing the world—for better or worse.

Setting the Record Straight

Since late April that number had been hovering above 399 ppm. The Scripps lab opened the vigil to the public by sending out daily tweets (under the handle @Keeling_curve) almost as soon as the data could be downloaded from Mauna Loa, at 5 a.m. Hawaii time. NOAA took to updating its website daily. The two labs' measurements typically agree within .2 ppm. Both measure the amount of CO2 in an air sample by measuring how much infrared radiation it absorbs—the same process by which CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and warms the whole planet.

(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-content/photos/000/672/cache/67217_990x742-cb1368135473.jpg)

The measurement NOAA reported for Thursday, May 9, 400.03 ppm, was for a single day. Each data point on the Keeling curve, however, is actually an average of all the measurements made at Mauna Loa over an entire month. The CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa is unlikely to surpass 400 ppm for the whole month of May.

It certainly won't exceed 400 for all of 2013. CO2 peaks in May every year. By June the level will begin falling, as spring kicks into high gear in the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the planet's land is concentrated, and plants draw CO2 out of the atmosphere to fuel their new growth. By November, the CO2 level will be 5 or 6 ppm lower than it is now.

Then the curve will turn upward again: In the winter, plants stop making new carbohydrates but continue to burn the old, respiring CO2 back into the atmosphere.

This seasonal sawtooth—think of it as the breath of northern forests—is the natural part of the Keeling curve. The man-made part is its steady upward climb from one year to the next. Both were discovered at Mauna Loa.

Dave Keeling, as he was known, chose the Hawaiian mountain for his measurements because, at over 11,000 feet and in the middle of the Pacific, it is far from forests or smokestacks that might put a local bias on the data. But even Mauna Loa is not perfectly representative of the whole planet.

NOAA also monitors CO2 at a global network of stations, and the global average consistently lags the Mauna Loa number by a few parts per million—for a simple reason.

"Mauna Loa is higher because most of the fossil fuel CO2 is emitted in the Northern Hemisphere," says NOAA scientist Pieter Tans. It takes about a year, he says, for northern pollution to spread through the Southern Hemisphere.

On the other hand, Mauna Loa lags the Arctic, where CO2 levels are higher. A year ago, NOAA reported that the average of its Arctic measurements had exceeded 400 ppm for the entire month of May, not just for a single day.

The rest of the planet will catch up soon enough. By 2015 or 2016, the whole atmosphere will be averaging 400 ppm for the whole year. What difference will that make?

Back to the Pliocene?

In a way, 400 ppm is an arbitrary milestone, like a .400 batting average in baseball. But the fact that no one has batted .400 since Ted Williams in 1941 still says something important about baseball. The same goes for CO2 in Earth's atmosphere.

Policymakers worldwide have been stymied in their effort to reach a global agreement on reducing fossil fuel emissions. Many scientists argue that the CO2 concentration must be stabilized at 450 ppm to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Some activists argue for a more ambitious goal of 350 ppm. NOAA has not recorded an average monthly CO2 reading below 350 ppm at Mauna Loa since October 1988.  (See related story: "Obama Pledges U.S. Action on Climate Change, With or Without Congress.")

The last time the concentration of CO2 was as high as 400 ppm was probably in the Pliocene Epoch, between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago. Until the 20th century, it certainly hadn't exceeded 300 ppm, let alone 400 ppm, for at least 800,000 years. That's how far back scientists have been able to measure CO2 directly in bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice cores.

But tens of millions of years ago, CO2 must have been much higher than it is now—there's no other way to explain how warm the Earth was then. In the Eocene, some 50 million years ago, there were alligators and tapirs on Ellesmere Island, which lies off northern Greenland in the Canadian Arctic. They were living in swampy forests like those in the southeastern United States today. CO2 may have been anywhere from two to ten times higher in the Eocene than it is today. (See related: "Hothouse Earth.")

(http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-content/photos/000/672/cache/67219_990x742-cb1368135464.jpg)

Over the next 45 million years, most of it was converted to marine limestone, as CO2-laden rains dissolved the ingredients of limestone out of rocks on land and washed them down rivers to the sea. CO2-belching volcanoes failed to keep pace, so the atmospheric level of the gas slowly declined. Some time during the Pliocene, it probably crossed the 400 ppm mark, as it's doing now-but back then it was on its way down. As a result, at the end of the Pliocene, it became cold enough for continental ice sheets to start forming in the northern hemisphere. The Pliocene, says geologist Maureen Raymo of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, "was the last gasp of warmth before the slow slide into the Ice Ages."

What was Earth like then? In Africa, grasslands were replacing forests and our ancestors were climbing down from the trees. (See related: "The Evolutionary Road.") On Ellesmere, there were no longer alligators and cypress trees, but there were beavers and larch trees and horses and giant camels—and not much ice. The planet was three to four degrees Celsius warmer than it was in the 19th century, before man-made global warming began.

If anything, those numbers understate how different the Pliocene climate was. The tropical sea surface was about as warm as it is now, says Alexey Fedorov of Yale University, but the temperature gradient between the tropics and the poles—which drives the jet streams in the mid-latitudes—was much smaller. The east-west gradient across the Pacific Ocean—which drives the El Niño-La Niña oscillation—was almost nonexistent. In effect, the ocean was locked in a permanent El Niño. Global weather patterns would have been completely different in the Pliocene.

And yet the two main drivers of climate—the level of CO2, and the parameters of Earth's orbit, which determine how much sunlight falls where and at what season—were essentially the same as today. Fedorov calls it the Pliocene Paradox.

Climate scientists are just beginning to crack it, he says. Maybe clouds outside the tropics were darker in the Pliocene, such that they bounced less sunlight back to space. Maybe the warm ocean was stirred by a lot more hurricanes.

Hanging over this academic research is a very nonacademic issue: Could our climate be capable of flipping to a completely different state? "That's the big question—whether CO2 can move us to the Pliocene," says Fedorov.

Rising Seas

Beavers and camels on Ellesmere Island, instead of glaciers, might not be so bad.  But there was a lot less ice in general in the Pliocene. That means there was a lot more water in the ocean, which means sea level was a lot higher—how high exactly, no one knows.

"The estimates have been all over the map," Raymo says. They've ranged from 10 meters (33 feet) to 40 meters (131 feet) higher than today. But even the conservative estimate, were it to recur today, would mean flooding land inhabited by a quarter of the U.S. population.

Raised Pliocene shorelines have been identified all over the world. One is the Orangeburg Scarp, a wave-cut terrace that parallels the Atlantic coast of the U.S. from Florida to Virginia. Typically it lies more than a hundred miles inland. In the Pliocene, the Gulf Stream flowed past that terrace, over what is now the coastal plain.

The question is: How much has the sea receded since then, and how much has the land risen? Raymo has been asking that question on Pliocene shores in the U.S., Africa, Antarctica.

Land can rise, she explains, because it is was once depressed by massive ice sheets and is now rebounding. It can also rise because the underlying mantle is a hot, viscous fluid that pushes it up—by different amounts in different places. In Virginia the Orangeburg Scarp rises around 70 meters (220 feet) but in Florida only 30 meters (100 feet) above the current sea level. Yet in the Pliocene it was right at sea level in both places. What was that sea level?

Raymo's best guess at the moment, to be confirmed by further fieldwork and modeling, is that the last time Earth had 400 ppm of CO2 in its atmosphere, sea level was somewhere between 10 meters (33 feet) and 20 meters (66 feet) higher than today. To raise sea level 10 meters today would require melting most of the ice in Greenland and West Antarctica. To raise it 20 meters would require melting both those ice sheets entirely and some of the giant East Antarctic ice sheet too.

Ice-Age Clues

Could that happen at 400 ppm? Evidence from the past half million years suggests it could, given enough time.

Since the Pliocene, glacial periods, during which ice sheets advanced over northern continents, have alternated with interglacial periods like the one we're in today. The timing has been set by orbital variations, but CO2 has amplified their effect. For the past 800,000 years at least, its atmospheric concentration has marched up and down in step with the ice, but in the opposite direction.

In the last interglacial period, around 120,000 years ago, sea level was as much as 8 meters (26 feet) higher than today, Raymo says. In an earlier interglacial known as Stage 11, around 400,000 years ago, "the evidence is very strong that sea level was at least 9 meters higher than today. The ice sheets didn't stick around."

In Stage 11, the sunlight distribution was a little less favorable to ice sheets than it is now. CO2 peaked then at 290 ppm.

"What everything is telling you is that the system is very sensitive," says Raymo. "The threshold for losing the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets is very close to where we are now. Everything in the geologic record says we're very close. You don't need a lot of CO2—you just need a little bit of warming, and it doesn't matter how you get it."

It took between a thousand and a few thousand years, at the end of Stage 11, to melt all or most of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The whole interglacial lasted 30,000 years, nearly three times as long as ours has lasted so far. So the warming had a long time to build up. That's the good news.

But at 400 ppm, CO2 is much higher now, and it's still climbing fast. And even if we could stop that rise tomorrow, the planet's temperature would still climb for centuries.

"For me personally that's the scary thing," says Raymo. "We really don't know what we've already committed ourselves to."




(Just another case of liberal scientists using scientific measurements to validate their liberal talking points, I'm sure.)

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 06, 2014, 05:57:10 PM
Some pretty far flung claims in the NCA.

Sea Level:  Rising since last Ice Age

Participation Variability:  Never constant to begin with

Extreme Weather:  No significant change in occurrence

Sea Ice receding:  Record annual Antarctic ice . . . ice in Arctic and Antarctic is currently at its 3rd highest level since holistic records began.

Climate Models More Accurate than ever:  Reality-they're less accurate than ever.





Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 07, 2014, 11:15:04 AM
Cong. Tim Huelskamp ?@CongHuelskamp  16h
King Obama to strike again with his #pen&phone. Forget the Constitution. Raze the Clean Air Act. Chicago style http://goo.gl/STFllX
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 07, 2014, 11:41:21 AM
I think there are a lot of us out there that perhaps don't believe 100% in man made climate change, but are willing to take action anyway (sometimes because it's for a greater economic good).  But I've never heard anyone put forth a solid plan of how to get other countries with whom we compete economically to take identical actions so that we are not even further disadvantaged. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 07, 2014, 12:29:37 PM
I think there are a lot of us out there that perhaps don't believe 100% in man made climate change, but are willing to take action anyway (sometimes because it's for a greater economic good).  But I've never heard anyone put forth a solid plan of how to get other countries with whom we compete economically to take identical actions so that we are not even further disadvantaged.

Well you should, because it's 100% true.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 12:54:38 PM
I think there are a lot of us out there that perhaps don't believe 100% in man made climate change, but are willing to take action anyway (sometimes because it's for a greater economic good).  But I've never heard anyone put forth a solid plan of how to get other countries with whom we compete economically to take identical actions so that we are not even further disadvantaged.

Well you should, because it's 100% true.

There has been no global warming since you were in kindergarten.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 07, 2014, 01:01:26 PM
March marked the 38th consecutive March and 349th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average temperature for March was in 1976 and the last below-average temperature for any month was February 1985.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 07, 2014, 01:11:00 PM
Okay, whatever guys, what next?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 01:15:14 PM
If you plot these numbers from the RSS satellite data, you'll see that the temperature trend is flat since Aug of 1996.

http://data.remss.com/MSU/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TTT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt (http://data.remss.com/MSU/monthly_time_series/RSS_Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TTT_Anomalies_Land_and_Ocean_v03_3.txt)

Global warming studies and modeling is a $2.6 billion dollar a year government funded industry. Do you think any scientist on the dole is going to try and stop that gravy train?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 07, 2014, 01:19:34 PM
wait, the gov spends $2.6 billion to pay people to tell them the planet is getting hotter?

link?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 07, 2014, 01:24:08 PM
I think there are a lot of us out there that perhaps don't believe 100% in man made climate change, but are willing to take action anyway (sometimes because it's for a greater economic good).  But I've never heard anyone put forth a solid plan of how to get other countries with whom we compete economically to take identical actions so that we are not even further disadvantaged.

Well you should, because it's 100% true.

There has been no global warming since you were in kindergarten.


That's just simply not true.  Just because climate change temperature anomalies don't follow a perfectly linear pattern doesn't mean there isn't a general warming trend.  2012 was the hottest year on record for the United States.


http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade (http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade)

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/YearlySurfaceTempAnom1880-2010.jpg?itok=tCps1K4T)

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/oceanprofile_tempBalmaseda1960-2008.jpg?itok=JtinYFm8)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: illBisonYourdele on May 07, 2014, 01:46:27 PM
http://www.gotquestions.org/global-warming.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 01:50:10 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7ScXmwsVmh4/U2YdDk8-OoI/AAAAAAAAjHk/-AGKJTaFvWw/s800/17years9months.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 07, 2014, 02:02:06 PM
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 07, 2014, 02:24:14 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7ScXmwsVmh4/U2YdDk8-OoI/AAAAAAAAjHk/-AGKJTaFvWw/s800/17years9months.png)


Do you even understand why this graph is deceiving?  It's taking the biggest anomaly of a warming trend, and comparing it to the next 15+ years, which are also some of the hottest years on record.  Again, this is how it looks over the course of 100+ years:

(http://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/styles/inline_all/public/YearlySurfaceTempAnom1880-2010.jpg?itok=tCps1K4T)


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 07, 2014, 02:25:31 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7ScXmwsVmh4/U2YdDk8-OoI/AAAAAAAAjHk/-AGKJTaFvWw/s800/17years9months.png)

lol wut
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 07, 2014, 02:26:18 PM
FTR, I don't think beems understands why the graph is deceiving, either.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 07, 2014, 02:30:41 PM
FTR, I don't think beems understands why the graph is deceiving, either.

x2
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 07, 2014, 02:33:23 PM
FTR, I don't think beems understands why the graph is deceiving, either.


I don't think you're smart enough to understand what I'm talking about.  Perhaps this will help:

Quote
At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)

According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data. Looking at CRU’s graph below, you can see the result of that smoothing in black.

(http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2006/10/cru_2005.gif)

Quote
Clearly 1998 is an anomaly and the trend has not reversed. (Even the apparent leveling at the end is not the real smoothing. The smoothed trend in 2005 depends on all of its surrounding years, including a few years still in the future.) By the way, choosing the CRU analysis is also a cherry pick — NASA has 2005 breaking the 1998 record, though by very little.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 07, 2014, 02:40:45 PM
FTR, I don't think beems understands why the graph is deceiving, either.


I don't think you're smart enough to understand what I'm talking about.

Look at where the trendline is and what it is measuring.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 07, 2014, 02:43:26 PM
FTR, I don't think beems understands why the graph is deceiving, either.


I don't think you're smart enough to understand what I'm talking about.

Look at where the trendline is and what it is measuring.


It's measuring the highest deviation from the mean.  I changed the language from "highest point" to "largest anomaly," if that makes you feel better.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 02:57:19 PM
Beems, it's no different than your graph, just a shorter period of time. If you were to plot actual average temperatures from 1850 to now, It would be a straight horizontal line. Anomaly charts are meant to be deceiving to the average person.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 07, 2014, 03:07:59 PM
If it is crazy hot this summer I will join team global warming.  you hear that god/jesus?  Let's keep it mild down here.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: _33 on May 07, 2014, 03:16:09 PM
Every time it's super hot and I'm having to mow the yard I curse global warming and then every time it's freezing cold and I'm having to shovel the driveway I scoff at its existence.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 07, 2014, 03:19:28 PM
Somebody should take all this talk and use it as a script for the movie "Coal's Not Dead".
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 03:32:05 PM
Beems, it's no different than your graph, just a shorter period of time. If you were to plot actual average temperatures from 1850 to now, It would be a straight horizontal line. Anomaly charts are meant to be deceiving to the average person.


No, it wouldn't.  The "anomalies" are showing the deviation from historical average temperatures to actual temperatures.  You are a complete fool if you really believe that the industrial age has had no impact on our climate.

I'm not saying it has had no affect, I just don't subscribe to the hysteria that liberals are pushing to raise taxes and redistribute wealth. I'm all for reducing emissions over time as the technology permits, but to push technology that isn't ready is foolish and extremely expensive for very little gain.

Also, until China, India, and the other developing countries are held to the same standard as the US and Europe, anything we do is almost negligible on the global scale. The Government needs incentives for private industry to develop cleaner industrial processes with tax incentives rather than punitive fines and regulations. Those simply kill manufacturing in this country and push them to countries that have no clean air standard.   

(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 07, 2014, 03:35:40 PM
I see both sides to the argument but, by far, the strongest one is that the Bible says we should not allow environmentalism to turn into idolatry.  I was going to build a golden scientist for my family to worship.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 07, 2014, 03:43:45 PM
If we replaced the corporate tax with a carbon tax, would conservatives support it?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: illBisonYourdele on May 07, 2014, 03:44:29 PM
I see both sides to the argument but, by far, the strongest one is that the Bible says we should not allow environmentalism to turn into idolatry.  I was going to build a golden scientist for my family to worship.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 07, 2014, 03:47:02 PM
If we replaced the corporate tax with a carbon tax, would conservatives support it?

Can we tax China? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CHONGS on May 07, 2014, 03:54:58 PM
(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)
omg :lol: omg
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 07, 2014, 04:02:05 PM
We're already mumped at this point so it really doesn't even matter anymore.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 04:03:48 PM
(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)
omg :lol: omg

I know right, it wouldn't scare anybody.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CHONGS on May 07, 2014, 04:06:51 PM
(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)
omg :lol: omg

I know right, it wouldn't scare anybody.
Do you even know what you are posting?  I mean global warming debate aside, you should know what you are posting.  It could be 100% fact that global warming is 100% a huge hoax, but posting that "plot" makes you look like a rough ridin' imbecile.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: hatingfrancisco on May 07, 2014, 04:28:45 PM
So wait.  You mean to tell me all this hubbub over global warming is about a 1 degree Celsius increase in the past 200 plus years?  GTFOOH.

 :buh-bye:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 07, 2014, 04:35:31 PM
(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)
omg :lol: omg

I know right, it wouldn't scare anybody.
Do you even know what you are posting?  I mean global warming debate aside, you should know what you are posting.  It could be 100% fact that global warming is 100% a huge hoax, but posting that "plot" makes you look like a rough ridin' imbecile.

I know exactly what it is. It's a simple chart plotting temperature (Celsius) over the span of 157 years. I only posted it to show charts can be manipulated to your advantage depending on the desired outcome and intended audience.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CHONGS on May 07, 2014, 04:47:29 PM
(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)
omg :lol: omg

I know right, it wouldn't scare anybody.
Do you even know what you are posting?  I mean global warming debate aside, you should know what you are posting.  It could be 100% fact that global warming is 100% a huge hoax, but posting that "plot" makes you look like a rough ridin' imbecile.

I know exactly what it is. It's a simple chart plotting temperature (Celsius) over the span of 157 years. I only posted it to show charts can be manipulated to your advantage depending on the desired outcome and intended audience.
:lol: ok :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 07, 2014, 04:48:57 PM
If we replaced the corporate tax with a carbon tax, would conservatives support it?

Can we tax China?

I know you're being facetious, but...

We already tax China in the form of tariffs.  In fact, China has invested so much more than the US into solar technology that the US Commerce Department decided to place tariffs on Chinese solar panels in 2013.  China is dominating solar panel production, and now the US is paying for it.  Furthermore, China has signed the Kyoto Protocol and is working with the EU on an economic agreement that would increase China's environmental standards. 

Meanwhile, US politicians debate the reality of climate change.


 :facepalm:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 07, 2014, 04:53:08 PM
I think there are a lot of us out there that perhaps don't believe 100% in man made climate change, but are willing to take action anyway (sometimes because it's for a greater economic good).  But I've never heard anyone put forth a solid plan of how to get other countries with whom we compete economically to take identical actions so that we are not even further disadvantaged.

Well you should, because it's 100% true.

You should probably tell all the climate scientists that, so they can stop spending so much time trying to prove it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 07, 2014, 04:58:44 PM
Good to see all the It's statistically irrelevant! snobs from the bball board coming over to the pit to opine that slight deviations from average are "anomalies".  Real critical thinking going on in the climate political dogma debate.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 07, 2014, 05:10:23 PM
there are people in this country who trust NASA's ability to put a rover on another planet, but not to read and chart temperature data.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 07, 2014, 05:14:52 PM
there are people in this country who trust NASA's ability to put a rover on another planet, but not to read and chart temperature data.

There are people in this country who want to tax smoke based on a scientific theory that says more smoke has an immeasurable effect on temperature.  Not reduce the smoke, just tax it. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 07, 2014, 06:38:29 PM
interesting lack of economic understanding as well.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 07, 2014, 08:28:57 PM
interesting lack of economic understanding as well.

 :lol: 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on May 07, 2014, 11:44:49 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7ScXmwsVmh4/U2YdDk8-OoI/AAAAAAAAjHk/-AGKJTaFvWw/s800/17years9months.png)

what a strange desktop picture
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 08, 2014, 10:44:11 AM
Beems, it's no different than your graph, just a shorter period of time. If you were to plot actual average temperatures from 1850 to now, It would be a straight horizontal line. Anomaly charts are meant to be deceiving to the average person.


No, it wouldn't.  The "anomalies" are showing the deviation from historical average temperatures to actual temperatures.  You are a complete fool if you really believe that the industrial age has had no impact on our climate.

I'm not saying it has had no affect, I just don't subscribe to the hysteria that liberals are pushing to raise taxes and redistribute wealth. I'm all for reducing emissions over time as the technology permits, but to push technology that isn't ready is foolish and extremely expensive for very little gain.

Also, until China, India, and the other developing countries are held to the same standard as the US and Europe, anything we do is almost negligible on the global scale. The Government needs incentives for private industry to develop cleaner industrial processes with tax incentives rather than punitive fines and regulations. Those simply kill manufacturing in this country and push them to countries that have no clean air standard.   

(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)


Did you ever take a statistics course?  The mean is an average for a set of different data points.  Let's use ppg as an example.  If I average 15 ppg, the mean could be plotted as a straight line, but that doesn't mean I scored 15 points every night. Some nights I'll score 8 and some nights I'll score 20.  If I had a slow start to the season and started out averaging 10 ppg, that means the average increased significantly towards the end of the season.  Average global temperature is the same way.  You are seeing higher deviations from the mean over the past 100+ years or so.  The Earth is getting warmer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: #LIFE on May 08, 2014, 11:02:41 AM
I find this argument rather dumb unless someone can produce some data from the entire history of our planet  :whistle1:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 08, 2014, 11:52:32 AM
Beems, it's no different than your graph, just a shorter period of time. If you were to plot actual average temperatures from 1850 to now, It would be a straight horizontal line. Anomaly charts are meant to be deceiving to the average person.


No, it wouldn't.  The "anomalies" are showing the deviation from historical average temperatures to actual temperatures.  You are a complete fool if you really believe that the industrial age has had no impact on our climate.

I'm not saying it has had no affect, I just don't subscribe to the hysteria that liberals are pushing to raise taxes and redistribute wealth. I'm all for reducing emissions over time as the technology permits, but to push technology that isn't ready is foolish and extremely expensive for very little gain.

Also, until China, India, and the other developing countries are held to the same standard as the US and Europe, anything we do is almost negligible on the global scale. The Government needs incentives for private industry to develop cleaner industrial processes with tax incentives rather than punitive fines and regulations. Those simply kill manufacturing in this country and push them to countries that have no clean air standard.   

(http://www.jennifermarohasy.com//archives/blog_Global%20Mean%20Temp,%201850-2007.jpg)


Did you ever take a statistics course?  The mean is an average for a set of different data points.  Let's use ppg as an example.  If I average 15 ppg, the mean could be plotted as a straight line, but that doesn't mean I scored 15 points every night. Some nights I'll score 8 and some nights I'll score 20.  If I had a slow start to the season and start out averaging 10 ppg, that means the average increased over the course of the season.  Average global temperature is the same way.  You are seeing higher deviations from the mean over the past 100+ years or so.  The Earth is getting warmer.

Why is it so hard for some of you to understand the graph? It's one point on the graph for each year. The mean temp for the entire year derived by adding the maximum and minimum temperatures over a year then dividing the result by two. Elementary stuff here.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 08, 2014, 12:26:46 PM
That graph is a complete piece of crap.  The scale of the y axis makes it look like there hasn't been much change, but when you're talking about temperature changes, a fraction of a degree celsius is significant.  The scale should be in fractions, not quantities of five.  Here is a better representation of global temperature changes:


(http://prasoondiwakar.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Temp-Trend.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 08, 2014, 12:37:21 PM
Nice deletion beems. I knew I should have quoted it ASAP.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on May 08, 2014, 12:40:45 PM
Nice deletion beems. I knew I should have quoted it ASAP.


You're not really finding a true statistical mean when you simply divide the highest and lowest data points by two.  That's more like a median data point.  Regardless, your graph's scale is way off and doesn't give an accurate depiction of the current trend in global temperatures. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: p1k3 on May 08, 2014, 01:04:41 PM
definitely some climate changing going on according to Beem's graph. Not enough for me to care though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CHONGS on May 08, 2014, 01:05:01 PM
FYI for those who care:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/about/global_temp_timeseries.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/global/latest.txt
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 08, 2014, 03:44:59 PM
I find this argument rather dumb unless someone can produce some data from the entire history of our planet  :whistle1:

Here's a temperature anomaly chart that goes back 800,000 years:

(http://i.imgur.com/V2laBnK.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 08, 2014, 09:25:37 PM
Again, the left's solution to "climate change" is a tax. Not to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.  They just want to make sure poor people pay more for gas, electricity and food.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 08, 2014, 10:00:01 PM
Again, the left's solution to "climate change" is a tax. Not to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.  They just want to make sure poor people pay more for gas, electricity and food.

 :flush:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 08, 2014, 10:01:49 PM
After looking at that chart above, it looks like the last industrial revolution actually started about 20,000 years ago.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 08, 2014, 10:48:04 PM
Some real injustice being done to the word anomaly itt.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 08, 2014, 11:23:20 PM
Some real injustice being done to the word anomaly itt.

Yeah, a half a degree over average is not an anomaly.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 09, 2014, 08:54:50 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/03/moynihan-as-nixon-aide-wa_n_634641.html

Then a few years later, the cover of every major magazine warned of the impending new ice age.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on May 09, 2014, 09:15:09 AM
My favorite is the graph showing a constant trend of global warming for the last 17 years 9 months. The one labeled No Global Warming For 17 Years 9 Months. It's pretty great.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 09, 2014, 11:25:50 AM
FYI for those who care:

http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/global/latest.txt

Here is a graph made from the link above.

(http://i.imgur.com/rL5CkMA.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 09, 2014, 01:38:38 PM
May 7th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

There will be many comments from others, I’m sure, but these are my initial thoughts on the 12 major findings from the latest National Climate Assessment, which proports to tell us how the global climate change anticipated by the IPCC on a global basis will impact us here at home.

The NCA report findings are in bold and italics.

My comments follow each finding.

1. Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels. Many independent lines of evidence confirm that human activities are affecting climate in unprecedented ways. U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3F to 1.9F since record keeping began in 1895; most of this increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade was the warmest on record. Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, rising temperatures are not evenly distributed across the country or over time.

Yes, it has likely warmed, but by an amount which is unknown due to increasing warm biases in thermometer siting, which cannot be removed through “homogenization” adjustments. But there is no way to know whether “The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities...”, because there is no fingerprint of human-caused versus naturally-caused climate change. To claim the changes are ‘unprecedented’ cannot be demonstrated with reliable data, and are contradicted by some published paleoclimate data which suggests most centuries experience substantial warming or cooling.

2. Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related to human activities. Changes in extreme weather events are the primary way that most people experience climate change. Human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of some of these extreme events. Over the last 50 years, much of the United States has seen an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, and in some regions, more severe droughts.

There is little or no evidence of increases in severe weather events, except possibly in heavy rainfall events, which would be consistent with modest warming. The statement panders to the publics’ focus on the latest severe weather, and limited memory of even worse events of the past.

3. Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase. Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with more climate-related impacts over the next few decades. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases that human activities emit globally, now and in the future.

This is a predictive statement based upon climate models which have not even been able to hindcast past global temperatures, let alone forecast changes with any level of accuracy.

4. Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond. Climate change is already affecting societies and the natural world. Climate change interacts with other environmental and societal factors in ways that can either moderate or intensify these impacts. The types and magnitudes of impacts vary across the nation and through time. Children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor are especially vulnerable. There is mounting evidence that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced.

To the extent climate has changed regionally, there is no way to know how much has been due to human activities. In fact, it might well be human-induced changes have reduced the negative impact of natural changes - there is simply no way to know. You see, those scientists who study the natural world cannot bring themselves to consider the possibility than some human impacts are actually positive. Even if the human-caused impacts are a net negative, they are far outweighed by the benefits to society (especially the poor) of access to abundant, affordable energy. Besides, for the next few decades, there is nothing substantial we can do about the problem, unless killing off a large portion of humanity, and making the rest miserable, is on the table.

5. Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including through more extreme weather events and wildfire, decreased air quality, and diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water. Climate change is increasing the risks of heat stress, respiratory stress from poor air quality, and the spread of waterborne diseases. Extreme weather events often lead to fatalities and a variety of health impacts on vulnerable populations, including impacts on mental health, such as anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Large-scale changes in the environment due to climate change and extreme weather events are increasing the risk of the emergence or reemergence of health threats that are currently uncommon in the United States, such as dengue fever.

Most of this is just simply made up, and ignores the positive benefits of access to affordable energy which far outweigh the negatives. If there has been an increase in anxiety and PTSD, it isn’t from severe weather events...it’s from the relentless fear mongering by politicians and the news media.

6. Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat; damages are projected to increase with continued climate change. Sea level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours, in combination with the pattern of continued development in coastal areas, are increasing damage to U.S. infrastructure including roads, buildings, and industrial facilities, and are also increasing risks to ports and coastal military installations. Flooding along rivers, lakes, and in cities following heavy downpours, prolonged rains, and rapid melting of snowpack is exceeding the limits of flood protection infrastructure designed for historical conditions. Extreme heat is damaging transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail lines, and airport runways.

Sea level rise (which was occurring before we started emitting carbon dioxide in substantial amounts) is a very slow process, which would have to be accommodated for anyway. And the weaker global warming turns out to be, the slower sea level rise will be. Infrastructure damage occurs anyway, and is often due to weather events which exceed the design limits. You don’t engineer roads and buildings and seawalls and levees to handle any possible scenario...it would be too expensive. A large part of our flooding problems are due to the replacement of natural ground with paved surfaces, which enhances runoff into rivers. This has nothing to do with climate change.

7. Water quality and water supply reliability are jeopardized by climate change in a variety of ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods. Surface and groundwater supplies in some regions are already stressed by increasing demand for water as well as declining runoff and groundwater recharge. In some regions, particularly the southern part of the country and the Caribbean and Pacific Islands, climate change is increasing the likelihood of water shortages and competition for water among its many uses. Water quality is diminishing in many areas, particularly due to increasing sediment and contaminant concentrations after heavy downpours.

This is largely a non sequitur. The problems described exist even without human-caused climate change...to the extent that substantial human influences exist.

8. Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century. Some areas are already experiencing climate-related disruptions, particularly due to extreme weather events. While some U.S. regions and some types of agricultural production will be relatively resilient to climate change over the next 25 years or so, others will increasingly suffer from stresses due to extreme heat, drought, disease, and heavy downpours. From mid-century on, climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and livestock across the country, a trend that could diminish the security of our food supply.

I work with the people involved in tracking and long-term prediction of agricultural yields, both domestically and internationally. They see no sign of climate change impacts on agricultural yields. There are always natural fluctuations, but if there is any negative human-induced impact, it is swamped by the increasing yields due to improved agricultural practices, seed varieties, and very likely CO2 fertilization.

9. Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples’ health, well-being, and ways of life. Chronic stresses such as extreme poverty are being exacerbated by climate change impacts such as reduced access to traditional foods, decreased water quality, and increasing exposure to health and safety hazards. In parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the Pacific Islands, and other coastal locations, climate change impacts (through erosion and inundation) are so severe that some communities are already relocating from historical homelands to which their traditions and cultural identities are tied. Particularly in Alaska, the rapid pace of temperature rise, ice and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are significantly affecting critical infrastructure and traditional livelihoods.

O..M..G. So lets help poor people by increasing the cost of everything by making the energy on which everything depends even more expensive? The people who write this drivel are so clueless they should not be allowed to influence the decision making process.

10. Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being affected by climate change. The capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts of extreme events like fires, floods, and severe storms is being overwhelmed. Climate change impacts on biodiversity are already being observed in alteration of the timing of critical biological events such as spring bud burst and substantial range shifts of many species. In the longer term, there is an increased risk of species extinction. These changes have social, cultural, and economic effects. Events such as droughts, floods, wildfires, and pest outbreaks associated with climate change (for example, bark beetles in the West) are already disrupting ecosystems. These changes limit the capacity of ecosystems, such as forests, barrier beaches, and wetlands, to continue to play important roles in reducing the impacts of these extreme events on infrastructure, human communities, and other valued resources.

Modest warming and more CO2 available to the biosphere is already having positive impacts, such as the recent greening of the planet. Trying to turn the most obvious positive outcomes into negatives leads to logical contortions which would be funny if they weren’t so serious. Nature changes anyway, folks, as evidenced by glaciers in Europe and North America receding and uncovering ancient tree stumps. Ecosystems are being “overwhelmed”? I don’t think so. Ecosystems are not static.

11. Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life. More acidic waters inhibit the formation of shells, skeletons, and coral reefs. Warmer waters harm coral reefs and alter the distribution, abundance, and productivity of many marine species. The rising temperature and changing chemistry of ocean water combine with other stresses, such as overfishing and coastal and marine pollution, to alter marine-based food production and harm fishing communities.

There is increasing evidence that ocean acidification has been greatly overblown. I’m not an expert, but from what I’ve read lately, more realistic lab experiments with adding CO2 to sea water shows that the natural buffering capacity of sea water limits pH changes, and the increasing CO2 is actually good for life in the ocean...just as it is on land (because CO2 is also necessary for the start of the food chain in the ocean). I think the jury is still out on this issue...but, of course, we can’t expect government reports, which are written to facilitate desired policy changes, to provide balance on such things.

12. Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation (to reduce future climate change, for example by cutting emissions) is becoming more widespread, but current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid increasingly negative social, environmental, and economic consequences. Actions to reduce emissions, increase carbon uptake, adapt to a changing climate, and increase resilience to impacts that are unavoidable can improve public health, economic development, ecosystem protection, and quality of life.

Translation: We need more government regulation and taxation.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Follow the money, folks. This glitzy, 840-page report took a lot of your tax dollars to generate, and involved only those “experts” who are willing to play the game. It is difficult to answer in its entirety because government has billions of dollars to invest in this, while most of us who try to bring some sanity to the issue must do it in our spare time, because we aren’t paid to do it. It is nowhere near balanced regarding science, costs-versus-benefits, or implied policy outcomes. Like the previous two National Assessment reports, it takes global climate models which cannot even hindcast what has happened before, which over-forecast global average warming, which are known to have essentially zero skill for regional (e.g. U.S.) predictions, and uses them anyway to instill fear into the masses, so that we might be led to safety by politicians.

Caveat emptor.

(Oh, and if you are tempted to say, “What about all the Big Oil money involved in our need for energy?” Well, that money was willingly given to Big Oil by all of us for a useful product that makes our lives better. Government money is taken from you (I’m not anti-taxation, just pointing out a distinction) that they then use to perpetuate the perceived need for more government control. If “Big Oil” could make a profit by becoming
“Big Solar”, or “Big Wind”, they would.)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 09, 2014, 02:13:13 PM
Guys, if the Wildcats average 74.2 points per game this season, is every game they don't score that number an anomaly?  If every game is an anomaly,  what is normal? #beemscience
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: SPEmaw on May 10, 2014, 12:14:57 AM
I'm not an alarmist by any means, but the Earth is indeed warming.  Climate change is a real thing.  14 of the last 15 years have been the hottest average global temperatures on record.  The chance that that is just a coincidence is less than 1 divided by all of the stars in the universe.


 :nerd:

Not surprised that this squawk thinks this way.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 10, 2014, 12:45:48 PM
Hey guys/gals, climate change is a real thing:


(http://www.planetaryvisions.com/thumbs_new/2226_ban.jpg)

(http://www.iceagenow.com/Europe_During_Last_Ice_Age.gif)

During the last Ice Age, sea level was nearly 400 Feet lower than it is today.  Shocker of all shocks, in glacial retraction (still going on) sea level rises.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 10, 2014, 03:09:51 PM
i wonder if those scientists ever considered some the points raised by the dumbass conservatives on a kstate sports blog. i bet they did.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 10, 2014, 09:42:17 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597907/Green-smear-campaign-against-professor-dared-disown-sexed-UN-climate-dossier.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cartierfor3 on May 10, 2014, 10:06:55 PM
I'm just one guy, and if the world is getting warmer, there's nothing I can do about it. Best to just not get too worked up one way or another.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on May 11, 2014, 02:01:22 AM
I'm just one guy, and if the world is getting warmer, there's nothing I can do about it. Best to just not get too worked up one way or another.

bud  :thumbs:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: p1k3 on May 11, 2014, 02:32:22 AM
I'm just one guy, and if the world is getting warmer, there's nothing I can do about it. Best to just not get too worked up one way or another.

bud  :thumbs:

yeah this is my take
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 11, 2014, 02:35:55 PM
FYI for those who care:

http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/global_t/0112/global/latest.txt

Here is a graph made from the link above.

(http://i.imgur.com/rL5CkMA.gif)

Looks like no warming anomalies in 17 years.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on May 12, 2014, 09:46:12 AM
I'm just one guy, and if the world is getting warmer, there's nothing I can do about it. Best to just not get too worked up one way or another.

I believe this, but I will throw in if I can somehow profit then that's okay, too.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: LickNeckey on May 13, 2014, 11:17:42 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-west-antarctica-ice-sheet-has-begun-scientists-say.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1

somebody set these "libtards straight"

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/environment/climate-change/managing-climate-change-risks/carbon-asset-risk?parentId=fbec4340-be1d-41ff-b55b-988cc9e44881
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 13, 2014, 12:29:41 PM
Did they ever get those "scientists" out of that unusual super summer ice freeze down there in the antarctic, where it should have been open ocean but instead was super thick ice that even the ice breakers couldn't get in?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 16, 2014, 01:43:44 PM
Hey look! Actual real world science is being covered up by the alarmists. Color me surprised.  :dubious:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html)

Quote
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.

‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.

Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.

If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe.

The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.

The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.

He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 16, 2014, 02:47:41 PM
Hey look! Actual real world science is being covered up by the alarmists. Color me surprised.  :dubious:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html)

Quote
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of five authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dissenting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published.

‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,’ he told the Times.

Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.

If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe.

The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.

The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.

He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.


Yeah,  so this paper was rejected by his peers because it was over-simplified. Sounds like the submitted paper was more politically motivated than  peers who rejected it. 

Also, so one paper is rejected therefore the other thousands of papers that were approved and peer reviewed are irrelevant?

Those damn libtard scientists are always shutting down the real science in the name of big science!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 16, 2014, 03:09:13 PM
Yeah, he's just some wacko right wing denier. The science is settled!

He is sure to have more experience and knowledge than those that turned it down.

Quote
Lennart Bengtsson (born 5 July 1935, Trollhättan), is a Swedish meteorologist. His research interests include climate sensitivity, extreme events, climate variability and climate predictability. [1]

He was Head of Research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then Director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He is now a Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading.

In 2005 he was awarded the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research[2] together with Prof. Ola M. Johannessen and Dr. Leonid Bobylev from the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre in Norway and Russia for the Climate and Environmental Change in the Arctic project. In 2006 he was awarded the 51st IMO prize of the World Meteorological Organization for pioneering research in numerical weather prediction.[3]

In May 2014, Bengtsson announced that he was joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate change skeptics organization. A week later Bengtsson reversed his decision to join the GWPF citing "an enormous group pressure" that "I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years." and " I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 16, 2014, 03:10:12 PM
Quote
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

- The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
- The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
- The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
- Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.

A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.

I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.

Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.

 

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 16, 2014, 03:26:19 PM
Quote
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

- The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
- The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
- The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
- Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.

A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.

I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.

Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.

 

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

^This:
 flawed research and findings.  Could have worked on redoing some of his work (why it's peer reviewed, rather than rushed to the public) instead, he goes bitching to the media.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 16, 2014, 03:48:58 PM
Quote
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

- The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
- The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
- The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
- Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.

A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.

I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.

Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.

 

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

^This:
 flawed research and findings.  Could have worked on redoing some of his work (why it's peer reviewed, rather than rushed to the public) instead, he goes bitching to the media.

It will be interesting to read the rest of the referee decisions, if they publish them.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 16, 2014, 07:14:11 PM
It's funny that michigancat and jeebaz trust the scientists who can't the models right more than the guy who's study is corroborated by the climate they purport to study.

When you're hard line politically,  you're forced to take indefensible positions. Must suck
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 16, 2014, 07:24:53 PM
It's funny that michigancat and jeebaz trust the scientists who can't the models right more than the guy who's study is corroborated by the climate they purport to study.

When you're hard line politically,  you're forced to take indefensible positions. Must suck
a fun thing about the weekends is you don't have to wait till 10 to see FSD get drunk and delusional.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 16, 2014, 08:29:45 PM
It's funny that michigancat and jeebaz trust the scientists who can't the models right more than the guy who's study is corroborated by the climate they purport to study.

When you're hard line politically,  you're forced to take indefensible positions. Must suck
a fun thing about the weekends is you don't have to wait till 10 to see FSD get drunk and delusional.

It appears I get the privilege of my own ongoing peer analysis.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 16, 2014, 10:48:20 PM
It's funny that michigancat and jeebaz trust the scientists who can't the models right more than the guy who's study is corroborated by the climate they purport to study.

When you're hard line politically,  you're forced to take indefensible positions. Must suck
a fun thing about the weekends is you don't have to wait till 10 to see FSD get drunk and delusional.

It appears I get the privilege of my own ongoing peer analysis.

How would retro fitting all of our power plants to burn wood effect this?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 18, 2014, 12:53:36 PM
How is Big Energy going to be able to compete with the climate scare mongers and their war chest?

$2.6 billion in Government Climate research funding, primarily driven by the "science is settled" and the "orthodoxy of global climate change discussion" pseudo-scientists. 

Nearly $1 billion in assets for the Rockefeller Foundation, over $6 Billion in assets for the Nature Conservancy and a litany of so called non-profit entities and law firms showing hundreds of millions of dollars in assets in IRS filings.

Global Climate scare mongers are a big business . . . with the Gov't spewing forth climate change research grants in the form of billions, what government cheese scientist wouldn't desire to pull up to that trough?


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on May 18, 2014, 01:06:30 PM
How is Big Energy going to be able to compete with the climate scare mongers and their war chest?

$2.6 billion in Government Climate research funding, primarily driven by the "science is settled" and the "orthodoxy of global climate change discussion" pseudo-scientists. 

Nearly $1 billion in assets for the Rockefeller Foundation, over $6 Billion in assets for the Nature Conservancy and a litany of so called non-profit entities and law firms showing hundreds of millions of dollars in assets in IRS filings.

Global Climate scare mongers are a big business . . . with the Gov't spewing forth climate change research grants in the form of billions, what government cheese scientist wouldn't desire to pull up to that trough?

Yep.  Definitely more money backing Big Global Climate.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 18, 2014, 01:56:14 PM
Power of the pen that draws from a budget that's equal to 7 or 8 Exxon's. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 19, 2014, 11:43:10 AM
Cong. Tim Huelskamp ?@CongHuelskamp  May 16
#PeerReview 2 #PeerPressure: Journal rejects climate sceptic’s research bc it was harmful to the ‘cause’ #JunkScience http://goo.gl/GE6YvV
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on May 19, 2014, 11:51:20 AM
every dax post is like a case study in how the human cognitive process can go awry.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on May 19, 2014, 03:46:15 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 19, 2014, 04:06:07 PM
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 19, 2014, 04:20:34 PM
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 

This has to do with the climate change how?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 19, 2014, 05:06:53 PM
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 

This has to do with the climate change how?

Follow the tax money.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 19, 2014, 05:16:01 PM
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 

This has to do with the climate change how?

Follow the tax money.

Ohhh I forgot, sheeple believe correlation is causation.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 19, 2014, 06:10:04 PM
With every post by some, like sys, comes a further study in incapacity on educational level. 

$2.6 Billion in Federal Funding for Climate Research per year.  Almost every dime of it goes to Warmist Scientists.

The National Resource Defense Council has more assets listed on their IRS forms than the American Petroleum Institute.

The Rockefeller Foundation (Nearly $800 million in assets) has pumped millions into campaigns to thwart energy development via other so called non profits.

The Nature Conservancy lists $6 billion in assets.  (a non profit)

Overall non-profit environmental entities in the United States are a $13 to $14 billion dollar per year enterprise.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, around $150 million in assets vs the Gordon and Betty Moore foundation. $5.2 billion in assets.



 

This has to do with the climate change how?

Follow the tax money.

correlation is causation.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Yes, but not in the way you think.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 19, 2014, 07:36:26 PM
Yes.  I am clearly demonstrating a sheeple mindset.

The Rockefeller Foundations (for example) funneling of monies to anti carbon energy development campaigns  is fact.  I don't even see where correlation/causation even comes into play unless you want to assert that to the entirety of the who is funding who debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 20, 2014, 12:13:23 AM
The Rockefellers have always been anti-carbon energy, fwiw. Good catch, Dax.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2014, 09:16:55 AM
The Rockefellers have always been anti

-carbon energy, fwiw. Good catch, Dax.

You should go rummage around in the trash can for that throwaway comment.

It doesn't matter what they once were (the irony is noted though), it matters what their foundation is now.   Thing is, they got there's on the back of carbon energy.  Now their foundation works to try and make sure nobody else can.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 20, 2014, 09:28:18 AM
Yes.  I am clearly demonstrating a sheeple mindset.

The Rockefeller Foundations (for example) funneling of monies to anti carbon energy development campaigns  is fact.  I don't even see where correlation/causation even comes into play unless you want to assert that to the entirety of the who is funding who debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a similar argument one could make,  using funding as an argument for why something happens, "Research that is against climate change is paid for by organizations which are in turn funded by large contributors of green house gasses.  Therefore, climate change is real." 

Quote
The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave climate skeptic Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Soon has stated that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research".[87] The foundation helped finance a 2007 analysis suggesting that climate change was not a threat to the survival of polar bears,[88] which was questioned by other researchers.[89] The foundation also funded a $150,000 study by UC Berkeley physicist Richard A. Muller who initially concluded that global warming data was flawed, but later reversed his views, supporting scientific consensus.[90][91]         
Quote

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers)

My entire point is your logic is totally flawed.  Foundations funding research about climate change doesnt prove anything outside of, foundations fund research about  global warming.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2014, 10:49:50 AM
You're missing the entire point.

Big Green has attempted to paint this false picture that it's just a bunch of pine cone eaters in shacks going up against Big Bad Oil.

In reality, it's well heeled multi-million/billion dollar enterprises, with the backing of a Federal Gov't who is funneling billions towards group think warmist psuedo-scientists worshiping at the alter of Global Climate Change Orthodoxy.

On a somewhat related note:  Someone in another forum mentioned what some have mentioned on here regarding a region of our country that includes Western Kansas.   There's a very strong possibility that we, for lack of better words, lucked out in the last few hundred years in that we caught the Western Kansas, Eastern Colorado, and Panhandle regions of Texas and Oklahoma and parts of New Mexico in a period of relative moisture surplus (for lack of  better words) and now that region of our country is reverting back to its relative normal state when traced back in the timeline of Earth history, or at least the timeline of this current phase of Earth history and climate. 



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 20, 2014, 11:30:29 AM
Yes.  I am clearly demonstrating a sheeple mindset.

The Rockefeller Foundations (for example) funneling of monies to anti carbon energy development campaigns  is fact.  I don't even see where correlation/causation even comes into play unless you want to assert that to the entirety of the who is funding who debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a similar argument one could make,  using funding as an argument for why something happens, "Research that is against climate change is paid for by organizations which are in turn funded by large contributors of green house gasses.  Therefore, climate change is real." 

Quote
The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave climate skeptic Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Soon has stated that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research".[87] The foundation helped finance a 2007 analysis suggesting that climate change was not a threat to the survival of polar bears,[88] which was questioned by other researchers.[89] The foundation also funded a $150,000 study by UC Berkeley physicist Richard A. Muller who initially concluded that global warming data was flawed, but later reversed his views, supporting scientific consensus.[90][91]         
Quote

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers)

My entire point is your logic is totally flawed.  Foundations funding research about climate change doesnt prove anything outside of, foundations fund research about  global warming.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

 :confused:

Quote from: Wikipedia
The page "Political activities of George Soros" does not exist
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2014, 11:38:33 AM
Are we really comparing the assets of non-profits to companies like Exxon and Chevron and Koch?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 20, 2014, 11:47:31 AM
Are we really comparing the assets of non-profits to companies like Exxon and Chevron and Koch?
and acting like their motivations are similar as well?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 20, 2014, 11:55:43 AM
Yes.  I am clearly demonstrating a sheeple mindset.

The Rockefeller Foundations (for example) funneling of monies to anti carbon energy development campaigns  is fact.  I don't even see where correlation/causation even comes into play unless you want to assert that to the entirety of the who is funding who debate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a similar argument one could make,  using funding as an argument for why something happens, "Research that is against climate change is paid for by organizations which are in turn funded by large contributors of green house gasses.  Therefore, climate change is real." 

Quote
The Charles G. Koch Foundation gave climate skeptic Willie Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005/6 and again in 2010. Soon has stated that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research".[87] The foundation helped finance a 2007 analysis suggesting that climate change was not a threat to the survival of polar bears,[88] which was questioned by other researchers.[89] The foundation also funded a $150,000 study by UC Berkeley physicist Richard A. Muller who initially concluded that global warming data was flawed, but later reversed his views, supporting scientific consensus.[90][91]         

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers)

My entire point is your logic is totally flawed.  Foundations funding research about climate change doesnt prove anything outside of, foundations fund research about  global warming.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

 :confused:

Quote from: Wikipedia
The page "Political activities of George Soros" does not exist

You're terrible at this.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2014, 11:56:18 AM

Big Green has attempted to paint this false picture that it's just a bunch of pine cone eaters in shacks going up against Big Bad Oil..

Also, really? When did this happen?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2014, 12:11:31 PM
Do some actually believe that any corporation can pull from their coffers the type of money that the Federal Gov't can funnel to like thinking warmist scientists and do it year, after year, after year? 


Come on cRusty, Big Green has attempted to paint Big Oil and the Koch Brothers as a bottomless pit of funds to finance anti-warmist propaganda, while they, Big Green dig for some lint in their pockets.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2014, 12:32:14 PM
Do some actually believe that any corporation can pull from their coffers the type of money that the Federal Gov't can funnel to like thinking warmist scientists and do it year, after year, after year? 


Come on cRusty, Big Green has attempted to paint Big Oil and the Koch Brothers as a bottomless pit of funds to finance anti-warmist propaganda, while they, Big Green dig for some lint in their pockets.

I was more confused by the pine come clutching reference.

Who on the "Big Green" side can match the net worth of the Koch's?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on May 20, 2014, 12:34:21 PM
Do some actually believe that any corporation can pull from their coffers the type of money that the Federal Gov't can funnel to like thinking warmist scientists and do it year, after year, after year? 


Come on cRusty, Big Green has attempted to paint Big Oil and the Koch Brothers as a bottomless pit of funds to finance anti-warmist propaganda, while they, Big Green dig for some lint in their pockets.

One side has scientists and money.

Another side has capitalists and money.

Are you arguing that both sides are equally committed to research and profit?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 20, 2014, 12:58:04 PM
Do some actually believe that any corporation can pull from their coffers the type of money that the Federal Gov't can funnel to like thinking warmist scientists and do it year, after year, after year? 


Come on cRusty, Big Green has attempted to paint Big Oil and the Koch Brothers as a bottomless pit of funds to finance anti-warmist propaganda, while they, Big Green dig for some lint in their pockets.

I was more confused by the pine come clutching reference.

Who on the "Big Green" side can match the net worth of the Koch's?

Goerge Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, Larry Page?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2014, 01:02:15 PM
Do some actually believe that any corporation can pull from their coffers the type of money that the Federal Gov't can funnel to like thinking warmist scientists and do it year, after year, after year? 


Come on cRusty, Big Green has attempted to paint Big Oil and the Koch Brothers as a bottomless pit of funds to finance anti-warmist propaganda, while they, Big Green dig for some lint in their pockets.

I was more confused by the pine come clutching reference.

Who on the "Big Green" side can match the net worth of the Koch's?

Goerge Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, Larry Page?

a quick search tells me that the Koch brothers have a higher net worth than everyone you listed.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 20, 2014, 01:25:55 PM
Do some actually believe that any corporation can pull from their coffers the type of money that the Federal Gov't can funnel to like thinking warmist scientists and do it year, after year, after year? 


Come on cRusty, Big Green has attempted to paint Big Oil and the Koch Brothers as a bottomless pit of funds to finance anti-warmist propaganda, while they, Big Green dig for some lint in their pockets.

I was more confused by the pine come clutching reference.

Who on the "Big Green" side can match the net worth of the Koch's?

Goerge Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison, Larry Page?

a quick search tells me that the Koch brothers have a higher net worth than everyone you listed.

2014 richest people in the world. Bill Gates and Buffett are like brothers, so we should add them together.

1. Bill Gates
Net Worth: $76 B
Source of wealth: Microsoft

2. Carlos Slim Helu & family
Net Worth: $72 B
Source of wealth: telecom

3. Amancio Ortega
Net Worth: $64 B
Source of wealth: retail

4. Warren Buffett
Net Worth: $58.2 B
Source of wealth: Berkshire Hathaway

5. Larry Ellison
Net Worth: $48 B
Source of wealth: Oracle

6. Charles Koch
Net Worth: $40 B
Source of wealth: diversified

6. David Koch
Net Worth: $40 B
Source of wealth: diversified
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2014, 01:26:41 PM
lol
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on May 20, 2014, 01:29:52 PM
$40 B each.  what losers.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2014, 01:31:47 PM
$40 B each.  what losers.

That figure may be outdated:

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-16/koch-brothers-worth-100-billion-buying-printers-to-ads.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 20, 2014, 02:28:43 PM
This latest round from Dax and John is so illogical that it shouldn't even be addressed.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 20, 2014, 04:11:14 PM
Just when I want to agree with one of their posts, I read the next paragraph and then I no longer want to agree.


Gonna win 'em all! (But maybe not now)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2014, 07:22:04 PM
Really?  We're comparing net worth of (primarily) business people who's (by and large) assets are tied up in a dizzying array of investments, most of which are tied to the ongoing propagation of the various enterprises and the thousands of people (in most cases) that they employ.

Against the net worth of entities who's worth is tied to in most cases a solitary mission.

Fascinating.

Then, we'll toss in the U.S. Gov't, who in essence has a license to confiscate trillions of dollars from the tax payers (which include the business entities run by the people listed) and they pretty much dispense the largess as they see fit.  So far they've seen fit to dispense nearly $3 billion a year to entities who for the most part consist of warmest propagandist scientists who are known to tow the line in order to continue the flow of government research money (and quickly attempt to ostracize and silence scientists who don't tow the line). 

Again . . . fascinating.




Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 20, 2014, 07:41:40 PM
Every ten pages or so I'm going to remind you all of the original point of this thread, a point yet to be refuted, that the AGW hypotheses - the models - drastically overstated warming. If the hypothesis is wrong, then the theory is wrong. That's the scientific method.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on May 20, 2014, 08:10:56 PM
it was pretty hot today fellas  :Sweat:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 20, 2014, 08:17:15 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/8YbZ8cv.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 20, 2014, 08:47:33 PM
 :thumbs:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on May 20, 2014, 08:51:40 PM
Every ten pages or so I'm going to remind you all of the original point of this thread, a point yet to be refuted, that the AGW hypotheses - the models - drastically overstated warming. If the hypothesis is wrong, then the theory is wrong. That's the scientific method.

Well, no, the hypothesis can be wrong and still lead to a coincidentally accurate theory. Modus tollens or something.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 20, 2014, 11:18:46 PM
When arguing with leftists (dolts) you have to remember that they think the federal government is a purely altruistic institution, comprised of individuals without a modicum of self interest and self dealing. I know it's naive and foolish, but it's their sophomoric predisposition and it's unwavering.

Look here, you have a group of people arguing tooth and nail that the net worth of handful of people and corporations is some how in parity with the annual giving of the world's governments to agw research. This is a laughable statement that's beyond correction.  You would literally have to start by teaching basic accounting on a message board, which would be like teaching mandarin on a message board, only the person to be taught doesn't want to learn.

Further complicating the incomprehension of the leftist (dolt) is their misunderstanding of science and their complete lack of perspective and scale with respect to AGW, specifically the associated consequences of prematurely implementing the policies they want to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.  Let's assume AGW is proven one day, but its effects have been overstated by these provably unreliable models by a factor of 50, meaning the effect is essentially de minimus.

They'd nonetheless insist on the economically devastating policies they are proposing, because they are insane and this has nothing to do with science or preserving the earth. It's about power and control. The policies they desire further consolidate wealth within governments, and to the detriment of an ever expanding group of poor people and some rich people that decided to invest in oil instead of green energy.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on May 20, 2014, 11:27:32 PM
wtf?  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 20, 2014, 11:40:50 PM
wtf?  :lol:

A=L+E  :shooturmouth: :shooturmouth:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 20, 2014, 11:53:01 PM
lol

I think you meant "each person"
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 21, 2014, 07:00:19 AM
They'd nonetheless insist on the economically devastating policies they are proposing, because they are insane and this has nothing to do with science or preserving the earth. It's about power and control. The policies they desire further consolidate wealth within governments, and to the detriment of an ever expanding group of poor people and some rich people that decided to invest in oil instead of green energy.

Perfectly demonstrated by John "I'm a War Hero, too" Kerry at his commencement address the other day, when he asked: "supposing [AGW is false], what's the worst that can happen?" They're libtards, and they really can't see the downside of imposing trillions in taxes and regulatory burdens on our economy in pursuit of a theory that is not only unproven - its hypotheses aren't even bearing out.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 21, 2014, 07:53:05 AM
When arguing with leftists (dolts) you have to remember that they think the federal government is a purely altruistic institution, comprised of individuals without a modicum of self interest and self dealing. I know it's naive and foolish, but it's their sophomoric predisposition and it's unwavering.

Look here, you have a group of people arguing tooth and nail that the net worth of handful of people and corporations is some how in parity with the annual giving of the world's governments to agw research. This is a laughable statement that's beyond correction.  You would literally have to start by teaching basic accounting on a message board, which would be like teaching mandarin on a message board, only the person to be taught doesn't want to learn.

Further complicating the incomprehension of the leftist (dolt) is their misunderstanding of science and their complete lack of perspective and scale with respect to AGW, specifically the associated consequences of prematurely implementing the policies they want to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.  Let's assume AGW is proven one day, but its effects have been overstated by these provably unreliable models by a factor of 50, meaning the effect is essentially de minimus.

They'd nonetheless insist on the economically devastating policies they are proposing, because they are insane and this has nothing to do with science or preserving the earth. It's about power and control. The policies they desire further consolidate wealth within governments, and to the detriment of an ever expanding group of poor people and some rich people that decided to invest in oil instead of green energy.

Amid all the FSD-isms, he at least seems to understand science better than K-S-U.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 12:59:04 PM
Just want to shout out to Sarah Knapton for this Captain Obvious article about the green bias in climate science.

The Green Mafia just doesn't want anyone to throw a wrench into that government gravy train.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10837146/Climate-change-science-has-become-blind-to-green-bias.html

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 01:43:22 PM
When arguing with leftists (dolts) you have to remember that they think the federal government is a purely altruistic institution, comprised of individuals without a modicum of self interest and self dealing. I know it's naive and foolish, but it's their sophomoric predisposition and it's unwavering.

Look here, you have a group of people arguing tooth and nail that the net worth of handful of people and corporations is some how in parity with the annual giving of the world's governments to agw research. This is a laughable statement that's beyond correction.  You would literally have to start by teaching basic accounting on a message board, which would be like teaching mandarin on a message board, only the person to be taught doesn't want to learn.

Further complicating the incomprehension of the leftist (dolt) is their misunderstanding of science and their complete lack of perspective and scale with respect to AGW, specifically the associated consequences of prematurely implementing the policies they want to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.  Let's assume AGW is proven one day, but its effects have been overstated by these provably unreliable models by a factor of 50, meaning the effect is essentially de minimus.

They'd nonetheless insist on the economically devastating policies they are proposing, because they are insane and this has nothing to do with science or preserving the earth. It's about power and control. The policies they desire further consolidate wealth within governments, and to the detriment of an ever expanding group of poor people and some rich people that decided to invest in oil instead of green energy.

Amid all the FSD-isms, he at least seems to understand science better than K-S-U.

Is there a single point of refute in my entire diatribe?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 21, 2014, 01:50:04 PM
When arguing with leftists (dolts) you have to remember that they think the federal government is a purely altruistic institution, comprised of individuals without a modicum of self interest and self dealing. I know it's naive and foolish, but it's their sophomoric predisposition and it's unwavering.

Look here, you have a group of people arguing tooth and nail that the net worth of handful of people and corporations is some how in parity with the annual giving of the world's governments to agw research. This is a laughable statement that's beyond correction.  You would literally have to start by teaching basic accounting on a message board, which would be like teaching mandarin on a message board, only the person to be taught doesn't want to learn.

Further complicating the incomprehension of the leftist (dolt) is their misunderstanding of science and their complete lack of perspective and scale with respect to AGW, specifically the associated consequences of prematurely implementing the policies they want to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.  Let's assume AGW is proven one day, but its effects have been overstated by these provably unreliable models by a factor of 50, meaning the effect is essentially de minimus.

They'd nonetheless insist on the economically devastating policies they are proposing, because they are insane and this has nothing to do with science or preserving the earth. It's about power and control. The policies they desire further consolidate wealth within governments, and to the detriment of an ever expanding group of poor people and some rich people that decided to invest in oil instead of green energy.

Amid all the FSD-isms, he at least seems to understand science better than K-S-U.

Is there a single point of refute in my entire diatribe?


To start, I don't think "leftists think the federal government is a purely altruistic institution", but it didn't seem worth arguing. I agree that the greenhouse effect should continue to be studied and refined as we gain data.

It's an entertaining rant, but it's difficult to take you seriously, ya know?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 01:57:31 PM
Okay, change "all" to "an overwhelming majority" and we've got an irrefutable statement summarizing everything that is wrong with the politicization of climate change.

Thanks for helping.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 21, 2014, 02:07:42 PM
Okay, change "all" to "an overwhelming majority" and we've got an irrefutable statement summarizing everything that is wrong with the politicization of climate change.

Thanks for helping.

I think we're closing in on settling this issue,  you're welcome America!

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 21, 2014, 02:07:55 PM
Okay, change "all" to "an overwhelming majority" and we've got an irrefutable statement summarizing everything that is wrong with the politicization of climate change.

Thanks for helping.

I don't think that's accurate.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 02:10:11 PM
Okay, change "all" to "an overwhelming majority" and we've got an irrefutable statement summarizing everything that is wrong with the politicization of climate change.

Thanks for helping.

I don't think that's accurate.

Yeah, you're probably right. How about "nearly all" or "substantially all" or "virtually all"?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 05:19:53 PM
It's the inquisition, what a show!  The inquisition, here we go!

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2014/05/climate-change_shenanigans_at_.html

All skeptics shall be shunned!



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 21, 2014, 06:28:34 PM
It's the inquisition, what a show!  The inquisition, here we go!

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2014/05/climate-change_shenanigans_at_.html

All skeptics shall be shunned!
Quote
Minding the Campus is a website
of the Manhattan Institute
Quote
The Manhattan Institute received over $31 million in grants from 1985 to 2012, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation.[13] The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, ExxonMobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint Nextel, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merrill Lynch. Throughout the 1990s the Tobacco industry was a major funding source for the institute. [14]
:lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 21, 2014, 06:37:18 PM
one minute dax is talking about The Grand Chessboard and how america is obsessed with geostrategic oil bullshit and the next he's saying that government has an anti-carbon(oil) energy bias!

what a rough ridin' lunatic!  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 21, 2014, 06:38:14 PM
(http://goEMAW.com/forum/Smileys/goEMAW/LOL.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on May 21, 2014, 06:59:38 PM
(http://goEMAW.com/forum/Smileys/goEMAW/LOL.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 09:52:15 PM

 :lol:

I'm pretty sure bubbles has mental retardation. Like, he clearly doesn't get it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:12:19 PM
I'll admit, part of me is sad that people like bubbles, jackstack, ell, et al, associate (perhaps attend and graduate from) kstate, because they are so goddamn ignorant and unintelligent, and their existence thereby denigrates the achievements and accomplishments of other alumni. Then I remember this is a message board, they are (hopefully) extreme exceptions, and the entertainment value to myself far exceeds any perceptible damage to me or the university.

What's really sad is that this pathetic forum seems to encourage this ignorant existence, while operating under the guise of the university.  That's what makes me hate the crap out the mods, aside from the special treatment I get from them. They are the most pathetic and worst people. It also makes their criticism of the administration just rough ridin' laughable as it relates to the perception of the university.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 10:17:59 PM
one minute dax is talking about The Grand Chessboard and how america is obsessed with geostrategic oil bullshit and the next he's saying that government has an anti-carbon(oil) energy bias!

what a rough ridin' lunatic!  :lol:

The agenda of control takes on many forms, it's a shame that you continually fail to understand that.   America and its proxies control the oil, so China and Russia don't, it's not about consumption, it's about . . . control.    You're an amoeba.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jackstack99EMAW on May 21, 2014, 10:21:14 PM
I'll admit, part of me is sad that people like bubbles, jackstack, ell, et al, associate (perhaps attend and graduate from) kstate, because they are so goddamn ignorant and unintelligent, and their existence thereby denigrates the achievements and accomplishments of other alumni. Then I remember this is a message board, they are (hopefully) extreme exceptions, and the entertainment value to myself far exceeds any perceptible damage to me or the university.

What's really sad is that this pathetic forum seems to encourage this ignorant existence, while operating under the guise of the university.  That's what makes me hate the crap out the mods, aside from the special treatment I get from them. They are the most pathetic and worst people. It also makes their criticism of the administration just rough ridin' laughable as it relates to the perception of the university.
Thanks for the shoutout!   :lol:
But at what point did I take a stance in this thread?  You're a dumbass when it comes to gay marriage and a lot of other things but that's really the only thing I've called you out on because your stance is just mind numbingly stupid and illogical.  You also called atheism(I believe) a religion today which is just incredible. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 10:22:19 PM
It's the inquisition, what a show!  The inquisition, here we go!

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2014/05/climate-change_shenanigans_at_.html

All skeptics shall be shunned!
Quote
Minding the Campus is a website
of the Manhattan Institute
Quote
The Manhattan Institute received over $31 million in grants from 1985 to 2012, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation.[13] The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, ExxonMobil, Chase Manhattan, Cigna, Sprint Nextel, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merrill Lynch. Throughout the 1990s the Tobacco industry was a major funding source for the institute. [14]
:lol:

First off, you'd probably find many of the same entities funding various institutes that you believe without question.   That's how the game is played.

Now, you need to show where the article is factually incorrect.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 21, 2014, 10:23:51 PM
I'll admit, part of me is sad that people like bubbles, jackstack, ell, et al, associate (perhaps attend and graduate from) kstate, because they are so goddamn ignorant and unintelligent, and their existence thereby denigrates the achievements and accomplishments of other alumni. Then I remember this is a message board, they are (hopefully) extreme exceptions, and the entertainment value to myself far exceeds any perceptible damage to me or the university.

What's really sad is that this pathetic forum seems to encourage this ignorant existence, while operating under the guise of the university.  That's what makes me hate the crap out the mods, aside from the special treatment I get from them. They are the most pathetic and worst people. It also makes their criticism of the administration just rough ridin' laughable as it relates to the perception of the university.

Can you point me to the forums you think are good?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:26:10 PM
Like British Petroleum isn't raping the public with wind energy, and Chevron doesn't buy all the green energy tax credits. How rough ridin' stupid can all of you people be?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 10:29:05 PM
Like British Petroleum isn't raping the public with wind energy, and Chevron doesn't buy all the green energy tax credits. How rough ridin' stupid can all of you people be?

Numerous European companies have poured billions into green energy . . . Didn't Merkel just announce that the German Gov't is pulling back?   Not cost effective and high energy rates I believe was the reason.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:32:43 PM
I'll admit, part of me is sad that people like bubbles, jackstack, ell, et al, associate (perhaps attend and graduate from) kstate, because they are so goddamn ignorant and unintelligent, and their existence thereby denigrates the achievements and accomplishments of other alumni. Then I remember this is a message board, they are (hopefully) extreme exceptions, and the entertainment value to myself far exceeds any perceptible damage to me or the university.

What's really sad is that this pathetic forum seems to encourage this ignorant existence, while operating under the guise of the university.  That's what makes me hate the crap out the mods, aside from the special treatment I get from them. They are the most pathetic and worst people. It also makes their criticism of the administration just rough ridin' laughable as it relates to the perception of the university.
Thanks for the shoutout!   :lol:
But at what point did I take a stance in this thread?  You're a dumbass when it comes to gay marriage and a lot of other things but that's really the only thing I've called you out on because your stance is just mind numbingly stupid and illogical.  You also called atheism(I believe) a religion today which is just incredible.

This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. This person doesn't even understand what they are reading.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jackstack99EMAW on May 21, 2014, 10:34:12 PM
I'll admit, part of me is sad that people like bubbles, jackstack, ell, et al, associate (perhaps attend and graduate from) kstate, because they are so goddamn ignorant and unintelligent, and their existence thereby denigrates the achievements and accomplishments of other alumni. Then I remember this is a message board, they are (hopefully) extreme exceptions, and the entertainment value to myself far exceeds any perceptible damage to me or the university.

What's really sad is that this pathetic forum seems to encourage this ignorant existence, while operating under the guise of the university.  That's what makes me hate the crap out the mods, aside from the special treatment I get from them. They are the most pathetic and worst people. It also makes their criticism of the administration just rough ridin' laughable as it relates to the perception of the university.
Thanks for the shoutout!   :lol:
But at what point did I take a stance in this thread?  You're a dumbass when it comes to gay marriage and a lot of other things but that's really the only thing I've called you out on because your stance is just mind numbingly stupid and illogical.  You also called atheism(I believe) a religion today which is just incredible.

This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. This person doesn't even understand what they are reading.
:flush:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 21, 2014, 10:34:34 PM
no disrespect to the many other humorous posters on this board but drunk FSD and political board dax are my two favs.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 10:37:46 PM
no disrespect to the many other humorous posters on this board but drunk FSD and political board dax are my two favs.

Your simple little mind brings a smile to my face.

Never stop bubbles.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:42:20 PM
Like British Petroleum isn't raping the public with wind energy, and Chevron doesn't buy all the green energy tax credits. How rough ridin' stupid can all of you people be?

Numerous European companies have poured billions into green energy . . . Didn't Merkel just announce that the German Gov't is pulling back?   Not cost effective and high energy rates I believe was the reason.

I would assume that most of the European companies pouring money into green energy, are actually owned by, or so heavily subsidized by the state, that they are for all intents and purposes "big government".

Germany was very aggressive in wind and solar, and they are paying a high price for that "investment". However, western Europe(sans Norway) is in a completely different position than the US, as they have very little recoverable hydrocarbon reserves. This presents a significant disadvantage to Europe economically,  which explains their motive to rid the earth of fossil fuel development.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 21, 2014, 10:43:49 PM
I mean to say countries, not companies, but the point remains.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:45:09 PM
I mean to say countries, not companies, but the point remains.

It's the difference between China and Chinese corporations.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:48:02 PM
no disrespect to the many other humorous posters on this board but drunk FSD and political board dax are my two favs.

If you're lucky, I'll take you to feed the ducks.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on May 21, 2014, 10:49:04 PM
FSD with a quality beemsian meltdown
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on May 21, 2014, 10:51:41 PM
get a load of that dax and FSD discussion!

 :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2014, 10:54:11 PM
Like I said, cornucopia of low hanging fruit.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 05:37:40 AM
I don't understand most of what I read in this thread.

With regards to the topic, I think most of the models that were so heavily quoted 20 plus years ago were wrong. There were other models, but they provided nothing that would sell a magazine or newspaper, or put people's rear in seats at major fundraisers. People that think status quo is likely and acceptable just don't get that energized to go out and support that position with $.

Big Companies throw money at both parties, but not typically at two conflicting view points. NGO's existence are largely based on one directive, and that is to influence politics. "Give us some money to help us organize for our cause." For large companies, or owners of privately held companies, influencing politics might make the top 10. "Give us some money for a good or service that you want or need."

I work for a large company that has spent millions this year and last to further research for a current 'hot button' topic. My company has millions and millions budgeted to spend on this issue in the future years as well. All $ being spent on serious studies and done in collaboration with people from both sides of the political isle and all different view points on the subject matter. Meanwhile, there are daily press releases and planned protests from the other side, with absolutely no money from that side being invested in research. The other side is best described as WBCish. You can't argue with them, but they really don't do anything to make conditions better for anyone else. They just want visibility and to make their supporters feel good about themselves.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 07:10:43 AM
I don't understand most of what I read in this thread.

With regards to the topic, I think most of the models that were so heavily quoted 20 plus years ago were wrong. There were other models, but they provided nothing that would sell a magazine or newspaper, or put people's rear in seats at major fundraisers. People that think status quo is likely and acceptable just don't get that energized to go out and support that position with $.

Big Companies throw money at both parties, but not typically at two conflicting view points. NGO's existence are largely based on one directive, and that is to influence politics. "Give us some money to help us organize for our cause." For large companies, or owners of privately held companies, influencing politics might make the top 10. "Give us some money for a good or service that you want or need."

I work for a large company that has spent millions this year and last to further research for a current 'hot button' topic. My company has millions and millions budgeted to spend on this issue in the future years as well. All $ being spent on serious studies and done in collaboration with people from both sides of the political isle and all different view points on the subject matter. Meanwhile, there are daily press releases and planned protests from the other side, with absolutely no money from that side being invested in research. The other side is best described as WBCish. You can't argue with them, but they really don't do anything to make conditions better for anyone else. They just want visibility and to make their supporters feel good about themselves.

I'm just guessing, and I didn't go looking for this, but ran across this morning:

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/21/yet-another-study-points-to-pe.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 07:42:19 AM
Quote
"Our goal is very clear: to impact the politics as it relates to climate in a time period that will result in policies that allow our country and the world to avoid the perils of climate change," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist advising the super PAC. "In a sense, it's a race against time."

This will surely help decide the issue and provide clear solutions, right?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/22/environmentalist-super-pac-to-spend-100m-to-back-democrats-in-senate-races/?intcmp=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/22/environmentalist-super-pac-to-spend-100m-to-back-democrats-in-senate-races/?intcmp=latestnews)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 07:47:25 AM
I'm just guessing, and I didn't go looking for this, but ran across this morning:

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/21/yet-another-study-points-to-pe.html

Here are some really great thoughts from an outspoken anti-pesticide, organic gardener who has been involved with bees for the better part of his life. If anyone read the above, then they have to read this as well.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/ (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 07:50:58 AM
I'm just guessing, and I didn't go looking for this, but ran across this morning:

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/21/yet-another-study-points-to-pe.html

Here are some really great thoughts from an outspoken anti-pesticide, organic gardener who has been involved with bees for the better part of his life. If anyone read the above, then they have to read this as well.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/ (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/)

that guy should do his own study using those things he says.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 07:58:30 AM
I'm just guessing, and I didn't go looking for this, but ran across this morning:

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/21/yet-another-study-points-to-pe.html

Here are some really great thoughts from an outspoken anti-pesticide, organic gardener who has been involved with bees for the better part of his life. If anyone read the above, then they have to read this as well.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/ (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/)

that guy should do his own study using those things he says.
He is involved. Studies have been done or are ongoing. No link (and no proven link, YET!).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 08:02:13 AM
I'm just guessing, and I didn't go looking for this, but ran across this morning:

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/21/yet-another-study-points-to-pe.html

Here are some really great thoughts from an outspoken anti-pesticide, organic gardener who has been involved with bees for the better part of his life. If anyone read the above, then they have to read this as well.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/ (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/news-and-blogs-page/)

that guy should do his own study using those things he says.
On second thought, here is a link that "that guy" posted in the link that I linked.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-2-a-model-of-colony-collapse/ (http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-2-a-model-of-colony-collapse/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 08:03:27 AM
disclaimer: I have no idea if this is the topic you were referring to in your original post and I personally know nothing about it. but, you really painted the "other side" of the argument with a broad stroke of dismissal and praised the "good" side for their doing really sciency stuff and not trying to sway the results and all that. then you counter pointed a harvard study by posting a link to a blog from one guy who likes bees. If this is the issue, it's hard to read your take into it as anything other than the regurgitation of BIG PESTICIDE.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 08:10:44 AM
disclaimer: I have no idea if this is the topic you were referring to in your original post and I personally know nothing about it. but, you really painted the "other side" of the argument with a broad stroke of dismissal and praised the "good" side for their doing really sciency stuff and not trying to sway the results and all that. then you counter pointed a harvard study by posting a link to a blog from one guy who likes bees. If this is the issue, it's hard to read your take into it as anything other than the regurgitation of BIG PESTICIDE.
Well, the Harvard study is pretty lame, to be fair.

A blog can be factual, as evidenced on gE. I enjoy bees more than the average person, and for more than one reason I have a very vested interest in their survival. Also, annonimity only goes so far, so I should digress.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 08:11:50 AM
How about that climate change bs?

(I'm tapping out.)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 08:12:48 AM
I love bees. sddad has bee boxes on some of his alfalfa. I eat that stuff on the reg. and I wasn't trying to pry into your private stuff or fight about the topic. I was just guessing based on your post.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 08:17:11 AM
I love bees. sddad has bee boxes on some of his alfalfa. I eat that stuff on the reg. and I wasn't trying to pry into your private stuff or fight about the topic. I was just guessing based on your post.
Didn't take it as you trying to fight or pry. If I don't want to talk about something, then I shouldn't post it. (Which means I really must want to talk about it... but I really shouldn't.)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 08:40:50 AM
I would have guessed it was about GMO's! Which is almost at the level of anti-vacc wackos but not quite.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 08:43:48 AM
I would have guessed it was about GMO's! Which is almost at the level of anti-vacc wackos but not quite.

I knew in general what biz he worked in from previous posts.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 08:52:51 AM
You pay very close attention to this blog.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 08:53:31 AM
You pay very close attention to this blog.

if you want to be the best message boarder you can be you have to put in the time
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 08:53:39 AM
You pay very close attention to your blog.
fyp
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 22, 2014, 09:23:15 AM
This thread is worthless without a chart magnifying bee death anomalies.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 22, 2014, 09:37:17 AM
I would have guessed it was about GMO's! Which is almost at the level of anti-vacc wackos but not quite.
I think it's hilarious how far right and far left people are against GMOs and vaccinations. Maybe it's just conspiracy whackos in general from both sides? Probably should be in another thread,  continue on.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 09:42:59 AM
I would have guessed it was about GMO's! Which is almost at the level of anti-vacc wackos but not quite.
I think it's hilarious how far right and far left people are against GMOs and vaccinations. Maybe it's just conspiracy whackos in general from both sides? Probably should be in another thread,  continue on.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

The gmo labeling push has a ton of support from the mainstream left. The anti vaccination crowd is a little more extreme.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on May 22, 2014, 10:43:40 AM
I would have guessed it was about GMO's! Which is almost at the level of anti-vacc wackos but not quite.
I think it's hilarious how far right and far left people are against GMOs and vaccinations. Maybe it's just conspiracy whackos in general from both sides? Probably should be in another thread,  continue on.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

The gmo labeling push has a ton of support from the mainstream left. The anti vaccination crowd is a little more extreme.

You obviously haven't listened to enough Alex Jones.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 22, 2014, 10:54:54 AM
I would have guessed it was about GMO's! Which is almost at the level of anti-vacc wackos but not quite.
I think it's hilarious how far right and far left people are against GMOs and vaccinations. Maybe it's just conspiracy whackos in general from both sides? Probably should be in another thread,  continue on.

Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk

The gmo labeling push has a ton of support from the mainstream left. The anti vaccination crowd is a little more extreme.

The GMO labs in Kauai have had to install razor wire and armed guards to keep the wackos out. You see anti-GMO signs in front yards around the island.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 10:59:39 AM
It is speculated that anti GMO's have purposefully pollinated non-GMO crops with GMO's in order to further their argument.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on May 22, 2014, 11:33:51 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 12:01:03 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
You didn't believe it when I quoted that story from FOXNEWS? I mean, I don't think they make up the quotes.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 22, 2014, 12:04:18 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)

Typical liberal hypocrisy.  "I made my money, screw the rest of you!"
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 12:07:34 PM
Quote
"Our goal is very clear: to impact the politics as it relates to climate in a time period that will result in policies that allow our country and the world to avoid the perils of climate change," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist advising the super PAC. "In a sense, it's a race against time."

This will surely help decide the issue and provide clear solutions, right?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/22/environmentalist-super-pac-to-spend-100m-to-back-democrats-in-senate-races/?intcmp=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/22/environmentalist-super-pac-to-spend-100m-to-back-democrats-in-senate-races/?intcmp=latestnews)
I don't like being completely overlooked. :cry:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2014, 12:08:24 PM
Progressive mindset dictates that Steyer ='s Good   Koch ='s Bad

We won't even mention the fact that Steyer made his billions on the back of fossil fuels.

Now he's clearly hedging his bets on the other side of the fence in order to put more money in his pocket.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 12:12:14 PM
I think all super-PAC's are pretty awful.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 22, 2014, 12:17:45 PM
Quote
"Our goal is very clear: to impact the politics as it relates to climate in a time period that will result in policies that allow our country and the world to avoid the perils of climate change," said Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist advising the super PAC. "In a sense, it's a race against time."

This will surely help decide the issue and provide clear solutions, right?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/22/environmentalist-super-pac-to-spend-100m-to-back-democrats-in-senate-races/?intcmp=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/22/environmentalist-super-pac-to-spend-100m-to-back-democrats-in-senate-races/?intcmp=latestnews)
I don't like being completely overlooked. :cry:

You can't post Fox News links here. The libs won't read it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on May 22, 2014, 12:26:33 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2)
You didn't believe it when I quoted that story from FOXNEWS? I mean, I don't think they make up the quotes.

DNR, sorry Dobbs.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on May 22, 2014, 12:27:33 PM
To be fair, I rarely click links here.  I wait until ppl post the story.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on May 22, 2014, 12:31:04 PM
To be fair, I rarely click links here.  I wait until ppl post the story.
YOU POSTED A LINK!!!!  (I'm "just jk", you know?)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2014, 12:51:48 PM
The U.S. is clearly on a path of CO2 reduction (unlike Russia, China, India), and the U.S. clearly does not need any type of radicalized policy in order to continue down the path of CO2 reduction (and the most interesting thing is, the true scientists are saying that there's no way it can be definitively said that C02 is causing climate change.   Or they are saying that IF C02 is causing climate change or climate forcing they are still years away at best, and may likely never understand the full extent of the impact of C02 emissions on the climate.  At the end of the day, real scientists say again and again in peer reviewed paper after paper they simply don't know, and that the science is far from settled and many scoff at the notion of a "settled science"). 

The following article by Roger Pielke a climate and atmospheric scientist of some renown and a believer that man made emissions are impacting the environment (like most of us, duh) excoriates John Holdren, one of the senior science advisers for the Obama Administration.   I will say that I absolutely disagree with Pielke's call for additional taxes to mitigate the impact of man made emissions, because the things that emit the speculated harmful gasses are already taxed at extremely high levels.  But back to the article, Pielke attacks the claim that AGW is causing an increase in substantial climate/weather events like floods, storms etc. etc.   Or in other words, normal weather events are being exaggerated and politicized for the advancement of a political movement, and Pielke is saying there's no way such a claim can be made at this time based on the best information available.   Peilke is one of a few experts who are are attempting to stay above the environmental political agenda, unfortunately everytime Peilke (or similar) speaks out, along comes some government cheeser dining at the trough of government largess to shout them down. 

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116887/does-climate-change-cause-extreme-weather-i-said-no-and-was-attacked
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on May 22, 2014, 12:56:52 PM
To be fair, I rarely click links here.  I wait until ppl post the story.
YOU POSTED A LINK!!!!  (I'm "just jk", you know?)

We are all hypocrites.  Don't you read FSD's stuff?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 01:25:37 PM
At the end of the day, real scientists say again and again in peer reviewed paper after paper they simply don't know, and that the science is far from settled and many scoff at the notion of a "settled science"). 


I think the "science is settled" talking point (which mostly comes in a mocking tone from the right) is referring to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect isn't disputed by any legitimate scientists, but you're correct that the full extent of the human impact on the greenhouse effect will likely never be fully understood or predictable. It's just too complex.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2014, 01:46:56 PM
At the end of the day, real scientists say again and again in peer reviewed paper after paper they simply don't know, and that the science is far from settled and many scoff at the notion of a "settled science"). 


I think the "science is settled" talking point (which mostly comes in a mocking tone from the right) is referring to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect isn't disputed by any legitimate scientists, but you're correct that the full extent of the human impact on the greenhouse effect will likely never be fully understood or predictable. It's just too complex.

The various iterations of the "Science is settled" typically come from the left, they are then seized upon by the right to point out the absurdity of a settled scientific matter when it relates to something as complex as the climate.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 01:52:03 PM
At the end of the day, real scientists say again and again in peer reviewed paper after paper they simply don't know, and that the science is far from settled and many scoff at the notion of a "settled science"). 


I think the "science is settled" talking point (which mostly comes in a mocking tone from the right) is referring to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect isn't disputed by any legitimate scientists, but you're correct that the full extent of the human impact on the greenhouse effect will likely never be fully understood or predictable. It's just too complex.

The various iterations of the "Science is settled" typically come from the left, they are then seized upon by the right to point out the absurdity of a settled scientific matter when it relates to something as complex as the climate.



the seizure of phrases such as this make it impossible to take anyone using it that way seriously.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on May 22, 2014, 01:52:41 PM
I've only ever heard "the science is settled" from ksu and Dax types
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on May 22, 2014, 01:59:57 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/8YbZ8cv.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2014, 02:12:51 PM
At the end of the day, real scientists say again and again in peer reviewed paper after paper they simply don't know, and that the science is far from settled and many scoff at the notion of a "settled science"). 


I think the "science is settled" talking point (which mostly comes in a mocking tone from the right) is referring to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect isn't disputed by any legitimate scientists, but you're correct that the full extent of the human impact on the greenhouse effect will likely never be fully understood or predictable. It's just too complex.

The various iterations of the "Science is settled" typically come from the left, they are then seized upon by the right to point out the absurdity of a settled scientific matter when it relates to something as complex as the climate.



the seizure of phrases such as this make it impossible to take anyone using it that way seriously.

But I or many like me would never use the phrase the "science is settled" if it hadn't been used for years (at this point) but AGW proponents.    If you haven't seen the usage of that phrase again and again by AGW proponents then you must not have been paying very close attention for very long.

The scientific consensus on whether human beings are causing global climate change is largely settled – we are causing it.

Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/harford/belair/ph-ag-david-ppt-column-0514-20140512,0,5271320.story#ixzz32TOAiEzF

You can find statements of this type littering news articles, journals, lectures etc. etc. spanning back years.

The debate on climate change is settled: it is here, it is human-caused, and it is already having a devastating impact on our communities, but we need to accelerate the level of political support to address this critical issue before it’s too late,” Fossil Fuel Billionaire Tom Steyer, now trying to become Green Energy multi-billionaire.

It took all of about 1 minute to find two examples. 


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 02:23:37 PM
I understand why you repeat it over and over and over....do you understand why your constant use of the phrase makes you look like an idiot that can't participate in a rational conversation?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2014, 02:32:52 PM
I understand why you repeat it over and over and over....do you understand why your constant use of the phrase makes you look like an idiot that can't participate in a rational conversation?

LOL, I use it because I know it bothers people like you, because the entire notion is simply absurd and it is uttered again and again and again by AGW propagandists who use it like a verbal sledgehammer in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with them. 

One of the very latest examples is a duplicitous billionaire who no doubt has a legion of AGW propagandists standing behind him waving the pom-poms every step of the way. 

The science is settled phrase has been a cornerstone of the effort of AGW propagandists (and by some of the biggest AGW propagandists in the business no less) to silence critics for years. 

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact."  (I'll give the president the benefit in that he meant AGW Climate Change and didn't mean the generic term: Climate.   Because if he mean just climate and that's it's changing, then that's just like saying water is wet) Pres. Obama State of the Union 2014

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 02:34:46 PM
that would make sense if someone here you were responding to was saying that over and over
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2014, 02:39:03 PM
that would make sense if someone here you were responding to was saying that over and over

It's perfectly applicable to the discussion of the topic, when our own political leaders  and so called leading scientists and pundits toss around the words of "settled" "debate is over" "fact" again and again.   

You're just bothered by how ridiculous their espousal's really are.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 22, 2014, 02:40:10 PM
that would make sense if someone here you were responding to was saying that over and over

It's perfectly applicable to the discussion of the topic, when our own political leaders  and so called leading scientists and pundits toss around the words of "settled" "debate is over" "fact" again and again.   

You're just bothered by how ridiculous their espousal's really are.

ok
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on May 22, 2014, 03:02:24 PM
The thing is, I agree with the fact that "Science is settled" is a ridiculous statement when there is no further information attached to it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on May 22, 2014, 03:23:22 PM
The thing is, I agree with the fact that "Science is settled" is a ridiculous statement when there is no further information attached to it.

it's a stupid talking point.  the oliver clip was slightly funny, but Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  the science is not at all settled.  saying that it is a "fact" is almost as inaccurate as denying that the great preponderance of evidence from multiple sources and lines of investigation suggest that co2 and other human-source greenhouse gases have caused a rapid global-scale climatic warming trend.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 22, 2014, 03:23:32 PM
I've only ever heard "the science is settled" from ksu and Dax types

Looks like we've found ourselves a denier.  Get 'em!!!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on May 22, 2014, 05:19:49 PM
I understand why you repeat it over and over and over....do you understand why your constant use of the phrase makes you look like an idiot that can't participate in a rational conversation?

LOL, I use it because I know it bothers people like you, because the entire notion is simply absurd and it is uttered again and again and again by AGW propagandists who use it like a verbal sledgehammer in an attempt to shout down anyone who disagrees with them. 

One of the very latest examples is a duplicitous billionaire who no doubt has a legion of AGW propagandists standing behind him waving the pom-poms every step of the way. 

The science is settled phrase has been a cornerstone of the effort of AGW propagandists (and by some of the biggest AGW propagandists in the business no less) to silence critics for years. 

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact."  (I'll give the president the benefit in that he meant AGW Climate Change and didn't mean the generic term: Climate.   Because if he mean just climate and that's it's changing, then that's just like saying water is wet) Pres. Obama State of the Union 2014

only bad if they are stupid libs  :shakesfist:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 23, 2014, 07:30:28 AM
The thing is, I agree with the fact that "Science is settled" is a ridiculous statement when there is no further information attached to it.

it's a stupid talking point.  the oliver clip was slightly funny, but Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  the science is not at all settled.  saying that it is a "fact" is almost as inaccurate as denying that the great preponderance of evidence from multiple sources and lines of investigation suggest that co2 and other human-source greenhouse gases have caused a rapid global-scale climatic warming trend.

 :D
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 23, 2014, 09:42:20 AM
lol wut

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/20/pat-sajak-climate-change_n_5358656.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: illBisonYourdele on May 23, 2014, 10:08:33 AM
Climate change spending is already more than one Manhattan Project every year (or 7 times DARPA annual budget)
 

(http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_14008574978826&key=a935c4a36a211cf475f748cf8958ae08&libId=4d74208f-8b89-4101-9532-99dcae194673&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fnextbigfuture.com%2F2014%2F05%2Fclimate-change-spending-is-already-more.html&v=1&out=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-mFIts9_Ue1Q%2FU36SZS5he2I%2FAAAAAAAAvf8%2Fs-QQ0ygfALw%2Fs1600%2FUSclimatechangespend.png&ref=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedly.com%2F&title=Climate%20change%20spending%20is%20already%20more%20than%20one%20Manhattan%20project%20every%20year%20or%207%20times%20DARPA%20annual%20budget&txt=)

IPCC wants almost a trillion per year to be spent through 2030 and then to increase spending to over a trillion per year.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/climate-change-spending-is-already-more.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Panjandrum on May 23, 2014, 10:12:28 AM
lol wut

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/20/pat-sajak-climate-change_n_5358656.html

I like to imagine that Pat Sajak as one that spends his days drunk and pantsless, reading the Drudge, and then going to Tweet about it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 23, 2014, 10:56:06 AM
World Drought Status for the last 30 years:

(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/sdata20141-f51.jpg)

 D0 (yellow) = abnormally dry; D1 (orange) = moderate drought, D4 (red) is extreme drought.

http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata20141
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on May 23, 2014, 06:34:15 PM
There has been a lot of talk about the western antarctic ice sheet melting while the rest of Antarctica is under record ice, which nobody has been able to explain other than global warming may be causing more wind and warm water currents, but that's just a guess.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/131118-antarctica-volcano-earthquakes-erupt-sea-level-rise-science/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/131118-antarctica-volcano-earthquakes-erupt-sea-level-rise-science/)

Quote
A newly discovered volcano found buried beneath a thick layer of ice in Antarctica could speed up ice loss and raise global sea levels when it erupts, scientists say.

The finding, detailed in the current issue of Nature Geoscience, marks the first time that an active volcano has been discovered under the ice of the frozen continent.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 01, 2014, 12:46:47 AM
There has been a lot of talk about the western antarctic ice sheet melting while the rest of Antarctica is under record ice.


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27465050
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2014, 08:46:52 AM
I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a
variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the
characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental
changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.
2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes
incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they
deserve. The reports are "scientific-sounding" rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting
their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen
usually think.
3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about
that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the
warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is
normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it
seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The concerns I have mentioned with the IPCC apply as well to the White
House's National Climate Assessment. I reviewed and provided comments on the
draft White House's National Climate assessment and, unfortunately, it appears that
these issues have not been addressed in the final assessment. For example, I stated:
 "The executive summary is a political statement, not a scientific statement. It is filled
with misstatements contradicted by well-established and well-known scientific papers."
 "Climate has always affected people and all life on Earth, so it isn't new to say it is
'already affecting the American people.' This is just a political statement."
 "It is inappropriate to use short-term changes in weather as an indication one way or
another about persistent climate change


http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY-WState-DBotkin-20140529.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2014, 08:49:16 AM
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20140529-14-P-0270.pdf
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 01, 2014, 11:33:07 PM
Good news everyone, Obama intends to impose new EPA regulations drastically reducing CO2 emissions. I don't know about you, but I'm happy to pay much higher electric bills just in case the catastrophic AGW theory is actually is true, despite all observations to the contrary. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-02/obama-said-to-propose-deep-cuts-to-power-plant-emissions.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-02/obama-said-to-propose-deep-cuts-to-power-plant-emissions.html)

And more good news, somewhat related: remember all the doom and gloom about declining polar bear populations due to AGW? Turns out, that story wasn't just wrong - it was a fraud from the very start. The science is settled, until it isn't. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 02, 2014, 12:48:39 AM
And more good news, somewhat related: remember all the doom and gloom about declining polar bear populations due to AGW? Turns out, that story wasn't just wrong - it was a fraud from the very start. The science is settled, until it isn't. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html)

it's so hard for me to tell if most people are just normally completely incapable of approaching even really, really simple science or if you're especially stupid.  i actually think it's the former.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 02, 2014, 08:10:33 AM
And more good news, somewhat related: remember all the doom and gloom about declining polar bear populations due to AGW? Turns out, that story wasn't just wrong - it was a fraud from the very start. The science is settled, until it isn't. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html)

it's so hard for me to tell if most people are just normally completely incapable of approaching even really, really simple science or if you're especially stupid.  i actually think it's the former.

No, I just read the article and the email, wherein the "scientist" admitted that his dwindling polar bear population claim was nothing more than a not-so-educated guess crafted to "satisfy public demand." But you know what they say, you can lead a libtard to information, but you can't make him think.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 02, 2014, 12:43:33 PM
EPA set to put sweeping new restrictions in place, even though the GAO has concluded they're using flawed data.

Politics and control trumps the right thing to do every time.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 02, 2014, 04:13:21 PM
And more good news, somewhat related: remember all the doom and gloom about declining polar bear populations due to AGW? Turns out, that story wasn't just wrong - it was a fraud from the very start. The science is settled, until it isn't. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/scientist_confesses_he_made_up_polar_bear_population_estimates.html)

it's so hard for me to tell if most people are just normally completely incapable of approaching even really, really simple science or if you're especially stupid.  i actually think it's the former.

No, I just read the article and the email, wherein the "scientist" admitted that his dwindling polar bear population claim was nothing more than a not-so-educated guess crafted to "satisfy public demand." But you know what they say, you can lead a libtard to information, but you can't make him think.

odd that you start your reply with "no", then go on to agree with everything i posted.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 02, 2014, 04:53:14 PM
Quote
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, immediately reducing all U.S. CO2 emissions would reduce global temperatures by .08 C by 2050.

I mean, what are we even trying to do here?  I guess China told the world to go eff themselves, and the libtards jumped at the opportunity.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 02, 2014, 05:03:34 PM
Yes, the goal should be that everything be back to ideal tomorrow.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 02, 2014, 05:27:33 PM
What is ideal?

Almost 18 straight years with no Global Warming.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7ScXmwsVmh4/U2YdDk8-OoI/AAAAAAAAjHk/-AGKJTaFvWw/s800/17years9months.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 02, 2014, 06:00:07 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7ScXmwsVmh4/U2YdDk8-OoI/AAAAAAAAjHk/-AGKJTaFvWw/s800/17years9months.png)

what a strange desktop picture
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 02, 2014, 06:03:09 PM
What is ideal?



A denier in the white house, amirite?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 02, 2014, 06:29:28 PM
What is ideal?



A denier in the white house, amirite?

Or an administration that doesn't politicize an agency to make sweeping changes based information that's been audited by the GAO and found flawed.

Not difficult.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 02, 2014, 07:30:48 PM
Yes, the goal should be that everything be back to ideal tomorrow.

Wut? Eliminating ALL carbon emissions is a realistic goal?  Good lawd, we in troubs.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 03, 2014, 08:26:14 AM
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 03, 2014, 09:18:16 AM
I still can't believe any deviation from baseline is characterized as an anomaly on all these graphs.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 03, 2014, 02:21:13 PM
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph.

I know how to read that graph.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 03, 2014, 03:34:09 PM
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph.

I would like a detailed explanation. Michcat and beems can jump in here if they like.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 03, 2014, 05:27:47 PM
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph.

I would like a detailed explanation. Michcat and beems can jump in here if they like.

The graph shows warming, even if it's slight. The amount of warming depends on how the anomaly is calculated (which isn't on that guy's desktop for some reason).

Regardless, it's a terrible example of cherry-picking data (something folks on both sides do plenty).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on June 03, 2014, 05:44:27 PM
I still can't believe that Dax doesn't know how to read that graph.

I would like a detailed explanation. Michcat and beems can jump in here if they like.

The graph shows warming, even if it's slight. The amount of warming depends on how the anomaly is calculated (which isn't on that guy's desktop for some reason).

Regardless, it's a terrible example of cherry-picking data (something folks on both sides do plenty).

still makes me lol everytime i see it just thinking about some dude screen shotting his desktop  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 03, 2014, 09:20:58 PM
Regardless of what the data shows, I think we can all  :lol: at the idea of fitting it with a horizontal line and declaring no change.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 03, 2014, 09:56:14 PM
You guys calling remote sensing systems liars?

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 03, 2014, 11:40:39 PM
Regardless of what the data shows, I think we can all  :lol: at the idea of fitting it with a horizontal line and declaring no change.

The only way to tell is to do the math.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on June 04, 2014, 07:08:04 AM
(http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_1024.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 04, 2014, 08:34:07 AM
Skeptical Science are noted cherry pickers and as MichCat would said, just like everyone else.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 04, 2014, 09:30:50 AM
How alarmists see global warming:

(http://futurepath.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/800px-Satellite_Temperatures.png)

How realists see global warming:

(http://i.imgur.com/V2laBnK.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 06, 2014, 08:45:15 AM
92% chance of a moderate el Nino, so a hot summer and wet winter coming.  :)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 06, 2014, 10:58:45 AM
92% chance of a moderate el Nino, so a hot summer and wet winter coming.  :)

YES!!! (link tho?)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 06, 2014, 11:19:02 AM
moderate el ninos only slightly improve the odds of wet winters in the southwest.  we need a strong el nino.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 06, 2014, 02:20:00 PM
92% chance of a moderate el Nino, so a hot summer and wet winter coming.  :)

YES!!! (link tho?)

On CBS this morning.

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/06/04/declining-pelican-breeding-may-mean-wetter-california-weather-under-el-nino/ (http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/06/04/declining-pelican-breeding-may-mean-wetter-california-weather-under-el-nino/)

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: #LIFE on June 07, 2014, 01:04:28 AM
CASE CLOSED!  E-mail from the White House

Quote

Hi, everyone --

This past Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed national limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants for the first time.

Since then, folks across the country -- on editorial boards, in classrooms, on front porches -- have been weighing in on why this is so important. And with that in mind, here's something I want to make clear:

We’re already experiencing the effects of climate change today -- but don't just think about this proposed rule in terms of the country we're living in right now. Think about the one we and our children are going to be living in by 2030.

Thanks to these limits, that country will have a 30 percent reduction in carbon pollution from the power sector. It will also have 25 percent less smog and soot, meaning children will have an estimated 150,000 fewer asthma attacks each year -- and they'll miss an estimated 180,000 fewer days of school. Americans across the board will have up to 3,300 fewer heart attacks a year.

And now that the rule has been proposed, you can participate in the process.

Right now, we're accepting comments from the public about the proposed power plant rule.

So if you've got something to say, you can submit a public comment here.

And if you want to get some more details about why this is good for the environment and public health -- or spread the word about why it's a big deal -- you can take a look at this infographic, and then pass it on.

Right now, we're in the process of developing the policies that will keep our planet clean and our kids healthy for years to come.

You can participate in that process right now. So if you've got a comment, you can make it here.

Thanks,

Administrator Gina McCarthy
 Environmental Protection Agency

 :facepalm:
 


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 07, 2014, 01:17:11 PM
The EPA seems to be more of a special interest group and progressive mouthpiece than a government agency .
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 08, 2014, 01:04:34 PM
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ChiComCat on June 08, 2014, 01:11:17 PM
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.


Please tell me your argument isn't "because scientists have been wrong before we should just ignore them"

Reminds me of the dumbass belief that some people have on the football board that because player X was a two star and successful, every two star is going to be just as successful.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 08, 2014, 01:26:26 PM
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.


Please tell me your argument isn't "because scientists have been wrong before we should just ignore them"

Reminds me of the dumbass belief that some people have on the football board that because player X was a two star and successful, every two star is going to be just as successful.

LOL, that's not the point of the article nor the argument.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ChiComCat on June 08, 2014, 04:38:12 PM
Most of the papers they studied are not about climate change and its causes, but many were taken as evidence nonetheless. Papers on carbon taxes naturally assume that carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming – but assumptions are not conclusions. Cook’s claim of an increasing consensus over time is entirely due to an increase of the number of irrelevant papers that Cook and co mistook for evidence.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced.


Please tell me your argument isn't "because scientists have been wrong before we should just ignore them"

Reminds me of the dumbass belief that some people have on the football board that because player X was a two star and successful, every two star is going to be just as successful.

LOL, that's not the point of the article nor the argument.



Didn't read the article but the highlighted part about ignoring consensus because its been wrong before seems to point that way
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on June 08, 2014, 05:51:05 PM
The concensus once thought the world was flat, ChiCat
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ChiComCat on June 09, 2014, 10:35:05 AM
The concensus once thought the world was flat, ChiCat

Now it think the world is round, so that must be wrong too.  Also, global warming.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2014, 04:59:03 PM
So, we can't really say how much or how little CO2 emissions are impacting the environment but we're going to go ahead and impose radical, extremely expensive policies which will likely have a negative impact on the economy and make life more difficult for the working poor, elderly and those on fixed incomes (but will make a select chosen few extremely wealthy and/or much more wealthy than they already are).

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 09, 2014, 05:26:52 PM
So, we can't really say how much or how little CO2 emissions are impacting the environment but we're going to go ahead and impose radical, extremely expensive policies which will likely have a negative impact on the economy and make life more difficult for the working poor, elderly and those on fixed incomes (but will make a select chosen few extremely wealthy and/or much more wealthy than they already are).

 :thumbsup:

How expensive will the policies be and how much will they make life more difficult for the working poor, elderly and those on fixed incomes?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2014, 05:46:05 PM
So, we can't really say how much or how little CO2 emissions are impacting the environment but we're going to go ahead and impose radical, extremely expensive policies which will likely have a negative impact on the economy and make life more difficult for the working poor, elderly and those on fixed incomes (but will make a select chosen few extremely wealthy and/or much more wealthy than they already are).

 :thumbsup:

How expensive will the policies be and how much will they make life more difficult for the working poor, elderly and those on fixed incomes?

Here's a good start, and understand that Germany is 1/4 size of the U.S. population:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-16/merkel-s-offshore-wind-power-dream-for-germany-stalls.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/world/europe/merkel-offers-defense-of-her-policy-on-energy.html?_r=0


The price of energy will go up, unless there's massive government subsidies, someone has to pay for the subsidies, so there's going to be increased costs inputted into the system and passed down to the consumer one way or the other.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 09, 2014, 05:52:04 PM
The price of energy will go up, unless there's massive government subsidies, someone has to pay for the subsidies, so there's going to be increased costs inputted into the system and passed down to the consumer one way or the other.

I get all that, but you don't seem to know exactly how much costs will increase. (or even come close to estimating the costs to consumers).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 09, 2014, 05:57:16 PM
The price of energy will go up, unless there's massive government subsidies, someone has to pay for the subsidies, so there's going to be increased costs inputted into the system and passed down to the consumer one way or the other.

I get all that, but you don't seem to know exactly how much costs will increase. (or even come close to estimating the costs to consumers).

The EPA's proposal didn't include these numbers?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2014, 05:58:11 PM
The price of energy will go up, unless there's massive government subsidies, someone has to pay for the subsidies, so there's going to be increased costs inputted into the system and passed down to the consumer one way or the other.

I get all that, but you don't seem to know exactly how much costs will increase. (or even come close to estimating the costs to consumers).

Wow, because Is said the price will go up means I know exactly how much they're going to up?  Sounds like you just don't like the message cRusty.

One of the world's largest economies went almost all in on green energy and had/has some of the highest if not highest energy rates of the G7 or G6 or G8 (whatever is is now) countries.  Would have been even higher if not for massive gov't subsidies.   I'd say that's a pretty good model to go off of.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 09, 2014, 06:11:47 PM
The price of energy will go up, unless there's massive government subsidies, someone has to pay for the subsidies, so there's going to be increased costs inputted into the system and passed down to the consumer one way or the other.

I get all that, but you don't seem to know exactly how much costs will increase. (or even come close to estimating the costs to consumers).

Wow, because Is said the price will go up means I know exactly how much they're going to up?  Sounds like you just don't like the message cRusty.

I recognize there will be uncertainty with how much cost to consumers will go up, just like I realize there is uncertainty with how much CO2 emissions affect climate.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2014, 06:13:50 PM
The price of energy will go up, unless there's massive government subsidies, someone has to pay for the subsidies, so there's going to be increased costs inputted into the system and passed down to the consumer one way or the other.

I get all that, but you don't seem to know exactly how much costs will increase. (or even come close to estimating the costs to consumers).

Wow, because Is said the price will go up means I know exactly how much they're going to up?  Sounds like you just don't like the message cRusty.

I recognize there will be uncertainty with how much cost to consumers will go up, just like I realize there is uncertainty with how much CO2 emissions affect climate.

We have a pretty definitive guide on the impact on consumers.   Unless you're trying to say that climate is as easy to predict as economics.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 09, 2014, 06:21:20 PM
We have a pretty definitive guide on the impact on consumers.   Unless you're trying to say that climate is as easy to predict as economics.

Germany's situation is not a "pretty definitive guide", when compared to the US. Are you just referring to the reduction of Coal Emissions recently proposed? Or just a bunch of vague "policies"?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 09, 2014, 06:36:23 PM
We have a pretty definitive guide on the impact on consumers.   Unless you're trying to say that climate is as easy to predict as economics.

Germany's situation is not a "pretty definitive guide", when compared to the US. Are you just referring to the reduction of Coal Emissions recently proposed? Or just a bunch of vague "policies"?

So let me get this straight.    In Germany they had some of the, if not the highest electrical rates in the industrialized world BECAUSE of their green energy policies.    Yet that doesn't serve as a guide as to what will likely happen in the United States?   I mean really, nothing short of a paradigm changing break through in green energy technology will allow for any avoidance of the same fate if the United States heads down the same path as Germany.

At this juncture I don't even get the point you're trying to make.   Better regroup.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 09, 2014, 06:45:19 PM
We have a pretty definitive guide on the impact on consumers.   Unless you're trying to say that climate is as easy to predict as economics.

Germany's situation is not a "pretty definitive guide", when compared to the US. Are you just referring to the reduction of Coal Emissions recently proposed? Or just a bunch of vague "policies"?

So let me get this straight.    In Germany they had some of the, if not the highest electrical rates in the industrialized world BECAUSE of their green energy policies.    Yet that doesn't serve as a guide as to what will likely happen in the United States? 

Correct, we aren't implementing anything close to everything Germany did.

My point is you seem to be OK with implementing no emission reductions because we don't know how much emissions affect climate, yet we don't know how much more (vague) proposed(?) policy changes would cost the average consumer. And I enjoy that.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 09, 2014, 06:50:21 PM
We have a pretty definitive guide on the impact on consumers.   Unless you're trying to say that climate is as easy to predict as economics.

Germany's situation is not a "pretty definitive guide", when compared to the US. Are you just referring to the reduction of Coal Emissions recently proposed? Or just a bunch of vague "policies"?

So let me get this straight.    In Germany they had some of the, if not the highest electrical rates in the industrialized world BECAUSE of their green energy policies.    Yet that doesn't serve as a guide as to what will likely happen in the United States? 

Correct, we aren't implementing anything close to everything Germany did.

My point is you seem to be OK with implementing no emission reductions because we don't know how much emissions affect climate, yet we don't know how much more (vague) proposed(?) policy changes would cost the average consumer. And I enjoy that.

This is just Obama keeping a campaign promise from 2008, "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket". I think he may have been telling the truth in this instance.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 09, 2014, 09:16:27 PM
We have a pretty definitive guide on the impact on consumers.   Unless you're trying to say that climate is as easy to predict as economics.

Germany's situation is not a "pretty definitive guide", when compared to the US. Are you just referring to the reduction of Coal Emissions recently proposed? Or just a bunch of vague "policies"?

So let me get this straight.    In Germany they had some of the, if not the highest electrical rates in the industrialized world BECAUSE of their green energy policies.    Yet that doesn't serve as a guide as to what will likely happen in the United States?   I mean really, nothing short of a paradigm changing break through in green energy technology will allow for any avoidance of the same fate if the United States heads down the same path as Germany.

At this juncture I don't even get the point you're trying to make.   Better regroup.

It has also been a disaster for Spain.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 09, 2014, 11:33:09 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/06/28/196355493/economists-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 10, 2014, 08:46:07 AM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/06/28/196355493/economists-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change

As I've said before, good luck getting China and other shitty countries to comply.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 10, 2014, 08:49:35 AM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/06/28/196355493/economists-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change

As I've said before, good luck getting China and other shitty countries to comply.

crap, good luck getting the US to comply.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 10, 2014, 10:45:59 AM
I think that calculating the true cost of any new regulations with any certainty, let alone the sweeping changes being proposed, is not really possible. Common sense tells me it will cost a lot in both hard dollars and productivity.

But it's even more ethereal to predict the impact of these regulations on climate. We don't even know that a warmer climate is even a bad thing on the whole - there are studies to the contrary - let alone whether such regulations would have any impact whatsoever. Common sense tells me it would have little to no impact.

But I don't need to rely on just common sense. Somebody posted somewhere that all the models predicted significant global warming over the last 20 years, and all these models were wrong. Despite pumping greater and greater amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, warming has stalled. Hurricanes and other severe weather are at near record lulls. Our planet doesn't really seem to give two shits about what we do. Life goes on.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 10, 2014, 02:49:08 PM
it's not really all that hard to predict the impact of the proposed epa rules.  they establish the baseline with 2005 emissions.  we're down 12% from 2005 already, so the proposal is really nothing more than maintaining something fairly close to the current level of emission reductions for the next 15 years.   :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 10, 2014, 02:53:59 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/06/28/196355493/economists-have-a-one-page-solution-to-climate-change

As I've said before, good luck getting China and other shitty countries to comply.

i didn't really link it (again) for you.  just for the posters that continue to insist that it's not possible to reduce carbon emissions without crippling the economy.


worth noting; however, that china invests substantially more in green energy than the us does.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 10, 2014, 07:19:37 PM
worth noting; however, that china invests substantially more in green energy than the us does.

Doesn't seem to be working for them.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 10, 2014, 07:22:24 PM
I wonder what our emissions would be like if we hadn't all but regulated nuclear plants out of existence over the past 40 years? Oh well, no looking back, onward to the next green hysteria which definitely won't backfire on us, this time....
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 10, 2014, 07:54:47 PM
I wonder what our emissions would be like if we hadn't all but regulated nuclear plants out of existence over the past 40 years?

Not sure, I'm picturing a glowing green color
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 10, 2014, 08:20:06 PM
worth noting; however, that china invests substantially more in green energy than the us does.

Doesn't seem to be working for them.

7% gdp growth.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 10, 2014, 11:07:14 PM
Nobody notices when the poor are taxed, which is why we should do it more.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 10, 2014, 11:15:58 PM
worth noting; however, that china invests substantially more in green energy than the us does.

Doesn't seem to be working for them.

7% gdp growth.

You're a moron
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 10, 2014, 11:17:35 PM
worth noting; however, that china invests substantially more in green energy than the us does.

Doesn't seem to be working for them.

7% gdp growth.

Yes, when in doubt start damming rivers and moving towards hydro electric power, never any long term environmental consequences from a centralized state government building dams.    :jerk: :rolleyes:

Coal still accounts for around 70% of Chinese energy production . . . brown skies and tasty waves.




Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 10, 2014, 11:22:30 PM
Imagine what China's gdp will be after  the modern world voluntarily prohibits manufacturing
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 10, 2014, 11:25:27 PM
Imagine what China's gdp will be after  the modern world voluntarily prohibits manufacturing

C02 emissions per capita are on a record clip in China, which is why the continued discussion by some that China is a developing nation is absurd. 

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 11, 2014, 01:12:32 AM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 11, 2014, 08:22:22 AM
I have colleagues that can't even go on runs in China because the air quality is so poor...but we should totally model ourselves after them.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 11, 2014, 11:55:13 AM
Doing anything detrimental to the economy (and this EPA mandate is) without holding China and India to the same standard is a complete waste of money and only hurting ourselves. The overall effect on CO2 concentration from this mandate is negligible.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 11, 2014, 11:59:03 AM
Sys is just weird.

One minute he's telling us we're all wrong and dumb, the next he's touting the brown skies and smog of China.   Who just completed a dam project that over the long haul will likely be an expansive environmental disaster:  Silt, Deforestation the list is nearly endless, the river itself is already one of the most polluted rivers in the world and the fertilizers and such from the surrounding new farmlands will only enhance the polluted sludge that's already building up around the dam. 

Go China (says sys)

Weird and a little sad.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 11, 2014, 12:13:32 PM
Just looked at the Top 25 most polluted places on earth, a list dominated by India, Russia (former Soviet states) and China.   One city in China is akin to just melting down lead and guzzling it.

But look at that GDP!!  (sys approved)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 11, 2014, 12:47:23 PM
Dax, are you arguing that the market shouldn't allow detrimental pollution in the name of profit?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on June 11, 2014, 12:55:36 PM
Didn't know Dax was such an epa shill
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 11, 2014, 12:59:45 PM
Dax just running circles around sys and his flawed logic.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 11, 2014, 02:33:42 PM
Sys' pretentious posting style has garnered him the support of many a fool in the Pit. There is no mystery why, these people are not intelligent.

It's not arguable reducing the use of cheap energy necessarily increases the use of more expensive energy. Energy is extremely inelastic. Why anyone would doubt this is unknown. It's also not arguable that when utilities (those government empowered monopolies that sell energy) seek rates hikes to offset increased costs, that poorer people are harmed to a greater degree.  Again, why anyone would argue this is unknown. None of these things promote economy and, in fact, reduce it (contrary to Sys' mindless assertion/bad troll). This is a simple concept. To what degree the impact is negative is certainly debatable, but also well documented.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 11, 2014, 02:40:26 PM
Disagree, that was fantastic trolling by sys.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 11, 2014, 03:20:13 PM
Disagree, that was fantastic trolling by sys.

When you are getting destroyed:

Rule 1:  Claim you were just trolling

Rule 2:  See Rule 1



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 11, 2014, 03:23:20 PM
LOL, it was fake sugar dick that claimed he was trolling.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 11, 2014, 03:24:36 PM
LOL, it was fake sugar dick that claimed he was trolling.

Weird I could have sworn you said something about fantastic trolling by sys.

Oh well, rules still apply.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 11, 2014, 03:26:40 PM
Disagree, that was fantastic trolling by sys.
meh. it was clinical, but getting a rage response from FSD and dax isn't "fantastic", imo.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 11, 2014, 03:28:46 PM
Disagree, that was fantastic trolling by sys.
meh. it was clinical, but getting a rage response from FSD and dax isn't "fantastic", imo.

it got a lot of response, even for them.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 11, 2014, 05:22:50 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 11, 2014, 06:50:49 PM
Rage response . . .  :lol:

I don't like the cut of your jib therefore I declare it a "rage response"  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on June 11, 2014, 07:39:41 PM
I think the only reason China is subsidizing and developing green energy is to sell it to us.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 11, 2014, 10:58:13 PM
I think the only reason China is subsidizing and developing green energy is to sell it to us.

yup.

(http://i.imgur.com/wEQT0tY.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 11, 2014, 11:06:40 PM
 :sdeek:

(http://i.imgur.com/QDKGMsX.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 12, 2014, 01:52:19 PM
Disagree, that was fantastic trolling by sys.
meh. it was clinical, but getting a rage response from FSD and dax isn't "fantastic", imo.

it got a lot of response, even for them.

not trolling.  i was trying to message board with my friend, emo emaw.  certainly not trying to elict responses from dax and fsd.  there are few people in the world i'm less interested in conversing with than those two.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 12, 2014, 02:02:16 PM
Pretty great not-even-trolling troll of Michcat here, guys.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on June 12, 2014, 02:07:02 PM
:D
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 15, 2014, 10:31:28 PM
Our President, ever "The Great Post-Partisan Uniter" just gave a speech comparing AGW skeptics to people who believe the moon is made of cheese. I think this puts him to left of many, but not all, of the libtards on even this board, which is pretty hard to believe.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on June 15, 2014, 10:51:48 PM
Even on this board
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 15, 2014, 11:10:40 PM
The president is a moron. Always has been.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 16, 2014, 03:38:21 PM
Yep. I bet Obama votes straight D's every election. He's a pure leftist.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: brandochav on June 16, 2014, 04:59:30 PM
I'm not an alarmist by any means, but the Earth is indeed warming.  Climate change is a real thing.  14 of the last 15 years have been the hottest average global temperatures on record.  The chance that that is just a coincidence is less than 1 divided by all of the stars in the universe.


 :nerd:

You should probably be made aware that the graph starting this thread shows that your punitive carbon tax would have little to no affect on global temperatures.  I don't thinks it's even in dispute that a punitive carbon tax would have a devastating effect on the US economy.

Are we just buying a 4 balloon average and 2 satellite average with no reference as indisputable evidence now? For one, the graph below paints a much more accurate representation.

(http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/observed-global-and-european-annual-average-temperature-deviations-1850-2007/figure-5-2-climate-change-2008-global-temperature-anomalies-ex-post-new-csi.eps/image_original)
Note: The global mean annual temperature deviations are in the source in relation to the base period 1961-1990. The annual deviations shown in the chart have been adjusted to be relative to the period 1850-1899 to better monitor the EU objective not to exceed 2 oC above preindustrial values. Over Europe average annual temperatures during the real preindustrial period (1750-1799) were very similar to those during 1850-1899.

Of course the models are wrong! As someone who works with multivariate modeling techniques...ALL MODELS ARE WRONG. Yet, SOME ARE USEFUL! To imply the models being wrong as evidence to the contrary is just a sign that you misunderstand the statistical analysis. Also, we can argue all day about pre-historic temperatures. No one will deny their existence and relatively high values. What will be argued is this significance to the current debate. It's all about rate of change and ecosystem adaptation. Using these values out of current context is an obfuscation technique used to separate the real issue: current potential of human-dependent ecosystem collapse from too rapid of change. Change that, no matter the dispute on degree, is impacted by human actions. Only someone with a sophomoric understanding of organic chemistry and the magnitude of our impact on the carbon cycle would deny this influence.

To add, in 2006 Evans and Puckrin showed that the heat signatures responsible for the increase in temp was largely due to CO2, with additonal influence from other man-influenced gasses such as CFCs (https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm (https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm)). Right there is the empirical evidence for warming from organic and inorganic compounds largely increased in atmospheric concentrations from human actions. Yet, continue to ignorantly debate based on some misunderstanding or appeal to statistical or sampling error without comprehension of the methods themselves.

The issue that people cling to is, "it's been warmer in the distant past". Yeah, but not when we were rough ridin' here in a globalized, modern economic society that has 7+ billion people to support! Such a rapid change creates a selective pressure on ecosystems that would not be beneficial for man-kind! Why would you want to speed that process up? It's going to happen, but why would you speed it up by a factor of several thousand? It's like a gas leak...a slow, tiny one would not even be felt (the rate of change is so small that acclimatization would be stress-free), but crank that bitch up 10,000 times and now you have an issue.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 16, 2014, 08:57:24 PM
Yet at the end of the day it still not be determined how much or how little man made emissions are impacting temps.   

In addition, myriads of warmist alarmist continue to try and pooh-pooh away poor weather station siting and the Urban Heat Island Effect.   

Trying to claim that we should now have extreme alarmism because the warming is happening (again) because there's now 7 billion people on the planet is immaterial and will solve nothing.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 16, 2014, 09:32:21 PM
Brando-chatch works with models?!?!?!? OMG. More anomaly charts :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 20, 2014, 06:58:00 PM
http://time.com/2826289/the-green-revolution-is-here/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 20, 2014, 10:22:16 PM
Another Model
Idiot
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: WillieWatanabe on June 23, 2014, 10:11:31 AM
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/06/16/the-global-warming-hiatus/?fb_action_ids=741924725864768&fb_action_types=og.likes
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 23, 2014, 10:39:43 AM
http://time.com/2826289/the-green-revolution-is-here/

Post the text.  We only get a teaser.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 23, 2014, 11:06:22 AM
US summers used to be much hotter.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/summers-used-to-be-much-hotter-in-the-us-2/ (https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/summers-used-to-be-much-hotter-in-the-us-2/)

(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/screenhunter_403-jun-10-04-43.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 23, 2014, 11:21:52 AM
I am guessing there is an HCN station in like Alaska or Maine or sometime.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 23, 2014, 11:27:48 AM
US summers used to be much hotter.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/summers-used-to-be-much-hotter-in-the-us-2/ (https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/summers-used-to-be-much-hotter-in-the-us-2/)

(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/screenhunter_403-jun-10-04-43.gif)

Well that doesn't seem very alarming at all. Wouldn't the more scientific approach be to use our Super Accurate Computer Models to modify and reduce the recorded tempertures from decades ago? This would result in more warming and scarier graphs, which would be more in line with what the scientific consensus has told me to be true. Besides, I doubt those dumbass scientists from the 30s even knew how to read a thermometer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 23, 2014, 12:08:56 PM
http://time.com/2826289/the-green-revolution-is-here/

Post the text.  We only get a teaser.

http://en.cspplaza.com/the-green-revolution-is-here.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 23, 2014, 12:10:50 PM
US summers used to be much hotter.

this june has been surprisingly survivable so far.   :crossfingers:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Panjandrum on June 23, 2014, 12:47:44 PM
:sdeek:

(http://i.imgur.com/QDKGMsX.png)

I heard a thing on NPR a few weeks back where they were talking about domestic coal consumption going down (in favor of natural gas, primarily), but coal mining companies weren't really sweating it because China and other developing nations were clamoring for coal, so they were making up the difference in exports.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 23, 2014, 01:37:11 PM
I am guessing there is an HCN station in like Alaska or Maine or sometime.

Looks like only the lower 48.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: reidrolled on June 23, 2014, 05:06:17 PM
Muumuu mmhm mnht
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 26, 2014, 08:10:01 AM
So, Earth's relationship to the Sun is kind of important then?  Orbit changes, solar activity et. al. are all kind of important?

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2014/jun/study-links-greenland-ice-sheet-collapse-sea-level-rise-400000-years-ago


Yet, we are to lay all "warming" solely at the alter of AGW?

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 30, 2014, 01:47:54 PM
Good news, everyone. In an odd bit of NOAA officiating, 1936 is once again the hottest summer, ever. http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/ (http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 30, 2014, 02:10:51 PM
It is pretty hot out there right now.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on June 30, 2014, 07:27:51 PM
US summers used to be much hotter.

this june has been surprisingly survivable so far.   :crossfingers:

 :horrorsurprise:  july is going to kill us all. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Benja on June 30, 2014, 09:16:37 PM
Felt pretty global-warmy outside today.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on June 30, 2014, 09:33:58 PM
Is global moistening a thing? It felt like anthropogenic global moistening.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Benja on June 30, 2014, 09:35:45 PM
Is global moistening a thing? It felt like anthropogenic global moistening.

I mean, probably.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 30, 2014, 09:36:56 PM
Stop being misogynistic
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Benja on June 30, 2014, 09:45:20 PM
Dunno about the whole warming thing, but I guess I tend the lean towards the warming people because at least those scientists usually don't use words like libtard, liberal, conservative, or even democrat and republican. Nobody gives a crap about your stupid rough ridin' political allegiances, dorks.  :D
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 30, 2014, 09:53:14 PM
Dunno about the whole warming thing, but I guess I tend the lean towards the warming people because at least those scientists usually don't use words like libtard, liberal, conservative, or even democrat and republican. Nobody gives a crap about your stupid rough ridin' political allegiances, dorks.  :D

The libtard thing really seems to be irritating the libtards.

And AGW is political because the libtards have made it a central plank of the Dem platform and seek to impose bazillions of dollars in productivity-stifling regs and taxes to somehow prevent said AGW. Libtard.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on June 30, 2014, 09:55:07 PM
only neocons make climate change political, for everyone else it's science
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Benja on June 30, 2014, 10:02:47 PM
It's not annoying, I just wish it was wittier. Really, I'm trying to help you, because all using terms like that does is marginalize your arguments.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 30, 2014, 10:24:46 PM
It's not annoying, I just wish it was wittier. Really, I'm trying to help you, because all using terms like that does is marginalize your arguments.

Yeah, ksu. Stick to scientific terminology like "it's hot today" and "global moistening"
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 01, 2014, 09:05:28 AM
It's not annoying, I just wish it was wittier. Really, I'm trying to help you, because all using terms like that does is marginalize your arguments.

Yeah, ksu. Stick to scientific terminology like "it's hot today" and "global moistening"

I'm not worried about "marginalizing" my arguments - they're based on fact and common sense (as opposed to the pro-AGW position, which is based on theory and computer models that are not lining up with over two decades of actual temperature data). Besides, I'm not trying to persuade the libtards - that's a fool's errand - I'm just mocking them.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: #LIFE on July 01, 2014, 12:57:17 PM
Sure is an inferno out there today guys.  Don't think I ever recall July heat being this oppressive my entire life  :frown:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on July 01, 2014, 01:12:37 PM
Today is a beaut actually.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 09, 2014, 01:23:02 PM
So much common sense here, best to quote the whole thing...

Quote
Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, warned “I fear a global cooling,” during his keynote address to the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas on Tuesday. Moore, who left Greenpeace in 1986 because he felt it had become too radical, is the author of “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist.” (Watch climate conference live here)
 
Moore noted that a cooling would adversely impact agriculture, and said:  “Let’s hope for a little warming as opposed to a little cooling. I would rather it got a little warmer.” (Watch Moore video here at the Heartland Institute event)
 
Moore noted that “the U.S. is currently been cooling” and noted that there has been “no global warming for nearly 18 years.” He also mocked the notion that “everything is due to global warming.”
 
“If it warms two degrees, hopefully more in Canada in the North…maybe it would be a good thing if it did,” Moore explained.
 
Moore noted that carbon dioxide is a trace essential gas in the atmosphere and is not the control knob of the Earth’s climate.
 
“CO2 is the most important nutrient for all life on earth,” he noted.

 
“There are so many [climate] variables that we can’t control and when you do an experiment you have to control all the variables except the one you are studying if you want to get a clean result. There are even variables we do not even understand that we cannot control,” he said.
 
“So it is virtually impossible to think of doing an experiment where we would be able to tweeze out the impact of CO2 versus the hundreds of other variables at work. Which is why you could never make a model that would predict the climate,” he added.
 
Moore also took criticized President Barack Obama.
 
“The President seems to say it is sufficient to say the ‘science is settled’. It is hollow statement with no content,” Moore noted.

He also warned that the education system was failing children when it comes to climate change science.
 
“Change the way our kids are being taught about this subject because if we don’t there will be a whole generation of people who are just blindly following this climate hysteria,” Moore said.
 
“Our children are not taught logic, they are not taught what the scientific method is, and they are taught that carbon dioxide is pollution. They are told it is carbon now as if it were soot,” he added.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/09/greenpeace-co-founder-dr-patrick-moore-i-fear-a-global-cooling-rips-obama-for-hollow-climate-claims/ (http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/09/greenpeace-co-founder-dr-patrick-moore-i-fear-a-global-cooling-rips-obama-for-hollow-climate-claims/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 09, 2014, 02:34:22 PM
only neocons make climate change political, for everyone else it's science

Maybe one of the most fascinating and absurd comments ever on gEmaw.

Warmist propagandist have politicized this issue to the N'th degree.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mortons toe on July 09, 2014, 03:32:55 PM
only neocons make climate change political, for everyone else it's science

Maybe one of the most fascinating and absurd comments ever on gEmaw.

Warmist propagandist have politicized this issue to the N'th degree.

Before I scrolled to your post, dax, I literally said out loud "this might take the cake as the stupidest comment I've ever read on this forum... and now wonder that it comes from seven."

Seven, the political left is completely about politicizing "AGW". Almost every bill that is proposed to 'combat climate change', is a Democrat sponsored bill.

And I'm not saying that cleaning up industrial by-products, etc. is not a good thing. It is the 'pay higher taxes for carbon credit' schemes that are suspect.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on July 09, 2014, 04:04:46 PM
only neocons make climate change political, for everyone else it's science

What do you expect from those dumb fucks?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on July 09, 2014, 09:23:00 PM
only neocons make climate change political, for everyone else it's science

Maybe one of the most fascinating and absurd comments ever on gEmaw.

Warmist propagandist have politicized this issue to the N'th degree.

Before I scrolled to your post, dax, I literally said out loud "this might take the cake as the stupidest comment I've ever read on this forum... and now wonder that it comes from seven."

Seven, the political left is completely about politicizing "AGW". Almost every bill that is proposed to 'combat climate change', is a Democrat sponsored bill.

And I'm not saying that cleaning up industrial by-products, etc. is not a good thing. It is the 'pay higher taxes for carbon credit' schemes that are suspect.

You are really dumb
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on July 09, 2014, 09:24:34 PM
only neocons make climate change political, for everyone else it's science

What do you expect from those dumb fucks?

They think science lies to them, not sure how you can get dumber than that
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 10, 2014, 06:22:59 AM
only neocons make climate change political, for everyone else it's science

What do you expect from those dumb fucks?

They think science lies to them, not sure how you can get dumber than that

Just say you're a "science is settled" guy.







Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mortons toe on July 10, 2014, 05:34:21 PM
only neocons make climate change political, for everyone else it's science

Maybe one of the most fascinating and absurd comments ever on gEmaw.

Warmist propagandist have politicized this issue to the N'th degree.

Before I scrolled to your post, dax, I literally said out loud "this might take the cake as the stupidest comment I've ever read on this forum... and now wonder that it comes from seven."

Seven, the political left is completely about politicizing "AGW". Almost every bill that is proposed to 'combat climate change', is a Democrat sponsored bill.

And I'm not saying that cleaning up industrial by-products, etc. is not a good thing. It is the 'pay higher taxes for carbon credit' schemes that are suspect.

You are really dumb

Typical response. So, you're saying that a vast majority of climate change/AGW bills are not proposed by Democrats? Just go ahead and be honest...
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cartierfor3 on July 16, 2014, 09:41:35 AM
Guys i'm no scientist but its not too global warmy out there today.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on July 16, 2014, 12:13:05 PM
Guys i'm no scientist but its not too global warmy out there today.

Wild temperature swings  :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 16, 2014, 01:19:18 PM
Been a very pleasant July so far.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 16, 2014, 01:40:45 PM
Been a very pleasant July so far.

that's a goddamn lie.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 16, 2014, 01:48:20 PM
Been a very pleasant July so far.

that's a goddamn lie.

You need to get closer to the water.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 16, 2014, 02:53:10 PM
You need to get closer to the water.

go sea level, go!   :crossfingers:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 16, 2014, 03:18:09 PM
You need to get closer to the water.

go sea level, go!   :crossfingers:

See, global warming isn't all bad.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 16, 2014, 03:23:05 PM
See, global warming isn't all bad.

just make it wait till i move somewhere cold.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cartierfor3 on July 18, 2014, 10:08:20 AM
I wore a sweatshirt last night. In July. In Missouri.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on July 18, 2014, 11:19:22 AM
I wore a sweatshirt last night. In July. In Missouri.

'cause global warming.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: brandochav on July 21, 2014, 09:29:22 PM
US summers used to be much hotter.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/summers-used-to-be-much-hotter-in-the-us-2/ (https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/summers-used-to-be-much-hotter-in-the-us-2/)

(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/screenhunter_403-jun-10-04-43.gif)

I wouldn't reference the Steven Goddard blog (pseudonym for Tony Heller), where he has made several multiple fallacious claims. He was forced to admit his erroneous claim about a flawed NSIDC graph on sea ice, and has even been outed by fellow climate change denier Anthony Watts regarding his claim of data manipulation. The summer US argument is flawed in and of itself...it shows that one doesn't understand the core tenet of the argument it is against (i.e., GLOBAL mean).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on July 21, 2014, 09:31:50 PM
pretty rough ridin' hot today
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 21, 2014, 09:52:07 PM
pretty rough ridin' hot today

Very greenhousey indeed
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 21, 2014, 09:57:16 PM
US summers used to be much hotter.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/summers-used-to-be-much-hotter-in-the-us-2/ (https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/summers-used-to-be-much-hotter-in-the-us-2/)

(https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/screenhunter_403-jun-10-04-43.gif)

I wouldn't reference the Steven Goddard blog (pseudonym for Tony Heller), where he has made several multiple fallacious claims. He was forced to admit his erroneous claim about a flawed NSIDC graph on sea ice, and has even been outed by fellow climate change denier Anthony Watts regarding his claim of data manipulation. The summer US argument is flawed in and of itself...it shows that one doesn't understand the core tenet of the argument it is against (i.e., GLOBAL mean).

Was he involved in ClimateGate?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on July 22, 2014, 07:58:39 AM
http://www.ipsosglobaltrends.com/environment.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 22, 2014, 11:49:17 AM
http://www.ipsosglobaltrends.com/environment.html

That's pretty interesting. I think the most telling of the question is the second one about government using climate change for an excuse to raise taxes. Spain is the one country that bet it's economy on renewable energy carbon taxes and basically went bankrupt.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on July 22, 2014, 12:21:18 PM
Supposed to be the hottest day of the year so far... 89° in the 60654 :blindfold:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on July 22, 2014, 12:35:03 PM
http://www.ipsosglobaltrends.com/environment.html

china's answers were all over the place
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on July 22, 2014, 12:38:27 PM
http://www.ipsosglobaltrends.com/environment.html

china's answers were all over the place

yeah, that was the most interesting one imo.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 22, 2014, 01:39:39 PM
I thought Brazil was pretty interesting.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 22, 2014, 02:03:30 PM
Guys, it feels hot like summer today. :babywillie:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on July 22, 2014, 03:44:42 PM
Guys, it feels hot like summer today. :babywillie:

Yeah, it's terrible
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 09, 2014, 12:02:44 AM
http://nypost.com/2014/08/08/summer-2014-is-coldest-in-a-decade/ (http://nypost.com/2014/08/08/summer-2014-is-coldest-in-a-decade/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2014, 12:15:26 AM
http://nypost.com/2014/08/08/summer-2014-is-coldest-in-a-decade/ (http://nypost.com/2014/08/08/summer-2014-is-coldest-in-a-decade/)

  :surprised:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 09, 2014, 12:53:21 AM
http://nypost.com/2014/08/08/summer-2014-is-coldest-in-a-decade/ (http://nypost.com/2014/08/08/summer-2014-is-coldest-in-a-decade/)

Quote
Only four days have hit 90 degrees this summer

Quote
We haven’t even had a day where it reaches 100 degrees

 :cry:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2014, 12:54:55 AM
I want a summer that never goes above 82
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 09, 2014, 11:15:59 AM
I want a summer that never goes above 82

Pacific coastal. Expensive but cool weather.

http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/San+Diego+CA+USCA0982 (http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/San+Diego+CA+USCA0982)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 09, 2014, 11:20:45 AM
I want a summer that never goes above 82

Pacific coastal. Expensive but cool weather.

http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/San+Diego+CA+USCA0982 (http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/San+Diego+CA+USCA0982)

don't you feel trapped on the coast?  like you can't venture more than a few miles inland or your whole elaborate climatic farce will come crashing down on you?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: SdK on August 09, 2014, 12:02:33 PM
hahahah omg quality sys post. Also I don't have a horse in this race.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 09, 2014, 06:58:27 PM
I want a summer that never goes above 82

Pacific coastal. Expensive but cool weather.

http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/San+Diego+CA+USCA0982 (http://www.weather.com/weather/tenday/San+Diego+CA+USCA0982)

don't you feel trapped on the coast?  like you can't venture more than a few miles inland or your whole elaborate climatic farce will come crashing down on you?

Oh yeah, I curse my climate prison daily. My friends that live more than a mile from the beach can eff off during the summer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on August 09, 2014, 07:33:11 PM
I want a summer that never goes above 82

And never below like 45 or something.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 09, 2014, 07:49:26 PM
I want a summer that never goes above 82

And never below like 45 or something.

ireland, new zealand, highland mexico.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on August 09, 2014, 07:53:32 PM
Those all around great
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 09, 2014, 08:06:19 PM
Those all around great

i think they are.  i guess people complain about the rain, fog and grey skies of ireland all the time.  but if you just look at temperatures, it sounds like a paradise. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on August 09, 2014, 08:26:56 PM
So, no go on Ireland,  then.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2014, 09:17:10 PM
I do not care one bit about sunny days
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 09, 2014, 09:18:06 PM
I like when it gets brutally rough ridin' cold sometimes.   

Sent using Tapatalk Elite on iPhone 6

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 09, 2014, 09:21:42 PM
I want a summer that never goes above 82

And never below like 45 or something.

ireland, new zealand, highland mexico.

Climate prisons.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 09, 2014, 09:23:22 PM
Oh hey sys ill be in your hood first week of September.   

Sent using Tapatalk Elite on iPhone 6

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 09, 2014, 09:24:50 PM
Oh hey sys ill be in your hood first week of September.   

Sent using Tapatalk Elite on iPhone 6

should have cooled down enough by then that you'll make it out alive.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 09, 2014, 09:26:23 PM
Climate prisons.

really, everywhere with good year-round weather is a prison.  it's not normal.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on August 09, 2014, 09:27:24 PM
I do like having 4 seasons.  I just wish two of them didn't get so depressingly oppressive.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 09, 2014, 09:28:04 PM
but i'm serious about how the little coastal strip of good weather from the bay area south seems like it'd feel a little limiting to live in. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 09, 2014, 09:28:53 PM
I do like having 4 seasons.  I just with two of them didn't get so depressingly oppressive.

yep, me too.  four very nice seasons is great.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on August 09, 2014, 09:29:50 PM
I do like having 4 seasons.  I just with two of them didn't get so depressingly oppressive.

yep, me too.  four very nice seasons is great.

#teamglobalmoderating
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 09, 2014, 10:44:43 PM
I do like having 4 seasons.  I just with two of them didn't get so depressingly oppressive.

yep, me too.  four very nice seasons is great.

If you go inland San Diego County about 20 miles, you can get all four seasons. You'll be at about 1800 ft and have about 25 days a year over 100 and maybe 15 days a year under 50. If you plant maples, you can have the changing of the leaves. Nights get cool to cold. Even when it gets to 100, the nights get into the 60s or 50s. It's really ideal and relatively cheaper..
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 09, 2014, 11:00:21 PM
i could live up in the lagunas or the cuyamacas.  but why cling to a tiny little montane island of appropriate weather when you can head elsewhere and have thousands of contiguous square miles of beautiful cool nights?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 09, 2014, 11:25:34 PM
I get what you're saying, but i like living in the US. I've been to pretty much every climate zone of the country and I haven't found any place with better weather.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 09, 2014, 11:30:49 PM
I've been to pretty much every climate zone of the country and I haven't found any place with better weather.

pacific northwest?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 09, 2014, 11:42:57 PM
I've been to pretty much every climate zone of the country and I haven't found any place with better weather.

pacific northwest?

I actually enjoy rain, but after a few days, I'm ready for some sun and lower humidity. If I had to move, that area would be my #1 choice. I loved Seattle and Vancouver.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 10, 2014, 12:56:19 AM
i've never been, but on paper it looks great.  i don't mind rain, love fog.  don't care for the sun.  not sure how i'd like just constant high humidity, that might be a problem.  but if it was cool enough, maybe not?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 10, 2014, 01:44:46 AM
Boise has pretty ideal weather.  High dessert.  Warm sunny summers, dry though.  Winters no worse than the Midwest.  Its a great balance.

Sent using Tapatalk Elite on iPhone 6

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on August 10, 2014, 12:24:59 PM
Boise has pretty ideal weather.  High dessert.  Warm sunny summers, dry though.  Winters no worse than the Midwest.  Its a great balance.

Sent using Tapatalk Elite on iPhone 6

This sounds terrible
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: kim carnes on August 10, 2014, 12:43:43 PM
here is what happens when someone tells me they like having all four seasons:

them: "i like having four seasons, it's really great"
me: "you're a dumbass"
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 10, 2014, 01:25:05 PM
Boise has pretty ideal weather.  High dessert.  Warm sunny summers, dry though.  Winters no worse than the Midwest.  Its a great balance.

Sent using Tapatalk Elite on iPhone 6

yeah, i've always liked boise too.  i could definitely live there.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 12, 2014, 05:27:27 AM
Sys meeting has been moved to San Diego.  :(
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on August 12, 2014, 08:59:27 AM
michiganders believe their state is the only place in the country with 4 seasons. And no, I don't feel trapped. There's a lot of area between the Oakland hills and the Pacific coast and from Petaluma to San Jose. I don't really have a desire to leave that box.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on August 12, 2014, 12:13:19 PM
here is what happens when someone tells me they like having all four seasons:

them: "i like having four seasons, it's really great"
me: "you're a dumbass"

Only sane response
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 12, 2014, 01:46:29 PM
here is what happens when someone tells me they like having all four seasons:

them: "i like having four seasons, it's really great"
me: "you're a dumbass"

Only sane response

Yup, the 4 seasons people are always complaining that it's too cold or too hot.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 18, 2014, 11:42:49 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/emerging-solar-plants-scorch-birds-mid-air-25017031

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fedor on August 18, 2014, 11:49:18 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/emerging-solar-plants-scorch-birds-mid-air-25017031
Pffft.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 21, 2014, 10:25:44 PM
Can someone explain this march against climate change? Like, what's the goal?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 21, 2014, 10:55:32 PM
Can someone explain this march against climate change? Like, what's the goal?

Socialist redistribution and consolidation of wealth/power in unelected bureaucrats.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on September 21, 2014, 11:27:25 PM
I was going to say "awareness" but whatevs.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 22, 2014, 09:19:06 AM
I don't think the type of awareness going on at these events is beneficial. While watching the local news this morning, one of the marchers claimed the sea has risen 16 inches. This person lives near the ocean and believed this. Maybe she meant 1.6 millimeters? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 22, 2014, 09:21:11 AM
At least they weren't driving floats around. Can you imagine?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cartierfor3 on September 22, 2014, 09:31:32 AM
I was going to say "awareness" but whatevs.

yeah that's lame.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 23, 2014, 09:05:54 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/china-surpasses-eu-capita-carbon-emissions-272357

Time for Leo to jet (or Yacht) over to China and do some marching!!  (with some lady friends in tow of course)





Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on September 23, 2014, 10:51:40 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/china-surpasses-eu-capita-carbon-emissions-272357

Time for Leo to jet (or Yacht) over to China and do some marching!!  (with some lady friends in tow of course)

I assume you mean that with all respect for Leo's game.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 23, 2014, 11:37:41 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/china-surpasses-eu-capita-carbon-emissions-272357

Time for Leo to jet (or Yacht) over to China and do some marching!!  (with some lady friends in tow of course)

I assume you mean that with all respect for Leo's game.

of course
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 13, 2014, 12:46:55 PM
Sorry guys, apparently global warming is not hiding deep in the ocean, either. Where should we look next? http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321 (http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4321)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on October 13, 2014, 12:49:10 PM
The coast. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 13, 2014, 01:39:57 PM
I've been watching the coast for years now, and it isn't here either.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on October 13, 2014, 02:06:59 PM
I've been watching the coast for years now, and it isn't here either.

I heard a radio thing last week about the amt of nuisance floods in certain areas of the country.  There was one in the south east(don't remember where) but they were talking about how the avg per year a decade ago was 4 per year.  Now they have 40 per year.  Nuisance being a higher tide that equates to a portion of their ocean front downtown getting a couple inches of water in the main level of their businesses.  The segment noted how it has been increasing yearly.  Not Armageddon, obvsly, but something. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 13, 2014, 08:42:24 PM
http://vencoreweather.com/2014/10/09/1230-pm-long-lost-satellite-images-shed-new-light-on-global-sea-ice-enormous-holes-found-in-the-arctic-ice-back-in-the-1960s/
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 13, 2014, 08:44:14 PM
I've been watching the coast for years now, and it isn't here either.

I heard a radio thing last week about the amt of nuisance floods in certain areas of the country.  There was one in the south east(don't remember where) but they were talking about how the avg per year a decade ago was 4 per year.  Now they have 40 per year.  Nuisance being a higher tide that equates to a portion of their ocean front downtown getting a couple inches of water in the main level of their businesses.  The segment noted how it has been increasing yearly.  Not Armageddon, obvsly, but something.
. It couldn't possibly be land use or any other hydrological issue.  It has to be AGW.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on October 13, 2014, 08:54:00 PM
I've been watching the coast for years now, and it isn't here either.

I heard a radio thing last week about the amt of nuisance floods in certain areas of the country.  There was one in the south east(don't remember where) but they were talking about how the avg per year a decade ago was 4 per year.  Now they have 40 per year.  Nuisance being a higher tide that equates to a portion of their ocean front downtown getting a couple inches of water in the main level of their businesses.  The segment noted how it has been increasing yearly.  Not Armageddon, obvsly, but something.
. It couldn't possibly be land use or any other hydrological issue.  It has to be AGW.
It was sea level slash tides related. We were listening to NPR at the same time!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on October 13, 2014, 08:56:02 PM
I've been watching the coast for years now, and it isn't here either.

I heard a radio thing last week about the amt of nuisance floods in certain areas of the country.  There was one in the south east(don't remember where) but they were talking about how the avg per year a decade ago was 4 per year.  Now they have 40 per year.  Nuisance being a higher tide that equates to a portion of their ocean front downtown getting a couple inches of water in the main level of their businesses.  The segment noted how it has been increasing yearly.  Not Armageddon, obvsly, but something.
. It couldn't possibly be land use or any other hydrological issue.  It has to be AGW.
It was sea level slash tides related. We were listening to NPR at the same time!
http://www.npr.org/2014/10/08/354166982/climate-change-worsens-coastal-flooding-from-high-tides  (http://www.npr.org/2014/10/08/354166982/climate-change-worsens-coastal-flooding-from-high-tides)

Annapolis MD was the main focus or the story
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 13, 2014, 08:56:34 PM
That's the point.  The overdevelopment of the coast is likely a contributor to these nuisance floods IMO.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 13, 2014, 10:09:49 PM
Apparently the DOD has made the main focus of their strategic planning conditioning our military in how to handle harsher weather brought about by climate change.  Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)

 :flush: :flush:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 13, 2014, 10:35:08 PM
I've been watching the coast for years now, and it isn't here either.

I heard a radio thing last week about the amt of nuisance floods in certain areas of the country.  There was one in the south east(don't remember where) but they were talking about how the avg per year a decade ago was 4 per year.  Now they have 40 per year.  Nuisance being a higher tide that equates to a portion of their ocean front downtown getting a couple inches of water in the main level of their businesses.  The segment noted how it has been increasing yearly.  Not Armageddon, obvsly, but something.
. It couldn't possibly be land use or any other hydrological issue.  It has to be AGW.
It was sea level slash tides related. We were listening to NPR at the same time!

The east and gulf coasts have always been a swamps/sinking.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 13, 2014, 10:37:49 PM
Public radio....
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on October 13, 2014, 10:38:33 PM
;)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on October 13, 2014, 10:40:54 PM
Public radio....
FSD, what's your favorite NPR feature? Mine is definitely the supreme court transcripts read by Nina Totenberg.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on October 14, 2014, 06:43:59 AM
All things considered
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on October 14, 2014, 07:44:07 AM
Science Friday, Market Place Tech, or the one where they confuse increased nuisance flooding for living in a swamp.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on October 14, 2014, 07:45:24 AM
Public radio....

Its like I always say, if the reporting personality isn't pushing gold or their own brand of tea drinks, you simply can't rely on the Info.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 14, 2014, 08:29:10 AM
Science Friday, Market Place Tech, or the one where they confuse increased nuisance flooding for living in a swamp.

Maryland is sinking into the Chesapeak Bay.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on October 14, 2014, 08:39:29 AM
Science Friday, Market Place Tech, or the one where they confuse increased nuisance flooding for living in a swamp.

Maryland is sinking into the Chesapeak Bay.

Baltimore Orioles baseball is hurting
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 14, 2014, 08:54:35 AM
All roads lead to AGW.   Whatever ails the environment and/or whatever environmental woes that populated areas experience be they drought, flood, storm et. al.  It is all to be blamed on AGW.   That's the new thought process.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 14, 2014, 09:20:41 AM
Science Friday, Market Place Tech, or the one where they confuse increased nuisance flooding for living in a swamp.

Maryland is sinking into the Chesapeak Bay.

Baltimore Orioles baseball is hurting

I heard climate change caused the rain postponement, too, potentially ruining the Royals' mojo. Is there anything good and decent in this world that is not vulnerable to climate change?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 14, 2014, 09:59:14 PM
Public radio....

Its like I always say, if the reporting personality isn't pushing gold or their own brand of tea drinks, you simply can't rely on the Info.

Blogs
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: illBisonYourdele on October 15, 2014, 01:26:35 PM
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/10/tornado%20warning.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 15, 2014, 03:37:29 PM
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2014/10/tornado%20warning.jpg)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Washington,_D.C._tornadoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Washington,_D.C._tornadoes)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on October 27, 2014, 01:00:50 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0ZlLyoIAAAbhIq.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 27, 2014, 01:40:19 PM
This year will likely go down as having the fewest (or close to it) 90 degree or above days recorded by weather stations in U.S. meteorological history.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on October 27, 2014, 01:47:28 PM
Has anyone ever estimated the total volume of crap we have chucked into our oceans.  Put a fat guy in the tub, it rises.   Make our oceans cesspools, and no telling what the weather will do.  Hopefully some day the ocean doesn't belch up big bubble of toxic sewer gas and head for California.   Hate to relocate those suckers to Kansas.  Imagine what dust storms would be like.   I read yesterday this is one of the coolest years on record.   There may be something going on with climate, but meteorologist Al Obama can only predict conditions for a golf course.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on October 27, 2014, 02:20:19 PM
This year will likely go down as having the fewest (or close to it) 90 degree or above days recorded by weather stations in U.S. meteorological history.

It's been pretty great. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on October 27, 2014, 07:35:00 PM
Has anyone ever estimated the total volume of crap we have chucked into our oceans.  Put a fat guy in the tub, it rises.   Make our oceans cesspools, and no telling what the weather will do.  Hopefully some day the ocean doesn't belch up big bubble of toxic sewer gas and head for California.   Hate to relocate those suckers to Kansas.  Imagine what dust storms would be like.   I read yesterday this is one of the coolest years on record.   There may be something going on with climate, but meteorologist Al Obama can only predict conditions for a golf course.

 :ohno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 28, 2014, 11:00:22 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0ZlLyoIAAAbhIq.jpg)

Oh no, an historical weather record 100 years in the making.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 11, 2014, 03:23:31 PM
Looks like another long, cold winter. Should we be looking at ways to warm mother earth?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 11, 2014, 09:35:51 PM
But I assume somewhere else is currently experiencing record heat, and that's our fault. NPR would know.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on November 11, 2014, 10:12:04 PM
At present, Alaska is as warm as the Midwest is cold. You're getting the hang of this meteorology stuff, you willfully ignorant piece of crap!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 12, 2014, 08:21:22 AM
At present, Alaska is as warm as the Midwest is cold. You're getting the hang of this meteorology stuff, you willfully ignorant piece of crap!

No doubt the first time that's ever happened, you ignorant piece of crap.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on November 12, 2014, 08:30:05 AM

At present, Alaska is as warm as the Midwest is cold. You're getting the hang of this meteorology stuff, you willfully ignorant piece of crap!

No doubt the first time that's ever happened, you ignorant piece of crap.
You idiots can't keep your arguments straight. :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 12, 2014, 08:35:53 AM
You're getting the hang of this meteorology stuff, you willfully ignorant piece of crap!

That was a pretty mean thing to say.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 12, 2014, 11:26:16 AM
You're getting the hang of this meteorology stuff, you willfully ignorant piece of crap!

That was a pretty mean thing to say.

It's better than being an unwillfully ignorant like bubbles.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on November 12, 2014, 12:03:15 PM
sick burn, man
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 12, 2014, 12:28:42 PM
sick burn, man

  :katpak:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 12, 2014, 12:50:42 PM
JD absolutely loves bumping this thread on cold winter and mild summer days. Probably nothing he loves doing more on this blog
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on November 12, 2014, 01:37:36 PM
Court rushing never gets old.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The1BigWillie on November 12, 2014, 01:47:38 PM
Has anyone ever estimated the total volume of crap we have chucked into our oceans.  Put a fat guy in the tub, it rises.   Make our oceans cesspools, and no telling what the weather will do.  Hopefully some day the ocean doesn't belch up big bubble of toxic sewer gas and head for California.   Hate to relocate those suckers to Kansas.  Imagine what dust storms would be like.   I read yesterday this is one of the coolest years on record.   There may be something going on with climate, but meteorologist Al Obama can only predict conditions for a golf course.

crap...  Dad??
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 12, 2014, 02:07:22 PM
JD absolutely loves bumping this thread on cold winter and mild summer days. Probably nothing he loves doing more on this blog

It brings out the worst in the libs, which is fun.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 12, 2014, 02:24:04 PM
Seriously though - I hate winter. Just like most of the rest of the planet, I really wouldn't mind being 1-2 degrees warmer. Sadly, I still think AGW is, at best, grossly overstated. See the models...
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on November 12, 2014, 02:35:03 PM
comfort wise, you wouldn't notice a difference of 1-2 deg.  Look at the models....
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 12, 2014, 02:37:53 PM
comfort wise, you wouldn't notice a difference of 1-2 deg.  Look at the models....

You don't think? I guess it comes down to how you quantify it. See the models...
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 12, 2014, 08:46:14 PM
california is still unseasonably warm.  be nice if the warmth holds on long enough for my 2nd crop tomatoes to ripen.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 12, 2014, 09:37:32 PM
california is still unseasonably warm.  be nice if the warmth holds on long enough for my 2nd crop tomatoes to ripen.

What do you do with all those tomatoes?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 12, 2014, 09:45:04 PM
What do you do with all those tomatoes?

i will eat them.   :Woot:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on November 12, 2014, 10:29:09 PM
Dang cold here today.  If you stand spraddled legged for too long the cold wind whipping between your legs will sterilize you.  In the late 70's it was global cooling and a coming ice age.  We must of had dumb ass science back then.  Obama's new global warming treaty with China - hey we will ruin our industry and unemploy people so your plants can belch crap into the air and employee your capitalistic commies.  In seriousness something screwy is happening to the climate but conclusions coming from dirt, air and water worshipers scare me.  The Greenie gods prefer we all die except for them so we can return to pristine nirvana.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 13, 2014, 08:39:28 AM
What do you do with all those tomatoes?

i will eat them.   :Woot:

I will eat a ton of cherry (or grape) tomatoes. Salads, etc. But I just don't sit down to slice up and nosh on a full-size tomatoe.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 13, 2014, 06:25:25 PM
I will eat a ton of cherry (or grape) tomatoes. Salads, etc. But I just don't sit down to slice up and nosh on a full-size tomatoe.

yeah, me either.  i ate a lot of tomato slices on bread w. cheese (sometimes also w. ham) this summer, but mostly in salads or cooked/baked in some way.  the late crop i have coming are mostly cherries and some smaller non-cherries.  the smaller varieties always seem to be way more productive for me.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 13, 2014, 09:53:31 PM
I will eat a ton of cherry (or grape) tomatoes. Salads, etc. But I just don't sit down to slice up and nosh on a full-size tomatoe.

yeah, me either.  i ate a lot of tomato slices on bread w. cheese (sometimes also w. ham) this summer, but mostly in salads or cooked/baked in some way.  the late crop i have coming are mostly cherries and some smaller non-cherries.  the smaller varieties always seem to be way more productive for me.

I love those toasted under a broiler with mustard.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 14, 2014, 09:01:26 AM
comfort wise, you wouldn't notice a difference of 1-2 deg.  Look at the models....

It would be really cold right now if there weren't so much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on November 14, 2014, 11:15:36 PM
comfort wise, you wouldn't notice a difference of 1-2 deg.  Look at the models....

It would be really cold right now if there weren't so much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Amen!!  It so dang cold here the hedge trees have had their balls frozen off.  Where is Ozone Gore right now?  I bet he is headed to the tropics on his carbon belching jet.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 15, 2014, 07:34:34 AM
comfort wise, you wouldn't notice a difference of 1-2 deg.  Look at the models....

It would be really cold right now if there weren't so much CO2 in the atmosphere.
Amen!!  It so dang cold here the hedge trees have had their balls frozen off.  Where is Ozone Gore right now?  I bet he is headed to the tropics on his carbon belching jet.

Algore generally limits his advocacy to the summer months when it's hot outside. Maybe he's touring the Southern Hemisphere.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 16, 2014, 05:31:38 AM
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/ncdc-grubers-america-yet-again/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on November 18, 2014, 05:56:35 PM
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/11/16/ncdc-grubers-america-yet-again/
oh my, dax.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on November 18, 2014, 06:01:22 PM
i did not know that record drought in syria was a factor in the civil war. the dystopian "water wars" are already here.

http://globalthinkers.foreignpolicy.com/#naturals/detail/extreme-heights (http://globalthinkers.foreignpolicy.com/#naturals/detail/extreme-heights)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 18, 2014, 06:22:16 PM
i did not know that record drought in syria was a factor in the civil war. the dystopian "water wars" are already here.

http://globalthinkers.foreignpolicy.com/#naturals/detail/extreme-heights (http://globalthinkers.foreignpolicy.com/#naturals/detail/extreme-heights)

But doesn't that mean they are getting more water somewhere else, like Alaska? Even Steven kind of weather?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on November 18, 2014, 06:49:07 PM
i did not know that record drought in syria was a factor in the civil war. the dystopian "water wars" are already here.

http://globalthinkers.foreignpolicy.com/#naturals/detail/extreme-heights (http://globalthinkers.foreignpolicy.com/#naturals/detail/extreme-heights)

But doesn't that mean they are getting more water somewhere else, like Alaska? Even Steven kind of weather?
prolly, but idk if they are getting an associated human catastrophe.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 10, 2014, 10:12:15 PM
Did NOAA really conclude that the California drought has been caused by naturally occurring climatic and oceanographic events?

That has to hurt the activist "Scientists". 

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 11, 2014, 12:22:24 AM
Did NOAA really conclude that the California drought has been caused by naturally occurring climatic and oceanographic events?

That has to hurt the activist "Scientists".

NOAA are the activist scientists, though. We need to dig deeper and figure out what their end game really is.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 11, 2014, 06:26:58 AM
Did NOAA really conclude that the California drought has been caused by naturally occurring climatic and oceanographic events?

That has to hurt the activist "Scientists".

NOAA are the activist scientists, though. We need to dig deeper and figure out what their end game really is.

I know they are, they even quoted a prof from Columbia who said that weather records have captured multiple periods of extreme drought in California.    Poor guy is probably never going to get a climatic or weather related paper peer reviewed again by the fraternity of activist "scientists". 

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 11, 2014, 08:09:54 AM
Maybe the activist scientists are all in on it and this is one big bait and switch.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on December 13, 2014, 11:58:33 AM
They will get a new model.  We went from global warming to climate change.  Next will be hey its going to hell quickly climate calamity. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: brandochav on December 13, 2014, 11:28:20 PM
They will get a new model.  We went from global warming to climate change.  Next will be hey its going to hell quickly climate calamity.
You now nothing, John Snow...just because buzz words spread through the media and lay men, doesn't mean the research jargon did the same.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 14, 2014, 08:46:24 AM
"Research jargon"
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 14, 2014, 11:35:26 AM
It's like the old Kansas weather saying, "if you don't like the research jargon, just wait a few minutes, it will change."
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 14, 2014, 12:03:25 PM
"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 14, 2014, 11:53:49 PM
"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 15, 2014, 08:59:08 AM
"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!  :lol:  It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2014, 09:11:20 AM
Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that is has been "proven" "theoretically"? Or that is has been "proven" in a controlled environment? Its application to the real world certainly hasn't been proven at all - and that's what actually matters, right? In fact, it seems to be more and more disproven with each passing year as more and more "greenhouse gasses" are emitted and yet global temp increase has flatlined over more than a decade.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 15, 2014, 09:12:26 AM
Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that is has been "proven" "theoretically"? Or that is has been "proven" in a controlled environment? Its application to the real world certainly hasn't been proven at all - and that's what actually matters, right? In fact, it seems to be more and more disproven with each passing year as more and more "greenhouse gasses" are emitted and yet global temp increase has flatlined over more than a decade.

I don't think you understand what a scientific theory is. This sounds similar to a creationist saying evolution is just a theory.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 15, 2014, 09:13:34 AM
"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!  :lol:  It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on December 15, 2014, 09:20:07 AM
"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!  :lol:  It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

Just stop.  Unless you can show that caring will save them money, it won't work.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2014, 09:20:36 AM
Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that is has been "proven" "theoretically"? Or that is has been "proven" in a controlled environment? Its application to the real world certainly hasn't been proven at all - and that's what actually matters, right? In fact, it seems to be more and more disproven with each passing year as more and more "greenhouse gasses" are emitted and yet global temp increase has flatlined over more than a decade.

I don't think you understand what a scientific theory is. This sounds similar to a creationist saying evolution is just a theory.

Now you're just trolling, and you haven't answered my questions.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2014, 09:22:12 AM
"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!  :lol:  It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

Ok, so you're talking purely about theory then, and not real world effect. Gotcha.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 15, 2014, 09:27:10 AM
"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!  :lol:  It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

Ok, so you're talking purely about theory then, and not real world effect. Gotcha.

The real world effect is that we don't melt during the daytime and get frozen solid at night. Life would not exist if the greenhouse effect weren't real. You know, acknowledging proven science, but saying that the effect of this extra carbon in the air is not severe enough to justify the measures necessary to address it is a perfectly reasonable stance. Sticking your head in the sand and claiming that the science is wrong just makes you look dumb, though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on December 15, 2014, 09:27:53 AM
Totally leaving out the part where coal is clean now and Jesus wants us to dominate the face off of Earth.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 15, 2014, 09:41:24 AM
"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!  :lol:  It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

Ok, so you're talking purely about theory then, and not real world effect. Gotcha.

The real world effect is that we don't melt during the daytime and get frozen solid at night. Life would not exist if the greenhouse effect weren't real. You know, acknowledging proven science, but saying that the effect of this extra carbon in the air is not severe enough to justify the measures necessary to address it is a perfectly reasonable stance. Sticking your head in the sand and claiming that the science is wrong just makes you look dumb, though.

That's exactly what I say. I also think that "greenhouse effect is proven science" is a meaningless retort, for the exact reason you've just explained. Climate is a complicated thing. There are obviously much bigger forces at work in determining global temperture than levels of trace gasses in our atmosphere. If there weren't, then we'd be living in an Algore apocalypse right now.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 15, 2014, 03:07:33 PM
"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!  :lol:  It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

How do you measure heat to determine the earth is warmer?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 15, 2014, 03:19:33 PM
"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!  :lol:  It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

How do you measure heat to determine the earth is warmer?

Warmer than what? If you want to see if the earth is warmer than it was yesterday, you take a temperature and compare it to yesterday's temperature. If you want to see the effect greenhouse gases are having on the temperature, you measure the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and solar radiation and then apply greenhouse gas theory.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 15, 2014, 04:54:38 PM
"If you don't like what the temp measurements are, alter the data so it fits your agenda"

What do the temp measurements have to do with anything? Greenhouse gas theory has already been proven. It's not like the scientists are trying to record temps to prove anything.

What?!  :lol:  It's the only "proof" climate changers, formerly known as global warmers, have.

Heat enters the atmosphere via solar radiation. Less heat leaves the atmosphere in the presence of more greenhouse gases. Therefore, the earth is warmer than it would be with less greenhouse gases and cooler than it would be with more.

How do you measure heat to determine the earth is warmer?

Warmer than what? If you want to see if the earth is warmer than it was yesterday, you take a temperature and compare it to yesterday's temperature. If you want to see the effect greenhouse gases are having on the temperature, you measure the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and solar radiation and then apply greenhouse gas theory.

This is an aptly titled thread. Good work k-s-u w.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 15, 2014, 07:01:32 PM
Scientific fact, if it wasn't for gravity, all the water would be on the moon. Therefore carbon emissions should be curtailed to pre industrial era levels by unauthorized regulation, the militarization of the epa, and a convoluted redistributive tax structure . Not sure how you conservatards can argue against that line of reasoning, it's science.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 15, 2014, 07:13:52 PM
Quote
When asked what the primary source of heat for the planet is, people that identified as "liberal" answered carbon or CO2 68% of the time. 84% of people who identify as "conservative" answered the sun.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on December 15, 2014, 09:41:33 PM
Quote
When asked what the primary source of heat for the planet is, people that identified as "liberal" answered carbon or CO2 68% of the time. 84% of people who identify as "conservative" answered the sun.

Ha!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 15, 2014, 11:01:14 PM
Remember kids, hundreds if not thousands of people who were/are going to save the world signed a petition at a global climate summit a couple of years ago to ban water.

I believe it's the same group of people and then some who are now meeting and in the process creating a massive carbon footprint, stamping all over indigenous peoples property and causing various other mini-climate fiasco's.




Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 15, 2014, 11:52:05 PM
Quote
When asked what the primary source of heat for the planet is, people that identified as "liberal" answered carbon or CO2 68% of the time. 84% of people who identify as "conservative" answered the sun.

Ha!

Somebody really should put that in front of a photo of Neil Degrasse Tyson and put it on Facebook.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on December 16, 2014, 07:38:13 AM
Tyson would go nuts
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The1BigWillie on January 15, 2015, 09:53:27 AM
http://gawker.com/the-seas-have-been-rising-much-faster-than-we-thought-1679675581 (http://gawker.com/the-seas-have-been-rising-much-faster-than-we-thought-1679675581)

 :sdeek:

(http://www.worldculturepictorial.com/images/content_2/iowa-flooded-downtown.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: SdK on January 15, 2015, 10:37:40 AM
It was warm yesterday and it is supposed to be even warmer going into the weekend. But it was really cold there for a few weeks. I don't care if the earth is warming or not. Someday Earth will claim us all and start over.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 15, 2015, 10:46:11 AM
It's all global warming, land use, natural erosion/manmade erosion and various other factors have zero bearing on those anecdotal stories about how the "Streets Flood" now at high tide in (insert seaside community name here).   It's all purely AGW.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 15, 2015, 10:51:04 AM
It's all global warming, land use, natural erosion/manmade erosion and various other factors have zero bearing on those anecdotal stories about how the "Streets Flood" now at high tide in (insert seaside community name here).   It's all purely AGW.
link?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 15, 2015, 10:54:15 AM
It's all global warming, land use, natural erosion/manmade erosion and various other factors have zero bearing on those anecdotal stories about how the "Streets Flood" now at high tide in (insert seaside community name here).   It's all purely AGW.
link?

What part of "Anecdotal" don't you get?   I just read the comments section of articles like the Gawker story.

I hear the same stuff around here, and I always want to ask what you think might happen along a coast line where the population has grown at a rapid clip over the last 30 years, with thousands of additional houses, parking lots, driveways etc. etc.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on January 15, 2015, 10:58:12 AM
It's all global warming, land use, natural erosion/manmade erosion and various other factors have zero bearing on those anecdotal stories about how the "Streets Flood" now at high tide in (insert seaside community name here).   It's all purely AGW.
link?

What part of "Anecdotal" don't you get?   I just read the comments section of articles like the Gawker story.

I hear the same stuff around here, and I always want to ask what you think might happen along a coast line where the population has grown at a rapid clip over the last 30 years, with thousands of additional houses, parking lots, driveways etc. etc.
The land sinks like a raft?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 15, 2015, 11:00:53 AM
It's all global warming, land use, natural erosion/manmade erosion and various other factors have zero bearing on those anecdotal stories about how the "Streets Flood" now at high tide in (insert seaside community name here).   It's all purely AGW.
link?

What part of "Anecdotal" don't you get?   I just read the comments section of articles like the Gawker story.

I hear the same stuff around here, and I always want to ask what you think might happen along a coast line where the population has grown at a rapid clip over the last 30 years, with thousands of additional houses, parking lots, driveways etc. etc.
The land sinks like a raft?

I didn't say that.

It's not a zero sum game.   People rail all the time about how people impact the environment, yet when it comes to sea level rise the Warmists wants to place it all on the shoulders of AGW, many times leaving out naturally occurring events, and completely ignoring what kind of impact hundreds of millions of people living along our coasts may have.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 15, 2015, 11:04:34 AM
it sounds like you're saying that 7 billion people are having an effect on the enviro.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on January 15, 2015, 11:08:56 AM


It's all global warming, land use, natural erosion/manmade erosion and various other factors have zero bearing on those anecdotal stories about how the "Streets Flood" now at high tide in (insert seaside community name here).   It's all purely AGW.
link?

What part of "Anecdotal" don't you get?   I just read the comments section of articles like the Gawker story.

I hear the same stuff around here, and I always want to ask what you think might happen along a coast line where the population has grown at a rapid clip over the last 30 years, with thousands of additional houses, parking lots, driveways etc. etc.
The land sinks like a raft?

I didn't say that.

It's not a zero sum game.   People rail all the time about how people impact the environment, yet when it comes to sea level rise the Warmists wants to place it all on the shoulders of AGW, many times leaving out naturally occurring events, and completely ignoring what kind of impact hundreds of millions of people living along our coasts may have.

These are not things I know the answer to, and I am not trying to set up any specific answers.

First, do we only measure sea level rise along the coastline? Why would the thousands of houses, roads, etc. have a measurable impact on the sea level? Does the water within a mile of coastline even account for 0.1% of the ocean water? Wouldn't any effect of construction/erosion cause just the proverbial drop in the bucket and not lead to widespread sea level rise?  Just doesn't make much sense to me
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 15, 2015, 11:12:02 AM
It depends on where the do sea level testing.   I'll have to find it, but one study along the coast where I live said the see was rising, but another said that in areas nearby the levels were actually lower.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on January 15, 2015, 11:25:00 AM
It depends on where the do sea level testing.   I'll have to find it, but one study along the coast where I live said the see was rising, but another said that in areas nearby the levels were actually lower.
THE WATER IN MY GLASS STAYS FLAT AND AT THE SAME LEVEL, SO SHOULD THE OCEAN!

Really though, the mechanics of how sea level and tides and regional variation work are fascinating. The world is a pretty cool place.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 15, 2015, 01:08:30 PM
Land sinks just like mountains rise. It's called "plate tectonics" for you laymen out there. #MarylandSinking
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on January 16, 2015, 10:16:34 AM
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/2014-was-hottest-year-in-modern-history-150116.htm
more liberals with their science and books  :nono: :curse:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 16, 2015, 10:43:42 AM
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/2014-was-hottest-year-in-modern-history-150116.htm
more liberals with their science and books  :nono: :curse:

When did they start using science and books????
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 16, 2015, 01:18:58 PM
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/2014-was-hottest-year-in-modern-history-150116.htm
more liberals with their science and books  :nono: :curse:

I want to get one of those Moonshiners flasks. Ol' Tickle just cracks me up.  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 16, 2015, 01:30:54 PM
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/2014-was-hottest-year-in-modern-history-150116.htm
more liberals with their science and books  :nono: :curse:

When did they start using science and books????
why do you ask? (i know what you're getting at i just want you to fully embarrass yourself)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 16, 2015, 03:16:16 PM
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/2014-was-hottest-year-in-modern-history-150116.htm
more liberals with their science and books  :nono: :curse:

The link isn't working, but 1/100th of a degree?  :Chirp:

Sounds like a fancy way to say the 18 year halt in warming continues.

 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on January 16, 2015, 03:40:45 PM
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/2014-was-hottest-year-in-modern-history-150116.htm
more liberals with their science and books  :nono: :curse:

The link isn't working, but 1/100th of a degree?  :Chirp:

Sounds like a fancy way to say the 18 year halt in warming continues.
You just can't make this stuff up folks!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 16, 2015, 04:00:28 PM
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/2014-was-hottest-year-in-modern-history-150116.htm
more liberals with their science and books  :nono: :curse:

The link isn't working, but 1/100th of a degree?  :Chirp:

Sounds like a fancy way to say the 18 year halt in warming continues.
You just can't make this stuff up folks....

....unlike a climate model.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 17, 2015, 12:01:46 AM
Sadly, NASA and NOAA don't have much credibility on these sort of hysterical reports, because they have a dishonest habit of manipulating prior temperature measurements downwards (most notably the 30s dust bowl years), making more recent temps appear higher by comparison. They also don't properly account for urban heat traps that have grown around many land based measuring stations.

The satellite data (which only goes back to 79) shows no discernible increase in temp in 18 years.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 17, 2015, 07:07:18 AM
I like the, "the missing warming is trapped in the ocean theory", personally.  Second place is the giant smokestack in Antarctica.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 21, 2015, 09:16:26 PM
 :lol: Inhofe clowns the senate libtards yet again on "climate change." They're like children!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/21/senate_says_climate_change_is_real.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/21/senate_says_climate_change_is_real.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cire on January 25, 2015, 11:30:02 AM
Oklahoma:  The model of progress
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 12:03:22 PM
Oklahoma:  The model of progress

 It astounds me so many think that places like Oklahoma are backwards and likely view Northeastern and similar as "progressive" when in fact, quite the opposite is true in many cases.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 12:07:22 PM
 :lol: dax
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cire on January 25, 2015, 12:10:00 PM
we should all strive to achieve the standard of living that Oklahomans enjoy
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 12:18:21 PM
Yes, because there's nothing like the ingrained racism etc. etc. of the midwest, upper Midwest, Northeast and various other locations across our country.   I guess shiney new predominately white schools in McMansion suburbs or a highly liberal population automatically ='s progressive.

Sad.





Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cire on January 25, 2015, 12:21:31 PM
Tulsa will be studied by the learned leaders of the world for years to come.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 12:25:50 PM
Tulsa will be studied by the learned leaders of the world for years to come.

The same thing could be said about nearly every major city in the U.S. . . . dumbass (Liberal bastions excluded, of course)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 12:26:53 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 12:28:30 PM
You tap out really quick these days lib

Sad
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 12:28:45 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 12:40:29 PM
You've got nothing as usual Lib . . . sad

I do appreciate the logic, tho:  You're a Republican from a place that I don't consider to be "progressive" enough therefore your thoughts and ideas don't matter.

Again . . . sad

Meanwhile, EPA are at the X Games "protecting the winters" and lamenting the loss of snow due to Climate Change.   It snowed over a foot in Aspen the past few days and the national ski association reports that this could be one of the all time record best skiing seasons/conditions ever across North America.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 12:41:50 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2015, 12:46:12 PM
The northeast and the deep south are the exact same, a bunch of ignorant uneducated moron who have never been more than 20 miles from where they were born.

People that presuppose everyone from the northeast is refined have either never been there or are just dumb
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on January 25, 2015, 12:46:22 PM
It's cool, guys.  The skiing is fine.  Roll that dooms day clock back.  Three minutes to midnight?   Pfft, more like happy hour. :cheers:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 12:47:20 PM
Progressive "Genius" . . . start a "Save our Snow" campaign in the middle of what may be the greatest ski season in North American history.   :lol:



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 12:48:36 PM
It's cool, guys.  The skiing is fine.  Roll that dooms day clock back.  Three minutes to midnight?   Pfft, more like happy hour. :cheers:

 :lol: at the idea of changing the doomsday clock based on climate change



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 12:49:25 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on January 25, 2015, 12:50:40 PM
It's understandable, though.  Almost as a rule, scientists hate skiing.

Also, it did just happen.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 12:53:40 PM
No word on how the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide campaign has gone at the X games . . . I guess the climate changers are still down in South American trampling all over indigenous peoples sacred ground and monuments or on some of the 2000 private jets coming back from Davos.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on January 25, 2015, 12:54:42 PM
Oh man, jets still flying.  It's all a hoax.  I told you guys so.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 12:56:19 PM
Oh man, jets still flying.  It's all a hoax.  I told you guys so.

Nothing like billionaires telling the little people they need to cut back and quit expecting a comfortable life.

Who said anything about hoax?

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 12:58:42 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 25, 2015, 12:59:38 PM
Oklahoma:  The model of progress

 It astounds me so many think that places like Oklahoma are backwards and likely view Northeastern and similar as "progressive" when in fact, quite the opposite is true in many cases.
the word
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 01:00:57 PM
It would make a great sig
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 01:01:58 PM
I always know when I am talking about these types of things with midwesterners.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 25, 2015, 01:04:35 PM
I always know when I am talking about these types of things with midwesterners.
as opposed to confederates?  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 01:05:48 PM
I always know when I am talking about these types of things with midwesterners.
as opposed to confederates?  :lol:

I guess you haven't looked at any demographic or population movement maps in about 3 decades, so, probably, not in your entire life.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2015, 01:06:03 PM
In one corner you have the ancestors of the people who got off the boat and went straight to work in factories doing mindless manual labor for substandard wages.

In the other corner you have the ancestors of the people who got off the boat, saved enough money to travel 2000-3000 miles in a wagon, successfully planned for and completed the voyage, then staked a claim and farmed it enough to provide for themselves and sell the rest to others.

It's no wonder one group remains dumb and scared, voting for every pathetic scrap they can get their hand just to stay a sliver above poverty, while the other group is all "leave me alone, I've got this".
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 01:07:54 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2015, 01:08:44 PM
Tulsa will be studied by the learned leaders of the world for years to come.

Most millionaires per capita
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 01:08:59 PM
I always know when I am talking about these types of things with midwesterners.

You mean progressives  :love:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 01:10:19 PM
I always know when I am talking about these types of things with midwesterners.

You mean progressives  :love:

 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2015, 01:10:30 PM
It's cool, guys.  The skiing is fine.  Roll that dooms day clock back.  Three minutes to midnight?   Pfft, more like happy hour. :cheers:

Wait, you think doomsday is upon us????

Bwahahahabaha
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 25, 2015, 01:11:40 PM
i'm glad we're all laughing this afternoon  :cheers:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 01:12:35 PM
Iranian Nuclear Weapons, EU countries talking about Russian invasions, the U.S. moving tanks closer to Russia, growing clashes on the oceans in the Pacific rim, disputed territories . . . AGW.

 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on January 25, 2015, 01:38:25 PM
It's cool, guys.  The skiing is fine.  Roll that dooms day clock back.  Three minutes to midnight?   Pfft, more like happy hour. :cheers:

Wait, you think doomsday is upon us????

Bwahahahabaha
Reference to the news this week about the doomsday clock(actual organization of scientists).  I can only assume you have access to Google and can therfore look this stuff up.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on January 25, 2015, 01:39:24 PM
Iranian Nuclear Weapons, EU countries talking about Russian invasions, the U.S. moving tanks closer to Russia, growing clashes on the oceans in the Pacific rim, disputed territories . . . AGW.

 :lol:
You completely left out the Xgames and some guys jet.  Intentional?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Cire on January 25, 2015, 01:40:02 PM
Tulsa will be studied by the learned leaders of the world for years to come.

Most millionaires per capita
This sounds like an old timey fact
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 01:45:54 PM
Iranian Nuclear Weapons, EU countries talking about Russian invasions, the U.S. moving tanks closer to Russia, growing clashes on the oceans in the Pacific rim, disputed territories . . . AGW.

 :lol:
You completely left out the Xgames and some guys jet.  Intentional?

Yes.  I just like making fun of the idiocy, like the EPA people who out there touting a loss of snow campaign in the midst of one of the greatest ski seasons in recorded history.  Remember, based on warmist proclamations, we were to be flooding now, not snow . . . just like we were all supposed to die from tornados that couldn't be measured on current scales and/or on onslaught of Hurricanes that would make Katrina seem small.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 02:07:51 PM
The epa, what a bunch of jerks! Can't wait until we get rid of those buttholes and turn into China with no regulations  :billdance:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2015, 02:10:35 PM
The epa, what a bunch of jerks! Can't wait until we get rid of those buttholes and turn into China with no regulations  :billdance:

Weird, most libtards champion the militarization of the epa
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 02:14:16 PM
Who said anything about getting rid of the EPA.  Man, lib is an amazing knee jerk extremist.  Who knew?

But I agree with FSD, we've seen a record pace of militarization of non DHS Federal agencies under the current administration.   Even the Student Loan people have SWAT teams now and conduct raids.   Scary.   (Fist pump from resident prog libs tho).



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 02:15:03 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 02:21:19 PM
Prog Libs love a good raid over student loans.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 02:25:10 PM
 :Woot:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 02:27:09 PM
For lib the thought of EPA guys/gals running around in those sexy blue windbreakers with "EPA" in big yellow letters on the back is quite the aphrodisiac.   When he hears about the U.S. military preparing for "climate wars" he chants USA-USA under his breath.   



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 02:28:43 PM
 :Jeffy: (but with climate war preppers instead of babes)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2015, 02:36:56 PM
:Jeffy: (but with climate war preppers instead of babes)

Pretty much

sad
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2015, 02:54:52 PM
They crave the police state
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Tobias on January 25, 2015, 03:28:09 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ChiComCat on January 25, 2015, 03:51:07 PM
Progressive "Genius" . . . start a "Save our Snow" campaign in the middle of what may be the greatest ski season in North American history.   :lol:

That is what the ski association is paid to say.  Absolutely nobody in the business comes out and says the snow sucks in the middle of a season.

Also, last season was better.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 03:57:33 PM
A downward trend  :surprised:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ChiComCat on January 25, 2015, 04:25:23 PM
A downward trend  :surprised:

Meh, I've been up here 4 seasons and this one has been second best.  The first two were absolutely terrible. 

Saying that Aspen got a foot of snow is evidence that global warming doesn't exist is just incredibly dumb.  Don't believe in it if you want but don't pick one point on a chart and yell proof.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on January 25, 2015, 05:23:51 PM
The climate commies are now attacking the emmission of methane.  On Jan 14 EPA released new rules to drastically reduce allowed emmissions from new oil and gas wells and old wells on federal land.  This is tied to the China Treaty and many are concerned this will cripple new oil and gas production.  What is next then?  High fuel prices? Cow farts?  A canopy over toilets, Methane capturing devices on gas hoses.  A law requiring us to carry a can to blow brown breezes into.  All major EPA rules and laws have a tendence to morph into much more.  Repubs can't stop it because we get labelled as dirty water and air nuts.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 05:28:30 PM
Yes, I believe all of those things are coming
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2015, 05:37:24 PM
A downward trend  :surprised:

Meh, I've been up here 4 seasons and this one has been second best.  The first two were absolutely terrible. 

Saying that Aspen got a foot of snow is evidence that global warming doesn't exist is just incredibly dumb.  Don't believe in it if you want but don't pick one point on a chart and yell proof.

saying that global warming is real because of of how bad a snow season is, when in fact the snow season is good, is dumber, dumbass
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on January 25, 2015, 05:39:11 PM
how long do we have before steve Daves 100 mile round trip commute in a 10 mpg 4x4 finally gets us?  I'd say another 20 good years and then it's all over.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 05:49:08 PM
Where does claiming humans have no effect on climate fit on the dumb scale?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2015, 05:55:16 PM
First the tap out, now the full fledged retreat
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2015, 06:01:12 PM
 :lol:
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ChiComCat on January 25, 2015, 07:53:00 PM
A downward trend  :surprised:

Meh, I've been up here 4 seasons and this one has been second best.  The first two were absolutely terrible. 

Saying that Aspen got a foot of snow is evidence that global warming doesn't exist is just incredibly dumb.  Don't believe in it if you want but don't pick one point on a chart and yell proof.

saying that global warming is real because of of how bad a snow season is, when in fact the snow season is good, is dumber, dumbass

Reading comprehension dumbass: I never said it was real because of how bad the snow season is
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 25, 2015, 09:09:45 PM
A downward trend  :surprised:

Meh, I've been up here 4 seasons and this one has been second best.  The first two were absolutely terrible. 

Saying that Aspen got a foot of snow is evidence that global warming doesn't exist is just incredibly dumb.  Don't believe in it if you want but don't pick one point on a chart and yell proof.

saying that global warming is real because of of how bad a snow season is, when in fact the snow season is good, is dumber, dumbass

Reading comprehension dumbass: I never said it was real because of how bad the snow season is

You're the one who needs to brush up on the ole readin' comp, bruh
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 26, 2015, 03:18:44 PM
Did I say that Aspen or any place getting any Snow was "evidence" that there's no "Global Warming" (or Cooling, or Global Climate Disruption)?

No, no . . . I didn't.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 26, 2015, 03:44:25 PM
Libs are going to use this NY snow storm as proof of man made climate change.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on January 26, 2015, 04:26:37 PM
How can GW be real of NYC is getting a big snow storm.   Just doesn't make sense.  In your face, science.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 26, 2015, 05:21:26 PM
Sure is warm today...
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 27, 2015, 08:15:44 AM
Sure is warm today...

All the heat must be hiding in Kansas. :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 27, 2015, 05:19:45 PM
Warm again today
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on January 27, 2015, 07:57:50 PM
This thread is so weird
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 27, 2015, 09:32:34 PM
This thread is so weird

Understatement of the year.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 28, 2015, 04:52:39 PM
Wut http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/us-senate-man-climate-change-global-warming-hoax

Quote
“Climate is changing and climate has always changed and always will,” Inhofe told the Senate. “The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.”

Chair for the environment committee. These are the consequences of electing republicans
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 28, 2015, 04:57:43 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 28, 2015, 06:28:32 PM
Wut http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/us-senate-man-climate-change-global-warming-hoax

Quote
“Climate is changing and climate has always changed and always will,” Inhofe told the Senate. “The hoax is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate. Man can’t change climate.”

Chair for the environment committee. These are the consequences of electing republicans

Lib7 - I can pretty much guarantee you that Inhofe is a lot more knowledgable about climate science than you. So maybe keep that in mind.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 28, 2015, 06:34:16 PM
interesting response from someone who disregards 95 percent of the scientific community
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Tobias on January 28, 2015, 06:37:57 PM
I've got $5 on lib
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on January 28, 2015, 08:51:56 PM
I've got $5 on 95% of the scientific community.  Could give a eff about a senator, rep, pres, or any other person who's job consists of lying or twisting truth intentionally a large amount of the time.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 28, 2015, 08:57:07 PM
I've got $5 on 95% of the scientific community.  Could give a eff about a senator, rep, pres, or any other person who's job consists of lying or twisting truth intentionally a large amount of the time.

I've got $5 that the 95% (I thought it was 97 - has it gone down?) talking point is bullshit.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on January 28, 2015, 08:58:17 PM
For a conservative,  you love long odds bets.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on January 28, 2015, 08:58:55 PM
Do you think scientists are lying and in league with the far left agenda?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 28, 2015, 09:06:13 PM
WSJ: The Myth of the 97% Consensus (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136)

It's almost as misleading a statistic as the "women only earn 73 cents for every dollar a man makes" bs.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on January 28, 2015, 09:23:50 PM
Not subscribing to that.  Can't read w/o subscribing.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 28, 2015, 09:25:09 PM
OMG, the libtards got SNOPES'D  :lol:

Seriously, that 95% thing has been bunker for a rough ridin' long time, how are you idiots still running with that?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2015, 09:55:37 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/28/beijing-smog-unliveable-mayor-wang-anshun-china

Haven't looked, but are many still wanting to let China hide behind "developing nation" status.

Of course this goes against America is the root of all evil in the AGW propagandist narrative.

Just waiting for that huge dam they built to go full blown environmental disaster . . . it's on its way now.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 28, 2015, 09:59:17 PM
Republicans would love nothing more than to have china's environmental regs in the US, after all humans can't harm the planet, only God can do that!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 28, 2015, 10:02:34 PM



Of course this goes against America is the root of all evil in the AGW propagandist narrative.

LOL what?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 28, 2015, 10:03:26 PM
Very daxian claim
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2015, 10:21:18 PM
Republicans would love nothing more than to have china's environmental regs in the US, after all humans can't harm the planet, only God can do that!


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2015, 10:22:29 PM



Of course this goes against America is the root of all evil in the AGW propagandist narrative.

LOL what?

Geezus, don't be dense passive aggressive cRusty

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 28, 2015, 10:26:34 PM



Of course this goes against America is the root of all evil in the AGW propagandist narrative.

LOL what?

Geezus, don't be dense passive aggressive cRusty
Only if you don't make up some of the weirdest crap I've ever heard. Like, what in the world, man.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 28, 2015, 10:29:14 PM
The epa isn't business friendly! Who cares that we can drink our water and breathe our air here, that crap is overrated
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2015, 10:30:11 PM
Really dude, I mean you've never read or seen the constant narrative that United States is the biggest polluter etc. etc.  Yet, the last time a U.S. City even looked remotely like many Chinese cities was 35 and 40 years ago from an air quality perspective. 

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2015, 10:30:41 PM
The epa isn't business friendly! Who cares that we can drink our water and breathe our air here, that crap is overrated

Lib continues to flail away.

 :Woot:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 28, 2015, 10:32:10 PM
Really dude, I mean you've never read or seen the constant narrative that United States is the biggest polluter etc. etc.  Yet, the last time a U.S. City even looked remotely like many Chinese cities was 35 and 40 years ago from an air quality perspective.

I've read that we use the most resources, but never that we are the biggest polluter. I wouldn't be surprised if we are per capita, though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on January 28, 2015, 10:32:28 PM
If god didn't want pollution then he wouldn't have invented it
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 28, 2015, 10:34:41 PM
If god didn't want pollution then he wouldn't have invented it

The arrogance of people who think they can change anything is staggering.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2015, 10:46:43 PM
Looks like increasing C02 levels aka food for the biosphere is coming at a good time.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/have-we-reached-peak-food-shortages-loom-as-global-production-rates-slow-10009185.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 28, 2015, 10:51:52 PM
Yeah, nobody ever considers the positives of all this pollution.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 28, 2015, 10:52:26 PM
97% of pollution is caused by Americans and without the epa we'd all be drinking gasoline instead of tap water
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2015, 10:55:32 PM
Yeah, nobody ever considers the positives of all this pollution.

So C02 has now been fully defined by Warmists as "pollution"?  Fascinating

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 28, 2015, 11:04:10 PM
Is nitrogen pollution?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 28, 2015, 11:07:45 PM
97% of pollution is caused by Americans and without the epa we'd all be drinking gasoline instead of tap water

Republicans want to see the planet burn because they've set up Planet McCain in another solar system.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 28, 2015, 11:12:52 PM
97% of pollution is caused by Americans and without the epa we'd all be drinking gasoline instead of tap water

Republicans want to see the planet burn because they've set up Planet McCain in another solar system.

Yep, anarchy and chaos is the republican way. Let the bankers hoard all the money, take shoes away from children give it all to THE MAN.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 28, 2015, 11:54:51 PM
Really dude, I mean you've never read or seen the constant narrative that United States is the biggest polluter etc. etc.  Yet, the last time a U.S. City even looked remotely like many Chinese cities was 35 and 40 years ago from an air quality perspective. 



no, literally everyone thinks China is the worst polluter and knows all their cities have gross smog and pollution

(although the US does consume much more energy per capita)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Tobias on January 28, 2015, 11:57:00 PM
it's clear less regulation is needed
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2015, 12:30:04 AM
Yeah, nobody ever considers the positives of all this pollution.

So C02 has now been fully defined by Warmists as "pollution"?  Fascinating

It's defined by just about everybody as pollution, and it's not that fascinating.

Is nitrogen pollution?

Yes, of course it is.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 29, 2015, 06:11:02 AM
So the stuff that makes plants grow is defined wholly as "pollution"?

Now that's funny.   But with a nod to the Clean Air Act which pretty much rolled out a paint brush the size of a football field, yes, it is considered a pollutant.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 29, 2015, 08:44:58 AM
Yeah, nobody ever considers the positives of all this pollution.

So C02 has now been fully defined by Warmists as "pollution"?  Fascinating

It's defined by just about everybody as pollution, and it's not that fascinating.

Is nitrogen pollution?

Yes, of course it is.

You can't be serious
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2015, 08:47:55 AM
Yeah, nobody ever considers the positives of all this pollution.

So C02 has now been fully defined by Warmists as "pollution"?  Fascinating

It's defined by just about everybody as pollution, and it's not that fascinating.

Is nitrogen pollution?

Yes, of course it is.

You can't be serious

http://water.usgs.gov/edu/nitrogen.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 29, 2015, 08:49:30 AM
Good, just wanted to confirm you are full on Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2015, 08:58:46 AM
Quote
Excess nitrogen in water can harm people
Too much nitrogen, as nitrate, in drinking water can be harmful to young infants or young livestock. Excessive nitrate can result in restriction of oxygen transport in the bloodstream. Infants under the age of 4 months lack the enzyme necessary to correct this condition ("blue baby syndrome"). In parts of Eastern Europe where groundwater is contaminated with 50-100 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of nitrate, pregnant women and children under 1 year of age are supplied with bottled water.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 29, 2015, 09:06:47 AM
First, the context of all of this is air pollution, but that's been conflated in the most ignorant of fashions.

Second, when you don't know the difference between nitrogen (a innate gas) and nitrogen compounds used to make fertilizer, you are a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).  Just like thinking that CO2 is a pollutant, even though the epa does not list it as a voc.  Like 75-80% of the air you breath is nitrogen, you rough ridin' idiot.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 29, 2015, 09:08:38 AM
Did you guys know oxygen is a pollutant.

Yep, when one oxygen is combined with one carbon you get carbon monoxide which can kill you. Therefore oxygen is a pollutant, and we need to get rid of it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 29, 2015, 09:11:10 AM
Also, if you take 3 oxygens and 1 nitrogen you get nitrate, which can kill babies. Check my math on this, but that means oxygen is 3 times the pollutant nitrogen is. Scary stuff folks. The only safe place to breath appears to be the vacuum of outer space.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2015, 09:13:02 AM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on January 29, 2015, 09:14:45 AM
WSJ: The Myth of the 97% Consensus (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136)

It's almost as misleading a statistic as the "women only earn 73 cents for every dollar a man makes" bs.

An op-ed piece from the same folks that debunk the whole "smoking is bad for you" thing.  Amazing post.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on January 29, 2015, 09:18:24 AM
If you take a chemical stance, most anything in the pollution debate can be broken down in to elements that are not harmful in pure form.  Doesn't mean they aren't harmful as a compound. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 29, 2015, 09:22:40 AM
If you take a chemical stance, most anything in the pollution debate can be broken down in to elements that are not harmful in pure form.  Doesn't mean they aren't harmful as a compound.

No crap, sherlock.  Certain retards on this board are obviously confused by that.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2015, 09:57:38 AM
Farmers apply nitrogen to the ground. Bacteria on the soils convert it to nitrate, which is good for plants, but bad for humans, and would not be in the water supply if they hadn't applied the nitrogen.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 29, 2015, 10:20:03 AM
 :lol: x 3
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 29, 2015, 10:36:39 AM
Guys, I know that FSD is having a lot of fun here, but can we just all agree that the EPA shouldn't be regulating CO2 as a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act and leave it at that?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2015, 11:02:07 AM
Guys, I know that FSD is having a lot of fun here, but can we just all agree that the EPA shouldn't be regulating CO2 as a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act and leave it at that?

No, I'd rather not live like the Chinese do.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 29, 2015, 11:46:23 AM
True believers in AGW should stop exhaling.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 29, 2015, 11:48:15 AM
True believers in AGW should stop exhaling.

this is probably my favorite argument against trying to reduce CO2 emissions
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2015, 11:49:16 AM
True believers in AGW should stop exhaling.

Or maybe do something slightly less ridiculous, like plant trees, use less energy, etc. Or they could just accept the science and do nothing. That's my favorite thing about the science deniers. They can't wrap their minds around seeing a problem and not doing something about it, so they just deny that there is a problem in the first place so they can feel better about doing nothing.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 29, 2015, 11:54:08 AM
I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 29, 2015, 11:59:42 AM
Guys, I know that FSD is having a lot of fun here, but can we just all agree that the EPA shouldn't be regulating CO2 as a "pollutant" under the Clean Air Act and leave it at that?

No, I'd rather not live like the Chinese do.

CO2 does not cause smog. CO2 is not a pollutant, and it should not be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The fact that you equate CO2 emissions with the Chinese air quality speaks volumes about your lack of understanding about CO2.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 29, 2015, 12:01:20 PM
True believers in AGW should stop exhaling.

Or maybe do something slightly less ridiculous, like plant trees, use less energy, etc. Or they could just accept the science and do nothing. That's my favorite thing about the science deniers. They can't wrap their minds around seeing a problem and not doing something about it, so they just deny that there is a problem in the first place so they can feel better about doing nothing.

I think you're talking about the very fringes of the so called "deniers".    Whereas in the warmist propagandists agendists community, nearly every actual or imagined climatic event and/or climatic prediction of dire endings of earth on fire, Category 26 hurricanes, seas of acid and tornadoes that can't be measured by current scales are laid solely and exclusively at the feet of AGW.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 29, 2015, 12:06:37 PM
I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?



the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 29, 2015, 12:28:41 PM
I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?



the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 29, 2015, 12:56:32 PM
I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?



the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 29, 2015, 01:17:37 PM
I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?



the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?

I'm not dumb enough to believe that man has absolutely no effect on our atmosphere; you can see it in the form of pollution. But, as for CO2 concentrations, I do think it is minute compared to natural processes. I also believe that cycles in the sun's output is the major driving force in our temperature and and release of CO2 from the oceans and other sources, not the other way around.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 29, 2015, 01:42:14 PM
I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?



the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?

I'm not dumb enough to believe that man has absolutely no effect on our atmosphere; you can see it in the form of pollution. But, as for CO2 concentrations, I do think it is minute compared to natural processes. I also believe that cycles in the sun's output is the major driving force in our temperature and and release of CO2 from the oceans and other sources, not the other way around.

do you have any evidence that supports this, or is it kind of like Jesus' resurrection?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 29, 2015, 01:55:27 PM
I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?



the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?

I'm not dumb enough to believe that man has absolutely no effect on our atmosphere; you can see it in the form of pollution. But, as for CO2 concentrations, I do think it is minute compared to natural processes. I also believe that cycles in the sun's output is the major driving force in our temperature and and release of CO2 from the oceans and other sources, not the other way around.

do you have any evidence that supports this, or is it kind of like Jesus' resurrection?

It's science. Isn't that all you need to say?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 29, 2015, 02:18:05 PM
CO2 is not a pollutant (voc) under the clean air act. Who came up with that?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on January 29, 2015, 02:19:26 PM
I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?



the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?

I'm not dumb enough to believe that man has absolutely no effect on our atmosphere; you can see it in the form of pollution. But, as for CO2 concentrations, I do think it is minute compared to natural processes. I also believe that cycles in the sun's output is the major driving force in our temperature and and release of CO2 from the oceans and other sources, not the other way around.

do you have any evidence that supports this, or is it kind of like Jesus' resurrection?

It's science. Isn't that all you need to say?
You can go with that if you'd like
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 29, 2015, 07:46:30 PM
Co2, man, bummer
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on January 29, 2015, 07:52:41 PM
"Dilution is the solution to pollution" is Rule 0.1 for environmental engineers.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on January 30, 2015, 11:49:10 AM
Liberal media!
www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-gap-between-what-scientists-say-and-americans-think-about-climate-change/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2015, 12:12:50 PM
This is profound, I mean props to those guys for getting funding for the Capt. Obvious Research Project of the Year.

Urban heat islands, urban sprawl?

No Way!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/29/claim-global-warming-has-been-amplified-in-cities-ignores-infrastructure-increase/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 30, 2015, 12:38:05 PM
CO2 is not a pollutant (voc) under the clean air act. Who came up with that?

The EPA and the courts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_greenhouse_gases_under_the_Clean_Air_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_greenhouse_gases_under_the_Clean_Air_Act)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2015, 12:41:08 PM
Liberal media!
www.scientificamerican.com/article/big-gap-between-what-scientists-say-and-americans-think-about-climate-change/

Cool, magazine. 3 of the 5 "latest stories" discuss climate change/global warming.

Quote
Scientific American, a division of Nature America, Inc.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2015, 12:43:56 PM
This is profound, I mean props to those guys for getting funding for the Capt. Obvious Research Project of the Year.

Urban heat islands, urban sprawl?

No Way!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/29/claim-global-warming-has-been-amplified-in-cities-ignores-infrastructure-increase/

I, for one, see nothing wrong with modelling the entire planet based upon the results of 48% of the cities studied. Particularly since said cities cover 0.0002% of the earth.  It's science, afterall.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 30, 2015, 12:50:34 PM
CO2 is not a pollutant (voc) under the clean air act. Who came up with that?

The EPA and the courts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_greenhouse_gases_under_the_Clean_Air_Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_greenhouse_gases_under_the_Clean_Air_Act)

I know they are able to regulate GHG under the clean air act as "contributing to air pollution". It is not a pollutant under the statutory definition, and the court cannot change that.

That ruling is the most tortured interpretation of the CAA imaginable. It's quite stunning.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 08, 2015, 06:29:18 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

This is really nothing new, statistical analysts/watchers have noted for years that the "adjustments" have written substantial climatic events off the pages of the newly revised climatic history . . . to fit an agenda.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 10, 2015, 09:06:20 AM
http://www.accuweather.com/en/features/trend/study_us_tornadoes_made_worse/41742182

Woo nelly . . . this narrative must be quashed immediately.  Per the agendite warmist community, the so-called "outbreaks" of a few years ago were almost exclusively to be blamed on AGW . . . as was the subsequent drop in Tornadic events in the following years.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OregonSmock on February 10, 2015, 09:24:16 AM
I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?



the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?

I'm not dumb enough to believe that man has absolutely no effect on our atmosphere; you can see it in the form of pollution. But, as for CO2 concentrations, I do think it is minute compared to natural processes. I also believe that cycles in the sun's output is the major driving force in our temperature and and release of CO2 from the oceans and other sources, not the other way around.


Not even close.  Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average temperature would be close to 0 degrees Fahrenheit. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm)

Quote
A rocky planet this far from the sun should be frozen solid and lifeless at an average temperature of -18°C (0°F). The fact that it isn’t is due to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, mainly CO2. These atmospheric gasses have been in a delicate balance with the Earth’s oceans, the biosphere, and even the geosphere (all the rocks and sediments). Whether it was frigid ice ages or the steamy climates of the Eocene and the age of the dinosaurs, every change in the Earth (like a decrease in the rate of tectonic plate subduction or an increase in the rate of mountain building) caused a proportional change in CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans, and every change in atmospheric CO2 caused a proportional reaction in global temperatures, climate and ocean chemistry.


Quote
Scientists have shown that CO2 and climate moved in lock-step throughout the Pleistocene ice ages. The ice ages were actually many pulses of cold glacial phases interspersed with warmer interglacials. These pulses had a distinct regularity caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles). When Earth’s orbit reduced the intensity of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, the Earth went into a glacial phase. When the orbital cycle brought increased the intensity of insolation in the northern hemisphere, ice sheets melted and we went into a warm interglacial. Because warmer oceans can dissolve less CO2, the CO2 levels see-sawed extremely closely with Earth’s temperature. It was a slow pace of change, taking tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and yes as the myth states, in the last million years the biggest orbit-induced cycles were every 100,000 years.

But we know these orbital changes are not behind today's global warming. In fact our orbit dictates we should be cooling now, not warming.

The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions
.

(http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/images/images_research_sep_09/EPICA_with_current.PNG)


Quote
Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped rapidly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. In Earth's past the trigger for these greenhouse gas emissions was often unusually massive volcanic eruptions known as “Large Igneous Provinces,” with knock-on effects that included huge releases of CO2 and methane from organic-rich sediments. But there is no Large Igneous Province operating today, or anytime in the last 16 million years. Today’s volcanoes, in comparison, don’t even come close to emitting the levels of greenhouse gasses that humans do.


Quote
Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", referring to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Mörner and Etiope (2002)).

In contrast, humans are currently emitting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo, El Chicon and Agung had little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm)

(http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2_vs_Volcano.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 12, 2015, 03:34:33 PM
more libs with their science and books and test tubes....its just disgusting I say!!!!
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/megadroughts-will-bake-plains-southwest-decades-study-n305276
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 12, 2015, 04:32:47 PM
I think I've asked this before, but have the warmist propagandists agendists decided what the correct C02 PPM count should be yet?



the UN's official goal is to keep it under 450 ppm

http://science.time.com/2013/05/02/greenhouse-effect-co2-concentrations-set-to-hit-record-high/

An arbitrary number. We still can't prove that the increase in CO2 concentration isn't a naturally occurring event similar to past events. This has all happened before and we should be planning for it rather than crippling the economy trying to stop something that can't be stopped.

I agree that planning ahead to mitigate changes is the best approach. You really don't believe that the increase in carbon dioxide is attributable to man?

I'm not dumb enough to believe that man has absolutely no effect on our atmosphere; you can see it in the form of pollution. But, as for CO2 concentrations, I do think it is minute compared to natural processes. I also believe that cycles in the sun's output is the major driving force in our temperature and and release of CO2 from the oceans and other sources, not the other way around.


Not even close.  Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average temperature would be close to 0 degrees Fahrenheit. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm)

Quote
A rocky planet this far from the sun should be frozen solid and lifeless at an average temperature of -18°C (0°F). The fact that it isn’t is due to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, mainly CO2. These atmospheric gasses have been in a delicate balance with the Earth’s oceans, the biosphere, and even the geosphere (all the rocks and sediments). Whether it was frigid ice ages or the steamy climates of the Eocene and the age of the dinosaurs, every change in the Earth (like a decrease in the rate of tectonic plate subduction or an increase in the rate of mountain building) caused a proportional change in CO2 in the atmosphere and in the oceans, and every change in atmospheric CO2 caused a proportional reaction in global temperatures, climate and ocean chemistry.


Quote
Scientists have shown that CO2 and climate moved in lock-step throughout the Pleistocene ice ages. The ice ages were actually many pulses of cold glacial phases interspersed with warmer interglacials. These pulses had a distinct regularity caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit around the Sun (Milankovitch cycles). When Earth’s orbit reduced the intensity of sunlight in the northern hemisphere, the Earth went into a glacial phase. When the orbital cycle brought increased the intensity of insolation in the northern hemisphere, ice sheets melted and we went into a warm interglacial. Because warmer oceans can dissolve less CO2, the CO2 levels see-sawed extremely closely with Earth’s temperature. It was a slow pace of change, taking tens to hundreds of thousands of years, and yes as the myth states, in the last million years the biggest orbit-induced cycles were every 100,000 years.

But we know these orbital changes are not behind today's global warming. In fact our orbit dictates we should be cooling now, not warming.

The Earth was indeed cooling over the last 6,000 years due to Earth's orbit, heading into the next glacial phase scheduled for about the year 3500 AD. But all that changed when we got to the industrial era. Global temperatures departed from that cooling trend, and instead rose parallel with our greenhouse gas emissions
.

(http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/images/images_research_sep_09/EPICA_with_current.PNG)


Quote
Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped rapidly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. In Earth's past the trigger for these greenhouse gas emissions was often unusually massive volcanic eruptions known as “Large Igneous Provinces,” with knock-on effects that included huge releases of CO2 and methane from organic-rich sediments. But there is no Large Igneous Province operating today, or anytime in the last 16 million years. Today’s volcanoes, in comparison, don’t even come close to emitting the levels of greenhouse gasses that humans do.


Quote
Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", referring to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Mörner and Etiope (2002)).

In contrast, humans are currently emitting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo, El Chicon and Agung had little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm)

(http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/CO2_vs_Volcano.gif)

This is hilariously Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). I'm pretty sure Skeptical science is Koch funded parody.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 12, 2015, 11:11:56 PM
more libs with their science and books and test tubes....its just disgusting I say!!!!
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/megadroughts-will-bake-plains-southwest-decades-study-n305276

Haven't we had this discussion already?  Haven't we discussed how parts of the plains and SW, large parts in fact have had it "good" in terms of moisture they have received in the past few decades/centuries as compared to the realities and totality of climatic history (at least the unaltered history, pre-warmist statistical interventionism)? 



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Tobias on February 12, 2015, 11:32:00 PM
sounds like magic to me
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: illBisonYourdele on February 16, 2015, 02:10:14 PM
 Spy agencies fund climate research in hunt for weather weapon, scientist fears

A senior US scientist has expressed concern that the intelligence services are funding climate change research to learn if new technologies could be used as potential weapons.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/15/spy-agencies-fund-climate-research-weather-weapon-claim (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/15/spy-agencies-fund-climate-research-weather-weapon-claim)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 16, 2015, 02:16:18 PM
But geo-engineering to support national policy is a myth.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: illBisonYourdele on February 16, 2015, 02:20:49 PM
US scientists and legal experts are calling for a strong, international authority to regulate any man-made interventions meant to combat global warming, amid fears that the technology could be harmful to the environment.


http://phys.org/print343221881.html (http://phys.org/print343221881.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on February 16, 2015, 02:24:41 PM
Spy agencies fund climate research in hunt for weather weapon, scientist fears

A senior US scientist has expressed concern that the intelligence services are funding climate change research to learn if new technologies could be used as potential weapons.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/15/spy-agencies-fund-climate-research-weather-weapon-claim (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/15/spy-agencies-fund-climate-research-weather-weapon-claim)

From the comments section, I love crazy people!

Quote
Better late than never! These technologies allready exist, based on Tesla science, USA has (HAARP), Russian has it, UK has it, Norway has it and some more. You made the first step, take the next one and tell the people that our climate already has been engineered and they call it "climate change". North Pole is melting not because of "climate change" but because the big countries are about to take all its wealth. And this is not the only reason some countries belong to the "climate change" church, there is a lot of money there!

Quote
whilst alot of you are simply reactionists just fumbling through life only reacting to what the "official mainstream" word is , there are many of us who have known for a very long time that we are being tested on in the name of global warming. Call it "chemtrails , haarp, geoengineering" its all the same word for being fcked with by the powers that rule. why would you call a person a "tinfoil hat wearing fool" if he dared to mention this before the mainstream did? That person would of been right the whole time. While the rest of you just sit waiting to be forced fed garbage news, believing it to be real reporting. Tests have already been conducted to find what chemicals are being used on us, aluminium , stontium and barium are just a few Of them. ask yourselves again, 'why does the uk have the highest rate of alzheimers in all of europe?' being pepperd with aluminium can that effect? Before the igonrant replies, please research info in places other than the 'newspaper'
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on February 21, 2015, 09:47:18 PM
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44352_A_Climate_Change_Deniers_Links_to_the_Fossil_Fuel_Industry_Exposed (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44352_A_Climate_Change_Deniers_Links_to_the_Fossil_Fuel_Industry_Exposed)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 06:39:26 AM
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44352_A_Climate_Change_Deniers_Links_to_the_Fossil_Fuel_Industry_Exposed (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/44352_A_Climate_Change_Deniers_Links_to_the_Fossil_Fuel_Industry_Exposed)

That's a good article Kat Kid, but I wonder if we took a step back and analyzed the climate research dollars that is handed out by the government, and those who decide what, who and where those dollars go to . . . and then see if those people have a bias.   Based on the current administration in place and their mindset, I suspect that there's many in charge of handing out research dollars who have a clear bias towards AGW, and who are seeking out like minded scientists to funnel money to.

I'd also like to see a study on scientists who receive research dollars from warmist alarmist entities and if these scientists are disclosing where their research dollars are coming from.

I really enjoyed the comment section where many said evil Republicans will shut down all climate research and/or attempts to reduce emissions. 


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 06:46:51 AM
Oh and about megadroughts from edns article.

Historical weather research has shown that similar mega droughts have happened on the North American continent before.  The current droughts still do not supersede the droughts of the 1930's and the 1950's, and climate researchers have already admitted (grudgingly) that the West Coast drought has been caused by naturally occurring weather patterns over the Pacific ocean.   Not to mention that from an entire earth perspective,  there's essentially no more or less drought occurring on the planet than usual.





Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 22, 2015, 07:14:27 AM
Oh and about megadroughts from edns article.

Historical weather research has shown that similar mega droughts have happened on the North American continent before.  The current droughts still do not supersede the droughts of the 1930's and the 1950's, and climate researchers have already admitted (grudgingly) that the West Coast drought has been caused by naturally occurring weather patterns over the Pacific ocean.   Not to mention that from an entire earth perspective,  there's essentially no more or less drought occurring on the planet than usual.
I think you need to read into a bit more. The current research is predicting these droughts will be 6 to 7 times more likely (occurring more often), longer severity, and lasting longer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 22, 2015, 08:10:37 AM
Oh and about megadroughts from edns article.

Historical weather research has shown that similar mega droughts have happened on the North American continent before.  The current droughts still do not supersede the droughts of the 1930's and the 1950's, and climate researchers have already admitted (grudgingly) that the West Coast drought has been caused by naturally occurring weather patterns over the Pacific ocean.   Not to mention that from an entire earth perspective,  there's essentially no more or less drought occurring on the planet than usual.
I think you need to read into a bit more. The current research is predicting these droughts will be 6 to 7 times more likely (occurring more often), longer severity, and lasting longer.

Oh "the current research is predicting"?! :runaway: Climate alarmists never get their predictions wrong... :lol: Said the polar bears, and the ice caps, and the hurricanes, and the warming models... We should make a list of all the stellar predictions - but I'm betting a quick google search would provide many such lists.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 22, 2015, 08:41:21 AM
If my livelihood (grant money) was dependent on hysteria, I'd be sure that my studies showed plenty of reason for it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 08:41:51 AM
Post Katrina the Safir-Simpson scale was going to need to be reworked because land falling hurricanes would be more frequent and intense.   Post Joplin the the Fujita scale was going to need to reworked because tornadoes would be more frequent and more intense.

Reality:  Landfalling Hurricanes dropped substantially (this was also blamed on AGW by warmist alarmists).   Tornadoes actually declined in number and intensity was well within established existing ratings models (the decline was blamed on AGW by warmist alarmists.   Not discussed as contributing factor into tornadic frequency by warmist alarmists:  technology advancement in detection, the massive increase in storm chasers, urban sprawl).

Now Bill Nye is on MSNBC telling their hosts that literally every weather event should mention AGW as a possible cause.   





Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 08:47:27 AM
Oh and edn, like I said, historical climate study and research says that the North American Continent has already had periods of extreme "mega" droughts on a scale that the warmist alarmist scientists say we're going to have in 2050 and beyond, and claim will be unprecedented.

That's one of the go to words:  Unprecedented

Yet, people who actually research the unaltered historical weather and climate history find that many of these so called AGW based cataclysmic events that will happen in the future, have already happened many times before in Earth's history.   





Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 22, 2015, 12:19:04 PM
If my livelihood (grant money) was dependent on hysteria, I'd be sure that my studies showed plenty of reason for it.

This. The money will go to the scientist that can confirm your point of view and advance your agenda. Scientists that have the time to waste on global warming studies work at publicly funded institutions and apply for grants from the government. The governments across the globe need tax money to grow, and the best way to increase taxes is to scare the public into thinking they will die unless the government has the funds and power to keep it from happening.

What we should be doing is preparing for possible warming and cooling cycles, but preparation and planning ahead is not a strong suit for governments, and lacks the pizzazz they crave.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on February 22, 2015, 12:23:17 PM
global warming studies, a waste of time -- neocon philosophy
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 12:37:07 PM
global warming studies, a waste of time -- neocon philosophy

All climatic events good or bad are to be blamed on AGW, thus we need taxation and control . . . Prog Lib Mantra.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 22, 2015, 04:33:50 PM
global warming studies, a waste of time -- neocon philosophy

At this point, they kind of are. We all know it's happening, so the focus should be on mitigation.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 07:27:42 PM
Global Warming/Global Climate Disruption:  All caused by mankind.   ProgLib doctrine

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 07:33:56 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/22/the-disparity-between-ipcc-science-reports-summary-for-policymakers-and-reality-requires-a-political-science-solution/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on February 22, 2015, 07:34:20 PM
how can you be so arrogant to think man could have any effect on climate -- necon ideology
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 07:38:05 PM
(http://jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Carbon-dioxide-residence-time.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 07:45:01 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/19/eye-roller-study-finds-climate-change-induced-severe-weather-may-dramatically-reduce-wheat-production/

I do give the ranks at K-State credit, they are stepping up to the research funding trough nicely.   Really helps those total research dollar reports.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 22, 2015, 08:49:49 PM
I really enjoy how Dax thinks all the studies clown suiting his position are at the behest of "big-research"; while all the studies he suckles at the tit of, proven to be rigged by "small" energy, are legit.  Because ya know the NSF and NIH and all of these other bodies are known to be so corrupt.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 09:10:28 PM
I really enjoy how Dax thinks all the studies clown suiting his position are at the behest of "big-research"; while all the studies he suckles at the tit of, proven to be rigged by "small" energy, are legit.  Because ya know the NSF and NIH and all of these other bodies are known to be so corrupt.

I don't suckle on the teat of anything, I fully admit there's bias in research by some parties.   But it's absolutely laughable that you ProgLibs believe that all so called deniers are sell outs, while the warmist alarmists have no sell outs who work at the behest of politicians with specific agendas.   Why do you believe that there are no agendas within the warmist alarmist community?   I mean the K-State news release and the people involved (for example) absolutely reeks of a research and grant money grab.   






Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on February 22, 2015, 09:28:30 PM
global warming studies, a waste of time -- neocon philosophy

Yes. The market will figure out out.

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 09:51:10 PM
Plus edn, I really don't think you want to start going down the list of some of the stuff the NSF had funded over the years . . . like $5.7 million dollars to Columbia so they could essentially set up a VM system to allow people to pretend they're calling from the future so they can warn us about Climate Change.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 22, 2015, 09:51:59 PM
I really enjoy how Dax thinks all the studies clown suiting his position are at the behest of "big-research"; while all the studies he suckles at the tit of, proven to be rigged by "small" energy, are legit.  Because ya know the NSF and NIH and all of these other bodies are known to be so corrupt.

I don't suckle on the teat of anything, I fully admit there's bias in research by some parties.   But it's absolutely laughable that you ProgLibs believe that all so called deniers are sell outs, while the warmist alarmists have no sell outs who work at the behest of politicians with specific agendas.   Why do you believe that there are no agendas within the warmist alarmist community?   I mean the K-State news release and the people involved (for example) absolutely reeks of a research and grant money grab.

I tend to agree if you are talking about the people modeling future weather patterns based upon projected temps. People who declare that the climate isn't drastically affected by all of the non-natural CO2 we are pumping into the air are a joke, though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 22, 2015, 09:55:31 PM
I think you need to read into a bit more. The current research is predicting these droughts will be 6 to 7 times more likely (occurring more often), longer severity, and lasting longer.

Oh "the current research is predicting"?! :runaway: Climate alarmists never get their predictions wrong... :lol: Said the polar bears, and the ice caps, and the hurricanes, and the warming models... We should make a list of all the stellar predictions - but I'm betting a quick google search would provide many such lists.

I see Edna has checked back in. I go ahead and bump my last comment, was probably just overlooked.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 22, 2015, 09:58:22 PM
I mean we can't even accurately predict the weather for this coming summer at a regional scale. Like hell somebody is going to accurately predict droughts based upon projected climate changes.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 22, 2015, 10:09:50 PM
I think you need to read into a bit more. The current research is predicting these droughts will be 6 to 7 times more likely (occurring more often), longer severity, and lasting longer.

Oh "the current research is predicting"?! :runaway: Climate alarmists never get their predictions wrong... :lol: Said the polar bears, and the ice caps, and the hurricanes, and the warming models... We should make a list of all the stellar predictions - but I'm betting a quick google search would provide many such lists.

I see Edna has checked back in. I go ahead and bump my last comment, was probably just overlooked.

Being mostly right and being mostly wrong are very different sides of the same coin here.  I know what side I'm on and i think the current state of the Arctic ice cap and the reservoirs in the SW agree with me.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 10:22:07 PM
Really?  I mean we're debating a drought in the Southwest, talking about the water level in reservoirs that were by and large all man made?    How can anyone say that with a straight face?

Why would anyone look at the actual climatic history of the Southwest and the look at a man-made reservoir and think to themselves, "this thing is going to stay full of water forever"?  It's just laughable.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 22, 2015, 10:26:12 PM
I think you need to read into a bit more. The current research is predicting these droughts will be 6 to 7 times more likely (occurring more often), longer severity, and lasting longer.

Oh "the current research is predicting"?! :runaway: Climate alarmists never get their predictions wrong... :lol: Said the polar bears, and the ice caps, and the hurricanes, and the warming models... We should make a list of all the stellar predictions - but I'm betting a quick google search would provide many such lists.

I see Edna has checked back in. I go ahead and bump my last comment, was probably just overlooked.

Being mostly right and being mostly wrong are very different sides of the same coin here.  I know what side I'm on and i think the current state of the Arctic ice cap and the reservoirs in the SW agree with me.   

both driven by ocean currents, not air temperatures.  Frozen Great Lakes are driven by air temps.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 10:42:07 PM
Never bring up currents when discuss the Arctic FSD.   Warmist Alarmists hate that.

They banter about the words unprecedented all the time in relation to the arctic, yet climate history says that there have been numerous arctic ice minimums (and maximums) and that iceless expanses of the arctic during the summer months are far from unprecedented.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 22, 2015, 10:46:15 PM
LOL yeah because currents aren't affected at all by warming oceans.  What that Gulf Stream do, nothing to do with temps!!  :Carl:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 22, 2015, 10:47:34 PM
Really?  I mean we're debating a drought in the Southwest, talking about the water level in reservoirs that were by and large all man made?    How can anyone say that with a straight face?

Why would anyone look at the actual climatic history of the Southwest and the look at a man-made reservoir and think to themselves, "this thing is going to stay full of water forever"?  It's just laughable.

Sure they're man made.  And cities like Phoenix are testaments to mans hubris, building cities in the desert.  But the fact remains that the lack of rain is an issue, and we'll see it very much an issue when no snow is there to melt for spring run off. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2015, 10:52:47 PM
So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on February 22, 2015, 10:57:39 PM
dax called JD FSD... low blow dax, low blow
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 22, 2015, 11:19:22 PM
So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.

Because the reality is that water isn't going into the reservoirs because we haven't danced the right rain dances I'm sure.

Oh and no one puts it at just air temps for the arctic. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 23, 2015, 12:30:43 AM
So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.

Because the reality is that water isn't going into the reservoirs because we haven't danced the right rain dances I'm sure.

Oh and no one puts it at just air temps for the arctic.

I think it has more to do with growing populations and water demands, plus sedimentation.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 23, 2015, 11:42:12 AM
So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.

Because the reality is that water isn't going into the reservoirs because we haven't danced the right rain dances I'm sure.

Oh and no one puts it at just air temps for the arctic.

I think it has more to do with growing populations and water demands, plus sedimentation.

I agree a large part of the issue are the ridiculous water needs of the SW.  But you can't deny the fact snowfalls and average precipitation have changed in places which feed the rivers and reservoirs.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 23, 2015, 11:44:03 AM
Dax what is your thesis against reducing so called global warming factors?  Is it a rejection that humanity is too hubris in thinking they can alter the world?  Do you genuinely not believe in any climate change?  Also what if the climate change apologists are right while you're wrong?  Isn't the safe long term bet to secure the environment?  I'm asking for your personal interpretation here. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 23, 2015, 12:47:54 PM
So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.

Because the reality is that water isn't going into the reservoirs because we haven't danced the right rain dances I'm sure.

Oh and no one puts it at just air temps for the arctic.

I think it has more to do with growing populations and water demands, plus sedimentation.

I agree a large part of the issue are the ridiculous water needs of the SW.  But you can't deny the fact snowfalls and average precipitation have changed in places which feed the rivers and reservoirs.

Changed since when? 5000 years ago, 1000 years ago, 5 years ago?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 23, 2015, 12:50:24 PM
So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.

Because the reality is that water isn't going into the reservoirs because we haven't danced the right rain dances I'm sure.

Oh and no one puts it at just air temps for the arctic.

I think it has more to do with growing populations and water demands, plus sedimentation.

I agree a large part of the issue are the ridiculous water needs of the SW.  But you can't deny the fact snowfalls and average precipitation have changed in places which feed the rivers and reservoirs.

Changed since when? 5000 years ago, 1000 years ago, 5 years ago?
LOL stats how do they work?

I'll wait for you to potato a real post.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 23, 2015, 01:22:58 PM
So why is the status of a SW drought even a debate in the context of AGW?   

Oh and there's going to be plenty of warm water available in the oceans to impact sea ice whether there's AGW or not.   But reality says that warmist alarmists place the greatest blame for so called sea ice "loss" at the feet of air temps, not currents.

Because the reality is that water isn't going into the reservoirs because we haven't danced the right rain dances I'm sure.

Oh and no one puts it at just air temps for the arctic.

I think it has more to do with growing populations and water demands, plus sedimentation.

I agree a large part of the issue are the ridiculous water needs of the SW.  But you can't deny the fact snowfalls and average precipitation have changed in places which feed the rivers and reservoirs.

Changed since when? 5000 years ago, 1000 years ago, 5 years ago?
LOL stats how do they work?

I'll wait for you to potato a real post.

It's called a drought and they can last for several years to decades. We should have been building more reservoirs as populations increased to deal with droughts.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 23, 2015, 01:34:29 PM
The reason there's less water in SW Kansas is because our federal government, at the request of the envirotards, decided to turn corn into gasoline.  Now every dry land farmer with a water right is spraying a billion gallon of water on each of his quarter sections every summer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 23, 2015, 01:41:13 PM
dry land farmer with a water right

interesting concept
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2015, 05:09:50 PM
Dax sounds like a secret warmist alarmist
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2015, 05:20:51 PM
In the closet, if you will
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2015, 06:22:52 PM
on the down low
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 23, 2015, 06:24:52 PM
Stalkerish

Sad
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2015, 06:25:59 PM
are you afraid your parents will reject you if you acknowledge you were born a warmist alarmist?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: husserl on February 23, 2015, 06:35:29 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/02/23/the-favorite-scientist-of-climate-change-deniers-is-under-fire-for-taking-oil-money/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 23, 2015, 06:49:17 PM
Dax probing question you do know that there are other warming gasses right?  I'm not sure how else to phrase that because as is, it sounds pretty dickish. 

I think the reason why people use unprecedented is because we're seeing changes in environments which haven't occurred in prior drought years or prior  cyclical warming years.  See tundra melt and the loss of methane sequestration.  Another point so called "alarmists" look to are the frequency of events.  I think all agree with that point, but we've run off that we've run off the tracks of these cycles.  I'd ask you for your explanation of Beem's post which has the graph about C02 through out the years in relation to temp where you can clearly see these large cycles of cooling and warming, but under the domination of humanity we don't see a return in temp loss.  How do you personally see those graphs Dax?  I worry about people extrapolating out too far in history.  I think we should only take a smaller sample and compare it to another smaller sample.  So for instance I would take Beem's graph and compare only those 150 to 200 year cycles in relation to one another. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 23, 2015, 06:50:12 PM
lib
what you did there

I see it
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 23, 2015, 06:50:43 PM
The reason there's less water in SW Kansas is because our federal government, at the request of the envirotards, decided to turn corn into gasoline.  Now every dry land farmer with a water right is spraying a billion gallon of water on each of his quarter sections every summer.
awesome potato post
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on February 23, 2015, 09:48:39 PM
Water going to Denver hurts too.  The John Remond Dam and mudhole has ruined the Ark River.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 26, 2015, 03:59:22 PM
whelp looks like one of the favorite lines is proven to be bullshit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/26/yes-global-warming-has-slowed-down-a-little-and-yes-you-should-still-worry/?postshare=5581424985247552
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 26, 2015, 05:19:35 PM
whelp looks like one of the favorite lines is proven to be bullshit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/26/yes-global-warming-has-slowed-down-a-little-and-yes-you-should-still-worry/?postshare=5581424985247552

That article does a pretty good job of convincing people that decadal type warming and cooling are natural events mostly caused by ocean currents and the sun.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 27, 2015, 05:32:26 AM
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/scientists-confirm-amassing-co2-heats-earth%E2%80%99s-surface

more clown suit for deniers
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on February 27, 2015, 05:32:58 AM
whelp looks like one of the favorite lines is proven to be bullshit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/26/yes-global-warming-has-slowed-down-a-little-and-yes-you-should-still-worry/?postshare=5581424985247552

That article does a pretty good job of convincing people that decadal type warming and cooling are natural events mostly caused by ocean currents and the sun.

I see you have a 3rd grade reading level, since the article specifically discussed and destroyed that point.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 27, 2015, 08:39:50 AM
whelp looks like one of the favorite lines is proven to be bullshit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/26/yes-global-warming-has-slowed-down-a-little-and-yes-you-should-still-worry/?postshare=5581424985247552

That article does a pretty good job of convincing people that decadal type warming and cooling are natural events mostly caused by ocean currents and the sun.

I see you have a 3rd grade reading level, since the article specifically discussed and destroyed that point.

If you think words like 'could, maybe, possibly, might', etc, constitut "destroying" that point, then you win. I did notice the journalism grad has dumped the term 'denier' for a less toxic word 'doubter'.  Good for him.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 02, 2015, 08:01:19 AM
Well, I know the first thing the usual suspects are going to do is attack the source, but we'll just have to set that aside.

Last summer, a minority staff report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works gave details on a “Billionaire’s Club” — a shadowy network of charitable foundations that distribute billions to advance climate alarmism. Shadowy nonprofits such as the Energy Foundation and Tides Foundation distributed billions to far-left green groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, which in turn send staff to the EPA who then direct federal grants back to the same green groups. It is incestuous. It is opaque. Major media ignored the report.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/21/nyt-smears-scientist-willie-soon-for-telling-the-truth-about-global-warming/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on March 02, 2015, 12:29:25 PM
Major media ignored a report about a shadowy billionaires club with no sources?  I wonder why
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 02, 2015, 12:51:18 PM
Dumb question.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on March 02, 2015, 01:17:04 PM
Maybe relevant?
I hate it when a university researcher says, "we set out to prove that A causes B."

That might be the hypothesis, but the test should be set up and the thought process going in should be "does A cause B". Not "that" it causes B.

I have to deal with similar crap nearly daily. Won't go into details, I already did in another thread, but not bringing it up again here.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 02, 2015, 01:21:13 PM
Maybe relevant?
I hate it when a university researcher says, "we set out to prove that A causes B."

That might be the hypothesis, but the test should be set up and the thought process going in should be "does A cause B". Not "that" it causes B.

I have to deal with similar crap nearly daily. Won't go into details, I already did in another thread, but not bringing it up again here.

Yeah, that's a big pet peeve of mine, as well. People should use scientific theory to prove A causes B and research to find out what causes B.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 02, 2015, 01:50:43 PM
Maybe relevant?
I hate it when a university researcher says, "we set out to prove that A causes B."

That might be the hypothesis, but the test should be set up and the thought process going in should be "does A cause B". Not "that" it causes B.

I have to deal with similar crap nearly daily. Won't go into details, I already did in another thread, but not bringing it up again here.

This is why they manipulate measured temperature data and 'adjust' it  to fit the agenda of their funding source.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on March 02, 2015, 05:13:16 PM
Maybe relevant?
I hate it when a university researcher says, "we set out to prove that A causes B."

That might be the hypothesis, but the test should be set up and the thought process going in should be "does A cause B". Not "that" it causes B.

I have to deal with similar crap nearly daily. Won't go into details, I already did in another thread, but not bringing it up again here.

This is why they manipulate measured temperature data and 'adjust' it  to fit the agenda of their funding source.

So what you're saying is: CONSPIRACY!!!!?  What do the scientists call their secret meeting where they hash out big science agendas?     

Also, do you believe in conspiracy theories?  Which ones are real? the world must know
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on March 02, 2015, 05:27:53 PM
Who should be in charge of science research if scientists are so corrupt?
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on March 02, 2015, 07:02:38 PM
I didn't say scientist were corrupt. I just don't like it when scientists start off research trying to prove a preconceived opinion.


Gonna win 'em all!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Jabeez on March 02, 2015, 08:04:58 PM
I didn't say scientist were corrupt. I just don't like it when scientists start off research trying to prove a preconceived opinion.


Gonna win 'em all!
My comments were directed at dougie.  I mean there's literally less than 1% of scientists who don't agree that the rise in co2 is man-made, and it is contributing to   the warming of the earth.  These guys aren't out to prove this anymore.  It's redundant research at this point, the only research they can do is to estimate the historical and future effects we have caused.  like bug oil is the best at making new uses for their product,  why isn't big science?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 03, 2015, 08:42:59 AM
Maybe relevant?
I hate it when a university researcher says, "we set out to prove that A causes B."

That might be the hypothesis, but the test should be set up and the thought process going in should be "does A cause B". Not "that" it causes B.

I have to deal with similar crap nearly daily. Won't go into details, I already did in another thread, but not bringing it up again here.

This is why they manipulate measured temperature data and 'adjust' it  to fit the agenda of their funding source.

So what you're saying is: CONSPIRACY!!!!?  What do the scientists call their secret meeting where they hash out big science agendas?     

Also, do you believe in conspiracy theories?  Which ones are real? the world must know

It's only a conspiracy in the same way the lotteries advertise the jackpot amount to entice people to buy more tickets.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on March 03, 2015, 11:40:46 AM
https://sports.vice.com/article/global-warming-and-the-death-of-a-magical-sports-tradition/?utm_source=vicesportstwitter (https://sports.vice.com/article/global-warming-and-the-death-of-a-magical-sports-tradition/?utm_source=vicesportstwitter)

 :frown:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on March 06, 2015, 08:21:56 AM
University of Arizona researchers found that sea levels on the East Coast have risen as much as 4 inches during 2009 and 2010.   Because of ocean circulation changes.   But of course they couldn't fail to mention AGW, always got to leave that in there when discussing further research, so it leaves the money door open.
yeah eff those scientists for not making claims they can't back up with quantifiable data!!! Dax wants claims and he wants them now!!!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on March 06, 2015, 09:05:59 AM
University of Arizona researchers found that sea levels on the East Coast have risen as much as 4 inches during 2009 and 2010.   Because of ocean circulation changes.   But of course they couldn't fail to mention AGW, always got to leave that in there when discussing further research, so it leaves the money door open.
yeah eff those scientists for not making claims they can't back up with quantifiable data!!! Dax wants claims and he wants them now!!!
I didn't say that at all, but it's now become so prolific it's being lampooned.
That is exactly what you did with your last sentence.  The fact is that you're attempting to break these points with this absurd reductionist logic instead of realizing what these scientists are trying to explain.  These are all factors in a broader system and they will all tell you that. You on the other hand want to use each component to critique a broader theory, a theory its obvious you don't understand.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on March 06, 2015, 10:52:06 PM
I really don't give a gopher turd about climate change.  I and my children will be long gone before weather hell happens.  The climate changes every day.  I am more worried about our solid wastes.  Throw it in the ocean or dig a hole and bury it.  Landfills create methane gas to screw up the air and a layer crap and junk the size of 2 United States is floating on top of the oceans messing up the way oceans effect weather.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on March 06, 2015, 11:03:16 PM
How many kids do you have renobreeder
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on March 07, 2015, 07:16:00 AM
How many kids do you have renobreeder
[/quot
No sure.  But they are smart and good looking like me.]

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on March 07, 2015, 12:41:58 PM
How many kids do you have renobreeder
[/quot
No sure.  But they are smart and good looking like me.]

i asked michigancat the exact same question and got the exact same response.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on March 09, 2015, 11:59:22 AM
Quote
The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years.

But you would not know that by talking to officials at the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state agency on the front lines of studying and planning for these changes.

DEP officials have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: LickNeckey on March 09, 2015, 02:01:22 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yq-sfWSWLg

good watch, if you're a lib and such
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 09, 2015, 02:38:44 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Yq-sfWSWLg

good watch, if you're a lib and such

I stopped watching when he said tornadoes and hurricanes are increasing.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on March 11, 2015, 03:04:12 PM
i dont understand why people think AGW is a lib conspiracy against free market america when it is clearly an american conspiracy against the rest of the developing world
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on March 11, 2015, 03:15:54 PM
did you guys see where Florida banned its environmental scientists from using the words "climate change"?

wow
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on March 11, 2015, 03:44:15 PM
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-deaths-in-americas-start-new-co2-epoch/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-deaths-in-americas-start-new-co2-epoch/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 11, 2015, 08:52:44 PM
If quadrupling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere causes virtually zero change to the weather,  I think we can all rest assured it's not a big deal.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on March 11, 2015, 09:02:20 PM
lol
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on March 11, 2015, 09:06:02 PM
LA is going to be a Disaster area after global warming climate change is done with it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 11, 2015, 09:23:29 PM
LA is going to be a Disaster area after global warming climate change is done with it.

LA has been a disaster area for at least 20 years, and gets worse by the day
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 12, 2015, 12:26:25 AM
LA deserves whatever happens.  :driving:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 21, 2015, 02:18:38 PM
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-tells-coast-guard-grads-climate-change-threatens-013014197--finance.html (https://ca.news.yahoo.com/obama-tells-coast-guard-grads-climate-change-threatens-013014197--finance.html) :facepalm: This is what happens when you elect a libtard. Twice.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 21, 2015, 02:37:13 PM
LA deserves whatever happens.  :driving:

LA is a great city full of sexy people
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 21, 2015, 04:26:52 PM
LA deserves whatever happens.  :driving:

LA is a great city full of sexy people

LA is full of mutants
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 22, 2015, 08:59:02 AM
LA deserves whatever happens.  :driving:

LA is a great city full of sexy people

LA is full of mutants

 :Carl:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 22, 2015, 09:06:48 AM
LA deserves whatever happens.  :driving:

LA is a great city full of sexy people

LA is full of mutants

 :Carl:

:Carl:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 22, 2015, 09:16:09 AM
LA deserves whatever happens.  :driving:

LA is a great city full of sexy people

LA is full of mutants

 :Carl:

:Carl:

I know plenty of other people who have never left Kansas and I like them, so you're cool
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 22, 2015, 03:30:52 PM
LA deserves whatever happens.  :driving:

LA is a great city full of sexy people

LA is full of mutants

 :Carl:

:Carl:

I know plenty of other people who have never left Kansas and I like them, so you're cool

Ditto, and also people who bbs
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on May 22, 2015, 07:39:25 PM
This hot air gas crap is gettin' serious.  Craptain America aka Ozone Obama wants to go to war about it
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 05, 2015, 07:40:45 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

Apologies for the non-EDN approved source.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 05, 2015, 08:10:22 AM
The ozone hole, the precursor to global warming, is apparently still there.

I guess "Big Refrigerant" won the day on that one. .  Scare everybody, get the less expensive, patent expired refrigerants banned.   Capitalize on new patents and more expensive gasses.    :thumbsup:

Alas, the evidence continues to mount that the "Ozone Hole" is just a naturally occurring event that wasn't discovered until the satellites and the technology made discovery possible.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2015, 08:59:20 AM
"The hole in the ozone layer" was the big 80s scare, right? Or was it 90s? It's tough to keep all the various environmental hysterias straight. But I remember there was a big movement to eliminate aerosol products, like deodorant and hair spray, and people were saying we were all going to die of skin cancer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 05, 2015, 09:03:58 AM
"The hole in the ozone layer" was the big 80s scare, right? Or was it 90s? It's tough to keep all the various environmental hysterias straight. But I remember there was a big movement to eliminate aerosol products, like deodorant and hair spray, and people were saying we were all going to die of skin cancer.

Are the skin cancer numbers up?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 05, 2015, 09:06:40 AM
We were all going to die, so there was a rush to create the Montreal Accord or Agreement or whatever which banned a bunch of refrigerant gasses which just happened to be gasses that had their patents expire and were widely available and cheap.    To replace them came more expensive refrigerant gasses that were patented and controlled by a select few companies.   

Twenty or so years later the Ozone hole is still there and research continues to suggest it was likely always there, and will likely always change in size and that nothing that man does will have any impact on that.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 05, 2015, 09:18:19 AM
We were all going to die, so there was a rush to create the Montreal Accord or Agreement or whatever which banned a bunch of refrigerant gasses which just happened to be gasses that had their patents expire and were widely available and cheap.    To replace them came more expensive refrigerant gasses that were patented and controlled by a select few companies.   

Twenty or so years later the Ozone hole is still there and research continues to suggest it was likely always there, and will likely always change in size and that nothing that man does will have any impact on that.

corporate america screws us again
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on June 05, 2015, 02:08:36 PM
i thought the ozone hole was never going to heal but banning the cfc's it would stop growing? (and obv get those other people rich like you said)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on June 05, 2015, 02:09:53 PM
how many sunscreen lobbyists do you think refrigerant lobbyists had killed in that golden age?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Spracne on June 05, 2015, 02:13:36 PM
puni makes me smile often.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 05, 2015, 03:58:52 PM
So we were going to heal a naturally occurring climatic event?   Fascinating.

Was the ozone hole going to get called up on stage and then shoved in the face with a shout of "demons out"!??   





Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Tobias on June 05, 2015, 04:30:10 PM
:love:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on June 20, 2015, 05:32:15 PM
With the banning of trans fats by Obama, people will be buying palm oil to replace it.  Scientists fear rain forests will be tore out to plant palm trees.  There goes carbon fixing plants. Gore will fly around the world in his carbon belching jet lamenting this disaster.  By gosh we will be skinny, but cooked to death.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on June 20, 2015, 07:27:25 PM
Palm oil is pretty bad for you too. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on July 08, 2015, 07:48:29 PM
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

according to dax, the denier science is bias free tho, so this is very confusing
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on July 08, 2015, 08:20:30 PM
eff faces.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on July 08, 2015, 10:52:58 PM
The Pope is suckling the Alfred Gore teat of shame.  If he truly has a hot line to God, why doesn't he ask him to set off a super volcano.  It would belch enough ash into the air to cool things for a century.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 09, 2015, 05:19:26 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

according to dax, the denier science is bias free tho, so this is very confusing

I have never said that. 

So, very, weird. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on July 09, 2015, 03:35:57 PM
welp

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/08/science.aaa4521.abstract
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: RockState2000 on July 09, 2015, 05:16:31 PM
welp

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/08/science.aaa4521.abstract

I'm an engineer and I can't exactly figure out what this means. Is it saying that tectonic friction has warmed the interiors of the Indian and Pacific Oceans?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 09, 2015, 09:19:47 PM
welp

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/07/08/science.aaa4521.abstract

I'm an engineer and I can't exactly figure out what this means. Is it saying that tectonic friction has warmed the interiors of the Indian and Pacific Oceans?

It seems like they are saying global warming is affected more by internal heating than external. What's your login sd?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on July 13, 2015, 08:52:31 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 13, 2015, 04:17:34 PM
it's been surprisingly less hot this week.  good job, gov. moonbeam.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 13, 2015, 05:49:35 PM
Too cold to use the pool over the last week or so.  :frown:

Also looking into getting rain gutters this summer before el nino really brings it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on July 17, 2015, 10:28:54 AM
http://www.npr.org/2015/07/17/423641023/science-confirms-2014-was-hottest-yet-recorded-on-land-and-sea?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150717 (http://www.npr.org/2015/07/17/423641023/science-confirms-2014-was-hottest-yet-recorded-on-land-and-sea?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150717)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeZZr_p6vB8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeZZr_p6vB8)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 17, 2015, 07:06:35 PM
el nino coming.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-17/the-freakish-year-in-broken-climate-records
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 18, 2015, 10:35:09 AM
Too cold to use the pool over the last week or so.  :frown:

Also looking into getting rain gutters this summer before el nino really brings it.

Why didn't your house have gutters?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 18, 2015, 12:50:01 PM
Why didn't your house have gutters?

most houses in ca don't.  doesn't rain enough.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on July 18, 2015, 01:24:06 PM
Get some rain barrels,  guys.  Free water and stuff.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on July 18, 2015, 01:30:54 PM
Why didn't your house have gutters?

most houses in ca don't.  doesn't rain enough.

Yup. They're being encouraged now to capture the roof runoff in sealed rain barrels to water plants. I think it's a pretty good idea.

I've already replaced all of my grass with desert xeriscape and it looks pretty great. Almost no watering and super easy to take care of.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on July 18, 2015, 01:34:49 PM
Why didn't your house have gutters?

most houses in ca don't.  doesn't rain enough.

Yup. They're being encouraged now to capture the roof runoff in sealed rain barrels to water plants. I think it's a pretty good idea.

I've already replaced all of my grass with desert xeriscape and it looks pretty great. Almost no watering and super easy to take care of.
Weeds?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 18, 2015, 02:10:26 PM
Weeds?

landscape cloth under the rocks, usually.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on July 18, 2015, 03:31:09 PM
Weeds?

landscape cloth under the rocks, usually.
The previous owner of my house has landscape fabric under a bunch of lava rock.  Kansas weeds rough ridin' love it and it seems to super charge their ability to make me hate them. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on July 18, 2015, 03:31:33 PM
I always assumed the rock yard folks use a bunch of chem.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on July 18, 2015, 03:44:20 PM
i don't think it stands up to the test of good growing conditions.  but most of the year is too dry to get any weeds going anyways.  they do probably have spray every so often as well.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on July 18, 2015, 04:20:20 PM
Does any body else have trouble with grasshoppers this year. They gnawed my maters to the stem.  Maybe something to this climate change - first beserk skeeters who are part alligator, and now these bastards.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Frankenklein on July 18, 2015, 04:27:58 PM
Thats sounds more like a common old plague of hoppers...nothing to do with global warming
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 18, 2015, 06:37:58 PM
Why didn't your house have gutters?

most houses in ca don't.  doesn't rain enough.

Yup. They're being encouraged now to capture the roof runoff in sealed rain barrels to water plants. I think it's a pretty good idea.

I've already replaced all of my grass with desert xeriscape and it looks pretty great. Almost no watering and super easy to take care of.
Interesting.  Funny coincidence my BIL just moved from SF to Eagle Rock and is doing the rain barrels today.  Small world
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 30, 2015, 09:00:50 AM
Obvious "science" is obvious.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/25/obvious-science-nasa-finds-vegetation-essential-for-limiting-city-warming-effects/

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 30, 2015, 02:19:16 PM
Obvious "science" is obvious.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/25/obvious-science-nasa-finds-vegetation-essential-for-limiting-city-warming-effects/

that was actually quite interesting.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 30, 2015, 02:43:21 PM
It's been talked about for years and walks hand in hand with poor siting of weather stations.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 30, 2015, 02:48:01 PM
It's been talked about for years and walks hand in hand with poor siting of weather stations.

they modeled the effect based on % impermeable land, they weren't describing the effect as a new discovery.  good grief, dax.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 30, 2015, 02:49:41 PM
I never claimed it was a new discovery.   Good gawd sys :facepalm. 

Thus the sarcasm on WUWT.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 30, 2015, 02:59:57 PM
I never claimed it was a new discovery.   Good gawd sys :facepalm. 

Thus the sarcasm on WUWT.

so what exactly are you and wuwt complaining about?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 30, 2015, 03:01:19 PM
No one is complaining.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 30, 2015, 03:02:04 PM
ok.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on August 30, 2015, 04:33:36 PM
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on August 30, 2015, 08:36:03 PM
Open the door and windows and let the ac out.  Make mountains of ice cube.  The sky is falling according to the climate chickinshifitzers.    Obama says are health will go to hell.  Australia scientists say it causes transgenders in species.  A US Congresswoman from CA said it will cause women to become whores.  And Al, Butrock, and Bill the Thrill get rich pushing crock science.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on August 30, 2015, 08:50:33 PM
dax is just the most interesting person in the world  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 30, 2015, 09:49:32 PM
The wonders of modern technology edn.   

The UHE and mitigating and/or amplifying factors of  various surfaces in urban settings have long been pointed out by those who studied weather station siting.   The fact that NASA is doing what amounts to 7th grade science projects is what is being lampooned.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 30, 2015, 10:18:57 PM
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on August 31, 2015, 02:54:04 PM
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Institutional Control on August 31, 2015, 03:17:47 PM
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.

I think what he's saying is, that in the entire 5000 years of the earth's existence, they've really only been able to record hurricane strength for the past say 50 years or so.  There could have been a hundred CAT 5 hurricanes in the Pacific in 1245 BC and nobody would know about it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 31, 2015, 05:37:07 PM
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.

All it means is that this is a strongest el nino ocean cycle in recent history. Pacific hurricanes generally peter out after a few days, but the warmer water extends their duration.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 31, 2015, 05:40:35 PM
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.

I think what he's saying is, that in the entire 4.53 billion years of the earth's existence, they've really only been able to record hurricane strength for the past say 50 years or so.  There could have been a hundred CAT 5 hurricanes in the Pacific in 1245 BC and nobody would know about it.

FIFY
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on August 31, 2015, 05:43:54 PM
heretic
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 31, 2015, 06:08:53 PM
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.

I think what he's saying is, that in the entire 4.53 billion years of the earth's existence, they've really only been able to record hurricane strength for the past say 50 years or so.  There could have been a hundred CAT 5 hurricanes in the Pacific in 1245 BC and nobody would know about it.

FIFY

Pangaea tho

I'm sure there were more than 3 cat 4 hurricanes in the Panthalassa at one time.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 31, 2015, 06:21:13 PM
Guys NASA/NOAA is so busy adjusting and readjusting temp records from the past 100 years they don't have time to consider all that really ancient stuff and technology only fits into the discussion when it supports the agenda.  Come on now.

First Time Ever *in recorded history reads so much better in the headlines.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Institutional Control on September 01, 2015, 08:02:48 AM
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.

I think what he's saying is, that in the entire 4.53 billion years of the earth's existence, they've really only been able to record hurricane strength for the past say 50 years or so.  There could have been a hundred CAT 5 hurricanes in the Pacific in 1245 BC and nobody would know about it.

FIFY

RINO
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 01, 2015, 09:21:29 AM
First time in recorded history that we have 3 cat 4 "hurricanes" in the Pacific.

Recorded history for hurricanes goes back to post-weather satellites.  :jerk:

I don't think you understand what the stat is about.

I think what he's saying is, that in the entire 4.53 billion years of the earth's existence, they've really only been able to record hurricane strength for the past say 50 years or so.  There could have been a hundred CAT 5 hurricanes in the Pacific in 1245 BC and nobody would know about it.

FIFY

RINO

Registered independent
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 19, 2015, 08:25:28 AM
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 19, 2015, 09:57:24 AM
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 19, 2015, 10:17:27 AM
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on September 19, 2015, 10:19:51 AM
Is there not more benefit to deniers as far as control (lack of/ regulation) and profit?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on September 19, 2015, 11:54:37 AM
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

Free market will take care of this
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on September 19, 2015, 11:55:14 AM
Also this is the best thread title on this blog
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on September 19, 2015, 12:38:11 PM
Is there not more benefit to deniers as far as control (lack of/ regulation) and profit?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

This is my favorite part of the deniers "bias" talking point
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 19, 2015, 12:56:16 PM
I mean, oil and natural gas producers make huge profits and they receive subsidies from the government. Why is it bad if wind and solar companies are doing the same thing?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 19, 2015, 01:56:07 PM
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 19, 2015, 05:48:57 PM
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)

Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.

I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.

The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:

Quote
"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years.  That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
Source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#sthash.OpgD8mrZ.dpuf")


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on September 19, 2015, 07:57:59 PM
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)
dnr most of this,  but would you not deny that this debate will never go anywhere because a large portion of one side of the debate believes in a certain interpretation of the bible? 


There is no debate.  Just an argument.   The ppl willing to actually debate have already looked into it and believe in climate change.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on September 19, 2015, 08:18:04 PM
Anyone who drives a car doesn't think climate change is actually serious.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 19, 2015, 08:37:45 PM
i think it's serious; still plan on using my share of carbon.  eff all y'all's children.  let them burn.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 19, 2015, 09:50:04 PM
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)

Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.

I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.

The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:

Quote
"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years.  That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
Source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#sthash.OpgD8mrZ.dpuf")

So, is it possible that the earth is actually warming from the interior rather than from the air, thus releasing more carbon dioxide into the air?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 19, 2015, 10:08:38 PM
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)

Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.

I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.

The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:

Quote
"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years.  That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
Source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#sthash.OpgD8mrZ.dpuf")

So, is it possible that the earth is actually warming from the interior rather than from the air, thus releasing more carbon dioxide into the air?

Entropy dictates that the core of the earth is cooling over time. So...no. Also, there are no stores of carbon dioxide in the earth. It is produced mainly through 1 of 2 ways: respiration and the combustion of hydrocarbons.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 19, 2015, 10:10:30 PM
what if aliens were training giant lasers on the earth, wouldn't that cause the interior to warm?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on September 19, 2015, 10:13:00 PM
what if god put us in the microwave just to see what would happen
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 19, 2015, 10:16:54 PM
what if god put us in the microwave just to see what would happen

the interior would warm.  duh.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on September 19, 2015, 10:21:35 PM
exactly
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 04:57:04 AM
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for co2.  It's how we survive. 

Warm, much easily adapted to, cold means almost certain death. 

Fossil fuels: The only way underdeveloped nations can escape their plight. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 09:02:39 AM
Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster for co2.  It's how we survive.  False

Warm, much easily adapted to, cold means almost certain death.  False

Fossil fuels: The only way underdeveloped nations can escape their plight. False

and dax goes down on strikes.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on September 20, 2015, 09:04:53 AM
Treysolid what is causing global warming, is it cars?
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 09:22:59 AM
So plants don't need co2?  Plants do well in the cold?  Underdeveloped countries are going to dig their way out on the back of alternative energy? 

LOL.  okay.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 09:52:06 AM
Treysolid what is causing global warming, is it cars?

the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and methane (natural gas) in the atmosphere is causing global warming. as far as gases go, these molecules are very potent insulators, trapping heat which would otherwise dissipate out into space. the sharp increase in carbon dioxide and methane concentration in the atmosphere is due to human activity, or at least that's where the overwhelming majority of research is pointing. the excess carbon dioxide comes from burning crap that we find in the ground (so yes, cars are one component of this) and the excess methane comes from failing to properly contain other crap that we find in the ground (fracking, etc.).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on September 20, 2015, 09:59:48 AM
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on September 20, 2015, 10:14:15 AM
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Tesla_Roadster_Japanese_display.jpg)

Or we could not be idiots about our cars...

and power them with renewable resources off a smart grid that works to protect humanity instead of lining the pockets of a small group of people.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 10:22:13 AM
So plants don't need co2?  Plants do well in the cold?  Underdeveloped countries are going to dig their way out on the back of alternative energy? 

LOL.  okay.

The main problem here is you are oversimplifying a very complex issue to bring it down to your level of knowledge instead of making the effort to increase your level of knowledge to truly comprehend the magnitude of the issue. These little "shadow arguments" (bolded above) are no different than the old anti-evolution argument of "well, if humans evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys? did they forget to take their evolution pills? HUR HUR HUR" and highlights a fundamental lack of scientific knowledge on your part.

yes, plants need carbon dioxide for their respiration. but the carbon cycle was working just fine before we (humans) started dumping 40 billion tons (annually) of carbon dioxide on top of it. soil and vegetation are carbon sinks, but like all sinks, there is a limit to how much they can hold. the excess is going into our atmosphere, and trapping heat. your cooling argument is so dumb, i'm not even going to address it here (PM me if you want it). and to address your third statement, undeveloped countries need to focus on establishing sustainable systems of agriculture before anything else and you don't need to burn fossil fuels to do that. its hard to pull your citizens out of economic blight when they are malnourished or otherwise unhealthy and can't contribute to society

beyond that, it's time to look forward. i appreciate everything that fossil fuels have done for society. the industrial revolution enabled us to implement the knowledge of the Enlightenment and build modern society, but the need for alternative energy sources is way past due. staying the course will warm and acidify the oceans to the point where earth can no longer sustain life.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on September 20, 2015, 10:40:45 AM
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Tesla_Roadster_Japanese_display.jpg)

Or we could not be idiots about our cars...

and power them with renewable resources off a smart grid that works to protect humanity instead of lining the pockets of a small group of people.

How much does that car cost?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 10:46:03 AM
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Tesla_Roadster_Japanese_display.jpg)

Or we could not be idiots about our cars...

and power them with renewable resources off a smart grid that works to protect humanity instead of lining the pockets of a small group of people.

How much does that car cost?

I don't even think Tesla sells that model any more. The new Tesla that will be released next year will cost ~$35k. Or you can buy a Prius, Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt right now for $24k-35k.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on September 20, 2015, 11:01:57 AM
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/Tesla_Roadster_Japanese_display.jpg)

Or we could not be idiots about our cars...

and power them with renewable resources off a smart grid that works to protect humanity instead of lining the pockets of a small group of people.

How much does that car cost?

I don't even think Tesla sells that model any more. The new Tesla that will be released next year will cost ~$35k. Or you can buy a Prius, Nissan Leaf or Chevy Volt right now for $24k-35k.

Americans drive trucks, suvs and sedans.  They aren't going to drive 30k sub compacts.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 20, 2015, 11:04:33 AM
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)

Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.

I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.

The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:

Quote
"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years.  That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
Source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#sthash.OpgD8mrZ.dpuf")

So, is it possible that the earth is actually warming from the interior rather than from the air, thus releasing more carbon dioxide into the air?

Entropy dictates that the core of the earth is cooling over time. So...no. Also, there are no stores of carbon dioxide in the earth. It is produced mainly through 1 of 2 ways: respiration and the combustion of hydrocarbons.

So, is it possible that if there is increased volcanic activity in the depths of the oceans, would it have a warming effect with the warmer water rising to the top? When it warms, doesn't the ocean release CO2 into the air?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 20, 2015, 11:11:51 AM
When I can afford a Tesla or similar EV, I'm totally going to slap a bumper sticker on it that says "this car powered by coal."

Can't wait for the day when were totally powered by wind and solar. As for which states we'll need to condemn for all the necessary space for those solar panels and windmills, I think New Mexico should hopefully do it. Might need Arizona too.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 11:32:06 AM
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)

Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.

I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.

The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:

Quote
"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years.  That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
Source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#sthash.OpgD8mrZ.dpuf")

So, is it possible that the earth is actually warming from the interior rather than from the air, thus releasing more carbon dioxide into the air?

Entropy dictates that the core of the earth is cooling over time. So...no. Also, there are no stores of carbon dioxide in the earth. It is produced mainly through 1 of 2 ways: respiration and the combustion of hydrocarbons.

So, is it possible that if there is increased volcanic activity in the depths of the oceans, would it have a warming effect with the warmer water rising to the top? When it warms, doesn't the ocean release CO2 into the air?

just by itself, that explanation is scientifically plausible...but it doesn't agree with the rest of the data. If all the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was coming from ancient oceanic stores that are being heated by volcanic activity, one would expect the pH of the ocean to rise (become less acidic). This is because when carbon dioxide is dissolved in water, a small amount of it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which makes the water more acidic. Now, carbonic acid is a very unstable acid that breaks back down into water and carbon dioxide quite easily, and thus, when the carbon dioxide leaves the water, the acid leaves with it.

But this is not what we are seeing the pH level of the ocean do:
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/ (http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/)

and hence, we deduce that the carbon dioxide is coming from some other source.  good question, though.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 11:34:23 AM
When I can afford a Tesla or similar EV, I'm totally going to slap a bumper sticker on it that says "this car powered by coal."

Can't wait for the day when were totally powered by wind and solar. As for which states we'll need to condemn for all the necessary space for those solar panels and windmills, I think New Mexico should hopefully do it. Might need Arizona too.

did you know that the light energy from the sun that hits the surface of earth in a single day is enough to power all human activity on the planet for more than 1 year?!? WOW!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 11:37:30 AM
Modern agriculture of the kind needed to feed the world is not sustainable without fossil fuels. 

Undeveloped countries will not be able to move forward without fossil fuels.   This isn't oversimplification, it's reality. 

I'll just mark Trey down on the side of massive depopulation.   

The U.S. and other developed countries, besides China and India are making massive moves via the market systems in place to reduce emissions.  But the simple facts remain that it will have to be a gradual process otherwise the economy will be destroyed and people across the world will be much worse off.  But that's what some people want, which is sad. 

Alternative energy is no where close to meeting the energy demands of our economy and fossil fuels will drive the growth of alternative energy systems manufacturing.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 11:46:52 AM
Also evil Big Energy owns that patents on so many alternative energy systems they're too numerous to mention.   They also own the rights on carbon trading systems and software. 

To say that Big Energy doesn't have a vested interest to explore alternative energy is patently (oops) absurd. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 11:59:32 AM
Modern agriculture of the kind needed to feed the world is not sustainable without fossil fuels. 

Undeveloped countries will not be able to move forward without fossil fuels.   This isn't oversimplification, it's reality. 

I'll just mark Trey down on the side of massive depopulation.   

The U.S. and other developed countries, besides China and India are making massive moves via the market systems in place to reduce emissions.  But the simple facts remain that it will have to be a gradual process otherwise the economy will be destroyed and people across the world will be much worse off.  But that's what some people want, which is sad. 

Alternative energy is no where close to meeting the energy demands of our economy and fossil fuels will drive the growth of alternative energy systems manufacturing.

Hmmm...both you and KSU-W wanted to talk climate change science and now you want to talk economics and KSU-W doesn't want to talk at all...

I'm glad that you are no longer a climate change denier, dax, and that you recognize fossil fuels for the necessary (but becoming increasingly unnecessary!) evil that they are.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 12:03:18 PM
I don't think they're evil and my post farther up the thread wasn't really scientific in nature.    Plants need CO2, warmer climates have longer growing seasons, 3rd world countries will get no where on the back of alternative energy.

I've also never been a denier I am just smart enough to understand that the science is not settled, and that politcal agendas are driving warmest propagandist science, thus rendering it  in need of questioning every step of the way.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 12:09:12 PM
But warmest propagandist scientists want Momma Teat Government to protect them from people who question their work using RICO laws.  Pathetic
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on September 20, 2015, 12:39:34 PM
Well this thread took an interesting turn  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 20, 2015, 12:45:08 PM
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)

Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.

I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.

The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:

Quote
"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years.  That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
Source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#sthash.OpgD8mrZ.dpuf")

So, is it possible that the earth is actually warming from the interior rather than from the air, thus releasing more carbon dioxide into the air?

Entropy dictates that the core of the earth is cooling over time. So...no. Also, there are no stores of carbon dioxide in the earth. It is produced mainly through 1 of 2 ways: respiration and the combustion of hydrocarbons.

So, is it possible that if there is increased volcanic activity in the depths of the oceans, would it have a warming effect with the warmer water rising to the top? When it warms, doesn't the ocean release CO2 into the air?

just by itself, that explanation is scientifically plausible...but it doesn't agree with the rest of the data. If all the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was coming from ancient oceanic stores that are being heated by volcanic activity, one would expect the pH of the ocean to rise (become less acidic). This is because when carbon dioxide is dissolved in water, a small amount of it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which makes the water more acidic. Now, carbonic acid is a very unstable acid that breaks back down into water and carbon dioxide quite easily, and thus, when the carbon dioxide leaves the water, the acid leaves with it.

But this is not what we are seeing the pH level of the ocean do:
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/ (http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/)

and hence, we deduce that the carbon dioxide is coming from some other source.  good question, though.

Since the atmosphere is only about 3% CO2, and human output is only about 4-5% of that small amount, it would seem more plausible that the spike in atmospheric CO2 would more likely come from a natural source. What if they recently found, like, in the last 15 years, giant undersea volcanoes all over the world that ebb and flow in cycles along tectonic rifts?

We have never explained things like the medieval warming period, or the little ice age, yet now when we have a little warming period of our own, we instantly blame ourselves for suddenly being able to control the climate, and in turn, give governments a free pass to increase taxes and regulations to "fix what we have done". What if the majority of major media thought that it was a good idea to go along with the idea that humans are responsible and report stories that support that idea and ignore discoveries that don't? (preemptive for lib media  :curse:)

One thing that all scientist do agree on, is that the driving force of climate is the oceans, not the air.

Quote
Hydrothermal "Megaplume" Found in Indian Ocean
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
December 12, 2005
An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report.

The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale.

"In a nutshell, this thing is at least 10 times—or possibly 20 times—bigger than anything of its kind that's been seen before," said Bramley Murton of the British National Oceanography Centre.

Scientists reported the finding last week at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco. Researchers also announced newly discovered deep-sea hydrothermal fields in the Arctic Ocean and the south Atlantic.

The appearance of hydrothermal vents around the world suggests that they are a far more common part of the ocean system than once believed and could be a major influence on circulation patterns and ocean chemistry.

"A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts, while this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there."

Recent studies have attempted to factor the heat from the world's known hydrothermal ridges into ocean circulation models.

"Some studies estimate that for the Pacific, background thermal heating might increase ocean circulation by up to 50 percent," Murton said.

Regular hydrothermal fields stir the water for only a few hundred meters (about a thousand feet) above the ocean floor. "But these megaplumes can reach a column of 1,000 to 1,500 meters [3,280 to 4,920 feet], so it reaches right up into the midwater," he said.

But even the Indian Ocean megaplume may be small compared to larger underwater eruptions that have as yet gone undetected.

"At the moment those that we've seen have come from small eruptions in the larger scheme of things," he said.

"But we know when we look at the ocean floor that there have been much larger eruptions, so we can only speculate about what magnitude of event plumes would come from those."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_megaplume.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_megaplume.html)

Even in the Arctic Ocean:

Quote
Hydrothermal Vents Found in Arctic Ocean
John Roach
for National Geographic News
January 23, 2003
Marine scientists surveying an unexplored mountain range deep beneath the Arctic Ocean have discovered at least nine hydrothermal vents on the Gakkel Ridge, a mid-ocean mountain range that snakes for 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers) from high above Greenland to Siberia.

Scientists say the underwater hotspots may potentially host unique forms of life previously unknown to science.

"To find as many [hydrothermal vents] as we did was completely unexpected and incredibly exciting," said Henrietta Edmonds, a marine scientist at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the lead researchers that made the discovery. "At first it was difficult to believe, but I soon managed to convince my colleagues."

Scientists have long theorized that only a few vents existed on the ridge and would be difficult to locate.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0123_030123_hotspring.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0123_030123_hotspring.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 01:05:10 PM
I don't think they're evil and my post farther up the thread wasn't really scientific in nature.    Plants need CO2, warmer climates have longer growing seasons1, 3rd world countries will get no where on the back of alternative energy.

I've also never been a denier2 I am just smart enough to understand that the science is not settled3, and that politcal agendas are driving warmest propagandist science, thus rendering it in need of questioning every step of the way.

1. Your original statement had nothing to do with growing seasons, but rather posited that it is evolutionarily easier to adapt to warmer climates as opposed to colder climates, which in your words, meant "certain death". (Also, not true).

2. You're right. I purposely misrepresented your position on the issue because your language intimated that you thought an abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a warming climate was actually a positive effect, which is an even stupider position to have than being a denier. I was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Thank you for bringing that lapse in judgement to my attention.

3. Through my arguments, I think I've highlighted that you don't understand the science. So how you be smart enough to know that the science isn't settled?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 01:12:05 PM
I find it a bit fascinating that warmest propagandist scientists nearly stampeded each other trying to disprove the impact of volcanos on global warming.   While understanding that volcanos emissions impact both heating and cooling of the earth. 

For example the relatively recent Icelandic major eruption was estimated to have emitted Co2 at a rate equal to a midsize Eurozone economy/country.  They concluded that these emissions were "insignificant" in the context of global warming.   While there are no major eruptions occurring now, there are still 40 something volcanos erupting right now and many more that are very active.  It seems interesting that natural events that emit warming gasses equal to entire modern economies in a relatively short period are so easily dismissed. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 01:16:11 PM
Trey solid.  First off thank you so much for verifying the need to seriously question NOAA's temp data and that also walks hand in hand with a recent UGA study confirming just how much land (and air) in the US is impacted by the Urban Heat Island Effect.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 01:18:18 PM
So...what's the sinister end-game for scientists and liberals with their "studies" that correlate human activity with global warming? Answers from real climate change deniers only, please.

For scientists it's grant money. For politicians it's control. For "green" businesses it's profit and subsidies.

I'm failing to see how acquisition of grant money and businesses being profitable is sinister. You're going to have to explain the "political control" statement. Are you saying that politicians use the spectre of global warming to fear-monger, and thus extract some additional benefit?

I didn't use the word sinister. But I hope you would agree that skewing data and observations to fit a hypothesis is not good science.

As to your other point, I agree that both sides are susceptible to bias for money - I would posit to you that there is more money flowing from government (generally pro-AGW) than oil companies (generally anti). The point is that we shouldn't deny a legitimate debate exists. That's not science, and it doesn't comport with observed temperature data. (At least, data that's not constantly being "adjusted" by NOAA, NASA, etc.)

Re: what I have bolded...this is not surprising at all because oil and gas companies have little to gain by funding climate change research. It's akin to Phillip Morris funding medical studies about the long-term ramifications of smoking. Companies are only motivated to perform basic scientific research that can potentially increase their profit margin.

I was very curious as to what climate change deniers were pointing to in terms of scientific evidence, and it seems to be centered around air temperature. As a Ph.D. chemist, I need to stress that temperature is a really terrible way of quantifying heat. I know that sounds silly, but it's true. The reason for this is that different materials absorb heat to different extents. The heat capacity defines how much heat (measured in joules) it takes to raise the temperature of something 1 degree (Kelvin/Celsius). Of course, if you have more of something, it takes more heat to increase its temperature, and you can define this by the specific heat capacity - how many joules of heat is required to raise 1 gram of this material 1 degree. All that being said, the earth is getting "warmer" - but on this planet, it's the water, not the air, that acts as the major heat sink. However, it takes ~4X as many joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree as it does to raise 1 gram of air 1 degree.

The bottom line is that the heat being trapped by the greenhouse effect doesn't stay in the atmosphere. Most of it (~90%) gets transferred rather efficiently to the oceans, where temperature increases more slowly. Both ocean and atmosphere temperatures seem insignificant (right now) due to the sheer size of both bodies (~5e21 g of air and ~1e24 g of water) coupled with the unequal distribution of heat and water's resistance to temperature increases, but the increase in heat content in the ocean paints a more vivid picture:

Quote
"The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17e22 Joules over the last 30 years.  That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
Source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/#sthash.OpgD8mrZ.dpuf")

So, is it possible that the earth is actually warming from the interior rather than from the air, thus releasing more carbon dioxide into the air?

Entropy dictates that the core of the earth is cooling over time. So...no. Also, there are no stores of carbon dioxide in the earth. It is produced mainly through 1 of 2 ways: respiration and the combustion of hydrocarbons.

So, is it possible that if there is increased volcanic activity in the depths of the oceans, would it have a warming effect with the warmer water rising to the top? When it warms, doesn't the ocean release CO2 into the air?

just by itself, that explanation is scientifically plausible...but it doesn't agree with the rest of the data. If all the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was coming from ancient oceanic stores that are being heated by volcanic activity, one would expect the pH of the ocean to rise (become less acidic). This is because when carbon dioxide is dissolved in water, a small amount of it reacts with water to form carbonic acid, which makes the water more acidic. Now, carbonic acid is a very unstable acid that breaks back down into water and carbon dioxide quite easily, and thus, when the carbon dioxide leaves the water, the acid leaves with it.

But this is not what we are seeing the pH level of the ocean do:
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/ (http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/)

and hence, we deduce that the carbon dioxide is coming from some other source.  good question, though.

Since the atmosphere is only about 3% CO2, and human output is only about 4-5% of that small amount, it would seem more plausible that the spike in atmospheric CO2 would more likely come from a natural source. What if they recently found, like, in the last 15 years, giant undersea volcanoes all over the world that ebb and flow in cycles along tectonic rifts?

We have never explained things like the medieval warming period, or the little ice age, yet now when we have a little warming period of our own, we instantly blame ourselves for suddenly being able to control the climate, and in turn, give governments a free pass to increase taxes and regulations to "fix what we have done". What if the majority of major media thought that it was a good idea to go along with the idea that humans are responsible and report stories that support that idea and ignore discoveries that don't? (preemptive for lib media  :curse:)

One thing that all scientist do agree on, is that the driving force of climate is the oceans, not the air.

Quote
Hydrothermal "Megaplume" Found in Indian Ocean
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
December 12, 2005
An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report.

The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale.

"In a nutshell, this thing is at least 10 times—or possibly 20 times—bigger than anything of its kind that's been seen before," said Bramley Murton of the British National Oceanography Centre.

Scientists reported the finding last week at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco. Researchers also announced newly discovered deep-sea hydrothermal fields in the Arctic Ocean and the south Atlantic.

The appearance of hydrothermal vents around the world suggests that they are a far more common part of the ocean system than once believed and could be a major influence on circulation patterns and ocean chemistry.

"A normal hydrothermal vent might produce something like 500 megawatts, while this is producing 100,000 megawatts. It's like an atom bomb down there."

Recent studies have attempted to factor the heat from the world's known hydrothermal ridges into ocean circulation models.

"Some studies estimate that for the Pacific, background thermal heating might increase ocean circulation by up to 50 percent," Murton said.

Regular hydrothermal fields stir the water for only a few hundred meters (about a thousand feet) above the ocean floor. "But these megaplumes can reach a column of 1,000 to 1,500 meters [3,280 to 4,920 feet], so it reaches right up into the midwater," he said.

But even the Indian Ocean megaplume may be small compared to larger underwater eruptions that have as yet gone undetected.

"At the moment those that we've seen have come from small eruptions in the larger scheme of things," he said.

"But we know when we look at the ocean floor that there have been much larger eruptions, so we can only speculate about what magnitude of event plumes would come from those."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_megaplume.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1212_051212_megaplume.html)

Even in the Arctic Ocean:

Quote
Hydrothermal Vents Found in Arctic Ocean
John Roach
for National Geographic News
January 23, 2003
Marine scientists surveying an unexplored mountain range deep beneath the Arctic Ocean have discovered at least nine hydrothermal vents on the Gakkel Ridge, a mid-ocean mountain range that snakes for 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers) from high above Greenland to Siberia.

Scientists say the underwater hotspots may potentially host unique forms of life previously unknown to science.

"To find as many [hydrothermal vents] as we did was completely unexpected and incredibly exciting," said Henrietta Edmonds, a marine scientist at the University of Texas at Austin and one of the lead researchers that made the discovery. "At first it was difficult to believe, but I soon managed to convince my colleagues."

Scientists have long theorized that only a few vents existed on the ridge and would be difficult to locate.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0123_030123_hotspring.html (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0123_030123_hotspring.html)

The presence of underwater volcanic activity doesn't negate anything that I mentioned in my post. To reiterate: if volcanic activity was substantially increasing the temperature of the ocean water, causing it to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the pH level of the ocean would be rising. But the pH of the ocean is falling.

And given the rate at which tectonic plates move, it's highly likely that this level of volcanic activity has persisted for a loooong time (millenia), and we are just getting a better idea of its magnitude as the technology for detecting this activity improves over time. So it still doesn't explain the large increase in carbon dioxide and methane concentration of the atmosphere within the last 100-200 years.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 01:25:41 PM
Excellent points on technology Trey and how it wasn't until recently that the technology even existed to even study many of these complex systems. 

This also comes into play when warmest propagandists become weather scare mongers.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 01:28:34 PM
I find it a bit fascinating that warmest propagandist scientists nearly stampeded each other trying to disprove the impact of volcanos on global warming.   While understanding that volcanos emissions impact both heating and cooling of the earth. 

For example the relatively recent Icelandic major eruption was estimated to have emitted Co2 at a rate equal to a midsize Eurozone economy/country.  They concluded that these emissions were "insignificant" in the context of global warming.   While there are no major eruptions occurring now, there are still 40 something volcanos erupting right now and many more that are very active.  It seems interesting that natural events that emit warming gasses equal to entire modern economies in a relatively short period are so easily dismissed.

Volcanic activity absolutely impacts climate. The question is...can you provide data that there have been more carbon dioxide-emitting eruptions in the last 200 years than in the prior 800 years in a way that would account for the following data?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 01:33:24 PM
Excellent points on technology Trey and how it wasn't until recently that the technology even existed to even study many of these complex systems. 

This also comes into play when warmest propagandists become weather scare mongers.

You know we can measure carbon dioxide concentration from ice core samples, right?
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/ (http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/)

I bet you also question the validity of carbon-dating, don't you?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 01:56:10 PM
Nice shot Trey, I don't know where that came from. 

Wasn't there a Physicist from Princeton who testified in front of Congress a few years ago that said Earth is actually in CO2 deficit??   Nobel winner to boot. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 20, 2015, 02:12:03 PM
What if underwater volcanoes were not a constant and emit more CO2 than is emitted by the ocean into the atmosphere?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on September 20, 2015, 02:15:08 PM
When I can afford a Tesla or similar EV, I'm totally going to slap a bumper sticker on it that says "this car powered by coal."

Can't wait for the day when were totally powered by wind and solar. As for which states we'll need to condemn for all the necessary space for those solar panels and windmills, I think New Mexico should hopefully do it. Might need Arizona too.

did you know that the light energy from the sun that hits the surface of earth in a single day is enough to power all human activity on the planet for more than 1 year?!? WOW!

Wow! That is really neato!! It's also totally irrelevant. I bet cold fusion power would be super powerful too!!! Let us know when you invent a technology that can efficiently harness the sun or wind that can power the US without sprawling over an area the size of New Mexico.

Trey are you Bill Nye in real life? Oh wait, he's a mechanical engineer.

If the science is settled, go ahead and put your marker down. How much warmer is the earth going to be in 10 years? 20? 30?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 02:22:55 PM
Here we are with more people then ever and multiple highly industrialized nations that are doing nothing to curb carbon emissions.   

Yet we are at less than 30% of the researched all time CO2 highs for the earth which is believed to have exceeded 1000 ppm or higher.   

Yet there are those who want to impose draconian measures while allowing countries like China to continue their emissions ramp up.   It's even been found that CO2 PPM spikes when certain highly valued consumer goods production ramps up in China.   But you Americans are gonna pay!   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 02:26:54 PM
Nice shot Trey, I don't know where that came from. 

Wasn't there a Physicist from Princeton who testified in front of Congress a few years ago that said Earth is actually in CO2 deficit??   Nobel winner to boot.

William Happer is not a Nobel Prize winner and lies on the fringe of the scientific community.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 02:29:09 PM
Oh okay.  No wonder he's hated by warmest propagandists.  Anyone who questions and/or fails to conform is considered to be on the "fringes". 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 02:30:50 PM
What if underwater volcanoes were not a constant and emit more CO2 than is emitted by the ocean into the atmosphere?

Quote
Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is K?lauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 K?lauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 03:04:20 PM
Here we are with more people then ever and multiple highly industrialized nations that are doing nothing to curb carbon emissions.   

Yet we are at less than 30% of the researched all time CO2 highs for the earth which is believed to have exceeded 1000 ppm or higher.   

Yet there are those who want to impose draconian measures while allowing countries like China to continue their emissions ramp up.   It's even been found that CO2 PPM spikes when certain highly valued consumer goods production ramps up in China.   But you Americans are gonna pay!

Always cite your sources, dax, it's the hallmark of a good scientist.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 03:10:09 PM
When I can afford a Tesla or similar EV, I'm totally going to slap a bumper sticker on it that says "this car powered by coal."

Can't wait for the day when were totally powered by wind and solar. As for which states we'll need to condemn for all the necessary space for those solar panels and windmills, I think New Mexico should hopefully do it. Might need Arizona too.

did you know that the light energy from the sun that hits the surface of earth in a single day is enough to power all human activity on the planet for more than 1 year?!? WOW!

Wow! That is really neato!! It's also totally irrelevant. I bet cold fusion power would be super powerful too!!! Let us know when you invent a technology that can efficiently harness the sun or wind that can power the US without sprawling over an area the size of New Mexico.

Trey are you Bill Nye in real life? Oh wait, he's a mechanical engineer.

If the science is settled, go ahead and put your marker down. How much warmer is the earth going to be in 10 years? 20? 30?

The point is that the energy is there. In massive abundance. And practically for free. We just need to ramp up research to explore how to capture it more efficiently. Until the last 20 years or so, the state-of-the-art in solar technology was that little strip on the top of your calculator that allowed it to work without a battery.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 03:19:07 PM
Here we are with more people then ever and multiple highly industrialized nations that are doing nothing to curb carbon emissions.   

Yet we are at less than 30% of the researched all time CO2 highs for the earth which is believed to have exceeded 1000 ppm or higher.   

Yet there are those who want to impose draconian measures while allowing countries like China to continue their emissions ramp up.   It's even been found that CO2 PPM spikes when certain highly valued consumer goods production ramps up in China.   But you Americans are gonna pay!

Always cite your sources, dax, it's the hallmark of a good scientist.

Also, I don't know what data you're looking at, but I'm going to guess that the carbon dioxide level being that high occurred either before the emergence of photosynthetic bacteria or during a mass extinction event...

:lol:

because, you know, science.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 03:20:35 PM
Here we are with more people then ever and multiple highly industrialized nations that are doing nothing to curb carbon emissions.   

Yet we are at less than 30% of the researched all time CO2 highs for the earth which is believed to have exceeded 1000 ppm or higher.   

Yet there are those who want to impose draconian measures while allowing countries like China to continue their emissions ramp up.   It's even been found that CO2 PPM spikes when certain highly valued consumer goods production ramps up in China.   But you Americans are gonna pay!

Always cite your sources, dax, it's the hallmark of a good scientist.

http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

Speaking of core samples, are there any warnings about taking the findings "literally" Trey?

Back in the Winter when CO2 level broke past 400 the dire warning started that they were there to stay.   They didn't stay.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 03:22:26 PM
Did dinosaurs pre-date photosynthetic bacteria?   Interesting if so.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 20, 2015, 03:26:30 PM
What if underwater volcanoes were not a constant and emit more CO2 than is emitted by the ocean into the atmosphere?

Quote
Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is K?lauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 K?lauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php)

We have no clue how many volcanoes are in the oceans, let alone how much CO2 they are emitting.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on September 20, 2015, 03:30:24 PM
I wish I was as optomistic about solar as trey. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on September 20, 2015, 03:42:04 PM
vague earth cycles
oh natural cooling and warming cycles
sun cycles
earth underwater volcano cycles

Today I learned that deniers have moved on to something else.

It's also really enjoyable that when someone brings the scientific lumber the deniers move to a blended science/economics argument that they also can't back up.  Imagine if we have people around that said stuff like "Let us know when you invent a technology that can efficiently let humanity sail across the ocean with enough food to survive the voyage.  Put a man on the moon and bring them back to the Earth after spending a week in space. or Harness the sun or wind that can power the US without sprawling over an area the size of New Mexico.  Because we could be headed towards a new pax technica built around clean power, clean energy storage, and clean production.  That can only be done if we don't limit ourselves with expectation of what we are capable of with TODAY'S technology for TOMORROW'S possibilities.  Instead of slashing budgets for the NSF, NIH, NASA, etc etc etc we should be funding them like they are a defense sector. 

Some of you are regular old Sen Brandon Smiths around here.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on September 20, 2015, 03:48:31 PM
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.

Commercial buildings are so much worse.  They are far and away worse than cars.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 03:48:48 PM
interesting quote from the article you linked, dax - from the authors of the study themselves:

Quote
We [humans] are now producing more CO2 than all volcanoes on Earth," van der Meer added. "We will affect climate in ways that are unprecedented and unnatural. The question is how much climate will change. We can now answer this for the past and apply [it] to the future by extrapolation.

Also, just as I suspected, the time period with higher carbon dioxide levels sat on the ass end of a mass extinction event. The fundamental disconnect here is not whether the earth can tolerate much higher carbon dioxide concentrations (it can), but whether our current ecological system can tolerate much higher carbon dioxide concentrations. I don't know the answer to that, but it doesn't too promising. Many biologists have suggested that a 6th mass extinction event is currently underway - starting in the oceans.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 03:50:07 PM
I wish I was as optomistic about solar as trey.

don't worry, wetwillie - we'll use a combination of solar, wind, tidal and nuclear and we'll find a way.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 03:53:26 PM
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.

Commercial buildings are so much worse.  They are far and away worse than cars.

Yes, concrete is a TERRIBLE carbon dioxide emitter.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 04:04:09 PM
I'm glad you brought that up Trey.   It would seem that the dude is playing extremely fast and loose with many things.   It's been discussed by many that we don't really know how much CO2 that volcanoes are producing and that the producing of CO2 by volcanoes has a degree of variance does it not?   Read like a lot of firing from the hip to me.   

Thank you for your speculation.  Would it be plausible that we have not discovered all of the natural occurring CO2 venting in the Ocean? 

EDN . . . as always you bring out your idiotic broad brush.   Tell me, who here is advocating that we do nothing?   Who here is advocating that new technologies should not be developed to reduce emissions?   

I suspect if China by itself reduced its emissions using standards that are being put into place in the G7 countries that by itself would reduce CO2 Levels.   I also find it fascinating that this administration has completely failed on Hydrogen. 

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on September 20, 2015, 04:05:40 PM
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.

Commercial buildings are so much worse.  They are far and away worse than cars.

Yes, concrete is a TERRIBLE carbon dioxide emitter.

So we have to knock those down too?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on September 20, 2015, 04:18:59 PM
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html

This epa link says cars are the second leading producer of emissions slightly behind power plants.  Maybe I have bad data?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 04:22:05 PM
In regards to a sixth mass extinction, I'd put AGW well down the list of accelerators to that (speculated) event.   Reducing CO2 levels I personally doubt will only have negligible impact on reversing a so called sixth mass extinction.   Possibly no measureable impact at all.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 20, 2015, 04:25:09 PM
I wish I was as optomistic about solar as trey.


(http://costofsolar.com/management/uploads/2013/06/disruptive-solar.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on September 20, 2015, 04:51:57 PM
i think that says solar power is cheaper than regular electricity? 

everything i seem to find says solar costs like .31/KW but retail electric costs .13/KW


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 05:35:14 PM
If its cars we are mumped cause no one is giving those up.

Commercial buildings are so much worse.  They are far and away worse than cars.

Yes, concrete is a TERRIBLE carbon dioxide emitter.

So we have to knock those down too?

sorry, i should have said that producing concrete produces a lot of carbon dioxide.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: treysolid on September 20, 2015, 06:03:27 PM
I'm glad you brought that up Trey.   It would seem that the dude is playing extremely fast and loose with many things.   It's been discussed by many that we don't really know how much CO2 that volcanoes are producing and that the producing of CO2 by volcanoes has a degree of variance does it not?   Read like a lot of firing from the hip to me.   

Thank you for your speculation.  Would it be plausible that we have not discovered all of the natural occurring CO2 venting in the Ocean? 

you cite him as your source to justify why it's ok that our carbon dioxide levels are this high, and then you say that he's playing fast and loose?

while we don't know exactly how much carbon dioxide is emitted by volcanoes each year, we have a pretty good idea. according to the link that i posted earlier (and linked again below), humans produce more than 100X the amount of carbon every year that volcanoes do. there's absolutely going to be some uncertainty in the models, but probably not two orders of magnitude worth of uncertainty.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php)

also of note is the fact that the data above uses the maximum/highest preferred estimate, which means they looked at all the models out there and selected the one with the largest volcanic carbon dioxide emissions. and that's STILL 130X smaller than what we contribute every year.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 20, 2015, 06:15:19 PM
i think that says solar power is cheaper than regular electricity? 

everything i seem to find says solar costs like .31/KW but retail electric costs .13/KW

both solar and retail power vary widely in cost depending on where you live.  there was a deal in nevada recently where a utility scale solar plant signed a contract to sell their output for less than $0.04/kilowatt hour, which is lower than the cost of most coal and natural gas plants.  in the sunnier parts of the world, solar is already competitive with fossil fuels.

i probably could have chosen a better graph, but the point is that the costs to generate power from fossil fuels have remained relatively static, while the price of solar has fallen dramatically in recent years, and continues to fall.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 20, 2015, 07:04:42 PM
Fast and loose in regards to the one statement about volcanoes. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on September 20, 2015, 07:52:20 PM
I wish I was as optomistic about solar as trey.

Yeah, solar and wind technologies can and will improve, but they will always require a tremendous amount of acreage.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 20, 2015, 09:02:46 PM
I wish I was as optomistic about solar as trey.

Yeah, solar and wind technologies can and will improve, but they will always require a tremendous amount of acreage.

Windmills can be farmed around with almost no impact, but using worthless desert for solar is, for some reason, a problem for environmentalists. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on September 21, 2015, 12:45:58 AM
I'm glad you brought that up Trey.   It would seem that the dude is playing extremely fast and loose with many things.   It's been discussed by many that we don't really know how much CO2 that volcanoes are producing and that the producing of CO2 by volcanoes has a degree of variance does it not?   Read like a lot of firing from the hip to me.   

Thank you for your speculation.  Would it be plausible that we have not discovered all of the natural occurring CO2 venting in the Ocean? 

EDN . . . as always you bring out your idiotic broad brush.   Tell me, who here is advocating that we do nothing?   Who here is advocating that new technologies should not be developed to reduce emissions?   

I suspect if China by itself reduced its emissions using standards that are being put into place in the G7 countries that by itself would reduce CO2 Levels.   I also find it fascinating that this administration has completely failed on Hydrogen.

Quote from: one of our esteemed members
It's also totally irrelevant.
And your own comments on developing nations betray what you're trying to gin up now.  You keep trying to lock us into this paradigm where technology doesn't evolve so you can make an argument about neo imperialism towards developing nations masquerading as benevolent environmentalism.  That construction totallys falls apart when you a) realize the science behind why the push towards clean energy is being made, b)that you can develop without fossil fuels (and actually will be in a better position for long term growth than the West because they don't have an oligarchy of fossil fuel money and infrastructure holding back the progress of their nations.) and c) you are locked into what scalable growth means now (or for you and KSU more like 15 to 20 years ago) clean energy rather than what development are on the very near horizon (think storage here if MIT is right). The weirdness in your posting is that on one hand you admit China could be a problem but with the other you are saying this fear of human caused warming is overblown.  You are trying to play both sides but instead you look like a model Republican with an other emphasized fear of China and a failure to see the power the US has to fix the issue or at the very least lead from the front (double irony since Obama, the Prez your side says can't lead, is making great strides and you can't give him credit).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 22, 2015, 08:06:36 AM
And your own comments on developing nations betray what you're trying to gin up now.  You keep trying to lock us into this paradigm where technology doesn't evolve so you can make an argument about neo imperialism towards developing nations masquerading as benevolent environmentalism.  (LOL, I've never said technology doesn't evolve, I've clearly said Fossil Fuels will drive the evolution to the point that technology developed by the power of Fossil Fuels (and Nuclear) will supplant Fossil Fuels.)  That construction totallys falls apart when you a) realize the science behind why the push towards clean energy is being made, b)that you can develop without fossil fuels (and actually will be in a better position for long term growth than the West because they don't have an oligarchy of fossil fuel money and infrastructure holding back the progress of their nations.) and c) you are locked into what scalable growth means now (or for you and KSU more like 15 to 20 years ago) clean energy rather than what development are on the very near horizon (think storage here if MIT is right).  (The simple fact are renewable energy is not prevalent enough to drive the production of renewable energy manufacturing at this time.   To bring renewable energy online on a scale that's needed will require copious amounts of fossil fuels) The weirdness in your posting is that on one hand you admit China could be a problem but with the other you are saying this fear of human caused warming is overblown. (What I'm saying is that bringing one or two countries in lockstep of carbon emission standards of the rest of the developed nations will reduce CO2 levels, nothing more, nothing less)   You are trying to play both sides but instead you look like a model Republican with an other emphasized fear of China and a failure to see the power the US has to fix the issue or at the very least lead from the front (double irony since Obama, the Prez your side says can't lead, is making great strides and you can't give him credit).  (Saying that bringing China's CO2 emissions trendline in sync with the G7 powers is really a fear of China?  You truly are a whack-a-doodle!  Great strides is not done through deceit and avoidance of the people's representatives.   It's not done by vowing to destroy certain industries and putting people out of work, while catering to a specific corporate kleptocracy)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Kat Kid on September 28, 2015, 06:03:51 PM
This goes deeper than I ever thought possible.  It is global.  Warmers are everywhere!

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denying-party-on-earth.html# (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/whys-gop-only-science-denying-party-on-earth.html#)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 28, 2015, 10:38:10 PM
Lol, don't question anything sheep.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: puniraptor on September 28, 2015, 10:42:20 PM
Thanks to science I think we can just evolve when globowarm become a problem?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on September 29, 2015, 05:59:29 PM
I have thought about this during a renoyoga humming session, and have concluded God is responsible for global warming.  With muslims, Indians, and Chinese reproducing like rabbits, the world's population is outgrowing it's ability to produce food.  We need warming in cold areas so we can grow crops and kill off critters that take resources from people.  God is taking steps to help us feed people.  How is he doing it I don't care - man action or a gawd fart; just need more food.  The alternative is bump people off.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on September 30, 2015, 09:56:08 AM
I have thought about this during a renoyoga humming session, and have concluded God is responsible for global warming.  With muslims, Indians, and Chinese reproducing like rabbits, the world's population is outgrowing it's ability to produce food.  We need warming in cold areas so we can grow crops and kill off critters that take resources from people.  God is taking steps to help us feed people.  How is he doing it I don't care - man action or a gawd fart; just need more food.  The alternative is bump people off.

Isn't God responsible for ever-y-thing?
Title: Global Warming
Post by: Ptolemy on October 15, 2015, 10:59:42 PM
Whom among you believes that man causes the planet's environment - temperature - to change?

I had a discussion at a recent tailgate with a KSU engineering student that floored me so I thought I would poll the masses on this fine tableau.

What say you?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Cire on October 15, 2015, 11:36:57 PM
You go first
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: star seed 7 on October 15, 2015, 11:54:05 PM
How arrogant does one have to be to think humans can effect the earth at all
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: sunny_cat on October 16, 2015, 12:03:33 AM
Jesus made the earth and is warming the earth
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: bones129 on October 16, 2015, 12:42:48 AM
You go first

 :thumbs:
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: CNS on October 16, 2015, 07:06:17 AM
KSU just hosted some high up from Cargill.   His speech was centered around Cargill ' s stance that this is indeed happening and how it will effect corn and wheat production by something like 18% by 2050 and by something like 42% by 2100. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: steve dave on October 16, 2015, 07:53:14 AM
Whom among you believes that man causes the planet's environment - temperature - to change?

I had a discussion at a recent tailgate with a KSU engineering student that floored me so I thought I would poll the masses on this fine tableau.

What say you?

there's still a remarkable amount of people that believe human's aren't effecting global warming. But, there's a remarkable amount of people that believe humans lived with dinosaurs (or alternatively satan planted dinosaur bones in the ground to eff with people) and that evolution isn't real. so the climate change stuff isn't the most ridiculous thing I guess.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 16, 2015, 08:01:50 AM
Here is the thread on global warming. http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27893.0 (http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27893.0)

Temperatures aren't playing along with AGW theory, despite dumping more and more plant food into the atmosphere. The latest theory seems to be that the warming is hiding in the oceans. Oh - and "97%."
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Ptolemy on October 16, 2015, 08:09:07 AM
You go first

O.K. The best evidence that the whole AGW thing is a political movement and not a legitimate science concern is who is pushing it. If the political left is able to sway the public their way, they seize control over a the largest part of the economy - carbon. Imagine if they get what they want - a carbon tax - EVERYTHING you buy, consume, make, do uses carbon in some form.

As for the science: carbon dioxide is 0.038% of the planet's atmosphere. Man generates 3% of that, so man is responsible for 0.114% (based on the effective volume; if using the actual volume it's FAR less) of the earth's atmosphere. There is no possible way that man steers the ship. Besides, if man could control the planet's temperature, you'd think we would want to raise it for the areas of the world that are useless and frigid.

 
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 16, 2015, 08:13:50 AM
You go first

O.K. The best evidence that the whole AGW thing is a political movement and not a legitimate science concern is who is pushing it. If the political left is able to sway the public their way, they seize control over a the largest part of the economy - carbon. Imagine if they get what they want - a carbon tax - EVERYTHING you buy, consume, make, do uses carbon in some form.

As for the science: carbon dioxide is 0.038% of the planet's atmosphere. Man generates 3% of that, so man is responsible for 0.114% (based on the effective volume; if using the actual volume it's FAR less) of the earth's atmosphere. There is no possible way that man steers the ship. Besides, if man could control the planet's temperature, you'd think we would want to raise it for the areas of the world that are useless and frigid.

Carbon is a greenhouse gas. Just look up greenhouse gas theory. 3% is significant. If we were generating some insane number like 50%, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: MeatSauce on October 16, 2015, 08:27:19 AM
that tailgate sounds like it was a blast.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: michigancat on October 16, 2015, 08:31:15 AM
The greenhouse effect is proven science, not a theory. What's in question is how much humans have contributed and will contribute to the effect. Also "If the models are all wrong" is a much better thread title.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 16, 2015, 08:38:05 AM
The greenhouse effect is proven science, not a theory. What's in question is how much humans have contributed and will contribute to the effect. Also "If the models are all wrong" is a much better thread title.

Well, it is a theory, but by definition, theories are proven science.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Emo EMAW on October 16, 2015, 08:40:11 AM
KSU just hosted some high up from Cargill.   His speech was centered around Cargill ' s stance that this is indeed happening and how it will effect corn and wheat production by something like 18% by 2050 and by something like 42% by 2100. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Pro-top:  Cargill stands to make a lot of money if people believe it is happening.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: michigancat on October 16, 2015, 08:40:58 AM
Um
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 16, 2015, 08:41:41 AM
KSU just hosted some high up from Cargill.   His speech was centered around Cargill ' s stance that this is indeed happening and how it will effect corn and wheat production by something like 18% by 2050 and by something like 42% by 2100. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Pro-top:  Cargill stands to make a lot of money if people believe it is happening.

Well, yeah, considering that one of the best ways to stop global warming is to stop eating meat, I think Cargill is set up nicely.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Ptolemy on October 16, 2015, 08:41:48 AM
Carbon is a greenhouse gas. Just look up greenhouse gas theory. 3% is significant. If we were generating some insane number like 50%, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.

Actually, carbon is an element on the periodic table. I assume you were referring to carbon dioxide. If we were generating 50% of the earth's carbon dioxide, we would still only be responsible for 0.019% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is food for the plant life all over the globe, not to mention all the plant life under the oceans.

I believe you were trying to say that if man generated 50% of the total amount of CO2, the earth wouldn't be HABITABLE.

Oh, and my ciphering was a bit off. man is not responsible for 0.114% - it's actually at most 0.00114%.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: michigancat on October 16, 2015, 08:43:57 AM
Ptolemy - what if there was a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without a "carbon tax"? Would you still oppose efforts to reduce emissions?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: sunny_cat on October 16, 2015, 08:44:57 AM
Ptolemy: those numbers are v small, no way we're causing any harm guys
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 16, 2015, 08:45:36 AM
You go first

O.K. The best evidence that the whole AGW thing is a political movement and not a legitimate science concern is who is pushing it. If the political left is able to sway the public their way, they seize control over a the largest part of the economy - carbon. Imagine if they get what they want - a carbon tax - EVERYTHING you buy, consume, make, do uses carbon in some form.

As for the science: carbon dioxide is 0.038% of the planet's atmosphere. Man generates 3% of that, so man is responsible for 0.114% (based on the effective volume; if using the actual volume it's FAR less) of the earth's atmosphere. There is no possible way that man steers the ship. Besides, if man could control the planet's temperature, you'd think we would want to raise it for the areas of the world that are useless and frigid.

Carbon is a greenhouse gas. Just look up greenhouse gas theory. 3% is significant. If we were generating some insane number like 50%, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.

3%... of a gas that makes up about 0.04% of the atmosphere.

The greenhouse gas theory neither postulates nor proves the impact upon "global temperture" (however that may be measured) of a nominal increase in what is already such a trace gas to begin with.

That's why scientists use models to hypothesize the effect of this increase in CO2 on tempertures, and those models aren't doing too hot. Which is why we already have a thread devoted to this called "If the models are all wrong..." http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27893.0 (http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=27893.0)
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 16, 2015, 08:46:23 AM
Carbon is a greenhouse gas. Just look up greenhouse gas theory. 3% is significant. If we were generating some insane number like 50%, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.

Actually, carbon is an element on the periodic table. I assume you were referring to carbon dioxide. If we were generating 50% of the earth's carbon dioxide, we would still only be responsible for 0.019% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is food for the plant life all over the globe, not to mention all the plant life under the oceans.

I believe you were trying to say that if man generated 50% of the total amount of CO2, the earth wouldn't be HABITABLE.

Oh, and my ciphering was a bit off. man is not responsible for 0.114% - it's actually at most 0.00114%.


So doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be no big deal, then?
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 16, 2015, 08:47:45 AM
Cargill = Enthanol.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 16, 2015, 08:49:06 AM
Carbon is a greenhouse gas. Just look up greenhouse gas theory. 3% is significant. If we were generating some insane number like 50%, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.

Actually, carbon is an element on the periodic table. I assume you were referring to carbon dioxide. If we were generating 50% of the earth's carbon dioxide, we would still only be responsible for 0.019% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is food for the plant life all over the globe, not to mention all the plant life under the oceans.

I believe you were trying to say that if man generated 50% of the total amount of CO2, the earth wouldn't be HABITABLE.

Oh, and my ciphering was a bit off. man is not responsible for 0.114% - it's actually at most 0.00114%.


So doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be no big deal, then?

How do you get from 3% to "doubling?" You might as well ask about tripling or quadrupling. Maybe this is why the warmers are so fixated on the "97%" mantra. Numbers just aren't their thing.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Ptolemy on October 16, 2015, 08:54:25 AM
So doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be no big deal, then?

If that were possible, there would be no political Left in this country.

The Left thrives on human need. If man could generate 50% of the planet's carbon dioxide, we would be so productive and wealth would be spread over humanity to such a degree that government would be largely non-existent (one can dream!).

That aside, the earth is a massive system. If one of its created entities (and we ARE that) produced a large disproportionate amount of a given element, it would correct it.

Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 16, 2015, 08:56:49 AM
So doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be no big deal, then?

If that were possible, there would be no political Left in this country.

The Left thrives on human need. If man could generate 50% of the planet's carbon dioxide, we would be so productive and wealth would be spread over humanity to such a degree that government would be largely non-existent (one can dream!).

That aside, the earth is a massive system. If one of its created entities (and we ARE that) produced a large disproportionate amount of a given element, it would correct it.


Nobody is arguing that the earth is going to get destroyed by CO2. Just humans and other animals.

Carbon is a greenhouse gas. Just look up greenhouse gas theory. 3% is significant. If we were generating some insane number like 50%, the earth wouldn't be inhabitable.

Actually, carbon is an element on the periodic table. I assume you were referring to carbon dioxide. If we were generating 50% of the earth's carbon dioxide, we would still only be responsible for 0.019% of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is food for the plant life all over the globe, not to mention all the plant life under the oceans.

I believe you were trying to say that if man generated 50% of the total amount of CO2, the earth wouldn't be HABITABLE.

Oh, and my ciphering was a bit off. man is not responsible for 0.114% - it's actually at most 0.00114%.


So doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would be no big deal, then?

How do you get from 3% to "doubling?" You might as well ask about tripling or quadrupling. Maybe this is why the warmers are so fixated on the "97%" mantra. Numbers just aren't their thing.

I wasn't getting from 3% to anywhere. I was just asking if doubling was ok.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Ptolemy on October 16, 2015, 08:58:12 AM
How do you get from 3% to "doubling?" You might as well ask about tripling or quadrupling. Maybe this is why the warmers are so fixated on the "97%" mantra. Numbers just aren't their thing.

Amen! BTW, the 97% figure that they often refer to is actually based on 75 out of 77 papers. The actual response to the "study" was more than 10,000 papers but the author of the "study" excluded all but 77 of the papers. Talk about crafting a result!
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: star seed 7 on October 16, 2015, 09:07:05 AM
Welcome,  fellow Satan dinosaur bone believer guy  :cheers:
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 16, 2015, 09:09:11 AM
https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: ednksu on October 16, 2015, 09:12:37 AM
I really love it when we ignore the other greenhouse gases (like methane) that are far more harmful in retaining heat. 

Pretty much every metric (including temp as much as you guys don't want to admit it) shows a massive spike correlating to human influence. 
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: michigancat on October 16, 2015, 09:13:57 AM
Ptolemy please learn the quote function
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: puniraptor on October 16, 2015, 09:15:05 AM
ptomely

there are many more carbon compounds that are greenhouse gasses than carbon dioxide
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: puniraptor on October 16, 2015, 09:15:42 AM
I really love it when we ignore the other greenhouse gases (like methane) that are far more harmful in retaining heat. 

Pretty much every metric (including temp as much as you guys don't want to admit it) shows a massive spike correlating to human influence.

CH4
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Panjandrum on October 16, 2015, 09:18:21 AM
I love how this particular debate generally breaks down...

Side 1: There is overwhelming scientific evidence that shows humans are impacting global warming

Side 2: Well, it's because of Cargill paying everyone off so they can sell corn for ethanol

I mean, really, how can you not believe #2 is the more realistic option?

Also, that kid's degree needs to be rescinded for being such a dumbass.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: DQ12 on October 16, 2015, 09:21:23 AM
obviously humans are influencing the climate and that's probably a bad thing.  but is it crazy to think that it's also a little rad?  like, wow in your face, weather.  humans are so far ahead of every other species it's not even funny.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on October 16, 2015, 09:23:48 AM
I love how this particular debate generally breaks down...

Side 1: There is overwhelming scientific evidence that shows humans are impacting global warming

Side 2: Well, it's because of Cargill paying everyone off so they can sell corn for ethanol
I mean, really, how can you not believe #2 is the more realistic option?

Also, that kid's degree needs to be rescinded for being such a dumbass.

If you're referring to my post, that's quite the strawman argument.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 16, 2015, 09:27:12 AM
How do you get from 3% to "doubling?" You might as well ask about tripling or quadrupling. Maybe this is why the warmers are so fixated on the "97%" mantra. Numbers just aren't their thing.

Amen! BTW, the 97% figure that they often refer to is actually based on 75 out of 77 papers. The actual response to the "study" was more than 10,000 papers but the author of the "study" excluded all but 77 of the papers. Talk about crafting a result!

A sample size of 97, population of 10,000, with 97% supporting global warming, gives a confidence interval of 4.45 with a confidence level of 99%. So your best case scenario is that the number of scientists supporting global warming is really only 93%.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Ptolemy on October 16, 2015, 09:29:14 AM
A sample size of 97, population of 10,000, with 97% supporting global warming, gives a confidence interval of 4.45 with a confidence level of 99%. So your best case scenario is that the number of scientists supporting global warming is really only 93%.

Sample size is 10,000.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 16, 2015, 09:31:36 AM
A sample size of 97, population of 10,000, with 97% supporting global warming, gives a confidence interval of 4.45 with a confidence level of 99%. So your best case scenario is that the number of scientists supporting global warming is really only 93%.

Sample size is 10,000.

No, it was actually 77. That gives a confidence interval of 5.0. So we are down to 92% being the lowest possibility.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: ednksu on October 16, 2015, 09:37:28 AM
A sample size of 97, population of 10,000, with 97% supporting global warming, gives a confidence interval of 4.45 with a confidence level of 99%. So your best case scenario is that the number of scientists supporting global warming is really only 93%.

Sample size is 10,000.

No, it was actually 77. That gives a confidence interval of 5.0. So we are down to 92% being the lowest possibility.

see your models constantly need adjusting, it's obvious to anyone in academia you don't know what you're doing and your entire theory is bunk.
Title: Re: Global Warming
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 16, 2015, 09:38:48 AM
A sample size of 97, population of 10,000, with 97% supporting global warming, gives a confidence interval of 4.45 with a confidence level of 99%. So your best case scenario is that the number of scientists supporting global warming is really only 93%.

Sample size is 10,000.

No, it was actually 77. That gives a confidence interval of 5.0. So we are down to 92% being the lowest possibility.

see your models constantly need adjusting, it's obvious to anyone in academia you don't know what you're doing and your entire theory is bunk.

Yeah, I know. I pulled the wrong damn number from the post the first time I ran the calculation and now I have no credibility. :frown:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on October 23, 2015, 10:27:42 AM
Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 23, 2015, 10:31:19 AM
Fantastic that modern technology is now able to fully record events such as this that have happened numerous times over the course of Earth's history.   Hopefully this technology can help mankind in many, many ways.

 "Strongest Hurricane Ever . . . recorded by modern technology"



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on October 23, 2015, 10:47:17 AM
Fantastic that modern technology is now able to fully record events such as this that have happened numerous times over the course of Earth's history.   Hopefully this technology can help mankind in many, many ways.

 "Strongest Hurricane Ever . . . recorded by modern technology"

oh man, just wait till tax learns that we've had barometers since 1643...now if only we had a device for measuring wind speed....
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 23, 2015, 10:51:00 AM
Fantastic that modern technology is now able to fully record events such as this that have happened numerous times over the course of Earth's history.   Hopefully this technology can help mankind in many, many ways.

 "Strongest Hurricane Ever . . . recorded by modern technology"

oh man, just wait till tax learns that we've had barometers since 1643...now if only we had a device for measuring wind speed....

What a bunch of brave souls those Hurricane Hunters were in 1643 flying through Cat. 5  in flying machines not even invented yet, and their network of Ocean sensing buoys while a bit rudimentary rivaled anything found 400 years later.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on October 23, 2015, 10:52:22 AM
Fantastic that modern technology is now able to fully record events such as this that have happened numerous times over the course of Earth's history.   Hopefully this technology can help mankind in many, many ways.

 "Strongest Hurricane Ever . . . recorded by modern technology"

oh man, just wait till tax learns that we've had barometers since 1643...now if only we had a device for measuring wind speed....

What a bunch of brave souls those Hurricane Hunters were in 1643 flying through Cat. 5  in flying machines not even invented yet, and their network of Ocean sensing buoys while a bit rudimentary rivaled anything found 400 years later.

 :lol: :lol: still doesn't get it

hurricanes, so isolated, much localized
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 23, 2015, 10:55:34 AM
Oh man, really?   :lol:

What's it like to be such a puppet/parrot for an agenda?   

The technology to read the pressure, wind speeds in various parts of hurricanes with the accuracy that they can today, didn't even exist 20 years ago.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on October 23, 2015, 11:02:59 AM
Oh man, really?   :lol:

What's it like to be such a puppet/parrot for an agenda?   

The technology to read the pressure, wind speeds in various parts of hurricanes with the accuracy that they can today, didn't even exist 20 years ago.

Dax I thought you said you lived in hurricane country?  Hint, we've known a lot about hurricanes for hundreds of years.  It's sad you refuse to use science. But keep on keepin' on with the agenda instead of real quantifiable proof.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 23, 2015, 11:07:21 AM
Oh man, really?   :lol:

What's it like to be such a puppet/parrot for an agenda?   

The technology to read the pressure, wind speeds in various parts of hurricanes with the accuracy that they can today, didn't even exist 20 years ago.

Dax I thought you said you lived in hurricane country?  Hint, we've known a lot about hurricanes for hundreds of years.  It's sad you refuse to use science. But keep on keepin' on with the agenda instead of real quantifiable proof.

I'm not at all questioning the science parrot boy, I'm actually extolling the science, and I know the science needed to make such bold statements as "Strongest Hurricane Ever"  didn't exist even 20 years.   They're measuring specific parts of the storm and making those calls, the ability to isolate and measure specific parts of Hurricanes like they do today has only been available in the last twenty years at best.  The entire hurricane is not the "Strongest Hurricane Ever", only a part of the hurricane is the strongest hurricane ever . . . recorded.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 23, 2015, 11:35:30 AM
Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.

 :lol: :facepalm:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on October 23, 2015, 11:52:33 AM
Media  :confused:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Gooch on October 23, 2015, 12:36:37 PM
Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.
Relax it's Mexico
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 23, 2015, 01:00:19 PM
Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.

humans call it el nino. Nature's cycle of life.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on October 23, 2015, 01:06:33 PM
God likes Trump?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 23, 2015, 01:47:03 PM
Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.

humans call it el nino. Nature's cycle of life.

That's Spanish for the nino, right?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 23, 2015, 04:53:14 PM
Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.

humans call it el nino. Nature's cycle of life.

That's Spanish for the nino, right?

yes, that's right. nino is spanish for "kid" or "boy".  when the ocean is colder than normal, which has caused the current drought, it's called la nina, or "the girl". it's kind of interesting that libs claim global warming has caused the drought in california when it is actually caused by colder than normal ocean water. but, in reality we have had overall global cooling the last 10 years or so (if you use actual temps rather than adjusted), so that makes sense.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on October 23, 2015, 05:12:47 PM
Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.

humans call it el nino. Nature's cycle of life.

That's Spanish for the nino, right?

yes, that's right. nino is spanish for "kid" or "boy".  when the ocean is colder than normal, which has caused the current drought, it's called la nina, or "the girl". it's kind of interesting that libs claim global warming has caused the drought in california when it is actually caused by colder than normal ocean water. but, in reality we have had overall global cooling the last 10 years or so (if you use actual temps rather than adjusted), so that makes sense.

LOL

And these weather cycles are becoming more extreme for no reason.  Also I fiat the temps back to their scientifically proven trends (since we're fiating numbers now).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 23, 2015, 05:31:34 PM
Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.

humans call it el nino. Nature's cycle of life.

That's Spanish for the nino, right?

yes, that's right. nino is spanish for "kid" or "boy".  when the ocean is colder than normal, which has caused the current drought, it's called la nina, or "the girl". it's kind of interesting that libs claim global warming has caused the drought in california when it is actually caused by colder than normal ocean water. but, in reality we have had overall global cooling the last 10 years or so (if you use actual temps rather than adjusted), so that makes sense.

LOL

And these weather cycles are becoming more extreme for no reason.  Also I fiat the temps back to their scientifically proven trends (since we're fiating numbers now).

were hurricanes less intense if nobody was there to see them? I think not. We have no idea what the ocean temps were just 100 years ago. I have seen pictures of the Corpus Christie hurricane damage though. Massive damage and loss of life.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on October 23, 2015, 05:47:25 PM
is ednksu a young earther? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 23, 2015, 09:22:01 PM
More extreme?  They just invented Cat 5 but never expected one, I guess
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on October 25, 2015, 04:42:47 PM
Dang global warming. A 34 year old polar bear died at the Philadelphia zoo. What happened to Hurricane Deathwish?  Sure petered out fast for a climate change monster.  Does this mean the climate is going to start changing as fast as rabbit sex?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 26, 2015, 10:47:03 PM
Strongest hurricane ever about to slam into Mexico, but this is not related to anything at all.

 :lol: :facepalm:

Did this happen already??

Also, huge earthquake in Afghanistan. Likely cause, global fracking warming.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 27, 2015, 06:14:10 AM
That Hurricane was a real let down for the draconian economic change climate propagandists.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on October 27, 2015, 10:41:21 AM
120 months since last major hurricane landfall in US...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/new-noaa-record-10-years-major-hurricane-has-struck-us
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 27, 2015, 11:12:40 AM
That's an inconvenient truth.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 27, 2015, 10:22:33 PM
Sounds like we're approaching optimum levels of man made climate change.  :excited:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 29, 2015, 10:20:02 AM
I'm sure I've asked this a few times before, but has the cult of global warming finally reached its nadir?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/28/pumpkins-cause-climate-change-energy-department/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/28/pumpkins-cause-climate-change-energy-department/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on October 29, 2015, 10:25:06 AM
probably already posted and there may be an updated one out there

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/23/442814701/graphic-the-presidential-candidates-on-climate-change
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on October 29, 2015, 10:26:32 AM
more specifics/more recent

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/presidential-candidates-who-believes-in-climate-change/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 29, 2015, 10:30:22 AM
I really enjoy the comments section and how brainwashed some people are, like "if you value life, vote Democrat".    :lol:



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on October 29, 2015, 11:27:00 AM
Pataki actually had a pretty good answer last night to this issue.  Basically chastised the anti science contingent in the room (got like three ppl to clap, lol) and said that govt needs to fund and encourage innovation as a way of overcoming the problem.  Cruz  was shaking his head most of the duration. I have no idea how crazy Pataki  is overall, but I like his stance on this, based off that one response. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 29, 2015, 11:38:18 AM
The problem with this "anti science" nonsense is that the people spewing it are like the Salem Witch Hunters and/or the propagators of the Spanish Inquisition.   As they have dubbed anyone who dare question the data, the so called findings, the proclamations (some of which are absolutely idiotic) etc. etc. As being "anti-science" . . . there's nothing more anti-science then the closed mindedness of the Draconian Economic Policy Warmist Propagandists.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on October 29, 2015, 12:21:12 PM
there's nothing more anti-science then the closed mindedness of the Draconian Economic Policy Warmist Propagandists.

Except for the contingent of ppl he was talking about who are trying to get religion taught in science class, think that satan put a bunch of dino bones in the ground, and who think that the earth is 6k yrs old. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on October 29, 2015, 01:48:12 PM
there's nothing more anti-science then the closed mindedness of the Draconian Economic Policy Warmist Propagandists.

Except for the contingent of ppl he was talking about who are trying to get religion taught in science class, think that satan put a bunch of dino bones in the ground, and who think that the earth is 6k yrs old.

You sound like an extremist.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on October 29, 2015, 01:54:30 PM
But the guy who thinks 97 percent of scientists are lying is very moderate  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on October 29, 2015, 02:02:01 PM
there's nothing more anti-science then the closed mindedness of the Draconian Economic Policy Warmist Propagandists.

Except for the contingent of ppl he was talking about who are trying to get religion taught in science class, think that satan put a bunch of dino bones in the ground, and who think that the earth is 6k yrs old.

You sound like an extremist.

I guess when discussing if science is real or fake, it would be very accurate to call me an extremist. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on October 29, 2015, 02:12:13 PM
there's nothing more anti-science then the closed mindedness of the Draconian Economic Policy Warmist Propagandists.

Except for the contingent of ppl he was talking about who are trying to get religion taught in science class, think that satan put a bunch of dino bones in the ground, and who think that the earth is 6k yrs old.

You sound like an extremist.

I guess when discussing if science is real or fake, it would be very accurate to call me an extremist.

yeah, I'm also a science is good extremist
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 29, 2015, 02:18:12 PM
Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with science is delusional.

Just look at the links libtard dave keeps posting.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on October 29, 2015, 03:33:41 PM
This warming horseshit is about the new generation of envirohippies trying to figure a way to scare the hell out of everyone so they can fleece us for money.   AL Gore, rich as hell from his dieing polar crusade.  I rest my case.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on October 31, 2015, 06:43:01 PM
Dept of Energy now.blaming global warming on rotting pumpkins.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on November 02, 2015, 12:06:12 AM
All of this dang Royal  celebration is causing global warming.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 02, 2015, 01:14:30 AM
All of this dang Royal  celebration is causing global warming.

Worth it
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on November 02, 2015, 10:18:17 AM
BaseRuns is a model that is definitely wrong
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 05, 2015, 08:45:06 AM
Do you guys remember when Newsweek was a publication? Apparently it's still a blog or something. http://www.newsweek.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-heres-why-thats-not-actually-good-news-389904 (http://www.newsweek.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-heres-why-thats-not-actually-good-news-389904) :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 05, 2015, 10:19:09 AM
When Newsweek was actually a magazine they told us that I nor none of you should be reading this forum, we either would have frozen to death or never been born.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 05, 2015, 03:29:31 PM
How do you measure 0.27 millimeters of ocean rise? That's 1/100 of an inch.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on November 05, 2015, 04:51:06 PM
More ice is accumulatin at the south pole.  Must be heavy ice.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 05, 2015, 06:58:41 PM
Huh. Turns out China is pumping a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere than previously reported. Global temps don't seem to have noticed.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/asia/china-burns-much-more-coal-than-reported-complicating-climate-talks.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0&referer= (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/world/asia/china-burns-much-more-coal-than-reported-complicating-climate-talks.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0&referer=)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 05, 2015, 10:46:18 PM
How do you measure 0.27 millimeters of ocean rise? That's 1/100 of an inch.

Probably science
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Tobias on November 05, 2015, 10:50:23 PM
just like sticking a gas station underground tank, really
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 06, 2015, 08:55:28 AM
How do you measure 0.27 millimeters of ocean rise? That's 1/100 of an inch.

Probably science

Maybe just tell it to stop moving for a minute while we measure.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on November 06, 2015, 12:52:24 PM
How do you measure 0.27 millimeters of ocean rise? That's 1/100 of an inch.

Probably science

Maybe just tell it to stop moving for a minute while we measure.
May be the is sinking.  More weight put on the land all of the time.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on November 06, 2015, 12:58:38 PM
Is there a calculator out there (or Mocat, can you help me with this) to tell me how much 100 new aircraft carriers or ocean barges would raise the sea level? Back in the day, a Canadian friend of middle school dobber attempted to explain to the teacher that all of the new larger ships on the ocean were the cause of the ocean rising.  :ROFL:
I would like somebody to calculate to the nearest quadrillionth of inch that 100 aircraft carriers would cause the oceans to rise.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on November 06, 2015, 12:59:07 PM
Some dumb ass alarmist said a few days ago that global warming will cause a reduction in sex?   It will be too hot and people won't be in the mood.   Huh?   If you are going at on a sidewalk maybe.  Why not turn on the ac.  Stupid a holes like this negate any arguments the heaters have.  Chicken little gone amuck.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 06, 2015, 07:50:49 PM
Should the "internal communications" of government scientists be confidential? I'm not sure why.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/06/as-scientists-warn-of-chilling-effect-on-research-congressman-doubles-down-on-noaa-to-release-deliberations-on-climate-study/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/11/06/as-scientists-warn-of-chilling-effect-on-research-congressman-doubles-down-on-noaa-to-release-deliberations-on-climate-study/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 07:31:37 PM
Millions of pounds of CO2 will be pumped into the air, millions of dollars in haute cuisine eaten (and pooped), thousands of gallons of alcohol consumed (and pee'd out), and hundreds of tourist attractions will be visited as the worlds Climate Propagandists will soon descend on Paris and for about the 17th time in the last fifteen years as they participate in the next "last chance" to save the world.   

Hopefully they don't trample all over indigenous peoples sacred grounds or sign petitions to outlaw water by the thousands as has happened at previous "last chance" to save the world conferences.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 07:33:31 PM
Not to forget the millions of gallons of fresh water consumed that will wash away fine soaps and shampoo's in Paris' finest hotels.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 10, 2015, 07:45:21 PM
Millions of pounds of CO2 will be pumped into the air, millions of dollars in haute cuisine eaten (and pooped), thousands of gallons of alcohol consumed (and pee'd out), and hundreds of tourist attractions will be visited as the worlds Climate Propagandists will soon descend on Paris and for about the 17th time in the last fifteen years as they participate in the next "last chance" to save the world.   

there are too many people in the world, i think everyone can agree on that.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 07:52:04 PM
Millions of pounds of CO2 will be pumped into the air, millions of dollars in haute cuisine eaten (and pooped), thousands of gallons of alcohol consumed (and pee'd out), and hundreds of tourist attractions will be visited as the worlds Climate Propagandists will soon descend on Paris and for about the 17th time in the last fifteen years as they participate in the next "last chance" to save the world.   

there are too many people in the world, i think everyone can agree on that.

You volunteering to start the decline, sys? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2015, 07:53:26 PM
well he is childless
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 07:54:41 PM
well he is childless

But he was once a child.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2015, 07:55:20 PM
i don't think he had any control over that
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 08:00:46 PM
i don't think he had any control over that

most children don't and that has nothing to do with the audacious consumerism that will bring the next save the planet conclave together.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 10, 2015, 08:02:41 PM
not having children certainly decreases future populations though, but i guess you didn't understand that.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2015, 08:06:15 PM
not having children certainly decreases future populations though, but i guess you didn't understand that.

Quit responding if you're just going to gE the whole time.   Each human impacts the environment, they breath, they consume and in the U.S. likely burn fossil fuels, and use systems that run on or were constructed on fossil fuels.   The population reduction that so many want, well . . depopulation begins with one.   But I guess you don't understand that.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Tobias on November 10, 2015, 08:06:37 PM
deficit vs debt, dax
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 10, 2015, 08:34:05 PM
You volunteering to start the decline, sys?

i'm doing my part.  god willing, i'll continue.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 11, 2015, 03:37:31 PM
War on science continues

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 11, 2015, 05:58:17 PM
War on science continues

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html (http://www.nationmultimedia.com/opinion/Cold-sun-rising-30272650.html)

Many warmist propagandist draconian economy killers have written the impact of the sun entirely out of consideration.   Just as they have repeatedly manipulated historical temp data and written some fairly recent mini-ice ages out of climatic/geological time altogether. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on November 11, 2015, 08:47:09 PM
there are too many people in the world, i think everyone can agree on that.

No we cannot. Offer some measure of proof of that claim please.

Allow me to retort in advance - you can take the entire current population of the world and relocate them to the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as it is right now in New York City.

We are not overpopulated.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 11, 2015, 08:48:51 PM
there are too many people in the world, i think everyone can agree on that.

No we cannot. Offer some measure of proof of that claim please.

Allow me to retort in advance - you can take the entire current population of the world and relocate them to the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as it is right now in New York City.

We are not overpopulated.

That is horrible reasoning.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 11, 2015, 08:52:12 PM
there are too many people in the world, i think everyone can agree on that.

No we cannot. Offer some measure of proof of that claim please.

Allow me to retort in advance - you can take the entire current population of the world and relocate them to the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as it is right now in New York City.

We are not overpopulated.

that's not a retort, precisely.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 11, 2015, 11:43:27 PM
there are too many people in the world, i think everyone can agree on that.

No we cannot. Offer some measure of proof of that claim please.

Allow me to retort in advance - you can take the entire current population of the world and relocate them to the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as it is right now in New York City.

We are not overpopulated.

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on November 12, 2015, 02:05:39 AM

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 12, 2015, 08:12:30 AM

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on November 12, 2015, 08:16:48 AM
Allow me to retort in advance - you can take the entire current population of the world and relocate them to the state of Texas and the population density would be the same as it is right now in New York City.

lol
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on November 12, 2015, 08:18:26 AM
sys, if we stacked people a hundred million high like on huge people pallets the entire population of the earth could fit into like a walmart (not vertically). so I think you can see we don't actually have a population problem.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on November 12, 2015, 08:37:38 AM
I think Ptolemy forgot to carry a 1 or something on his landfill calculation.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Unruly on November 12, 2015, 08:40:56 AM
Get mocat in here
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 12, 2015, 12:06:50 PM
i mean i agree with the part about how we can cram more humans onto the earth without everyone immediately dying.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 12, 2015, 12:12:28 PM
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/little_support_for_punishing_global_warming_foes

Phew . . . "only" 27% of Dems surveyed favor prosecution, what a relief.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 12, 2015, 01:27:10 PM

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.

For how long must the population continue to grow for us to reconsider and think that back in 2015 no the world was not in fact overpopulated at that time?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 12, 2015, 01:31:16 PM

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.

For how long must the population continue to grow for us to reconsider and think that back in 2015 no the world was not in fact overpopulated at that time?

I guess it depends on how you define "overpopulated". We aren't currently overpopulated in the sense that people aren't dying off left and right, but we are overpopulated in the sense that our current population can't be sustained without significant technological advances.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 12, 2015, 01:41:49 PM

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.

For how long must the population continue to grow for us to reconsider and think that back in 2015 no the world was not in fact overpopulated at that time?

I guess it depends on how you define "overpopulated". We aren't currently overpopulated in the sense that people aren't dying off left and right, but we are overpopulated in the sense that our current population can't be sustained without significant technological advances.

For how long must this population be sustained for it to achieve sustainability?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 12, 2015, 01:45:57 PM

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.

For how long must the population continue to grow for us to reconsider and think that back in 2015 no the world was not in fact overpopulated at that time?

I guess it depends on how you define "overpopulated". We aren't currently overpopulated in the sense that people aren't dying off left and right, but we are overpopulated in the sense that our current population can't be sustained without significant technological advances.

For how long must this population be sustained for it to achieve sustainability?

The foreseeable future. When you rely on resources that are becoming less available, like fossil fuels and water, you are not sustainable.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 12, 2015, 01:48:04 PM
water availability is just a matter of energy.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 12, 2015, 01:50:20 PM

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.

For how long must the population continue to grow for us to reconsider and think that back in 2015 no the world was not in fact overpopulated at that time?

I guess it depends on how you define "overpopulated". We aren't currently overpopulated in the sense that people aren't dying off left and right, but we are overpopulated in the sense that our current population can't be sustained without significant technological advances.

For how long must this population be sustained for it to achieve sustainability?

The foreseeable future. When you rely on resources that are becoming less available, like fossil fuels and water, you are not sustainable.

Some people would argue that technological advancements in fossil fuels are advancing faster than we can consume fossil fuels.  The peak oil theory is complete crap canned, for example.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 12, 2015, 04:17:48 PM

It isn't the amount of space a human displaces, it's the resources it takes to support them and waste that's produced.

Are you implying that we have no space for landfills? You can take the next 1000 years of waste from mankind and fit it in one 10 square mile landfill. There's plenty of space.

We are not running out of resources to support life.

I'm still waiting for some form of objective evidence of overpopulation...

Carbon emissions, fossil fuel quantities, farmable land, etc. all play a role. Some regions of the world, including parts of America, are absolutely running out of life-sustaining resources.

For how long must the population continue to grow for us to reconsider and think that back in 2015 no the world was not in fact overpopulated at that time?

I guess it depends on how you define "overpopulated". We aren't currently overpopulated in the sense that people aren't dying off left and right, but we are overpopulated in the sense that our current population can't be sustained without significant technological advances.

For how long must this population be sustained for it to achieve sustainability?

The foreseeable future. When you rely on resources that are becoming less available, like fossil fuels and water, you are not sustainable.

Some people would argue that technological advancements in fossil fuels are advancing faster than we can consume fossil fuels.  The peak oil theory is complete crap canned, for example.

It's possible that technology could continue to advance fast enough to sustain future populations. In the meantime, humans have driven more than 300 animal species to extinction in the past 500 years, continue to increase the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, more than half of the world's largest aquifers are being depleted, total acres farmed worldwide are decreasing, and deserts are growing, all while human population is still increasing. The world probably hasn't had a sustainable human population since around 1500.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on November 12, 2015, 06:50:47 PM

It's possible that technology could continue to advance fast enough to sustain future populations. In the meantime, humans have driven more than 300 animal species to extinction in the past 500 years, continue to increase the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, more than half of the world's largest aquifers are being depleted, total acres farmed worldwide are decreasing, and deserts are growing, all while human population is still increasing. The world probably hasn't had a sustainable human population since around 1500.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Tens of thousands of species have gone extinct without man's influence.

CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere today. Man is responsible for only 0.00114% of the CO2 in the planet's atmosphere.

You DO realize that the water on this planet is not being depleted. Water processing is simply a matter of energy, which will be a problem if we do not stop the current administration's war on cheap energy.

America has more new growth forest than ever. We pay farmers today to not grow certain foods.

Actually, if governments and massive entitlement programs continue to grow at their current pace, there won't be enough people to fund the needs of the aging population. Japan is in crisis mode...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/07/japans-birth-rate-problem-is-way-worse-than-anyone-imagined/

Also, China ended their decades old one child policy.

You need to stop worrying about whether the planet will be around for awhile and start worrying about your children and grand children having to pay off your current country's massive debt.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on November 12, 2015, 07:00:11 PM
Don't worry, some kind of pestilence or disaster will trim the population back soon enough.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 12, 2015, 07:02:44 PM
Don't worry, some kind of pestilence or disaster will trim the population back soon enough.

that's what i always say!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 12, 2015, 07:03:18 PM

It's possible that technology could continue to advance fast enough to sustain future populations. In the meantime, humans have driven more than 300 animal species to extinction in the past 500 years, continue to increase the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, more than half of the world's largest aquifers are being depleted, total acres farmed worldwide are decreasing, and deserts are growing, all while human population is still increasing. The world probably hasn't had a sustainable human population since around 1500.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Tens of thousands of species have gone extinct without man's influence.

CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere today. Man is responsible for only 0.00114% of the CO2 in the planet's atmosphere.

You DO realize that the water on this planet is not being depleted. Water processing is simply a matter of energy, which will be a problem if we do not stop the current administration's war on cheap energy.

America has more new growth forest than ever. We pay farmers today to not grow certain foods.

Actually, if governments and massive entitlement programs continue to grow at their current pace, there won't be enough people to fund the needs of the aging population. Japan is in crisis mode...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/01/07/japans-birth-rate-problem-is-way-worse-than-anyone-imagined/

Also, China ended their decades old one child policy.

You need to stop worrying about whether the planet will be around for awhile and start worrying about your children and grand children having to pay off your current country's massive debt.

I don't have kids, and I'm not worried about any of that. Mankind should enjoy this while it lasts.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on November 12, 2015, 11:40:28 PM

I don't have kids, and I'm not worried about any of that. Mankind should enjoy this while it lasts.

So you're OK with MY kids and grand kids paying off your massive debt?

"THIS" will last for about another 5 billion years - the time for the sun to burn its supply of hydrogen.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 12, 2015, 11:58:56 PM

I don't have kids, and I'm not worried about any of that. Mankind should enjoy this while it lasts.

So you're OK with MY kids and grand kids paying off your massive debt?

"THIS" will last for about another 5 billion years - the time for the sun to burn its supply of hydrogen.

I don't have a massive debt, and yeah, I'm fine with your kids having to deal with global issues, just like every other generation has had to do.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on November 13, 2015, 12:20:31 AM
debt seems like it would be easier to deal with than resource scarcity
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 13, 2015, 02:13:38 AM
So you're OK with MY kids and grand kids paying off your massive debt?

when they need to pay it off, they'll invent a way.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on November 13, 2015, 07:46:01 AM
Mother of invention and stuff.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on November 13, 2015, 08:15:52 AM

I don't have a massive debt, and yeah, I'm fine with your kids having to deal with global issues, just like every other generation has had to do.

The federal unfunded liabilities are estimated at near $127 trillion, which is roughly $1.1 million per taxpayer and nearly double 2012’s total world output.

Will you be paying that by cash or check?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 13, 2015, 08:27:19 AM

I don't have a massive debt, and yeah, I'm fine with your kids having to deal with global issues, just like every other generation has had to do.

The federal unfunded liabilities are estimated at near $127 trillion, which is roughly $1.1 million per taxpayer and nearly double 2012’s total world output.

Will you be paying that by cash or check?

I will just keep paying the minimum amount the government will let me pay, like I always do. Are you paying extra or something?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 13, 2015, 08:29:06 AM
debt seems like it would be easier to deal with than resource scarcity

You realize that cranks have been warning about resource scarcity and overpopulation since the 60s, right? The doomsday predictions just never pan out. How's that "Peak Oil" crisis coming along?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-01/why-paul-ehrlich-s-population-bomb-finally-bombed (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-01/why-paul-ehrlich-s-population-bomb-finally-bombed)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on November 13, 2015, 08:31:45 AM


I don't have kids, and I'm not worried about any of that. Mankind should enjoy this while it lasts.

So you're OK with MY kids and grand kids paying off your massive debt?

"THIS" will last for about another 5 billion years - the time for the sun to burn its supply of hydrogen.

The chance of us lasting 5 billion years is hilariously small
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 13, 2015, 08:39:00 AM
debt seems like it would be easier to deal with than resource scarcity

You realize that cranks have been warning about resource scarcity and overpopulation since the 60s, right? The doomsday predictions just never pan out. How's that "Peak Oil" crisis coming along?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-01/why-paul-ehrlich-s-population-bomb-finally-bombed (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-01/why-paul-ehrlich-s-population-bomb-finally-bombed)

So is your theory that these resources are renewing themselves faster than they are being used, or that mankind won't last long enough to see them become unfeasible?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 13, 2015, 09:38:42 AM
debt seems like it would be easier to deal with than resource scarcity

You realize that cranks have been warning about resource scarcity and overpopulation since the 60s, right? The doomsday predictions just never pan out. How's that "Peak Oil" crisis coming along?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-01/why-paul-ehrlich-s-population-bomb-finally-bombed (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-01/why-paul-ehrlich-s-population-bomb-finally-bombed)

So is your theory that these resources are renewing themselves faster than they are being used, or that mankind won't last long enough to see them become unfeasible?

My "theory" is that we're always finding new resources, and innovating to produce more with the resources we have. The liklihood of that trend continuing is better than the track record of the fear mongers.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on November 13, 2015, 10:35:07 AM
debt seems like it would be easier to deal with than resource scarcity

You realize that cranks have been warning about resource scarcity and overpopulation since the 60s, right? The doomsday predictions just never pan out. How's that "Peak Oil" crisis coming along?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-01/why-paul-ehrlich-s-population-bomb-finally-bombed (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-01/why-paul-ehrlich-s-population-bomb-finally-bombed)

So is your theory that these resources are renewing themselves faster than they are being used, or that mankind won't last long enough to see them become unfeasible?

My "theory" is that we're always finding new resources, and innovating to produce more with the resources we have. The liklihood of that trend continuing is better than the track record of the fear mongers.

in that case, we can figure out a debt problem too. I mean, gee whiz, just say we aren't paying if there's some sort of disaster and live off the land with our new technology.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 13, 2015, 10:38:31 AM
Like, money isn't even real, but resources are
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 13, 2015, 11:48:33 AM
Like, money isn't even real, but resources are

Money is real if you plan on living in a civilized, prosperous society. But if you're assuming all that is going to melt down, then yeah, you're better off stocking up on things like food, water, fuel, and bullets.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 13, 2015, 12:12:45 PM
we have enough wood pulp and cotton fiber to print the national debt 7 trillion times over.  there's no budget problem, you loons.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 13, 2015, 12:18:14 PM
Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 13, 2015, 12:22:19 PM
Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.

When is that going to happen?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on November 13, 2015, 12:27:31 PM
Get the topo out and go get some cheap soon to be beachfront property.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 13, 2015, 12:29:20 PM
Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.

When is that going to happen?
lots of data released today, so happening now-ish.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 13, 2015, 12:32:22 PM
Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.

Have glaciers in Greenland been a historically static thing? 

Because I know for economic killing warmist alarmist propagandists when they're trying to make a point they suddenly collapse the timeline of climatic history.   But facts dictate that it wasn't all that long ago relative to the history of earth, that Greenland had little to no ice.   Substantial melting and subsequent reformation of Greenlandic Ice Sheets have been noted numerous times throughout history.





Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on November 13, 2015, 12:33:39 PM
The speed with which things are changing is what is alarming most scientists, not that it happening. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 13, 2015, 12:38:07 PM
I think the government should look into this. It's probably too late for this glacier, but we should be ready for the next one.

http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2012/finalwebsite/solution/glaciers.shtml
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 13, 2015, 12:40:36 PM
The speed with which things are changing is what is alarming most scientists, not that it happening. 

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Denmark Ocean and Ice Services has been saying that Greenlandic Ice Growth so far this year has exceeded the mean Growth average of the periods 1990-2011 and that mean growth in 2015 has exceed the previous 4 years.





Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fedor on November 13, 2015, 01:24:10 PM
Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.
For a glacier to do that it would have to be the size of Greenland and ~250' thick.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on November 16, 2015, 09:40:31 AM
Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.
For a glacier to do that it would have to be the size of Greenland and ~250' thick.

So, Fedor actually did the math on this...

(1) Oceanic Surface Area: 3.6e8 km^2
(2) Oceanic Rise: 18 inches, 0.4572 m
(3) Oceanic Volume Increase = (1)*(2) = 1.65e5 km^3
(4) Greenland Land Area = 2,166,086 km^2
(5) Necessary thickness of Greenland sized glacier = (3) / (4) = 75.986 m = 249.3 ft
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on November 16, 2015, 11:12:03 AM
Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.
For a glacier to do that it would have to be the size of Greenland and ~250' thick.

So, Fedor actually did the math on this...

(1) Oceanic Surface Area: 3.6e8 km^2
(2) Oceanic Rise: 18 inches, 0.4572 m
(3) Oceanic Volume Increase = (1)*(2) = 1.65e5 km^3
(4) Greenland Land Area = 2,166,086 km^2
(5) Necessary thickness of Greenland sized glacier = (3) / (4) = 75.986 m = 249.3 ft

(6) Volume ratio of ice to water 1.09:1
(7) (5) * 1.09 ~ 272 ft

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on November 16, 2015, 11:40:19 AM

Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.
For a glacier to do that it would have to be the size of Greenland and ~250' thick.

So, Fedor actually did the math on this...

(1) Oceanic Surface Area: 3.6e8 km^2
(2) Oceanic Rise: 18 inches, 0.4572 m
(3) Oceanic Volume Increase = (1)*(2) = 1.65e5 km^3
(4) Greenland Land Area = 2,166,086 km^2
(5) Necessary thickness of Greenland sized glacier = (3) / (4) = 75.986 m = 249.3 ft

(6) Volume ratio of ice to water 1.09:1
(7) (5) * 1.09 ~ 272 ft

Good call!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 16, 2015, 11:46:07 AM
Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.
For a glacier to do that it would have to be the size of Greenland and ~250' thick.

So, Fedor actually did the math on this...

(1) Oceanic Surface Area: 3.6e8 km^2
(2) Oceanic Rise: 18 inches, 0.4572 m
(3) Oceanic Volume Increase = (1)*(2) = 1.65e5 km^3
(4) Greenland Land Area = 2,166,086 km^2
(5) Necessary thickness of Greenland sized glacier = (3) / (4) = 75.986 m = 249.3 ft

Holy significant digit mess right in mine eyes!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 16, 2015, 11:47:13 AM
80% of Greenland is covered by ice ranging in thickness between 6600-9800 ft.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: 8manpick on November 16, 2015, 12:27:02 PM
80% of Greenland is covered by ice ranging in thickness between 6600-9800 ft.

If all of that melted....

(1) Oceanic Surface Area: 3.6e8 km^2
(2) Greenland Land Area = 2,166,086 km^2
(3) Greenland Ice Area = 80% * (2) = 1,732,869 km^2
(4) Greenland Ice Thickness Average = 2.5 km
(5) Greenland Ice Volume = (3)*(4) = 4,331,063 km^3
(6) Volume ratio of ice to water 1.09:1
(7) Water Volume of Greenland ice (5) / 1.09 = 3,973,452 km^3
(8) Rise of Ocean = (7) / (1) = 36 feet

This would be a huge problem! :runaway: :runaway:



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 16, 2015, 12:36:41 PM
Meh, kc is at like 1k ft
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on November 16, 2015, 12:40:40 PM
see you down in arizona bay
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 16, 2015, 12:44:10 PM
Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.
For a glacier to do that it would have to be the size of Greenland and ~250' thick.

The fact that warmists like edna would simply accept such a ludicrous claim at face value pretty much tells you all you need to know.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 18, 2015, 01:39:50 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/11/12/greenland-glacier-melting-global-warming-climate-change/75661092/

A massive glacier in northeast Greenland has dramatically melted in the past decade and would raise global sea levels by a foot and a half if it thawed completely, according to a study published Thursday.

The glacier is near a large one also melting rapidly but at a slower rate. The two chunks of ice make up 12% of the Greenland ice sheet and would boost global sea levels by more than 39 inches if they both totally collapsed, a process that would likely take centuries.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4771

The reason? Zachariae Isstrom is big. It drains ice from an area of 35,440 square miles (91,780 square kilometers). That's about 5 percent of the Greenland Ice Sheet. All by itself, it holds enough water to raise global sea level by more than 18 inches (46 centimeters) if it were to melt completely. And now it's on a crash diet, losing 5 billion tons of mass every year. All that ice is crumbling into the North Atlantic Ocean.

Adjacent to Zachariae Isstrom is another large glacier, Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden, which is also melting rapidly but is receding at a slower rate because it's protected by an inland hill. The two glaciers make up 12 percent of the Greenland ice sheet and would boost global sea levels by more than 39 inches (99 centimeters) if they fully collapsed.




Once again, facts > KSUW
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on November 18, 2015, 01:42:05 PM
Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.

When is that going to happen?
lots of data released today, so happening now-ish.

So now, or in centuries.  :confused:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 18, 2015, 01:44:01 PM
Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.

When is that going to happen?
lots of data released today, so happening now-ish.

So now, or in centuries.  :confused:

Never said this was an overnight process.



 Is anyone reading anything anymore?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 18, 2015, 01:45:26 PM
Even defrocked Climate Scientist Michael Mann admitted earlier this year they still don't fully understand the impact of ocean currents on Greenland Glacier melt and multiple scientists including Mann believe that Solar activity (you know the Sun) has had substantial impact on Greenland's Glacier i.e. periods of high solar activity actually cause slowing or net growth of Greenland's Glaciers and periods of Solar minimums (like we're experiencing now) actually accelerate Greenland Glacier melt.   

This is climate alarmism at it's best (or worst) when they still don't fully understand the various cycles.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 18, 2015, 01:50:12 PM
Even defrocked Climate Scientist Michael Mann admitted earlier this year they still don't fully understand the impact of ocean currents on Greenland Glacier melt and multiple scientists including Mann believe that Solar activity (you know the Sun) has had substantial impact on Greenland's Glacier i.e. periods of high solar activity actually cause slowing or net growth of Greenland's Glaciers and periods of Solar minimums (like we're experiencing now) actually accelerate Greenland Glacier melt.   

This is climate alarmism at it's best (or worst) when they still don't fully understand the various cycles.

Not sure many would debate with you on the cycles of the sun having an impact.  what we know is that the 11 year cycle does cause variations, but even with that in place, we are seeing changes occurring outside of that 11 year system.  yes it's complex, but more and more of the evidence everyday says human activity is altering the affect of those cycles.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 18, 2015, 01:54:44 PM
Even defrocked Climate Scientist Michael Mann admitted earlier this year they still don't fully understand the impact of ocean currents on Greenland Glacier melt and multiple scientists including Mann believe that Solar activity (you know the Sun) has had substantial impact on Greenland's Glacier i.e. periods of high solar activity actually cause slowing or net growth of Greenland's Glaciers and periods of Solar minimums (like we're experiencing now) actually accelerate Greenland Glacier melt.   

This is climate alarmism at it's best (or worst) when they still don't fully understand the various cycles.

Not sure many would debate with you on the cycles of the sun having an impact.  what we know is that the 11 year cycle does cause variations, but even with that in place, we are seeing changes occurring outside of that 11 year system.  yes it's complex, but more and more of the evidence everyday says human activity is altering the affect of those cycles.

We are have been at or near record (recorded) minimal sun activity, per studies by  AGU scientists that will likely have a far greater impact on Greenland's glaciers then so called "global warming"  (if it's warming, why so many scientists writing screeds about how the last 18 years is just a "pause" in global warming and that will soon reverse?  But I digress) will likely ever have.

But keep posting your MSM alarmism, I really enjoy it.

Oh and periods of High Solar Activity actually warm tropical currents which in turn work as a block between warm and cold waters, which keeps colder waters trapped more towards the Arctic and Greenland, during Solar minimums, tropical currents aren't as warm the "wall" between the cold and the warm water weakens actually along seepage of warmer currents into the area around Greenland. 



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 18, 2015, 01:57:22 PM
Even defrocked Climate Scientist Michael Mann admitted earlier this year they still don't fully understand the impact of ocean currents on Greenland Glacier melt and multiple scientists including Mann believe that Solar activity (you know the Sun) has had substantial impact on Greenland's Glacier i.e. periods of high solar activity actually cause slowing or net growth of Greenland's Glaciers and periods of Solar minimums (like we're experiencing now) actually accelerate Greenland Glacier melt.   

This is climate alarmism at it's best (or worst) when they still don't fully understand the various cycles.

Not sure many would debate with you on the cycles of the sun having an impact.  what we know is that the 11 year cycle does cause variations, but even with that in place, we are seeing changes occurring outside of that 11 year system.  yes it's complex, but more and more of the evidence everyday says human activity is altering the affect of those cycles.

We are have been at or near record (recorded) minimal sun activity, per studies by  AGU scientists that will likely have a far greater impact on Greenland's glaciers then so called "global warming"  (if it's warming, why so many scientists writing screeds about how the last 18 years is just a "pause" in global warming and that will soon reverse?  But I digress) will likely ever have.

But keep posting your MSM alarmism, I really enjoy it.

The fact that you see NASA as MSM alarmism is a problem.  Come up with a study by a legitimate organization with transparent funding to refute or shut it.  These peer reviewed studies are valid until proven otherwise.  Putting your head in the sand doesn't invalidate their finding because you don't want them to be true.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 18, 2015, 02:00:20 PM
http://news.agu.org/press-release/suns-activity-controls-greenland-temperatures/

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 18, 2015, 02:07:27 PM
http://news.agu.org/press-release/suns-activity-controls-greenland-temperatures/

Northern Hemisphere experienced rising temperatures as a result of greenhouse warming.

“We need to really consider how solar activity will change in the future,” said Kobashi. “If solar activity becomes really low, as scientists expect, the Greenland ice sheet will melt faster than we expected from the climate model with just greenhouse gas [warming].”


“I’m open-minded that the real answer is more complicated, and it may be a combination of the two hypotheses,” said Mann. “This article paves the way for a more in-depth look at what is going on. The challenge now will be teasing apart the two effects and trying to assess the relative importance of both of them.”

Kobashi contends that solar activity explains the change in ocean circulation and Greenland warming since 1995, which he says cannot be explained by increasing greenhouse gases alone.


Everyone agrees that we don't understand the mechanisms at play in warming and cooling cycles.  Your own study agrees thought that humans are changing the way the cycles work and are having an impact on temperatures.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 18, 2015, 02:10:50 PM
It's not my study, and the article actually references two different studies.

If you can get noted Warmist Alarmist Michael Mann to admit that they really don't understand the situation entirely and that he's "open" (this coming from a guy who was part of a junta that collaborated to silence dissenting opinions, findings and studies) to other ideas/concepts/findings then that tells me, and should tell anyone all they need to know, that is, the science is far from settled and will never likely be "settled". 

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 18, 2015, 02:20:00 PM
It's not my study, and the article actually references two different studies.

If you can get noted Warmist Alarmist Michael Mann to admit that they really don't understand the situation entirely and that he's "open" (this coming from a guy who was part of a junta that collaborated to silence dissenting opinions, findings and studies) to other ideas/concepts/findings then that tells me, and should tell anyone all they need to know, that is, the science is far from settled and will never likely be "settled".

Dax I've only read a little bit about him, but what you're saying seems to be a gross misrepresentation of his position.  Of course a good scientist won't claim to know everything or that this theory has no room for further adjustment or negotiation.  The fact is Mann is suing people who are attacking his theories on human caused warming.  Him being "open" to other ideas is the result of the scientific process, not doubt in warming occurring. Very few say the science is "settled" in the kind of concrete program you are suggesting, only that it is all signs point to human involvement altering what is occurring in a complex system.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 18, 2015, 02:28:39 PM
Think about what you said, the guy is so unsure about his work that he's suing other people that are saying he's incorrect, I believe he's also being sued.  He's repeatedly stood behind academic administrative guardians, repeatedly thwarted FOIA requests on his publicly funded work and was part of a cabal of scientists who sought to stonewall, discredit, and dare I say "freeze out" any scientific descent through various methodologies like "peer review wars" and the like.   They were also caught red handed manipulating their own data to get desired outcomes and then when they tried to claim they were hacked or that people just misunderstood climate nerd jovialities and some of the stuff they said on emails shouldn't be taken literally . . .  forensic data specialists concluded they were exposed from the inside and likely by someone who was tired of the charade.


Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 18, 2015, 02:40:01 PM
Think about what you said, the guy is so unsure about his work that he's suing other people that are saying he's incorrect, I believe he's also being sued.  He's repeatedly stood behind academic administrative guardians, repeatedly thwarted FOIA requests on his publicly funded work and was part of a cabal of scientists who sought to stonewall, discredit, and dare I say "freeze out" any scientific descent through various methodologies like "peer review wars" and the like.   They were also caught red handed manipulating their own data to get desired outcomes and then when they tried to claim they were hacked or that people just misunderstood climate nerd jovialities and some of the stuff they said on emails shouldn't be taken literally . . .  forensic data specialists concluded they were exposed from the inside and likely by someone who was tired of the charade.

I accept your post (well written criticism).  Can you post a link to the points about him attacking other scientists (not publications) or the forensic data point you've made.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 20, 2015, 02:19:48 PM
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/record-crushing-fraud-from-noaa-and-nasa-ahead-of-paris/

Quote
By tampering with the station baseline, they created the large anomalies. Then they double down their fraud by smearing their bogus anomalies across 1200 km of missing data. This is needed to create their required fraudulent record temperature claims ahead of Paris.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 20, 2015, 02:32:42 PM
What a great website  :love:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 20, 2015, 02:37:50 PM


$500 billion in subsidies and funding for "green" energy by Western Governments last year, and it's growing by 20% a year.

But they'll be those that still say there's no way that people aren't just lining up to get on the gravy train.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 20, 2015, 02:53:18 PM
That's seriously the webpage you're going with for a scientific explanation?  I mean he totally leaves out the reason why NASA "cooled" the baseline and his "analysis" appears to be only comparing 2 unlike graphs.  Additionally what about the point of models being an effective tool for plotting.  It's not like you *need* temp data from every square kilometer to be accurate in plotting trends.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CHONGS on November 20, 2015, 03:18:59 PM
What a great website  :love:
Goddard is great!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 20, 2015, 03:23:20 PM
That's seriously the webpage you're going with for a scientific explanation?  I mean he totally leaves out the reason why NASA "cooled" the baseline and his "analysis" appears to be only comparing 2 unlike graphs.  Additionally what about the point of models being an effective tool for plotting.  It's not like you *need* temp data from every square kilometer to be accurate in plotting trends.

Or, we can discuss the Sat temp measurements.   You could write War and Peace x5 picking apart all the data manipulation that NASA/NOAA does on temps.

There's a 10's of Kilmeters not mapped, and then there's 1000's.   Not to mention huge swaths of Russia/Former Soviet Union where the weather stations don't work anymore.   



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 20, 2015, 04:24:15 PM
That's seriously the webpage you're going with for a scientific explanation?  I mean he totally leaves out the reason why NASA "cooled" the baseline and his "analysis" appears to be only comparing 2 unlike graphs.  Additionally what about the point of models being an effective tool for plotting.  It's not like you *need* temp data from every square kilometer to be accurate in plotting trends.

Or, we can discuss the Sat temp measurements.   You could write War and Peace x5 picking apart all the data manipulation that NASA/NOAA does on temps.

There's a 10's of Kilmeters not mapped, and then there's 1000's.   Not to mention huge swaths of Russia/Former Soviet Union where the weather stations don't work anymore.

Okay where is a webpage that discusses how the data was manipulated rather than pointing out accusations. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 20, 2015, 04:57:50 PM
That's seriously the webpage you're going with for a scientific explanation?  I mean he totally leaves out the reason why NASA "cooled" the baseline and his "analysis" appears to be only comparing 2 unlike graphs.  Additionally what about the point of models being an effective tool for plotting.  It's not like you *need* temp data from every square kilometer to be accurate in plotting trends.

Or, we can discuss the Sat temp measurements.   You could write War and Peace x5 picking apart all the data manipulation that NASA/NOAA does on temps.

There's a 10's of Kilmeters not mapped, and then there's 1000's.   Not to mention huge swaths of Russia/Former Soviet Union where the weather stations don't work anymore.

Okay where is a webpage that discusses how the data was manipulated rather than pointing out accusations.

You can't read?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 21, 2015, 12:31:50 AM
That's seriously the webpage you're going with for a scientific explanation?  I mean he totally leaves out the reason why NASA "cooled" the baseline and his "analysis" appears to be only comparing 2 unlike graphs.  Additionally what about the point of models being an effective tool for plotting.  It's not like you *need* temp data from every square kilometer to be accurate in plotting trends.

Or, we can discuss the Sat temp measurements.   You could write War and Peace x5 picking apart all the data manipulation that NASA/NOAA does on temps.

There's a 10's of Kilmeters not mapped, and then there's 1000's.   Not to mention huge swaths of Russia/Former Soviet Union where the weather stations don't work anymore.

Okay where is a webpage that discusses how the data was manipulated rather than pointing out accusations.

You can't read?

gifs that show two histograms are not evidence of shifting data, especially when NASA/NOAA talk about the need to shift their outcomes as better interpretations of the information have been worked. nothing posted there disputes the theory, their method, or their outcomes.  "Big Science" has been very clear why things have changed.  It's called the scientific method, not a conspiracy.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The Big Train on November 21, 2015, 06:56:15 AM

Don't worry, some kind of pestilence or disaster will trim the population back soon enough.

that's what i always say!

I'd say this is a little more worrisome than some ice melting

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-34857015
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on November 26, 2015, 11:16:08 PM
Hey Ozone AL, it's freezing here and messing up plans.  Global warming happens each year you moron - summer.  Take your polar bears and jam them up your enviroboogeyman butt.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2015, 02:39:14 PM
Ok, I guess we can add "honeybee extinction" to the scrap heap of bullshit envirowhacko claims. There should be some room over there between "looming ice age," "vanishing ozone layer," and "peak oil." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/)

Which will be the next to fall? I'm guessing ocean acidification.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 30, 2015, 02:42:56 PM
Ok, I guess we can add "honeybee extinction" to the scrap heap of bullshit envirowhacko claims. There should be some room over there between "looming ice age," "vanishing ozone layer," and "peak oil." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/23/call-off-the-bee-pocalypse-u-s-honeybee-colonies-hit-a-20-year-high/)

Which will be the next to fall? I'm guessing ocean acidification.

Good job, beekeepers. It's always great to see a story where human activity actually made a positive difference.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2015, 08:53:34 PM
A liberal and former warming alarmist does the research and reconsiders his position. This essay takes about a half hour to read. Here's the intro.

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace#.k14v7c2go (https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace#.k14v7c2go)

Quote
What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled
— David Siegel

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

1 Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.

2 Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.

3 There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.

4 New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.

5 CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.

6 There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

7 Sea level will probably continue to rise?—?not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.

8 The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.

9 No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.

10 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking?—?or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey.

...
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on November 30, 2015, 09:46:17 PM
A liberal and former warming alarmist does the research and reconsiders his position. This essay takes about a half hour to read. Here's the intro.

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace#.k14v7c2go (https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace#.k14v7c2go)

Quote
What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled
— David Siegel

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

1 Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.

2 Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.

3 There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.

4 New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.

5 CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.

6 There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

7 Sea level will probably continue to rise?—?not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.

8 The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.

9 No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.

10 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking?—?or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey.

...
Honesty, you don't have it

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/10/29/climate-change-is-real-and-important-david-siegel/
https://medium.com/@miriamob/climate-change-is-real-and-important-646b663adcf#.7szyni5qj
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 30, 2015, 10:07:21 PM
Surprised you haven't jetted over to Paris to take part in the annual (sometimes bi-annual) last chance to save the world event EDN.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on November 30, 2015, 10:09:23 PM
Is David Siegel a scientist or something?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 30, 2015, 10:14:45 PM
He makes good points, but they're pretty much captain obvious points to anyone who pays attention.

But with Western Gov't subsidization of "green" energy and climate research on a rocket ship ride to $1 trillion plus a year, who wouldn't want to hop on the gravy train?

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 30, 2015, 10:25:58 PM
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/30/pause-buster-sst-data-has-noaa-adjusted-away-a-relationship-between-nmat-and-sst-that-the-consensus-of-cmip5-climate-models-indicate-should-exist/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on December 01, 2015, 12:27:06 AM
If we are going to solve this perceived by some problem, let's start with this...

How does one go about measuring the single temperature of an entire planet?

Does someone have a very large rectal thermometer?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 01, 2015, 09:42:15 AM
Ptolemy with the real science #stumper
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Tobias on December 01, 2015, 09:45:05 AM
just like how we measure sea levels - head to la jolla with a big ass yardstick
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2015, 09:49:20 AM
Honesty, you don't have it

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/10/29/climate-change-is-real-and-important-david-siegel/

I would encourage you to read Siegal's full essay, and then the piece you linked from Greg Laden. Maybe actually apply some critical thinking to the issue, as Siegal did.

This is how Mr. Laden starts his "rebuttal":

Quote
A week or so ago, I got a couple of emails and tweets about a blog post on Medium.com, an internet thing of which I had never heard. Apparently Medium.com is a big giant blog that anybody can go and blog their big giant thoughts on: like tumblr, but more bloggy.
 
Anyway, some dude by the name of David Siegel, Web Page Designer, posted a really long blog post about climate change on medium.com.
 
Have you ever been poking around on the Intertoobs, when somebody comes along and says, “Hey, I never really thought about global warming/vaccination/evolution before, but suddenly and unexplainably I am now. And as I think about global warming/vaccination/evolution these innocent and valid questions arise and imma ask you about them.”
 
Then the conversation proceeds to go down hill. The individual was really an anti-vaxer, a creationist, or a climate change denier all along, but was just pretending to be a thoughtful person who never thought about this issue before and just has some innocent question.
 
But every single one of these questions is framed in terms of the anti or denial perspective, every “fact” noted and eventually adhered to is a discredited anti or denial meme, and even more amusingly, every statement made by this “innocent, curious” individual is the same exact statement made the last time a similar individual came along.
 
David Siegel is one of those individuals, only instead of showing up on a Facebook thread or in the comments section of a blog post, he went to medium.com where anybody can post their thoughts. He wrote a long and detailed post, the sort of effort one would normally be paid to write by an interested party or editor, that had many of the standard misrepresentations of science found in the denialist septic system. It is well done but essentially evil, because climate change truly is real and important. I do wonder what motivates a person like David Siegel to do something like this. He is clearly intelligent, and an intelligent person has to know when they are misrepresenting the science so badly, even if they don’t understand the science itself.

Now ask yourself, why is it that the proponents of warming alarmism resort so heavily to name calling? the "rebuttal" doesn't get much better from there.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on December 01, 2015, 09:54:18 AM
I thought this was a better rebuttal:

https://medium.com/@miriamob/climate-change-is-real-and-important-646b663adcf#.3xywvxlf5

I agree it's bad to call resort to name calling.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 01, 2015, 09:55:51 AM
I thought this was a better rebuttal:

https://medium.com/@miriamob/climate-change-is-real-and-important-646b663adcf#.3xywvxlf5

I agree it's bad to call resort to name calling.
thanks for reposting the stuff I posted 8 posts up.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 01, 2015, 09:57:11 AM
Honesty, you don't have it

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/10/29/climate-change-is-real-and-important-david-siegel/

I would encourage you to read Siegal's full essay, and then the piece you linked from Greg Laden. Maybe actually apply some critical thinking to the issue, as Siegal did.

This is how Mr. Laden starts his "rebuttal":

Quote
A week or so ago, I got a couple of emails and tweets about a blog post on Medium.com, an internet thing of which I had never heard. Apparently Medium.com is a big giant blog that anybody can go and blog their big giant thoughts on: like tumblr, but more bloggy.
 
Anyway, some dude by the name of David Siegel, Web Page Designer, posted a really long blog post about climate change on medium.com.
 
Have you ever been poking around on the Intertoobs, when somebody comes along and says, “Hey, I never really thought about global warming/vaccination/evolution before, but suddenly and unexplainably I am now. And as I think about global warming/vaccination/evolution these innocent and valid questions arise and imma ask you about them.”
 
Then the conversation proceeds to go down hill. The individual was really an anti-vaxer, a creationist, or a climate change denier all along, but was just pretending to be a thoughtful person who never thought about this issue before and just has some innocent question.
 
But every single one of these questions is framed in terms of the anti or denial perspective, every “fact” noted and eventually adhered to is a discredited anti or denial meme, and even more amusingly, every statement made by this “innocent, curious” individual is the same exact statement made the last time a similar individual came along.
 
David Siegel is one of those individuals, only instead of showing up on a Facebook thread or in the comments section of a blog post, he went to medium.com where anybody can post their thoughts. He wrote a long and detailed post, the sort of effort one would normally be paid to write by an interested party or editor, that had many of the standard misrepresentations of science found in the denialist septic system. It is well done but essentially evil, because climate change truly is real and important. I do wonder what motivates a person like David Siegel to do something like this. He is clearly intelligent, and an intelligent person has to know when they are misrepresenting the science so badly, even if they don’t understand the science itself.

Now ask yourself, why is it that the proponents of warming alarmism resort so heavily to name calling? the "rebuttal" doesn't get much better from there.

It's clear you decided not to read, and that's fine, but don't criticize others because of your failures.  The intro piece posted debunk's Dax claims that he was a AGW supporter and had a change of heart.  The second link dismantles his arguments.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on December 01, 2015, 10:12:05 AM
He makes good points, but they're pretty much captain obvious points to anyone who pays attention.

But with Western Gov't subsidization of "green" energy and climate research on a rocket ship ride to $1 trillion plus a year, who wouldn't want to hop on the gravy train?

To what tune does the govt subsidize oil?  How about farming?  Are we all being fooled by big oil and big Ag?  Is the science even in yet?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on December 01, 2015, 11:07:22 AM
I thought this was a better rebuttal:

https://medium.com/@miriamob/climate-change-is-real-and-important-646b663adcf#.3xywvxlf5

I agree it's bad to call resort to name calling.
thanks for reposting the stuff I posted 8 posts up.

It looked like a single link on tapatalk, and you're welcome
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 01, 2015, 12:06:53 PM
He makes good points, but they're pretty much captain obvious points to anyone who pays attention.

But with Western Gov't subsidization of "green" energy and climate research on a rocket ship ride to $1 trillion plus a year, who wouldn't want to hop on the gravy train?

To what tune does the govt subsidize oil?  How about farming?  Are we all being fooled by big oil and big Ag?  Is the science even in yet?

"Green Energy" to "save the world" subsidization and research funding is accelerating at 20% per year, fossil fuel subsidization is on similar percentile decline.

I also appreciate the president offering to toss money into a pot for 3rd world countries to mitigate what is nearly impossible to quantify or to even prove is actually happening at the hand one of singular scientific theory   :thumbsup:

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on December 01, 2015, 12:21:07 PM
Is your issue the science or the subsidies?  I mean, decline or not, oil subsidies surely dwarf green ones by, what, 10x?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 01, 2015, 12:21:54 PM
He makes good points, but they're pretty much captain obvious points to anyone who pays attention.

But with Western Gov't subsidization of "green" energy and climate research on a rocket ship ride to $1 trillion plus a year, who wouldn't want to hop on the gravy train?

To what tune does the govt subsidize oil?  How about farming?  Are we all being fooled by big oil and big Ag?  Is the science even in yet?

"Green Energy" to "save the world" subsidization and research funding is accelerating at 20% per year, fossil fuel subsidization is on similar percentile decline.

I also appreciate the president offering to toss money into a pot for 3rd world countries to mitigate what is nearly impossible to quantify or to even prove is actually happening at the hand one of singular scientific theory   :thumbsup:

Sounds pretty appropriate
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 01, 2015, 12:37:36 PM
Is your issue the science or the subsidies?  I mean, decline or not, oil subsidies surely dwarf green ones by, what, 10x?

Surely you are a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if you think oil subsidies dwarf green subsidies.

Oil "subsidies" largely come in the form of depletion and run about $8 billion per year.  AG subsidies I think run about $40-60 billion per year. Not sure, but I think society has a vested interest in maintaining a consistent food supply. We don't want to be WW1 russia, starving because there aren't any farmers. In 2013 Wind and Solar energy got about 65% (75% if you include nuclear) of all energy subsidies and made up about 4% of the power grid.

Basically, your preconceived notion is unfounded and incredibly ignorant. Maybe tune into less msnbc and thinkprogress.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 01, 2015, 12:40:13 PM
Oil and gas got about 5% of all energy subsidies during the same period.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on December 01, 2015, 12:47:25 PM
Obama is never wrong.  So how can his science be wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: lopakman on December 01, 2015, 12:50:38 PM
Is your issue the science or the subsidies?  I mean, decline or not, oil subsidies surely dwarf green ones by, what, 10x?

Surely you are a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if you think oil subsidies dwarf green subsidies.

Oil "subsidies" largely come in the form of depletion and run about $8 billion per year.  AG subsidies I think run about $40-60 billion per year. Not sure, but I think society has a vested interest in maintaining a consistent food supply. We don't want to be WW1 russia, starving because there aren't any farmers. In 2013 Wind and Solar energy got about 65% (75% if you include nuclear) of all energy subsidies and made up about 4% of the power grid.

Basically, your preconceived notion is unfounded and incredibly ignorant. Maybe tune into less msnbc and thinkprogress.

 :Wha:  FSD represent

(http://perfectlycursedlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/SNL-obama-dropping-mic.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on December 01, 2015, 01:32:20 PM
the theory that scientists pretty much only report that man-made climate change is taking place because of money is pretty fascinating. Like, wouldn't a scientist that can convince the scientific community that it was all a hoax be rich beyond their wildest dreams?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on December 01, 2015, 01:38:28 PM
Quote
Globally in 2013, the most recent figures available,the coal, oil and gas industries benefited from subsidies of $550bn, four times those given to renewable energy.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies

Quote
A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[27] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies in 2002–08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies


the largest renewable subsidies go to ethanol production, not wind or solar.  on the whole, it seems like the us subsidizes fossil fuel production less than the world as a whole does, but the wikipedia entry only discusses federal subsidies, not state subsidies.  per the guardian article, state subsidies appear numerous and substantial.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 01, 2015, 01:41:27 PM
Renewable energy only accounts for 13.2% of the grid in the US, so it does get a disproportional amount of federal subsidies.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 01, 2015, 01:50:19 PM
Renewable energy only accounts for 13.2% of the grid in the US, so it does get a disproportional amount of federal subsidies.

Good, it should be that way
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 01, 2015, 02:09:33 PM
the theory that scientists pretty much only report that man-made climate change is taking place because of money is pretty fascinating. Like, wouldn't a scientist that can convince the scientific community that it was all a hoax be rich beyond their wildest dreams?

How so?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on December 01, 2015, 02:13:12 PM


the theory that scientists pretty much only report that man-made climate change is taking place because of money is pretty fascinating. Like, wouldn't a scientist that can convince the scientific community that it was all a hoax be rich beyond their wildest dreams?

How so?

Corporations would be lining up to sponsor further research. Maybe not rich beyond their wildest dreams, but they would likely have all the research dollars they would ever need.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on December 01, 2015, 02:17:33 PM
Is your issue the science or the subsidies?  I mean, decline or not, oil subsidies surely dwarf green ones by, what, 10x?

Surely you are a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if you think oil subsidies dwarf green subsidies.

Oil "subsidies" largely come in the form of depletion and run about $8 billion per year.  AG subsidies I think run about $40-60 billion per year. Not sure, but I think society has a vested interest in maintaining a consistent food supply. We don't want to be WW1 russia, starving because there aren't any farmers. In 2013 Wind and Solar energy got about 65% (75% if you include nuclear) of all energy subsidies and made up about 4% of the power grid.

Basically, your preconceived notion is unfounded and incredibly ignorant. Maybe tune into less msnbc and thinkprogress.

Well, it's certainly a good thing that no one has gotten rich off of oil subsidies.  Pretty relieved. Keeps the convo honest.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on December 01, 2015, 02:19:28 PM
Renewable energy only accounts for 13.2% of the grid in the US, so it does get a disproportional amount of federal subsidies.

Oil is a pretty established thing.  I mean, you don't need to stimulate the R&D of the oil market.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on December 01, 2015, 02:21:03 PM
Quote
Globally in 2013, the most recent figures available,the coal, oil and gas industries benefited from subsidies of $550bn, four times those given to renewable energy.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies

Quote
A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[27] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies in 2002–08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies


the largest renewable subsidies go to ethanol production, not wind or solar.  on the whole, it seems like the us subsidizes fossil fuel production less than the world as a whole does, but the wikipedia entry only discusses federal subsidies, not state subsidies.  per the guardian article, state subsidies appear numerous and substantial.

Both of those studies are obvsly by researchers who are obvsly trying to get rich off of Big Data subsidies.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 01, 2015, 02:22:56 PM
I don't think there is enough incentive for corporations to invest huge amounts of money to disprove a hoax. They will simply pass the taxes on to consumers. The problem is the voice of the consumers is the one funding the hoax.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on December 01, 2015, 02:25:03 PM
I don't think there is enough incentive for corporations to invest huge amounts of money to disprove a hoax. They will simply pass the taxes on to consumers. The problem is the voice of the consumers is the one funding the hoax.


You think oil companies haven't funded their own studies on this? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 01, 2015, 02:27:27 PM
Renewable energy only accounts for 13.2% of the grid in the US, so it does get a disproportional amount of federal subsidies.

Oil is a pretty established thing.  I mean, you don't need to stimulate the R&D of the oil market.

Some oil subsidies fall under welfare programs to help poor people with their energy bills.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on December 01, 2015, 02:34:21 PM
I don't think there is enough incentive for corporations to invest huge amounts of money to disprove a hoax. They will simply pass the taxes on to consumers. The problem is the voice of the consumers is the one funding the hoax.

Yes, this is why they don't spend any money on lobbying, they're cool with just passing costs on to consumers.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 01, 2015, 02:35:24 PM
Quote
Globally in 2013, the most recent figures available,the coal, oil and gas industries benefited from subsidies of $550bn, four times those given to renewable energy.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies

Quote
A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[27] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies in 2002–08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies


the largest renewable subsidies go to ethanol production, not wind or solar.  on the whole, it seems like the us subsidizes fossil fuel production less than the world as a whole does, but the wikipedia entry only discusses federal subsidies, not state subsidies.  per the guardian article, state subsidies appear numerous and substantial.
:thumbs:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on December 01, 2015, 02:36:36 PM
here's a good read:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 01, 2015, 02:36:56 PM
I don't think there is enough incentive for corporations to invest huge amounts of money to disprove a hoax. They will simply pass the taxes on to consumers. The problem is the voice of the consumers is the one funding the hoax.


You think oil companies haven't funded their own studies on this?

Yeah, there was one.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 01, 2015, 02:36:57 PM
the only way the denier's system works is if you reject the scientific method. in fact any use of the scientific method they see as a reason to reject the main hypothesis (see Dax ranting with unethical sources about the adjustment to temp data).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 01, 2015, 02:38:05 PM
I don't think there is enough incentive for corporations to invest huge amounts of money to disprove a hoax. They will simply pass the taxes on to consumers. The problem is the voice of the consumers is the one funding the hoax.

Yes, this is why they don't spend any money on lobbying, they're cool with just passing costs on to consumers.

I don't think they have consumers in mind when they are lobbying.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on December 01, 2015, 03:15:12 PM
the only way the denier's system works is if you reject the scientific method. in fact any use of the scientific method they see as a reason to reject the main hypothesis (see Dax ranting with unethical sources about the adjustment to temp data).

I think questioning the application of the scientific method is applicable.  For example poor application gave us predictions that NYC would be underwater right now, which obviously is not the case.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 01, 2015, 03:31:51 PM
I thought this was a better rebuttal:

https://medium.com/@miriamob/climate-change-is-real-and-important-646b663adcf#.3xywvxlf5

I agree it's bad to call resort to name calling.

Ha, bloggers calling out a blogger for just being a blogger.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 01, 2015, 03:49:01 PM
Renewable energy only accounts for 13.2% of the grid in the US, so it does get a disproportional amount of federal subsidies.

Oil is a pretty established thing.  I mean, you don't need to stimulate the R&D of the oil market.

Incredibly ignorant comment considering the technological advances made in O&G in the last decade as compared to wind energy

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on December 01, 2015, 03:49:25 PM
Ha, bloggers calling out a blogger for just being a blogger.

yeah, pretty funny.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 01, 2015, 03:56:06 PM
Quote
Globally in 2013, the most recent figures available,the coal, oil and gas industries benefited from subsidies of $550bn, four times those given to renewable energy.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies

Quote
A 2009 study by the Environmental Law Institute[27] assessed the size and structure of U.S. energy subsidies in 2002–08. The study estimated that subsidies to fossil fuel-based sources totaled about $72 billion over this period and subsidies to renewable fuel sources totaled $29 billion. The study did not assess subsidies supporting nuclear energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies


the largest renewable subsidies go to ethanol production, not wind or solar.  on the whole, it seems like the us subsidizes fossil fuel production less than the world as a whole does, but the wikipedia entry only discusses federal subsidies, not state subsidies.  per the guardian article, state subsidies appear numerous and substantial.

The 2008 data would be beyond stale as renewable energy credits, particularly wind energy, have expanded exponentially since then, as have state subsidies.  Global subsidies are obviously skewed/unreliable due to the fact that States control mineral rights everywhere but here, not to mention OPEC countries. The information I provided is from the EIA, not some think tank.

But thanks for the red herrings.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 01, 2015, 03:59:22 PM
here's a good read:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Some obscure interofiice memo where ExxonMobil acknowledges a risk that carbon output will be regulated in the future does not mean ExxonMobil tried to cover up climate change.  Good grief, that is bad.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on December 01, 2015, 04:00:35 PM
With the EPA raising their fuel standards again, get ready for worse fuel mileage that is "offset" by a decrease in CO2/GHG emissions and a "renewable" resource (corn).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on December 01, 2015, 04:01:01 PM
The information I provided is from the EIA.

link it up.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 01, 2015, 04:01:21 PM
the only way the denier's system works is if you reject the scientific method. in fact any use of the scientific method they see as a reason to reject the main hypothesis (see Dax ranting with unethical sources about the adjustment to temp data).

are you familiar with the phrase "garbage in, garbage out"?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2015, 06:43:57 PM
the only way the denier's system works is if you reject the scientific method. in fact any use of the scientific method they see as a reason to reject the main hypothesis (see Dax ranting with unethical sources about the adjustment to temp data).

:lol: Reject the scientific method? The warmist hypotheses are post #1 of this thread. They're not doing so hot. Hardly settled science. Just admit it, you didn't even read the essay I linked.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 01, 2015, 06:45:31 PM
In EDN Warmist Propagandist Agendist Economy Killer world, anyone who doesn't wholly buy into the propaganda is unethical.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 01, 2015, 07:32:44 PM
In EDN Warmist Propagandist Agendist Economy Killer world, anyone who doesn't wholly buy into the propaganda is unethical.

which do you think will have longer negative impacts on the economy
1) clean energy and long term prosperity
or
2) the death of humanity
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 01, 2015, 07:35:20 PM
In EDN Warmist Propagandist Agendist Economy Killer world, anyone who doesn't wholly buy into the propaganda is unethical.

which do you think will have longer negative impacts on the economy
1) clean energy and long term prosperity
or
2) the death of humanity

Complete strawman.   Where have I said we shouldn't gradually be moving towards cleaner energy.?  Warmist Scarist Propaganda has no room in this discussion.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on December 01, 2015, 07:55:04 PM
it's going to be ok EDN, I promise. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2015, 08:17:54 PM
In EDN Warmist Propagandist Agendist Economy Killer world, anyone who doesn't wholly buy into the propaganda is unethical.

which do you think will have longer negative impacts on the economy
1) clean energy and long term prosperity
or
2) the death of humanity

It's just so hilariously over the top! :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on December 03, 2015, 01:18:13 PM
Where have I said we shouldn't gradually be moving towards cleaner energy.?

Where is there any evidence that we need to be concerned about the "cleanliness" of energy use?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 03, 2015, 01:29:28 PM
the only way the denier's system works is if you reject the scientific method. in fact any use of the scientific method they see as a reason to reject the main hypothesis (see Dax ranting with unethical sources about the adjustment to temp data).

I think questioning the application of the scientific method is applicable.  For example poor application gave us predictions that NYC would be underwater right now, which obviously is not the case.

I totally agree questioning the method is acceptable.  But the only way for Dax or KSUW's systems to work is to reject the method entirely when you re-evaluate your measurements and adjust your theories and hypothesis.  They see adjusting the measurements of temps as justifications to reject the entire method, rather than an improvement and logical outcome of "good" science.  See their rejection of AGW et al because the scientists found better, more accurate ways to measure temps.  They toss out the entire system instead of finding fault with the method's various components and outcomes.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 03, 2015, 01:34:40 PM
Where have I said we shouldn't gradually be moving towards cleaner energy.?

Where is there any evidence that we need to be concerned about the "cleanliness" of energy use?
cancer clusters?
being able to set water on fire?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 03, 2015, 03:01:11 PM
The problem you have Whack-A-Doodle is that you're just hyperactive knee jerk reactionary.   You immediately dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with your screeds as liars.

The fact that the warmist alarmist community protests so much when anyone dares question them, pretty much tells anyone with a brain (that would exclude you) all they need to know.    For example there's a lot of very smart people who very good with numbers who are calling out the manipulation of data that is taking place to create a false narrative, and the the people behind the manipulation don't like it, because they're in the game of self perpetuation.   

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 03, 2015, 03:13:00 PM
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/12/Truth-about-China.pdf

China, giving no effs about the world savers

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 03, 2015, 03:18:26 PM
The problem you have Whack-A-Doodle is that you're just hyperactive knee jerk reactionary.   You immediately dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with your screeds as liars.

The fact that the warmist alarmist community protests so much when anyone dares question them, pretty much tells anyone with a brain (that would exclude you) all they need to know.    For example there's a lot of very smart people who very good with numbers who are calling out the manipulation of data that is taking place to create a false narrative, and the the people behind the manipulation don't like it, because they're in the game of self perpetuation.

I've asked for real scientific data that disproves their's.  The best you've managed are shifting histograms which compare the shift in temp datas which are readily acknowledged as updated info. Find me real credible sources with real credible problems with data sets.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on December 03, 2015, 03:50:50 PM
The problem you have Whack-A-Doodle is that you're just hyperactive knee jerk reactionary.   You immediately dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with your screeds as liars.

The fact that the warmist alarmist community protests so much when anyone dares question them, pretty much tells anyone with a brain (that would exclude you) all they need to know.    For example there's a lot of very smart people who very good with numbers who are calling out the manipulation of data that is taking place to create a false narrative, and the the people behind the manipulation don't like it, because they're in the game of self perpetuation.

I've asked for real scientific data that disproves their's.  The best you've managed are shifting histograms which compare the shift in temp datas which are readily acknowledged as updated info. Find me real credible sources with real credible problems with data sets.

Is the fact that NYC isn't underwater "real scientific data" ?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on December 03, 2015, 04:08:22 PM

The problem you have Whack-A-Doodle is that you're just hyperactive knee jerk reactionary.   You immediately dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with your screeds as liars.

The fact that the warmist alarmist community protests so much when anyone dares question them, pretty much tells anyone with a brain (that would exclude you) all they need to know.    For example there's a lot of very smart people who very good with numbers who are calling out the manipulation of data that is taking place to create a false narrative, and the the people behind the manipulation don't like it, because they're in the game of self perpetuation.

I've asked for real scientific data that disproves their's.  The best you've managed are shifting histograms which compare the shift in temp datas which are readily acknowledged as updated info. Find me real credible sources with real credible problems with data sets.
I think this is stupid. Bad science does not have to be disproved with good science. Bad science is just bad science.


Gonna win 'em all!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CHONGS on December 03, 2015, 05:00:15 PM

The problem you have Whack-A-Doodle is that you're just hyperactive knee jerk reactionary.   You immediately dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with your screeds as liars.

The fact that the warmist alarmist community protests so much when anyone dares question them, pretty much tells anyone with a brain (that would exclude you) all they need to know.    For example there's a lot of very smart people who very good with numbers who are calling out the manipulation of data that is taking place to create a false narrative, and the the people behind the manipulation don't like it, because they're in the game of self perpetuation.

I've asked for real scientific data that disproves their's.  The best you've managed are shifting histograms which compare the shift in temp datas which are readily acknowledged as updated info. Find me real credible sources with real credible problems with data sets.
I think this is stupid. Bad science does not have to be disproved with good science. Bad science is just bad science.


Gonna win 'em all!
If we can keep this separate from climate change (yeah right with this crew...) I think I would have to probably disagree with you dobber. Maybe we can start a new topic in BWWFSOB about this.  I am not sure how you are defining "bad" in this sense tho.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on December 03, 2015, 05:03:36 PM
yeah, i agree with chingon.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 04, 2015, 09:38:27 AM

The problem you have Whack-A-Doodle is that you're just hyperactive knee jerk reactionary.   You immediately dismiss anybody who doesn't agree with your screeds as liars.

The fact that the warmist alarmist community protests so much when anyone dares question them, pretty much tells anyone with a brain (that would exclude you) all they need to know.    For example there's a lot of very smart people who very good with numbers who are calling out the manipulation of data that is taking place to create a false narrative, and the the people behind the manipulation don't like it, because they're in the game of self perpetuation.

I've asked for real scientific data that disproves their's.  The best you've managed are shifting histograms which compare the shift in temp datas which are readily acknowledged as updated info. Find me real credible sources with real credible problems with data sets.
I think this is stupid. Bad science does not have to be disproved with good science. Bad science is just bad science.


Gonna win 'em all!

I guess well have to judge the 97% on a new metric than.....

Also this is the same issue that Dax or KSUW have in this debate. You can't just fiat the science you disagree with as being "bad."  You have to deconstruct their system and point out its flaws.  When they update their system that isn't an example of the science being bad, its actually an example of it being "good" science.  Their outcomes, metrics, or measurements might be bad, but that isn't necessarily an indictment of their methodology/science.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 04, 2015, 11:01:45 AM
How difficult is it to read the numbers on a thermometer and put those into your model? How do you see the numbers and go "that can't be right, it must have been 5 degrees hotter. let's adjust all of the readings by 5 degrees." BOOM hottest year on record!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on December 04, 2015, 12:39:01 PM
cancer clusters?
being able to set water on fire?

Water on fire was a hoax...

http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/07/fracking-victim-sued-defamation-prove-water-flammable/

...and we do not know what causes cancer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 04, 2015, 12:56:39 PM
Their are people have monitored with great zeal how the past was systematically made cooler by NOAA and NASA. 

This isn't about better science.   This is about manipulation.  No WhackaDoodle ProgLib screed is going to change that reality.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 04, 2015, 12:59:13 PM
Also, the 97% meme is well established bullshit.

I really think Edna's account has been hacked, because this level of dopey can't be real
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 04, 2015, 02:00:44 PM
Also, the 97% meme is well established bullshit.


There has to be a bunch of qualifiers to that number that have been long forgotten.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 04, 2015, 02:38:03 PM
How difficult is it to read the numbers on a thermometer and put those into your model? How do you see the numbers and go "that can't be right, it must have been 5 degrees hotter. let's adjust all of the readings by 5 degrees." BOOM hottest year on record!

They're mainly doing it reverse, going back several decades and adjusting those temps down, which makes the recent years look warmer by comparison.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 04, 2015, 02:44:49 PM
How difficult is it to read the numbers on a thermometer and put those into your model? How do you see the numbers and go "that can't be right, it must have been 5 degrees hotter. let's adjust all of the readings by 5 degrees." BOOM hottest year on record!

They're mainly doing it reverse, going back several decades and adjusting those temps down, which makes the recent years look warmer by comparison.

Are the temps getting adjusted measured or interpolated?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 04, 2015, 03:40:02 PM
People are asking for the data they're using to make these adjustments via FOIA, and getting stonewalled (as per usual), there's also internal whistle blowers coming forward saying the latest report was rushed and not correct.

They simply don't want third parties analyzing their data . . . this has been a regular occurrence with the government funded warmist alarmist politicized propagandist scientists.   They know as long as they keep saying the earth is getting warmer, the funding is going to continue rolling in.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on December 04, 2015, 08:52:37 PM
Throughout human history, major scientific advancements have always been embraced by mankind regardless of political affiliation. For example, when the light bulb replaced candles, there wasn't one political party screaming that we had to stay with candles or all mankind would perish. Same with the car replacing the horse and cell phones replacing landlines more recently. Due to the innovation, EVERYBODY ran toward the light to enjoy the advance in technology.

On global warming, there is no innovation.  The political left theorizes that carbon dioxide is the control knob of the planet's atmospheric temperature and their solution is to essentially tax air - carbon use to be more specific, and force us back into inefficient energy sources - wind and solar and away from fossil fuels.

The political right says there is no problem, the environment is no different than it has been for man's 100+ years of new age productivity (against 4.5 billion years of earth's age - the arrogance!) and  any efforts to hold man's innovation and progress back is wasted effort in improving our lives in meaningful ways during our short time we all spend on this orb.

Seems pretty simple what's going on when you think about it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 04, 2015, 09:47:55 PM
The planet is fine, the people are mumped
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on December 04, 2015, 09:58:52 PM
Throughout human history, major scientific advancements have always been embraced by mankind regardless of political affiliation. For example, when the light bulb replaced candles, there wasn't one political party screaming that we had to stay with candles or all mankind would perish. Same with the car replacing the horse and cell phones replacing landlines more recently. Due to the innovation, EVERYBODY ran toward the light to enjoy the advance in technology.

On global warming, there is no innovation.  The political left theorizes that carbon dioxide is the control knob of the planet's atmospheric temperature and their solution is to essentially tax air - carbon use to be more specific, and force us back into inefficient energy sources - wind and solar and away from fossil fuels.

The political right says there is no problem, the environment is no different than it has been for man's 100+ years of new age productivity (against 4.5 billion years of earth's age - the arrogance!) and  any efforts to hold man's innovation and progress back is wasted effort in improving our lives in meaningful ways during our short time we all spend on this orb.

Seems pretty simple what's going on when you think about it.

it's just like with the national debt.  if it ever becomes a problem, necessity will spawn the needed invention.  it's simply foolish to worry about. it.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on December 05, 2015, 12:09:10 AM
it's just like with the national debt.  if it ever becomes a problem, necessity will spawn the needed invention.  it's simply foolish to worry about. it.

Debt (out of control entitlement spending with no foreseeable means for funding it) is not an innovation.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on December 05, 2015, 01:22:36 AM
of course not.  it's as old as money itself.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 07, 2015, 01:03:08 PM
The lunatic in charge of climate policy at the UN said that a climate compact is essential to ending poverty, among other things.

What nonsensical piece of rhetoric is this a reference to? It makes no sense on its face.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 07, 2015, 02:13:57 PM
cancer clusters?
being able to set water on fire?

Water on fire was a hoax...

http://ecowatch.com/2013/11/07/fracking-victim-sued-defamation-prove-water-flammable/

...and we do not know what causes cancer.

you might actually be disabled.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 07, 2015, 02:15:34 PM
Throughout human history, major scientific advancements have always been embraced by mankind regardless of political affiliation. For example, when the light bulb replaced candles, there wasn't one political party screaming that we had to stay with candles or all mankind would perish. Same with the car replacing the horse and cell phones replacing landlines more recently. Due to the innovation, EVERYBODY ran toward the light to enjoy the advance in technology.

On global warming, there is no innovation.  The political left theorizes that carbon dioxide is the control knob of the planet's atmospheric temperature and their solution is to essentially tax air - carbon use to be more specific, and force us back into inefficient energy sources - wind and solar and away from fossil fuels.

The political right says there is no problem, the environment is no different than it has been for man's 100+ years of new age productivity (against 4.5 billion years of earth's age - the arrogance!) and  any efforts to hold man's innovation and progress back is wasted effort in improving our lives in meaningful ways during our short time we all spend on this orb.

Seems pretty simple what's going on when you think about it.
stopped reading when you pegged it only at C02
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 07, 2015, 02:18:29 PM
How difficult is it to read the numbers on a thermometer and put those into your model? How do you see the numbers and go "that can't be right, it must have been 5 degrees hotter. let's adjust all of the readings by 5 degrees." BOOM hottest year on record!

They're mainly doing it reverse, going back several decades and adjusting those temps down, which makes the recent years look warmer by comparison.

yeah, it's called science.  please read any of the scholarly articles where they go on for pages on how they are adjusting, what their measurement techniques actually are, and why it matters for the process.



Their are people have monitored with great zeal how the past was systematically made cooler by NOAA and NASA. 

This isn't about better science.   This is about manipulation.  No WhackaDoodle ProgLib screed is going to change that reality.

Sorry but you have yet to provide ANY scientific article on how these shifts are bad science.  The best you have is a trash conspiracy theory website that shows altering histogram gifs as "proof". 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 07, 2015, 02:34:08 PM
Please point me to official statements about why these adjustments are scientifically valid.   I'm sure they'll be a rebuttal to each one of them.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 07, 2015, 02:36:11 PM
How difficult is it to read the numbers on a thermometer and put those into your model? How do you see the numbers and go "that can't be right, it must have been 5 degrees hotter. let's adjust all of the readings by 5 degrees." BOOM hottest year on record!

They're mainly doing it reverse, going back several decades and adjusting those temps down, which makes the recent years look warmer by comparison.

yeah, it's called science.  please read any of the scholarly articles where they go on for pages on how they are adjusting, what their measurement techniques actually are, and why it matters for the process.

(http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/yeah_science_breaking_bad.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 07, 2015, 03:35:27 PM
The lunatic in charge of climate policy at the UN said that a climate compact is essential to ending poverty, among other things.

What nonsensical piece of rhetoric is this a reference to? It makes no sense on its face.

Just additional proof it's about increasing taxes more than increasing temperatures.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on December 07, 2015, 05:05:59 PM
The lunatic in charge of climate policy at the UN said that a climate compact is essential to ending poverty, among other things.

What nonsensical piece of rhetoric is this a reference to? It makes no sense on its face.

TRANSLATION: "We can't justify wealth redistribution on its face alone - not enough public support - but we can if we fool people into thinking it's to  save the planet."
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 07, 2015, 06:15:07 PM
The lunatic in charge of climate policy at the UN said that a climate compact is essential to ending poverty, among other things.

What nonsensical piece of rhetoric is this a reference to? It makes no sense on its face.

TRANSLATION: "We can't justify wealth redistribution on its face alone - not enough public support - but we can if we fool people into thinking it's to  save the planet."

 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 07, 2015, 07:39:03 PM
Lol at CPLJB LOL
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 07, 2015, 07:46:55 PM
That doesn't surprise me. I also heard comments regarding remuneration for countries that lost land to rising sea levels. It relied upon lol levels of conjecture and, unsurprisingly, the US was to pay the most despite having far and away more shoreline than the beneficiary countries.

What a sham
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2015, 08:39:23 AM
Hillary announced a proposed tax policy today. If there's an old factory in your town that closes, you can get a tax credit if you find people to reopen it. Sounds like a great way to curb carbon emissions. As we all know, old plants are usually super efficient.

Also, obligatory "corporate slave" post
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 08, 2015, 08:42:19 AM
Man, she's such a far left wing wackadoodle
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on December 08, 2015, 08:51:22 AM
I think she's just a lying snake of a bitch.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2015, 09:05:09 AM
Obv. How many incongruent positions can one person take?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on December 08, 2015, 09:30:57 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/asia/china-beijing-pollution-red-alert/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/asia/china-beijing-pollution-red-alert/)

Does this play into the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 08, 2015, 09:50:33 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/asia/china-beijing-pollution-red-alert/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/asia/china-beijing-pollution-red-alert/)

Does this play into the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet?

Regresocon utopia.

My cousin lives there and has told me the air he breaths daily is equal to smoking 2 packs a day. Amazing that regresocons want that for the US
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 10:01:19 AM
You guys realize that smog is different than carbon dioxide, right? Carbon dioxide is that odorless, tasteless, invisible stuff coming out of your body right now - the stuff plants need to survive. Smog is particulate air pollution, basically smoke + fog.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: cfbandyman on December 08, 2015, 10:54:45 AM
You guys realize that smog is different than carbon dioxide, right? Carbon dioxide is that odorless, tasteless, invisible stuff coming out of your body right now - the stuff plants need to survive. Smog is particulate air pollution, basically smoke + fog.

The source of it all though is coal plants, so plenty of CO2 happily spewing into the atmosphere, in addition to all the particulate.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 11:38:12 AM
You guys realize that smog is different than carbon dioxide, right? Carbon dioxide is that odorless, tasteless, invisible stuff coming out of your body right now - the stuff plants need to survive. Smog is particulate air pollution, basically smoke + fog.

The source of it all though is coal plants, so plenty of CO2 happily spewing into the atmosphere, in addition to all the particulate.

Ok, but you can curb particulate air pollution without necessarily curbing CO2 emissions. This is an important distinction. To suggest that reducing CO2 emissions is necessary for "cleaner air" is idiotic.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 08, 2015, 12:07:10 PM
It's great the neocons here think CO2 is the only thing to worry about in all this.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on December 08, 2015, 12:12:30 PM
You guys realize that smog is different than carbon dioxide, right? Carbon dioxide is that odorless, tasteless, invisible stuff coming out of your body right now - the stuff plants need to survive. Smog is particulate air pollution, basically smoke + fog.

The source of it all though is coal plants, so plenty of CO2 happily spewing into the atmosphere, in addition to all the particulate.

Ok, but you can curb particulate air pollution without necessarily curbing CO2 emissions. This is an important distinction. To suggest that reducing CO2 emissions is necessary for "cleaner air" is idiotic.
Why don't any republicans support/propose ways to make air cleaner (without curtailing CO2 emissions)? Maybe they have and just aren't very proud of it?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2015, 12:19:36 PM
Two points and I'll listen off air:

1) the overwhelming majority of rhetoric on climate change is centered on CO2

2) Particulate matter is already regulated well in the US, so I'm guessing the Pubs don't see a need to regulate it again (I understand this concept will be difficult to comprehend for the libtard). It's the libtards who want to regulate co2, not the pubs ting to unregulate actual pollution.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 08, 2015, 12:20:43 PM
Clean air is just too much of a burden for America's businesses
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2015, 12:24:17 PM
I mean, half the libtards on this board think co2 is poisonous, and they're all inhaling and exhaling it at this very moment.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 08, 2015, 12:27:07 PM
Two points and I'll listen off air:

1) the overwhelming majority of rhetoric on climate change is centered on CO2

2) Particulate matter is already regulated well in the US, so I'm guessing the Pubs don't see a need to regulate it again (I understand this concept will be difficult to comprehend for the libtard). It's the libtards who want to regulate co2, not the pubs ting to unregulate actual pollution.

Thats because CO2 is one of the gases we are producing the most of, which we can attack the fastest. 

Also this will soon be another reason for you guys to discount climate change, but lets get this on the board now. 
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/13/methane-release-from-melting-permafrost-could-trigger-dangerous-global-warming
Methane is another gas that we don't really account for right now.  Dax will say it's an example of CC being false, when in reality it's another aspect that we don't fully understand and the science is still learning to deal with.  This is part of the reason why those "minor" incremental changes matter.  Things like permafrost need to be within a certain range, 1 or 2 degrees above that and they melt, causing more variables for us to deal with. 

Also if your party had it's way, there would be no regulation of anything in the air since you want to abolish the EPA....so please don't stand on the shoulders of people who want clean air when you're getting ready to stab them in the back.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2015, 12:30:15 PM
You are the idiot who posted this.
It's great the neocons here think CO2 is the only thing to worry about in all this.

I think the party just want to demilitarize the epa, not abort it. But, thanks for the Wack-a-doodle allegation.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 08, 2015, 12:32:28 PM
You are the idiot who posted this.
It's great the neocons here think CO2 is the only thing to worry about in all this.

I think the party just want to demilitarize the epa, not abort it. But, thanks for the Wack-a-doodle allegation.
weird since, just about every, Pub candidate wants to destroy the EPA.....
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on December 08, 2015, 12:32:30 PM
I mean, half the libtards on this board think co2 is poisonous, and they're all inhaling and exhaling it at this very moment.
CO2 is absolutely poisonous
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 08, 2015, 12:33:06 PM
Regresocons def want to abort the epa (and fda), not sure how you can deny that with a straight face
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 08, 2015, 12:44:26 PM
PLJB's think all climate problems begin and end with theoretical CO2 issues EDN.   You're hilarious.

PLJB's are all for EPA policy being made by special interest and via sue and settle fraud(s).   

ProgLib JackBoots are on the march!



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2015, 12:46:58 PM
I mean, half the libtards on this board think co2 is poisonous, and they're all inhaling and exhaling it at this very moment.
CO2 is absolutely poisonous

About as poisonous as oxygen is
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 08, 2015, 12:54:52 PM
God damn jackboots giving us clean air and clean water. Oh regresocons, free me from these regulatory bonds!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on December 08, 2015, 12:55:16 PM
Water is poisonous.  What isn't poisonous?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2015, 12:59:49 PM
Well then, we should curtail and tax production of water and oxygen.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2015, 01:05:45 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/asia/china-beijing-pollution-red-alert/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/asia/china-beijing-pollution-red-alert/)

Does this play into the natural warming/cooling cycles of the planet?

Regresocon utopia.

My cousin lives there and has told me the air he breaths daily is equal to smoking 2 packs a day. Amazing that regresocons want that for the US

It should be noted again, that this patently idiotic and ignorant commentary started this subsequent idiotic dialogue. And none of the resident libtards identified how stupid the above comments are, which, in my book, makes them stupid ny association.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 01:09:23 PM
This discussion took a hilarious turn. There are people here who honestly didn't know the difference bw CO2 and smog.

They also apparently don't know that we've had the Clean Air Act of 1990 since... 1990. Which appropriately focused on reducing harmful particulate air pollution. At least until 2011, when the EPA added CO2 by regulation. Because "climate change."

Hey libtards. If you want to talk CO2 and climate change, fine. Just don't wrap it in the mantle of "clean air." That's rough ridin' stupid.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2015, 01:10:39 PM
So, libtards think global warming is causing smog in a city in china. #partyofscience
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on December 08, 2015, 01:14:34 PM
This discussion took a hilarious turn. There are people here who honestly didn't know the difference bw CO2 and smog.

They also apparently don't know that we've had the Clean Air Act of 1990 since... 1990. Which appropriately focused on reducing harmful particulate air pollution. At least until 2011, when the EPA added CO2 by regulation. Because "climate change."

Hey libtards. If you want to talk CO2 and climate change, fine. Just don't wrap it in the mantle of "clean air." That's rough ridin' stupid.

No one thinks that.  also, the link was in china, not in US.  Climate change is being discussed as a global problem, btw.  Pollution goes somewhere, other than what gets sucked up by the inhabitants(LOL, apparently). 

Reframe how you wish. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 08, 2015, 01:15:08 PM
Look at this regresocon meltdown, my goodness  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 01:21:19 PM
Guys, I stand corrected. Apparently we've got a real problem with CO2 polluting our air. We have to clean up our air, pronto. STOP CO2!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 01:23:17 PM
Really though, I think the alarming level of dihydrogen monoxide routinely found in our municpal water supplies is of greater concern.

(http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/if-dihydrogen-monoxide-can-rust-these-pipes-just-imagine-what-its-doing-to-your-insides.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 08, 2015, 01:26:04 PM
Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on December 08, 2015, 01:27:11 PM
Really though, I think the alarming level of dihydrogen monoxide routinely found in our municpal water supplies is of greater concern.

(http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/if-dihydrogen-monoxide-can-rust-these-pipes-just-imagine-what-its-doing-to-your-insides.jpg)

The dihydrogen monoxide stunt that kid pulled was pretty great. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 01:27:35 PM
Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2015, 01:39:16 PM
The libtards are really tilting a windmill with this co2 smog stuff.  Ignorance/insanity is bliss, I suppose.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 01:46:11 PM
Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

CO2 gets toxic when it gets to about 3% (that's 3 whole perctage points - not the 1/100th of a percent mentioned above).

Are you guys following the math? So basically, I'll be Ok in Edna's sealed room. I'm more likely to die of drought, starving polar bears, skin cancer, terrorism, or any of the other things blamed on global warming.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 08, 2015, 02:13:21 PM
Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 08, 2015, 02:17:11 PM
 :ROFL:Look at PLJB logic . . . wanting highly unethical and probably illegal sue and settle that is done by the EPA in conjunction with special interests stopped ='s no clean air or water.

PLJB logic!!

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 02:23:16 PM
Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 08, 2015, 02:38:47 PM
Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CHONGS on December 08, 2015, 03:13:44 PM
gE is having all sorts of trouble with percents this week

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentage_point
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2015, 03:15:39 PM
Since the sum of percents must equal 100% we probably need to figure out what .1% of atmospheric gas has been displaced by co2. That could also be causing climate change!!!!! :Rusty:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 03:46:58 PM
Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.

You're either being dense or quibbling over semantics. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1/100th of 1 percent, from .03% to .04%. That's a 33% increase in CO2, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has only increased by 0.01%.

Which number is more relevant. Hint: a 33% increase in a really tiny number is still a really tiny number.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 08, 2015, 04:20:30 PM
what neocons think they're doing
(https://media.giphy.com/media/A5XxdDspz4o92/giphy.gif)
(http://admissions.winonastateu.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/outline.gif)
Reality
(https://media.giphy.com/media/JIX9t2j0ZTN9S/giphy.gif)


But oh man, you guys really turned the CO2 thing around on everyone.  What skilled posts!!!! :Woot: :Woot:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 04:25:35 PM
And Edna taps out, but points for such an adorable cat! :love:

Ok, now that we've put these smog/CO2 and percentage of CO2 dumbasseries to rest, what's the next hysteria?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 08, 2015, 04:34:41 PM
Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.

You're either being dense or quibbling over semantics. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1/100th of 1 percent, from .03% to .04%. That's a 33% increase in CO2, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has only increased by 0.01%.

Which number is more relevant. Hint: a 33% increase in a really tiny number is still a really tiny number.

It's increased by .01 pp, or 33%. There is a big difference there because percentages are unit-less and coming up with the difference in percentage points that CO2 constitutes in the atmosphere gives you a number that means nothing at all. It's like saying the decline of the blue whale is insignificant because it made up far less than 1% of all oceanic life in the first place.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 04:46:04 PM
Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.

You're either being dense or quibbling over semantics. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1/100th of 1 percent, from .03% to .04%. That's a 33% increase in CO2, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has only increased by 0.01%.

Which number is more relevant. Hint: a 33% increase in a really tiny number is still a really tiny number.

It's increased by .01 pp, or 33%. There is a big difference there because percentages are unit-less and coming up with the difference in percentage points that CO2 constitutes in the atmosphere gives you a number that means nothing at all. It's like saying the decline of the blue whale is insignificant because it made up far less than 1% of all oceanic life in the first place.

Well if a problem was being blamed on the number of blue whales in the ocean.... then yes, it would be like that. I didn't think you were this libtarded!

Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 08, 2015, 04:51:46 PM
Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.

You're either being dense or quibbling over semantics. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1/100th of 1 percent, from .03% to .04%. That's a 33% increase in CO2, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has only increased by 0.01%.

Which number is more relevant. Hint: a 33% increase in a really tiny number is still a really tiny number.

It's increased by .01 pp, or 33%. There is a big difference there because percentages are unit-less and coming up with the difference in percentage points that CO2 constitutes in the atmosphere gives you a number that means nothing at all. It's like saying the decline of the blue whale is insignificant because it made up far less than 1% of all oceanic life in the first place.

Well if a problem was being blamed on the number of blue whales in the ocean.... then yes, it would be like that. I didn't think you were this libtarded!

Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.

Is it a tiny number? .01% of a very large number might still be a very large number.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CHONGS on December 08, 2015, 04:54:09 PM
I posted a very informative wikipedia link.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 08, 2015, 04:58:33 PM
Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.

You're either being dense or quibbling over semantics. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1/100th of 1 percent, from .03% to .04%. That's a 33% increase in CO2, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has only increased by 0.01%.

Which number is more relevant. Hint: a 33% increase in a really tiny number is still a really tiny number.

It's increased by .01 pp, or 33%. There is a big difference there because percentages are unit-less and coming up with the difference in percentage points that CO2 constitutes in the atmosphere gives you a number that means nothing at all. It's like saying the decline of the blue whale is insignificant because it made up far less than 1% of all oceanic life in the first place.

Well if a problem was being blamed on the number of blue whales in the ocean.... then yes, it would be like that. I didn't think you were this libtarded!

Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.

Is it a tiny number? .01% of a very large number might still be a very large number.

I don't think they understand how numbers work.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on December 08, 2015, 05:03:43 PM
Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.

"pfft, that's not a 10x dose of morphine.  here look at the label, there's 5 mg in this ml, and 50 mg in this one, just a 4.5% difference."   :drool:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on December 08, 2015, 06:22:17 PM
This idea of rich countries paying poor countries is bullshit,though.  Straight to corrupt pockets would be my guess.

Sent from my SM-P607T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 07:03:40 PM
Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.

"pfft, that's not a 10x dose of morphine.  here look at the label, there's 5 mg in this ml, and 50 mg in this one, just a 4.5% difference."   :drool:

What are you even talking about?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on December 08, 2015, 07:08:59 PM
Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.

"pfft, that's not a 10x dose of morphine.  here look at the label, there's 5 mg in this ml, and 50 mg in this one, just a 4.5% difference."   :drool:

What are you even talking about?

i was making fun of you.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: michigancat on December 08, 2015, 07:09:12 PM
lol I thought you claimed to be good at math, K-S-U
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on December 08, 2015, 07:10:23 PM
Some of you would have benefited from clicking Ching's link.


Gonna win 'em all!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Tobias on December 08, 2015, 07:14:17 PM
what a delightful turn
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on December 08, 2015, 07:17:40 PM
Lol. Should have an interesting deflection strategy forthcoming.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 08:23:04 PM
Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks.

How much has CO2 content increased in our atmosphere? I'd be willing to release a similar increase into a sealed room. I'll prolly be fine.

Ok, I just looked it up on the Google, and apparently the atmosphere is currently about .04% CO2 (that's 4/100s of 1 percent). Around 1800, the atmosphere was about .03% CO2 (that's 3/100s of a 1 percent). So a 1/100 of 1 percent increase.

That's a 33% increase.

Yes, that's a much scarier sounding number. But as a percentage of the atmosphere, which was the point of Edna's silly little exercise, we're talking an increase of 1/100 of 1 percent. By the way, this increase is supposedly what's causing "climate change."

No, as a percentage of the atmosphere, we're talking an increase of 33%.

You're either being dense or quibbling over semantics. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 1/100th of 1 percent, from .03% to .04%. That's a 33% increase in CO2, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has only increased by 0.01%.

Which number is more relevant. Hint: a 33% increase in a really tiny number is still a really tiny number.

It's increased by .01 pp, or 33%. There is a big difference there because percentages are unit-less and coming up with the difference in percentage points that CO2 constitutes in the atmosphere gives you a number that means nothing at all. It's like saying the decline of the blue whale is insignificant because it made up far less than 1% of all oceanic life in the first place.

Well if a problem was being blamed on the number of blue whales in the ocean.... then yes, it would be like that. I didn't think you were this libtarded!

Again, CO2 is being pointed to by warmers as the primary culprit for global warming (that may or may not actually be happening). So the relevant number to look at is how much has CO2 increased as a percentage of the atmosphere? The answer is .01% - from .03% to .04%

Now, that's a 33% increase in the percentage, but so what? A 33% in a tiny number is still a tiny number. Source: math.

Is it a tiny number? .01% of a very large number might still be a very large number.

Ok bub. If you consider 3/100ths of 1 percent a big number, ok. :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2015, 08:26:26 PM
Lol. Should have an interesting deflection strategy forthcoming.

You're seeing it already. Quibbling over semantics.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on December 09, 2015, 09:02:34 AM
Chingon's link supported KSUw's point of view.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 09, 2015, 09:06:37 AM
Chingon's link supported KSUw's point of view.

They're quibbling over me saying "percent" instead of "percentage point." Math smack. They'd rather talk about that than admit the warmers are obsessing over a 33% increase in a gas that constitutes a tiny fraction of the atmosphere - 3/100ths of 1 percent. Oooohh, but it's a 33% increase (from .03 to .04)! :runaway: :lol:

This all started with this gem of idiocy:

Since C02 isn't an issue, maybe our resident necons will seal themselves in a room and open a few tanks. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 09, 2015, 09:12:19 AM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on December 09, 2015, 09:17:05 AM
KSUW, you should learn that it is okay to be quiet in an argument. Even when there is supporting information already on the table, you continue to argue your point and make comments that only hurt you (even if only in appearance).


Gonna win 'em all!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 09, 2015, 01:38:42 PM
Chingon's link supported KSUw's point of view.

No, it pointed out where he was wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on December 09, 2015, 02:35:37 PM
Big old laugh till you fart.  Forbes is reporting electric cars can only go about 1/2 the distance in cold climates as in warm climates like California.   This puts a chastity belt the climate climaxes carbon reduction screwing crusade.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 10, 2015, 11:46:59 AM
A rare moment of clarity for SOSJK, showing it's really about control, a handful of companies and people getting insanely more wealthy then they already are, and 3rd world despots getting handouts:

COP#21 aka the 21st last chance to save the world, or go spend a lot of money, expand a lot of fossil fuels and eat a bunch of butter soaked French food:

The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.

If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.
  John Kerry @ COP21
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 10, 2015, 11:50:41 AM
How much you ask?   $2.5 TRILLION dollars . . . we'll work real hard to reduce our emissions for $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS . . . term arrangements are available . . . yes, that may be a gun.


http://insideclimatenews.org/news/01102015/india-promises-slash-emissions-global-climate-treaty-indc
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on December 10, 2015, 12:35:12 PM
What exactly did The Kyoto and Montreal Protocols do for the climate that we need anything out of Paris? Kyoto was supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the Left says that last year was the warmest on record. Montreal was supposed to save the ozone layer and the ozone hole is bigger than it has ever been since we have been measuring it for 35 years out of the earth's 4.5 billion... 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 10, 2015, 12:36:51 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 10, 2015, 01:48:26 PM
CPLJB has been tapping out a lot lately.

Sad, but  :ROFL:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 10, 2015, 10:08:01 PM
CPLJB has been tapping out a lot lately.

Sad, but  :ROFL:

I have found people that laugh at everything generally have nothing meaningful to add to a conversation.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 10, 2015, 10:20:10 PM
unseasonably warm today
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 16, 2015, 11:00:46 AM
http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2015/12/09/everything-senator-ted-cruz-said-about-climate-change-in-this-npr-interview-was-wrong/

Always great to find people saying the same things you are.  The only way to accept the Cruz/Dax position is to totally reject the scientific method.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on December 16, 2015, 11:08:04 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2015/12/09/everything-senator-ted-cruz-said-about-climate-change-in-this-npr-interview-was-wrong/

Always great to find people saying the same things you are.  The only way to accept the Cruz/Dax position is to totally reject the scientific method.

You mean THIS Peter Gleick?

Heartland Institute incident

On February 20, 2012, Gleick announced he was responsible for the unauthorized distribution of documents from The Heartland Institute in mid-February. Gleick claimed he had received "an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute's climate program strategy", and in trying to verify the authenticity of the document, had "solicited and received additional materials directly from the Heartland Institute under someone else's name". Responding to the leak, The Heartland Institute said one of the documents released, a two-page 'Strategy Memo', had been forged. Gleick denied forging the document. Gleick described his actions as "a serious lapse of my own and professional judgment and ethics" and said that he "deeply regret[ted his] own actions in this case" and "offer[ed his] personal apologies to all those affected". He stated that "My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts – often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated – to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved." On February 24 he wrote to the board of the Pacific Institute requesting a "temporary short-term leave of absence" from the Institute. The Board of Directors stated it was "deeply concerned regarding recent events" involving Gleick and the Heartland documents, and appointed a new Acting Executive Director on February 27.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on December 16, 2015, 11:15:05 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2015/12/09/everything-senator-ted-cruz-said-about-climate-change-in-this-npr-interview-was-wrong/

Always great to find people saying the same things you are.  The only way to accept the Cruz/Dax position is to totally reject the scientific method.

And THIS...

CRUZ: Of course there will be alternative energies. We will have innovation. And I promise you this. The alternative energy innovations are not going to come from Washington. They’re not going to come from the cronyism of this town. They’re not going to come from Solyndra because when Washington does that, they allocate money based on political concerns, not based on what is necessary. I fully expect in a hundred years, or maybe 50 years, or maybe even 10 or 20 years – I mean, change can be very rapid. And I am excited to see where that goes. But it will come from the private sector, not from government.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 16, 2015, 11:26:20 PM
'lemy is such a great addition to the pit :grin:
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 20, 2015, 02:52:03 AM
Federal scientist bro shared an anecdote about how NOAA wanted to install a weather station on the side of a metal shed at his lab and the scientists there PI'd them so hard for their stupidity they never heard from them again.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on December 20, 2015, 06:24:11 AM
Federal scientist bro shared an anecdote about how NOAA wanted to install a weather station on the side of a metal shed at his lab and the scientists there PI'd them so hard for their stupidity they never heard from them again.
Get your bro to post here! (Where does he work?)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on December 30, 2015, 12:42:13 PM
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

Dax's home
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 01, 2016, 09:05:49 PM
Lol, WTF is EDN whackadoodle talking about now? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on January 15, 2016, 11:37:18 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on January 23, 2016, 11:55:05 PM
Damn east coast global warming.  Where is Al Gore?   Won't see his white butt until the summer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: OK_Cat on January 24, 2016, 03:58:08 PM
Renocat doesn't understand global warming (shocked)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on February 18, 2016, 01:43:20 PM
Sure is warm today
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on March 12, 2016, 07:52:13 AM
http://reverbpress.com/news/this-bankruptcy-filing-proves-big-coal-funded-climate-change-denial-groups-all-along/


Oh no that big scientific grant money is really out there to slander big coal.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 12, 2016, 09:24:32 AM
Conspiracy! Denialists!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on March 12, 2016, 04:35:55 PM
Conspiracy! Denialists!
Here is the.sacrificial pig Obama will sue as.a.warmer.denier.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on March 13, 2016, 04:35:46 AM
Paper trail proving that these groups who "took down" these scientists in your mind being linked to big energy, who has an order of magnitude more money on the line, but we'll still say it's that big green energy dollar driving this.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 13, 2016, 08:31:26 AM
Imagine that, an energy company fighting back against the millions being pumped into various government agencies and research entities with clear ideological and political bias.

Government entities that when challenged repeatedly and continuously thwart if not outright ignore FOIA requests and Congressional subpoenas. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 13, 2016, 12:11:06 PM
There should be no surprise in coal companies funding research that protects what they believe just as there's no surprise in liberal democrat-led government giving grants to scientists who support their big-government agenda, or in giving half a billion dollars to companies like Solyndra that turned around and gave money back to Democrats running for office.  Even this left-leaning resource admitted it happened...

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/nov/15/americans-prosperity/solyndra-ad-president-barack-obama-taxpayer-money/

You want to fear something? Fear this...

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/10/attorney-general-lynch-looking-into-prosecuting-climate-change-deniers/

We're back to Galileo being jailed for not believing the earth was the center of the universe!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on March 13, 2016, 08:34:26 PM
Imagine that, an energy company fighting back against the millions being pumped into various government agencies and research entities with clear ideological and political bias.

Government entities that when challenged repeatedly and continuously thwart if not outright ignore FOIA requests and Congressional subpoenas.

Dear Dax,
Billions and trillions are bigger than millions. 


Also I'll wait for you to prove with anything more than a gif showing reasonable scientific adjustments to temp data to prove 97% of scientists are wrong.  But I'm sure all those thousands are lying through their teeth foe that million dollar pie.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 13, 2016, 08:35:53 PM
We're so sure of our "science" no one can see it . . . The Government
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on March 14, 2016, 07:10:00 AM
We're so sure of our "science" no one can see it . . . The Government
This sentence doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 14, 2016, 09:03:14 AM
We're so sure of our "science" no one can see it . . . The Government
This sentence doesn't make sense.

Yes it does

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/no-global-warming-for-58-years-what-the-government-is-hiding.html (http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/no-global-warming-for-58-years-what-the-government-is-hiding.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on March 14, 2016, 09:25:09 AM
Gonna be very warm today
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on March 14, 2016, 11:24:05 AM
We're so sure of our "science" no one can see it . . . The Government
This sentence doesn't make sense.

Yes it does

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/no-global-warming-for-58-years-what-the-government-is-hiding.html (http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/no-global-warming-for-58-years-what-the-government-is-hiding.html)
lol at posting a "news source" with data being hosted on WordPress sites.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 14, 2016, 03:04:30 PM
We're so sure of our "science" no one can see it . . . The Government
This sentence doesn't make sense.

Yes it does

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/no-global-warming-for-58-years-what-the-government-is-hiding.html (http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/no-global-warming-for-58-years-what-the-government-is-hiding.html)
lol at posting a "news source" with data being hosted on WordPress sites.

WORD PRESS!1!!!!   :horrorsurprise: :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 14, 2016, 03:08:27 PM
Whackadoodle with his idiotic expenditure talking point.    Millions in ideologically oriented and politicized climate "science" costs has been funded for years already; the facilities, the salaries etc. etc.   Pointing out the actual annual expenditures in research only covers a small portion of the bills taxpayers have already fronted to serve an ideology.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on March 14, 2016, 05:02:29 PM
Whackadoodle with his idiotic expenditure talking point.    Millions in ideologically oriented and politicized climate "science" costs has been funded for years already; the facilities, the salaries etc. etc.   Pointing out the actual annual expenditures in research only covers a small portion of the bills taxpayers have already fronted to serve an ideology.

It's funny you think scientists would corrupt the scientific method, that none of your peers can find a reasonable fault with their method, for millions, but can't see that all this denial is funded by people with trillions on the line.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 14, 2016, 07:05:05 PM

It's funny you think scientists would corrupt the scientific method,

This is one of your lead "scientists"...



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on March 14, 2016, 07:06:24 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 14, 2016, 08:08:57 PM
Whackadoodle with his idiotic expenditure talking point.    Millions in ideologically oriented and politicized climate "science" costs has been funded for years already; the facilities, the salaries etc. etc.   Pointing out the actual annual expenditures in research only covers a small portion of the bills taxpayers have already fronted to serve an ideology.

It's funny you think scientists would corrupt the scientific method, that none of your peers can find a reasonable fault with their method, for millions, but can't see that all this denial is funded by people with trillions on the line.

Where to start.   Yes yes, Big Energy has gone all in on fossil fuels, they own ZERO "green" energy patents and production systems nor do they own proprietary systems in the arena of "green" energy trading platforms.    Just a bunch of complete idiots running those companies, not forward thinkers at all.   

Nor is their huge money pushing the ideologically driven "green" energy propaganda in hopes of advancing their already copious financial positions. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on March 14, 2016, 08:10:27 PM
Guessing ole Ptolemy is wishing he could have that one back.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 14, 2016, 08:11:34 PM
If you are afraid of climate change, or even think it's a worthwhile issue, I have some beachfront property in new Mexico you might be interested in.

Also, look up.

Haha, made you look
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 14, 2016, 11:22:20 PM
Just a bunch of complete idiots running those companies, not forward thinkers at all.   


Windmills and solar collectors are not "forward" thinking. Those were left on the pile of failed technologies a hundred years ago.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 14, 2016, 11:40:29 PM
I wasn't talking about windmills or solar
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 15, 2016, 08:45:06 AM
The best thing we could do for the earth would be to use "corporate welfare" to bring industry back to the US from china and mexico and add tariffs to imported products from countries with low pollution standards. Taxing our own co2 emmisions is stupid.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 15, 2016, 09:23:48 AM
Co2 sensors in Pacific can tell when Apple and others ramp up production in . . . China. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: catastrophe on March 15, 2016, 09:45:32 AM
Has anyone explained why the government would be interested in shutting down such a large sector of the US economy?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on March 15, 2016, 10:23:37 AM
Has anyone explained why the government would be interested in shutting down such a large sector of the US economy?
it's ass rough ridin' the environment and the survival of the species is greater than backwards jobs that should have been phased out 50 years ago.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 15, 2016, 11:04:42 AM
The US is reducing emissions.   But in EDN Whackadoodle's world all climate change is caused by humans and couldn't possibly be natural climate variability.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: catastrophe on March 15, 2016, 11:15:18 AM
I just don't get it. If you think the climate change argument is junk science then surely you believe there is an agenda when such a large part of the scientific community agrees. It's not like the anti-vaccine folks who were largely misguided and uninformed, it's over 90% of the people who actually study these things. What would the agenda be? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 11:36:46 AM
What would the agenda be?

Why do you suppose the Left is the only group pushing this nonsense agenda? What does the Left want? They are constantly in pursuit of creating a Utopia; The Perfect Society, among mankind. In order to accomplish that, they believe Left-led government must have control of all, or most, of the engines that drive society. To do that, they need to tax everything people do, or think of doing.  Through unlimited taxation, they hold all the controls over the economy, they believe. Taxing carbon usage is the means through which they believe their agenda can be fueled.  Mankind uses more energy every single day and every single year. Look at the idiotic carbon-credits that made Al Gore into a fat slob. He never uses less energy. He buys bigger houses, flies bigger planes and hires fatter massage ladies and then pays money to carbon-credit companies he owns for every BTU over the "prescribed maximum" he uses. He wins both ways. It's ends up being a self-sustaining Ponzi scheme.  We never really cut back on energy usage. If Left-led government can find a way to institute carbon taxes, they can tax EVERYTHING without limit.

I assumed you youngsters figured this out for yourselves.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 11:38:54 AM
I just don't get it. If you think the climate change argument is junk science then surely you believe there is an agenda when such a large part of the scientific community agrees. It's not like the anti-vaccine folks who were largely misguided and uninformed, it's over 90% of the people who actually study these things. What would the agenda be?

And that 97% thing Obama belches every day is nonsense too...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: catastrophe on March 15, 2016, 11:48:08 AM

What would the agenda be?

Why do you suppose the Left is the only group pushing this nonsense agenda? What does the Left want? They are constantly in pursuit of creating a Utopia; The Perfect Society, among mankind. In order to accomplish that, they believe Left-led government must have control of all, or most, of the engines that drive society. To do that, they need to tax everything people do, or think of doing.  Through unlimited taxation, they hold all the controls over the economy, they believe.

:lol: That's pretty much what I thought.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 15, 2016, 12:05:56 PM
Well we'll just 'trophe on the pile of the completely indoctrinated.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 15, 2016, 12:18:13 PM
In California for example, energy poverty is growing.   As more and more households have to use a growing portion of their income to pay electricity as rates skyrocket. 

Oh, just a few years ago Hillary traveled the world encouraging fracking. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on March 15, 2016, 12:44:25 PM
Just a bunch of complete idiots running those companies, not forward thinkers at all.   


Windmills and solar collectors are not "forward" thinking. Those were left on the pile of failed technologies a hundred years ago.

Solar has made great gains in the last decade. California has capitalized on this. Nevada was trying before the Pubs shut it down. Florida has blocked any and all efforts by its citizens to utilize the technology.

The only reason solar is being shut down is because it's a threat to coal and gas companies. It's a good business strategy, but harmful to the planet. It's a win-win-win to have citizens collect solar power, give back to the grid, and create jobs.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 01:07:51 PM
I get where you are coming from, a government led restructuring of how the world consumes energy will undeniably put those in political power in a position to aid certain parties at the expense of others. Are you arguing that climate change is a full hoax or is exaggerated/assumed to be worst case scenario?

The facts prove that man has nowhere near the level of influence necessary to control the climate. Our best estimate is that man alone generates only 3% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 97% of that is from natural (non-man as it were; man is part of nature after all) sources, and 99% of the planet's greenhouse gas consists of simple water vapor. The planet is 75% water. Where do you suppose all that water vapor comes from? We can't even agree on a most accurate method of measuring "the" temperature of the entire planet.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 01:11:15 PM
Solar has made great gains in the last decade. California has capitalized on this. Nevada was trying before the Pubs shut it down. Florida has blocked any and all efforts by its citizens to utilize the technology.

The only reason solar is being shut down is because it's a threat to coal and gas companies. It's a good business strategy, but harmful to the planet. It's a win-win-win to have citizens collect solar power, give back to the grid, and create jobs.

Without subsidies from us taxpayers, energy from solar and wind is 5-8X more expensive per/kWH to generate than from fossil fuels. Of that fact, there is no question.

Necessity is the mother of invention. When we NEED a better energy source than fossil fuels, we will invent one, just like oil took the place of firewood.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: TCUHornedFrog on March 15, 2016, 01:22:03 PM

And that 97% thing Obama belches every day is nonsense too...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/

 :sdeek: Someone actually posted an Anthony Watts article and isn't joking.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: TCUHornedFrog on March 15, 2016, 01:23:22 PM


The facts prove that man has nowhere near the level of influence necessary to control the climate. Our best estimate is that man alone generates only 3% of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 97% of that is from natural (non-man as it were; man is part of nature after all) sources, and 99% of the planet's greenhouse gas consists of simple water vapor. The planet is 75% water. Where do you suppose all that water vapor comes from? We can't even agree on a most accurate method of measuring "the" temperature of the entire planet.

This doesn't seem very science-y.  Are you running for the school board in Texas?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 15, 2016, 01:31:26 PM
We're the party of science and we oppose fracking  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 01:40:38 PM
I dunno, percentages are pretty hard, can't even imagine judging sensitivity to change.  :horrorsurprise:

Percentages of contribution are a bit more certain than sensitivity...

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/10/the_climate_sensitivity_controversy.html
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 01:54:26 PM

So is it a complete hoax to be worried about carbon dioxide?

The most expensive and criminal hoax ever perpetuated on mankind.

Carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that is essential for life on earth to survive and thrive.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 02:09:50 PM
Further proof...when I first entered engineering school refrigerants used to fuel the vapor compression cycle were developed and employed according to their efficiency and capability in delivering heat transfer. Early mechanical refrigeration systems employed sulfur dioxide, methyl chloride and ammonia. Being toxic, sulfur dioxide and methyl chloride rapidly disappeared from the market with the introduction of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). CFCs were little used for refrigeration until better synthesis methods, developed in the 1950s, reduced their cost.

CFC domination of the refrigeration market was halted suddenly in the 1980s because someone first noticed that the earth's ozone layer has a thin area in the southern hemisphere near the Antarctic.  Without EVER measuring whether the ozone layer has EVER been the same thickness throughout, legislative regulations on ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) took effect. In 1997, FCs and HFCs were included in the Kyoto Protocol and every new Democrat coming into the White House tries to enact more restrictions.

Beyond the nonsense of acknowledging that vapor compression cycles are CLOSED systems and a relatively small volume of it is ever vented to the atmosphere, we alongside this monumental idiocy install pvc ductwork and powered fans on our homes that suck the cancer-causing radon out of our basement slabs and vent it into the air we breathe in our yards and through our open windows.

Liberals are dumb!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 15, 2016, 02:24:14 PM
OMG
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: TCUHornedFrog on March 15, 2016, 02:26:29 PM
Further proof...when I first entered engineering school refrigerants used to fuel the vapor compression cycle were developed and employed according to their efficiency and capability in delivering heat transfer. Early mechanical refrigeration systems employed sulfur dioxide, methyl chloride and ammonia. Being toxic, sulfur dioxide and methyl chloride rapidly disappeared from the market with the introduction of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). CFCs were little used for refrigeration until better synthesis methods, developed in the 1950s, reduced their cost.

CFC domination of the refrigeration market was halted suddenly in the 1980s because someone first noticed that the earth's ozone layer has a thin area in the southern hemisphere near the Antarctic.  Without EVER measuring whether the ozone layer has EVER been the same thickness throughout, legislative regulations on ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) took effect. In 1997, FCs and HFCs were included in the Kyoto Protocol and every new Democrat coming into the White House tries to enact more restrictions.

Beyond the nonsense of acknowledging that vapor compression cycles are CLOSED systems and a relatively small volume of it is ever vented to the atmosphere, we alongside this monumental idiocy install pvc ductwork and powered fans on our homes that suck the cancer-causing radon out of our basement slabs and vent it into the air we breathe in our yards and through our open windows.

Liberals are dumb!

says the guy that cites a TV meteorologist as a credible source on global warming.   :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 02:32:53 PM

says the guy that cites a TV meteorologist as a credible source on global warming.   :lol:

METEOROLOGY

Degree: B. A. or B. S.

Description of Major
Meteorology is divided into four branches: physical, dynamical, synoptic, and applied meteorology. Physical meteorologists deal with such areas as the physics of rain formation, atmospheric electricity, and atmospheric optics; dynamical meteorologists work in such areas as the mathematical representation of atmospheric flow patterns and the numerical prediction of these patterns; synoptic meteorologists are involved with the description of atmospheric disturbances and with weather forecasting; and applied meteorologists deal with the application of meteorological and climatological knowledge to such areas as agriculture, architecture, ecology, and air pollution. The undergraduate program provides a broad overview of these branches of meteorology plus climatology, while graduate students are encouraged to specialize in one of them. Meteorologists are needed in research, forecasting, and operational positions to study, interpret and predict weather and climate processes and patterns and to relate these to human activities. Severe storms, floods, droughts and air pollution are examples of atmospheric phenomena, which influence health, safety, transportation, agriculture, and business activities.

Prerequisite Coursework:
All of the prerequisites are also part of the required collateral coursework.
MAC X311 (4) Calculus w/Analytic Geometry I
MAC X312 (4) Calculus w/Analytic Geometry II
CHM X045, X045L (3,1) General Chemistry I, Lab
PHY X048C (4) General Physics A or PHY X048/X048L (5 credits @ FSU)
PHY X049C (4) General Physics B or PHY X049/X049L (5 credits @ FSU)

MAC X313 (5) Calculus w/Analytic Geometry III
And either MAP 2302 (3) Ordinary Differential Equations or MAP 3305 (3) Engineering Mathematics
MET 2700 (3) General Meteorology
MET 2700 (3) General Meteorology
MET 2101 (3) Physical Climatology
MET 3220C (3) Meteorological Computations
MET 3300 (3) Introduction to Atmospheric Dynamics
MET 2507C (2) Weather Analysis and Forecasting
MET 4301 (4) Atmospheric Dynamics I
MET 4302 (4) Atmospheric Dynamics II
MET 4420 (3) Atmospheric Physics I
MET 4450 (3) Atmospheric Physics II
MET 4500C (3) Synoptic Lecture/Lab I
MET 4501C (4) Synoptic Lecture/Lab II
Collateral Coursework (33 hours):
CHM 1045, 1045L (3,1) General Chemistry I
PHY 2048C (5) General Physics A
PHY 2049C (5) General Physics B
MAC 2311 (4) Calculus w/Analytic Geometry I
MAC 2312 (4) Calculus w/Analytic Geometry II
MAC 2313 (5) Calculus w/Analytic Geometry III
MAP 2302 (3) Ordinary Differential Equations or MAP 3305 (3) Engineering Math I
STA 3032 (3) Applied Statistics for Engineers and Scientists

Sounds like a really lightweight degree regimen!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 15, 2016, 02:42:04 PM
I don't think you're getting this Memphis.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: TCUHornedFrog on March 15, 2016, 03:08:50 PM


Sounds like a really lightweight degree regimen!

If only......

Quote
Watts assisted with the setup of a radio program for his high school in Indiana,[14] and later attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15] In 1978, Watts began his broadcasting career as an on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana.[3]
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 15, 2016, 03:13:19 PM
Well, in the movie Hardball, Coach O'Neill said that the most important thing in life is showing up. Watts showed up to Purdue and that has to mean something, right?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 03:15:32 PM

If only......

Quote
Watts assisted with the setup of a radio program for his high school in Indiana,[14] and later attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15] In 1978, Watts began his broadcasting career as an on-air meteorologist for WLFI-TV in Lafayette, Indiana.[3]

Watts is the presentation guy, like Al Gore is for you...

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: TCUHornedFrog on March 15, 2016, 03:30:13 PM


Watts is the presentation guy, like Al Gore is for you...

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The 97% consensus article is completely accurate.

-Poindexter McSmartypants, Ph.D.  Professor of Climate Change, University of Bumfuckistan
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: TCUHornedFrog on March 15, 2016, 03:30:57 PM
Well, in the movie Hardball, Coach O'Neill said that the most important thing in life is showing up. Watts showed up to Purdue and that has to mean something, right?

Maybe
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 15, 2016, 03:44:21 PM
It's remarkably stupid to say the 97% comment is accurate when scientists included in the 97% disagree with the statement.

The entire sentiment was debunked some time ago, and I'm surprised people are still using it. Then I remember we're dealing with ignorant and psychopathic people, and am no longer surprised.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: catastrophe on March 15, 2016, 03:51:32 PM
The anti-97% argument would be much more persuasive if there was an alternative number put forth as to what portion of the scientific community believes in man-made impact on climate change.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 15, 2016, 03:54:09 PM
The anti-97% argument would be much more persuasive if there was an alternative number put forth as to what portion of the scientific community believes in man-made impact on climate change.

It's remarkably stupid to say the 97% comment is accurate when scientists included in the 97% disagree with the statement.

The entire sentiment was debunked some time ago, and I'm surprised people are still using it. Then I remember we're dealing with ignorant and psychopathic people, and am no longer surprised.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 04:11:54 PM
The anti-97% argument would be much more persuasive if there was an alternative number put forth as to what portion of the scientific community believes in man-made impact on climate change.

As Galileo maintained 400 years ago on his way to jail for refusing to believe that the Sun rotated around the Earth, science is not a consensus.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: catastrophe on March 15, 2016, 04:38:35 PM
Yea, well I'm just saying if your only argument is that it's not a 97% consensus, then it might as well be a 96% consensus. If your point is that it is actually impossible to determine consensus then you cannot say with certainty that the 97% figure is wrong.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 05:38:25 PM
Yea, well I'm just saying if your only argument is that it's not a 97% consensus, then it might as well be a 96% consensus. If your point is that it is actually impossible to determine consensus then you cannot say with certainty that the 97% figure is wrong.

O.K., so what you're saying is if I cannot see my aunt's penis she must be my uncle. 

The point is, science is an on-going process. Those belching out the 97% figure (which considering that over 10,000 papers were initially studied and most were tossed out, is likely more like 0.03% of scientists believe man causes all global warming) want to use it as a reason for instituting massive carbon taxes on mankind.  THAT is not science.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on March 15, 2016, 05:50:07 PM
You could trust your aunt, who is an expert on if she has a penis or not.

You know, like scientists who pretty much all agree on science stuff but you don't agree so you don't trust them so you assume your aunt has a penis
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on March 15, 2016, 06:22:04 PM

The anti-97% argument would be much more persuasive if there was an alternative number put forth as to what portion of the scientific community believes in man-made impact on climate change.
This is a very strange argument. There is little logic in this, and I doubt I am the first person to point that out.


Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 15, 2016, 06:35:44 PM
Just a bunch of complete idiots running those companies, not forward thinkers at all.   


Windmills and solar collectors are not "forward" thinking. Those were left on the pile of failed technologies a hundred years ago.

Solar has made great gains in the last decade. California has capitalized on this. Nevada was trying before the Pubs shut it down. Florida has blocked any and all efforts by its citizens to utilize the technology.

The only reason solar is being shut down is because it's a threat to coal and gas companies. It's a good business strategy, but harmful to the planet. It's a win-win-win to have citizens collect solar power, give back to the grid, and create jobs.

this isn't accurate. the bill you are referring to passed with a 100% vote in the state senate and 95% in the assembly. The repub - dem is nearly an even split. you can blame Warren Buffet and Berkshire if you need someone to blame.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on March 15, 2016, 07:10:50 PM
Just a bunch of complete idiots running those companies, not forward thinkers at all.   


Windmills and solar collectors are not "forward" thinking. Those were left on the pile of failed technologies a hundred years ago.

Solar has made great gains in the last decade. California has capitalized on this. Nevada was trying before the Pubs shut it down. Florida has blocked any and all efforts by its citizens to utilize the technology.

The only reason solar is being shut down is because it's a threat to coal and gas companies. It's a good business strategy, but harmful to the planet. It's a win-win-win to have citizens collect solar power, give back to the grid, and create jobs.

this isn't accurate. the bill you are referring to passed with a 100% vote in the state senate and 95% in the assembly. The repub - dem is nearly an even split. you can blame Warren Buffet and Berkshire if you need someone to blame.

Actually, I was blaming Republican Governor Brian Sandoval. His top two political advisers are from Nevada Energy so when he chased the solar industry out of Nevada I had my suspicions.

Quote
An independent study commissioned by the state legislature in 2013 concluded, however, that solar users created a $36m net benefit for traditional customers, a finding NV Energy dismissed as reliant on outdated solar pricing data.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/13/solar-panel-energy-power-company-nevada
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on March 15, 2016, 07:13:53 PM
That also does a good job of explaining why a lot of our elected officials are climate change deniers.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 08:10:36 PM
That also does a good job of explaining why a lot of our elected officials are climate change deniers.

And why those on the Left are mostly Warmist Chicken Little Frauds.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 08:12:58 PM
You could trust your aunt, who is an expert on if she has a penis or not.

You know, like scientists who pretty much all agree on science stuff but you don't agree so you don't trust them so you assume your aunt has a penis

These days, I don't trust ANYBODY on gender.  It's apparently all a matter of perception, self or outward.

Again, Galileo didn't agree with "pretty much all" went to jail for it, and got an apology 400 years too late.  Science is not a consensus opinion matter.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Ptolemy on March 15, 2016, 08:23:32 PM
Seems high, but maybe so.

I've seen that number in one of the refuting studies.

These numbers are not wrong though...

CO2 is about 0.038% of the composition of the planet's atmosphere. Most is Nitrogen and Oxygen.  Man's contribution to that is 3%, so man's contribution to the warming of the atmosphere is only 0.00114% of the total atmosphere.

It's nothing to worry about.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on March 15, 2016, 08:24:23 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 15, 2016, 09:12:14 PM

The anti-97% argument would be much more persuasive if there was an alternative number put forth as to what portion of the scientific community believes in man-made impact on climate change.
This is a very strange argument. There is little logic in this, and I doubt I am the first person to point that out.


Gonna win 'em all! (using Tapatalk)

It's incredibly stupid, no doubt
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 15, 2016, 09:14:11 PM
That also does a good job of explaining why a lot of our elected officials are climate change deniers.

Isn't that the guy b.o. wanted to nominate to the scotus?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on March 15, 2016, 09:15:02 PM
That also does a good job of explaining why a lot of our elected officials are climate change deniers.

Isn't that the guy b.o. wanted to nominate to the scotus?

Ya
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on March 16, 2016, 04:32:11 AM
Seems high, but maybe so.

I've seen that number in one of the refuting studies.

These numbers are not wrong though...

CO2 is about 0.038% of the composition of the planet's atmosphere. Most is Nitrogen and Oxygen.  Man's contribution to that is 3%, so man's contribution to the warming of the atmosphere is only 0.00114% of the total atmosphere.

It's nothing to worry about.

Argues for closed system, doesn't understand carbon sinks, or balanced systems.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 16, 2016, 08:21:01 AM
The comment on radon gas was my favorite. The very air we breathe! :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: catastrophe on March 16, 2016, 10:20:42 AM
What crazy reasoning. It's like saying "if the car dealership is going to buy my car for $10,000 and then turn around and sell it to someone for $15,000 then it's like I'm an employee of the dealership. That's not right."
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 16, 2016, 10:26:40 AM
Coal is cheaper than solar by a large factor, no arguing that.  Renewable energy comes at a substantial cost, and poors bear a disproportionate share of that cost. There's no arguing this point. It's math.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on March 16, 2016, 10:33:17 AM
“If they start giving us only 2.8 cents a kilowatt versus the 13 cents they charge us, I will never break even on my investment,” Matz said. “Not only that, if they are going to give us 2.8 cents a kilowatt and then sell it for 13 cents, basically 17,000 Nevada homeowners built a solar farm for Nevada power. I don’t think that can be right.”

Just read that Nevada article, wow boss move by a monopoly.

Maybe they should have picked a percentage above the wholesale price to compensate the solar owners. It certainly wasn't fair that the utility was paying full retail for the energy when they are regulated by the state PUC and unable to recoup that cost. That's forcing them to fully subsidize a technology that isn't ready for individual consumer use.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 30, 2016, 06:19:51 AM
Looks like more growth for the energy poverty numbers . . . for the dumb, that's households that surpass a certain % of their household's monthly income in order to pay their energy bills every month.  California has one of the highest, if not the highest levels of people in energy poverty in the United States.

Good to see companies with market caps of a half a trillion reap so much government largesse.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/29/taxpayers-are-footing-bill-for-solar-project-that-doesnt-work/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on April 07, 2016, 07:50:47 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 07, 2016, 09:58:28 PM
It still isn't anywhere close, and as the article I posted said, it's still horribly inefficient. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on April 07, 2016, 10:04:02 PM
that article might as well have been a paid advertisement it was so bad. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on April 07, 2016, 10:26:46 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels)

good article, thanks for posting.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on April 07, 2016, 10:27:59 PM
It still isn't anywhere close, and as the article I posted said, it's still horribly inefficient.

different technology, sodj.  the one bucket posted is the one that is crushing the one you posted.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 07, 2016, 10:44:26 PM
It still isn't anywhere close, and as the article I posted said, it's still horribly inefficient.

different technology, sodj.  the one bucket posted is the one that is crushing the one you posted.

Thanks Capt Obvious on the different technology, and I guess you didn't get the part about how the massive gov't subsidized solar fields needed copious amounts of carbon based energy just to get primed to start producing power and the cost of that power is driving energy poverty in places like California.    So their taxes are subsidizing inefficient energy production that they pay higher prices for.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on April 07, 2016, 10:51:05 PM
Thanks Capt Obvious on the different technology, and I guess you didn't get the part about how the massive gov't subsidized solar fields needed copious amounts of carbon based energy just to get primed to start producing power and the cost of that power is driving energy poverty in places like California.    So their taxes are subsidizing inefficient energy production that they pay higher prices for.

you're the one that referenced your article in response to bucket's.  and you're still doing it!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 07, 2016, 10:52:19 PM
So what?  Weird posts sys, just weird. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on April 07, 2016, 10:54:30 PM
So what?  Weird posts sys, just weird.

so i extended you the benefit of the doubt (really pretended to give you the benefit of the doubt, since i know you better than to actually not doubt you) that you were confused rather than disingenuous.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 07, 2016, 10:56:52 PM
You're making no sense, what does the "crushing" comment even mean?  That gov't is subsidizing inefficient "clean" energy production more then legacy energy production?  If so, another captain obvious point.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on April 07, 2016, 10:58:59 PM
maybe you actually are confused.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 07, 2016, 10:59:46 PM
Okay Captain Cryptic
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on April 07, 2016, 11:04:28 PM
what crypsis?  good grief, sodj, i could not possibly be any more plain-spoken.
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 07, 2016, 11:18:18 PM
So inefficient green energy production is "crushing" fossil fuels?  That's where I started to tune out that idiotic article. 

Lol, it couldn't be that the world is awash in oil, and the market has realized that so called "peak oil" is now not even on the distant radar screen?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on April 07, 2016, 11:48:18 PM
so, investment in solar power generation is outpacing investment in fossil fuel-based power generation because of a glut of fossil fuels in the market?


that's an interesting analysis, dax.  good job looking behind the glib storyline the media was force-feeding you to uncover the real scoop.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 08, 2016, 09:56:37 AM
so, investment in solar power generation is outpacing investment in fossil fuel-based power generation because of a glut of fossil fuels in the market?


that's an interesting analysis, dax.  good job looking behind the glib storyline the media was force-feeding you to uncover the real scoop.

We're talking about two different things.   Did you actually read the entire article and why did you use the word "crushing" if you can't understand the context of what I said?

Stunningly weird posting by sys. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 08, 2016, 09:58:54 AM
One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF). 

Probably the most interesting quote from the article

I predict they'll either go broke or need a substantial amount of supplemental investment and they're going to kill a gazzillion birds in the production process. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: EMAWican on April 08, 2016, 10:02:07 AM
Has anyone mentioned Renewable Portfolio Standards for utilities and how much of an impact they have? Because it's in the billions and billions of dollars. That's a big reason why renewables are "crushing" fossil fuels.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on April 08, 2016, 11:01:59 AM
LOVE when dax, of all people, calls someone vague or cryptic  :love:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on April 08, 2016, 11:58:48 AM
So inefficient green energy production is "crushing" fossil fuels?  That's where I started to tune out that idiotic article. 

Lol, it couldn't be that the world is awash in oil, and the market has realized that so called "peak oil" is now not even on the distant radar screen?

so, investment in solar power generation is outpacing investment in fossil fuel-based power generation because of a glut of fossil fuels in the market?

We're talking about two different things.

in that case, please explain what you were talking about.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 08, 2016, 12:01:17 PM
The article implied that it was alternative energy that was hurting the oil price and I say it has more to do with the oil glut.   I was discussing the trend line on gov't support of alt energy vs traditional months ago.   Just thought that was understood at this point.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on April 08, 2016, 12:10:23 PM
It would have been nice to have clarification on if subsidies were involved in the "cheapest rate" portion.

the rates are what they've contracted to sell their electricty at.  they don't typically disclose their costs of production.  however, you can be sure that those projects are taking full advantage of the tax credit.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on April 08, 2016, 12:17:10 PM
The article implied that it was alternative energy that was hurting the oil price and I say it has more to do with the oil glut.

no it didn't.  in fact, even though the main thrust of the article is not about the oil market, it specifically mentioned in passing that the oil market was not currently impacted by renewable energy prices.  they did state that it may be marginally impacted in the future.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 08, 2016, 12:17:41 PM
Not my take, but oh well.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 09, 2016, 08:35:14 AM
Solar and wind are not viable without tax subsidies. That's a fact nobody disagrees upon. When you consider government mandates to purchase x% of energy from "clean" sources, the capex is practically mandatory.

 o&g capex is a fraction of what it was two years ago because the commodity is 70% less. O&g gets the opposite treatment from government as wind solar, it pays the highest effective tax rate, is punished with trivial environmental regulations, and there are c&d orders on fracking based upon anecdotes and a public hoax that it regularly contaminates groundwater, b.o. even wants to levy a $10 per barrel tax to send more money to wind and solar.

The playing field couldn't be any more uneven.

The article was really stupid, deliberately misleading and uninformitive, which is par for the course for that publication. Anyone who reads it is doomed to be misinformed and is probably really stupid anyways.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on April 09, 2016, 09:23:17 AM
How was it misleading?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on April 09, 2016, 01:55:51 PM
Solar and wind are not viable without tax subsidies. That's a fact nobody disagrees upon.

not true.


o&g capex is a fraction of what it was two years ago because the commodity is 70% less.

the article discussed investment in electrical generation facilities, not investment in petroleum exploration and production.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 09, 2016, 06:59:55 PM
What planet is sys on?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on April 10, 2016, 01:34:15 AM
You're making no sense, what does the "crushing" comment even mean?  That gov't is subsidizing inefficient "clean" energy production more then legacy energy production?  If so, another captain obvious point.

Please explain why you're against this subsidy. Why are you against investing in technology and innovation? Why are you against investing in the future power grid ? Why are you against a technology that can/will create manufacturing jobs? I thought that this country was about innovation.

Gas and oil are finite. I believe that in my lifetime we're going to have to embrace renewables. Do you disagree with this? Why shouldn't America be at the forefront of this. Isn't that why we're the best country in the world? Being ahead of the curve.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on April 10, 2016, 01:41:57 AM
You're making no sense, what does the "crushing" comment even mean?  That gov't is subsidizing inefficient "clean" energy production more then legacy energy production?  If so, another captain obvious point.

Please explain why you're against this subsidy. Why are you against investing in technology and innovation? Why are you against investing in the future power grid ? Why are you against a technology that can/will create manufacturing jobs? I thought that this country was about innovation.

Gas and oil are finite. I believe that in my lifetime we're going to have to embrace renewables. Do you disagree with this? Why shouldn't America be at the forefront of this. Isn't that why we're the best country in the world? Being ahead of the curve.

What blows my mind is that fundamentally these guys are against progress to the determent of humanity. 

I'm they're right and we pushed renewables the worst case scenarios is that we have a renewable energy source, no dependency on the most unstable part of the world, less poverty here after at most 25 years of energy poverty Dax strawmans, staving off the worst parts of climate change, and a new era where conflict can be avoided.

If progressive thinking people are right and we stick with non-renewables our worst case scenario is that we damage the planet beyond repair, cause more wars on a global scale as resources dwindle, and push humanity towards the brink of extinction.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The Big Train on April 10, 2016, 07:09:16 AM
Have we talked about the melting permafrost in and around the Arctic circle?  It contains like 3X the carbon and methane that are currently in the atmosphere.  By 2100 it should be mostly melted and raise emissions by like 300% :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The Big Train on April 10, 2016, 07:17:24 AM
http://gizmodo.com/we-finally-know-why-the-north-pole-is-moving-east-1769588584
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 10, 2016, 08:10:06 AM
Stop calling tax subsidies "investments" you retards.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on April 10, 2016, 08:11:25 AM
http://gizmodo.com/we-finally-know-why-the-north-pole-is-moving-east-1769588584
That is pretty amazing.

Smart ass response: have you been to NC, you'd move east, too!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 10, 2016, 08:15:28 AM
How was it misleading?

Tell me what you think it was about, and I'll tell you why that isn't true.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on April 10, 2016, 10:25:41 AM
Stop calling tax subsidies "investments" you retards.

http://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/09/14/why-renewable-energy-still-needs-subsidies/

Quote
If renewable energy is getting so cheap, why do we still need policies and subsidies to support it?

Here’s why. Even if they’re now, finally, cost-competitive at the point of sale, low-carbon technologies are still working with an infrastructure—a utility regulatory system, a power grid, a highway system, a combustion engine-centric fueling system—built for a world powered by fossil fuels. These massive infrastructure projects were built up with public-sector support, including tax credits, low-cost loans, and outright grants from the federal government.

Companies designing new energy sources, in contrast, often have to build their own infrastructure and factor it into their costs. Take electric vehicles, for instance, which at the moment have a battery life that requires frequent charging on long trips, but which operate in a world of gas stations serving conventional vehicles. This mismatch of technology and infrastructure requires either significantly more R&D investment into electric vehicles to extend their battery life, or promotion of EV charging stations that will allow for these cars to compete on the open road.

Investment is required
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on April 10, 2016, 10:32:20 AM
How was it misleading?

Tell me what you think it was about, and I'll tell you why that isn't true.

You can't even answer the question.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 10, 2016, 09:48:05 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on April 10, 2016, 09:58:35 PM
I'm considering a wind turbine for my home.  Seems like a no brainier.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The Big Train on April 10, 2016, 10:01:34 PM
You should have FSD or KSUW tell you about the lots of necessary taxes for your own energy
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on April 10, 2016, 10:27:43 PM
I'm considering a wind turbine for my home.  Seems like a no brainier.

Unfortunately, I don't believe you can sell energy back to the grid in Kansas. It would still be a nice investment.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on April 10, 2016, 10:56:48 PM
it's been pretty gd windy lately too
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2016, 01:09:32 PM
What really blows my mind is what we have resident Whackadoodles who don't get that just because the factual realities of energy poverty and copious subsidies to keep so called renewables afloat are discussed, doesn't mean that we shouldn't be moving that direction.    It's just a simple fact that we shouldn't be moving in that direction by forcing the issue down people of lessor means throat and making them economically less viable..   Even though said Whackadoodle continuously uses over the top hyperbole based on a completely unsettled scientific concept to try and scare people. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2016, 01:13:32 PM
http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.r46T8cQ8.CCUslpPe.dpbs

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 11, 2016, 05:28:02 PM
New evidence suggests......
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on April 11, 2016, 06:54:27 PM
http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.r46T8cQ8.CCUslpPe.dpbs

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

No Tricks Zone? Impeccable reference :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2016, 07:07:58 PM
http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.r46T8cQ8.CCUslpPe.dpbs

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

No Tricks Zone? Impeccable reference :lol:

It was quoting a specific article in a German publication.    So you're going down the Whackadoodle path of impugning the source but not the information it presents?   :lol: classic
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on April 11, 2016, 07:11:17 PM
Dax what kind of residential wind turbine should I get?  Honeywell has this pretty great one that goes on the roof that they collaborated with a company named windtronics. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2016, 07:14:18 PM
Dax what kind of residential wind turbine should I get?  Honeywell has this pretty great one that goes on the roof that they collaborated with a company named windtronics.

Solar, dumbass
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on April 11, 2016, 07:17:12 PM
Why solar?  It's really cloudy in Kansas all the time.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2016, 07:18:21 PM
Why solar?  It's really cloudy in Kansas all the time.

Move
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The Big Train on April 11, 2016, 07:19:09 PM
I could have made like a million dollars from a turbine over the past week
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on April 11, 2016, 07:20:48 PM
Yea TBT I don't know why Dax is being a jerk about it.  O well.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2016, 07:38:42 PM
Bird killers
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on April 11, 2016, 07:54:54 PM
http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.r46T8cQ8.CCUslpPe.dpbs

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

No Tricks Zone? Impeccable reference :lol:

It was quoting a specific article in a German publication.    So you're going down the Whackadoodle path of impugning the source but not the information it presents?   :lol: classic

A political blog, when translated, named "Axis of Good." Impeccable reference.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2016, 07:56:10 PM
Tapping out so easily Bucket?

Sad
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on April 11, 2016, 08:19:36 PM
I think notrickszone.com is actually a parody site
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on April 11, 2016, 08:26:02 PM
Quote
Lawrence Hunter commented in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the authors of weblogs had " the concerns of the American neocons " written on the flags. "Pretty rabid anti-Islamism " stand next to numerous skeptical climate submissions.
In an essay on the subject of Islamophobia Sabine Schiffer classified The axis of good one as " anti-Islamic " website.
The later co-author Hannes Stein characterized the axis of the good as the main actor of a "liberal parallel universe ", which stands near the American neoconservatism.

The Axis of Good sounds like it'd be right up your alley, dax.

Why didn't Fox News scoop this story? Got dang liberal media suppressing the truth!  :curse:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 11, 2016, 08:46:48 PM
For good reason, nobody actually gaf about global climate warming change.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2016, 09:00:59 PM
Quote
Lawrence Hunter commented in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the authors of weblogs had " the concerns of the American neocons " written on the flags. "Pretty rabid anti-Islamism " stand next to numerous skeptical climate submissions.
In an essay on the subject of Islamophobia Sabine Schiffer classified The axis of good one as " anti-Islamic " website.
The later co-author Hannes Stein characterized the axis of the good as the main actor of a "liberal parallel universe ", which stands near the American neoconservatism.

The Axis of Good sounds like it'd be right up your alley, dax.

Why didn't Fox News scoop this story? Got dang liberal media suppressing the truth!  :curse:

 :lol: so just because a couple of people no one has heard have an opinion on a website, that immediately makes it lack credibility, and anything that they reference lacks credibility?   Thanks for the comedy bucket.   :lol:   

If it's not from Salon, it ain't crap, right bucket?

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 11, 2016, 09:03:32 PM
To be fair to bucket, he's a dutiful foot shoulder of a political party who knows nothing other than kill the messenger.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on April 11, 2016, 09:47:51 PM
http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.r46T8cQ8.CCUslpPe.dpbs

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears – although it never existed.

So how do you account for things which are directly observable like snowpacks in the Sierra Nevadas being a fraction of what they were, well pretty much less snow on all mountain ranges, warmer sea temps, and less snow and ice on the north pole?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 11, 2016, 10:08:58 PM
:D

http://gizmodo.com/we-finally-know-why-the-north-pole-is-moving-east-1769588584

I saw a movie once that showed what happens when the caps melt, the earth turns on its side :runaway:

 :lol: so Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on April 11, 2016, 10:13:12 PM
Quote
Lawrence Hunter commented in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the authors of weblogs had " the concerns of the American neocons " written on the flags. "Pretty rabid anti-Islamism " stand next to numerous skeptical climate submissions.
In an essay on the subject of Islamophobia Sabine Schiffer classified The axis of good one as " anti-Islamic " website.
The later co-author Hannes Stein characterized the axis of the good as the main actor of a "liberal parallel universe ", which stands near the American neoconservatism.

The Axis of Good sounds like it'd be right up your alley, dax.

Why didn't Fox News scoop this story? Got dang liberal media suppressing the truth!  :curse:

 :lol: so just because a couple of people no one has heard have an opinion on a website, that immediately makes it lack credibility, and anything that they reference lacks credibility?   Thanks for the comedy bucket.   :lol:   

If it's not from Salon, it ain't crap, right bucket?

Yes, when someone, who no one has heard of, posts an opinion on a blog advancing an agenda and that opinion pushes said agenda it lacks credibility.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 11, 2016, 10:28:02 PM
Then you just haven't been paying attention bucket.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on April 17, 2016, 12:46:36 PM
97%

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 17, 2016, 08:56:18 PM
If ya'll cared at all about the human race, you'd refrain from booting up your 70% coal powered computer.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on April 17, 2016, 09:25:19 PM
If ya'll cared at all about the human race, you'd refrain from booting up your 70% coal powered computer.

Where'd that number come from?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 18, 2016, 08:29:04 AM
97%

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

They know where all the money is going, they're not dumb. 

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on April 18, 2016, 08:47:10 AM
Oh man!
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 18, 2016, 12:35:57 PM
If ya'll cared at all about the human race, you'd refrain from booting up your 70% coal powered computer.

Where'd that number come from?

I used some website called eia.gov and ballparked the Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska numbers. It would be much lower if you lived in a state without coal resources like hawaii.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 18, 2016, 12:44:22 PM
I think it's highly hypocrital and disingenious for all these libtards  (see edna, 'teve 'Ave, etc.), who genuinely believe the world is in imminent danger of ending, to use electricity largely sourced from fossil fuels to post.

These far left militant extremists need to put their money where their mouth is. Only solar and wind powered households. Otherwise their just extremist hypocrites, and generally full of crap.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on April 18, 2016, 12:48:06 PM
No one thinks earth will cease to exist
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 18, 2016, 12:55:31 PM
I thought 97% of scientists said we had to do something or else we were doomed? Surely that's not a gross mischaracterization of what this alleged consensus actually is. That would be dishonest.

Like, do 97% of scientists think volcanoes warm the earth? If so, why aren't we proposing massive taxation and regulation of volcanoes? Or at least shutting them in?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 18, 2016, 12:56:35 PM
No one thinks earth will cease to exist

I bet at least half of the #Berners do. Have you not met these people?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on April 18, 2016, 01:00:17 PM
The earth will be fine. Continuing to be habitable for humans is another matter
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on April 18, 2016, 01:01:51 PM
It will even still be habitable, just not in the couple hundred major cities along the coasts of the world.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 18, 2016, 02:05:09 PM
The earth will be fine. Continuing to be habitable for humans is another matter

Oh, so life on earth will cease to exist.  :lol:

That's the left winged extremist crazy that is unfounded in science, at least on a non-geologic time scale.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 18, 2016, 02:05:44 PM
It will even still be habitable, just not in the couple hundred major cities along the coasts of the world.

Pfffffft
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on April 18, 2016, 02:16:06 PM
So, not denying the how, but denying that it is even happening at all?    :frown:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 18, 2016, 02:22:24 PM
Illiterate?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on April 18, 2016, 02:33:04 PM
I guess so.  Maybe you think PFFFt is an acronym?   :dunno:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on April 18, 2016, 02:51:32 PM
The earth will be fine. Continuing to be habitable for humans is another matter

Oh, so life on earth will cease to exist.  :lol:

That's the left winged extremist crazy that is unfounded in science, at least on a non-geologic time scale.

Illiterate?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 18, 2016, 06:13:39 PM
“The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”  Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office

“Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”  David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: chum1 on April 18, 2016, 07:12:48 PM
It does seem kinda like asking the people who waited in line for 24 hours at the Apple store if the new iPhone they just picked up is a good one.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on April 19, 2016, 07:47:15 AM
“The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”  Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office

“Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”  David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
:lol: :lol: :lol:
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html


Try to post more quotes from this decade at least.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 19, 2016, 10:33:54 AM
Do direct quotes have an expiration date?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on April 19, 2016, 12:42:30 PM
Do direct quotes have an expiration date?

When they a proven wrong about their subject matter, yes, they "expire" in value.  Unless you are trying to show what a dumbass climate denier keep bringing up to show their ignorance.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 19, 2016, 12:49:01 PM
The subject matter of the quotes is the usefulness of the models. You say that's been proven wrong. I guess that fits the thread title, but not your haphazard kitchen sink posts in this thread.

You should strive to become coherent.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on April 19, 2016, 12:59:50 PM
The subject matter of the quotes is the usefulness of the models. You say that's been proven wrong. I guess that fits the thread title, but not your haphazard kitchen sink posts in this thread.

You should strive to become coherent.

You are trying so hard, aren't you?

And no, when the quote is wrong about rejecting the model, it doesn't really fit the thread title. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 20, 2016, 12:13:31 PM
In Co Her Ent
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 20, 2016, 12:28:31 PM
Quotes have no expiration date, and Parrot Boy Whackadoodle apparently doesn't realize that it's modeling that's driving the draconian climate/energy decisions along with the constant meddling in historical temperature data. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 20, 2016, 12:33:41 PM
I know Parrot Boy Whackadoodle won't like this because it's not from one of his far left preapproved propaganda sources, but this just outlines one small segment of the witch hunt that's undertaken against scientists who don't tow the line.

http://blog.heartland.org/2016/04/a-few-facts-for-climate-alarmists-waging-war-against-astrophysicist-willie-soon/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on April 20, 2016, 12:56:41 PM
Quotes have no expiration date, and Parrot Boy Whackadoodle apparently doesn't realize that it's modeling that's driving the draconian climate/energy decisions along with the constant meddling in historical temperature data.
how do you explain the never before seen loss of ice packs, since it's in no way related to warming.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 20, 2016, 01:56:37 PM
Per edna, the oceans had to have been solid ice up and until humans started building camp fires thousands of years ago.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ChiComCat on April 20, 2016, 02:09:59 PM
I know Parrot Boy Whackadoodle won't like this because it's not from one of his far left preapproved propaganda sources, but this just outlines one small segment of the witch hunt that's undertaken against scientists who don't tow the line.

http://blog.heartland.org/2016/04/a-few-facts-for-climate-alarmists-waging-war-against-astrophysicist-willie-soon/

Seriously?  What a terrible article.  Sounds like a great idea for a story which is a shame.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 20, 2016, 03:03:57 PM


Government funded research = good  :Chirp:
Private funded research = bad   :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on April 20, 2016, 03:31:47 PM
Biased big oil "research" = (http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/sites/sbs.com.au.comedy/files/styles/body_image/public/anigif_enhanced-9754-1409344312-11.gif?itok=ti40vT1-&mtime=1458788763)

Non-bias research from multiple funding sources from around the world = (https://media.giphy.com/media/wvFrJa4aWKuvm/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 20, 2016, 03:44:20 PM

Non-bias research from multiple funding sources from around the world = (http://replygif.net/i/926.gif)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on April 20, 2016, 03:45:01 PM
It's all a big conspiracy  ;)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on April 20, 2016, 03:52:25 PM
It's all a big conspiracy  ;)

I'll give you $10 million government grant if you can prove it is. You can keep your research private, too.  ;)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on April 20, 2016, 04:25:28 PM
randomdaxbloglink.net

$10 million plz
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 20, 2016, 08:11:30 PM
Lib7, you look delusional when you make that argument.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on April 20, 2016, 08:14:15 PM
Conspiracys aren't delusional at all
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 20, 2016, 08:54:14 PM
No, the other argument
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 21, 2016, 10:32:48 AM
Biased big oil "research" = (http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/sites/sbs.com.au.comedy/files/styles/body_image/public/anigif_enhanced-9754-1409344312-11.gif?itok=ti40vT1-&mtime=1458788763)

Non-bias research from multiple funding sources from around the world = (https://media.giphy.com/media/wvFrJa4aWKuvm/giphy.gif)

No dumbass, just make the publicly funded research and researcher accountable in responding to FOIA etc.  So their research which is driving actual policy can be analyzed.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on May 24, 2016, 11:57:26 AM
what's up normal summer temp friends to the south

(https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--_bj3mn1J--/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/p0hzpqghfzua11sjdcky.png)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on May 24, 2016, 12:11:29 PM
basically a map of areas god loves and areas he hates.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: LickNeckey on June 13, 2016, 01:12:51 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

Nothing really new here but...
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on June 13, 2016, 01:21:06 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/13/peabody-energy-coal-mining-climate-change-denial-funding

Nothing really new here but...
Who are they supposed to fund? I would wager that those with the opposite view are not funding the same people/groups/politicians/trade organizations  that Peabody is funding.


Royals aren't gonna win 'em all
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 13, 2016, 03:24:19 PM
Funding research is different than funding lobbyists.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slobber on June 13, 2016, 03:28:56 PM
Funding research is different than funding lobbyists.
Then why are they all lumped together? Do you not think the opposing side has lobbyists?


Royals aren't gonna win 'em all
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on June 13, 2016, 03:37:15 PM
Funding research is different than funding lobbyists.
Then why are they all lumped together? Do you not think the opposing side has lobbyists?


Royals aren't gonna win 'em all
Sure, there are organizations like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club that get private money, but money also goes to universities and organizations legitimately interested in observing and predicting the climate. Exxon and Peabody aren't putting in that work, they're hiring spin doctors.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: LickNeckey on June 13, 2016, 05:00:10 PM
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on June 13, 2016, 05:41:48 PM
That thing earlier that I posted about NE having a seasonable summer was complete bullshit. It's super turbo hot.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 13, 2016, 06:17:22 PM
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

This is really libtarded. One of the most libtarded things on the net. Are you stupid or just dumb?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on August 16, 2016, 12:03:02 PM
July '16 was hottest July and hottest single month on record.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The Big Train on August 16, 2016, 07:05:12 PM
It's all down hill from here guys
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on August 16, 2016, 07:58:50 PM
We made it
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Emo EMAW on August 16, 2016, 08:16:53 PM
Went for a run and for the first time in a while it wasn't completely awful
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 17, 2016, 10:33:26 AM
Strange, Unilever CEO keeps bragging about the shutdown of hundreds of coal fired power plants, but it's still "hot".

"Green" energy popping up everywhere, mileage standards, emissions reduction, still "hot".
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on August 17, 2016, 10:47:27 AM
Strange, Unilever CEO keeps bragging about the shutdown of hundreds of coal fired power plants, but it's still "hot".

"Green" energy popping up everywhere, mileage standards, emissions reduction, still "hot".

A guest on Neil Degrasse Tyson's podcast a few months ago described the effect and timeline.  They described a couple years delay in the effect.  It doesn't seem like you shut down a coal plant today and tonight things are better.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on August 17, 2016, 11:01:55 AM
Strange, Unilever CEO keeps bragging about the shutdown of hundreds of coal fired power plants, but it's still "hot".

"Green" energy popping up everywhere, mileage standards, emissions reduction, still "hot".

A guest on Neil Degrasse Tyson's podcast a few months ago described the effect and timeline.  They described a couple years delay in the effect.  It doesn't seem like you shut down a coal plant today and tonight things are better.

Possibly dax's most nonsensical post of all time. Really shows where the anti-science'rs are coming from
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: SdK on August 17, 2016, 11:02:49 AM
Come on, Dax.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 17, 2016, 11:03:32 AM
I wouldn't expect shutting down coal plants to have any noticeable effect on the weather, especially with the human population growing.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 17, 2016, 11:05:08 AM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 17, 2016, 11:08:47 AM

It will be meaningless, but those who worship at the alter of man made climate change will feel better about themselves.

Speaking of science, climate advocacy is not climate science.  Simpletons like lib seem to get that confused . . . a lot.







Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on August 19, 2016, 12:20:25 PM
of course you never hear dax mention this super easy and super effective solution to climate change.  we all know he's deep in the pocket of big breeder.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/environment_impact/2009/07/carbon%20legacy.pdf
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/41/17521.full
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The Big Train on August 19, 2016, 12:32:28 PM
Wow really makes you wonder what else Dax knows nothing about
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on August 19, 2016, 03:08:45 PM
Strange, Unilever CEO keeps bragging about the shutdown of hundreds of coal fired power plants, but it's still "hot".

"Green" energy popping up everywhere, mileage standards, emissions reduction, still "hot".
it's like someone is satirizing a lunatic right-winger but doing a poor job of it by failing to give the lunatic right-winger even the most tenuous understanding of the world as it is.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 19, 2016, 07:38:07 PM
Poll: what are libtards the most afraid of:
1. Global Climate Warming Change
2. Wikileaks
3. White privilege
4. Systemic [insert word here]
5. Prrsident Trump
6. Fracking
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on August 19, 2016, 10:00:12 PM
Poll: what are libtards the most afraid of:
1. Global Climate Warming Change
2. Wikileaks
3. White privilege
4. Systemic [insert word here]
5. Prrsident Trump
6. Fracking

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/5f/1a/b0/5f1ab0beaee9425165242019d9e56879.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on August 20, 2016, 05:35:54 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CqU7BruWEAE74dF.jpg:large)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 20, 2016, 08:08:00 PM
Lol at you Whackadoodle's. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The Big Train on August 20, 2016, 09:38:27 PM
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/bananas-could-be-wiped-out-in-5-to-10-years/
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slackcat on August 21, 2016, 05:32:15 AM
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/bananas-could-be-wiped-out-in-5-to-10-years/

Science wins again. :gocho:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 21, 2016, 07:03:04 AM
It's in the 50's, in August, in Kansas. That's some serious climate change. :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on August 21, 2016, 07:38:00 AM
Yesterday was a perfect early October day.  You can't really design a better fall day.  Right now, it's rough ridin' amazing on the deck, too.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on August 30, 2016, 08:11:20 PM
I read obama is going to commit the US to the new Paris Climate CHange Agrivience.  Screw congressional ratification.  This agreement calls for carbon emissions to be below levels at the preindustrial age.  I trying to figure.this out, and speculate how to live.  I guess I will go primitive Amish.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The Big Train on September 01, 2016, 06:58:05 PM
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160901/95a576e27259a91be70abac776e34ef1.jpg)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on September 01, 2016, 07:07:30 PM
the data look manipulated.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on September 01, 2016, 08:58:50 PM
Those satellite images from the 1850's are awful.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on September 03, 2016, 06:15:54 AM
Its over.  Sonobitch Obama.has broken every constitutional principle to force climate change horse crap on America.  Cbs is reporting Obama announced iff 55 countries ratify the Paris treaty it will go into effect for the world.  $7 gas Hot Dangy
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: ednksu on September 03, 2016, 01:02:32 PM
Its over.  Sonobitch Obama.has broken every constitutional principle to force climate change horse crap on America.  Cbs is reporting Obama announced iff 55 countries ratify the Paris treaty it will go into effect for the world.  $7 gas Hot Dangy

Good to see the pit hasn't changed.  Because this is just amazing.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on September 03, 2016, 10:50:46 PM
Why should.one.man decide the policy of our nation.  This guy can mess.up a one man rock fight.  My point.is Congress should.vote.and.set policy.   IMO the.draconian measures proposed by squirrel earthers will wreck our economy.  And this.is.the rosiest prediction.  I read the want.carbon levels.tp preindustrial levels.  If you're rich you.will.be able.a.car that goes.30 miles.  Us peons - primitive Amish.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: The Big Train on September 03, 2016, 11:00:29 PM
SkiBenny, the periods, man.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on September 04, 2016, 01:09:50 PM
I like round things that are real.  Not like global hoax.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on October 06, 2016, 03:58:57 AM
The new UN International Climate Change Treaty is in effect.  It says the United States has to lower its carbon emissions drastically.  Draconian and costly regulations to move us from a fossil fuel based society to squirrelville.  Did the Senate commit the US to this treaty by ratifying it?  No, Obama committed us to it.  I know it is not binding, but the article I read says it contains provisions cor other nations to take punitive action against us for noncompliance.  What will Hillary do with this new TOY?
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 06, 2016, 05:35:55 AM
We're at extended solar minimum levels, some scientists are predicting another mini ice age very soon. 

Then again, the warmist propagandists have done everything they can to write the last mini ice age out of the weather record.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on October 06, 2016, 11:46:25 AM
How awesomw would a mini ice age be?!?!  :excited:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on October 06, 2016, 07:20:12 PM
How would gore make money off an ice age?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on October 06, 2016, 10:13:11 PM
How awesomw would a mini ice age be?!?!  :excited:

I, personally, will love it. Sorry canada, you people moved there voluntarily.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11733369/Earth-heading-for-mini-ice-age-within-15-years.html)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on November 16, 2016, 01:20:18 PM
http://www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2016/11/nasa_video_shows_arctic_sea_ice_change_since_1984.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2016/11/nasa_video_shows_arctic_sea_ice_change_since_1984.html)

30 yr simulated time lapse of arctic ice loss.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 16, 2016, 01:29:55 PM
1984, the beginning of Earth's history, what a year!!

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on November 16, 2016, 01:40:40 PM
dax, I think even the wackiest wackos have come over to the man made climate change side of the fence. there's like 3 guys left on the other side and they all just keep screaming JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS! over and over.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 16, 2016, 01:49:44 PM
dax, I think even the wackiest wackos have come over to the man made climate change side of the fence. there's like 3 guys left on the other side and they all just keep screaming JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS! over and over.

Steve, I've never said man wasn't impacting the climate.   But with that said, it is absolutely not the first time in Earth's history that Arctic sea ice has been at minimums of this nature, if not more so.   A multitude of historical stories of the Arctic being navigable at certain points of the year when most of "recorded" history has it as un-navigable during specific times of the year. 

On the flip side is Arctic Ice Maximum's, does your house have wheels?

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on November 16, 2016, 01:53:08 PM
well i'll be
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 16, 2016, 02:19:03 PM
http://www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2016/11/nasa_video_shows_arctic_sea_ice_change_since_1984.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2016/11/nasa_video_shows_arctic_sea_ice_change_since_1984.html)

30 yr simulated time lapse of arctic ice loss.

They don't mention if the melt is due to air temperature or water temperature. I'm going to guess water.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on November 16, 2016, 02:20:29 PM
dax, I think even the wackiest wackos have come over to the man made climate change side of the fence. there's like 3 guys left on the other side and they all just keep screaming JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS! over and over.

Steve, I've never said man wasn't impacting the climate.   But with that said, it is absolutely not the first time in Earth's history that Arctic sea ice has been at minimums of this nature, if not more so.   A multitude of historical stories of the Arctic being navigable at certain points of the year when most of "recorded" history has it as un-navigable during specific times of the year. 

On the flip side is Arctic Ice Maximum's, does your house have wheels?

glad to have you on the good side dax
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on November 16, 2016, 02:22:04 PM
http://www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2016/11/nasa_video_shows_arctic_sea_ice_change_since_1984.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2016/11/nasa_video_shows_arctic_sea_ice_change_since_1984.html)

30 yr simulated time lapse of arctic ice loss.

They don't mention if the melt is due to air temperature or water temperature. I'm going to guess water.

From what I understand, water is the worse option of the two, if you believe the climate change models. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 16, 2016, 02:27:27 PM
Like 80 degrees in kc today. Remember when November was cold?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 16, 2016, 02:33:08 PM
http://www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2016/11/nasa_video_shows_arctic_sea_ice_change_since_1984.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/video/video/2016/11/nasa_video_shows_arctic_sea_ice_change_since_1984.html)

30 yr simulated time lapse of arctic ice loss.

They don't mention if the melt is due to air temperature or water temperature. I'm going to guess water.

From what I understand, water is the worse option of the two, if you believe the climate change models.

The thing about water temperature is it can be heated from within the earth and can cause currents to change, as well as affect the air temperature and increase the amount of C02 in the air. We have no way of knowing if this is what's happening.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on November 16, 2016, 06:20:10 PM
we have no way of knowing if this is what's happening.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on November 16, 2016, 06:54:18 PM
we have no way of knowing if this is what's happening.

Hop into your Bathyscaphe and tell us what you find.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on November 16, 2016, 07:03:02 PM
We're at extended solar minimum levels, some scientists are predicting another mini ice age very soon. 

Then again, the warmist propagandists have done everything they can to write the last mini ice age out of the weather record.

dax, what are your thoughts on jet fuel's ability to melt steel beams?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on November 16, 2016, 07:05:02 PM
we have no way of knowing if this is what's happening.

we have no way of knowing
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 16, 2016, 07:39:09 PM
We're at extended solar minimum levels, some scientists are predicting another mini ice age very soon. 

Then again, the warmist propagandists have done everything they can to write the last mini ice age out of the weather record.

dax, what are your thoughts on jet fuel's ability to melt steel beams?

Weird post.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: steve dave on November 16, 2016, 07:47:01 PM
We're at extended solar minimum levels, some scientists are predicting another mini ice age very soon. 

Then again, the warmist propagandists have done everything they can to write the last mini ice age out of the weather record.

dax, what are your thoughts on jet fuel's ability to melt steel beams?

Weird post.

I posted earlier today that there were no more normal people who claimed man made climate change wasn't happening. and you said, "oh yeah, same" or whatever. and then someone posted something else and I went back to like yesterday and saw this post and pointed it out because it doesn't seem to jive with your claim that you're now on the non-crazy side. explain your position on man made climate change and what we're experiencing now so I don't assume please.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 16, 2016, 07:47:52 PM
dax, what are your thoughts on jet fuel's ability to melt steel beams?

crashist propaganda
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 16, 2016, 07:50:45 PM
Hoax by the Chinese to destroy America
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on November 16, 2016, 07:58:43 PM
Caused by something NASA hasn't considered yet but John Dougie has
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 16, 2016, 10:04:42 PM
We're at extended solar minimum levels, some scientists are predicting another mini ice age very soon. 

Then again, the warmist propagandists have done everything they can to write the last mini ice age out of the weather record.

dax, what are your thoughts on jet fuel's ability to melt steel beams?

Weird post.

I posted earlier today that there were no more normal people who claimed man made climate change wasn't happening. and you said, "oh yeah, same" or whatever. and then someone posted something else and I went back to like yesterday and saw this post and pointed it out because it doesn't seem to jive with your claim that you're now on the non-crazy side. explain your position on man made climate change and what we're experiencing now so I don't assume please.


My opinion is man made climate change isn't having anywhere close to the impact of natural climate variability.   

If you want to believe that additional PPM measured in 100's of an invisible gas is having major impact on global climate then by all means.  I don't.  Relative to man made impact on climate there's far more important things to be concerned about such as: Land use, pesticide us and similar. 

Not all roads lead to AGW. 

On a side note, we're in major tornado and tornadic activity deficit,  which is weird because a post Joplin prognosis was many more tornadoes and an overhaul of the Fukushima scale was needed. 

Side side note:  Research by multiple universities concluded that US Forest Fire activity going back centuries not impacted in any substantive way by climate, but instead vastly more impacted by land use and management.

Side side side note:  The Western US has had droughts that lasted centuries over the course of Earth history.   
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: slackcat on November 17, 2016, 04:53:45 AM
What are we doing about continental drift??  http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/next-supercontinent-will-amaze-you-f6C10402106   :runaway:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on November 17, 2016, 06:17:05 AM
Dax, re: pesticides, the same guy that is looking to be the EPA guy, that loves some climate denial, also denies pesticides as a cause of health concern.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: IPA4Me on November 17, 2016, 07:12:21 AM
Uh. He said pesticides are a concern.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on November 17, 2016, 07:27:49 AM
my favorite part: "an invisible gas"
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on November 17, 2016, 07:30:45 AM
Uh. He said pesticides are a concern.
Dax or the EPA guy?  I was pointing out a diff between dax's post about pesticides and the EPA guys belief according to an article I read yesterday. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 17, 2016, 07:47:23 AM
my favorite part: "an invisible gas"

Yeah, it's a great insight into why he's a science denier
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on November 17, 2016, 07:49:22 AM
i also would like a new thread devoted to describing the physical attributes of the flying spaghetti monster
Title: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 17, 2016, 08:09:46 AM
A denier who believes in AGW?  Weird.  Great takes fellas, fantastic reading comprehension.

Oh wait, I should have said "colorless and odorless".  Anal retention factor is high in here
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 17, 2016, 09:35:27 AM
He doubles down!  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: _33 on November 17, 2016, 09:47:55 AM
Why would anyone care if someone else believes in man made climate change?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 17, 2016, 09:54:06 AM
Why would anyone care if someone else cares if someone else believes in man made climate change?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: _33 on November 17, 2016, 09:55:57 AM
Why would anyone care if someone else cares if someone else believes in man made climate change?

Touche
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 17, 2016, 10:00:23 AM
White hot takes PAlib
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 17, 2016, 10:05:32 AM
If the percentage of CO2 increases from .04 percent to - let's say .06 percent in the next 100 years, how much is that going to increase global temperature? 0.1 degrees Celsius? 1 degree Celsius?

Do we really have any idea (see first post of this thread)?

It seems like we should have a better understanding of how climate will be impacted by increasing a trace atmospheric gas before we impose restrictions on producing that gas that drive up the cost of energy and, well, everything.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 17, 2016, 10:09:07 AM
Yeah, I'll leave that part to the scientists. Info warrior Dax would rather believe whatever infowars says.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 17, 2016, 10:11:51 AM
Yeah, I'll leave that part to the scientists. Info warrior Dax would rather believe whatever infowars says.

You seem more overtly angry today.

Sad
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on November 17, 2016, 10:18:35 AM
did all of the models predict that 2016 would be the hottest year on record?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 17, 2016, 10:24:08 AM
They said 2014 was the hottest year ever and in the same releases said they weren't really sure. 

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 17, 2016, 10:28:10 AM
Yeah, I'll leave that part to the scientists. Info warrior Dax would rather believe whatever infowars says.

Sure, absolutely. So what do "the scientists" say? Do they agree? What's the answer from the "97%"? 0.1 degree? 1 degree? I've googled it and I'm not finding an answer. I did find a crap ton of models hypothesizing the impact on warming, and they were way off (see first post).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on November 17, 2016, 10:29:59 AM
They said 2014 was the hottest year ever and in the same releases said they weren't really sure.
link?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on November 29, 2016, 03:41:07 PM
California, really?  Regulations for cow farts?  Dax do you have room for a California dairy cow.
http://www.fox5ny.com/news/220448846-story
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: camKSU on November 29, 2016, 03:49:56 PM
California, really?  Regulations for cow farts?  Dax do you have room for a California dairy cow.
http://www.fox5ny.com/news/220448846-story

Reno... Try not be such a rough ridin' idiot. Do a little research. Read what respected main-stream scientists are saying on the subject.

Cow farts = a crap ton of methane ... Methane = An extremely detrimental greenhouse gas (Worse than CO2) ... Climate Change / Global Warming is theorized to be caused by significant increases in greenhouse gases.

I know the koch bros, infowars, breitbart all are going to try and convince you otherwise... but maybe they have an ulterior motive. Maybe
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 29, 2016, 03:53:28 PM
camKSU must be lactose intolerant or something.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on November 29, 2016, 04:56:40 PM
 Farting is a God given right for.every creature.  Main stream scientists are making up crap to make money.  Cam the circle of life involves eating and digestion.  In the 1800s 60 million bison roamed.our prairies, farting, but not causing global warming.  If people are going chicken little about rising seas.they can move inland and raise cows.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: camKSU on November 29, 2016, 05:20:50 PM
Farting is a God given right for.every creature.  Main stream scientists are making up crap to make money.  Cam the circle of life involves eating and digestion.  In the 1800s 60 million bison roamed.our prairies, farting, but not causing global warming.  If people are going chicken little about rising seas.they can move inland and raise cows.
:bang:

40% of the world's population live along coastal areas... And you do realize that sea levels will affect the climate and food production world-wide, right? Despite what fox news tells you, you don't actually live in a bubble.

The true conservative approach and perspective would be to try and preserve and protect the environment as stridently and doggedly as repubs do for the oil and gas industry currently.  However, given how the american voter doesn't choose their politicians based on any logic or reason that would actually help them, I don't know why I would expect any different in this instance.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bucket on November 29, 2016, 05:30:41 PM
 :bwpopcorn:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on November 29, 2016, 07:27:17 PM
Cam, you have hit on a solution to overpopulation if 40% of people live along the ocean.  Nature has a way of adjusting.  So if we do away with animal protein, what will be the substitute?  Plant protein?  More tractors belching co2.  Tear up grassland that captures immense amounts of co2 to grow crops.   Regulations for animal caused methane are ridiculous at best.  Mother earthers nuts believe in an environmental apocalypse.  Conservatives believe in wise stewardship and use of resources in the environment with the belief man is an adaptable animal.  The greatest future problem is overpopulation and the complete ineffectiveness of antibiotics.  Wasting resources and time on this topic IMO is foolishness. 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on November 29, 2016, 07:58:56 PM
California, really?  Regulations for cow farts?  Dax do you have room for a California dairy cow.
http://www.fox5ny.com/news/220448846-story

Reno... Try not be such a rough ridin' idiot. Do a little research. Read what respected main-stream scientists are saying on the subject.

Cow farts = a crap ton of methane ... Methane = An extremely detrimental greenhouse gas (Worse than CO2) ... Climate Change / Global Warming is theorized to be caused by significant increases in greenhouse gases.

I know the koch bros, infowars, breitbart all are going to try and convince you otherwise... but maybe they have an ulterior motive. Maybe

you had better hope that the owner of this message board never finds this anti cow farming propaganda post
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 29, 2016, 08:24:43 PM
Warmers = mental retardation
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: camKSU on November 29, 2016, 09:44:17 PM
Cam, you have hit on a solution to overpopulation if 40% of people live along the ocean.  Nature has a way of adjusting.  So if we do away with animal protein, what will be the substitute?  Plant protein?  More tractors belching co2.  Tear up grassland that captures immense amounts of co2 to grow crops.   Regulations for animal caused methane are ridiculous at best.  Mother earthers nuts believe in an environmental apocalypse.  Conservatives believe in wise stewardship and use of resources in the environment with the belief man is an adaptable animal.  The greatest future problem is overpopulation and the complete ineffectiveness of antibiotics.  Wasting resources and time on this topic IMO is foolishness.

And there we have it. Do you all see it? The essence of modern republicans. They don't really give a crap at what happens to "them". As long as they can go on living life the way they always have... the rest of us be damned. Why should they care about everyone else? It requires too much effort, too much sacrifice.

The hypocrisy is deafening.

Pro-life? Conservatism? Small government? Self-reliance?

It's all bull crap. It's really just a philosophy of, "screw the rest of the world, I'm going to get mine... the future be damned"

It's sad really. Naive, short-sighted, and insensitive.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 29, 2016, 10:47:41 PM
Cam, what happens when the earth warms 1 degree? What if it's better that way?

I'm not sure that you understand your advocating for a constant state of weather, or how insane that is.

Typical libtard, chasing imaginary monsters.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: gatoveintisiete on November 29, 2016, 10:51:26 PM
Cam just bodybaggin' socks up in hur.  :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on November 29, 2016, 11:22:25 PM
It's all bull crap. It's really just a philosophy of, "screw the rest of the world, I'm going to get mine... the future be damned.....
You can't have bull crap without bull farts.  I admit the weather has been kind of screwy the last two years.  But what is really normal.  We screwed up old weather patterns when we plowed up the prairie to grow wheat.  What befuddles me about the world butt warmer crowd's naivety about the world caring about us and their willingness to go Amish and live without modern worldly conveniences.  Americans first is the new mantra. No fart police IMO.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on November 30, 2016, 07:39:21 AM
So, to be clear, you guys are denying the world is getting warmer and is causing things like rapid ice melt?  Or just the causes of it?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: camKSU on November 30, 2016, 08:12:43 AM
So, to be clear, you guys are denying the world is getting warmer and is causing things like rapid ice melt?  Or just the causes of it?

Or you just don't really care about the causes and "think" everything is just going to be hunky-dory?
 :bs:

FSD... 1 degree celcius will have massive changes but we could probably survive it as a species and society. However when you talk about +4 degrees... the world as we know it will be a dramatically different place. The southwest and great plains will nearly be uninhabitable (due to drought and extreme temperatures), coastal cities will be flooded by rising seas and battered by extreme storms. The overall global weather will be extreme due to dramatic changes in oceans temperatures and thus current patterns. Fish stocks will plummet impacting a huge percentage of the population worldwide that depend on the sea for their food (and economy).

The good news is we can mitigate and lessen the rise in global temperatures by changes to our processes, behaviors, laws, economies, and infrastructure. But it has to be now and it has to be serious. There isn't time to mess around with weening off (ensuring continued profits for established industries) or slow transitions. It needs to be quick, decisive, and widespread.

Otherwise...

 :fan-1:

Then again, you don't really care about everyone else, right?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 30, 2016, 08:16:28 AM
I think I'd rather just keep eating meat and dairy.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 30, 2016, 08:20:42 AM
Meat and dairy are p tasty
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2016, 08:53:25 AM
So, to be clear, you guys are denying the world is getting warmer and is causing things like rapid ice melt?  Or just the causes of it?

Or you just don't really care about the causes and "think" everything is just going to be hunky-dory?
 :bs:

FSD... 1 degree celcius will have massive changes but we could probably survive it as a species and society. However when you talk about +4 degrees... the world as we know it will be a dramatically different place. The southwest and great plains will nearly be uninhabitable (due to drought and extreme temperatures), coastal cities will be flooded by rising seas and battered by extreme storms. The overall global weather will be extreme due to dramatic changes in oceans temperatures and thus current patterns. Fish stocks will plummet impacting a huge percentage of the population worldwide that depend on the sea for their food (and economy).

The good news is we can mitigate and lessen the rise in global temperatures by changes to our processes, behaviors, laws, economies, and infrastructure. But it has to be now and it has to be serious. There isn't time to mess around with weening off (ensuring continued profits for established industries) or slow transitions. It needs to be quick, decisive, and widespread.

Otherwise...

 :fan-1:

Then again, you don't really care about everyone else, right?

Lotta certitude going up in here. It's funny how liberals are so certain of something so complex. But when you ask them for any specificity it always boils down to "Didn't you hear what I said? It's gonna be BAD! 4 degrees! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!"

Ice caps expand and contract. Artic ice is down. Antarctic ice is UP. For liberals it doesn't really matter - it's all evidence of manmade climate change (as opposed to just climate change, which has been happening since the earth was formed 6000 years ago).

I predict it's going to be cold this winter, and that is definitive prove that manmade global warming is a sham.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on November 30, 2016, 09:01:37 AM
lol
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on November 30, 2016, 09:02:39 AM
Ok, trying again since Cam got all angried up:

Do you guys not believe the world is getting warmer and causing rapid ice melt, or do you simply not believe it is caused by man?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 30, 2016, 09:05:07 AM
Ok, trying again since Cam got all angried up:

Do you guys not believe the world is getting warmer and causing rapid ice melt, or do you simply not believe it is caused by man?

I believe both of those things, CNS.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 30, 2016, 09:15:40 AM
I honestly don't know if ksuw is being sarcastic or not with the 6000 yr old earth thing
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: camKSU on November 30, 2016, 09:19:31 AM
So, to be clear, you guys are denying the world is getting warmer and is causing things like rapid ice melt?  Or just the causes of it?

Or you just don't really care about the causes and "think" everything is just going to be hunky-dory?
 :bs:

FSD... 1 degree celcius will have massive changes but we could probably survive it as a species and society. However when you talk about +4 degrees... the world as we know it will be a dramatically different place. The southwest and great plains will nearly be uninhabitable (due to drought and extreme temperatures), coastal cities will be flooded by rising seas and battered by extreme storms. The overall global weather will be extreme due to dramatic changes in oceans temperatures and thus current patterns. Fish stocks will plummet impacting a huge percentage of the population worldwide that depend on the sea for their food (and economy).

The good news is we can mitigate and lessen the rise in global temperatures by changes to our processes, behaviors, laws, economies, and infrastructure. But it has to be now and it has to be serious. There isn't time to mess around with weening off (ensuring continued profits for established industries) or slow transitions. It needs to be quick, decisive, and widespread.

Otherwise...

 :fan-1:

Then again, you don't really care about everyone else, right?

Lotta certitude going up in here. It's funny how liberals are so certain of something so complex. But when you ask them for any specificity it always boils down to "Didn't you hear what I said? It's gonna be BAD! 4 degrees! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!"

Ice caps expand and contract. Artic ice is down. Antarctic ice is UP. For liberals it doesn't really matter - it's all evidence of manmade climate change (as opposed to just climate change, which has been happening since the earth was formed 6000 years ago).

I predict it's going to be cold this winter, and that is definitive prove that manmade global warming is a sham.

A lot to unpack there.
First, nothing is 100% certain... But scientists that study these things can make projections and hypothesizes, which, in my mind, we should heed bearing in mind the consequences. Moreover though, you are asking for something that is impossible to predict with absolutes. And just because we don't have the capabilities to make things black or white with the science we have today doesn't mean that we should allow for business as usual, burying our heads in the sand.

Second, given the predictions, there isn't time or forgiveness to wait and see whether they come true. Just because it snows in the winter or is cold doesn't mean that the larger global climate isn't changing in a myriad of ways we greatly contribute to. The global climate has been changing since its existence... Just not at this rapidly accelerating pace.

Currently, we have 7.5 billion people on the planet with production and infrastructure to support it based on 19th and 20th century technologies and consumption patterns. We need to quickly start to model the transition to a sustainable and renewable economy and society so that the rest of the world, developing and otherwise can follow suit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtW2rrLHs08 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtW2rrLHs08)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2016, 10:47:32 AM
First, nothing is 100% certain... But scientists that study these things can make projections and hypothesizes, which, in my mind, we should heed bearing in mind the consequences. Moreover though, you are asking for something that is impossible to predict with absolutes. And just because we don't have the capabilities to make things black or white with the science we have today doesn't mean that we should allow for business as usual, burying our heads in the sand.

Second, given the predictions, there isn't time or forgiveness to wait and see whether they come true. Just because it snows in the winter or is cold doesn't mean that the larger global climate isn't changing in a myriad of ways we greatly contribute to. The global climate has been changing since its existence... Just not at this rapidly accelerating pace.

Currently, we have 7.5 billion people on the planet with production and infrastructure to support it based on 19th and 20th century technologies and consumption patterns. We need to quickly start to model the transition to a sustainable and renewable economy and society so that the rest of the world, developing and otherwise can follow suit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtW2rrLHs08 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtW2rrLHs08)

Go back and reread the first post in this thread. I'm not a proponent of making our energy more expensive (and everything else as a result) for less than half-baked theories when the hypotheses (models) are continually proven wrong. Our climate is far too complex to be making any rash decisions.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 30, 2016, 11:52:28 AM
even though he's not a real person, i agree completely with reno.  it doesn't make any sense to fret oneself into a tither about global warming if you are afraid to address overpopulation.


unless your goal is to see how many people we can cram onto the world before we kill everything else off, i guess.  but anyone who has that goal is an bad person, so eff them.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on November 30, 2016, 12:04:31 PM
It's manmade and is getting warmer and none of us care enough to inconvenience ourselves to do something about it including myself.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on November 30, 2016, 12:16:01 PM
It's manmade and is getting warmer and none of us care enough to inconvenience ourselves to do something about it including myself.

Well I personally am not contributing to overpopulation.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 30, 2016, 12:21:40 PM
You're alive and not killing people (that I know of)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on November 30, 2016, 12:40:35 PM
You're alive and not killing people (that I know of)

My parents only had 2 kids. 1 for each parent. Then I had no kids. Therefore the number of members of my family per generation have decreased.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on November 30, 2016, 12:51:51 PM
Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would tend towards zero.

Therefore if I have exactly 2.33 children I am neither increasing nor decreasing the overall global population. If I have less than 2.33 children I am helping to reduce the global population.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on November 30, 2016, 01:03:31 PM
even though he's not a real person, i agree completely with reno.  it doesn't make any sense to fret oneself into a tither about global warming if you are afraid to address overpopulation.


unless your goal is to see how many people we can cram onto the world before we kill everything else off, i guess.  but anyone who has that goal is an bad person, so eff them.

Isn't this a major tenet in most religions?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 30, 2016, 01:07:52 PM
i don't know, cns.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: CNS on November 30, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Low info voter.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2016, 01:24:37 PM
Have you guys read this new book? Really makes you think.  :ohno:

https://www.amazon.com/Population-Bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/0345216571/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480533809&sr=8-1&keywords=population+bomb (https://www.amazon.com/Population-Bomb-Paul-R-Ehrlich/dp/0345216571/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480533809&sr=8-1&keywords=population+bomb)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: camKSU on November 30, 2016, 01:34:18 PM
Go back and reread the first post in this thread. I'm not a proponent of making our energy more expensive (and everything else as a result) for less than half-baked theories when the hypotheses (models) are continually proven wrong. Our climate is far too complex to be making any rash decisions.

Through cap and trade or by carbon taxing we can start the process of switching over to renewable or sustainable... Otherwise, it is just not going to get there in time. At some point in the near future the ship will have sailed on reducing our impact.

And by your logic... Wouldn't the conservative position be to play it safe and change our behaviors? What is the worst that will happen? We become more energy independent, with a greater distributed network of energy producing sources, creating more jobs, investing in new technologies. Gas may go up and the oil and gas industry may not see record profits... but isn't that the nature of technology development. Certain sectors start to fall away as better ones take their place.

Isn't that less rash than just continuing to accelerate over the cliff?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 30, 2016, 01:49:10 PM
Go back and reread the first post in this thread. I'm not a proponent of making our energy more expensive (and everything else as a result) for less than half-baked theories when the hypotheses (models) are continually proven wrong. Our climate is far too complex to be making any rash decisions.

Through cap and trade or by carbon taxing we can start the process of switching over to renewable or sustainable... Otherwise, it is just not going to get there in time. At some point in the near future the ship will have sailed on reducing our impact.

And by your logic... Wouldn't the conservative position be to play it safe and change our behaviors? What is the worst that will happen? We become more energy independent, with a greater distributed network of energy producing sources, creating more jobs, investing in new technologies. Gas may go up and the oil and gas industry may not see record profits... but isn't that the nature of technology development. Certain sectors start to fall away as better ones take their place.

Isn't that less rash than just continuing to accelerate over the cliff?

The worst that could happen is that most people can't afford to eat meat, people can't run air conditioning in the summer, people are cold in the winter, and the overall economy tanks, making it much harder to earn a decent living. That stuff you listed is the best that could happen.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: camKSU on November 30, 2016, 02:23:09 PM
Go back and reread the first post in this thread. I'm not a proponent of making our energy more expensive (and everything else as a result) for less than half-baked theories when the hypotheses (models) are continually proven wrong. Our climate is far too complex to be making any rash decisions.

Through cap and trade or by carbon taxing we can start the process of switching over to renewable or sustainable... Otherwise, it is just not going to get there in time. At some point in the near future the ship will have sailed on reducing our impact.

And by your logic... Wouldn't the conservative position be to play it safe and change our behaviors? What is the worst that will happen? We become more energy independent, with a greater distributed network of energy producing sources, creating more jobs, investing in new technologies. Gas may go up and the oil and gas industry may not see record profits... but isn't that the nature of technology development. Certain sectors start to fall away as better ones take their place.

Isn't that less rash than just continuing to accelerate over the cliff?

The worst that could happen is that most people can't afford to eat meat, people can't run air conditioning in the summer, people are cold in the winter, and the overall economy tanks, making it much harder to earn a decent living. That stuff you listed is the best that could happen.

1) Really it's just red meat, not all meat. 2) Saying people wouldn't be able to run their air conditioning or heating is not necessarily true, or if so could be easily mitigated through the tax money raised through low income subsidies. 3) The economy would not tank due to cap and trade or a carbon tax... in fact, it could be argued that it will boost the overall economy as new or emerging businesses and industries see increased use, investment and growth.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: wetwillie on November 30, 2016, 02:41:36 PM
I bet cam rides a bicycle everywhere huh
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on November 30, 2016, 03:08:46 PM
Go back and reread the first post in this thread. I'm not a proponent of making our energy more expensive (and everything else as a result) for less than half-baked theories when the hypotheses (models) are continually proven wrong. Our climate is far too complex to be making any rash decisions.

Through cap and trade or by carbon taxing we can start the process of switching over to renewable or sustainable... Otherwise, it is just not going to get there in time. At some point in the near future the ship will have sailed on reducing our impact.

And by your logic... Wouldn't the conservative position be to play it safe and change our behaviors? What is the worst that will happen? We become more energy independent, with a greater distributed network of energy producing sources, creating more jobs, investing in new technologies. Gas may go up and the oil and gas industry may not see record profits... but isn't that the nature of technology development. Certain sectors start to fall away as better ones take their place.

Isn't that less rash than just continuing to accelerate over the cliff?

The worst that could happen is that most people can't afford to eat meat, people can't run air conditioning in the summer, people are cold in the winter, and the overall economy tanks, making it much harder to earn a decent living. That stuff you listed is the best that could happen.

I am belatedly realizing Cam is a sock. Fell for it.  :facepalm:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on November 30, 2016, 05:49:28 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/the-nordic-food-lab-wants-you-to-eat-blood-insects-and-brains-to-save-the-world-a7446876.html
Dang.  I will take a face up close cow fart any day to this even if it can save the planet.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on November 30, 2016, 06:44:26 PM
Classic tapout technique from kdub. Get bodybagged - - > claim boddybagg'r is a sock. So predictable and sad
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: camKSU on November 30, 2016, 10:11:26 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/the-nordic-food-lab-wants-you-to-eat-blood-insects-and-brains-to-save-the-world-a7446876.html
Dang.  I will take a face up close cow fart any day to this even if it can save the planet.

http://news.yale.edu/2016/11/30/losses-soil-carbon-under-global-warming-might-equal-us-emissions (http://news.yale.edu/2016/11/30/losses-soil-carbon-under-global-warming-might-equal-us-emissions)

eff you and your rough ridin' apathy.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on November 30, 2016, 11:28:22 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M

 :love:


i may roast a steak over an open barrel of oil to celebrate my selflessness.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 01, 2016, 11:14:56 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M

 :love:


i may roast a steak over an open barrel of oil to celebrate my selflessness.

It makes all warm and fuzzy inside - a real Chris Matthews tingle kind of feeling - to imagine there are millions of hipster millenials who actually believe this crap and won't ever have children. And then as their genitals slowly wither away, they can watch the progeny of myself and other likeminded rational people take over the country. :love:

Your line dies with you. How sad. Sad for you I mean. Again, great for me.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 01, 2016, 11:37:58 AM
Sys, did you know that ksuw has 4 kids?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: camKSU on December 01, 2016, 11:41:49 AM
It makes all warm and fuzzy inside - a real Chris Matthews tingle kind of feeling - to imagine there are millions of hipster millenials who actually believe this crap and won't ever have children. And then as their genitals slowly wither away, they can watch the progeny of myself and other likeminded rational people take over the country. :love:

Your line dies with you. How sad. Sad for you I mean. Again, great for me.

Idiocracy sure hit the nail on the head in multiple ways...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N9nVLXMhPc[/youtube]


And your president!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGUNPMPrxvA[/youtube]
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: camKSU on December 01, 2016, 12:03:59 PM
I bet cam rides a bicycle everywhere huh

Only when I leave my bunker...

Speaking of bunkers, I bet there is a big conspiracy among all the security folks around the world to invent climate change to create wars to line their pockets... Couldn't be that we are actually causing it or have the capacity to lessen the impact through changes to the status quo. Just too hard and too complex.

http://www.aol.co.uk/news/2016/11/30/military-experts-warn-of-epic-humanitarian-crisis-sparked-by-c/ (http://www.aol.co.uk/news/2016/11/30/military-experts-warn-of-epic-humanitarian-crisis-sparked-by-c/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sys on December 01, 2016, 12:14:04 PM
Sys, did you know that ksuw has 4 kids?

we'll outlaw his kind of deviancy, one of these days.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 01, 2016, 12:50:12 PM
Cam, I just want you to know that I'm not arguing with you regarding global warming climate change. I just think you should know that according to NASA the planet has heated up ~1 degree celsius in the last 40 years. You claim such warming would cause "massive changes" in climate, but that we MIGHT "survive as a species".  Obviously nothing close to that has happened in the last 40 years.

You see, there's a story about a boy who cried wolf they tell you in nursery school, and the lesson is really quite instructive here. If you're gonna promise biblical crap, you better deliver biblical crap, otherwise you lose all credibility and look [appropriately] like an unreasonable and indoctrinated loon. Nobody listened to the boy who cried wolf, and then he got eaten.

Your pal,
Sugar Dick
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 01, 2016, 01:37:04 PM
Nothing says you're not part of the idiocracy like immediately hurling insults when someone disagrees with you.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: camKSU on December 01, 2016, 02:02:43 PM
Nothing says you're not part of the idiocracy like immediately hurling insults when someone disagrees with you.

:bawl:

You all do such a great job of modelling this behavior for everyone.
:cheers:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on December 01, 2016, 02:11:44 PM
i think cam is the big train.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Tobias on December 01, 2016, 02:30:20 PM
lol
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: bubbles4ksu on December 01, 2016, 02:33:26 PM
oh boy

https://twitter.com/HouseScience/status/804402881982066688
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 01, 2016, 03:16:23 PM
Nothing says you're not part of the idiocracy like immediately hurling insults when someone disagrees with you.

:bawl:

You all do such a great job of modelling this behavior for everyone.
:cheers:

Some cases have already been established, so jumping straight to the insults is necessary and frankly, preferred.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: camKSU on December 07, 2016, 11:44:01 AM
oh boy

https://twitter.com/HouseScience/status/804402881982066688

Here we go again... That super partisan, leftist organization, The Weather Channel, is now spewing more fake news for china. Get woke people, infowars and breitbart have the answers... not scientists or experts with all their fancy book learning.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/06/weather-channel-breitbart-climate-change-real/95056496/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/12/06/weather-channel-breitbart-climate-change-real/95056496/)
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 07, 2016, 12:29:58 PM
Quote
NBC Universal is the owner of The Weather Channel

 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Tobias on December 07, 2016, 12:30:33 PM
:curse:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 07, 2016, 01:54:04 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on December 07, 2016, 01:55:42 PM
Drudge article says earth is slowing down and days will get longer.  This will screw the weather up.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Panjandrum on December 07, 2016, 02:13:09 PM
Scott Pruitt will be the head of the EPA.

shazbot! me.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 07, 2016, 02:16:58 PM
Tornadoes and Hurricanes still in decline.  Another dire prediction post Katrina/post Joplin designed to scare people misses again (and again).
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Panjandrum on December 07, 2016, 02:51:24 PM
Tornadoes and Hurricanes still in decline.  Another dire prediction post Katrina/post Joplin designed to scare people misses again (and again).

It's real, Dax.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 07, 2016, 02:52:04 PM
Tornadoes and Hurricanes still in decline.  Another dire prediction post Katrina/post Joplin designed to scare people misses again (and again).

It's real, Dax.

Who said global climate change wasn't real? 
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 07, 2016, 07:15:10 PM
Scott Pruitt will be the head of the EPA.

shazbot! me.

 :Woot:
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 07, 2016, 08:21:13 PM
US Steel ready to hire 10,000 former employees back.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/07/us-steel-wants-to-accelerate-investments-bring-back-jobs-ceo-says.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/07/us-steel-wants-to-accelerate-investments-bring-back-jobs-ceo-says.html)

Quote
"When you get into some situations where we're being asked to control some substances in water that are far lower than what nature naturally offers, that's irrational," he said.

"There was a point in time in the past couple years that I was having to hire more lawyers to try to interpret these new regulations than I was hiring … engineers. That doesn't make any sense."
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 07, 2016, 08:25:42 PM
The epa is a joke and should be gutted. Hopefully that's all this guy does.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 07, 2016, 08:26:09 PM
love the low iq epa hate
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: star seed 7 on December 07, 2016, 08:29:53 PM
would anyone really complain if your kid was born with 3 eyes?  i probably wouldn't
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: cfbandyman on December 07, 2016, 08:37:29 PM
would anyone really complain if your kid was born with 3 eyes?  i probably wouldn't

FSD is probably well beyond the age of procreating, not his problem to worry about.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 07, 2016, 08:42:43 PM
would anyone really complain if your kid was born with 3 eyes?  i probably wouldn't

I say no. Depth perception would be incredible.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on December 07, 2016, 08:52:42 PM
The EPA minus enforcement is 90% lawyers, 3% pretend scientists, and 7% politicians. Easily a Top 20 law firm in the US.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 07, 2016, 08:53:37 PM
God bless the epa, without it we'd all have 3 eyes.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bubbles4ksu on December 07, 2016, 08:55:08 PM
folks we used to have tehran and bejing levels of smog in this country. the epa has done a shitload of good for america.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on December 07, 2016, 08:59:59 PM
Can't wait to let corps dump toxic sludge into our waterways again!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on December 07, 2016, 09:01:16 PM
There's an industry saying that 10% of the cost removes 90% of the contamination, while 90% of the cost removes the remaining 10%. The EPA is currently down to the de minimus 1% in most cases.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bubbles4ksu on December 07, 2016, 09:02:11 PM
There's an industry saying that 10% of the cost removes 90% of the contamination, while 90% of the cost removes the remaining 10%. The EPA is currently down to the de minimus 1% in most cases.
shut the eff up with your AM radio hyperbole, weirdo.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on December 07, 2016, 09:03:31 PM
There's an industry saying that 10% of the cost removes 90% of the contamination, while 90% of the cost removes the remaining 10%. The EPA is currently down to the de minimus 1% in most cases.
shut the eff up with your AM radio hyperbole, weirdo.
You must have three eyes.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 07, 2016, 09:05:20 PM
Can't wait to let corps dump toxic sludge into our waterways again!

job killing regulations are bad!

people killing pollution is good!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 07, 2016, 09:10:47 PM
Giving the EPA credit for cleaning up industrial revolution era pollution is loltarded.
 :ROFL:

People have no rough ridin' idea what the epa is or does.  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 07, 2016, 09:13:51 PM
we should get rid of the fda too
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bubbles4ksu on December 07, 2016, 09:27:54 PM
Giving the EPA credit for cleaning up industrial revolution era pollution is loltarded.
 :ROFL:
what post are you referring to?
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: camKSU on December 07, 2016, 09:56:19 PM
The epa is a joke and should be gutted. Hopefully that's all this guy does.

And so it begins... A climate change denier, oil and gas stooge named to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. I wasn't sure how low trump would go considering he met with Gore and Ivanka apparently cares/panders concern what the world is like for her children and grandchildren... But now it's clear.

Burn baby burn, right over the cliff. I'm surprised Charles Koch didn't get named, to be honest.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on December 07, 2016, 10:17:13 PM
ge_temp is a much better attempt IMO.   Stick to that if you have to TBT.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on December 07, 2016, 10:20:41 PM
i've observed two general rules while working on the periphery of environmental regulation.  1) some of the regulations are ridiculous, and/or are applied in ridiculous ways and 2) companies do nothing that isn't mandated by regulation.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 07, 2016, 10:36:35 PM
The end of the "sue and settle" fraud? 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 08, 2016, 08:17:02 AM
we should get rid of the fda too

They do a lot to contribute to our ridiculous healthcare costs. They are probably too restrictive to pharmaceuticals.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Cire on December 08, 2016, 09:29:27 AM
What's hard about the difference between weather and climate?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 08, 2016, 09:31:29 AM
i've observed two general rules while working on the periphery of environmental regulation.  1) some of the regulations are ridiculous, and/or are applied in ridiculous ways and 2) companies do nothing that isn't mandated by regulation.

Hmm... It's almost like there is a a correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and land-ocean temperatures. And if that is the case we should probably regulate them to reduce their impact. While the regulations may seem ridiculous or onerous, I'd say it is better than the alternative reality where we dig our heads in the sand and ignore the scientists and trajectories.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ (http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on December 08, 2016, 09:31:51 AM
Quote
cli·mate
?kl?mit/
noun
noun: climate; plural noun: climates

    the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.
    "our cold, wet climate"
    synonyms:   weather conditions, weather; atmospheric conditions
    "the mild climate"
        a region with particular prevailing weather conditions.
        "vacationing in a warm climate"
        synonyms:   region, area, zone, country, place; literaryclime
        "they come from a colder climate"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2016, 09:40:32 AM
The epa has implimented regulations that opetate to condemn the following activities:
Construction of new refinery
Construction of new power plant
Production of natural gas (Reg OOOOa).

We can have non-orange river water without eliminating our ability to create energy.  If we rolled the epa back 15 years, nobody would notice and everything would be bettet. Obama and friends have used it like the gestapo.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2016, 09:45:11 AM
The epa has implimented regulations that opetate to condemn the following activities:
Construction of new refinery
Construction of new power plant
Production of natural gas (Reg OOOOa).

We can have non-orange river water without eliminating our ability to create energy.  If we rolled the epa back 15 years, nobody would notice and everything would be bettet. Obama and friends have used it like the gestapo.

Like this?

(http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150810103359-01-colorado-river-spill-restricted-super-169.jpg) Brought to you by the EPA, Guardians of the Gaia.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 08, 2016, 09:47:47 AM
The epa has implimented regulations that opetate to condemn the following activities:
Construction of new refinery
Construction of new power plant
Production of natural gas (Reg OOOOa).

We can have non-orange river water without eliminating our ability to create energy.  If we rolled the epa back 15 years, nobody would notice and everything would be bettet. Obama and friends have used it like the gestapo.

Why pursue finite resources when there are emerging renewable sources that are actually creating more jobs and have more built up potential? (Not to mention cleaner and more environmentally friendly.)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 08, 2016, 09:57:15 AM
The epa has implimented regulations that opetate to condemn the following activities:
Construction of new refinery
Construction of new power plant
Production of natural gas (Reg OOOOa).

We can have non-orange river water without eliminating our ability to create energy.  If we rolled the epa back 15 years, nobody would notice and everything would be bettet. Obama and friends have used it like the gestapo.

Why pursue finite resources when there are emerging renewable sources that are actually creating more jobs and have more built up potential? (Not to mention cleaner and more environmentally friendly.)

cost
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 08, 2016, 10:02:23 AM
The epa has implimented regulations that opetate to condemn the following activities:
Construction of new refinery
Construction of new power plant
Production of natural gas (Reg OOOOa).

We can have non-orange river water without eliminating our ability to create energy.  If we rolled the epa back 15 years, nobody would notice and everything would be bettet. Obama and friends have used it like the gestapo.

Why pursue finite resources when there are emerging renewable sources that are actually creating more jobs and have more built up potential? (Not to mention cleaner and more environmentally friendly.)

cost

Really though? The cost for fossil fuels is pretty significant for an energy source that we can only use once. In comparison, renewables are a source we can use for years upon years (even with a high cost).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: gatoveintisiete on December 08, 2016, 10:03:55 AM
The epa has implimented regulations that opetate to condemn the following activities:
Construction of new refinery
Construction of new power plant
Production of natural gas (Reg OOOOa).

We can have non-orange river water without eliminating our ability to create energy.  If we rolled the epa back 15 years, nobody would notice and everything would be bettet. Obama and friends have used it like the gestapo.

Why pursue finite resources when there are emerging renewable sources that are actually creating more jobs and have more built up potential? (Not to mention cleaner and more environmentally friendly.)

Cam, I have not looked into these issues and won't so I can't prove that you are wrong, but I have my suspicions. (Cat27 live posting from Mexico)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 08, 2016, 10:08:38 AM
The epa has implimented regulations that opetate to condemn the following activities:
Construction of new refinery
Construction of new power plant
Production of natural gas (Reg OOOOa).

We can have non-orange river water without eliminating our ability to create energy.  If we rolled the epa back 15 years, nobody would notice and everything would be bettet. Obama and friends have used it like the gestapo.

Why pursue finite resources when there are emerging renewable sources that are actually creating more jobs and have more built up potential? (Not to mention cleaner and more environmentally friendly.)

Cam, I have not looked into these issues and won't so I can't prove that you are wrong, but I have my suspicions. (Cat27 live posting from Mexico)

No worries, you can put your head back in the sand.

http://fortune.com/2015/01/16/solar-jobs-report-2014/ (http://fortune.com/2015/01/16/solar-jobs-report-2014/)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-25/clean-energy-jobs-surpass-oil-drilling-for-first-time-in-u-s (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-25/clean-energy-jobs-surpass-oil-drilling-for-first-time-in-u-s)

http://grist.org/business-technology/there-are-more-jobs-in-renewable-energy-than-in-oil-gas-and-coal-combined/ (http://grist.org/business-technology/there-are-more-jobs-in-renewable-energy-than-in-oil-gas-and-coal-combined/)

*Added links for you knuckle-draggers
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 08, 2016, 10:16:22 AM
Any live on the ground reports of Mexico becoming great again also?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on December 08, 2016, 10:17:34 AM
I was in MX 2 days after election and can confirm it was pretty great.   :dunno:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2016, 01:20:54 PM
The epa has implimented regulations that opetate to condemn the following activities:
Construction of new refinery
Construction of new power plant
Production of natural gas (Reg OOOOa).

We can have non-orange river water without eliminating our ability to create energy.  If we rolled the epa back 15 years, nobody would notice and everything would be bettet. Obama and friends have used it like the gestapo.

Why pursue finite resources when there are emerging renewable sources that are actually creating more jobs and have more built up potential? (Not to mention cleaner and more environmentally friendly.)

Wow. Delusional
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 08, 2016, 01:43:43 PM
The epa has implimented regulations that opetate to condemn the following activities:
Construction of new refinery
Construction of new power plant
Production of natural gas (Reg OOOOa).


We can have non-orange river water without eliminating our ability to create energy.  If we rolled the epa back 15 years, nobody would notice and everything would be bettet. Obama and friends have used it like the gestapo.

Why pursue finite resources when there are emerging renewable sources that are actually creating more jobs and have more built up potential? (Not to mention cleaner and more environmentally friendly.)

Wow. Delusional

Tap-out. Got it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: _33 on December 08, 2016, 03:44:16 PM
If you've ever said "tap-out" on a message board or social media you need to take a long hard look in the mirror and ask yourself if this is who you want to be for the rest of your life.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Tobias on December 08, 2016, 03:45:10 PM
So true
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 08, 2016, 03:45:51 PM
Sounds like 33 has tapped out of life
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 08, 2016, 04:12:59 PM
The epa has implimented regulations that opetate to condemn the following activities:
Construction of new refinery
Construction of new power plant
Production of natural gas (Reg OOOOa).

We can have non-orange river water without eliminating our ability to create energy.  If we rolled the epa back 15 years, nobody would notice and everything would be bettet. Obama and friends have used it like the gestapo.

Why pursue finite resources when there are emerging renewable sources that are actually creating more jobs and have more built up potential? (Not to mention cleaner and more environmentally friendly.)

cost

Really though? The cost for fossil fuels is pretty significant for an energy source that we can only use once. In comparison, renewables are a source we can use for years upon years (even with a high cost).

I really enjoy you, Camsock. I love these bizarre arguments.

First, we're in no greater risk of running out of fossil fuels than we are of wind and sun. Quite the contrary, it is wind and sun that is so unreliable due to weather that you can never truly depend upon them - you have to have backup fossil fuel plants at the ready for when the weather isn't providing those "renewables."

Second, all that wind and solar equipment has a finite life and requires constant maintenance. They are incredibly expensive. But don't take my word for it - if wind and solar were such a bargain, they wouldn't have to be massively subsidized just to stay afloat. They exist solely on the largess of the public dime - at least for the time being. I look forward to ending their subsidies and killing them off.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 08, 2016, 05:38:38 PM
Hating clean energy and being hopeful of it's downfall is such a strange take from someone who has 4 kids (and allegedly loves them)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Tobias on December 08, 2016, 05:41:05 PM
selfless, really
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on December 08, 2016, 05:52:14 PM
"clean" energy.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on December 08, 2016, 05:53:36 PM
The epa has implimented regulations that opetate to condemn the following activities:
Construction of new refinery
Construction of new power plant
Production of natural gas (Reg OOOOa).

We can have non-orange river water without eliminating our ability to create energy.  If we rolled the epa back 15 years, nobody would notice and everything would be bettet. Obama and friends have used it like the gestapo.

Why pursue finite resources when there are emerging renewable sources that are actually creating more jobs and have more built up potential? (Not to mention cleaner and more environmentally friendly.)

cost

Really though? The cost for fossil fuels is pretty significant for an energy source that we can only use once. In comparison, renewables are a source we can use for years upon years (even with a high cost).

I really enjoy you, Camsock. I love these bizarre arguments.

First, we're in no greater risk of running out of fossil fuels than we are of wind and sun. Quite the contrary, it is wind and sun that is so unreliable due to weather that you can never truly depend upon them - you have to have backup fossil fuel plants at the ready for when the weather isn't providing those "renewables."

Second, all that wind and solar equipment has a finite life and requires constant maintenance. They are incredibly expensive. But don't take my word for it - if wind and solar were such a bargain, they wouldn't have to be massively subsidized just to stay afloat. They exist solely on the largess of the public dime - at least for the time being. I look forward to ending their subsidies and killing them off.

Those costs have been consistently going down over time to the point where it's almost viable without needing subsidies. Dispatchable energy can be solved with batteries as battery technology has also improved over time. Also, tf is this?

Quote
Second, all that wind and solar equipment has a finite life and requires constant maintenance.

Do fossil fuels magically not require any maintenance either? All those major coal plants bud are 40+ years old and need constant maintenance, to the tune of millions of dollars as well. I think the last time the US has built any coal plants was 2010, since then natural gas has been preferred since gas prices have bottomed. I'd be 100% behind killing coal for good, I hate when I have to go to coal plants, disgusting places that leave your nose black with soot when you go home, cleaning yourself is nasty, and we're burning that crap into the atmosphere :yuck: Natural gas at least only "bad" product is CO2 but I doubt we'll see eye to eye on that, but at least it puts less pollutants in the air.

The thing at least where i agree with cam is that you can leverage a lot of jobs if we continue to invest in alternative energy sources. It can become a great boon to US business to be a leader in that field, instead of trying to do the things the old way.

Where I will agree with you is that the more alternative sources you add increases the stress on the grid and introduces new problems, but really those problems kinda solve themselves naturally when you have more distributed sources like wind and solar, especially paired with batteries. Also, concentration of energy sources (big power plants) do make for awfully nice targets for terrorists to focus on.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on December 08, 2016, 07:33:02 PM
There's only enough room for fossil fuels in this free market.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2016, 07:45:40 PM
Please stop arguing that wind and solar are nearly equal in cost to fossil fuels. It's demonstrably false, an absurd claim.

Please also stop denying that wind energy would exist absent tax subsidies. It wouldn't, it is not economic. Solar is probably the same, but is beyond insignificant as an energy resource. It's less than 1% of electricity generation.

Stating you have a moral/religious/irrational preference for wind and solar over oil and gas is a sufficient argument. There's no need to make up stupid crap. Just know that we're at least several decades away from fossil fuels generating even half of our energy. We will not be "energy clean" in your lifetime, drop the fantasy.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 08, 2016, 09:08:13 PM
Please stop arguing that wind and solar are nearly equal in cost to fossil fuels. It's demonstrably false, an absurd claim.

Please also stop denying that wind energy would exist absent tax subsidies. It wouldn't, it is not economic. Solar is probably the same, but is beyond insignificant as an energy resource. It's less than 1% of electricity generation.

Stating you have a moral/religious/irrational preference for wind and solar over oil and gas is a sufficient argument. There's no need to make up stupid crap. Just know that we're at least several decades away from fossil fuels generating even half of our energy. We will not be "energy clean" in your lifetime, drop the fantasy.

Are you really trying to claim that renewables shouldn't be pursued because of subsidies? Dude, fake sugar dick, do you even realize the subsidies the oil and gas industry have gotten over their lifetime? To that end... again the argument can be made that because of their potential renewables should be pursued because they are clean and are not finite. The sunk costs to extract oil and gas in all the hard to reach areas aren't worth the effort we put into getting them at some point... and furthermore they are causing extreme damage to the environment in terms of generational cost.  To say that oil and gas are no more finite than sun or wind it absurd... and frankly not even worth arguing as that is so ignorant of reality and science as to not be worth my time. However, let me get a good 8 hrs of sleep and I may revisit this with additional links to evidence that you can ignore. Just keep burying that head in the sand further, my friend, eventually you'll hit China (where they invented climate change apparently).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2016, 09:30:09 PM
You've responded to a number of arguments I've not made. I'll say this, I don't give a crap what anybody pursues on their own time, with their own money.

Your knowledge of the oil and gas industry is clearly limted to rhetoric you've come across in your "clean" energy fantasy. It's inaccurate misinformation and demonstrative of a common someone who makes me uncomfortable fallacy--that oil (largely used to make gasoline) is somehow going to be replaced by wind or solar (used to generate a small % of electricity).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 09, 2016, 09:55:06 AM
You've responded to a number of arguments I've not made. I'll say this, I don't give a crap what anybody pursues on their own time, with their own money.

Your knowledge of the oil and gas industry is clearly limted to rhetoric you've come across in your "clean" energy fantasy. It's inaccurate misinformation and demonstrative of a common someone who makes me uncomfortable fallacy--that oil (largely used to make gasoline) is somehow going to be replaced by wind or solar (used to generate a small % of electricity).

You may not be personally making the arguments but the other so-called knuckle-dragging conservatives in this country (and BBS forum) are.

My knowledge of the oil and gas industry is pretty intimate considering my family worked in it for decades, however... That doesn't mean I ignore the science, experts, or even the military (CIA & DOD both have put out papers regarding the potential impacts of climate change and of the vulnerability of centralized power plants).

I will admit, you are correct that 90% of our current energy production in this country is through fossil fuels. But take a moment and pull yourself away from the present, away from how we do things currently... What are more resilient and stable production sources? The sun, the tides, the heat from earth's core, wind, hydro, algae/biomass... or finite fossil fuels at the bottom of the ocean, under mountains, mixed in sand or hundred of feet underground. Now consider the energy required to "harvest" these two different types of energy and the acceleration of energy consumption worldwide. Would you rather compete for a finite resource with other emerging economies and countries in unstable areas of the world or... have a vast, decentralized energy network from a variety of renewable sources? The answer seems pretty clear and this is without even considering the environmental impacts of cleaner air, water, stabilized climate projections.

But let's look at it another way, economically. With 90% of our current energy coming from fossil fuels, a finite resource, the long-term forecasts for cost of business and production are ever increasing while the number of jobs decrease. As well there is very little room for growth in this industry as they have already maxed out the market penetration. Alternately, renewable energy production has a huge opportunity to grow. To transition our energy production in this country from oil and gas to renewable will result in millions of jobs, new infrastructure, and massive investment. This would have an incredibly beneficial impact on the economy as there is more room to grow. It is also less monopolized, which means more competition and more jobs.

Regarding petroleum and transportation... We are already seeing the future. Look at Tesla, or Nissan's Leaf, or Toyota's Prius. We have cars in the country that run on electricity that perform just as well if not better than their internal-combustion counter-parts. So it is not a stretch to think it can keep improving or growing. The only limiting factor here is energy storage (batteries) and even that is getting better everyday.

Having said all of that, openness to alternative energy sources and renewables does require an ability to look past the present, the status quo, and "how we have always done things". It requires a growth mindset. But it is absolutely needed and it is not rhetoric or snow-flake dreaming, but don't believe me... Listen to the pentagon.

http://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710 (http://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710)

(Here are few other links for you to peruse at your leisure)

http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/ (http://alternativeenergy.procon.org/)
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-09-28/will-renewables-replace-fossil-fuels (http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-09-28/will-renewables-replace-fossil-fuels)
http://www.energyandpolicy.org/value-of-solar-versus-fossil-fuels/ (http://www.energyandpolicy.org/value-of-solar-versus-fossil-fuels/)
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environment/solar-and-wind-energy-start-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/business/energy-environment/solar-and-wind-energy-start-to-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 09, 2016, 09:58:55 AM
CamEdn
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 09, 2016, 10:10:29 AM
CamEdn

Edn already has a long winded sock
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Tobias on December 09, 2016, 10:40:47 AM
people are really struggling on it
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on December 09, 2016, 10:47:42 AM
A train is a train, you guys.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on December 09, 2016, 11:49:52 AM
Maybe not your lifetime FSD but it will be mine.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Cartierfor3 on December 09, 2016, 03:32:06 PM
dude it was freezing at arrowhead last night
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on December 09, 2016, 06:01:30 PM
A train is a train, you guys.

Chooo chooo
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 09, 2016, 06:02:44 PM
I mean, if Cam thinks drilling a hole into sedimentary rock is more expensive than drilling into and through the basement rock granite, or installing a tremendous amount of equipment and infrastructure at the bottom of the ocean, who are we tonargue with him?

If Cam thinks the recent explosion in daily oil production through unbelievably precise new horizontal drilling techniques reflects an industry with nowhere left to go and no room to grow technologically, how can we disagree with him.

Afterall, windmills are certainly something this world hadn't seen prior to medievil times. Such exciting and innovative technology. Nevermind hydropower, and the advancements it made in grain milling centuries ago.

Cam, I favor all kinds of energy production, I think the tidal stuff is really neat. I've invested in solar. But I'm not a dimwit or an uneducated moron, I know it can't compete economically with fossil fuels now or in the next decade or 3, even when it's highly subsidized. So excuse me for pointing out how absurd your pov is.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 09, 2016, 06:06:13 PM
Libtard new technology that will power the world cleanly:

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/da/71/1c/da711cd5dc9f60a15fab060b32f86e81.jpg)

(http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/santafenewmexican.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/17/017f2cce-1b09-55e8-a0d1-6e845843e032/55173276f352e.image.jpg?resize=760%2C570)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 09, 2016, 07:26:37 PM
Ironically liberals love really old outdated technology, like trains.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on December 10, 2016, 05:35:49 AM
OBAMA SNEAKY BASTARD ATTACK!!!
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/09/executive-order-northern-bering-sea-climate-resilience
He is back at creating made up.crap and laws again.  A "Climate Resilience Area".  This overreaching concept has to be  nuked out of existence.  These envriolawyers have to be purged from the EPA. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 10, 2016, 01:48:13 PM
Libs want an energy caste system.   So pathetic and sad.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 10, 2016, 01:56:36 PM
Trump winning has really taken the wind out of dax's sails. He barely even tries anymore, he has no clue how to function in a post-hillary world. It's so sad to witness  :frown:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 10, 2016, 01:59:59 PM
Nobody has become more deranged, incoherent or pathtic in the face of his hero hrc failing than lib7.

Call one of those hotlines you have access to, buddy. Talk it out.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 11, 2016, 02:39:42 PM
I think most non-libtards would agree with this

Quote
Donald Trump had barely finished announcing his pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency before the left started listing its million reasons why Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was the worst nomination in the history of the planet: He’s an untrained anti-environmentalist. He’s a polluter. He’s a fossil-fuel fanatic, a lobbyist-lover, a climate crazy.

Mr. Pruitt is not any of those things. Here’s what he in fact is, and the real reason the left is frustrated: He’s a constitutional scholar, a federalist (and a lawyer). And for those reasons he is a sublime choice to knock down the biggest conceit of the Obama era—arrogant, overweening (and illegal) Washington rule.

We’ve lived so many years under the Obama reign that many Americans forget we are a federal republic, composed of 50 states. There isn’t a major statute on the books that doesn’t recognize this reality and acknowledge that the states are partners with—and often superior to—the federal government. That is absolutely the case with major environmental statues, from the Clean Air Act to the Clean Water Act to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Congress specifically understood in crafting each of these laws that one-size-fits all solutions were detrimental to the environment. Federal bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency traditionally and properly existed to set minimum standards, provide technical support, and engage in occasional enforcement. States, with their unique knowledge of local problems, economies and concerns, were free to innovate their own solutions.

But President Obama never held much with laws, because he failed at making them. After his first two years in office, he never could convince the Congress to pass another signature initiative. His response—and the enduring theme of his presidency—was therefore to ignore Congress and statutes, go around the partnership framework, and give his agencies authority to dictate policy from Washington. The states were demoted from partners to indentured servants. So too were any rival federal agencies that got in the EPA’s way. Example: The EPA’s pre-emptive veto of Alaska’s proposed Pebble Mine, in which it usurped Army Corps of Engineers authority.

One revealing illustration from EPA world. Under the Clean Air Act, states are allowed to craft their own implementation plans. If the EPA disapproves of a state plan, it is empowered to impose a federal one—one of the most aggressive actions the agency can take against a state, since it is the equivalent of a seizure of authority. In the entirety of the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the EPA imposed five federal implementation plans on states. By last count, the Obama administration has imposed at least 56.

Much of Mr. Pruitt’s tenure as Oklahoma’s AG was about trying to stuff federal agencies back into their legal boxes. Most of the press either never understood this, or never wanted to. When the media wrote about state lawsuits against ObamaCare or the Clean Power Plan or the Water of the United States rule, the suggestion usually was that this litigation was ideologically motivated, and a naked attempt to do what a Republican Congress could not—tank the president’s agenda.

The basis of nearly every one of these lawsuits was in fact violations of states' constitutional and statutory rights—and it is why so many of the cases were successful. It was all a valiant attempt to force the federal government to follow the law. And it has been a singular Pruitt pursuit.

Almost immediately after his 2010 election in Oklahoma, the new attorney general set up a “federalism unit” within his department to more effectively combat federal overreach. His expertise in this subject was one reason why, early in the Republican primary, Jeb Bush tapped him for a national role in his campaign, serving as the lead on a “Restoring Federalism Task Force.”

And it is clear that this is the back-to-basics pitch Mr. Pruitt made to Mr. Trump in his interview, and that Mr. Trump absolutely understood the importance. In announcing his nomination, the president-elect took care to note that Mr. Pruitt was an “expert in constitutional law” and that his job would be to restore the “EPA’s essential mission.”

Which is exactly the reform the EPA needs. The agency doesn’t need a technically trained environmentalist at its head, since it is already bubbling over with green regulations. It doesn’t need a climate warrior, as Congress has never passed a climate law, and so the EPA has no mandate to meddle there. What it needs is a lawyer, one with the knowledge of how to cut the agency back to its proper role—restoring not just an appropriate legal partnership with the states, but also with other federal bodies. One who reminds agency staff that the EPA was not created to oppose growth and development.

If Mr. Pruitt does this successfully, and on the way crushes the current president’s legacy, Mr. Obama will have only himself to blame. His abuse of federal power helped elect a new generation of state attorneys general and Washington Republicans passionately devoted to a states’ rights agenda. They’ll be advising Mr. Trump not just on environmental policy, but on health care, labor policy, entitlement reform. Say hello to the federalist revival.

Write to [email protected].
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: 8manpick on December 11, 2016, 03:05:58 PM
TL, :martavious:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DQ12 on December 12, 2016, 02:07:43 PM
I was listening to Dan Carlin's common sense and he had some guy on who Dan really admires.  Some super smart fella.  James Burke is his name.

Anyway he basically scoffed at climate change as any real problem we need to worry about because when humanity gets good at microtechnology at some point in the next 20-50 years we'll basically be able to fix all of it in a snap.  That mindset gives me relief and so that's the viewpoint i'm adopting, and I intend to become pretty arrogant about it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CHONGS on December 12, 2016, 02:14:10 PM
Ok
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DQ12 on December 12, 2016, 02:16:43 PM
Ok
Get a load of this guy.  Doesn't know a damn thing about nanotechnology.

Quote
oooo look at me!  i'm chingon.  i'm so scared of climate change.  what could possibly save us? nothing i bet!

get a grip.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CHONGS on December 12, 2016, 02:17:35 PM
Sound good
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DQ12 on December 12, 2016, 02:19:10 PM
chi-ngon?  more like chi-cken little.

Quote
the sky is falling!

do you even nano-tech, bro?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CHONGS on December 12, 2016, 02:23:24 PM
Ha ha!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 12, 2016, 02:28:49 PM
You may be correct dlew12.

It's the complete rejection of science from dax and the deniers that is insanity.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 12, 2016, 02:29:30 PM
Trump winning has really taken the wind out of dax's sails. He barely even tries anymore, he has no clue how to function in a post-hillary world. It's so sad to witness  :frown:

Just hanging low until your DefCon 1, White Phosphorus meltdown passes. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Panjandrum on December 12, 2016, 04:44:53 PM
I was listening to Dan Carlin's common sense and he had some guy on who Dan really admires.  Some super smart fella.  James Burke is his name.

Anyway he basically scoffed at climate change as any real problem we need to worry about because when humanity gets good at microtechnology at some point in the next 20-50 years we'll basically be able to fix all of it in a snap.  That mindset gives me relief and so that's the viewpoint i'm adopting, and I intend to become pretty arrogant about it.

I'm pretty sure that's a rip off from the plot of "Revolution".
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Panjandrum on December 12, 2016, 04:46:31 PM
Yep.

Quote
Ben Matheson (Tim Guinee) (season 1, guest afterward), Charlie and Danny's father. Along with Rachel he initially developed the nano-robot technology that caused the blackout, which was researched and developed by the other scientists including Grace, John and others. Initially meant as a method of cheap green energy, the project's failure had the unintended outcome of suppressing all electronic activity within a given radius. After the DOD deployed the nano-robots at an area of conflict, Ben was able to warn his family in Chicago and his brother Miles moments before the blackout occurred as the nano-bots spread out of control. Fifteen years later, he was murdered in the first episode by the Monroe Militia, and shortly before his death he sent his daughter to find his brother Miles in Chicago in order to help her find and rescue Danny. Ben's past involvement in the story is revealed throughout the first season.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 12, 2016, 05:00:45 PM
Nanobot weapons cause the apocalypse in the wool book series 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on December 12, 2016, 05:52:06 PM
I was listening to Dan Carlin's common sense and he had some guy on who Dan really admires.  Some super smart fella.  James Burke is his name.

Anyway he basically scoffed at climate change as any real problem we need to worry about because when humanity gets good at microtechnology at some point in the next 20-50 years we'll basically be able to fix all of it in a snap.  That mindset gives me relief and so that's the viewpoint i'm adopting, and I intend to become pretty arrogant about it.

The climate change stuff was just the tip of the iceberg, I got more than I bargained for listening to that. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on December 12, 2016, 05:53:38 PM
Dlew, what about the promise to cut NASA's non space budget?  That seems to delay, at best, if not completely eff over, at worst, that idea. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DQ12 on December 12, 2016, 10:49:13 PM
nano-technology, dude.  let the nano-tech worry about it.  you just worry about good ol' CNS.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on December 13, 2016, 10:28:49 AM
The nasa note was meant to be a note about pushing the creation of nano tech in such a way that would effect earth science stuff.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 13, 2016, 10:39:01 AM
Fighting fire with fire... We'll see if this prompts Trump to start a witch hunt.

http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894 (http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894)

 :Flipped off x2:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on December 13, 2016, 10:40:21 AM
Trump is waaaay too busy hanging out w/ Yeez to read that. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 13, 2016, 11:46:31 AM
Trump is waaaay too busy hanging out w/ Yeez to read that.

Or apparently anything else vitally important to maintaining our stability now and in the future.

He prefers all of his "intelligence" be through daily briefings of the inforwars and breitbart comment sections.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 13, 2016, 12:34:18 PM
Fighting fire with fire... We'll see if this prompts Trump to start a witch hunt.

http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894 (http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894)

 :Flipped off x2:

Rick perry will clean up that mess, no problem.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on December 13, 2016, 12:43:13 PM
Fighting fire with fire... We'll see if this prompts Trump to start a witch hunt.

http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894 (http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894)

 :Flipped off x2:

Rick perry will clean up that mess, no problem.
I think king trump is going to get rebellion from obama's bureaucratic peasantry.
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 13, 2016, 12:52:11 PM
Fighting fire with fire... We'll see if this prompts Trump to start a witch hunt.

http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894 (http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894)

 :Flipped off x2:

Translation:  We're going to protect or political agenda and protect those receiving copious amounts of gubment cheese to help us advance our political agenda.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 13, 2016, 01:06:33 PM
Fighting fire with fire... We'll see if this prompts Trump to start a witch hunt.

http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894 (http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894)

 :Flipped off x2:

Rick perry will clean up that mess, no problem.

Ah yes... He'll put on his "smart" glasses and go tell those scientists and phd holders what they should believe.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 13, 2016, 01:07:44 PM
Fighting fire with fire... We'll see if this prompts Trump to start a witch hunt.

http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894 (http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894)

 :Flipped off x2:

Translation:  We're going to protect or political agenda and protect those receiving copious amounts of gubment cheese to help us advance our political agenda.

Are you talking about the Department of energy or Trump's nomination for SoS, Exxon's CEO?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on December 13, 2016, 01:09:38 PM
DOE employees who are afraid of what Trump will mean for them should just find different jobs. It's really not that hard, or even that stressful when you already have a job.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on December 13, 2016, 01:11:08 PM
If Trump's plan works, and trickle down is actually a thing, there should be plenty of jobs in the energy industry shortly.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 13, 2016, 01:16:30 PM
If Trump's plan works, and trickle down is actually a thing, there should be plenty of jobs in the energy industry shortly.

Haven't we tried trickle down/supply-side a couple times now already? I'm pretty sure the majority of economists have deemed it fails miserably.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 13, 2016, 02:37:27 PM
Fighting fire with fire... We'll see if this prompts Trump to start a witch hunt.

http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894 (http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894)

 :Flipped off x2:

Translation:  We're going to protect or political agenda and protect those receiving copious amounts of gubment cheese to help us advance our political agenda.

Are you talking about the Department of energy or Trump's nomination for SoS, Exxon's CEO?

You do realize, no wait, you don't, that "green" energy subsidies (even if it's a non viable black hole but politically connected) are on a pace to outstrip (if they haven't already) traditional energy, right?

You do realize that BIG E spends billions on alternative energy, improved traditional energy and holds copious amounts of patents, licenses et. al. in that regard, right? 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 13, 2016, 03:45:36 PM
Rick Perry is just going to be there to transition some the Dept of Energy duties into another dept and close it down gracefully.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 13, 2016, 04:36:44 PM
Rick Perry is just going to be there to transition some the Dept of Energy duties into another dept and close it down gracefully.

Energy seems like a pretty big deal. What would happen to energy if we didn't have a Department of Energy?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 13, 2016, 04:37:42 PM
Rick Perry is just going to be there to transition some the Dept of Energy duties into another dept and close it down gracefully.

At this time he cannot remember the name of the department
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on December 14, 2016, 01:55:10 AM
Rick Perry is just going to be there to transition some the Dept of Energy duties into another dept and close it down gracefully.

At this time he cannot remember the name of the department

That's why he's the perfect choice.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 14, 2016, 08:21:14 AM
Rick Perry is just going to be there to transition some the Dept of Energy duties into another dept and close it down gracefully.

At this time he cannot remember the name of the department

That's why he's the perfect choice.

Will he close DOE offices in ah, all ah 57 ah states? 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 14, 2016, 09:50:30 AM
Dax can't stand by and just allow his guy, rick Perry, to be teased. No sir, not going to happen on his watch.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 14, 2016, 09:58:34 AM
Dax can't stand by and just allow his guy, rick Perry, to be teased. No sir, not going to happen on his watch.

https://electrek.co/2016/12/14/usa-installs-record-amount-of-solar-power-191-growth-ignoring-trumps-chinese-hoax/ (https://electrek.co/2016/12/14/usa-installs-record-amount-of-solar-power-191-growth-ignoring-trumps-chinese-hoax/)

(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/57/57e280a439847de155f55f06c55486292f5872c899a9603f48ad1ac26f877948.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 14, 2016, 11:58:12 AM
Dax can't stand by and just allow his guy, rick Perry, to be teased. No sir, not going to happen on his watch.

Weird post
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 17, 2016, 12:26:31 AM
Fighting fire with fire... We'll see if this prompts Trump to start a witch hunt.

http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894 (http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894)

 :Flipped off x2:

Interesting take on their flippanse...they don't have any work product to turn over

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/12/14/the-democrats-panic-over-climate-questions-speaks-volumes/?utm_term=.272f2866cc07
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on December 17, 2016, 09:07:32 AM
 :Wha:
Fighting fire with fire... We'll see if this prompts Trump to start a witch hunt.

http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894 (http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy-tells-trump-to-go-screw-himself-1790044894)

 :Flipped off x2:

Interesting take on their flippanse...they don't have any work product to turn over

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/12/14/the-democrats-panic-over-climate-questions-speaks-volumes/?utm_term=.272f2866cc07
KILL THE CAT HOG!!  This is a bloated agency that has outlived.its purpose and now is being used to push green crap lnto us.  Let the marketplace decide what energy we use.  All of.the.chickenitter stuff is stupid.  Obal warming is  a sacred cow for the left.  Perry the Nightmare, yesssss!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/its-time-to-consider-killing-the-department-of-energy/article/2609080
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 17, 2016, 09:18:41 AM
exactly reno
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on December 21, 2016, 11:45:50 AM
Welp... looks like we are going to go back to the establishment tradition of governing by corporate donors and not what the public or majority desire.

http://grist.org/briefly/even-trump-voters-oppose-trumps-climate-agenda/ (http://grist.org/briefly/even-trump-voters-oppose-trumps-climate-agenda/)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on December 21, 2016, 02:58:29 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on December 21, 2016, 05:07:35 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind

I don't read posted links out of principle but that headline is pretty exciting.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on December 21, 2016, 05:21:34 PM
i don't read them out of laziness more than principle.  i get the principle argument though.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 21, 2016, 07:38:54 PM
'merica.   Pretty damn clean air for about 4 decades.   China:  Smog Alerts

Better tighten down on 'merica
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 21, 2016, 07:44:41 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-15/world-energy-hits-a-turning-point-solar-that-s-cheaper-than-wind

DNR, but solar becoming cheaper than wind is hardly a turning point in energy, at least in real life.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 21, 2016, 08:14:58 PM
'merica.   Pretty damn clean air for about 4 decades.   China:  Smog Alerts

Better tighten down on 'merica

Thanks epa
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on December 24, 2016, 03:47:43 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/christmas/2016/12/22/reindeer-helping-protect-north-pole-climate-change/
Weee Merry Christmas News.  Increase reindeer, and save the world and meat for.school lunch.programs.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 24, 2016, 11:26:11 PM
'merica.   Pretty damn clean air for about 4 decades.   China:  Smog Alerts

Better tighten down on 'merica

Thanks epa

There's a place for the EPA, just not colluding with hardcore environmentalists and participating in ruses like sue and settle.

But, lib7logic is gonna lib7logic
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 24, 2016, 11:39:24 PM
China has shitty air, let's do what they do...

Daxlogic gonna Daxlogic p sad really imho
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 24, 2016, 11:58:53 PM
China has shitty air, let's do what they do...

Daxlogic gonna Daxlogic p sad really imho

 :lol:  You're so far off, it's just  :lol: but Merry Christmas anyway (yeah, I said it).

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 25, 2016, 12:17:28 AM
Those god damn epa hard-core environmentalists and their god damn clean air  :curse:

Make air like China again!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: The Big Train on December 25, 2016, 12:21:44 AM
Guys, it's Christmas
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 25, 2016, 12:41:55 AM
And we still have clean air  :curse:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 25, 2016, 06:54:20 AM
Yeah well anyone who wants military spending cut supports the u.s. being conquered by great britain, so the epa is pretty small potatoes.
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 25, 2016, 07:32:26 AM
My original post that started Lob7 on the EPA had nothing to do with the EPA nor have I once said get rid of the EPA nor have I said get rid of current air standards.  That's why (as usual) his whole take is weird.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 25, 2016, 08:42:18 AM
Merry Christmas you two!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on January 03, 2017, 02:41:12 AM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-03/for-cheapest-power-on-earth-look-skyward-as-coal-falls-to-solar
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on January 03, 2017, 12:47:00 PM
http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/coal-plant-in-india-has-found-a-way-to-turn-almost-all-co2-emissions-into-baking-chowder/ (http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/coal-plant-in-india-has-found-a-way-to-turn-almost-all-co2-emissions-into-baking-chowder/)

Going to be interesting to follow this.

Quote
A company in India has said it has been turning captured carbon dioxide from a coal-powered boiler into valuable chemicals such as baking chowder, in what is thought to be a world first.

The process is taking place at a chemical plant in the city of Tuticorin. With the help of an Indian firm, Carbon Clean Solutions, they say they can save 60,000 tonnes (66,000 tons) of CO2 emissions a year.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads

"I am a businessman. I never thought about saving the planet,” Ramachadran Gopalan, who owns the plant, Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals, told BBC Radio 4. “I needed a reliable stream of CO2, and this was the best way of getting it.”

Carbon Clean is run by two young Indian chemists, with their technique using salt to bond with CO2 molecules in the boiler chimney from flue gases. This process of carbon capture differs from others in that it uses a new chemical to strip CO2, which is apparently more efficient than current chemicals. More than 90 percent of the CO2 is said to be captured.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 03, 2017, 12:49:51 PM
Wow, now what are we going to do with all this baking chowder
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on January 03, 2017, 12:53:04 PM
Make crack, i guess  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 03, 2017, 01:00:14 PM
Can you ski on baking chowder? Imagine baking chowder mountains made to ski on
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on January 03, 2017, 01:02:40 PM
it just means we have to eat more muffins. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 03, 2017, 01:04:47 PM
What are we going to do with all these muffin bottoms?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on January 03, 2017, 01:20:53 PM
What are we going to do with all these muffin bottoms?

Burn them for fuel
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 07, 2017, 08:18:43 AM
Quote
If you have been following my series on The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time, you know that I am referring to the world temperature data tampering fraud, by which the guardians of world surface thermometer records (in the U.S., NASA and NOAA) "adjust" old temperatures down and new temperatures up in order to provide fake support for the official "global warming" narrative.

My last post in this series (Part X) was back in July.  Meanwhile, 2016 has proved to be a rather suspenseful year for those following this issue.  The start of the year was a time of a massive El Nino.  El Ninos (warm surface conditions in the equatorial Pacific Ocean) are known to be highly correlated with somewhat lagged spikes in atmospheric near-surface temperatures, as the oceans give up some heat into the air.  Unsurprisingly, the years of the strongest El Ninos have also been the years of highest recorded lower tropospheric temperatures in the now 38-year (back to 1979) satellite temperature record -- most notably the year 1998, until now the record-holder for the warmest year in the satellite record.  But with a comparably massive El Nino extending well into 2016, would 2016 now end the 18-year global warming "pause," break the prior record, and give new support to the cause of climate alarmism?

Throughout the year, the temperature "adjusters" at NASA have been working to prepare the ground for the big end-of-year announcement that temperatures have finally broken the old record.  In the first several months, as the effects of the El Nino lingered, they put out breathless monthly press releases announcing that month to be the "hottest [March, April, May, whatever] since records began," or something like that.  Here is NASA's release from July 20.  Excerpt:

Each of the first six months of 2016 set a record as the warmest respective month globally in the modern temperature record, which dates to 1880, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The six-month period from January to June was also the planet's warmest half-year on record, with an average temperature 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the late nineteenth century.

But then a few months after the break-up of the El Nino, the atmospheric temperatures started their inevitable sharp decline.  By October, NASA had suspended the breathless press releases; but its director of GISS, Gavin Schmidt, put out a tweet in that month that made it into the Guardian:

Dr Gavin Schmidt, director of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, tweeted:  "With data now available through September, 2016 annual record (~1.25ºC above late 19th C) seems locked in."  Last month was only just over the previous record, coming in at a razor-thin 0.004C above the previous high for the time of year, reached in September 2014. That tiny margin may be revised in future, as monthly temperature data can be nudged up or down retrospectively as later reports come in. For instance, June 2016 was initially reported as the warmest on record but was subsequently revised downward slightly to the third warmest.

June 2016 was revised down and no longer a record?  Funny, I missed any press reports on that one.

Anyway, yesterday Roy Spencer of UAH (provider of satellite-based data) put out the results for December and full-year 2016.  The UAH global lower troposphere anomaly declined a full .21 deg C in December, going from + 0.45 deg C to + 0.24 deg C.  And with that sharp drop, 2016 ended in what Spencer calls a "statistical tie" with 1998:

The resulting 2016 annual average global temperature anomaly is +0.50 deg. C, which is (a statistically insignificant) 0.02 deg. C warmer than 1998 at +0.48 deg. C. We estimate that 2016 would have had to be 0.10 C warmer than 1998 to be significantly different at the 95% confidence level. Both 2016 and 1998 were strong El Nino years.

So, too bad for those hoping for a big new full-year record in the satellite data.  The "pause" resumes.  But still no word from NASA as to their year-end figures.  Not to worry.  NASA has a different data source from the satellites, namely the network of surface weather stations whose data can be "adjusted" and "homogenized" to get essentially whatever answer NASA wants in support of its favored political narrative.  The excellent Tony Heller, in a post titled "Why Temperature Fraud Matters," is already on top of the stream of NASA data, and provides this graph as of yesterday to compare recent NASA ("adjusted" surface station) data to UAH (satellite) data:

Yes, NASA has baked in a good 0.2 deg C or so of "adjustments" just since 1995 to give it a comfortable margin to claim a "record" for 2016.  Expect that breathless announcement from NASA within the next couple of weeks.  (Prior experience indicates that NASA press releases come out around the 18th to 20th of the month.) 

If you want to make a prediction of the future about as safe as predicting the time of tomorrow's sunrise, you can predict that every mainstream news source in the country will parrot the upcoming NASA press release without mentioning that the new supposed "record" is not supported by the far-more-accurate satellite data.  Nor will any mainstream news source ask the obvious question of how it is that global warming is supposed to be caused by CO2 emissions, yet temperature records always and only seem to be associated with El Ninos, and there is no plausible mechanism to explain how CO2 emissions into the air have any causative effect on the El Nino ocean current phenomenon.  Hey, that would ruin our good sin-and-redemption story!  We can't have that!

In related news, famed climate scientist Judith Curry, long head of the department at Georgia Tech, has announced her early retirement and an intended move into the private sector.  Here is her post at her own blog.  She began her transition to skepticism all the way back in 2005, and the years since have only seen a growing disgust:

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.  How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide.

Well, that's the legacy of the Obama-era bureaucracy and its lackeys in academia.  The funding situation may be about to change by 180 degrees.  We'll see.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 07, 2017, 09:58:28 AM
I enjoy that fsd has given up providing links since he gets all his news from lunatic alt-right media
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Tobias on January 07, 2017, 10:03:48 AM
I enjoy that fsd has given up providing links since he gets all his news from lunatic alt-right media

RealClearPolitics :love:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 07, 2017, 10:54:24 AM
Meanwhile Lib predominantly relies on the finest purveyors of false news this country has to offer.   
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on January 07, 2017, 11:02:32 AM
I really enjoy that experts are not only not experts buy can't be trusted because they make their money by being an expert.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 07, 2017, 12:51:24 PM
It was on NPR, so you retards have to believe it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 07, 2017, 12:52:08 PM
Today has been a good day.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on January 20, 2017, 12:51:22 PM
Quote
At 11:59 am eastern, the official White House website had a lengthy information page about the threat of climate change and the steps the federal government had taken to fight it. At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming.

It’s customary for www.whitehouse.gov to flip over to the new administration exactly at noon, but the only mention of climate on President Trump’s new website is under his “America First Energy Plan” page, in which he vows to destroy President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, which is a government-wide plan to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change. To reiterate: It is normal that the site is completely new; it is notable that climate change is not mentioned on any one of Trump's new pages.


http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-references-to-climate-change-have-been-deleted-from-the-white-house-website
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on January 20, 2017, 01:04:30 PM
Quote
At 11:59 am eastern, the official White House website had a lengthy information page about the threat of climate change and the steps the federal government had taken to fight it. At noon, at the instant Donald Trump took office, the page was gone, as well as any mention of climate change or global warming.

It’s customary for www.whitehouse.gov to flip over to the new administration exactly at noon, but the only mention of climate on President Trump’s new website is under his “America First Energy Plan” page, in which he vows to destroy President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, which is a government-wide plan to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change. To reiterate: It is normal that the site is completely new; it is notable that climate change is not mentioned on any one of Trump's new pages.


http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-references-to-climate-change-have-been-deleted-from-the-white-house-website

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/rogue-scientists-race-save-climate-data-trump/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on January 20, 2017, 02:37:04 PM
The data would probably be easier to protect if more of it had been made public, huh? For some odd reason government scientists have been oddly reluctant to disclose their data.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/29/noaa-withholds-climate-documents-from-congress/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/29/noaa-withholds-climate-documents-from-congress/)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 20, 2017, 03:13:55 PM
The data would probably be easier to protect if more of it had been made public, huh? For some odd reason government scientists have been oddly reluctant to disclose their data.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/29/noaa-withholds-climate-documents-from-congress/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/29/noaa-withholds-climate-documents-from-congress/)

NOAA and government funded climate scientists have been some of the worst violators of congressional subpoenas and FOIA requests in the country  over the last 8 years.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 20, 2017, 03:33:53 PM
Banner day for the anti-science community
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 20, 2017, 03:38:26 PM
Weird how so many climate scientists don't want the entirety of the data and findings reviewed.   But it's not new, they've been hiding behind bureaucracy for nearly two decades now.

Circumventing the rule of law ='s "Science"

Sad


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 23, 2017, 10:27:57 AM
Typical temp station siting issue of the type that is discovered all the time.
(https://s23.postimg.org/ljo8g5pmz/Roseburg_OR_USHCN.jpg)

Awhile back I told a story as relayed from Bro, who works for gub.   He said NOAA et. al. wanted to install a temp station on the side of a metal building that is bathed in sunlight during the warmest months of the year.   Even the hardcore lib scientists at the facility trolled them so hard, they never heard from NOAA again in regards to the matter.

 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: AbeFroman on January 23, 2017, 01:04:39 PM
Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 23, 2017, 01:10:55 PM
Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really

Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand that scientists largely funded by the government have a vested self interest in propagating certain things in order to keep their funding. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: AbeFroman on January 23, 2017, 02:16:51 PM
Damn all those scientists that took blow torches to the polar ice caps while we were sleeping. I bet theNavy SEALs were impressed by how stealth they were
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 23, 2017, 02:27:11 PM
Damn all those scientists that took blow torches to the polar ice caps while we were sleeping. I bet theNavy SEALs were impressed by how stealth they were

Tapout noted.

If you want to believe temp monitoring stations installed on roofs next to HVAC units, installed on the sides of metal sunlight buildings, and right next to asphalt parking lots etc. etc, great.   But don't be anti-intellectual and not * the data extensively. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bubbles4ksu on January 23, 2017, 02:44:14 PM
dax, you get seriously pissed off about a pic you found on the internet and a story from your brother while totally ignoring satellite photos of disintegrating icecaps. that makes you look really dumb.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 23, 2017, 02:50:50 PM
Just alternative fact'n
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 23, 2017, 02:51:40 PM
Typical temp station siting issue of the type that is discovered all the time.
(https://s23.postimg.org/ljo8g5pmz/Roseburg_OR_USHCN.jpg)

Awhile back I told a story as relayed from Bro, who works for gub.   He said NOAA et. al. wanted to install a temp station on the side of a metal building that is bathed in sunlight during the warmest months of the year.   Even the hardcore lib scientists at the facility trolled them so hard, they never heard from NOAA again in regards to the matter.

That's what passes for science in the hyper-partisan politically charged global warming debate non-debate.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 23, 2017, 04:11:24 PM
dax, you get seriously pissed off about a pic you found on the internet and a story from your brother while totally ignoring satellite photos of disintegrating icecaps. that makes you look really dumb.

By implication you are saying that this is the first time in all climate history that the ice caps have disintegrated.   First off, thankfully the Ice Caps have "disintegrated" substantially over world history, or it's highly likely that neither you or I are here to even have this fantastic conversation.

Next, the problem that all warmist have is that they want to lay all supposedly extraordinary climate events (of which many if not all have been found to be with substantial precedence over climatic history) solely and exclusively at the feet of AGW, which is nonsense.

Last (and for example) two Sat Temp sets of data indicate that at best (or worst) 2016 was the warmest year since 1998 and it's highly unlikely to be the "Warmest Year Ever" (or since we actually started taking semi decent Temp readings and recording them in a semi decent fashion about 150 years ago aka a tiny fraction of Earth's climatic history).  Not to mention the substantial and strong La Nina pattern which started around the Spring of 2016.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 23, 2017, 04:16:38 PM
dax, you get seriously pissed off about a pic you found on the internet and a story from your brother while totally ignoring satellite photos of disintegrating icecaps. that makes you look really dumb.

CONSPIRACY



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: passranch on January 23, 2017, 04:41:10 PM
dax, you get seriously pissed off about a pic you found on the internet and a story from your brother while totally ignoring satellite photos of disintegrating icecaps. that makes you look really dumb.

By implication you are saying that this is the first time in all climate history that the ice caps have disintegrated.   First off, thankfully the Ice Caps have "disintegrated" substantially over world history, or it's highly likely that neither you or I are here to even have this fantastic conversation.

Next, the problem that all warmist have is that they want to lay all supposedly extraordinary climate events (of which many if not all have been found to be with substantial precedence over climatic history) solely and exclusively at the feet of AGW, which is nonsense.

Last (and for example) two Sat Temp sets of data indicate that at best (or worst) 2016 was the warmest year since 1998 and it's highly unlikely to be the "Warmest Year Ever" (or since we actually started taking semi decent Temp readings and recording them in a semi decent fashion about 150 years ago aka a tiny fraction of Earth's climatic history).  Not to mention the substantial and strong La Nina pattern which started around the Spring of 2016.

Anyone else notice how awesome it is we can say with absolute crystal certainty that the Ice Caps have disintegrated substantially over world history....yet average temperature readings can only be ascertained for approximately the last 150 years? 

Pretty amazing if you ask me that we can know that Ice Caps existed and then disintegrated over the whole history of the planet yet the cause for said disintegration is apparently unknown since temperature data only exists for the past 150 years or so.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 23, 2017, 04:43:26 PM
The temperature doesn't have to hit a new record every year for global warming to be real.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 23, 2017, 04:44:28 PM
The temperature doesn't have to hit a new record every year for global warming to be real.

Who said global warming (or cooling) wasn't real? The Earth has been warming (and cooling) since its inception.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Tobias on January 23, 2017, 04:45:22 PM
sounds like something a "scientist" would claim
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 23, 2017, 04:50:40 PM
dax, you get seriously pissed off about a pic you found on the internet and a story from your brother while totally ignoring satellite photos of disintegrating icecaps. that makes you look really dumb.

By implication you are saying that this is the first time in all climate history that the ice caps have disintegrated.   First off, thankfully the Ice Caps have "disintegrated" substantially over world history, or it's highly likely that neither you or I are here to even have this fantastic conversation.

Next, the problem that all warmist have is that they want to lay all supposedly extraordinary climate events (of which many if not all have been found to be with substantial precedence over climatic history) solely and exclusively at the feet of AGW, which is nonsense.

Last (and for example) two Sat Temp sets of data indicate that at best (or worst) 2016 was the warmest year since 1998 and it's highly unlikely to be the "Warmest Year Ever" (or since we actually started taking semi decent Temp readings and recording them in a semi decent fashion about 150 years ago aka a tiny fraction of Earth's climatic history).  Not to mention the substantial and strong La Nina pattern which started around the Spring of 2016.

Anyone else notice how awesome it is we can say with absolute crystal certainty that the Ice Caps have disintegrated substantially over world history....yet average temperature readings can only be ascertained for approximately the last 150 years? 

Pretty amazing if you ask me that we can know that Ice Caps existed and then disintegrated over the whole history of the planet yet the cause for said disintegration is apparently unknown since temperature data only exists for the past 150 years or so.

So we had actual real time temp readings and recording across the globe 200 years ago?   Strange, I wonder why so many have said we've only kind of gotten that capability in the last, oh, 30 years or so, give or take.

Whereas Ice Caps left an undeniable geologic footprint that's visible with the naked eye. 







Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: passranch on January 23, 2017, 04:55:11 PM
dax, you get seriously pissed off about a pic you found on the internet and a story from your brother while totally ignoring satellite photos of disintegrating icecaps. that makes you look really dumb.

By implication you are saying that this is the first time in all climate history that the ice caps have disintegrated.   First off, thankfully the Ice Caps have "disintegrated" substantially over world history, or it's highly likely that neither you or I are here to even have this fantastic conversation.

Next, the problem that all warmist have is that they want to lay all supposedly extraordinary climate events (of which many if not all have been found to be with substantial precedence over climatic history) solely and exclusively at the feet of AGW, which is nonsense.

Last (and for example) two Sat Temp sets of data indicate that at best (or worst) 2016 was the warmest year since 1998 and it's highly unlikely to be the "Warmest Year Ever" (or since we actually started taking semi decent Temp readings and recording them in a semi decent fashion about 150 years ago aka a tiny fraction of Earth's climatic history).  Not to mention the substantial and strong La Nina pattern which started around the Spring of 2016.

Anyone else notice how awesome it is we can say with absolute crystal certainty that the Ice Caps have disintegrated substantially over world history....yet average temperature readings can only be ascertained for approximately the last 150 years? 

Pretty amazing if you ask me that we can know that Ice Caps existed and then disintegrated over the whole history of the planet yet the cause for said disintegration is apparently unknown since temperature data only exists for the past 150 years or so.

So we had actual real time temp readings and recording across the globe 200 years ago?   Strange, I wonder why so many have said we've only kind of gotten that capability in the last, oh, 30 years or so, give or take.

Whereas Ice Caps left an undeniable geologic footprint that's visible with the naked eye.

So, then you ARE acknowledging that you don't have even the slightest clue what the difference between weather and climate is.  Okay then, glad we got that cleared up!

Carry on.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DQ12 on January 23, 2017, 04:59:15 PM
I think what Dax is trying to say is that these "i f'ing love science!" claims of "year x was the warmest in history!" are a little dubious considering 1. ice caps receding aren't unprecedented, and 2. there aren't any reliable historical world temperature records
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 23, 2017, 05:37:07 PM
I think what Dax is trying to say is that these "i f'ing love science!" claims of "year x was the warmest in history!" are a little dubious considering 1. ice caps receding aren't unprecedented, and 2. there aren't any reliable historical world temperature records

3. The scientists made it up anyway #hoax
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: The Big Train on January 23, 2017, 06:55:56 PM
The biggest thing I don't get with people like Dax is what's wrong with trying to find alternative power sources?  I mean eventually fossil fuels will run out even if global warming wasn't happening(it is).  To just completely dismiss finding another renewable power supply when ours will run out eventually is so stupid.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: AbeFroman on January 23, 2017, 07:26:01 PM
Dax is upset that someone with different politics than him might contribute to the human race and make some money while doing so even if he's right about climate change (he isn't)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 23, 2017, 07:35:04 PM
The biggest thing I don't get with people like Dax is what's wrong with trying to find alternative power sources?  I mean eventually fossil fuels will run out even if global warming wasn't happening(it is).  To just completely dismiss finding another renewable power supply when ours will run out eventually is so stupid.

If only Republicans would support alternative energy  :lol:  Are their any pubs that dont?

I think the pubs take issue with the draconian tax and regulatory scheme being imposed on fossil fuels, and the enormous tax subsidies received by "renewable" energy sources, each justified by a "climate" that is allegedly changing in large part by human activity.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 24, 2017, 01:51:20 PM
dax, you get seriously pissed off about a pic you found on the internet and a story from your brother while totally ignoring satellite photos of disintegrating icecaps. that makes you look really dumb.

By implication you are saying that this is the first time in all climate history that the ice caps have disintegrated.   First off, thankfully the Ice Caps have "disintegrated" substantially over world history, or it's highly likely that neither you or I are here to even have this fantastic conversation.

Next, the problem that all warmist have is that they want to lay all supposedly extraordinary climate events (of which many if not all have been found to be with substantial precedence over climatic history) solely and exclusively at the feet of AGW, which is nonsense.

Last (and for example) two Sat Temp sets of data indicate that at best (or worst) 2016 was the warmest year since 1998 and it's highly unlikely to be the "Warmest Year Ever" (or since we actually started taking semi decent Temp readings and recording them in a semi decent fashion about 150 years ago aka a tiny fraction of Earth's climatic history).  Not to mention the substantial and strong La Nina pattern which started around the Spring of 2016.

Anyone else notice how awesome it is we can say with absolute crystal certainty that the Ice Caps have disintegrated substantially over world history....yet average temperature readings can only be ascertained for approximately the last 150 years? 

Pretty amazing if you ask me that we can know that Ice Caps existed and then disintegrated over the whole history of the planet yet the cause for said disintegration is apparently unknown since temperature data only exists for the past 150 years or so.

So we had actual real time temp readings and recording across the globe 200 years ago?   Strange, I wonder why so many have said we've only kind of gotten that capability in the last, oh, 30 years or so, give or take.

Whereas Ice Caps left an undeniable geologic footprint that's visible with the naked eye.

So, then you ARE acknowledging that you don't have even the slightest clue what the difference between weather and climate is.  Okay then, glad we got that cleared up!

Carry on.

Obtaining and keeping temp records (particularly over a substantial geographic area) for the purposes of year - to - year comparisons is exclusively for the study of climate.  The expansion and retraction of Ice Caps is clearly climate as well.

Weird little meltdown and digression.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: passranch on January 24, 2017, 06:13:04 PM
dax, you get seriously pissed off about a pic you found on the internet and a story from your brother while totally ignoring satellite photos of disintegrating icecaps. that makes you look really dumb.

bla


bla


bla


bla


Obtaining and keeping temp records (particularly over a substantial geographic area) for the purposes of year - to - year comparisons is exclusively for the study of climate.  The expansion and retraction of Ice Caps is clearly climate as well.

Weird little meltdown and digression.

No, really these kinds of discussions are pretty fun for me.  No meltdown at all, and certainly not a digression, at least not on my part.  I'm not here to argue AGW because I don't really give a flying f about it (or at least anyone's opinion of it) and I am not here to argue politics either, which you seem to clearly want to bait folks into.  Sorry, but I'm not interested in that.  You see, for me it's more the semantics of the thing...and the logic too.

My point is you were clearly correlating two separate concepts:

Climate = ice caps disintegrating and growing over earth's history based on geologic information (not weather data)
and
Weather = accurate terrestrial temperature measurements and records over the past century and a half (weather data)

As false equivalences go, this is a pretty common one.  I mean, most average people won't notice or care, they'll just get into a shouting match with you which I'm sure is the goal.  But any half intelligent person would dismiss you out of hand because of your carelessness.  I'll try to explain.

You can't say we can know for certain that there has been other warm or cold periods in Earth's history based on geologic information (read: not accurate weather data) on one hand, then immediately turn around and dismiss assumptions like 2016 and 1998 were historically warm years because we only have accurate weather data for the past 150 years on the other.  False equivalency.  Can you disprove the second assumption using geologic information?  If so, then leave the weather records out of it.  If not, why bring it up?  Doesn't do any good.  Can you prove the first assumption using weather data?  Of course not.

See?  You're arguing two sides of the same debate with yourself and getting mixed up in the process.  It would have been smart to just stick with the ice cap thing and roll with that for now.  It's a good one and you're right about it...uh, sorta.  But by injecting your political agenda you got caught in a logic trap, oh well.  Next time, maybe try not to rage-post so much and put a little more thought into what you're writing, and you'll probably be a lot more interesting...or don't do that and stay boring, doesn't really matter.

Bu now I'm sure you'll pound out a 5 minute paragraph or two in response here being all rage-y about what I'm saying then add a dismissive little tag at the end...perhaps questioning whether I'm someone's sock...I bet if I kept this thread alive I could even get you to resort to personal insults.  In the end, though, you'll move on to one of maybe a dozen or so other little internet discussions you have that you feel compelled to "win" daily, and I hope they're fulfilling for you.  Maybe you can get a better shouting match out of one of them.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: OK_Cat on January 25, 2017, 07:13:43 AM
:popcorn:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2017, 11:12:36 AM
dax, you get seriously pissed off about a pic you found on the internet and a story from your brother while totally ignoring satellite photos of disintegrating icecaps. that makes you look really dumb.

bla


bla


bla


bla


Obtaining and keeping temp records (particularly over a substantial geographic area) for the purposes of year - to - year comparisons is exclusively for the study of climate.  The expansion and retraction of Ice Caps is clearly climate as well.

Weird little meltdown and digression.

No, really these kinds of discussions are pretty fun for me.  No meltdown at all, and certainly not a digression, at least not on my part.  I'm not here to argue AGW because I don't really give a flying f about it (or at least anyone's opinion of it) and I am not here to argue politics either, which you seem to clearly want to bait folks into.  Sorry, but I'm not interested in that.  You see, for me it's more the semantics of the thing...and the logic too.

My point is you were clearly correlating two separate concepts:

Climate = ice caps disintegrating and growing over earth's history based on geologic information (not weather data)
and
Weather = accurate terrestrial temperature measurements and records over the past century and a half (weather data)

As false equivalences go, this is a pretty common one.  I mean, most average people won't notice or care, they'll just get into a shouting match with you which I'm sure is the goal.  But any half intelligent person would dismiss you out of hand because of your carelessness.  I'll try to explain.

You can't say we can know for certain that there has been other warm or cold periods in Earth's history based on geologic information (read: not accurate weather data) on one hand, then immediately turn around and dismiss assumptions like 2016 and 1998 were historically warm years because we only have accurate weather data for the past 150 years on the other.  False equivalency.  Can you disprove the second assumption using geologic information?  If so, then leave the weather records out of it.  If not, why bring it up?  Doesn't do any good.  Can you prove the first assumption using weather data?  Of course not.

See?  You're arguing two sides of the same debate with yourself and getting mixed up in the process.  It would have been smart to just stick with the ice cap thing and roll with that for now.  It's a good one and you're right about it...uh, sorta.  But by injecting your political agenda you got caught in a logic trap, oh well.  Next time, maybe try not to rage-post so much and put a little more thought into what you're writing, and you'll probably be a lot more interesting...or don't do that and stay boring, doesn't really matter.

Bu now I'm sure you'll pound out a 5 minute paragraph or two in response here being all rage-y about what I'm saying then add a dismissive little tag at the end...perhaps questioning whether I'm someone's sock...I bet if I kept this thread alive I could even get you to resort to personal insults.  In the end, though, you'll move on to one of maybe a dozen or so other little internet discussions you have that you feel compelled to "win" daily, and I hope they're fulfilling for you.  Maybe you can get a better shouting match out of one of them.

Well, that was a fancy screed, and it appears we are divided by a common language.   So, no 5 10 minute paragraph (like you just did).   My discussion of temp data was reflective of the fact that due to the lack of technology, record keeping et. al.   Other methods must be used to determine what temps were like beyond 150 plus years, methods that are subject to variables and challenges in accuracy due to limits in technology and possible contamination in handling and processing (thus obviously not real time).

At the end of the day, I don't know what one really has to do with the other in this particularly discussion, but if you want to pound out another 5 10 minute screed, by all means . . .

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on January 25, 2017, 11:19:51 AM
Dax serious question, how do you feel about the climate data we've extrapolated from ice core samples?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on January 25, 2017, 11:21:47 AM
Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really

Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand that scientists largely funded by the government have a vested self interest in propagating certain things in order to keep their funding.

crap like this is what makes you look like a fool. 

Petrol Chemicals: One of the large lobbying groups in the world, trillions in assets and revenue < big green energy: grants who publish in peer reviewed journals with verifiable data
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2017, 11:25:46 AM
Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really

Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand that scientists largely funded by the government have a vested self interest in propagating certain things in order to keep their funding.

crap like this is what makes you look like a fool. 

Petrol Chemicals: One of the large lobbying groups in the world, trillions in assets and revenue < big green energy: grants who publish in peer reviewed journals with verifiable data

This is the typical false argument people like you try to put forth, attempting to paint a picture that government funded climate scientists and related are just out there tin cupping it and have no chance in the face of Big Energy.    A total myth.   Per the GAO, the U.S. government spent $12 BILLION dollars funding climate change science in Federal FY 2014.   
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on January 25, 2017, 11:30:51 AM
Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really

Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand that scientists largely funded by the government have a vested self interest in propagating certain things in order to keep their funding.

crap like this is what makes you look like a fool. 

Petrol Chemicals: One of the large lobbying groups in the world, trillions in assets and revenue < big green energy: grants who publish in peer reviewed journals with verifiable data

This is the typical false argument people like you try to put forth, attempting to paint a picture that government funded climate scientists and related are just out there tin cupping it and have no chance in the face of Big Energy.    A total myth.   Per the GAO, the U.S. government spent $12 BILLION dollars funding climate change science in Federal FY 2014.   

No you're deflecting from the obvious point being made.  You're directly saying that climate scientist/green energy/etc are willing to unehtically alter their science in order to continue their funding.   But you ignore that their vested interest isn't even half of what petrol chemical gets in subsidies:
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

So the point is who has the bigger amount of skin in the game to lie to the public, lobby governmental leaders, and keep their industry going? 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on January 25, 2017, 11:32:20 AM
http://climate.nasa.gov/images-of-change?id=591#591-older-thicker-arctic-sea-ice-declines
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2017, 11:33:41 AM
Well, we should be seeing a lot of science denier scientists now that the president and epa guys are like dax and on the #hoax train #gottagetthatfunding
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2017, 11:35:08 AM
Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really

Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand that scientists largely funded by the government have a vested self interest in propagating certain things in order to keep their funding.

crap like this is what makes you look like a fool. 

Petrol Chemicals: One of the large lobbying groups in the world, trillions in assets and revenue < big green energy: grants who publish in peer reviewed journals with verifiable data

This is the typical false argument people like you try to put forth, attempting to paint a picture that government funded climate scientists and related are just out there tin cupping it and have no chance in the face of Big Energy.    A total myth.   Per the GAO, the U.S. government spent $12 BILLION dollars funding climate change science in Federal FY 2014.   

No you're deflecting from the obvious point being made.  You're directly saying that climate scientist/green energy/etc are willing to unehtically alter their science in order to continue their funding.   But you ignore that their vested interest isn't even half of what petrol chemical gets in subsidies:
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

So the point is who has the bigger amount of skin in the game to lie to the public, lobby governmental leaders, and keep their industry going?

Over $60 billion spent on climate change research during the Obama administration alone.

Also understand that Big Energy owns thousands of patents on alternative energy mechanisms and even owns the licences on carbon trading IT platforms and related.   At the end of the day it's a win-win no matter which way it goes for them. 

But back to your original idiocy.  If you want to believe that government funded scientists didn't see the gravy train, you're as partisan as I've ever thought you were.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2017, 11:35:52 AM
Well, we should be seeing a lot of science denier scientists now that the president and epa guys are like dax and on the #hoax train #gottagetthatfunding

I don't think it's a hoax, I've said that before, but then again, you're kind of dumb.

Sad
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2017, 11:36:19 AM
http://climate.nasa.gov/images-of-change?id=591#591-older-thicker-arctic-sea-ice-declines

Old news
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on January 25, 2017, 11:41:20 AM
Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really

Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand that scientists largely funded by the government have a vested self interest in propagating certain things in order to keep their funding.

crap like this is what makes you look like a fool. 

Petrol Chemicals: One of the large lobbying groups in the world, trillions in assets and revenue < big green energy: grants who publish in peer reviewed journals with verifiable data

This is the typical false argument people like you try to put forth, attempting to paint a picture that government funded climate scientists and related are just out there tin cupping it and have no chance in the face of Big Energy.    A total myth.   Per the GAO, the U.S. government spent $12 BILLION dollars funding climate change science in Federal FY 2014.   

No you're deflecting from the obvious point being made.  You're directly saying that climate scientist/green energy/etc are willing to unehtically alter their science in order to continue their funding.   But you ignore that their vested interest isn't even half of what petrol chemical gets in subsidies:
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

So the point is who has the bigger amount of skin in the game to lie to the public, lobby governmental leaders, and keep their industry going?

Over $60 billion spent on climate change research during the Obama administration alone.

Also understand that Big Energy owns thousands of patents on alternative energy mechanisms and even owns the licences on carbon trading IT platforms and related.   At the end of the day it's a win-win no matter which way it goes for them. 

But back to your original idiocy.  If you want to believe that government funded scientists didn't see the gravy train, you're as partisan as I've ever thought you were.

So your contention right now is that we should discount peer reviewed science because over 8 years one admin spent 60 Billion when that same admin in one year, with tax subsidies alone, not including the income they generated or the infrastructure of their industry, "spent" almost half that sum. 

tens of trillions of dollars over 8 years versus $60 billion.  Yep, that gravy train is a flowin'.  Amazing how you can tell when someone has never tried to apply for a grant and knows nothing about the process.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2017, 11:44:56 AM
Imagine being so ignorant that you think science has a political bias. Amazing really

Imagine being so ignorant that you don't understand that scientists largely funded by the government have a vested self interest in propagating certain things in order to keep their funding.

crap like this is what makes you look like a fool. 

Petrol Chemicals: One of the large lobbying groups in the world, trillions in assets and revenue < big green energy: grants who publish in peer reviewed journals with verifiable data

This is the typical false argument people like you try to put forth, attempting to paint a picture that government funded climate scientists and related are just out there tin cupping it and have no chance in the face of Big Energy.    A total myth.   Per the GAO, the U.S. government spent $12 BILLION dollars funding climate change science in Federal FY 2014.   

No you're deflecting from the obvious point being made.  You're directly saying that climate scientist/green energy/etc are willing to unehtically alter their science in order to continue their funding.   But you ignore that their vested interest isn't even half of what petrol chemical gets in subsidies:
The three largest fossil fuel subsidies were:
Foreign tax credit ($15.3 billion)
Credit for production of non-conventional fuels ($14.1 billion)
Oil and Gas exploration and development expensing ($7.1 billion)

So the point is who has the bigger amount of skin in the game to lie to the public, lobby governmental leaders, and keep their industry going?

Over $60 billion spent on climate change research during the Obama administration alone.

Also understand that Big Energy owns thousands of patents on alternative energy mechanisms and even owns the licences on carbon trading IT platforms and related.   At the end of the day it's a win-win no matter which way it goes for them. 

But back to your original idiocy.  If you want to believe that government funded scientists didn't see the gravy train, you're as partisan as I've ever thought you were.

So your contention right now is that we should discount peer reviewed science because over 8 years one admin spent 60 Billion when that same admin in one year, with tax subsidies alone, not including the income they generated or the infrastructure of their industry, "spent" almost half that sum. 

tens of trillions of dollars over 8 years versus $60 billion.  Yep, that gravy train is a flowin'.  Amazing how you can tell when someone has never tried to apply for a grant and knows nothing about the process.

"tens of trillions of dollars".   You do get that it would take the total market cap of the first three or four largest energy companies in the world just to reach a trillion dollars, now you're putting forth a false narrative that Big Energy is expanding dollars to the tune of multiple times their collective total market cap JUST on a disinformation campaign?    :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on January 25, 2017, 11:48:58 AM
Dax are you capable of reading?

I clearly said revenue + infrastructure + tax benefits from these entire companies. 

Is that simple enough for you?


But lets harp on Big Green Energy getting $60 billion over nearly a decade when we spend half that in a year just in tax subsidies.  Clearly BFE is the one we need to worry about getting jaded for money.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2017, 11:59:38 AM
Dax are you capable of reading?

I clearly said revenue + infrastructure + tax benefits from these entire companies. 

Is that simple enough for you?


But lets harp on Big Green Energy getting $60 billion over nearly a decade when we spend half that in a year just in tax subsidies.  Clearly BFE is the one we need to worry about getting jaded for money.

First of all subsidies for traditional energy are on the decline, and subsidies for inefficient and so called "green energy" are on the increase.     
   
I'm also not harping on anything, you are.

Also, the $60 billion dollar number wasn't Big Green Energy subsidization, it was Climate Change Research funding.   

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2017, 12:06:36 PM
In Federal Fiscal Year 2013 Federal Subsidies for wind and solar were nearly $11 billion dollars, for fossil fuels they were $3.5 billion, when you add in bio-fuel subsidies and other renewables, they collectively dwarfed fossil fuel subsidies.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on January 25, 2017, 12:08:49 PM
Dax is too much of a coward to call it a hoax.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2017, 12:12:11 PM
Maybe he just doesn't know what hoax means?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2017, 12:12:39 PM
You two are just the cutest.    :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 25, 2017, 12:18:21 PM
No, he probably knows what a hoax is I guess. I'm pretty sure he has applied that tag to 9/11 and the holocaust before
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on January 25, 2017, 12:39:38 PM
Nothing to see here, just your average giant tornado outbreak in January

https://twitter.com/weatherchannel/status/824324485075451904
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2017, 12:51:33 PM
No, he probably knows what a hoax is I guess. I'm pretty sure he has applied that tag to 9/11 and the holocaust before

It really sucks when you become a passive aggressive (but still angry) little douchebag. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2017, 12:54:09 PM
Nothing to see here, just your average giant tornado outbreak in January

https://twitter.com/weatherchannel/status/824324485075451904

A state like Florida has fairly erratic but continual tornado activity throughout the year, with tropical season favored as a peak

ustornadoes.com

The Southeastern U.S. has the highest number of tornadoes in the U.S. in the months of Jan-Feb-March.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on January 25, 2017, 01:01:16 PM
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 25, 2017, 01:02:34 PM
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions

I'm not asking any questions, FYI.

Weird post.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on January 31, 2017, 10:26:43 AM
In Federal Fiscal Year 2013 Federal Subsidies for wind and solar were nearly $11 billion dollars, for fossil fuels they were $3.5 billion, when you add in bio-fuel subsidies and other renewables, they collectively dwarfed fossil fuel subsidies.

Dax... I know you wholeheartedly support the best ideas when it comes to who employs the most americans and preserving energy independence. Well this recent news must really chaff your bung hole then, because Rick Perry's latest brilliant plan is both regressive and light on details, but also a move towards more dependence on foreign energy.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/30/trumps-america-first-energy-plan-actually-leaves-america-behind/ (https://cleantechnica.com/2017/01/30/trumps-america-first-energy-plan-actually-leaves-america-behind/)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on January 31, 2017, 02:19:51 PM
Well, we should be seeing a lot of science denier scientists now that the president and epa guys are like dax and on the #hoax train #gottagetthatfunding

I don't think it's a hoax, I've said that before, but then again, you're kind of dumb.

Sad

So dax... Trumps advisers say climate change isn't real and even if it is, it's no big deal. What gives with these scalawags?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/30/green-movement-greatest-threat-freedom-says-trump-adviser-myron-ebell?CMP=share_btn_tw (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/30/green-movement-greatest-threat-freedom-says-trump-adviser-myron-ebell?CMP=share_btn_tw)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 31, 2017, 03:08:07 PM
Climate change is not a big deal.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on January 31, 2017, 03:31:07 PM
Climate change is not a big deal.

Care to elaborate on that profound opinion, Fake Sugar Dick?

 :bwpopcorn:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 01, 2017, 12:09:19 PM
Climate change is not a big deal.

Care to elaborate on that profound opinion, Fake Sugar Dick?

 :bwpopcorn:

I know these are european, scientists, that have fancy book-learning degrees, but it seems like this could be a pretty big deal.

Sure seems like something that we should try and mitigate and lessen in terms of impact... What do I know though, I don't read breitbart or listen to alex jones for my science "news or knowledge".

 :dunno:

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/global-flood-risk-increase-five-fold-4-temperature-rise (https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/global-flood-risk-increase-five-fold-4-temperature-rise)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 01, 2017, 10:07:34 PM
Climate change is not a big deal.

Care to elaborate on that profound opinion, Fake Sugar Dick?

 :bwpopcorn:

I know these are european, scientists, that have fancy book-learning degrees, but it seems like this could be a pretty big deal.

Sure seems like something that we should try and mitigate and lessen in terms of impact... What do I know though, I don't read breitbart or listen to alex jones for my science "news or knowledge".

 :dunno:

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/global-flood-risk-increase-five-fold-4-temperature-rise (https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/global-flood-risk-increase-five-fold-4-temperature-rise)

Not worried. Al Gore bought a home on the coast a few years ago.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 02, 2017, 03:47:48 PM
Climate change is not a big deal.

Care to elaborate on that profound opinion, Fake Sugar Dick?

 :bwpopcorn:

I know these are european, scientists, that have fancy book-learning degrees, but it seems like this could be a pretty big deal.

Sure seems like something that we should try and mitigate and lessen in terms of impact... What do I know though, I don't read breitbart or listen to alex jones for my science "news or knowledge".

 :dunno:

https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/global-flood-risk-increase-five-fold-4-temperature-rise (https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/global-flood-risk-increase-five-fold-4-temperature-rise)

Not worried. Al Gore bought a home on the coast a few years ago.

So let me get this straight... You'll take climate change/energy advice based off of real estate purchases by a millionaire (who if he lost the property wouldn't be affected in the slightest), but not the vast majority of scientists, the pentagon, or the international community?

Oh. Ok... Well I guess full-steam ahead, burn, baby, burn then.

:bang:

rough ridin' idiot knuckle-draggers

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 02, 2017, 07:33:53 PM
Cam, you seem like you're a little uptight, and remember, not all climate change is AGW.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on February 02, 2017, 09:03:46 PM
Cam, you seem like you're a little uptight, and remember, not all climate change is AGW.

Haha... you're like a broken record or flawed computer software, Dax. I understand it's hard to process how flawed your "logic" is but you can't constantly tell other posters they are "melting down", "angry", or "stressed" when you are proven wrong or your argument falls apart. Maybe try and mix it up a bit, if for no other reason than to keep your material fresh.

Trump, the GOP, and the oil and gas industry are driving the country (and planet) right off a rough ridin' cliff all so that they can secure their profits, bonuses, and golden parachutes. But here's the deal... they may not live to see the consequences of their actions but the rest of us (and our children and grandchildren) will. 70% of the worlds population lives along coastlines, rising seas will affect them. Extreme weather will affect food production for everyone. Drastic changes to the planet's climate will wipe out ecosystems and habitats. To say that the planets climate has always changed and thus we shouldn't care that we are accelerating it, is asinine. No matter how much money you accumulate, or how secure your bunker is... if the rest of the world suffers, eventually you will too.

Then again maybe I'm just stressed thinking about all the damage/havoc trump and his ilk are reeking on the rest of us that have to actually live in reality... not Bannon's wet dreams.
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 02, 2017, 09:52:11 PM
Okay there Cam.  Let's just shut off the tap and turn it over to ultra inefficient "green energy" and watch the economy and standard of living collapse before our eyes. 

All for the sake of an invisible gas that no warmest propagandist can accurately tell us (or ever hope to) what the best PPM of its presence is in our atmosphere. 

Sadly, the credibility of warmest propagandist is shot when they try to lay everything at the feet of AGW.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on February 02, 2017, 10:08:38 PM
Quote
The average solar panel now costs around 75% less than it did just five years ago and continues to fall despite the total decimation of the heavily subsidized US solar manufacturing industry.

Dax doesn't want to invest in green energy even though the investment is paying off.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on February 02, 2017, 10:13:47 PM
Quote
Clean tech costs have fallen 41–94% over the past 7 years.

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/6d293c7dd8385d4617b7cc3e1355e27a7d4dc42e/0_0_1193_574/master/1193.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=74cab24ab98528940a57384c66379cc9)
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 02, 2017, 10:15:34 PM
You're looking at the cost of capital and output and not looking at its ability to meet the energy requirements of the Information Age and logistical and subsistence  needs of 7 billion people
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: passranch on February 03, 2017, 02:50:15 PM
Okay there Cam.  Let's just shut off the tap and turn it over to ultra inefficient "green energy" and watch the economy and standard of living collapse before our eyes. 

All for the sake of an invisible gas that no warmest propagandist can accurately tell us (or ever hope to) what the best PPM of its presence is in our atmosphere. 

Sadly, the credibility of warmest propagandist is shot when they try to lay everything at the feet of AGW.

They really are the warmest of propagandists.  None warmer, really.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on February 03, 2017, 03:29:32 PM
You're looking at the cost of capital and output and not looking at its ability to meet the energy requirements of the Information Age and logistical and subsistence  needs of 7 billion people

What percentage of those 7 billion actually benefit from the way things are now?  Wouldn't a renewable energy source, for example solar(which is infinite in our timescale) benefit a much higher percentage?  I mean eff all the rest who can't afford, or have the capacity to take advantage of fossil fuels, right?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 03, 2017, 03:39:07 PM
You're looking at the cost of capital and output and not looking at its ability to meet the energy requirements of the Information Age and logistical and subsistence  needs of 7 billion people

What percentage of those 7 billion actually benefit from the way things are now?  Wouldn't a renewable energy source, for example solar(which is infinite in our timescale) benefit a much higher percentage?  I mean eff all the rest who can't afford, or have the capacity to take advantage of fossil fuels, right?

Nobody who can't afford electricity from fossil fuels is going to be able to afford it from solar.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on February 03, 2017, 03:43:20 PM
You're looking at the cost of capital and output and not looking at its ability to meet the energy requirements of the Information Age and logistical and subsistence  needs of 7 billion people

What percentage of those 7 billion actually benefit from the way things are now?  Wouldn't a renewable energy source, for example solar(which is infinite in our timescale) benefit a much higher percentage?  I mean eff all the rest who can't afford, or have the capacity to take advantage of fossil fuels, right?

Nobody who can't afford electricity from fossil fuels is going to be able to afford it from solar.

Did you not see the drop in price?  The better it gets the cheaper it will be in the long run. At some point it will cost less.  If we don't do anything to advance it that never happens.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 03, 2017, 03:44:13 PM
You're looking at the cost of capital and output and not looking at its ability to meet the energy requirements of the Information Age and logistical and subsistence  needs of 7 billion people

What percentage of those 7 billion actually benefit from the way things are now?  Wouldn't a renewable energy source, for example solar(which is infinite in our timescale) benefit a much higher percentage?  I mean eff all the rest who can't afford, or have the capacity to take advantage of fossil fuels, right?

Nobody who can't afford electricity from fossil fuels is going to be able to afford it from solar.

Did you not see the drop in price?  The better it gets the cheaper it will be in the long run. At some point it will cost less.  If we don't do anything to advance it that never happens.

It seems like what we are doing now is working just fine, then.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on February 03, 2017, 03:45:27 PM
You're looking at the cost of capital and output and not looking at its ability to meet the energy requirements of the Information Age and logistical and subsistence  needs of 7 billion people

What percentage of those 7 billion actually benefit from the way things are now?  Wouldn't a renewable energy source, for example solar(which is infinite in our timescale) benefit a much higher percentage?  I mean eff all the rest who can't afford, or have the capacity to take advantage of fossil fuels, right?

Nobody who can't afford electricity from fossil fuels is going to be able to afford it from solar.

Did you not see the drop in price?  The better it gets the cheaper it will be in the long run. At some point it will cost less.  If we don't do anything to advance it that never happens.

It seems like what we are doing now is working just fine, then.

Well if Dax has his way it won't be much longer.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: cfbandyman on February 03, 2017, 03:45:48 PM
You're looking at the cost of capital and output and not looking at its ability to meet the energy requirements of the Information Age and logistical and subsistence  needs of 7 billion people

What percentage of those 7 billion actually benefit from the way things are now?  Wouldn't a renewable energy source, for example solar(which is infinite in our timescale) benefit a much higher percentage?  I mean eff all the rest who can't afford, or have the capacity to take advantage of fossil fuels, right?

Nobody who can't afford electricity from fossil fuels is going to be able to afford it from solar.

Plenty of people can't. They're remote, whether that remoteness is due to water or land. Oil needs infrastructure to work too. Hell Hawaii would be an example of this.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 03, 2017, 03:47:01 PM
Solar power also requires a lot of open land and infrastructure to work. It is feasible in some areas, but less so in others.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on February 03, 2017, 03:50:53 PM
I just used solar as an example, there are many others that would be more suitable for those places.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 03, 2017, 03:52:44 PM
It's sort of a chicken-or-egg thing, anyway. Cheap power generates wealth. If the United States didn't have the electric grid we currently have, we wouldn't be able to afford to build it, either.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 03, 2017, 03:59:18 PM
Generally speaking, more jobs and more consuming is bad for the environment.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on February 03, 2017, 04:49:27 PM
Solar power also requires a lot of open land and infrastructure to work. It is feasible in some areas, but less so in others.

Not if you put it on your house.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on February 03, 2017, 05:06:33 PM
I enjoy the repeated mentions of invisibility.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on February 03, 2017, 08:10:04 PM
Tidbits for thoughts on green energy meeting needs.  China just canceled upcoming coal plants in favor of renewables.  In fact, one stat I saw said that China has met all its increased energy needs since 2012 (2013?) with renewables. 

http://energypost.eu/chinas-continuing-renewable-energy-revolution-global-implications/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601093/china-is-on-an-epic-solar-power-binge/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html


So as the rest of the world removes coal at the very least, or transitions off fossils we are still doubling down, allowing nations like China to expand at a capacity that could power most of Asia.  Further, as green energy is already reaching a point that it's cheaper then fossil fuels, continued investment will only accelerate that process and make the US less competitive when we have to spend more for energy then China, India, and Europe. 
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/25/cost-of-solar-power-vs-cost-of-wind-power-coal-nuclear-natural-gas/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 03, 2017, 10:02:23 PM
Tidbits for thoughts on green energy meeting needs.  China just canceled upcoming coal plants in favor of renewables.  In fact, one stat I saw said that China has met all its increased energy needs since 2012 (2013?) with renewables. 

http://energypost.eu/chinas-continuing-renewable-energy-revolution-global-implications/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601093/china-is-on-an-epic-solar-power-binge/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html


So as the rest of the world removes coal at the very least, or transitions off fossils we are still doubling down, allowing nations like China to expand at a capacity that could power most of Asia.  Further, as green energy is already reaching a point that it's cheaper then fossil fuels, continued investment will only accelerate that process and make the US less competitive when we have to spend more for energy then China, India, and Europe. 
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/25/cost-of-solar-power-vs-cost-of-wind-power-coal-nuclear-natural-gas/

China basically has slave labor to produce solar panels.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on February 03, 2017, 10:23:33 PM
Tidbits for thoughts on green energy meeting needs.  China just canceled upcoming coal plants in favor of renewables.  In fact, one stat I saw said that China has met all its increased energy needs since 2012 (2013?) with renewables. 

http://energypost.eu/chinas-continuing-renewable-energy-revolution-global-implications/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601093/china-is-on-an-epic-solar-power-binge/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html


So as the rest of the world removes coal at the very least, or transitions off fossils we are still doubling down, allowing nations like China to expand at a capacity that could power most of Asia.  Further, as green energy is already reaching a point that it's cheaper then fossil fuels, continued investment will only accelerate that process and make the US less competitive when we have to spend more for energy then China, India, and Europe. 
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/25/cost-of-solar-power-vs-cost-of-wind-power-coal-nuclear-natural-gas/

China basically has slave labor to produce solar panels.
Can we not import the panels?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: ednksu on February 03, 2017, 11:17:29 PM
Tidbits for thoughts on green energy meeting needs.  China just canceled upcoming coal plants in favor of renewables.  In fact, one stat I saw said that China has met all its increased energy needs since 2012 (2013?) with renewables. 

http://energypost.eu/chinas-continuing-renewable-energy-revolution-global-implications/
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601093/china-is-on-an-epic-solar-power-binge/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html


So as the rest of the world removes coal at the very least, or transitions off fossils we are still doubling down, allowing nations like China to expand at a capacity that could power most of Asia.  Further, as green energy is already reaching a point that it's cheaper then fossil fuels, continued investment will only accelerate that process and make the US less competitive when we have to spend more for energy then China, India, and Europe. 
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/25/cost-of-solar-power-vs-cost-of-wind-power-coal-nuclear-natural-gas/

China basically has slave labor to produce solar panels.
Can we not import the panels?

Slightly above slave labor to make panels, I mean probably slightly better then FoxCon. 

But interesting you point out importing panels.  I'd note that this is the reason why a company like Solyndra failed so hard so fast.  The Chinese dropped the bottom out of the market with MASSIVE subsidies.  While we're busy smashing support for this industry China is killing it.  If they keep on this pace, they, and India, will own the green energy production market, and we'll be playing catch up for another 50 years like we are with Chinese steel. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 04, 2017, 07:18:54 PM
China isn't killing anything technologically ednatard. We're doing fine on solar, and we don't need indentured servants to make it economic.

Stop acting like such a dumbfuck.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 04, 2017, 07:25:52 PM
we should just buy it all from china then
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 04, 2017, 09:51:40 PM
China basically has slave labor to produce solar panels.

when solar-powered robots are making solar panels, how much will the panels cost?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 04, 2017, 10:43:52 PM
China basically has slave labor to produce solar panels.

when solar-powered robots are making solar panels, how much will the panels cost?

Almost as cheap as slave-made
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on February 04, 2017, 10:46:47 PM
China isn't killing anything technologically ednatard. We're doing fine on solar, and we don't need indentured servants to make it economic.

Stop acting like such a dumbfuck.

Do you ever stop to think, maybe you should just beat yourself in the face with a hammer?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on February 04, 2017, 10:49:26 PM
http://www.zmescience.com/other/economics/china-factory-robots-03022017/

It's only going to be easier for them to curb stomp us as Fake's ilk stand in our way.

And yeah, they are killing it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/04/how-11-countries-are-leading-the-shift-to-renewable-energy/
please remove my balls from your chin now Fake.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 05, 2017, 06:29:53 AM
Ednatard has convinced himself of something based upon a string of logical fallacies. Now, however, he's particularly crude about it.

Welcome back ednatard!


China is smoking the US in coal! And it's all Pruitt's fault!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 05, 2017, 12:38:02 PM
Edn gets so whackadoo angry.

Happy to see that a region of our nation that over the centuries has experienced droughts that have lasted decades is emerging from a 3 or 4 year drought.

Warmists were desperate to blame the drought on global climate disruption, but grudgingly had to admit it was just weather.

Maybe next time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on February 05, 2017, 04:47:08 PM
Ednatard has convinced himself of something based upon a string of logical fallacies. Now, however, he's particularly crude about it.

Welcome back ednatard!


China is smoking the US in coal! And it's all Pruitt's fault!
It's great when you can't even mount an intellectual defense so you go straight to ad homs and misdirection.

Edn gets so whackadoo angry.

Happy to see that a region of our nation that over the centuries has experienced droughts that have lasted decades is emerging from a 3 or 4 year drought.

Warmists were desperate to blame the drought on global climate disruption, but grudgingly had to admit it was just weather.

Maybe next time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Thanks for confirming you don't know what a drought is.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 05, 2017, 06:02:31 PM
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61xcOt-QAKL._SL1268_.jpg)

^^^
Edna, only he's not even right two times per day
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 06, 2017, 06:08:06 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/articl-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html?ito=email_share_mobile-masthead

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/01/26/the-worst-of-the-drought-is-over-for-california.html?client=safari

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/01/26/the-worst-of-the-drought-is-over-for-california.html?client=safari

Sent from my iPhone


Sent from my iPhone


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on February 06, 2017, 07:11:01 AM
China isn't killing anything technologically ednatard. We're doing fine on solar, and we don't need indentured servants to make it economic.

Stop acting like such a dumbfuck.

Do you ever stop to think, maybe you should just beat yourself in the face with a hammer?
No he doesn't. Same guy who thinks college makes people liberal.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on February 06, 2017, 07:11:50 AM
He's a buffoon
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 06, 2017, 10:13:04 AM
You hyper warmists need to read the Daily Mail article I posted. 

NOAA, who rushed forward with a cooked report is called out by the scientist at NOAA who put together the standards they chose to ignore. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 06, 2017, 10:23:41 AM
China isn't killing anything technologically ednatard. We're doing fine on solar, and we don't need indentured servants to make it economic.

Stop acting like such a dumbfuck.

Do you ever stop to think, maybe you should just beat yourself in the face with a hammer?
No he doesn't. Same guy who thinks college makes people liberal.
College is extremely liberal dude. Naive chicks listen to their cute extremist liberal professor and that's how they get their viewpoints when it comes to politics. It's sad.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on February 06, 2017, 12:56:34 PM
But Wacky was too smart for that...lol
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2017, 01:19:56 PM
Serious question, did anyone ever experience any political 'bias from instructors while in college?

In economics/business classes I had several say that they specifically don't make their beliefs known and in the end it doesn't matter and the material is the material.  In science/math it was never broached.  All of that was at KSU tho and my perception is that ksu is a fairly "conservative" campus in relation to the rest of the country.

I took only liberal arts bullcrap at KU, but never really got any indoctrination there either. I had a mid-level polisci instructor that said he was on an fbi watchlist for his political activities, but he never shared any of his personal views that I remember.

Am I an anomaly? Are people getting preached at 24/7 and I just missed it? Or is the ku/ksu region just not as hip to the indoctrination as the coasts?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 06, 2017, 01:24:57 PM
No, I think most professors are professional enough to not insert their politics into the classroom at just about every school. I'm sure most schools have the odd exception, like that lady at MU that needed more muscle to assault the student press in a public space, though.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 06, 2017, 01:25:59 PM
Yes, all the time. Especially in journalism school.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 06, 2017, 01:27:52 PM
No, I think most professors are professional enough to not insert their politics into the classroom at just about every school. I'm sure most schools have the odd exception, like that lady at MU that needed more muscle to assault the student press in a public space, though.
That's just a typical journalism professor, dork.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 06, 2017, 01:35:29 PM
Most aren't, but some can be triggered easily. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2017, 01:37:14 PM
Yes, all the time. Especially in journalism school.

Any examples?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 06, 2017, 01:40:46 PM
Yes, all the time. Especially in journalism school.

Any examples?
The head of the journalism school, Mr Smethers is the most political figure i've ever came a crossed in my life. Constant FB posts bashing Bush back in the day and would lol/make backhanded comments about the administration in class/lectures.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 06, 2017, 01:43:03 PM
Attacked Brownback a lot too, which was awkward with his daughter being in our class and all.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2017, 01:44:30 PM
Attacked how? what did he say, and in what context?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 06, 2017, 01:48:00 PM
Jesus christ, that was like 10 years ago. I can't remember. I just remember rolling my eyes at the time.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 06, 2017, 01:49:00 PM
Is Brownback's daughter a liberal now?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 06, 2017, 01:50:05 PM
Is Brownback's daughter a liberal now?
Yes, she was in school anyways.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 06, 2017, 01:54:26 PM
I remember one or two out of like 60.  And when I say remember, I mean I'm sure there was one or two, but I'd have to look at my transcript to recall which.  I wasn't very political tho so maybe some more were and I didn't notice.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on February 06, 2017, 01:55:57 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/6/liberal-professors-outnumber-conservatives-12-1/

Quote
Liberal professors outnumber conservatives nearly 12 to 1, study finds

It's a thing, guys.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2017, 01:57:35 PM
I'm not sure how that's relevant to the question, wackycat08
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 06, 2017, 03:28:00 PM
Okay there Cam.  Let's just shut off the tap and turn it over to ultra inefficient "green energy" and watch the economy and standard of living collapse before our eyes. 

All for the sake of an invisible gas that no warmest propagandist can accurately tell us (or ever hope to) what the best PPM of its presence is in our atmosphere. 

Sadly, the credibility of warmest propagandist is shot when they try to lay everything at the feet of AGW.

To get back to the topic of the thread:

I'll start off by ignoring the over-the-top exaggeration that we only two choices (all or nothing bullshit), Dax...

We (non-knuckle-draggers) are merely advocating that alternative energy be prioritized in greater scope and breadth than fossil fuels. It's based on jobs, resiliency, renewable/virtually infinite sources, not to even mention climate change or the impact on the environment. To say that 97% of climate scientists are propaganda-pushing alarmist is fringe paranoia at its finest.

There is obviously going to be a period of transition from one fuel/energy source to another, it's not going to happen overnight... But clinging to outdated or archaic models is both naive and ignorant of the trajectory of the market and industry.

Get with the times, yo.

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COMMUNITY_SOLAR_POWER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_COMMUNITY_SOLAR_POWER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#4cd0bde77d27 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#4cd0bde77d27)

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/china-solar-energy/ (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/china-solar-energy/)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 06, 2017, 03:43:16 PM
Has anyone stopped to consider what would happen if we harvested a significant amount of energy from the wind?  Might that change climate too?  How much square footage of solar panels would it take to power my house?  I would guess more than the size of my lot.  No idea tho.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 06, 2017, 03:47:47 PM
Has anyone stopped to consider what would happen if we harvested a significant amount of energy from the wind?  Might that change climate too?

what?


How much square footage of solar panels would it take to power my house?

how big is your house and how sunny is your environment?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2017, 03:52:41 PM
Has anyone stopped to consider what would happen if we harvested a significant amount of energy from the wind?  Might that change climate too?  How much square footage of solar panels would it take to power my house?  I would guess more than the size of my lot.  No idea tho.

My mom was looking at a development of normal 2br houses that are all fully powered by solar panels on the roof
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 06, 2017, 03:58:54 PM
Cam, you don't speak for everyone, dummy.   

Thanks for the Captain Obvious articles of which 2, I've already seen. 

You're new to this, but pages back when people were railing on "Big Energy" I reminded them that Big E controlled thousands of patents, rights and ownership in so called "green" energy. 

Plus relative to one of the articles, why wouldn't Big E be looking at alternative sources given the amount of government cheese that's been available? They're not dumb.

That still doesn't mean that alternative energy isn't (still) inefficient and (still) unreliable.

Now, please direct your attention to the article about what amounts to the outright lies coming out of NOAA, and how one of their own called them on it.

These lies with a political agenda are driving policy.




Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 06, 2017, 04:05:33 PM
Sys I'm curious if, let's say there's some finite amount of energy in the wind over some area or control volume.  I assume that must be the case.  What if we were harvest a significant amount of that wind?  I'm not sure what that amount is, but let's just assume we could and would want to harvest as much as possible.  Couldn't that create some change of some sort?  I assume it could. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 06, 2017, 04:07:16 PM
Has anyone stopped to consider what would happen if we harvested a significant amount of energy from the wind?  Might that change climate too?  How much square footage of solar panels would it take to power my house?  I would guess more than the size of my lot.  No idea tho.

My mom was looking at a development of normal 2br houses that are all fully powered by solar panels on the roof

What is a normal 2br house?  Have never heard of such a thing.  Like my parents built a 6000 sq ft 2br house but that also does not seem normal.  Even PV is all 3br and those things are closets.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on February 06, 2017, 04:14:30 PM
Sys I'm curious if, let's say there's some finite amount of energy in the wind over some area or control volume.  I assume that must be the case.  What if we were harvest a significant amount of that wind?  I'm not sure what that amount is, but let's just assume we could and would want to harvest as much as possible.  Couldn't that create some change of some sort?  I assume it could.

where is that energy going without wind power?  eventually it hits something and is transferred, right?  so it's just a matter of what it hits and where.  i can see some local effects, and changes in weather distribution but i don't see a mechanism for any net change in global energy flow.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on February 06, 2017, 04:15:28 PM
Has anyone stopped to consider what would happen if we harvested a significant amount of energy from the wind?  Might that change climate too?  How much square footage of solar panels would it take to power my house?  I would guess more than the size of my lot.  No idea tho.

My mom was looking at a development of normal 2br houses that are all fully powered by solar panels on the roof
I'm hoping by the time I need to replace the roof on my new house I can get those new shingles that Elon Musk and Tesla are going in on together. The are supposed to cost the equivalent to clay tiles. I just worry about hail from all the super storms we seem to be having now that have zero to do with climate change according to the Dax's of the world.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on February 06, 2017, 04:18:29 PM
6000 sq ft.

i'll assume somewhere with medium insolation, and i'll assume you want decent panels.  probably in the realm of 1200 sq feet = 40 panels.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 06, 2017, 04:21:51 PM
Sys I'm curious if, let's say there's some finite amount of energy in the wind over some area or control volume.  I assume that must be the case.  What if we were harvest a significant amount of that wind?  I'm not sure what that amount is, but let's just assume we could and would want to harvest as much as possible.  Couldn't that create some change of some sort?  I assume it could.

where is that energy going without wind power?  eventually it hits something and is transferred, right?  so it's just a matter of what it hits and where.  i can see some local effects, and changes in weather distribution but i don't see a mechanism for any net change in global energy flow.

Well what creates wind?  There must be energy in some form that is turned into wind, yes?  What if there is some sort of catalytic feedback loop where wind begets more wind?  And then we build all these turbines and harvest all the wind out of the air?  Well now they're worthless, and we have no wind to do some very essential things for life to exist. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 06, 2017, 04:23:49 PM
6000 sq ft.

i'll assume somewhere with medium insolation, and i'll assume you want decent panels.  probably in the realm of 1200 sq feet = 40 panels.

That was my parents house.  I would never build such a monstrosity, even if I had a score of Berkshire Class A shares.

But, basically you're saying in a KS climate the area of my roof may be enough to power my house?  That is very exciting.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 06, 2017, 04:25:21 PM
Has anyone stopped to consider what would happen if we harvested a significant amount of energy from the wind?  Might that change climate too?  How much square footage of solar panels would it take to power my house?  I would guess more than the size of my lot.  No idea tho.

My mom was looking at a development of normal 2br houses that are all fully powered by solar panels on the roof
I'm hoping by the time I need to replace the roof on my new house I can get those new shingles that Elon Musk and Tesla are going in on together. The are supposed to cost the equivalent to clay tiles. I just worry about hail from all the super storms we seem to be having now that have zero to do with climate change according to the Dax's of the world.

Those look awesome.  Insurance might be high but who cares. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on February 06, 2017, 04:33:47 PM
But, basically you're saying in a KS climate the area of my roof may be enough to power my house?  That is very exciting.

oh, for sure, space isn't an issue unless you're in like a five story house or something.


where you live makes a huge difference.  move to the southwest and your panels are like twice as good.  i don't know if solar pays off in eastern kansas.

(http://www.amerescosolar.com/sites/default/files/Insolation_MapWeb2.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on February 06, 2017, 04:35:20 PM
Well what creates wind?  There must be energy in some form that is turned into wind, yes?  What if there is some sort of catalytic feedback loop where wind begets more wind?  And then we build all these turbines and harvest all the wind out of the air?  Well now they're worthless, and we have no wind to do some very essential things for life to exist.

wind is created by air pressure.


this is an interesting idea.  i'm going to have to google this crap for a while unless chingon pops in and settles the issue.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 06, 2017, 04:37:43 PM
Sys will you come to my annual HOA meeting next January?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 06, 2017, 04:40:01 PM
actually, that didn't take long.  this satisfies me.

Quote
Ultimately, pretty much all energy in the wind ends up as low-grade heat. And that's regardless of whether or not it gets there via a wind turbine or not. If not, it will eventually dissipate due to friction, where it becomes ambient low-grade heat. If it is, then it will get converted into electricity, then some energy service (e.g. lighting), and then ambient low-grade heat.

So deploying lots of wind turbines just moves where that energy gets taken out of the wind, but not how much.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on February 06, 2017, 04:40:40 PM
Sys will you come to my annual HOA meeting next January?

you should move, hoa's are the devil.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 06, 2017, 04:42:13 PM
Has anyone stopped to consider what would happen if we harvested a significant amount of energy from the wind?  Might that change climate too?  How much square footage of solar panels would it take to power my house?  I would guess more than the size of my lot.  No idea tho.

My mom was looking at a development of normal 2br houses that are all fully powered by solar panels on the roof

What is a normal 2br house?  Have never heard of such a thing.  Like my parents built a 6000 sq ft 2br house but that also does not seem normal.  Even PV is all 3br and those things are closets.

Trying to converse with you is such a beating sometimes
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on February 06, 2017, 04:42:58 PM
According to this article, wind farms do not alter climate. I haev not done extensive research though.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-debunked-wind-farms-dont-alter-climate-180949701/
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Tobias on February 06, 2017, 04:44:19 PM
fun mental image of Emo spending months strategizing how to wear down the HOA president with questions at the annual meeting to the point where he's permitted to spell out "YETI" in solar panels on his roof
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 06, 2017, 04:44:21 PM
actually, that didn't take long.  this satisfies me.

Quote
Ultimately, pretty much all energy in the wind ends up as low-grade heat. And that's regardless of whether or not it gets there via a wind turbine or not. If not, it will eventually dissipate due to friction, where it becomes ambient low-grade heat. If it is, then it will get converted into electricity, then some energy service (e.g. lighting), and then ambient low-grade heat.

So deploying lots of wind turbines just moves where that energy gets taken out of the wind, but not how much.

Well don't some important life processes happen along the way?  Even if the end (low grade heat) may be the same, the journey is different.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 06, 2017, 04:46:01 PM
Has anyone stopped to consider what would happen if we harvested a significant amount of energy from the wind?  Might that change climate too?  How much square footage of solar panels would it take to power my house?  I would guess more than the size of my lot.  No idea tho.

My mom was looking at a development of normal 2br houses that are all fully powered by solar panels on the roof

What is a normal 2br house?  Have never heard of such a thing.  Like my parents built a 6000 sq ft 2br house but that also does not seem normal.  Even PV is all 3br and those things are closets.

Trying to converse with you is such a beating sometimes

Sorry.  Sys is much more succinct in his responses.  You should try that.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: halfEmpty on February 06, 2017, 04:51:58 PM
Sys I'm curious if, let's say there's some finite amount of energy in the wind over some area or control volume.  I assume that must be the case.  What if we were harvest a significant amount of that wind?  I'm not sure what that amount is, but let's just assume we could and would want to harvest as much as possible.  Couldn't that create some change of some sort?  I assume it could.

where is that energy going without wind power?  eventually it hits something and is transferred, right?  so it's just a matter of what it hits and where.  i can see some local effects, and changes in weather distribution but i don't see a mechanism for any net change in global energy flow.

Well what creates wind?  There must be energy in some form that is turned into wind, yes?  What if there is some sort of catalytic feedback loop where wind begets more wind?  And then we build all these turbines and harvest all the wind out of the air?  Well now they're worthless, and we have no wind to do some very essential things for life to exist.

Air pressure creates wind in a nutshell.  Low pressure sucks air in and up (hence why low pressure is usually attributed to rain), high pressure blows it out.  Pressure gradients are caused by uneven surface heating across the globe and other localized factors.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on February 06, 2017, 09:05:38 PM
Hint: emo isn't asking questions to get answers.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 06, 2017, 09:14:35 PM
My point is that we ought to be aware of unintended consequences.  Many years ago hippies were hailing the construction of hydroelectric dams, now they are championing their removal.  Strange bunch.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on February 06, 2017, 10:03:58 PM
See
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 06, 2017, 10:41:59 PM
According to this article, wind farms do not alter climate. I haev not done extensive research though.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-debunked-wind-farms-dont-alter-climate-180949701/

That's amazing considered the amount of fossil fuels, steel and concrete it takes to make the parts, and the tens of thousands of acres each farm consumes. Meanwhile, anyone who drives a car is warming the earth.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 07, 2017, 12:29:38 PM
According to this article, wind farms do not alter climate. I haev not done extensive research though.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-debunked-wind-farms-dont-alter-climate-180949701/

That's amazing considered the amount of fossil fuels, steel and concrete it takes to make the parts, and the tens of thousands of acres each farm consumes. Meanwhile, anyone who drives a car is warming the earth.

Massive wind farms are hell on birds, particularly birds of prey.   But oh well, it's inefficient (and expensive) "green energy" after all.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 07, 2017, 12:40:07 PM
According to this article, wind farms do not alter climate. I haev not done extensive research though.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/myth-debunked-wind-farms-dont-alter-climate-180949701/

That's amazing considered the amount of fossil fuels, steel and concrete it takes to make the parts, and the tens of thousands of acres each farm consumes. Meanwhile, anyone who drives a car is warming the earth.

Massive wind farms are hell on birds, particularly birds of prey.   But oh well, it's inefficient (and expensive) "green energy" after all.

Daxipad/FSD... Try not be such knuckle-draggers. A decentralized sustainable (aka... virtually infinite) energy grid benefits the planet for decades, if not hundreds, of years into the future. You build it and maintain it and it collects energy FOREVER. Versus say dig it up, burn it, drill down, burn it, create earthquakes, burn it.... You know the old, inefficient, dirty way of producing finite fossil fuel energy. Its negative impacts (messing with birds of prey or migratory birds, etc), while unfortunate and something that should be studied and if possible addressed, are vastly outweighed by it's potential in the market and potential to offset our impact on the planet's climate.

Untuck your rough ridin' shirts, pull the stick out your asses, read a rough ridin' book, and get with times.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 07, 2017, 12:49:20 PM
Not an effing soul on here has said don't develop alternative energy sources.   

But once again, decisions are being driven by bad data and politics.   

But it appears the greenies prefer seeing people living in energy poverty, which is a growing problem in developed countries who are going all-in on alternative (inefficient) energy.   

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: wELLsculptedbrows on February 07, 2017, 02:27:28 PM
My point is that we ought to be aware of unintended consequences.  Many years ago hippies were hailing the construction of hydroelectric dams, now they are championing their removal.  Strange bunch.

Yep, hippies loved dams.

(http://www.glanzundelend.de/Artikel/abc/a/image/gang.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 07, 2017, 03:11:27 PM
Not an effing soul on here has said don't develop alternative energy sources.   

But once again, decisions are being driven by bad data and politics.   

But it appears the greenies prefer seeing people living in energy poverty, which is a growing problem in developed countries who are going all-in on alternative (inefficient) energy.   

Sure, your right... The decisions by Trump and the GOP are being driven by bad data (breitbart and infowars) and bad politics (oil and gas lobbying).

 "energy poverty"  :ROFL:

If India and China (and africa) try to adopt the same lifestyles that we have historically had in the US and Western Europe... We are toast as a planet. Our environment as a system can not bear the burden of these increases in global emissions, and its subsequent effects on our climate.

The inefficiencies and expensiveness are hurdles currently but with increased investment and research this is going to vastly improve... As the trends have shown for decades now.

Why are you so being so clingy to fossil fuels? I mean I get religion, civil rights, and culture, I even understand economic conservative views in terms of being traditional and resistant to change... but science and technology?

Are you creationists too, Dax/FSD/KSU_W? Or maybe you all just prefer alternate facts in all facets of your life :U R STUPID:
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 07, 2017, 03:56:31 PM
Lol, the scientist at NOAA who created their standards just went rogue and excoriated their latest major report for failing to adhere to their own standards.  Now they're having to revise the entirety of the report which Obama used to sign the US up for stupid climate deals.   

Emissions? The US is on an emissions decline, take your case to China and India.

Oh and stop with all hyperbolic BS.   Humans or Mother Nature will kill everybody with something  long before CO2 even comes remotely close.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 07, 2017, 04:20:34 PM
Lol, the scientist at NOAA who created their standards just went rogue and excoriated their latest major report for failing to adhere to their own standards.  Now they're having to revise the entirety of the report which Obama used to sign the US up for stupid climate deals.

Cling to that one guy, and the 3%. The truth is out there, Dax.  :jeffy:

Quote
Emissions? The US is on an emissions decline, take your case to China and India.

An emission decline in large part due to regulations put in place by BO44. And as with most science and technology, the US carries the weight in terms of development and research... You want the chinese or indians being the greatest countries on the planet? Do you even 'merica, bro?

Quote
Oh and stop with all hyperbolic BS.   Humans or Mother Nature will kill everybody with something  long before CO2 even comes remotely close.

I'm the hyperbolic one? What have you and yours been for the past 8 years under Obama?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 07, 2017, 04:57:10 PM
Lol, the scientist at NOAA who created their standards just went rogue and excoriated their latest major report for failing to adhere to their own standards.  Now they're having to revise the entirety of the report which Obama used to sign the US up for stupid climate deals.

Cling to that one guy, and the 3%. The truth is out there, Dax.  :jeffy:

Quote
Emissions? The US is on an emissions decline, take your case to China and India.

An emission decline in large part due to regulations put in place by BO44. And as with most science and technology, the US carries the weight in terms of development and research... You want the chinese or indians being the greatest countries on the planet? Do you even 'merica, bro?

Quote
Oh and stop with all hyperbolic BS.   Humans or Mother Nature will kill everybody with something  long before CO2 even comes remotely close.

I'm the hyperbolic one? What have you and yours been for the past 8 years under Obama?

LOL, that "one" guy has essentially destroyed the entire political agenda and horrific "science" of a government agency.  LOL, derp, "just one guy" derp, derp,  :lol:

Your "thought" (if you want to call it that) on China and India makes absolutely no rough ridin' sense . . . where in the FSM's giant bowl of meatballs does global leadership reside in the context of countries where people can't even venture outside during many times of the year because of the pollution (See Also:  India and China)?   Get back to me when you have answer that isn't classified under the realm of:  Total Dumbass.

Yes, you're hyperbolic with your "we're all gonna die from global warming" BS  :excited:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 07, 2017, 05:10:46 PM
God plays his games, we play ours (NOAA)

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/07/even-more-on-the-david-rose-bombshell-article-how-noaa-software-spins-the-agw-game/

Quote
In each state, zero or very slight warming was converted to pronounced warming.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 07, 2017, 05:24:57 PM
Lol, the scientist at NOAA who created their standards just went rogue and excoriated their latest major report for failing to adhere to their own standards.  Now they're having to revise the entirety of the report which Obama used to sign the US up for stupid climate deals.

Cling to that one guy, and the 3%. The truth is out there, Dax.  :jeffy:

Quote
Emissions? The US is on an emissions decline, take your case to China and India.

An emission decline in large part due to regulations put in place by BO44. And as with most science and technology, the US carries the weight in terms of development and research... You want the chinese or indians being the greatest countries on the planet? Do you even 'merica, bro?

Quote
Oh and stop with all hyperbolic BS.   Humans or Mother Nature will kill everybody with something  long before CO2 even comes remotely close.

I'm the hyperbolic one? What have you and yours been for the past 8 years under Obama?

LOL, that "one" guy has essentially destroyed the entire political agenda and horrific "science" of a government agency.  LOL, derp, "just one guy" derp, derp,  :lol:

Your "thought" (if you want to call it that) on China and India makes absolutely no rough ridin' sense . . . where in the FSM's giant bowl of meatballs does global leadership reside in the context of countries where people can't even venture outside during many times of the year because of the pollution (See Also:  India and China)?   Get back to me when you have answer that isn't classified under the realm of:  Total Dumbass.

Yes, you're hyperbolic with your "we're all gonna die from global warming" BS  :excited:

 :users:

We're not going to die, Dax but our kids or grandkids may. Pardon me for thinking outside of my lifetime and what's "easy" for society right this instant. Also, in other news your fake news has been debunked yet again.   :gocho:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2017/02/07/bogus-daily-mail-story-spearheads-latest-right-wing-assault-climate-change-science/215257 (http://mediamatters.org/research/2017/02/07/bogus-daily-mail-story-spearheads-latest-right-wing-assault-climate-change-science/215257)

http://grist.org/article/heres-why-the-climategate-2-scandal-is-bunk/ (http://grist.org/article/heres-why-the-climategate-2-scandal-is-bunk/)

Have you ever thought for a second that the fringe alt-right might just be change averse, clinging to their social strata and "culture", and in the pocket of large multi-national interests... the fossil fuel lobby included? When the same day they confirm the former exxon ceo as SoS, they remove regulations regarding oil, gas and minning and foreign payment disclosures.... It really makes you think. And when a former website owner, flaming white nationalist, is named to the National Security Council by EO without the president even knowing... It really makes you think... Right? If ever there was shady crap going down... Wouldn't it be when this buffoon and trope are in charge?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 08, 2017, 06:45:22 AM
You're just babbling at this juncture Cam.

Here, read an article about a real problem.

? http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/02/07/512634375/map-find-out-what-new-viruses-are-emerging-in-your-backyard?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170208?


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on February 08, 2017, 08:50:28 AM
You're just babbling at this juncture Cam.

If you say so, dax. Feel free to dig that head in the sand a little further, I guess.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 08, 2017, 08:51:54 AM
You're gurgling and babbling and have yet to put together a single coherent "thought" on anything.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 08, 2017, 08:56:10 AM
Oh and Media Matters and grist.  That's diving deep into the domain of the ultra alt-left.  Next stop Vox and Daily Kos. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 08, 2017, 09:09:21 AM
This does appear to be a big deal. In a nutshell, NOAA decided to dump a bunch of sea temp data collected by buoys, because it didn't show an increase in temperature, and replaced it with data collected by ships (themselves a source of warming), so it could push a new paper ahead of the Paris climate summit disproving the hiatus in global warming. This appears to be more "scientific" fraud to advance the cause. All that's missing now are the emails talking about the need to "hide the decline."

And LOL at citing to Media Matters and Grist as "debunking" a story. :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on February 08, 2017, 09:12:47 AM
Oh and Media Matters and grist.  That's diving deep into the domain of the ultra alt-left.  Next stop Vox and Daily Kos.

Feel free to link me a rebuttal to any debunking and I will take a look at it... I won't hold my breath while you dredge breitbart and infowars.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 08, 2017, 09:22:07 AM
From the Grist article...

These false allegations were quickly echoed in various blogs and conservative media outlets, and quickly praised in a Sunday press release by Lamar Smith, Texas Republican whose career has been funded by fossil fuels, and whose chairmanship of the House Science, Space, and Technology committee has become what a colleague described as an “ideological crusade” and “witch hunt” against the NOAA paper and its lead author Tom Karl.

David Rose, who has a history of scientifically inaccurate reporting, portrayed this flawed procedural complaint as proof of scandal and dubbed it “Climategate 2.” Just like Climategate was a manufactured scandal that was debunked by eight multiple independent agencies, this attempt at Climategate 2 is “fake news” which will serve as cover for attacking the multiple lines of evidence and overwhelming consensus of the reality of human influence on the climate.

It is worth noting that Lamar Smith is scheduled to hold a hearing on “Making EPA Great Again” this week.

This does appear to be a big deal. In a nutshell, NOAA decided to dump a bunch of sea temp data collected by buoys, because it didn't show an increase in temperature, and replaced it with data collected by ships (themselves a source of warming), so it could push a new paper ahead of the Paris climate summit disproving the hiatus in global warming. This appears to be more "scientific" fraud to advance the cause. All that's missing now are the emails talking about the need to "hide the decline."

"Is the science bad? No. Karl et al. was published in a high-prestige, peer-reviewed journal, where the reviewers were almost certainly eminent scientists external to NCEI and NOAA. More importantly, the Berkley group (originally founded to disprove the NOAA and NASA temperatures recorded but ended up confirming their validity) as well as other external organizations, such as the U.K. Met Office, have all subsequently INDEPENDENTLY replicated the Karl et al. results. That’s the gold standard of science, not some NOAA internal bureaucratic procedure that may or may not have been followed.

Is the Earth continuing to warm? Yes.

While the arguments about ARGO floats vs. WWII shipping sea water injection temperatures vs. Satellite SSTs are fascinating to the dozens of scientists who care about such things, our knowledge of global warming and climate change is built on overwhelming, independent lines of observational evidence, understanding of the basic physics that goes back to the mid-19th century, and our ability to accurately project the overall global warming in computer models for over 40 years. Nothing in the Daily Mail article refutes any of this evidence."
-Retired Rear Admiral David Titley, former NOAA chief operating officer


"Those trying to debunk these studies seem to be grasping at straws and resorting to personal attacks. If they have evidence that these studies are wrong then it should be submitted to the appropriate journals and peer-reviewed. Nothing they’ve pointed to so far seems to hold up. The current attacks should be received with extreme skepticism, given the enormous body of evidence supporting the conclusion that the climate is changing and poses a danger that needs to be addressed. And public officials have an obligation to follow the scientific consensus unless more credible critiques emerge."
-Sherwood Boehlert, retired member of Congress, U.S. House of Representatives 1983-2007


"This is another case of making a mountain out of an anthill, while not telling the public that it is an anthill. The misimpression, that there might be a substantial flaw in climate change analyses, was predictable and surely was realized and even encouraged by those who brought forth this attack. The only censure should be on the heads of those who pretend that there is some significant new revelation and those who aid in the promulgation of this falsehood."
-James Hansen, former director of NASA-GISS


These are just a couple of the responses in just this one article by people in the know, with real credibility.

http://grist.org/article/heres-why-the-climategate-2-scandal-is-bunk/ (http://grist.org/article/heres-why-the-climategate-2-scandal-is-bunk/)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 08, 2017, 11:00:58 AM
This is the same over-the-top, how dare you question us response that occurs every time the "scientists" get caught cooking (pun intended) the books.

Nearly every time anyone wants to scrutinize the data that's being used to drive political decisions the warmist scientist community huddles up, throws up the walls, fails to respond to FOIA requests and congressional subpoenas and hopes that it all just goes away, so they can keep right on getting the funding from the politicians they curry favor from and for.   Nothing says we're legit like the continual hiding behind bureaucratic walls and constant obfuscation and redirection. 

No one of merit doubts for a second that man isn't impacting the environment (why does this always have to be said?) but the debate from how much or how little man is impacting the overal climate of earth is still very much legitimate and real.   Nothing is more anti-science then the constant proclamation that on this issue, the science is "settled", it's not even close to be settling and probably never will be. 

NOAA has been busted by one of their own, and instead of just owning up to it, along come the same old excuses from the usual suspects.

 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 08, 2017, 11:33:35 AM
This is the same over-the-top, how dare you question us response that occurs every time the "scientists" get caught cooking (pun intended) the books.

Nearly every time anyone wants to scrutinize the data that's being used to drive political decisions the warmist scientist community huddles up, throws up the walls, fails to respond to FOIA requests and congressional subpoenas and hopes that it all just goes away, so they can keep right on getting the funding from the politicians they curry favor from and for.   Nothing says we're legit like the continual hiding behind bureaucratic walls and constant obfuscation and redirection. 

No one of merit doubts for a second that man isn't impacting the environment (why does this always have to be said?) but the debate from how much or how little man is impacting the overal climate of earth is still very much legitimate and real.   Nothing is more anti-science then the constant proclamation that on this issue, the science is "settled", it's not even close to be settling and probably never will be. 

NOAA has been busted by one of their own, and instead of just owning up to it, along come the same old excuses from the usual suspects.

Your cognitive dissonance is astounding.  :eek:

Keeping beating that drum, Dax. The oil and gas lobby is sincerely appreciative I'm sure.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 08, 2017, 11:43:28 AM
This is the same over-the-top, how dare you question us response that occurs every time the "scientists" get caught cooking (pun intended) the books.

Nearly every time anyone wants to scrutinize the data that's being used to drive political decisions the warmist scientist community huddles up, throws up the walls, fails to respond to FOIA requests and congressional subpoenas and hopes that it all just goes away, so they can keep right on getting the funding from the politicians they curry favor from and for.   Nothing says we're legit like the continual hiding behind bureaucratic walls and constant obfuscation and redirection. 

No one of merit doubts for a second that man isn't impacting the environment (why does this always have to be said?) but the debate from how much or how little man is impacting the overal climate of earth is still very much legitimate and real.   Nothing is more anti-science then the constant proclamation that on this issue, the science is "settled", it's not even close to be settling and probably never will be. 

NOAA has been busted by one of their own, and instead of just owning up to it, along come the same old excuses from the usual suspects.

Your cognitive dissonance is astounding.  :eek:

Keeping beating that drum, Dax. The oil and gas lobby is sincerely appreciative I'm sure.

Oh yeah, the oil and gas lobby, the industry that gets 25-30 cents on the dollar of federal subsidies as opposed to inefficient (politically connected) and expensive "green" energy (of which a large chunk is using food and lots of ground water to make energy . . . absurd). 

By all means, continue to join in the usual character assassination routine that is immediately unleashed every time warmest propagandists are caught cooking the books.

You're pooh-poohing away the realities of energy poverty tell me all you I need to know about your whackadoo (sock) mind.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Tobias on February 08, 2017, 11:49:59 AM
alex jones is covering this rn fyi
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: renocat on February 09, 2017, 01:02:37 AM
I'm not an alarmist by any means, but the Earth is indeed warming.  Climate change is a real thing.  14 of the last 15 years have been the hottest average global temperatures on record.  The chance that that is just a coincidence is less than 1 divided by all of the stars in the universe.


 :nerd:
http://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/snow-to-disrupt-travel-from-dc-to-new-york-city-and-boston-thursday/70000772
It ain't warming in Philly.  Coldest winter since last year.   That dMn bloated rodent thing predicts winter every years.  Squirrels.  They are the true measurements of climate.  Squirrels in Reno county have big nuts and food stashed all over, sure signs of  tough winter.  Animals don't do nut storing for the fun of it.  Ants are another indicator.  They are no whereabouts right now.  If it was so dang warm they would be out of their holes anting.  Critters don't make up stupid facts to make lazy bastard scientists rich.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 09, 2017, 10:46:28 AM
This is the same over-the-top, how dare you question us response that occurs every time the "scientists" get caught cooking (pun intended) the books.

Nearly every time anyone wants to scrutinize the data that's being used to drive political decisions the warmist scientist community huddles up, throws up the walls, fails to respond to FOIA requests and congressional subpoenas and hopes that it all just goes away, so they can keep right on getting the funding from the politicians they curry favor from and for.   Nothing says we're legit like the continual hiding behind bureaucratic walls and constant obfuscation and redirection. 

No one of merit doubts for a second that man isn't impacting the environment (why does this always have to be said?) but the debate from how much or how little man is impacting the overal climate of earth is still very much legitimate and real.   Nothing is more anti-science then the constant proclamation that on this issue, the science is "settled", it's not even close to be settling and probably never will be. 

NOAA has been busted by one of their own, and instead of just owning up to it, along come the same old excuses from the usual suspects.

Your cognitive dissonance is astounding.  :eek:

Keeping beating that drum, Dax. The oil and gas lobby is sincerely appreciative I'm sure.

Oh yeah, the oil and gas lobby, the industry that gets 25-30 cents on the dollar of federal subsidies as opposed to inefficient (politically connected) and expensive "green" energy (of which a large chunk is using food and lots of ground water to make energy . . . absurd). 

By all means, continue to join in the usual character assassination routine that is immediately unleashed every time warmest propagandists are caught cooking the books.

Huh. Turns out there are reasonable and rational conservatives out there when it comes to climate change and fossil fuels. The resident nut-jobs here could have fooled me.

https://newrepublic.com/article/140518/republicans-beg-party-finally-something-climate-change (https://newrepublic.com/article/140518/republicans-beg-party-finally-something-climate-change)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on February 09, 2017, 10:50:13 AM
Oh and Media Matters and grist.  That's diving deep into the domain of the ultra alt-left.  Next stop Vox and Daily Kos.

Feel free to link me a rebuttal to any debunking and I will take a look at it... I won't hold my breath while you dredge breitbart and infowars.

Wikipedia, that ultra-alt-left organization we all know and love, has decided to not allow the Daily Mail (where this whole climategate2 originated) to serve as a source.

Maybe the right should start their own wikipedia... Maybe call it FibipediaTM

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website?CMP=twt_a-media_b-gdnmedia (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website?CMP=twt_a-media_b-gdnmedia)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 09, 2017, 10:51:38 AM
You keep coming at this from the angle that I don't believe in climate change.

That's why you repeatedly look so stupid.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on February 09, 2017, 11:05:11 AM
You keep coming at this from the angle that I don't believe in climate change.

That's why you repeatedly look so stupid.

Ah yes. I look stupid. Trump's president, Dax is a genius, we live in upside down world. I forgot.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 09, 2017, 11:05:54 AM
You keep coming at this from the angle that I don't believe in climate change.

That's why you repeatedly look so stupid.

Ah yes. I look stupid. Trump's president, Dax is a genius, we live in upside downworld. I forgot.

Nice tapout.

Stay stupidly enraged.  It's funny.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on February 09, 2017, 11:09:46 AM
People in my herd do not deny climate change.  Climate has had swings in variation for thousands of years.  Man has altered the environment and it affects weather - urban asphalt or plowing the prairies.  My herd doesn't accept the conclusions from chicken little doomsdayers who are observing something and then using false data and mathematical gymnastics to come up a scenario that becomes a weapon to achieve the leftist aim of one world government, replacing personal liberty with state control, and creating a communist economy.  Many are whipping up hysteria so they can enrich themselves.
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: Panjandrum on February 09, 2017, 12:34:09 PM
I'm not an alarmist by any means, but the Earth is indeed warming.  Climate change is a real thing.  14 of the last 15 years have been the hottest average global temperatures on record.  The chance that that is just a coincidence is less than 1 divided by all of the stars in the universe.


 :nerd:
http://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/snow-to-disrupt-travel-from-dc-to-new-york-city-and-boston-thursday/70000772
It ain't warming in Philly.  Coldest winter since last year.   That dMn bloated rodent thing predicts winter every years.  Squirrels.  They are the true measurements of climate.  Squirrels in Reno county have big nuts and food stashed all over, sure signs of  tough winter.  Animals don't do nut storing for the fun of it.  Ants are another indicator.  They are no whereabouts right now.  If it was so dang warm they would be out of their holes anting.  Critters don't make up stupid facts to make lazy bastard scientists rich.

It was like 70 degrees in Philly yesterday (I was there), and then they were getting a foot of snow today.

But, hey, that's normal.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 09, 2017, 12:50:11 PM
Well it is the Midwest pan.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 09, 2017, 12:54:16 PM
Philadelphia hayseeds
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Panjandrum on February 09, 2017, 01:30:34 PM
Well it is the Midwest pan.

That is true.  Philadelphia, PA is on the eastern edge of the Midwest.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 09, 2017, 01:35:45 PM
Weather  :curse:

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 09, 2017, 01:40:34 PM
Fossil Fuels:  The Building Block of Green Energy

Fossil Fuels:  Don't need sun, or wind, or rain for the crops (Rolling blackouts in South Australia, why?  The wind isn't blowing). 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 09, 2017, 09:31:59 PM
Fossil Fuels:  The Building Block of Green Energy 50 years ago

FTFY

Also... as the republican conservatives that want to institute a carbon tax cite, why wouldn't you want to have a robust and ubiquitous "insurance" plan in alternative sustainable (practically infinite) energy sources for the long term future of society? Takes a real knuckle-dragger to oppose "saving" for the future when it comes to energy and the environment, or concerning ourselves over "clean air or water"... then again dax and the trumpeters are pretty rough ridin' stupid.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 10, 2017, 10:47:57 AM
Fossil Fuels:  The Building Block of Green Energy 50 years ago

FTFY

Also... as the republican conservatives that want to institute a carbon tax cite, why wouldn't you want to have a robust and ubiquitous "insurance" plan in alternative sustainable (practically infinite) energy sources for the long term future of society? Takes a real knuckle-dragger to oppose "saving" for the future when it comes to energy and the environment, or concerning ourselves over "clean air or water"... then again dax and the trumpeters are pretty rough ridin' stupid.

You just continue to babble.

Good luck even approaching anything remotely reliable in the form of so called "green energy" without using copious amounts of fossil fuels to get there.

As the people of Western Australia are finding out, alternative energy has a long long way to go.   Hopefully the healthcare facilities and related have traditional power sources to see them through.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 10, 2017, 11:18:43 AM
People who are afraid of "climate change" are sad and pathetic.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: SleepFighter on February 10, 2017, 04:29:47 PM
Can we at least all agree that we should be using a whole lot more nuclear energy?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on February 10, 2017, 06:49:42 PM
Can we at least all agree that we should be using a whole lot more nuclear energy?

get the eff out of here with that noise
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: SleepFighter on February 11, 2017, 06:29:27 AM
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html?m=1

Your can find similar numbers from other sources.


Plus a very low carbon footprint.  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on February 11, 2017, 07:28:37 AM
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html?m=1

Your can find similar numbers from other sources.


Plus a very low carbon footprint.  :dunno:


Go Fukushima yourself
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: SleepFighter on February 11, 2017, 08:26:38 AM
Those numbers include worst case exposure models for both Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 01:01:04 PM
People in my herd do not deny climate change.  Climate has had swings in variation for thousands of years.  Man has altered the environment and it affects weather - urban asphalt or plowing the prairies.  My herd doesn't accept the conclusions from chicken little doomsdayers who are observing something and then using false data and mathematical gymnastics to come up a scenario that becomes a weapon to achieve the leftist aim of one world government, replacing personal liberty with state control, and creating a communist economy.  Many are whipping up hysteria so they can enrich themselves.

As evident from the drivel you spouted above, your "herd" is rough ridin' misinformed paranoid reactionaries. Turn off fox news and info wars, stop listening to the Koch brothers (who actually are "trying to enrich themselves"), and read what respected scientists and experts the world over are saying on the subject.

It's happening, humans are accelerating it, we have an alternate path to avoid destruction and peril, and it is going to take a concerted and sustained effort... But don't trust me, trust business insider and the pentagon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-debunks-strongest-argument-against-global-warming-climate-change-2017-1?r=US&IR=T (http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-debunks-strongest-argument-against-global-warming-climate-change-2017-1?r=US&IR=T)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 01:10:33 PM
People in my herd do not deny climate change.  Climate has had swings in variation for thousands of years.  Man has altered the environment and it affects weather - urban asphalt or plowing the prairies.  My herd doesn't accept the conclusions from chicken little doomsdayers who are observing something and then using false data and mathematical gymnastics to come up a scenario that becomes a weapon to achieve the leftist aim of one world government, replacing personal liberty with state control, and creating a communist economy.  Many are whipping up hysteria so they can enrich themselves.

As evident from the drivel you spouted above, your "herd" is rough ridin' misinformed paranoid reactionaries. Turn off fox news and info wars, stop listening to the Koch brothers (who actually are "trying to enrich themselves"), and read what respected scientists and experts the world over are saying on the subject.

It's happening, humans are accelerating it, we have an alternate path to avoid destruction and peril, and it is going to take a concerted and sustained effort... But don't trust me, trust business insider and the pentagon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-debunks-strongest-argument-against-global-warming-climate-change-2017-1?r=US&IR=T (http://www.businessinsider.com/new-study-debunks-strongest-argument-against-global-warming-climate-change-2017-1?r=US&IR=T)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/pentagon-fights-climate-change-sea-level-rise-defense-department-military/)

It should also be noted that most americans agree that global warming is real, international actions should fight/limit it and that we should tax and regulate to help try and minimize it... According to recent studies.

So it seems your "herd" is pretty small reno/dax.

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/what-trump-voters-think-climate-change (https://www.colorlines.com/articles/what-trump-voters-think-climate-change)

"The report highlighted that most of Trump’s voters support an international agreement to limit climate warming...When it comes to pollution regulation and a carbon tax, the majority of his supporters are also on board. Sixty-two percent support taxing and/or regulating pollution that exacerbates climate change. Unsurprisingly, 77 percent support renewable energy generation on public land.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 01:11:23 PM
Cam seems to be on a general theme here, anyone who disagrees with him MUST get their information from Fox News and Infowars.

Great way to win hearts and minds and convince people to go with your propaganda, Cam

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 01:13:19 PM
Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 13, 2017, 01:15:13 PM
You do get your news from infowars tho, you are on record saying that bud
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 01:17:18 PM
Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 01:44:10 PM
Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher)

wikipedia?  The "Source" that anyone can edit?   :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 01:48:11 PM
Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher)

wikipedia?  The "Source" that anyone can edit?   :lol:

Yep, that's the one... BTW, dailymail is the only source that has been given this designation, however it's not the only one with problems in reliability and reporting.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 01:53:11 PM
Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher)

wikipedia?  The "Source" that anyone can edit?   :lol:

Yep, that's the one... BTW, dailymail is the only source that has been given this designation, however it's not the only one with problems in reliability and reporting.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable)

Cam, in this day an age you can say the same thing about any so called MSM source.   Numerous other MSM get it wrong, a lot.   In fact, if you were to go back to the time when many MSM media sources were building their "go to" reputation, and start doing some research, you can find example after example where they just essentially made crap up.   But no databases or technology or ability to truly fact check them existed.   

In this case, this is the typical response of Warmests when they get caught, repeatedly attack the sources who have exposed them. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 02:01:33 PM
Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher)

wikipedia?  The "Source" that anyone can edit?   :lol:

Yep, that's the one... BTW, dailymail is the only source that has been given this designation, however it's not the only one with problems in reliability and reporting.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable)

Cam, in this day an age you can say the same thing about any so called MSM source.   Numerous other MSM get it wrong, a lot.   In fact, if you were to go back to the time when many MSM media sources were building their "go to" reputation, and start doing some research, you can find example after example where they just essentially made crap up.   But no databases or technology or ability to truly fact check them existed.   

In this case, this is the typical response of Warmests when they get caught, repeatedly attack the sources who have exposed them.

Hey dumb-crap either actually read the article or work on your comprehension because as is pointed out numerous times the difference between a reliable source and fox news/infowars/dailymail is that when proven wrong or when new information comes out a reliable source will update/correct the information or verify the rebuttal. As opposed to doubling down on the stupidity, "fake news", or calling it all a conspiracy... Which is why wikipedia banned them.

The source for the dailymail's own article has disavowed them and their conclusion, the very expert they are saying gives them credence.

Wake up to bullshit you've been fed, my friend.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 02:05:16 PM
Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher)

wikipedia?  The "Source" that anyone can edit?   :lol:

Yep, that's the one... BTW, dailymail is the only source that has been given this designation, however it's not the only one with problems in reliability and reporting.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable)

Cam, in this day an age you can say the same thing about any so called MSM source.   Numerous other MSM get it wrong, a lot.   In fact, if you were to go back to the time when many MSM media sources were building their "go to" reputation, and start doing some research, you can find example after example where they just essentially made crap up.   But no databases or technology or ability to truly fact check them existed.   

In this case, this is the typical response of Warmests when they get caught, repeatedly attack the sources who have exposed them.

Hey dumb-crap either actually read the article or work on your comprehension because as is pointed out numerous times the difference between a reliable source and fox news/infowars/dailymail is that when proven wrong or when new information comes out a reliable source will update/correct the information or verify the rebuttal. As opposed to doubling down on the stupidity, "fake news", or calling it all a conspiracy... Which is why wikipedia banned them.

The source for the dailymail's own article has disavowed them and their conclusion, the very expert they are saying gives them credence.

Wake up to bullshit you've been fed, my friend.

Applicable and pertinent to this discussion...
 [youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xecEV4dSAXE[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 02:18:18 PM
You keep going the current politics route and it only exposes how little depth you have.

Sad
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 02:21:34 PM
You keep going the current politics route and it only exposes how little depth you have.

Sad

WRONG! YOU LIE!

You're the puppet!

(Is that better? Trying to speak your "politics")
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2017, 02:24:09 PM
You keep going the current politics route and it only exposes how little depth you have.

Sad

WRONG! YOU LIE!

You're the puppet!

(Is that better? Trying to speak your "politics")

Don't recall calling you a liar or a puppet.   But you keep rolling with the same nonsensical shtick that isn't relevant.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 13, 2017, 02:42:17 PM
You keep going the current politics route and it only exposes how little depth you have.

Sad

WRONG! YOU LIE!

You're the puppet!

(Is that better? Trying to speak your "politics")

Don't recall calling you a liar or a puppet.   But you keep rolling with the same nonsensical shtick that isn't relevant.

You're right, you didn't and it is nonsensical... I'm just trying to speak the language of trump and the gop as you requested.

The reason I said you were wrong, a liar and a puppet is because you spread misinformation that has been debunked numerous time, is considered unreliable, and whose sources disavow them.

It seems as though you will just keeping digging that head further in the sand, clinging to the "news" that makes you feel better.

That's what is really sad, unfortunately.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 13, 2017, 11:01:20 PM
I find Cam's passion about global warming to be very strange and obsessive, cultish.

Is this what all global warming foot soldiers are like?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 14, 2017, 10:34:07 AM
I find Cam's passion about global warming to be very strange and obsessive, cultish.

Is this what all global warming foot soldiers are like?

Haha... You and dax are hilarious.

As an expecting parent (and rational human being), I am concerned and passionate about leaving this world better than I found it, in a good position for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with clean air and water, a vibrant sustainable mixed economy, and with security and peace of mind for many generations to come. Not all that complex really.

Finite fossil fuel growth and business-as-usual/status quo BS when it comes to energy and climate change denialism are unacceptable and incongruent to achieving these goals in the time necessary to succeed or achieve them. I don't care about the Koch Brothers' profits, a small number of coal miners, the car companies, or beef industry. America and the rest of the world will adapt... but there is no time to waste.

That may be "conservative" and "obsessive" of me, but I don't feel the environment, our resources, or our future as a species to be issues to so flippantly ignore.... As trump, the gop, and you knuckle-draggers so blatantly do.

Sorry, I'm not sorry. I'd rather not be on the wrong side of history on this... and I'm sure your grandkids will thank me.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on February 14, 2017, 11:20:33 AM
Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher)

wikipedia?  The "Source" that anyone can edit?   

Yep, that's the one... BTW, dailymail is the only source that has been given this designation, however it's not the only one with problems in reliability and reporting.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable)

Cam, in this day an age you can say the same thing about any so called MSM source.   Numerous other MSM get it wrong, a lot.   In fact, if you were to go back to the time when many MSM media sources were building their "go to" reputation, and start doing some research, you can find example after example where they just essentially made crap up.   But no databases or technology or ability to truly fact check them existed.   

In this case, this is the typical response of Warmests when they get caught, repeatedly attack the sources who have exposed them.
Worked in HS debate
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 14, 2017, 11:31:58 AM
I find Cam's passion about global warming to be very strange and obsessive, cultish.

Is this what all global warming foot soldiers are like?

Haha... You and dax are hilarious.

As an expecting parent (and rational human being), I am concerned and passionate about leaving this world better than I found it, in a good position for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with clean air and water, a vibrant sustainable mixed economy, and with security and peace of mind for many generations to come. Not all that complex really.

Finite fossil fuel growth and business-as-usual/status quo BS when it comes to energy and climate change denialism are unacceptable and incongruent to achieving these goals in the time necessary to succeed or achieve them. I don't care about the Koch Brothers' profits, a small number of coal miners, the car companies, or beef industry. America and the rest of the world will adapt... but there is no time to waste.

That may be "conservative" and "obsessive" of me, but I don't feel the environment, our resources, or our future as a species to be issues to so flippantly ignore.... As trump, the gop, and you knuckle-draggers so blatantly do.

Sorry, I'm not sorry. I'd rather not be on the wrong side of history on this... and I'm sure your grandkids will thank me.

Once again, you come at this like we're denialists?   Which is a completely false and incorrect premise to take.

Once again (while you'll never admit it) you're part of the camp that firmly believes that all climate change is exclusively driven by AGW and thus draconian measures must be taken (even though there's literally not one iota of a shred of evidence to indicate that such measures will do anything at all).   We get it, you're part of the sophomoric head line reading (anti-science) crowd who has been indoctrinated into believing that the science is "settled", as if science is ever settled on a system as vast and complex as the Earth's climate.

Also energy poverty is here, and it's only going to get worse partly if not wholly driven by politically oriented "science" driving misguided policy.   

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 14, 2017, 11:32:41 AM
Further on the typical lashing out when warmest get caught cooking the books.  A variation of Godwin's law on full display. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4216180/How-trust-global-warming-scientists-asks-David-Rose.html

I only try to trust/read reliable sources... Sorry, try again.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/12/wikipedia-daily-mail-reliability-ban-katherine-maher)

wikipedia?  The "Source" that anyone can edit?   

Yep, that's the one... BTW, dailymail is the only source that has been given this designation, however it's not the only one with problems in reliability and reporting.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/feb/13/this-is-why-conservative-media-outlets-like-the-daily-mail-are-unreliable)

Cam, in this day an age you can say the same thing about any so called MSM source.   Numerous other MSM get it wrong, a lot.   In fact, if you were to go back to the time when many MSM media sources were building their "go to" reputation, and start doing some research, you can find example after example where they just essentially made crap up.   But no databases or technology or ability to truly fact check them existed.   

In this case, this is the typical response of Warmests when they get caught, repeatedly attack the sources who have exposed them.
Worked in HS debate

Good luck rolling with Wikipedia in any debate or paper.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2017, 12:31:59 PM
Come on, dax. His modest goal of "leaving the world in a better place than he found it" is totally rational and noncomplex, and easily achieved through a common sense draconian anti-fossil fuel tax and spend wealth redistribution initiative administered by legislative proxy to unelected burueacrats, foreign and domestic, that can only result in a substantial increase in basic living expenses for all, reduced wealth, and further reduced opportunity for upward mobility.

That's leftist improved life, liberty and pursuit of happiness [property] in a nice tidy little bow.

JFC, Cam. You sound like a crazy person.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 14, 2017, 12:41:58 PM
As a father, I believe it is my responsibility (as a rational adult) to rid the earth of all terminal illness, that's why I support a 100% income tax on all wages in excess of $50,000. Sorry, not sorry.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 14, 2017, 12:56:45 PM
I used to have fun editing KU sports wikipedia pages. Sometimes they would stick for weeks.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 14, 2017, 01:28:38 PM
I find Cam's passion about global warming to be very strange and obsessive, cultish.

Is this what all global warming foot soldiers are like?

Haha... You and dax are hilarious.

As an expecting parent (and rational human being), I am concerned and passionate about leaving this world better than I found it, in a good position for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with clean air and water, a vibrant sustainable mixed economy, and with security and peace of mind for many generations to come. Not all that complex really.

Finite fossil fuel growth and business-as-usual/status quo BS when it comes to energy and climate change denialism are unacceptable and incongruent to achieving these goals in the time necessary to succeed or achieve them. I don't care about the Koch Brothers' profits, a small number of coal miners, the car companies, or beef industry. America and the rest of the world will adapt... but there is no time to waste.

That may be "conservative" and "obsessive" of me, but I don't feel the environment, our resources, or our future as a species to be issues to so flippantly ignore.... As trump, the gop, and you knuckle-draggers so blatantly do.

Sorry, I'm not sorry. I'd rather not be on the wrong side of history on this... and I'm sure your grandkids will thank me.

Ok, a few things here....
1. Calm the eff down, dude.
2. Reread your post and realize you sound a tad hysterical.
3. Understand that restrictions on CO2 don't have anything to do with clean air and water.
4. Understand that we don't have a natural scarcity of natural resources. The "peak oil" hysteria has been debunked time and again. The only potential scarcity will be imposed by government in the form of higher regulation and taxation.
5. Understand that as a soon to be parent, your top concern for this world should be economic prosperity, which has been far and away the single greatest driver of human prosperity.

To sum up, it sounds like you want a world of self-imposed less for your child. Less energy, because it's more expensive. Smaller homes. Smaller cars. Fewer opportunities. You basically want your kid to grow up in Europe but without the good food and cool historic Europe stuff. And that's really freaking sad. Give your child a life of plenty, and a mindset of plenty. Not a bunch of self-imposed rationing over a fear of increasing the temperature of the planet 1 degree C over the next century.

And congrats on becoming a dad. It is really hard but totally awesome. Boy or girl?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 15, 2017, 05:43:09 AM
Quote
“Even in 1990 no one at MIT called themselves a ‘climate scientist’ and then all of a sudden everyone was. They only entered it because of the bucks; they realized it was a gravy train. You have to get it back to the people who only care about the science.”

Quote
“Climate science has been set back two generations, and they have destroyed its intellectual foundations.”

Richard Lindzen,  Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 15, 2017, 08:17:17 AM
Sounds like that someone who makes me uncomfortable has been triggered
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 16, 2017, 06:58:32 AM
Mother Nature: More powerful than humans - Warmest Propagandists (the new denialists) too work diligently to refute

(Note:  Source not Cam or Wikipedia approved)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4226566/Scientists-discover-massive-reservoir-greenhouse-gases.html?ito=email_share_mobile-masthead
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: ednksu on February 16, 2017, 09:39:21 AM
Mother Nature: More powerful than humans - Warmest Propagandists (the new denialists) too work diligently to refute

(Note:  Source not Cam or Wikipedia approved)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4226566/Scientists-discover-massive-reservoir-greenhouse-gases.html?ito=email_share_mobile-masthead

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 16, 2017, 09:40:53 AM
Tapped out quick, sad
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on February 16, 2017, 09:45:11 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/15/its-official-the-oceans-are-losing-oxygen-posing-growing-threats-to-marine-life/?utm_term=.1d8e9b23e57c

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170215131546.htm
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on February 16, 2017, 09:46:10 AM
Tapped out quick, sad
No, you're just too rough ridin' stupid to realize that adding to our understanding of the climate system doesn't refute what we already theorize.  This has been explained to you before. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on February 16, 2017, 09:52:25 AM
Also  :lol: Daily Mail that can't even be cited on wikipedia anymore.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 16, 2017, 09:54:23 AM
Tapped out quick, sad
No, you're just too rough ridin' stupid to realize that adding to our understanding of the climate system doesn't refute what we already theorize.  This has been explained to you before.

Classic whackadoo, not once have I ever said not to continue to research.  But research to help embolden a political agenda is not real science.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 16, 2017, 06:33:45 PM
If the ocean loses its oxygen it becomes just hydrogen and turns into the sun  :runaway:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 17, 2017, 11:25:24 AM
Is this the same crisis as the "acidification of the oceans" from last year, or new crisis. Hard to keep up with the crisis. Pretty sure that's still where we think all the global warming is hiding, tho.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 17, 2017, 12:26:02 PM
Is this the same crisis as the "acidification of the oceans" from last year, or new crisis. Hard to keep up with the crisis. Pretty sure that's still where we think all the global warming is hiding, tho.

Yeah, what was I thinking...

These dweebs chicken-littles, with all their fancy "science", "expert consensus", "book learning", "studies", "facts", and last but not least "data".

I think i'm finally coming around to your "alternative facts" and "fake news", dax/ksuw/FSD. I'm even starting to see where these skin-heads and foil-hats are coming from on Breitbart and Infowars. They are really onto something. Its the jews, immigrants, progressives, liberal, moderate republicans, women, blacks, latinos, democrats, President Obama, Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren, millennials, snowflakes, cucks, bernie sanders and city dwellers (urbans) that are destroying this country. Not trump, bannon, scott pruitt, rex tillerson, the gop cowards, russian COLUSION, racists, bigots, misogynists, ignorants, and the lobbyists.

Oil and gas? Practically showering in that crap now. I can't believe I even thought for a second that there was better/cleaner/more sustainable technology out there.

Global warming/climate change? Not a big deal... its just the weather everyday into eternity... I only care about me, here and now, and monday night football, my guns, and his lord and savior jesus christ.

Speaking of... if anything does happen eventually we can just pray and everything will be ok, gods will/plan and all.

I sure am sleeping better now after I came over to your guys side here, dax/ksuw/FSD. I feel silly I even questioned the fringe religious right/conservative narrative.

Must be all those communist professors at k-state (in the middle of the heartland) brainwashing and indoctrinating me with their "European propaganda".


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on February 17, 2017, 12:28:13 PM
Dax must be thrilled Pruitt is finally confirmed
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 17, 2017, 12:29:15 PM
you're awfully self-righteous for someone who is producing children, camksu.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on February 17, 2017, 12:29:43 PM
Drill baby drill and suck that ground dry!  Burn burn burn and torch that sky!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 17, 2017, 12:36:01 PM
you're awfully self-riotous for someone who is producing children, camksu.

No question, it is something I think about.

However, I find solace in knowing that I will educate my offspring to be skeptical but also logical and rational when it comes to science and information. Stubbornness. ignorance, and pride can certainly go too far.

Plus, I would like to be the change I want to see in the world and the best way I can see to succeed in that is by "walking the walk" when it comes to being active and engaged in the political process and society at large... and also by raising children in my own image. Arrogant I know, but I think being a parent in this world requires a little delusional arrogance and self-righteousness.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 17, 2017, 12:38:56 PM
I think being a parent in this world requires a little delusional arrogance and self-righteousness.

i believe so.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2017, 01:03:43 PM
The problem cam has, and I'll state it again, the continual character assassination of individuals who expose the warmest propagandist community for what it is, and that is they're a body driven by a political agenda . . . that is not the way to go to make your case. 

But that's the way they go to every time they're exposed.   It's a climate Star Chamber who believes that they get to decide what's good science and what isn't.   That believes they get to decide what gets published and what doesn't get published.  If you'd paid any attention, you'd understand that it's a body that has no stomach at all for anyone that wants to: Question them, fact check them, or analyze their data.   That's why they repeatedly avoid FOIA requests (illegally), that's why they repeatedly ignore subpoena's from Congress (illegally), that's why they repeatedly must be taken to court to be forced to hand over their work that's funded by taxpayers in most cases.

There's no use in responding to cam anymore because he just trundles out the same old nonsensical blather that's yanked straight from the headlines and has zero depth or substance.




Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 17, 2017, 01:22:28 PM
The problem cam has, and I'll state it again, the continual character assassination of individuals who expose the warmest propagandist community for what it is, and that is they're a body driven by a political agenda . . . that is not the way to go to make your case. 

But that's the way they go to every time they're exposed.   It's a climate Star Chamber who believes that they get to decide what's good science and what isn't.   That believes they get to decide what gets published and what doesn't get published.  If you'd paid any attention, you'd understand that it's a body that has no stomach at all for anyone that wants to: Question them, fact check them, or analyze their data.   That's why they repeatedly avoid FOIA requests (illegally), that's why they repeatedly ignore subpoena's from Congress (illegally), that's why they repeatedly must be taken to court to be forced to hand over their work that's funded by taxpayers in most cases.

There's no use in responding to cam anymore because he just trundles out the same old nonsensical blather that's yanked straight from the headlines and has zero depth or substance.

Yes, yes, it's the 97% of scientists, the pentagon, world community, and a consensus of americans that are delusional and wrong. Keep clinging to the conspiracy.

Dailymail, breitbart, infowars, and trump are such trustworthy sources to gather your information and knowledge.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, dax...
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 17, 2017, 01:26:01 PM
Cam would do better convince people if he wasn't such an bad person, IMO.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on February 17, 2017, 01:29:47 PM
Cam. Earth will always win in the end. If humans die off, oh well. I could care less. We belong to Earth not the other way around.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on February 17, 2017, 01:46:08 PM
Cam would do better convince people if he wasn't such an bad person, IMO.

There is absolutely no convincing dax, ksuw, fsd, etc... and I'm not trying to do that. They live in "alternate world".

I am trying to point out their hypocrisy and logical-fallacies though. And it's not the first time, nor the last, that I will be called an bad person.

I embrace it.

And yeah, it goes without saying that earth will survive. I care though if humans survive... I'm self-righteous enough to not have lost hope in mankind.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on February 17, 2017, 01:53:59 PM
It's a circle of life not a circle of hope. Species come species go. Earth lives on.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 17, 2017, 02:01:47 PM
Cam would do better convince people if he wasn't such an bad person, IMO.

There is absolutely no convincing dax, ksuw, fsd, etc... and I'm not trying to do that. They live in "alternate world".

I am trying to point out their hypocrisy and logical-fallacies though. And it's not the first time, nor the last, that I will be called an bad person.

I embrace it.

And yeah, it goes without saying that earth will survive. I care though if humans survive... I'm self-righteous enough to not have lost hope in mankind.

If you know you can't convince them then why waste the breath?

Meanwhile here you are arguing with them anyway sounding like an bad person and dozens of people are silently reading who all might be convinced, but they won't because of your tact.  You're detracting from your own cause. 

You might ask yourself which is more important, that people perceive you as having won an argument or if people are convinced?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on February 17, 2017, 02:02:22 PM
Cam would do better convince people if he wasn't such an bad person, IMO.

There is absolutely no convincing dax, ksuw, fsd, etc... and I'm not trying to do that. They live in "alternate world".

I am trying to point out their hypocrisy and logical-fallacies though. And it's not the first time, nor the last, that I will be called an bad person.

I embrace it.

And yeah, it goes without saying that earth will survive. I care though if humans survive... I'm self-righteous enough to not have lost hope in mankind.

If you know you can't convince them then why waste the breath?

Meanwhile here you are arguing with them anyway sounding like an bad person and dozens of people are silently reading who all might be convinced, but they won't because of your tact.  You're detracting from your own cause. 

You might ask yourself which is more important, that people perceive you as having won an argument or if people are convinced?
wrong
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 17, 2017, 02:11:27 PM
The same scientists and experts that claim without a doubt that humans are 100% a major contributor to global climate change are the same ones that find 15-20,000 new species of organisms each year with millions of undiscovered ones still out there. The same ones that have discovered less than 10% of our oceans, that discovered new human tribes in the Amazon, that find millions of unknown archaeological finds each year that force reevaluation of what we thought we know/knew, and that still can't accurately predict the weather two days from now.   
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 17, 2017, 02:13:00 PM
The same scientists and experts that claim without a doubt that humans are 100% a major contributor to global climate change are the same ones that find 15-20,000 new species of organisms each year with millions of undiscovered ones still out there. The same ones that have discovered less than 10% of our oceans, that discovered new human tribes in the Amazon, that find millions of unknown archaeological finds each year that force reevaluation of what we thought we know/knew, and that still can't accurately predict the weather two days from now.   

Greenhouse theory is proven science, though.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on February 17, 2017, 02:18:33 PM
Cam would do better convince people if he wasn't such an bad person, IMO.

There is absolutely no convincing dax, ksuw, fsd, etc... and I'm not trying to do that. They live in "alternate world".

I am trying to point out their hypocrisy and logical-fallacies though. And it's not the first time, nor the last, that I will be called an bad person.

I embrace it.

And yeah, it goes without saying that earth will survive. I care though if humans survive... I'm self-righteous enough to not have lost hope in mankind.

If you know you can't convince them then why waste the breath?

Meanwhile here you are arguing with them anyway sounding like an bad person and dozens of people are silently reading who all might be convinced, but they won't because of your tact.  You're detracting from your own cause. 

You might ask yourself which is more important, that people perceive you as having won an argument or if people are convinced?

All great points. And in large part I agree with you, I should be a better poster/person in dealing with people like dax, ksuw, fsd, etc... I am probably wrong in my approach with how I am trying to broach reality, their cognitive dissonance, and in convincing others of my point of view.

But to be honest, I have lost my patience trying to "play nice" or "have patience" with the fringe alt-right. It's cathartic to tell them how it is, and give them a taste of their own medicine... When in real life I would keep my mouth shut, letting them spout off, spewing their ignorance or misinformation.

And to be clear I don't think scientists/science/experts are infallible... But I would rather operate under the best information and knowledge we have at this time rather than cling to a small minority of dissension, ignoring rebuttals or believing in vast conspiracy when all data and logic points in the opposite direction. In this sense, I am using Occam's razor on what I believe to be more likely.

 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 17, 2017, 02:51:18 PM
I think there is a great chance the Dax/ksuw/fsd don't actually believe as strongly in their stances as they anonymously post here.  Their posts might be cathartic as well, or help them convince themselves that what we are doing to the world right now isn't all bad.  It's not like we can easily control it, reverse it, etc.  So better to some people to pretend we can't do anything and even if we could it might not matter anyways.

I myself am always a skeptic, but because of some particular expertise I do know there are low hanging fruits out there where regulation would absolutely benefit both the consumer and the environment, if you assume that using less electricity for the same function benefits the environment.  I do see some movements so that is promising.  We should keep doing those.

I do however fear that we the great US, with our insatiable appetite for consumer goods at low prices, have pushed a great deal of manufacturing operations overseas where there is no or little regulation.  Countries like India and China that produce a great deal of the goods we consume, to their own (an maybe ours) long-term detriment.

In the end, if we truly believe what we are doing is bad for Mother Earth, then we need to consume less and consume more efficiently.  That's a tough pill to swallow for almost everyone alive.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on February 17, 2017, 03:26:17 PM
The same scientists and experts that claim without a doubt that humans are 100% a major contributor to global climate change are the same ones that find 15-20,000 new species of organisms each year with millions of undiscovered ones still out there. The same ones that have discovered less than 10% of our oceans, that discovered new human tribes in the Amazon, that find millions of unknown archaeological finds each year that force reevaluation of what we thought we know/knew, and that still can't accurately predict the weather two days from now.   

Greenhouse theory is proven science, though.

The greenhouse effect in a controlled environment is proven science. Greenhouse theory as it applies to our massively complex climate with countless variables is anything but proven science.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 17, 2017, 03:29:17 PM
The same scientists and experts that claim without a doubt that humans are 100% a major contributor to global climate change are the same ones that find 15-20,000 new species of organisms each year with millions of undiscovered ones still out there. The same ones that have discovered less than 10% of our oceans, that discovered new human tribes in the Amazon, that find millions of unknown archaeological finds each year that force reevaluation of what we thought we know/knew, and that still can't accurately predict the weather two days from now.   

Greenhouse theory is proven science, though.

The greenhouse effect in a controlled environment is proven science. Greenhouse theory as it applies to our massively complex climate with countless variables is anything but proven science.

 :D
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on February 17, 2017, 04:26:57 PM
I think we just found out no science is real, of any kind, since they all have some kind of variable this is unknown/complex.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on February 17, 2017, 04:28:43 PM
Even controlled environment doesn't account for a stray electron or neutrino.  I mean we could have a rogue Higgs particle in a controlled experiment and would never know.

CASE CLOSED!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on February 17, 2017, 04:53:41 PM
I think there is a great chance the Dax/ksuw/fsd don't actually believe as strongly in their stances as they anonymously post here.  Their posts might be cathartic as well, or help them convince themselves that what we are doing to the world right now isn't all bad.  It's not like we can easily control it, reverse it, etc.  So better to some people to pretend we can't do anything and even if we could it might not matter anyways.

I myself am always a skeptic, but because of some particular expertise I do know there are low hanging fruits out there where regulation would absolutely benefit both the consumer and the environment, if you assume that using less electricity for the same function benefits the environment.  I do see some movements so that is promising.  We should keep doing those.

I do however fear that we the great US, with our insatiable appetite for consumer goods at low prices, have pushed a great deal of manufacturing operations overseas where there is no or little regulation.  Countries like India and China that produce a great deal of the goods we consume, to their own (an maybe ours) long-term detriment.

In the end, if we truly believe what we are doing is bad for Mother Earth, then we need to consume less and consume more efficiently.  That's a tough pill to swallow for almost everyone alive.

Couldn't agree more... And a lot of the low-hanging fruit are here by and large because of investment into emerging technologies. As well, to completely adapt and reorient society, economies, and markets will be hard but it also has the potential to create a lot of jobs and new growth. Addressing these very serious and overwhelming issues isn't easy by any means but in this disruption is a lot of opportunity as well.

And sure, it might be easier to stomach and sleep at night taking the "simple but wrong" world view, but I would rather live in reality, know the real issues facing us, and come to grips with the "complex but real" solutions.

Thanks for your thoughts... I appreciate the level headed observations.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 18, 2017, 07:54:07 AM
Nobody itt can explain global climate warming change, let alone the science behind it.

What we do know is that even in the most aggressive of the models (which are all overstated), there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on February 18, 2017, 08:17:14 AM
another thing we do know is that something like 80% of conservative christians are climate change deniers
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 18, 2017, 08:24:32 AM
The term "climate change" has no substantive meaning, it is a political platitude, so there's nothing to actually accept or deny.

Anyone accusing another of "denying climate change" is a political tool, a pawn, a stooge. It's the same thing as accusing someone who opposes additional income tax on high earners or a federal minimum wage of $20 as denying "wealth inequality".
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 18, 2017, 08:26:25 AM
I mean, you idiots had to rename global warming climate change to account for the cooling you know deny, and you've done so lockstep without a question asked. That's  :lol: pathetic.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on February 18, 2017, 11:15:11 AM
It's been warm and it's February. I'm playing golf all weekend in February. Think about that guys/gals.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 18, 2017, 12:48:12 PM
It's been warm and it's February. I'm playing golf all weekend in February. Think about that guys/gals.

Pretty great problem to have, imho. Hit em straight, cowboy.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on February 18, 2017, 12:49:41 PM
I mean, you idiots had to rename global warming climate change to account for the cooling you know deny, and you've done so lockstep without a question asked. That's  :lol: pathetic.
it's great you think there is cooling, even though all science has debunked that.  Just great stuff.  Deny, deny deny, stay months behind.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on February 18, 2017, 12:50:10 PM
Nobody itt can explain global climate warming change, let alone the science behind it.

What we do know is that even in the most aggressive of the models (which are all overstated), there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

No people do "get it" and it's been explained to you in small words.  You decided not to listen.  Sad really.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 18, 2017, 12:54:21 PM
When you throw out phrases like "all of science" you lose all credibility.

FFS they're debating the "hiatus" going on for years in the U.K. Met office.   Sat temps also greatly diverge from NOAA, who keeps effing with historical weather data, gets caught and then rolls out more bullshit to explain themselves. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 18, 2017, 01:08:33 PM
Nobody itt can explain global climate warming change, let alone the science behind it.

What we do know is that even in the most aggressive of the models (which are all overstated), there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

Greenhouse gases slow down the rate that heat leaves the earth. More greenhouse gases further slow the rate.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on February 18, 2017, 01:09:12 PM
It's been warm and it's February. I'm playing golf all weekend in February. Think about that guys/gals.

Pretty great problem to have, imho. Hit em straight, cowboy.
I'll do my best!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 18, 2017, 11:47:32 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4482yMUcAAstKt.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: mocat on February 18, 2017, 11:55:08 PM
It's been warm and it's February. I'm playing golf all weekend in February. Think about that guys/gals.

Pretty great problem to have, imho. Hit em straight, cowboy.

It's true, we are in the golden age of GW rn
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on February 19, 2017, 05:42:18 AM
I love it. I also will not be having kids.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on February 19, 2017, 05:42:43 AM
So maybe I just don't care
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 19, 2017, 10:54:40 AM
It's been warm and it's February. I'm playing golf all weekend in February. Think about that guys/gals.

Pretty great problem to have, imho. Hit em straight, cowboy.

It's true, we are in the golden age of GW rn

More likely the groundhod [not?] seeing its shadow.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on February 19, 2017, 11:26:05 AM
Are you making fun of animal climate science now? Sheepshead. You pubs know no bounds.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: halfEmpty on February 20, 2017, 07:46:55 AM
In the end, if we truly believe what we are doing is bad for Mother Earth, then we need to consume less and consume more efficiently.  That's a tough pill to swallow for almost everyone alive.

This.  In reality, we have to first solve the problem of how much we waste before we can tackle the how much we consume problem.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 20, 2017, 08:55:56 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4482yMUcAAstKt.jpg)

How in the world is the transportation sector only operating at 21% efficiency?  Any details on the calculation?  What constitutes rejected energy? 

It also seems bogus they put the residential and commercial sectors at identical efficiencies. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: cfbandyman on February 20, 2017, 09:04:23 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4482yMUcAAstKt.jpg)

How in the world is the transportation sector only operating at 21% efficiency?  Any details on the calculation?  What constitutes rejected energy? 

It also seems bogus they put the residential and commercial sectors at identical efficiencies.

It's really hard to make a heat engine high efficient, pretty much 65% of the gas you put into your car is rejected wasted heat right away, the rest of the inefficiencies are mechanical and wind resistance in nature. It's funny you find that "only" 21%, I honestly think it's high.


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: michigancat on February 20, 2017, 09:10:20 AM
Yeah:

Quote
Most internal combustion engines are incredibly inefficient at turning fuel burned into usable energy.

The efficiency by which they do so is measured in terms of "thermal efficiency", and most gasoline combustion engines average around 20 percent thermal efficiency. Diesels are typically higher--approaching 40 percent in some cases.



http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091436_toyota-gasoline-engine-achieves-thermal-efficiency-of-38-percent
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 20, 2017, 09:13:07 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4482yMUcAAstKt.jpg)

How in the world is the transportation sector only operating at 21% efficiency?  Any details on the calculation?  What constitutes rejected energy? 

It also seems bogus they put the residential and commercial sectors at identical efficiencies.

It's really hard to make a heat engine high efficient, pretty much 65% of the gas you put into your car is rejected wasted heat right away, the rest of the inefficiencies are mechanical and wind resistance in nature. It's funny you find that "only" 21%, I honestly think it's high.

Okay so ball parking it, I put in 100 units of energy into a car, 65 of them are rejected as heat.  Then say 35 are turned into actual work in the engine, then say we lose another 5 units getting that work to the pavement.  That makes sense.  I can't see wind resistance playing a part of the waste part of calculation though, as to me that's the only useful part of the work, aside from any gain in elevation but I would expect that to be a cancelled out by any losses of elevation. 

I figured transportation sector also considered aviation and ships and rail and all that, maybe could account for some increases over what you might guess for a passenger vehicle. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: cfbandyman on February 20, 2017, 09:18:05 AM
Yeah:

Quote
Most internal combustion engines are incredibly inefficient at turning fuel burned into usable energy.

The efficiency by which they do so is measured in terms of "thermal efficiency", and most gasoline combustion engines average around 20 percent thermal efficiency. Diesels are typically higher--approaching 40 percent in some cases.



http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091436_toyota-gasoline-engine-achieves-thermal-efficiency-of-38-percent

I was just about to post that :D

So I'll post this instead.

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_energy_losses.html

Overall, the thermodynamics of the system immediately puts you behind the curve. A theoretical Carnot engine can only get you 50% efficiency, and that's the highest single cycle engine possible, and even it's only theoretical. 

Power plants that are heat based like coal and simple cycle natural gas are around 38-45% efficient. Combined cycle natural gas plants are around 60% (which is possible cause as the name implies, combines two cycles to extract energy, instead of just burning and allowing the heat to escape.) And before you go "why can't you do that for a car, you just said it's over 50%!" then all you need to do is add a boiler and and compressor feed motor and water to your car and holy crap this car weighs too much to make this practical ok nevermind.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: ShellShock on February 20, 2017, 09:39:39 AM
Yeah:

Quote
Most internal combustion engines are incredibly inefficient at turning fuel burned into usable energy.

The efficiency by which they do so is measured in terms of "thermal efficiency", and most gasoline combustion engines average around 20 percent thermal efficiency. Diesels are typically higher--approaching 40 percent in some cases.



http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091436_toyota-gasoline-engine-achieves-thermal-efficiency-of-38-percent

I was just about to post that :D

So I'll post this instead.

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_energy_losses.html

Overall, the thermodynamics of the system immediately puts you behind the curve. A theoretical Carnot engine can only get you 50% efficiency, and that's the highest single cycle engine possible, and even it's only theoretical. 

Power plants that are heat based like coal and simple cycle natural gas are around 38-45% efficient. Combined cycle natural gas plants are around 60% (which is possible cause as the name implies, combines two cycles to extract energy, instead of just burning and allowing the heat to escape.) And before you go "why can't you do that for a car, you just said it's over 50%!" then all you need to do is add a boiler and and compressor feed motor and water to your car and holy crap this car weighs too much to make this practical ok nevermind.

Excellent post!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 20, 2017, 09:41:21 AM
Are turbines more efficient than IC engines?  I would guess they are.

On the residential/commercial sectors, consider light:

100 units of energy go into a house, and the following occurs:

- some energy is lost as heat through the wires (2%)
- some energy creates light we can see (useful)
- some energy creates light we can't see (waste)
- some energy creates heat (waste)

I don't know what those ratios are but not way it's near 80%.

I guess heating would be approaching 90% or more efficiency.

Cooling, how do they even calculate that?  You put 100 units of energy into an A/C, you might get 200 units of cooling and 300 units of heating (rejected).  So is the efficiency 200%? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: cfbandyman on February 20, 2017, 10:29:38 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4482yMUcAAstKt.jpg)

How in the world is the transportation sector only operating at 21% efficiency?  Any details on the calculation?  What constitutes rejected energy? 

It also seems bogus they put the residential and commercial sectors at identical efficiencies.

It's really hard to make a heat engine high efficient, pretty much 65% of the gas you put into your car is rejected wasted heat right away, the rest of the inefficiencies are mechanical and wind resistance in nature. It's funny you find that "only" 21%, I honestly think it's high.

Okay so ball parking it, I put in 100 units of energy into a car, 65 of them are rejected as heat.  Then say 35 are turned into actual work in the engine, then say we lose another 5 units getting that work to the pavement.  That makes sense.  I can't see wind resistance playing a part of the waste part of calculation though, as to me that's the only useful part of the work, aside from any gain in elevation but I would expect that to be a cancelled out by any losses of elevation. 

I figured transportation sector also considered aviation and ships and rail and all that, maybe could account for some increases over what you might guess for a passenger vehicle.

Those types of transportation (mostly) use an internal combustion engine as well. Trains use a diesel engine to drive a generator which uses the electricity to run the electric motors to move the locomotive. Mostly due to the increased control and torque you get with an electric motor. Many big ships do the same thing as well. Airplanes use a turbine, which is in general more efficient but not horribly so (38-low 40's of %). So while yes, some areas are more efficient than a car, most is still a car/semi truck, and even ships use the same tech to move themselves unless they are steam driven in which case they'll be a turbine (for a ship) but many/most don't anymore. Really only airplanes are the pure turbine driven, unless of course they are piston based.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: cfbandyman on February 20, 2017, 10:33:18 AM
Are turbines more efficient than IC engines?  I would guess they are.

On the residential/commercial sectors, consider light:

100 units of energy go into a house, and the following occurs:

- some energy is lost as heat through the wires (2%)
- some energy creates light we can see (useful)
- some energy creates light we can't see (waste)
- some energy creates heat (waste)

I don't know what those ratios are but not way it's near 80%.

I guess heating would be approaching 90% or more efficiency.

Cooling, how do they even calculate that?  You put 100 units of energy into an A/C, you might get 200 units of cooling and 300 units of heating (rejected).  So is the efficiency 200%? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why would you consider the heat part of cooling an efficiency?

Also, for a home I read it as 65% for homes and commercial. 80% for industrial.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 20, 2017, 10:36:44 AM
Are turbines more efficient than IC engines?  I would guess they are.

On the residential/commercial sectors, consider light:

100 units of energy go into a house, and the following occurs:

- some energy is lost as heat through the wires (2%)
- some energy creates light we can see (useful)
- some energy creates light we can't see (waste)
- some energy creates heat (waste)

I don't know what those ratios are but not way it's near 80%.

I guess heating would be approaching 90% or more efficiency.

Cooling, how do they even calculate that?  You put 100 units of energy into an A/C, you might get 200 units of cooling and 300 units of heating (rejected).  So is the efficiency 200%? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why would you consider the heat part of cooling an efficiency?

Also, for a home I read it as 65% for homes and commercial. 80% for industrial.

I don't consider the heat an efficiency.  If 100 units of energy go into an A/C unit and it produces 200 units of cooling, is the efficiency 200%?  I would guess typical residential COP's are in the 2.0 range.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: cfbandyman on February 20, 2017, 10:40:45 AM
Are turbines more efficient than IC engines?  I would guess they are.

On the residential/commercial sectors, consider light:

100 units of energy go into a house, and the following occurs:

- some energy is lost as heat through the wires (2%)
- some energy creates light we can see (useful)
- some energy creates light we can't see (waste)
- some energy creates heat (waste)

I don't know what those ratios are but not way it's near 80%.

I guess heating would be approaching 90% or more efficiency.

Cooling, how do they even calculate that?  You put 100 units of energy into an A/C, you might get 200 units of cooling and 300 units of heating (rejected).  So is the efficiency 200%? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why would you consider the heat part of cooling an efficiency?

Also, for a home I read it as 65% for homes and commercial. 80% for industrial.

I don't consider the heat an efficiency.  If 100 units of energy go into an A/C unit and it produces 200 units of cooling, is the efficiency 200%?  I would guess typical residential COP's are in the 2.0 range.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thermodynamics would love to talk to you then
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 20, 2017, 10:44:35 AM
If you know the basis of the calculation used for the chart then please share it.  I'm well aware of the thermodynamics.  What I'm not aware of is how the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory perceives and might represent this data. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 20, 2017, 12:52:14 PM
Are turbines more efficient than IC engines?  I would guess they are.

On the residential/commercial sectors, consider light:

100 units of energy go into a house, and the following occurs:

- some energy is lost as heat through the wires (2%)
- some energy creates light we can see (useful)
- some energy creates light we can't see (waste)
- some energy creates heat (waste)

I don't know what those ratios are but not way it's near 80%.

I guess heating would be approaching 90% or more efficiency.

Cooling, how do they even calculate that?  You put 100 units of energy into an A/C, you might get 200 units of cooling and 300 units of heating (rejected).  So is the efficiency 200%? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why would you consider the heat part of cooling an efficiency?

Also, for a home I read it as 65% for homes and commercial. 80% for industrial.

I don't consider the heat an efficiency.  If 100 units of energy go into an A/C unit and it produces 200 units of cooling, is the efficiency 200%?  I would guess typical residential COP's are in the 2.0 range.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You don't produce units of cooling, emo. You just remove units of heat.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 20, 2017, 01:52:09 PM
Well if you remove 200 units of heat for only 100 units of electricity...
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 20, 2017, 02:29:33 PM
Well if you remove 200 units of heat for only 100 units of electricity...

The energy efficiency ratio is calculated by dividing output cooling energy (BTU) by input electrical energy (W*hr).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 20, 2017, 02:30:36 PM
So like 200 percent.  Thanks.  Seems weird.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 20, 2017, 02:38:33 PM
emo, what are you doing?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on February 20, 2017, 02:46:18 PM
The coefficient of performance  for a cyclic refrigerator is the heat extracted divided by the work done.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on February 20, 2017, 03:07:58 PM
Efficiency is not exactly the right term to use with a heat pump.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: cfbandyman on February 20, 2017, 03:09:35 PM
The coefficient of performance  for a cyclic refrigerator is the heat extracted divided by the work done.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency

Was just looking that up. He's thinking of COP, not efficiency.

Quote
The reason for not using the term 'efficiency' is that the coefficient of performance can often be greater than 100%. Since these devices are moving heat, not creating it, the amount of heat they move can be greater than the input work. Therefore, heat pumps can be a more efficient way of heating than simply converting the input work into heat, as in an electric heater or furnace.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on February 20, 2017, 03:11:16 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasonal_energy_efficiency_ratio
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on February 20, 2017, 03:15:41 PM
After reading all of the last ~page or so and running the numbers I agree with everyone's calculations ITT
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on February 20, 2017, 03:46:47 PM
I'm just hoping that Mrs. Gooch does enough jersey/shirt mod'ing for Trim and Payton that we build up enough credit for some free legal help. We will probably have to sue the face off my HOA when they inevitably try to block the solar panels we are going to put on next year.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 20, 2017, 06:08:57 PM
Good to see the green movement really taking hold in the succession state.   People putting away their cars, going green, loving Mother Earth. 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b87e94f762d34087ba8f32be8e674eef/traffic-study-ranks-los-angeles-worlds-most-clogged-city


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on February 20, 2017, 06:24:40 PM
I'm just hoping that Mrs. Gooch does enough jersey/shirt mod'ing for Trim and Payton that we build up enough credit for some free legal help. We will probably have to sue the face off my HOA when they inevitably try to block the solar panels we are going to put on next year.

Sign up now and you could probably get the solarcity roof shingles that look like real shingles but are solar panels.

http://www.solarcity.com/residential/solar-roof
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 20, 2017, 08:43:07 PM
emo, what are you doing?

I'm trying to understand the basis for the chart, which I think is one of the most interesting charts I've ever seen.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 20, 2017, 08:44:33 PM
The coefficient of performance  for a cyclic refrigerator is the heat extracted divided by the work done.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_efficiency

Was just looking that up. He's thinking of COP, not efficiency.

Quote
The reason for not using the term 'efficiency' is that the coefficient of performance can often be greater than 100%. Since these devices are moving heat, not creating it, the amount of heat they move can be greater than the input work. Therefore, heat pumps can be a more efficient way of heating than simply converting the input work into heat, as in an electric heater or furnace.

I said COP, but the chart references efficiency, hence my curiosity in the basis for the calculation considering that HVAC is probably the largest consumer of electricity in a home.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on February 20, 2017, 08:57:49 PM
emo, what are you doing?

I'm trying to understand the basis for the chart, which I think is one of the most interesting charts I've ever seen.

i meant the 200% stuff, specifically.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 20, 2017, 09:14:43 PM
emo, what are you doing?

I'm trying to understand the basis for the chart, which I think is one of the most interesting charts I've ever seen.

i meant the 200% stuff, specifically.

Well, I was speculating that the chart may have used something like A/C efficiency = units of cooling / units of electricity.  I assumed the COPcooling of a residential unit to be around 2.0. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on February 21, 2017, 08:16:49 AM
I'm just hoping that Mrs. Gooch does enough jersey/shirt mod'ing for Trim and Payton that we build up enough credit for some free legal help. We will probably have to sue the face off my HOA when they inevitably try to block the solar panels we are going to put on next year.

Sign up now and you could probably get the solarcity roof shingles that look like real shingles but are solar panels.

http://www.solarcity.com/residential/solar-roof
Too late. But something along those lines that will be our replacement roof in about 15 years.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 22, 2017, 11:31:28 AM
As suspected and cautioned it has now been confirmed that Pruitt is/was a Koch brother stooge for oil and gas... the very industry he is now tasked with regulating and policing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html?_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html?_r=0)

Really draining the swamp and getting the "best" people... I don't know why I even questioned their motives.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 22, 2017, 01:52:20 PM

The Kochs :curse:

Pretty much anyone with a brain acknowledges the epa is out of control. For eff's sake you can't even park at pillsbury anymore.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 22, 2017, 02:01:29 PM
Pruitt is vehemently 100% against sue and settle, which I would hope everyone in this thread would support.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 22, 2017, 03:11:39 PM
Pretty much anyone with a brain acknowledges the epa is out of control. For eff's sake you can't even park at pillsbury anymore.

Pruitt is vehemently 100% against sue and settle, which I would hope everyone in this thread would support.

Huh... Seems pretty hypocritical to be against "sue and settle" but be ok with ALEC, koch/heritage, etc. COLUSION with Pruitt and the republicans. Sounds like Sierra and NRDC are fighting "fire with fire" to achieve their desired goals (minimizing the use and impact of fossil fuels)... Then again that's par for the course with the trumpeters and GOP.

And as to the baseless assertion that the EPA is "out of control", get off infowars, breitbart and dailymail and find any reasonable third-party to back up that claim and I will gladly take a look. Otherwise, your alt-right koch funded agenda has no place in this discussion.


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 22, 2017, 03:30:21 PM
Pretty much anyone with a brain acknowledges the epa is out of control. For eff's sake you can't even park at pillsbury anymore.

Pruitt is vehemently 100% against sue and settle, which I would hope everyone in this thread would support.

Huh... Seems pretty hypocritical to be against "sue and settle" but be ok with ALEC, koch/heritage, etc. COLUSION with Pruitt and the republicans. Sounds like Sierra and NRDC are fighting "fire with fire" to achieve their desired goals (minimizing the use and impact of fossil fuels)... Then again that's par for the course with the trumpeters and GOP.

And as to the baseless assertion that the EPA is "out of control", get off infowars, breitbart and dailymail and find any reasonable third-party to back up that claim and I will gladly take a look. Otherwise, your alt-right koch funded agenda has no place in this discussion.

You probably didn't even know about sue and settle until you Googled it. Interesting that this Googling didn't back you up a step or two. I hope you comprehend that there's a difference between a federal agency colluding with environmental groups via sue and settle that brings about illegal change for almost every single American versus discussion between a political party and a guy who happened to become the head of the EPA. Are you familiar with the SSM rule that they're talking about in that article? The new regs stipulate that flares, for example, can't have startup, shutdown, or malfunction events anymore. How realistic.

Also, if you've paid attention to this thread over the years, I've brought up several "out of control" examples of the EPA becoming a lawyer-controlled activist group in the last decade. I can probably provide several hundred examples if asked.

There's something fundamentally wrong about a federal agency backed by the law that can show up at a facility with the presumption that the facility is hiding something and doing something wrong. In a courtroom it's innocent until proven guilty, with the EPA it's "these guys are doing something illegal and killing people and we're gonna find it."

Remember, I am not against the EPA, just the EPA under Obama.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 22, 2017, 03:41:26 PM
Reg OOOOa is rough ridin' insane. But it goes beyond the epa, the usda requires an environmental survey before it will subrogate a mortgage to develop minerals. That's batshit. The BLM has a morotorium on fracking. That's batshit. It's a thinly-veiled assault on the energy industry. These regs are justified by anecdotes and conjecture, and are entirely improper under the rule making requirements, but for "sue and settle" in some instances. See the USFWS prairie chicken listing litigation for a case study.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 22, 2017, 03:47:23 PM
Pretty much anyone with a brain acknowledges the epa is out of control. For eff's sake you can't even park at pillsbury anymore.

Pruitt is vehemently 100% against sue and settle, which I would hope everyone in this thread would support.

Huh... Seems pretty hypocritical to be against "sue and settle" but be ok with ALEC, koch/heritage, etc. COLUSION with Pruitt and the republicans. Sounds like Sierra and NRDC are fighting "fire with fire" to achieve their desired goals (minimizing the use and impact of fossil fuels)... Then again that's par for the course with the trumpeters and GOP.

And as to the baseless assertion that the EPA is "out of control", get off infowars, breitbart and dailymail and find any reasonable third-party to back up that claim and I will gladly take a look. Otherwise, your alt-right koch funded agenda has no place in this discussion.

You probably didn't even know about sue and settle until you Googled it. Interesting that this Googling didn't back you up a step or two. I hope you comprehend that there's a difference between a federal agency colluding with environmental groups via sue and settle that brings about illegal change for almost every single American versus discussion between a political party and a guy who happened to become the head of the EPA. Are you familiar with the SSM rule that they're talking about in that article? The new regs stipulate that flares, for example, can't have startup, shutdown, or malfunction events anymore. How realistic.

Also, if you've paid attention to this thread over the years, I've brought up several "out of control" examples of the EPA becoming a lawyer-controlled activist group in the last decade. I can probably provide several hundred examples if asked.

There's something fundamentally wrong about a federal agency backed by the law that can show up at a facility with the presumption that the facility is hiding something and doing something wrong. In a courtroom it's innocent until proven guilty, with the EPA it's "these guys are doing something illegal and killing people and we're gonna find it."

Remember, I am not against the EPA, just the EPA under Obama.

Reread your first paragraph and tell me how COLUSION with a federal agency and private organization is different than federal/government officials and private organizations. I'll wait for your response on that.

In regards to your "hundreds of examples" of activist EPA overreach... I welcome the third-party, non-koch funded, non-infowars/breitbart/dailymail articles. Truly, I am interested in reading them.

And for someone who claims to not be against the EPA, you sure do have a weird way of showing it given your blustery diatribe and again... baseless claims.

To an outsider it seems you are against COLUSION when its environmentalists and the government but ok when it is oil and gas and the government.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 22, 2017, 03:49:44 PM
Reg OOOOa is rough ridin' insane. But it goes beyond the epa, the usda requires an environmental survey before it will subrogate a mortgage to develop minerals.
Seems legit  :dunno:

The BLM has a morotorium on fracking.
Again, seems legit given all the earthquakes, pollution of ground water, methane emissions, etc...  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 22, 2017, 03:50:29 PM
This clean air crap is out of control
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 22, 2017, 03:53:24 PM
This clean air crap is out of control

Don't forget water, lib. Greedy bastards, expecting clean water! Damn snowflakes!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 22, 2017, 04:01:13 PM
Here's one of my favorite examples of the LPC fiasco. I have clients who had established CRP grass that needed to disturb the CRP grass via underground utility work, so we put in writing that it would be returned to identical conditions after installation. We heard back that since the CRP was a federal contract and it was now LPC critical habitat, that they would have to subtract out the "affected" acreage, back pay payments received on the acreage, and be penalized the rate on how many acres were subtracted. First, it's CRP that was planted and had only been around 5-10 years, and second, only a USFWS biologist can make a critical habitat determination via a site inspection. The clients sent in their checks, the LPC was delisted several months later, but do you think the government ever sent them their money back? YEAH RIGHT
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 22, 2017, 04:06:39 PM
Here's one of my favorite examples of the LPC fiasco. I have clients who had established CRP grass that needed to disturb the CRP grass via underground utility work, so we put in writing that it would be returned to identical conditions after installation. We heard back that since the CRP was a federal contract and it was now LPC critical habitat, that they would have to subtract out the "affected" acreage, back pay payments received on the acreage, and be penalized the rate on how many acres were subtracted. First, it's CRP that was planted and had only been around 5-10 years, and second, only a USFWS biologist can make a critical habitat determination via a site inspection. The clients sent in their checks, the LPC was delisted several months later, but do you think the government ever sent them their money back? YEAH RIGHT

That sucks, Emawican. Your anecdotal story highlights that current regulations aren't perfect, which I agree with. However until I see more evidence, outside of your anecdote, of an EPA run amok, I will error on this being an isolated circumstance. Again, not saying things are perfect, but I would rather be safe than sorry when it comes to clean air/water, federal lands, and the future of the planet.  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 22, 2017, 04:08:21 PM
I like that Pruitt wants the EPA to consider economic impacts when creating regs. Cheap power is nice.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 22, 2017, 04:09:22 PM
This clean air crap is out of control

Oh look, lib just did his standard drive-by post.   :driving:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 22, 2017, 04:12:43 PM
The EPA used to be required to submit a cost-basis for each regulation and how it would affect the industry. So, basically, this is how many facilities there are that do this, here's the threshold we want, here's how many it would affect, and here's the cost. They would slide that threshold until it was economically feasible, while still cleaning up our environment. Not anymore!

Another fun thing was the advent of "it will save XX number of lives" for regulations that weren't economically feasible.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 22, 2017, 04:36:50 PM
that's not how critical habitat works.


and if i understand your story correctly, your client wanted to bulldoze crp land but keep all the crp payments and keep getting paid for that land as if it was still undisturbed?  yeah, no crap you can't do that.

also the usda and the usfws are not the epa.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 22, 2017, 04:49:30 PM
Reg OOOOa is rough ridin' insane. But it goes beyond the epa, the usda requires an environmental survey before it will subrogate a mortgage to develop minerals.
Seems legit 

The BLM has a morotorium on fracking.
Again, seems legit given all the earthquakes, pollution of ground water, methane emissions, etc...  :dunno:

An environmental survey for undeveloped real estate years after the mortgage has been taken "sounds legit", are you Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)?

The epa's own assessments have found no evidence that fracking causes earthquakes or pollutes groundwater. It's an unfounded moratorium without substantive basis, just like the pipelines that were blocked for no rough ridin' reason.

Methane emissions for the energy industry are [improperly] governed under OOOOa, which no energy company could possibly afford to comply with. OOOOa functionally condemns mature nature gas fields (what once was considered clean energy) which are immaterial in the methane emmission scheme of things, and do so without compensation. It is gross and doesn't begin to address "climate change". It's nothing but a eff you to industry.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 22, 2017, 06:17:39 PM
that's not how critical habitat works.


and if i understand your story correctly, your client wanted to bulldoze crp land but keep all the crp payments and keep getting paid for that land as if it was still undisturbed?  yeah, no crap you can't do that.

also the usda and the usfws are not the epa.
Not for sure what you mean by how critical habitat works. A USFWS biologist makes the determination based on site specific factors, not just because it's grass. If you're familiar with prairie chickens which I think you are, you'd know that leks aren't going to suddenly appear in "new" grass that was historically cultivated. Ain't no burds

One was trenching in a 4" PVC freshwater line for personal use. The other was trenching in an personal electrical service line. So no massive land use change or disturbance. Other than the initial disturbance, it should've been a non issue.

I never said it was the EPA, I used it as an entertaining story when FSD brought the LPC up.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 22, 2017, 06:33:33 PM
Pretty much anyone with a brain acknowledges the epa is out of control. For eff's sake you can't even park at pillsbury anymore.

Pruitt is vehemently 100% against sue and settle, which I would hope everyone in this thread would support.

Huh... Seems pretty hypocritical to be against "sue and settle" but be ok with ALEC, koch/heritage, etc. COLUSION with Pruitt and the republicans. Sounds like Sierra and NRDC are fighting "fire with fire" to achieve their desired goals (minimizing the use and impact of fossil fuels)... Then again that's par for the course with the trumpeters and GOP.

And as to the baseless assertion that the EPA is "out of control", get off infowars, breitbart and dailymail and find any reasonable third-party to back up that claim and I will gladly take a look. Otherwise, your alt-right koch funded agenda has no place in this discussion.

Well, what about when they fined some rancher dude a crap ton of money for building a pond on his own damn land.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on February 22, 2017, 07:20:32 PM
Not for sure what you mean by how critical habitat works.

critical habitat is designated for a relatively broad geographic area.  whether a parcel of land is in crops or in crp won't effect whether it is within an area to be designated as critical habitat and a biologist doesn't need to visit the site to make the determination.  also, whether it is designated critical habitat or not has no impact of ag use or crp regs.


i have no idea if your client's crp land provided prairie chicken habitat or not.  if it didn't, it probably wasn't because of the age. if seeded in appropriate vegetation, it doesn't take more that a couple of years to provide habitat.

re. the disturbance - your dude signed a contract.  if he didn't like the terms, he shouldn't have participated in the program.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 22, 2017, 07:33:21 PM
Not for sure what you mean by how critical habitat works.

critical habitat is designated for a relatively broad geographic area.  whether a parcel of land is in crops or in crp won't effect whether it is within an area to be designated as critical habitat and a biologist doesn't need to visit the site to make the determination.  also, whether it is designated critical habitat or not has no impact of ag use or crp regs.


i have no idea if your client's crp land provided prairie chicken habitat or not.  if it didn't, it probably wasn't because of the age. if seeded in appropriate vegetation, it doesn't take more that a couple of years to provide habitat.

re. the disturbance - your dude signed a contract.  if he didn't like the terms, he shouldn't have participated in the program.
CRP grass is and never has included the primary constituent elements required for LPC. How can the feds say that CRP in a temporary contract be critical to a species? The contract can be voided by the tenant at any time at a cost or ends after the set time. If he plows it back up and farms it, it's destroying critical habitat now? Good thing the LPC was delisted then so they doesn't have to worry about it.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 22, 2017, 07:41:46 PM
crp doesn't have to be just grass.  if planted in warm season grasses and forbs it can provide prairie chicken habitat and lots of crp land is planted accordingly.  in fact, there is a crp program (i think there still is) that is specifically based on creating lesser prairie chicken habitat.

on the critical habitat, that's exactly what i'm trying to communicate.  it's a landscape/regional designation, not a designation based on the characteristics of a particular parcel of land.  it doesn't matter if the parcel provides any habitat or not if the region is considered to be critical habitat.  so it doesn't matter at all in terms of critical habitat whether it is crp land or actively farmed or virgin prairie.

and a farmer can do whatever the eff he wants with his crp land or cropland or virgin prairie.  critical habitat designation has no impact on that.  your dude had to pay back money because he was not going to comply with the terms of the crp, it had nothing to do with critical habitat.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 22, 2017, 08:25:47 PM
crp doesn't have to be just grass.  if planted in warm season grasses and forbs it can provide prairie chicken habitat and lots of crp land is planted accordingly.  in fact, there is a crp program (i think there still is) that is specifically based on creating lesser prairie chicken habitat.

on the critical habitat, that's exactly what i'm trying to communicate.  it's a landscape/regional designation, not a designation based on the characteristics of a particular parcel of land.  it doesn't matter if the parcel provides any habitat or not if the region is considered to be critical habitat.  so it doesn't matter at all in terms of critical habitat whether it is crp land or actively farmed or virgin prairie.

and a farmer can do whatever the eff he wants with his crp land or cropland or virgin prairie.  critical habitat designation has no impact on that.  your dude had to pay back money because he was not going to comply with the terms of the crp, it had nothing to do with critical habitat.
You need to review critical habitat as defined by the Endangered Species Act. CRP is still farmland. It had to previously be farmland to be allowed to be CRP. It will eventually revert back to cultivated land. Existing ag ground is exempt from being defined as critical habitat. The NRCS and the USFWS said in writing that these two locations were going to be included in the proposed critical habitat, hence the checks were sent it because it wasn't worth fighting.

The designation of a temporary CRP contract as critical habitat sets the precedent you can never touch it without penalty. That's unbelievable.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 22, 2017, 08:46:42 PM
yeah, you're wrong.  look it up.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 22, 2017, 08:50:25 PM
There is an interactive application on the rough ridin' kgs website that demonstrates how granulated the lpc habitat is, jfc.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 22, 2017, 08:54:48 PM
The LPC should have never been listed.  The drought contributed most to the recent sharp decline.  Now that it's raining again the numbers are up. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 22, 2017, 09:20:36 PM
yeah, you're wrong.  look it up.
Not for sure why, but I do this for a living so :cheers:  It's a fun discussion
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 22, 2017, 09:22:37 PM
i do it for a living too.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 22, 2017, 09:26:03 PM
There is an interactive application on the rough ridin' kgs website that demonstrates how granulated the lpc habitat is, jfc.
Glad you brought that up. That "crucial habitat" was the final proposed critical habitat that never happened. The USFWS and NRCS flew drones over private property without permission to conduct lek surveys to help generate that map. If they found a lek on your property you got a certified letter telling you all about it and that they were protected so watch yourself.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 22, 2017, 09:27:53 PM
i do it for a living too.
Nice. Explain critical habitat to me strictly for a fish or mussel species, please.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 22, 2017, 09:28:46 PM
Well, the animals belong to the people, not the landowners.  And flying a drone over private property isn't necessarily trespassing.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 22, 2017, 09:33:24 PM
Well, the animals belong to the people, not the landowners.  And flying a drone over private property isn't necessarily trespassing.
True, but I found it interesting that there was a lack of transparency until after the fact.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 22, 2017, 09:42:34 PM
Well, the animals belong to the people, not the landowners.  And flying a drone over private property isn't necessarily trespassing.
True, but I found it interesting that there was a lack of transparency until after the fact.

Believe it or not people may want to hide the fact they had threatened or endangered species on their property.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on February 22, 2017, 09:45:24 PM
Explain critical habitat to me strictly for a fish or mussel species, please.

i'm a terrestrial biologist.  if there's a difference in how the law treats aquatic species, i don't know what it is.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 22, 2017, 09:48:59 PM
Explain critical habitat to me strictly for a fish or mussel species, please.

i'm a terrestrial biologist.  if there's a difference in how the law treats aquatic species, i don't know what it is.
Awesome! That explains you being a snake guru.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 22, 2017, 09:51:46 PM

The epa's own assessments have found no evidence that fracking causes earthquakes or pollutes groundwater. It's an unfounded moratorium without substantive basis, just like the pipelines that were blocked for no rough ridin' reason.


Again, by no means am I saying that the EPA (or any government agency for that matter) is perfect or without possible improvements but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that what they are doing is equal or worse than the behaviors or policies in the oil and gas industry at large. Especially Koch Industries.

Oh and here are some other perspectives, findings, and studies on the matters of fracking, earthquakes, and groundwater.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drilling-for-earthquakes/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/drilling-for-earthquakes/)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 22, 2017, 10:08:43 PM
Koch Industries is not an e&p company. Good rough ridin' grief, the crap you people believe
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 23, 2017, 12:13:10 AM
Cam https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/regulatory-war-fought-over-a-wyoming-familys-pond.amp.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on February 23, 2017, 12:43:59 AM
Koch Industries is not an e&p company. Good rough ridin' grief, the crap you people believe
http://www.kochexploration.com/
http://www.kochenergyservices.com/Services/Power/
http://www.kochenergyservices.com/services/naturalgas/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 23, 2017, 10:35:53 AM
Koch Industries is not an e&p company. Good rough ridin' grief, the crap you people believe
http://www.kochexploration.com/
http://www.kochenergyservices.com/Services/Power/
http://www.kochenergyservices.com/services/naturalgas/
  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on February 23, 2017, 10:44:47 AM
Cam https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/regulatory-war-fought-over-a-wyoming-familys-pond.amp.html

Great example of EPA overreach. What really bothers me about this story and the EPA's action in this instance, is that it instantly overshadows all the other more important work they do. They lose credibility in the community and with the public, and it allows industry to get away with more and go on the offensive against regulations while people are outraged by the overreach.

Does that change the fact that there is the clean air/water act? No. Does it change the fact that for a lot of companies in this industry, it's cheaper to pay the fine for a spill or accident than it is for them to keep on the necessary maintenance and service? No. Is the oil and gas, exploration and production industry subject to greed and cutting corners with massive implications affecting thousands if not millions of people? Yes.

We should absolutely reform the EPA in cases like this specific anecdotal instance... However, I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the regulation and conservation of our natural resources or our environment.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 23, 2017, 11:26:57 AM
Cam https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/regulatory-war-fought-over-a-wyoming-familys-pond.amp.html

Does it change the fact that for a lot of companies in this industry, it's cheaper to pay the fine for a spill or accident than it is for them to keep on the necessary maintenance and service? No. Is the oil and gas, exploration and production industry subject to cutting corners with massive implications affecting thousands if not millions of people? No.

Links?

Why should the EPA fine a company for an accident? (FYI they currently are and they settle because court costs) Unless there is negligence on the company's part, an accident is an accident. Also, it's not illegal to have spills or releases, it's what you do after it happens and the cause(s) of the spill or release. It basically becomes a question of environmental impact and if there was negligence.

I have no idea what companies can afford to pay fines instead of to fix issues, and this kind of shows me that you're familiar with an older version of the EPA.

Last year they raised their penalties (most almost doubled, a couple over doubled) for environmental non-compliance per violation, per day to:

-$70,117 for RCRA
-$93,750 for Air
-$51,570 or $53,907 for Water, and
-$37,500 and $18,750 for Chemical

What companies can afford these fines? Keep in mind that this is per violation, per day, and most single environmental issues have dozens of violations. And the "per day" means until the issue is 100% fixed.

I had a client where a disgruntled employee climbed a fence and cut multiple locks to open a valve on a big diesel tank at a facility in the middle of the night. The diesel reached a stream and started a fish kill. Guess what happened? On top of the company immediately cleaning up the spill 100% upon detection for $$$$, losing revenue from the lost inventory, and fixing the problem on their dime, the EPA fined the company a year later for not "being secure enough regarding SPCC regs." The company settled because court costs. The EPA sure showed them!


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 23, 2017, 11:29:05 AM
Does anyone want to discuss how the EPA fines publicly-owned utilities like wastewater plants, power generators, etc. when they have violations that costs the taxpayers instead of a public government agency helping another public government agency?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 23, 2017, 11:31:54 AM
Cam https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/regulatory-war-fought-over-a-wyoming-familys-pond.amp.html

Great example of EPA overreach. What really bothers me about this story and the EPA's action in this instance, is that it instantly overshadows all the other more important work they do. They lose credibility in the community and with the public, and it allows industry to get away with more and go on the offensive against regulations while people are outraged by the overreach.

Does that change the fact that there is the clean air/water act? No. Does it change the fact that for a lot of companies in this industry, it's cheaper to pay the fine for a spill or accident than it is for them to keep on the necessary maintenance and service? No. Is the oil and gas, exploration and production industry subject to greed and cutting corners with massive implications affecting thousands if not millions of people? Yes.

We should absolutely reform the EPA in cases like this specific anecdotal instance... However, I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the regulation and conservation of our natural resources or our environment.

Hey, you asked for examples where the EPA was "out of control," as if they are not or as if there aren't any examples.  I provided one.  And then you act like people here are advocating for the complete shutting down of the EPA?  I'll admit I don't read every post in this thread so correct me if I'm seeing things incorrectly. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on February 23, 2017, 11:38:32 AM
Cam https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/regulatory-war-fought-over-a-wyoming-familys-pond.amp.html

Great example of EPA overreach. What really bothers me about this story and the EPA's action in this instance, is that it instantly overshadows all the other more important work they do. They lose credibility in the community and with the public, and it allows industry to get away with more and go on the offensive against regulations while people are outraged by the overreach.

Does that change the fact that there is the clean air/water act? No. Does it change the fact that for a lot of companies in this industry, it's cheaper to pay the fine for a spill or accident than it is for them to keep on the necessary maintenance and service? No. Is the oil and gas, exploration and production industry subject to greed and cutting corners with massive implications affecting thousands if not millions of people? Yes.

We should absolutely reform the EPA in cases like this specific anecdotal instance... However, I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the regulation and conservation of our natural resources or our environment.


Links?

Why should the EPA fine a company for an accident? (FYI they currently are and they settle because court costs) Unless there is negligence on the company's part, an accident is an accident. Also, it's not illegal to have spills or releases, it's what you do after it happens and the cause(s) of the spill or release. It basically becomes a question of environmental impact and if there was negligence.

I have no idea what companies can afford to pay fines instead of to fix issues, and this kind of shows me that you're familiar with an older version of the EPA.

Last year they raised their penalties (most almost doubled, a couple over doubled) for environmental non-compliance per violation, per day to:

-$70,117 for RCRA
-$93,750 for Air
-$51,570 or $53,907 for Water, and
-$37,500 and $18,750 for Chemical

What companies can afford these fines? Keep in mind that this is per violation, per day, and most single environmental issues have dozens of violations. And the "per day" means until the issue is 100% fixed.

I had a client where a disgruntled employee climbed a fence and cut multiple locks to open a valve on a big diesel tank at a facility in the middle of the night. The diesel reached a stream and started a fish kill. Guess what happened? On top of the company immediately cleaning up the spill 100% upon detection for $$$$, losing revenue from the lost inventory, and fixing the problem on their dime, the EPA fined the company a year later for not "being secure enough regarding SPCC regs." The company settled because court costs. The EPA sure showed them!


I'm glad to hear that they fixed that convenient loop-hole, sounds like the people in charge at that time were putting in place some  regulations and penalties with actual teeth to them.

The non-response to finding out that the kochs are in fact active in the e&p industry is noted.

As well, the shoulder shrug to the COLUSION between republican attorney generals and fossil fuel industry is also noted.

Also, try and comprehend that I am not saying that the EPA without fault. Try.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924 (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic-empire-20140924)

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/politics/energy-firms-in-secretive-alliance-with-attorneys-general.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1 (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/politics/energy-firms-in-secretive-alliance-with-attorneys-general.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 23, 2017, 11:40:21 AM
Cam https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/regulatory-war-fought-over-a-wyoming-familys-pond.amp.html

Great example of EPA overreach. What really bothers me about this story and the EPA's action in this instance, is that it instantly overshadows all the other more important work they do. They lose credibility in the community and with the public, and it allows industry to get away with more and go on the offensive against regulations while people are outraged by the overreach.

Does that change the fact that there is the clean air/water act? No. Does it change the fact that for a lot of companies in this industry, it's cheaper to pay the fine for a spill or accident than it is for them to keep on the necessary maintenance and service? No. Is the oil and gas, exploration and production industry subject to greed and cutting corners with massive implications affecting thousands if not millions of people? Yes.

We should absolutely reform the EPA in cases like this specific anecdotal instance... However, I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the regulation and conservation of our natural resources or our environment.

Hey, you asked for examples where the EPA was "out of control," as if they are not or as if there aren't any examples.  I provided one.  And then you act like people here are advocating for the complete shutting down of the EPA?  I'll admit I don't read every post in this thread so correct me if I'm seeing things incorrectly.

There definitely are people who want to abolish the EPA, but I'm not sure if there are any here. Ted Cruz gets thunderous applause every time he mentions abolishing the EPA and the IRS.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on February 23, 2017, 11:41:54 AM
Cam https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/regulatory-war-fought-over-a-wyoming-familys-pond.amp.html

Great example of EPA overreach. What really bothers me about this story and the EPA's action in this instance, is that it instantly overshadows all the other more important work they do. They lose credibility in the community and with the public, and it allows industry to get away with more and go on the offensive against regulations while people are outraged by the overreach.

Does that change the fact that there is the clean air/water act? No. Does it change the fact that for a lot of companies in this industry, it's cheaper to pay the fine for a spill or accident than it is for them to keep on the necessary maintenance and service? No. Is the oil and gas, exploration and production industry subject to greed and cutting corners with massive implications affecting thousands if not millions of people? Yes.

We should absolutely reform the EPA in cases like this specific anecdotal instance... However, I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the regulation and conservation of our natural resources or our environment.

Hey, you asked for examples where the EPA was "out of control," as if they are not or as if there aren't any examples.  I provided one.  And then you act like people here are advocating for the complete shutting down of the EPA?  I'll admit I don't read every post in this thread so correct me if I'm seeing things incorrectly.

Thanks for the article, I read it and agree that it is overreach with the way it is framed and presented. I appreciate seeing the other side of the argument.

In regards to people shutting the EPA down, you should read more about Scott Pruitt, Trump, the GOP, and the oil and gas industry... Because that's exactly their end-goal.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 23, 2017, 11:43:33 AM
Cam https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/us/regulatory-war-fought-over-a-wyoming-familys-pond.amp.html

Great example of EPA overreach. What really bothers me about this story and the EPA's action in this instance, is that it instantly overshadows all the other more important work they do. They lose credibility in the community and with the public, and it allows industry to get away with more and go on the offensive against regulations while people are outraged by the overreach.

Does that change the fact that there is the clean air/water act? No. Does it change the fact that for a lot of companies in this industry, it's cheaper to pay the fine for a spill or accident than it is for them to keep on the necessary maintenance and service? No. Is the oil and gas, exploration and production industry subject to greed and cutting corners with massive implications affecting thousands if not millions of people? Yes.

We should absolutely reform the EPA in cases like this specific anecdotal instance... However, I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to the regulation and conservation of our natural resources or our environment.

Hey, you asked for examples where the EPA was "out of control," as if they are not or as if there aren't any examples.  I provided one.  And then you act like people here are advocating for the complete shutting down of the EPA?  I'll admit I don't read every post in this thread so correct me if I'm seeing things incorrectly.

There definitely are people who want to abolish the EPA, but I'm not sure if there are any here. Ted Cruz gets thunderous applause every time he mentions abolishing the EPA and the IRS.

Then Cam or you should find those people and argue with them.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 23, 2017, 11:44:16 AM
Well I already said that I kind of like the Pruitt pick.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2017, 12:23:10 PM
Pretty sure the ksuw/cat27/fsd/dax/pruitt deplorable wing of regresocons want to fully get rid of the epa (and other important organizations).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 23, 2017, 12:42:53 PM
Well I hate boost their argument but Cam cmon dude let's not pretend the EPA doesn't at least suck a little crap.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2017, 01:00:05 PM
Well I hate boost their argument but Cam cmon dude let's not pretend the EPA doesn't at least suck a little crap.

He's said it's not perfect like 10 times. Do people even read each others posts?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 23, 2017, 01:01:14 PM
Then why would he ask for examples when someone mentions they are out of control?  Why in the eff?  Just let that go if he knows it to be true himself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2017, 01:03:48 PM
Probably to see if your example is wacko regresocon bullshit.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 23, 2017, 01:04:11 PM
i basically agree that the epa should back the eff off on the dude in the story (and also that they've gotten a little crazy on how they define waters of the us, which is a semi-different issue).

but, at the same time, that is, if i read correctly, a permanent stream that they bulldozed willnilly, and iirc, knowing that it was in violation of existing regs.  the issue isn't building a farm pond, it's altering the streambed.  dig your pond outside the streambed and pipe the water over, dumbasses.

it's also pretty obvious it's a fishing pond, not a farm pond.  a 50k coldwater trout pond for 16 cows, gmafb.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2017, 01:06:08 PM
Like, ksuw thinks the epa is "out of control" because they don't let business dump toxic crap into the water supply
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 23, 2017, 01:08:09 PM
like, i've personally witnessed rulings that are way worse in terms of logic about the importance of the "waterway" and the damage done to it by the alteration, but the party involved is a giant company not some dumbass with 16 cows so no one writes them up in the local paper much less the failing nyt.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 23, 2017, 01:10:37 PM
i basically agree that the epa should back the eff off on the dude in the story (and also that they've gotten a little crazy on how they define waters of the us, which is a semi-different issue).

but, at the same time, that is, if i read correctly, a permanent stream that they bulldozed willnilly, and iirc, knowing that it was in violation of existing regs.  the issue isn't building a farm pond, it's altering the streambed.  dig your pond outside the streambed and pipe the water over, dumbasses.

it's also pretty obvious it's a fishing pond, not a farm pond.  a 50k coldwater trout pond for 16 cows, gmafb.

That was my first thought, but the article said that he acquired all necessary state permits, and given that it's not a navigable stream, I'm not sure if he knew or should have known he was in violation of any existing regs.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 23, 2017, 01:23:18 PM
Who cares if it was a trout pond or a cattle pond.  It was his own land and not three toed gerbil habitat.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on February 23, 2017, 01:25:31 PM
Who cares if it was a trout pond or a cattle pond.  It was his own land and not three toed gerbil habitat.

well, that's the current law.  ag use is exempted.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: halfEmpty on February 23, 2017, 02:22:05 PM
I hate the oil/coal industry, but in reality, I should probably thank them.  They've kept me busy working on spill cleanup for the past 6 years.  Million gallons of oil and billions in cleanup money (hey don't feel sorry for them, insurance covered the first 750 mil) later and we're still at it, although not quite the 70 hr work weeks I used to put in.  Even developed some methods to identify at-risk rivers and strategic locations for recovery implementation in case of another riverine spill due to failing pipelines and negligence.  But lets be honest, the strategic part is just so they can tell the EPA they have a plan and will be compliant.  They fully know that if one of their pipes bursts under the great lakes the plans will mean jack.  They're prepared to pay the costs and fines because the money running through those pipes is far greater than any fine they'll ever pay.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 23, 2017, 03:01:00 PM
EPA: water of the US includes the urine stored in your bladder.

Nonpsychos: the EPA is out of control

Lib7: regressocon wants to abolish the epa, dump toxic waste into the rivers and turn the skies orange

Cam: Koch Bros. :curse:

OFA: the EPA is the most useful political tool since the SS, which was the dreamiest.

 :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 23, 2017, 03:05:16 PM
If there's one thing we know for sure, the o&g industry has gotten uber rich spending billions of dollars exploring miles beneath the ground for a commodity just so they can hurry up and dump it down the drain and pay fines.  They don't call it black gold for a reason, that's for sure.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: halfEmpty on February 23, 2017, 04:07:40 PM
If there's one thing we know for sure, the o&g industry has gotten uber rich spending billions of dollars exploring miles beneath the ground for a commodity just so they can hurry up and dump it down the drain and pay fines.  They don't call it black gold for a reason, that's for sure.

I still don't know if you are deliberately obtuse or if you really do struggle to grasp simple concepts.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 23, 2017, 04:08:03 PM
The second one
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on February 23, 2017, 05:49:10 PM
The second one

sky's blue brown, water's wet toxic
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 23, 2017, 05:52:11 PM
If there's one thing we know for sure, the o&g industry has gotten uber rich spending billions of dollars exploring miles beneath the ground for a commodity just so they can hurry up and dump it down the drain and pay fines.  They don't call it black gold for a reason, that's for sure.

I still don't know if you are deliberately obtuse or if you really do struggle to grasp simple concepts.

You're the dumbass who basically stated the industry prefers to pay fines than implement reasonable controls. That's lol absurd and inaccurate. Negligence is how these guys get laid with exemplary damages and there's hundreds of well funded environmental groups laying in waiting to pounce. What you've described is an extreme exception and anything but ordinary course.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: halfEmpty on February 23, 2017, 07:21:52 PM
If there's one thing we know for sure, the o&g industry has gotten uber rich spending billions of dollars exploring miles beneath the ground for a commodity just so they can hurry up and dump it down the drain and pay fines.  They don't call it black gold for a reason, that's for sure.

I still don't know if you are deliberately obtuse or if you really do struggle to grasp simple concepts.

You're the dumbass who basically stated the industry prefers to pay fines than implement reasonable controls. That's lol absurd and inaccurate. Negligence is how these guys get laid with exemplary damages and there's hundreds of well funded environmental groups laying in waiting to pounce. What you've described is an extreme exception and anything but ordinary course.

You probably shouldn't accuse me, or anybody, for throwing out extreme exceptions given that is the very basis of almost every argument I've seen you try to make.  Unless you like kicking your own feet out from under you.  Secondly, your construction of straw-men is tiring.  I mean, I get it, why waste brain power to actually try and articulate a cognitive response when you can just act boorish and wildly misinterpret anything disagreeing with your beliefs.

And, while my example may be an extreme one of the total shitstorm that can happen when companies are reckless and negligent, it doesnt negate the fact that it is way more common than you play it out to be.  For the record, my client is an oil company, not the EPA.  I don't think they are going out there just thinking of ways to spill their oil, but we've already gone over your penchant for that argumentative style.  I also do actually believe that at least their environmental team does care about keeping spills to a minimum because of the environmental impact.  That said, minimum is the key word here.  Spills happen, and they will continue happening regardless of how many checks are put in place.  There were checks in place here, and some dudley-do-wrong behind a switchboard decided the computer telling him there was a problem ignored it and kept opening the shutoff valves.  Pretending an oil company can just put checks in place and everything is hunky dory is assinine.  If you don't realize they put in spill contingency plans, budget billions for cleanup and fines, weigh risk/rewards for where they pipe product, etc.. then I'm at a loss.  It's simple economics, that black gold is worth nothing if they can't send it to market.  They'll stuff money into any politicians g-string if they can ensure that happens, and they'll accept some risks such as losing millions in product and paying hefty fines if it means trillions in profit.  They don't want the spill to happen of course, but they'll also cut corners to ensure the green keeps flowing.
.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on February 23, 2017, 09:19:31 PM
If there's one thing we know for sure, the o&g industry has gotten uber rich spending billions of dollars exploring miles beneath the ground for a commodity just so they can hurry up and dump it down the drain and pay fines.  They don't call it black gold for a reason, that's for sure.

I still don't know if you are deliberately obtuse or if you really do struggle to grasp simple concepts.

You're the dumbass who basically stated the industry prefers to pay fines than implement reasonable controls. That's lol absurd and inaccurate. Negligence is how these guys get laid with exemplary damages and there's hundreds of well funded environmental groups laying in waiting to pounce. What you've described is an extreme exception and anything but ordinary course.

You probably shouldn't accuse me, or anybody, for throwing out extreme exceptions given that is the very basis of almost every argument I've seen you try to make.  Unless you like kicking your own feet out from under you.  Secondly, your construction of straw-men is tiring.  I mean, I get it, why waste brain power to actually try and articulate a cognitive response when you can just act boorish and wildly misinterpret anything disagreeing with your beliefs.

And, while my example may be an extreme one of the total shitstorm that can happen when companies are reckless and negligent, it doesnt negate the fact that it is way more common than you play it out to be.  For the record, my client is an oil company, not the EPA.  I don't think they are going out there just thinking of ways to spill their oil, but we've already gone over your penchant for that argumentative style.  I also do actually believe that at least their environmental team does care about keeping spills to a minimum because of the environmental impact.  That said, minimum is the key word here.  Spills happen, and they will continue happening regardless of how many checks are put in place.  There were checks in place here, and some dudley-do-wrong behind a switchboard decided the computer telling him there was a problem ignored it and kept opening the shutoff valves.  Pretending an oil company can just put checks in place and everything is hunky dory is assinine.  If you don't realize they put in spill contingency plans, budget billions for cleanup and fines, weigh risk/rewards for where they pipe product, etc.. then I'm at a loss.  It's simple economics, that black gold is worth nothing if they can't send it to market.  They'll stuff money into any politicians g-string if they can ensure that happens, and they'll accept some risks such as losing millions in product and paying hefty fines if it means trillions in profit.  They don't want the spill to happen of course, but they'll also cut corners to ensure the green keeps flowing.
.

This right here.

This isn't some Sierra Club tree-hugging leftist shill. This guy works in the industry, is on the front lines, and sees things first hand... And yet he can see the bigger picture. It would serve us all well to listen to him.

We aren't going to shut off the valves or pipelines over night, cars and the grid aren't going to be converted to be 100% "clean" in an instant, but there does need to be a regulatory agency tasked with enforcing policy and penalizing polluters.

As well we should be quickly using all our focus and urgency to expand alternative energy sources, generation, and storage. Going to extreme lengths, at all costs, with wanton disregard for the long term consequences to extract dirty finite fuels is a recipe for disaster and insensitive to the future of the planet for life as we know it.

Clean water and air should not be a political issue.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: halfEmpty on February 24, 2017, 06:39:03 AM
If there's one thing we know for sure, the o&g industry has gotten uber rich spending billions of dollars exploring miles beneath the ground for a commodity just so they can hurry up and dump it down the drain and pay fines.  They don't call it black gold for a reason, that's for sure.

I still don't know if you are deliberately obtuse or if you really do struggle to grasp simple concepts.

You're the dumbass who basically stated the industry prefers to pay fines than implement reasonable controls. That's lol absurd and inaccurate. Negligence is how these guys get laid with exemplary damages and there's hundreds of well funded environmental groups laying in waiting to pounce. What you've described is an extreme exception and anything but ordinary course.

You probably shouldn't accuse me, or anybody, for throwing out extreme exceptions given that is the very basis of almost every argument I've seen you try to make.  Unless you like kicking your own feet out from under you.  Secondly, your construction of straw-men is tiring.  I mean, I get it, why waste brain power to actually try and articulate a cognitive response when you can just act boorish and wildly misinterpret anything disagreeing with your beliefs.

And, while my example may be an extreme one of the total shitstorm that can happen when companies are reckless and negligent, it doesnt negate the fact that it is way more common than you play it out to be.  For the record, my client is an oil company, not the EPA.  I don't think they are going out there just thinking of ways to spill their oil, but we've already gone over your penchant for that argumentative style.  I also do actually believe that at least their environmental team does care about keeping spills to a minimum because of the environmental impact.  That said, minimum is the key word here.  Spills happen, and they will continue happening regardless of how many checks are put in place.  There were checks in place here, and some dudley-do-wrong behind a switchboard decided the computer telling him there was a problem ignored it and kept opening the shutoff valves.  Pretending an oil company can just put checks in place and everything is hunky dory is assinine.  If you don't realize they put in spill contingency plans, budget billions for cleanup and fines, weigh risk/rewards for where they pipe product, etc.. then I'm at a loss.  It's simple economics, that black gold is worth nothing if they can't send it to market.  They'll stuff money into any politicians g-string if they can ensure that happens, and they'll accept some risks such as losing millions in product and paying hefty fines if it means trillions in profit.  They don't want the spill to happen of course, but they'll also cut corners to ensure the green keeps flowing.
.

This right here.

This isn't some Sierra Club tree-hugging leftist shill. This guy works in the industry, is on the front lines, and sees things first hand... And yet he can see the bigger picture. It would serve us all well to listen to him.

We aren't going to shut off the valves or pipelines over night, cars and the grid aren't going to be converted to be 100% "clean" in an instant, but there does need to be a regulatory agency tasked with enforcing policy and penalizing polluters.

As well we should be quickly using all our focus and urgency to expand alternative energy sources, generation, and storage. Going to extreme lengths, at all costs, with wanton disregard for the long term consequences to extract dirty finite fuels is a recipe for disaster and insensitive to the future of the planet for life as we know it.

Clean water and air should not be a political issue.

Let's be clear, I am definitely egalitarian-communitarian, or "liberal" as it were.  Climate change is happening regardless of what we do but we do have a hand in speeding up the process.  This is scientific theory and until someone can actually prove the hypothesis wrong, that is what it is.  Larger impacts than the dreaded "sea-level rise" are ocean acidification, desertification, and shifting growing zones.  Let's be honest, without the Aquifer half of Kansas would be a freaking wasteland(some may argue it already is) and it is only going to get worse.  But, I'm just as large a proponent of emerging from the fossil fuel age because, well why not?  The future is available right now and newer cleaner technologies which can lessen our dependence on a finite commodity can only be a good thing. Not to mention provide many more permanent jobs than any pipeline will ever create.  The largest hurdle is, and probably always will be, a better battery.  Invest there.  I find it odd that a country which has long prided itself on being innovative, taking charge, a world leader, etc..  is now just content with sitting back on its haunches while the rest of the world is actively thinking about and building the future.

As for the EPA, I think anyone that has worked alongside them long enough will tell you it becomes a love-hate relationship.  It is an integral agency that is built on a solid foundation.  The problems often come with overreach and ever-shifting criteria.  I can't count the amount of times where we thought a section was done, met all guidelines, criteria were good, and then all of the sudden a new directive is in place, new criteria, new tests, etc.. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 24, 2017, 09:02:41 AM
Pruitt is vehemently 100% against sue and settle, which I would hope everyone in this thread would support.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 24, 2017, 09:41:48 AM
What does the Kansas is a wasteland argument have to do with anything?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 24, 2017, 09:57:35 AM
You know you've been whipped when your 1000-word novela attempting to clarify and restate your position could have just as easily been summarized in three words: yeah, you're right
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: halfEmpty on February 24, 2017, 10:29:40 AM
What does the Kansas is a wasteland argument have to do with anything?

It was in the context of desertification and shifting growing zones.  As temperatures rise and rainfall patterns become more sporadic/intense, large areas of kansas will essentially become fringe desert.  That coupled with a likely northward shift of growing zones, much of the heartland will no longer be fertile cropland.  I believe ag scientists at k-state have been looking at crop yields based on rising temperatures actually.  Just did a search and found this article which I read a couple years ago. http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 24, 2017, 10:42:33 AM
What does the Kansas is a wasteland argument have to do with anything?

It was in the context of desertification and shifting growing zones.  As temperatures rise and rainfall patterns become more sporadic/intense, large areas of kansas will essentially become fringe desert.  That coupled with a likely northward shift of growing zones, much of the heartland will no longer be fertile cropland.  I believe ag scientists at k-state have been looking at crop yields based on rising temperatures actually.  Just did a search and found this article which I read a couple years ago. http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html)
SW and NW Kansas will be deserts because the Ogallala and Dakota aquifers will be pumped dry in 30 years, not because of whatever climate stuff you're claiming.   
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: halfEmpty on February 24, 2017, 10:48:59 AM
You know you've been whipped when your 1000-word novela attempting to clarify and restate your position could have just as easily been summarized in three words: yeah, you're right
Do you always tuck your tail like a scared dog?  Or just in your virtual presence?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: halfEmpty on February 24, 2017, 10:52:04 AM
What does the Kansas is a wasteland argument have to do with anything?

It was in the context of desertification and shifting growing zones.  As temperatures rise and rainfall patterns become more sporadic/intense, large areas of kansas will essentially become fringe desert.  That coupled with a likely northward shift of growing zones, much of the heartland will no longer be fertile cropland.  I believe ag scientists at k-state have been looking at crop yields based on rising temperatures actually.  Just did a search and found this article which I read a couple years ago. http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html)
SW and NW Kansas will be deserts because the Ogallala and Dakota aquifers will be pumped dry in 30 years, not because of whatever climate stuff you're claiming.   
I guess you missed my reference to the aquifer being the only reason they weren't deserts already...
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: EMAWican on February 24, 2017, 11:00:10 AM
What does the Kansas is a wasteland argument have to do with anything?

It was in the context of desertification and shifting growing zones.  As temperatures rise and rainfall patterns become more sporadic/intense, large areas of kansas will essentially become fringe desert.  That coupled with a likely northward shift of growing zones, much of the heartland will no longer be fertile cropland.  I believe ag scientists at k-state have been looking at crop yields based on rising temperatures actually.  Just did a search and found this article which I read a couple years ago. http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html)
SW and NW Kansas will be deserts because the Ogallala and Dakota aquifers will be pumped dry in 30 years, not because of whatever climate stuff you're claiming.   
I guess you missed my reference to the aquifer being the only reason they weren't deserts already...
You're right, the Great Plains was a desert before the 1950s
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 24, 2017, 11:29:48 AM
What does the Kansas is a wasteland argument have to do with anything?

It was in the context of desertification and shifting growing zones.  As temperatures rise and rainfall patterns become more sporadic/intense, large areas of kansas will essentially become fringe desert.  That coupled with a likely northward shift of growing zones, much of the heartland will no longer be fertile cropland.  I believe ag scientists at k-state have been looking at crop yields based on rising temperatures actually.  Just did a search and found this article which I read a couple years ago. http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html)

Really makes you wonder how states like Texas and Oklahoma have any agriculture at all really.  Or rough ridin' Mexico.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: halfEmpty on February 24, 2017, 12:22:46 PM
What does the Kansas is a wasteland argument have to do with anything?

It was in the context of desertification and shifting growing zones.  As temperatures rise and rainfall patterns become more sporadic/intense, large areas of kansas will essentially become fringe desert.  That coupled with a likely northward shift of growing zones, much of the heartland will no longer be fertile cropland.  I believe ag scientists at k-state have been looking at crop yields based on rising temperatures actually.  Just did a search and found this article which I read a couple years ago. http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html)

Really makes you wonder how states like Texas and Oklahoma have any agriculture at all really.  Or rough ridin' Mexico.
Aquifers and irrigation for the western areas.  same as western Kansas.  Half of Mexico is in the tropics and the Sierra Madre range provides an agricultural region in northern mexico in the same way the Sierra Nevadas provide for the Central Valley.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 24, 2017, 01:34:45 PM
Going to be fascinating to see what kind of carnage the massive wind turbines going in here on the coastal plain foist upon the bird population. 

Particularly since the area is the winter home of migrating birds of prey in addition to the indigenous population.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on February 24, 2017, 01:59:57 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFDYK0U8Z6DhE2zaKjTLLt1fQEALhhEOl5BrzHrnjShPNPy9FDvQ)

(https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/mt/2016/04/RTR2FGST/lead_large.jpg?1459805478)

(https://assets.rbl.ms/8717332/980x.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 24, 2017, 02:04:08 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFDYK0U8Z6DhE2zaKjTLLt1fQEALhhEOl5BrzHrnjShPNPy9FDvQ)

The 300,000 plus birds (that's way low, BTW) who are killed every year by wind turbines (and growing) don't care about oil spills.

But it's good to see scientists have dumbed it down to say wind turbines kill fewer birds than radio and cell towers.   Whew, that's good, right?

I'm thinking a variation of a line from one of my favorite lines applies  here, "Only 300,000 plus killed, depending on the breaks"..





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on February 24, 2017, 02:46:11 PM
can someone explain oil spills to me? like i understand that they might happen every once in a long while, but why are they like all the effing time type deals?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on February 24, 2017, 02:48:10 PM
maybe this guy is in charge of transporting all oil on earth?

(http://i.imgur.com/c9Ups.gif)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 24, 2017, 02:49:24 PM
can someone explain oil spills to me? like i understand that they might happen every once in a long while, but why are they like all the effing time type deals?

Well just think, every 3000 or so miles you get your oil changed and that old oil has to go somewhere.  In the creek is as good a place as any.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 24, 2017, 02:50:27 PM
What does the Kansas is a wasteland argument have to do with anything?

It was in the context of desertification and shifting growing zones.  As temperatures rise and rainfall patterns become more sporadic/intense, large areas of kansas will essentially become fringe desert.  That coupled with a likely northward shift of growing zones, much of the heartland will no longer be fertile cropland.  I believe ag scientists at k-state have been looking at crop yields based on rising temperatures actually.  Just did a search and found this article which I read a couple years ago. http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html)

Really makes you wonder how states like Texas and Oklahoma have any agriculture at all really.  Or rough ridin' Mexico.
Aquifers and irrigation for the western areas.  same as western Kansas.  Half of Mexico is in the tropics and the Sierra Madre range provides an agricultural region in northern mexico in the same way the Sierra Nevadas provide for the Central Valley.

Do you even dry land wheat bro? 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: halfEmpty on February 26, 2017, 09:48:01 PM
What does the Kansas is a wasteland argument have to do with anything?

It was in the context of desertification and shifting growing zones.  As temperatures rise and rainfall patterns become more sporadic/intense, large areas of kansas will essentially become fringe desert.  That coupled with a likely northward shift of growing zones, much of the heartland will no longer be fertile cropland.  I believe ag scientists at k-state have been looking at crop yields based on rising temperatures actually.  Just did a search and found this article which I read a couple years ago. http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html (http://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/feb15/climatewheat21815.html)

Really makes you wonder how states like Texas and Oklahoma have any agriculture at all really.  Or rough ridin' Mexico.
Aquifers and irrigation for the western areas.  same as western Kansas.  Half of Mexico is in the tropics and the Sierra Madre range provides an agricultural region in northern mexico in the same way the Sierra Nevadas provide for the Central Valley.

Do you even dry land wheat bro?
Or any other dry land crop?  I guess i should ask what's your point?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on March 05, 2017, 05:58:24 AM
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/03/518323094/rise-in-smog-in-western-u-s-is-blamed-on-asias-air-pollution?sc=tw

see guys, lets just stop trying.  the only thing I'd like to see come over the air from Asia is the sweet smell of napalm in the morning.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on March 05, 2017, 10:30:00 AM
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFDYK0U8Z6DhE2zaKjTLLt1fQEALhhEOl5BrzHrnjShPNPy9FDvQ)

The 300,000 plus birds (that's way low, BTW) who are killed every year by wind turbines (and growing) don't care about oil spills.

But it's good to see scientists have dumbed it down to say wind turbines kill fewer birds than radio and cell towers.   Whew, that's good, right?

I'm thinking a variation of a line from one of my favorite lines applies  here, "Only 300,000 plus killed, depending on the breaks"..

I know dax doesnt post here anymore. But I wanted him to repsond to it, cause why it is indeed, tragic to have any number of birds killed by wind turbines, 300k-1 million. If you care about the birds so much, you should ban this guy:

(http://www.rd.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/01-cat-wants-to-tell-you-laptop.jpg)

who is responsible for 1.3 to 4 billion bird deaths a year. So yes, not saying I like that birds are killed by wind turbines, but 300k vs 3.5 billion? :lol: mere drop in a very large bucket do to what cats freaking do.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/cats-kill-more-one-billion-birds-each-year
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 05, 2017, 01:39:55 PM
I'm okay with regulating cats, and that's assuming we must have them in the first place.  I would rather they all be gone.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on March 05, 2017, 01:51:04 PM
Get out of here, Emo. Cats are the best. This whole blog exists due to cat fanship. Just get out out here.

(Typed by my cat, Sasha the gorgeous Himalayan. This in parentheses was typed by me, the gorgeous narcissist)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 05, 2017, 04:11:12 PM
Sasha aka the bird exterminator. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on March 06, 2017, 04:32:05 AM
Haha more like rabbit killer.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on March 06, 2017, 04:45:27 AM
There are so many rabbits here, birds too. Sasha prefers rabbits though
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on March 09, 2017, 10:32:56 AM
This rough ridin' guy...  :curse:

Not sure if he actually believes the crap that comes out of his mouth or if he is just trolling us at the expense of the environment to ensure O&G, E&P profits.  :bang:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html)

 :fan-1:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: AbeFroman on March 09, 2017, 11:12:25 AM
All that matters is pdding his bank account. Typical Trumpublican
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 09, 2017, 09:31:54 PM
I really really like this Pruitt guy. He's doing wonderful things for this country.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 10, 2017, 11:04:04 AM
This rough ridin' guy...  :curse:

Not sure if he actually believes the crap that comes out of his mouth or if he is just trolling us at the expense of the environment to ensure O&G, E&P profits.  :bang:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html)

 :fan-1:

Quote
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."

So if you disagree with this comment, go ahead and tell me: how much have manmade CO2 emissions warmed the planet? What's "the 97% consensus" on that question? (Credit will not be awarded for answers like "a lot" or "shut up.")
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 10, 2017, 11:11:04 AM
U.S. CO2 emissions now at lowest point in the last 35 years, but according to warmist-alarmist-propagandists it just keeps getting warmer (of course when NOAA keeps adjusting the past lower to make the present look warmer while using flawed computer programs to analyze current data).

Never have gotten or seen the answer to how many PPM of CO2 we actually need to be at, in order to make everything "perfect" (you know, like when we were being told we were headed straight into another ice age), like it was before warmist-alarmist-propagandists exerting their propaganda driven political agenda.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on March 10, 2017, 12:23:36 PM
When we started keeping weather records we were plowing up the prairie.  This has caused more global warming than anything.  Global warmers need to quit eating or be gluttonous beef eaters so we can plant cropland to range and make money raisings meatmoos.   Get rid of profiting off of carbon, and this kick would dry up.  Obama enriched a bunch of people hyping the carbon hysteria.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on March 10, 2017, 12:47:48 PM
I'm always amazed at people comparing a million dollar industry to a trillion dollar industry and saying the former has more to protect.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 10, 2017, 06:50:59 PM
Pruitt   :love:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 11, 2017, 09:57:32 AM
This rough ridin' guy...  :curse:

Not sure if he actually believes the crap that comes out of his mouth or if he is just trolling us at the expense of the environment to ensure O&G, E&P profits.  :bang:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html)

 :fan-1:

Quote
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."

So if you disagree with this comment, go ahead and tell me: how much have manmade CO2 emissions warmed the planet? What's "the 97% consensus" on that question? (Credit will not be awarded for answers like "a lot" or "shut up.")

 :impatient:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: AbeFroman on March 11, 2017, 10:33:31 AM
I don't know the answer to that question KSUW but I do support finding the answer, and cutting all the funding so we can't answer the question isn't a good idea IMO
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 11, 2017, 11:55:23 AM
I don't know the answer to that question KSUW but I do support finding the answer, and cutting all the funding so we can't answer the question isn't a good idea IMO

Well I'll make you a deal. Liberals stuff all their sanctimonious drivel about "the 97%" and how we need to dramatically curb CO2 emissions and the EPA should be regulating carbon emissions based on the "Clean Air Act" and in exchange, conservatives will shell out $100mil in tax dollars to keep studying climate. Let's make a deal! I'm all for science - I'm against people claiming that (a) we know something that we don't, and (b) we need to do all sorts of stuff that conveniently fit the liberal agenda because of part (a).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on March 11, 2017, 12:21:48 PM
I love that the "liberal agenda" that ksuw hates is clean air and water. He pretty much admits that his agenda is to pollute the earth and flip double birds
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 11, 2017, 12:35:57 PM
I love that the "liberal agenda" that ksuw hates is clean air and water. He pretty much admits that his agenda is to pollute the earth and flip double birds

CO2 emissions have nothing to do with clean air and water. I was referring to expansion of government, regulation, redistribution of wealth, etc.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 11, 2017, 12:40:43 PM
It's pretty close to a 1 degree difference, KSU.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on March 11, 2017, 12:45:48 PM
I love that the "liberal agenda" that ksuw hates is clean air and water. He pretty much admits that his agenda is to pollute the earth and flip double birds

CO2 emissions have nothing to do with clean air and water. I was referring to expansion of government, regulation, redistribution of wealth, etc.

Lol, ok guy
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on March 11, 2017, 12:47:23 PM
We must end the regulations helping keep our air clean, also no more redistribution of clean air  :curse:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on March 11, 2017, 12:52:39 PM
We should redirect all co2 emissions to ksuw's lower upper class home, no negative consequences 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: The Big Train on March 11, 2017, 12:58:25 PM
thats the ultimate test, if ksuw is perfectly ok with pumping that pad of his with unregulated emissions then its fine with me to roll them all back.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on March 12, 2017, 11:21:24 AM
I love that the "liberal agenda" that ksuw hates is clean air and water. He pretty much admits that his agenda is to pollute the earth and flip double birds

CO2 emissions have nothing to do with clean air and water. I was referring to expansion of government, regulation, redistribution of wealth, etc.

Crazy you think setting up a system where the wealthy rip all the money from the common people isn't wealth redistribution (which Obama helped to further) and think fair taxation is class warfare.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 12, 2017, 11:54:09 AM
Per lib7: Reducing regulations of human exhale is tantamount to poisoning the fresh water supply and making the planet an enormous gas chamber.

It's no wonder nobody takes him seriously. Very sad.
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 13, 2017, 09:52:49 AM
Just spitballing here, aside from CO2, has anyone considered that maybe all the heat we are making is making things warmer?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on March 13, 2017, 10:12:20 AM
Just spitballing here, aside from CO2, has anyone considered that maybe all the heat we are making is making things warmer?
Yes
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 13, 2017, 10:46:25 AM
Just spitballing here, aside from CO2, has anyone considered that maybe all the heat we are making is making things warmer?
Yes

And?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on March 13, 2017, 10:46:56 AM
What do you think?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 13, 2017, 11:37:58 AM
I think the sun is the biggest contributor to global warming. Gotta do something about that.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 13, 2017, 11:51:37 AM
Anyone who opposes cooling the sun hates clean air and clean water, ftr
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: AbeFroman on March 13, 2017, 12:01:59 PM
We should ban microwaves. Heating up leftovers is creating heat and the CIA listens to Donald Trump's conversations in Trump Tower with them. 2 birds.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 13, 2017, 12:54:16 PM
My son microwaved a bowl of leftovers with a metal fork in the bowl. I stopped it after about 30 seconds but it absolutely no damage. I thought that was a huge no-no, but maybe it has to go for longer.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on March 13, 2017, 01:36:42 PM
My son microwaved a bowl of leftovers with a metal fork in the bowl. I stopped it after about 30 seconds but it absolutely no damage. I thought that was a huge no-no, but maybe it has to go for longer.

Did he do that to disable the cameras in the microwave from spying on your family?

if so boss move.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on March 13, 2017, 02:20:07 PM
My son microwaved a bowl of leftovers with a metal fork in the bowl. I stopped it after about 30 seconds but it absolutely no damage. I thought that was a huge no-no, but maybe it has to go for longer.

Quote
While spoons are generally okay, forks can create sparks due to a built up negative charge in the tines. Depending on what else is in the microwave, the sparks can cause a fire. Even without causing a fire, these sparks can damage the inside of the microwave and make it unsafe to use
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on March 13, 2017, 02:28:28 PM
i've thought a lot about blocking the sun a bit.  seems like a no-brainer, really.  i'm not against cooling it, necessarily, but i've really only considered blocking it some, which seems easier.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on March 13, 2017, 02:30:01 PM
for ksuw, when it comes to microwaves and also sexual content in movies, spooning is ok, but forking will result in burning your house down
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: halfEmpty on March 13, 2017, 03:48:11 PM
Just spitballing here, aside from CO2, has anyone considered that maybe all the heat we are making is making things warmer?
Yes

And?

The dynamic of a greenhouse gas is the heat radiated from the earth that they capture and then emit back to the earth.  99.9% of this energy comes from the sun.( I don't know the exact percentage off the top of my head, but it is the vast majority).  Without it, well, the earth would be a pretty cold place and we wouldn't be here.  So any heat generated by us on top of what the sun gives and what the earth itself generates is either captured by a greenhouse gas and emitted back to us, or escapes into space.  Water Vapor, CO2, Methane, etc..  CO2 has a relatively small wavelength window in which it acts as a greenhouse gas.

None of that can be argued.  That's the general science behind why life as we know it is even possible here.  I think the dissenting arguments fall on three lines of thought, "I don't believe in global warming" < just don't know how earth cycles work  "That CO2 isn't coming from humans and we can't affect our planet like that" < not heard as much anymore, since those not in group 1 probably now realize that we do contribute to increased CO2 in the atmosphere even if they disagree on the amount.  And the more common, "So what, we don't believe that the increase in temperature is anything to really worry about, or don't think it is as much as the scientists say" < can actually be argued.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 13, 2017, 03:50:25 PM
What do you think?

I'd like to have an open mind here.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on March 13, 2017, 04:01:40 PM
What do you think?

I'd like to have an open mind here.
Ok then do the research.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 13, 2017, 04:04:06 PM
What do you think?

I'd like to have an open mind here.
Ok then do the research.

Any links you'd care to share?  I prefer read studies and not someone's watered down interpretation of a study.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on March 13, 2017, 04:11:05 PM
What do you think?

I'd like to have an open mind here.
Ok then do the research.

Any links you'd care to share?  I prefer read studies and not someone's watered down interpretation of a study.
I'm not your librarian.  Do your own lit search.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 13, 2017, 04:56:40 PM
Might as well delete the whole thread if this is the culture around here.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Kat Kid on March 13, 2017, 06:46:20 PM
Might as well delete the whole thread if this is the culture around here.

Ah yes, the high brow intellectual salon culture of the Joe Montgomery Birther Pit is in decline.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 13, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
C02 emissions have no measurable impact on the earth's temperature.
-chingon itt

#caseclosed
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on March 13, 2017, 10:11:48 PM
The sense of entitlement is amazing.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 14, 2017, 09:04:23 AM
If you'd prefer to post a word cloud that'd be fine.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on March 14, 2017, 09:16:31 AM
Millennials smdh
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CHONGS on March 14, 2017, 10:07:35 AM
Might as well delete the whole thread if this is the culture around here.

Providing you with links to papers would simply be a waste of time for both of us.  You lack the capacity (and effort/ability to the gain the capacity) to understand, let alone critically evaluate, the claims they make about this topic. You are much better off doing what you originally mentioned, which is digesting pre-interpreted and watered-down information from blogs and websites that reinforce the conclusions you wanted to draw in the first place.   As I said, this will save us both time.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 14, 2017, 11:39:46 AM
Oh no, no guys. 

The propagandists already dismissed things like the UHIE (Urban Heat Island Effect) a long time ago because it negatively impacted their political agenda. 

So they'll be no discussion of heat generation unless it exclusively revolves around carbon emissions. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on March 14, 2017, 01:40:25 PM
Oh no, no guys. 

The propagandists already dismissed things like the UHIE (Urban Heat Island Effect) a long time ago because it negatively impacted their political agenda. 

So they'll be no discussion of heat generation unless it exclusively revolves around carbon emissions. 


While the UHIE is absolutely a problem, this is this first I've heard of it contributing to climate change. If you wouldn't mind sharing I would love to learn more.

But in regards to emissions, it's not just CO2 that is the worry but also methane.

FSD, dax, ksuw, etc... try not to be so obtuse with the complexity at play here. The models and forecasting are not going to be perfect, however the scientific community has a pretty good idea of narrowing down the possibilities.

It's very sad seeing fossil fuel industry's interests leading the energy, health, and agriculture future of our country. Greed is a massive problem in America. I'd say corporate influence is the main issue here but of course the whole reason why that is a problem in the first place is rooted in money and thus greed. Over-consumption is a form of greed too.  But it's not just about societal greed, but more importantly how a small handful of American resource extraction oligarchs are now dictating our entire environmental policy. They will manipulate peoples' prejudices in all kinds of ways to divide and conquer, whether it's religion, racism, regional biases, or whatever else they use. But mostly it's about how the Koch Brothers, Exxon, and their ilk are raping us all in the long run to ensure profits in the short term.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 14, 2017, 02:23:32 PM
Cam, greed is the #1 driving force behind "climate science", or any profession for that matter. Sorry you're so naive.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 14, 2017, 02:29:47 PM
Let's be honest, if the cost of doing absolutely nothing is that the planet warms up 1 degree over the next 50 years, and the cost to prevent the planet from warming up 1 degree is trillions of dollars and forfeiting a small bit of your quality of life, it's a really easy decision.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on March 14, 2017, 02:38:50 PM
Cam, greed is the #1 driving force behind "climate science", or any profession for that matter. Sorry you're so naive.

Interesting take
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 14, 2017, 03:43:21 PM
Might as well delete the whole thread if this is the culture around here.

Providing you with links to papers would simply be a waste of time for both of us.  You lack the capacity (and effort/ability to the gain the capacity) to understand, let alone critically evaluate, the claims they make about this topic. You are much better off doing what you originally mentioned, which is digesting pre-interpreted and watered-down information from blogs and websites that reinforce the conclusions you wanted to draw in the first place.   As I said, this will save us both time.

I have no preconceived notions here.  I would genuinely like to read something and educate myself.  No need to be so guarded.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on March 14, 2017, 04:19:10 PM
So go educate yourself.  Didn't you graduate with some sort of engineering degree from KSU? I'm sure some where along the way you were exposed to how to search for journal articles.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Tobias on March 14, 2017, 04:22:15 PM
wacky has just the hashtag for this
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on March 14, 2017, 04:54:53 PM
Cam, greed is the #1 driving force behind "climate science", or any profession for that matter. Sorry you're so naive.

So how do we protect ourselves as a society from the negative impacts that accompany excessive or out-of-control greed? I would say regulation. The almighty market sure isn't going to do it for us. Sorry you're so naive.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on March 14, 2017, 04:58:38 PM
Let's be honest, if the cost of doing absolutely nothing is that the planet warms up 1 degree over the next 50 years, and the cost to prevent the planet from warming up 1 degree is trillions of dollars and forfeiting a small bit of your quality of life, it's a really easy decision.

But it's not though, you imbecile...

You may only live 50 more years but your kids and grandkids and some of us around here hope to be here a little longer than that. And sure it may be a little uncomfortable and cut into our excessive opulence of sprawling 3000sf houses, and SUVs... but so what? Isn't it worth it?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 14, 2017, 07:27:23 PM
Cam, greed is the #1 driving force behind "climate science", or any profession for that matter. Sorry you're so naive.

So how do we protect ourselves as a society from the negative impacts that accompany excessive or out-of-control greed? I would say regulation. The almighty market sure isn't going to do it for us. Sorry you're so naive.

Greed and the free market are not synonymous, silly. Greed is, of course, also the #1 driver of regulation (e.g. market barriers that pervert free markets). Sorry you're so naive.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 14, 2017, 07:31:16 PM
Let's be honest, if the cost of doing absolutely nothing is that the planet warms up 1 degree over the next 50 years, and the cost to prevent the planet from warming up 1 degree is trillions of dollars and forfeiting a small bit of your quality of life, it's a really easy decision.

But it's not though, you imbecile...

You may only live 50 more years but your kids and grandkids and some of us around here hope to be here a little longer than that. And sure it may be a little uncomfortable and cut into our excessive opulence of sprawling 3000sf houses, and SUVs... but so what? Isn't it worth it?

I suppose if we make zero technological advancements over the next 50 years our grandkids will be in trouble (albeit climate won't be in the top 100 troubles). Great point, Cam.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on March 14, 2017, 10:33:13 PM
Let's be honest, if the cost of doing absolutely nothing is that the planet warms up 1 degree over the next 50 years, and the cost to prevent the planet from warming up 1 degree is trillions of dollars and forfeiting a small bit of your quality of life, it's a really easy decision.

But it's not though, you imbecile...

You may only live 50 more years but your kids and grandkids and some of us around here hope to be here a little longer than that. And sure it may be a little uncomfortable and cut into our excessive opulence of sprawling 3000sf houses, and SUVs... but so what? Isn't it worth it?

I suppose if we make zero technological advancements over the next 50 years our grandkids will be in trouble (albeit climate won't be in the top 100 troubles). Great point, Cam.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/scott-pruitt-climate-change-denying-epa-chief-carbon-dioxide-global-warming-donald-trump-american-a7628766.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/scott-pruitt-climate-change-denying-epa-chief-carbon-dioxide-global-warming-donald-trump-american-a7628766.html)

Pruitt reportedly responded by plugging his fingers in his ears and yelling "LA!LA!LA!LA!LA!LA!LA!LA!LA!LA!LA!LA!" at the top of his lungs.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 14, 2017, 11:11:54 PM
Partisan drivel
Lol at this headline(clickbait)
Quote
Scott Pruitt: Climate change-denying EPA chief is told carbon dioxide causes global warming

Compared to substance
Quote
The American Meteorological Society has written to the new head of the US Environmental Protection Agency to correct him after he claimed carbon dioxide was not the primary cause of global warming.

Quote
However in its letter, the AMS said thousands of scientists worldwide had all reached the same conclusion that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were driving the rise in temperature

Not sure these guys even disagree
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on March 14, 2017, 11:33:04 PM
Um
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on March 15, 2017, 11:23:32 AM

Quote
Scott Pruitt: Climate change-denying EPA chief is told carbon dioxide causes global warming

Compared to substance
Quote
The American Meteorological Society has written to the new head of the US Environmental Protection Agency to correct him after he claimed carbon dioxide was not the primary cause of global warming.

Quote
However in its letter, the AMS said thousands of scientists worldwide had all reached the same conclusion that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were driving the rise in temperature

Not sure these guys even disagree

Not sure what could drive you to that conclusion. Pretty sure they are clearly stating they absolutely disagree with Pruitt... and moreover you still refuse to comprehend or acknowledge that the scientific community is not saying that it is only CO2, but that it is the defining contributing factor among others.

Even "mad-dog mattis" gets it. But you and your ilk think we should just keep driving right off the cliff because it might mean higher taxes on the rich and powerful.

Sad.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/james-mattis-us-defence-secretary-climate-change-destabilise-world-security-donald-trump-global-a7630676.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/james-mattis-us-defence-secretary-climate-change-destabilise-world-security-donald-trump-global-a7630676.html)

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 15, 2017, 05:07:09 PM
According to my reading we're only 50PPM's away from having optimum CO2 levels, when the Earth's climate will quit changing and will be predictable throughout the millennia, and all of our problems will be solved . . . UTOPIA!   

U.S. - lowest CO2 emissions in nearly 4 decades.   Looks like we're on a good trend line fellas.   






Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on March 15, 2017, 05:24:43 PM
TY epa
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 15, 2017, 05:38:25 PM
TY epa

Well, on the flipside, CO2 concentrations increased every year, for the past 8 years, so, not really a great job in that respect.

But on the flip side, as a % of our atmosphere, the change is barely noticeable for the past 50 years, so if we can get it down by way less than a percentage point, everything is going to be perfect (again) lib. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 15, 2017, 06:10:37 PM
About 95% or "greenhouse gas" in the atmosphere is.... water vapor. CO2 is a minute fraction of greenhouse gasses and a much much much more minute fraction of our atmosphere. The models that predict increasing temperatures due to rising CO2 rely on the theory that CO2 will have a multiplier effect on water vapor. This hasn't panned out, which is why so many models have so seriously missed the mark on predicting temperture increase.

With the warmers there's always another study they can deflect to, always something to quibble over, always a new "adjusted" data set, but the fact remains that the science is far from settled and nobody knows with anything close to certainty how much increasing CO2 will increase temperture, let alone whether that will be a net negative.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 15, 2017, 08:44:25 PM
They don't give a eff about science, they're more interested in clickbait headlines like "Meteorologists Destroy EPA Chief Lie About Carbon Dioxide"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on March 15, 2017, 09:27:54 PM
They don't give a eff about science, they're more interested in clickbait headlines like "Meteorologists Destroy EPA Chief Lie About Carbon Dioxide"

Keep grasping at those straws, fsd/Dax. It's a real wonder how any of these so called scientists were able to get those fancy "degrees" or "highly respected jobs" in their fields of study when we have experts like you all able to discern the real "truths" or "facts" just by reading infowars or listening to mark levin.

However, do us all a favor and try not to leave your bunkers too often in your remaining years, the ignorance you spew out actually has lasting consequences for the rest of us in society trying to leave this world better than we have found it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 15, 2017, 09:59:36 PM
Stop spewing ignorance and get truth facts, doodle-dork
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on March 16, 2017, 12:03:57 AM
back when i was a snakeologist, all i had to do was tell people i studied snakes to have them tripping over themselves to tell me the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) crap they thought they knew about snakes.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: puniraptor on March 16, 2017, 07:34:29 AM
Snakes can see carbon dioxide
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 16, 2017, 08:12:29 AM
Sys I almost got bit by a prairie rattlesnake one time.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 16, 2017, 08:13:29 AM
All cam does is gurgle forth the same bilge co-mingled with stuff that was covered 30 pages ago sprinkled with some Capt. Obvious headline bullet points.

Sad.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 16, 2017, 08:16:24 AM
back when i was a snakeologist, all i had to do was tell people i studied snakes to have them tripping over themselves to tell me the Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) crap they thought they knew about snakes.

Well, they actually lose all of their skin at once and just leave it lying on the ground. They don't even eat the skin.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on March 16, 2017, 09:28:45 AM
All cam does is gurgle forth the same bilge co-mingled with stuff that was covered 30 pages ago sprinkled with some Capt. Obvious headline bullet points.

Sad.

Sure, dax... Tap out noted.

Just keep grasping.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on March 16, 2017, 09:52:50 AM
Currently the regulatory philosophy of dax, fsd, ksuw, etc. is in charge of policy for the executive branch and here are the actual propositions in the real world:

President Trump’s first budget proposal includes a 31-percent cut to the Environmental Protection Agency...
slashes funding for industrial waste clean-up through the Superfund program. It also passes along deep cuts to research and development work, the EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Office and state grant programs, and it eliminates funding for region-specific environmental work for areas like the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay...eliminates more than 50 EPA programs... The EPA has absorbed a 20-percent cut since 2010, and some key Republican appropriators — even those who oppose the agency’s climate change work — have already raised concerns about the size and breadth of Trump’s proposal...

In all, the EPA was one of the federal departments hardest hit by Trump’s budget. But he takes aim at climate change and energy research in other parts of his government.

The proposal would eliminate several State Department climate programs, including funding for the Global Climate Change Initiative and American contributions to international climate change accounts...

The Interior Department, which sees a 12-percent cut in the budget, receives higher funding for energy development on public lands. Cuts to the agency focus on abandoned mine clean-up grants and land acquisition programs. 

Trump proposes trimming the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Earth science budget by $102 million, ending missions that observe the Earth’s oceans and carbon dioxide levels.

The budget as a whole includes deep domestic spending cuts while increasing defense spending by $54 billion.


http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/324242-trump-proposes-deep-cuts-to-epa-federal-climate-funding (http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/324242-trump-proposes-deep-cuts-to-epa-federal-climate-funding)

So let me get this straight...if the science truly isn't settled and requires more research, why oh why, would we cut all the funding to study it? Sure seems like the current administration doesn't really want the truth to be verified or confirmed.

Sad.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on March 16, 2017, 10:56:48 AM
Yeah, that's pretty suspicious
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on March 16, 2017, 10:59:04 AM
The science is settled, cam.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 16, 2017, 11:02:39 AM
If we can't get China/India and other third world polluters on board the all the science in the world is for not.  We'd be better off spending that money trying to influence them, or our consumption habits which would in turn influence them.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 16, 2017, 11:18:14 AM
Do you really think we're cutting all the funding to study climate change?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Tobias on March 16, 2017, 11:38:24 AM
got bit

:curse:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on March 16, 2017, 12:08:14 PM
The science is settled, cam.

No argument here!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/15/dont-look-now-but-reality-is-winning-the-climate-debate/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/15/dont-look-now-but-reality-is-winning-the-climate-debate/)

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on March 16, 2017, 07:34:45 PM
lol long
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/earth_temperature_timeline.png)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 17, 2017, 11:19:35 AM
4.07 million thousand megawatt hours of electricity used by the U.S. in FY 2015.   Less than 1 million generated from predominantly non green house gas emitting systems.   Greenies hate nukes, so there's that.  They also protest dams, so there's that.  So once you take those out your left with about 5-600k thousand megawatt hours of energy production from so called renewables.  Just a bit short of demand.

So good luck getting to your green energy utopia without fossil fuels and/or institute your economy killing draconian measures and/or your long desired depopulation plan (you first BTW). 

Also, still waiting on what PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to make everything "perfect" again??




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on March 17, 2017, 11:20:54 AM
Weird post
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 17, 2017, 11:38:24 AM
Weird post

Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on March 17, 2017, 09:19:26 PM
Million thousand mega
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 19, 2017, 09:57:42 PM
31% isn't nearly enough. Get rid of the libtard SS.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 06, 2017, 05:21:26 PM
http://www.dailywire.com/news/15146/democrats-teachers-throw-books-climate-deniers-hank-berrien

Free jack boot polishing with every book burned.  Brown shirts optional.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on April 25, 2017, 11:13:00 PM
From Britain's Daily Caller, "A group of executives who want to fight global warming has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment. The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims “additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,” which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement.

ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions".....
Make it so these hypocrites can't profit from this malarkey, and you would see this whole thing dissipate like a bad fart.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/25/al-gores-new-group-demands-15-trillion-to-fight-global-warming/#ixzz4fKDXjpgD
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on April 26, 2017, 01:26:58 PM
From Britain's Daily Caller, "A group of executives who want to fight global warming has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment. The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims “additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,” which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement.

ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions".....
Make it so these hypocrites can't profit from this malarkey, and you would see this whole thing dissipate like a bad fart.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/25/al-gores-new-group-demands-15-trillion-to-fight-global-warming/#ixzz4fKDXjpgD

Reno, you rough riding imbecile, if we don't start addressing where our energy production comes from and the amount of global emissions in our agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and construction our future as a species is totally FUBAR'd.

For a brief moment ponder what the downsides of alternative energy and sustainability are... and then consider what the possible implications of ignoring the scientific consensus... which are worse?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on April 26, 2017, 05:35:34 PM
If I conceded global warming is occurring, I could never concur with the supposition that mankind is going to be wiped from the face of the planet.  The ocean is going to have to rise a hell of a lot to drown Kansas.  I really don't care about penguin eating bears.  Bluntly I would belief and support the hew and cry of warmalist apostles like Gore if they were not profiting from their fear mongering.  The biggest problems facing us is a world population that is too large and the dumb astericks who push the idea of a borderless society.  Some point in the near future MaEarth will allow a plague or pandemic to occur that will weed out people, and adjust resources to total world population.  These one world society guys have co-opted the environment as a smoke screen to justify one world governance and the adoption of humanistic doctrine.  Someday God is going to fry this planet to a crisp.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on April 26, 2017, 11:33:28 PM
If I conceded global warming is occurring, I could never concur with the supposition that mankind is going to be wiped from the face of the planet.  The ocean is going to have to rise a hell of a lot to drown Kansas.  I really don't care about penguin eating bears.  Bluntly I would belief and support the hew and cry of warmalist apostles like Gore if they were not profiting from their fear mongering.  The biggest problems facing us is a world population that is too large and the dumb astericks who push the idea of a borderless society.  Some point in the near future MaEarth will allow a plague or pandemic to occur that will weed out people, and adjust resources to total world population.  These one world society guys have co-opted the environment as a smoke screen to justify one world governance and the adoption of humanistic doctrine.  Someday God is going to fry this planet to a crisp.

:horrorsurprise:

Wow. The true feelings of what every climate denying, christian-fundamentalist, "socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor", alt-right, trumpeter actually believes. So rarely are you or your kind so honest and transparent in what you really feel... Usually it's masked as something altruistic or behind some belief or twisted rationale/logic. But really you are just a tin-hat wearing, extreme paranoia, xenophobic, dooms-dayer, wack job that has zero regard for 40% of the world's population along coastlines, the weather patterns affected by changing ocean currents, food stocks of fish impacted by acidification and pollution, plummeting biodiversity, extreme weather events, famine, and geopolitical conflict. Good thing you are in kansas and not subject to any of the ramifications of those things.

It's honestly scary that you have so much in common with a lot of the republican politicians in this country. They at least have the excuse of bribes... I mean "free speech contributions"... to blame for their disastrously fringe policies and viewpoints. What, besides am talk radio, Fox News, and alternative websites, has caused you to form such a corrupted view of the world and your place in it? Did someone hurt you when you were little? It's ok... it's not your fault.

Having said that, renocat, maybe you should take a moment to really think about what it is you just spouted off about... you are drifting awfully close to neo-nazi aryan brotherhood jihadis craziness, and no one wants to be associated with those guys (other than a group of republican politicians, steve bannon, and our current president).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on April 27, 2017, 02:35:12 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/30/stephen-emmott-ten-billion
The supposition that pro-warmalist always rally to is that global warming within a short period of time will wipe out all humanity so we have to tear apart our businesses, fabric of societies, and all forms of government.  Warmalist spout the only hope is for enlightened leaders to get us to spend trillions to work together to save the planet.  Bull bunk!!!  Warmalist are the greatest snake oil salesman in the recorded history of man.  Is there global warming, probably.  Is this the greatest threat to the existence of mankind, no.  Overpopulation fighting for limited resources is our biggest threat followed by the rapid ineffectiveness of vaccines to infection and disease.  It won't matter if the temperature rise.2 degrees in a hundred years to a straving man or kid who has a bug eating his tissues and bones.  As a Christian I am going to be with Jesus when I croak.  Those who belong to the Church of the Earth will reside and rot in a hole awaiting for Satan.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 27, 2017, 09:40:29 PM
Reno, you rough riding imbecile, if we don't start addressing where our energy production comes from and the amount of global emissions in our agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and construction our future as a species is totally FUBAR'd.

For a brief moment ponder what the downsides of alternative energy and sustainability are... and then consider what the possible implications of ignoring the scientific consensus... which are worse?

 :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 27, 2017, 09:43:18 PM
The party of science: we're on the verge of extinction if we dont start using more solar panels.

What in the actual eff? Reign in your retards, libtards, they're marginalizing your already highly marginalized whackadoo base
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: ednksu on April 27, 2017, 10:29:00 PM
If we can't get China/India and other third world polluters on board the all the science in the world is for not.  We'd be better off spending that money trying to influence them, or our consumption habits which would in turn influence them.

Actually china is kicking the crap out of renewables and is going to dominate the world market (they already kinda are).  They are also making great strides in cutting pollution, see them moving away from coal at a dramatic pace, see them meeting all new demands for power with renewables.  Every plant the make in excess of their current and projected needs is taking coal out of their power equation.

India is also making great strides with solar in particular.  I don't know as much about their plans.  But both countries are making progress while team trump tribe is sending us back to mid 19th century mindset.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ednksu on April 27, 2017, 10:33:19 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/30/stephen-emmott-ten-billion
The supposition that pro-warmalist always rally to is that global warming within a short period of time will wipe out all humanity so we have to tear apart our businesses, fabric of societies, and all forms of government.  Warmalist spout the only hope is for enlightened leaders to get us to spend trillions to work together to save the planet.  Bull bunk!!!  Warmalist are the greatest snake oil salesman in the recorded history of man.  Is there global warming, probably.  Is this the greatest threat to the existence of mankind, no.  Overpopulation fighting for limited resources is our biggest threat followed by the rapid ineffectiveness of vaccines to infection and disease.  It won't matter if the temperature rise.2 degrees in a hundred years to a straving man or kid who has a bug eating his tissues and bones.  As a Christian I am going to be with Jesus when I croak.  Those who belong to the Church of the Earth will reside and rot in a hole awaiting for Satan.

LOL at trillions.  You just posted something that called for $600B over 20 years.  It's amazing to me that you people think big green energy is going it for the money when petrol companies make orders of magnitude more. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 27, 2017, 10:38:52 PM
Goddamnit libtards, I told you to reign in the fringe retards
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on April 28, 2017, 07:50:34 AM
Goddamnit libtards, I told you to reign in the fringe retards

You mean you?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on April 28, 2017, 08:01:12 AM
If we can't get China/India and other third world polluters on board the all the science in the world is for not.  We'd be better off spending that money trying to influence them, or our consumption habits which would in turn influence them.

Actually china is kicking the crap out of renewables and is going to dominate the world market (they already kinda are).  They are also making great strides in cutting pollution, see them moving away from coal at a dramatic pace, see them meeting all new demands for power with renewables.  Every plant the make in excess of their current and projected needs is taking coal out of their power equation.

India is also making great strides with solar in particular.  I don't know as much about their plans.  But both countries are making progress while team trump tribe is sending us back to mid 19th century mindset.

Okay.  But China is still a dump with trash piled several feet high on the sidewalks, rivers so damn polluted they can't support life, and smog so poor the people don't dare run for fun outside.  They may be headed in the right direction.  I'd be curious to thing why they might be?  And if they'll ever have a country like ours?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 28, 2017, 09:49:11 AM
No, china is the environment would should aspire to be (direct quote from the ignorant and confused libtard)

We have to beat them at solar!!!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on April 28, 2017, 10:18:13 AM
No, china is the environment would should aspire to be (direct quote from the ignorant and confused libtard)

We have to beat them at solar!!!

This is cute coming from someone who wants to get rid of the epa so our air quality can be more like china's  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 28, 2017, 10:24:11 AM
No, china is the environment would should aspire to be (direct quote from the ignorant and confused libtard)

We have to beat them at solar!!!

This is cute coming from someone who wants to get rid of the epa so our air quality can be more like china's  :lol:

If not for the epa we'd be china, how cute.
 :lol:

If we could just win solar, the air cleans itself!!! :ROFL:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on April 28, 2017, 07:16:40 PM
I think we can all agree we want, demand, clean air and water.  That is not a partisan issue.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 28, 2017, 07:52:17 PM
Nope, without the epa, the sky is dark, the rivers orange, and the air unbreathable. Just like every day in american history pre 1970-whatever
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: star seed 7 on April 28, 2017, 10:21:15 PM
I think we can all agree we want, demand, clean air and water.  That is not a partisan issue.

it's like you don't even listen to republicans
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on April 28, 2017, 10:37:05 PM
I think we can all agree we want, demand, clean air and water.  That is not a partisan issue.

it's like you don't even listen to republicans

You have any quotes where anyone has specifically said otherwise?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: bucket on April 28, 2017, 11:13:19 PM
I think we can all agree we want, demand, clean air and water.  That is not a partisan issue.

it's like you don't even listen to republicans

You have any quotes where anyone has specifically said otherwise?

Scott Pruitt? AKA this thread title.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on April 29, 2017, 11:28:48 AM
Candidate trump often said we need environmental regs more like China and India and clean air and water is hurting businesses
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: bucket on April 29, 2017, 11:39:18 AM
I think we can all agree we want, demand, clean air and water.  That is not a partisan issue.

it's like you don't even listen to republicans

You have any quotes where anyone has specifically said otherwise?

Trump signed an EO that made it pretty clear he's not interested in clean air or water.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 29, 2017, 01:46:37 PM
Somebody get Al Gore that 15 Trillion so we can get this thing fixed and the world will be perfect again.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 29, 2017, 01:49:39 PM


https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-climate-hysterics-fake-enemies-list-1493330851?mod=e2two

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on April 29, 2017, 04:56:22 PM
https://twitter.com/350/status/858366821883416576
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on April 29, 2017, 05:21:36 PM
Candidate trump often said we need environmental regs more like China and India and clean air and water is hurting businesses

Should be pretty easy to find a direct quote with context then.  Go forth chubby wubby!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 29, 2017, 05:25:19 PM
Take it to the libtards losing their minds thread for the illusory right winged effort to pollute the earth
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: bucket on April 29, 2017, 07:20:58 PM
Candidate trump often said we need environmental regs more like China and India and clean air and water is hurting businesses

Should be pretty easy to find a direct quote with context then.  Go forth chubby wubby!

Trump signed an EO that made it pretty clear he's not interested in clean air or water.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 30, 2017, 08:33:50 AM

Illusory truth, brought to you by the libtarded
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 30, 2017, 09:29:25 AM
Has Al Gore been given $15 Trillion to fix the climate yet? 
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: The Big Train on April 30, 2017, 09:37:03 AM
I think he's working on fixing the internet first
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on April 30, 2017, 07:08:34 PM
http://www.salon.com/2017/04/30/koch-industries-spent-3-1-million-to-help-confirm-scott-pruitt-as-head-of-the-epa-filings-show/ (http://www.salon.com/2017/04/30/koch-industries-spent-3-1-million-to-help-confirm-scott-pruitt-as-head-of-the-epa-filings-show/)

Hmm... Sure seems like COLUSION/bribes to me.

(Try not to be triggered by the source Dax, FSD, Wacky)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on April 30, 2017, 09:52:47 PM
Scott Pruitt didn't need help getting confirmed because majority.  Moral majority, that is.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Yard Dog on May 01, 2017, 10:37:28 AM
http://www.salon.com/2017/04/30/koch-industries-spent-3-1-million-to-help-confirm-scott-pruitt-as-head-of-the-epa-filings-show/ (http://www.salon.com/2017/04/30/koch-industries-spent-3-1-million-to-help-confirm-scott-pruitt-as-head-of-the-epa-filings-show/)

Hmm... Sure seems like COLUSION/bribes to me.

(Try not to be triggered by the source Dax, FSD, Wacky)

I apologize, but that sounds like a load of hypocrisy. If your candidate was the POTUS right now and you heard that George Soros spent 3 million dollars to get a popular tree hugger in the cabinet you'd be all about it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 01, 2017, 11:16:17 AM
Don't worry, cam, who represents the party of knowledge, has repeatedly stated the world is in imminent danger (which is insane and ignorant), and equivocates the recognition of this mistruth as super-moral, above all moral principles, which provides a false post-facto justification for taking money away from one group of people and giving it to another.

Most people who orchestrate ponzi schemes ate afflicted with this type of psychopathy
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 01, 2017, 11:32:27 AM
Repeat after me: Regulating CO2 emissions has nothing to do with clean air or water....
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 01, 2017, 11:33:41 AM
https://twitter.com/350/status/858366821883416576

If you squint, you can see Bill Nye at the stage in front of the Capital. He's doing some sort of dance....
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on May 01, 2017, 11:35:04 AM
No you can't
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on May 01, 2017, 11:45:38 AM
http://www.salon.com/2017/04/30/koch-industries-spent-3-1-million-to-help-confirm-scott-pruitt-as-head-of-the-epa-filings-show/ (http://www.salon.com/2017/04/30/koch-industries-spent-3-1-million-to-help-confirm-scott-pruitt-as-head-of-the-epa-filings-show/)

Hmm... Sure seems like COLUSION/bribes to me.

(Try not to be triggered by the source Dax, FSD, Wacky)

I apologize, but that sounds like a load of hypocrisy. If your candidate was the POTUS right now and you heard that George Soros spent 3 million dollars to get a popular tree hugger in the cabinet you'd be all about it.

Not true in the slightest... I just got done stressing in another thread the importance of campaign finance reform, which I hope would include this type of tomfoolery.

Just keep clinging to the irrational belief that our actions and systems don't affect things on a larger scale... Those who believe the consensus of scientists and researchers will be anxiously waiting for you to realize your folly, and hopefully, it's not too late.
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 01, 2017, 12:11:03 PM
Love NyeCam's logic.  Even if you just marginally disagree that AGW is driving the entirety of climate change (remember in global warmist propagandist world, ALL climate change is now caused by man) than you're "anti science".

Oh, FFS NyeCam, cut the grade school bullshit.  No one is saying that man doesn't impact nature/climate/our natural surroundings. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on May 01, 2017, 12:36:29 PM
Love NyeCam's logic.  Even if you just marginally disagree that AGW is driving the entirety of climate change (remember in global warmist propagandist world, ALL climate change is now caused by man) than you're "anti science".

Oh, FFS NyeCam, cut the grade school bullshit.  No one is saying that man doesn't impact nature/climate/our natural surroundings.

It's like you don't even listen to republicans
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 01, 2017, 12:36:55 PM
Love NyeCam's logic.  Even if you just marginally disagree that AGW is driving the entirety of climate change (remember in global warmist propagandist world, ALL climate change is now caused by man) than you're "anti science".

Oh, FFS NyeCam, cut the grade school bullshit.  No one is saying that man doesn't impact nature/climate/our natural surroundings.

It's like you don't even listen to republicans

Weird post
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 01, 2017, 12:48:55 PM
We're all going to die
-cam

Quote
Last October, the Pew Research Center published a survey on the politics of climate change. Among its findings: Just 36 percent of Americans care “a great deal” about the subject. Despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, politicians and activists to raise the alarm, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity.

Why? The science is settled. The threat is clear. Isn’t this one instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument?

Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.

By now I can almost hear the heads exploding. They shouldn’t, because there’s another lesson here — this one for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy. As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

I’ve taken the epigraph for this column from the Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz, who knew something about the evils of certitude. Perhaps if there had been less certitude and more second-guessing in Clinton’s campaign, she’d be president. Perhaps if there were less certitude about our climate future, more Americans would be interested in having a reasoned conversation about it.

https://nyti.ms/2qfZ0ds
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 01, 2017, 12:54:45 PM
We need to put NyeCam squarely on Team15TrillionForGore
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Yard Dog on May 01, 2017, 12:56:20 PM
We're all going to die
-cam

Quote
Last October, the Pew Research Center published a survey on the politics of climate change. Among its findings: Just 36 percent of Americans care “a great deal” about the subject. Despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, politicians and activists to raise the alarm, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity.

Why? The science is settled. The threat is clear. Isn’t this one instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument?

Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.

By now I can almost hear the heads exploding. They shouldn’t, because there’s another lesson here — this one for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy. As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

I’ve taken the epigraph for this column from the Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz, who knew something about the evils of certitude. Perhaps if there had been less certitude and more second-guessing in Clinton’s campaign, she’d be president. Perhaps if there were less certitude about our climate future, more Americans would be interested in having a reasoned conversation about it.

https://nyti.ms/2qfZ0ds

(http://i.imgur.com/Bxrz7Ac.gif)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 01, 2017, 01:13:29 PM
Still trying to get a feel for the "correct" PPM level. 

Certainly among the trove of "settled science" the optimum level of CO2 has been determined. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 01, 2017, 04:48:53 PM
http://www.salon.com/2017/04/30/koch-industries-spent-3-1-million-to-help-confirm-scott-pruitt-as-head-of-the-epa-filings-show/ (http://www.salon.com/2017/04/30/koch-industries-spent-3-1-million-to-help-confirm-scott-pruitt-as-head-of-the-epa-filings-show/)

Hmm... Sure seems like COLUSION/bribes to me.

(Try not to be triggered by the source Dax, FSD, Wacky)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/koch-brothers-donald-trump-clash-resistance-conservative-billionaires-network-us-president-charles-a7560706.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 01, 2017, 05:44:02 PM
COLUSION?  Oh you mean sue and settle?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 02, 2017, 10:24:45 PM
Is cam zach?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-editors-have-a-meltdown-1493766186
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 03, 2017, 10:25:14 AM
Is cam zach?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-editors-have-a-meltdown-1493766186

If you're not all in on the dogma, you're a "denier" FSD. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on May 04, 2017, 10:12:09 AM
http://observer.com/2017/05/scientists-release-climate-change-report-artic-region-unraveling/ (http://observer.com/2017/05/scientists-release-climate-change-report-artic-region-unraveling/)

Normal, intelligent, rational people after reading that link:  :eek: :runaway: :ohno:

Dax, FSD, etc. after reading that link:  :blah: ...scientists  :buh-bye:

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/08/05/us/05onfire1_xp/05onfire1_xp-facebookJumbo.jpg)

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 04, 2017, 09:18:26 PM
If cam had a shred a dignity, he'd had to the coast with his bucket and start bailing water
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on May 04, 2017, 11:49:14 PM
Hahahaha that made me laugh quite a bit
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2017, 02:13:49 PM
Changes in the Arctic.   If you work from the standpoint that the Arctic (as well as all climate) has been a static entity for millennia and only began to change in the last 20 or 30 years.  Then you can conjure up all kinds of Alarmism. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on May 05, 2017, 03:43:03 PM
Science: it makes sense to people who understand it but is witchcraft to those who don't.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on May 05, 2017, 03:44:32 PM
Do you get it guys?  Burn baby burn
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2017, 04:46:34 PM
Libs:  We'll let you know if the science is settled. 

Liberalism:  Where politics becomes science
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2017, 04:58:04 PM
Weird:  I just pictured TBT lauding Apple (one of the biggest consumers of resources on the planet, who makes everything in Dirty China) while carrying a "end capitalism before it ends us" sign.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on May 05, 2017, 05:14:15 PM
This thread is 117 pages of you, fsd, and ksuw claiming a massive hoax by the world's scientific community in favor of some radical left agenda, but you know... Libs are the ones being deceitful and playing politics.

l-o-l
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on May 05, 2017, 05:16:10 PM
From what I've gathered, Dax believes climate change is man-made but it's no big deal because it's happened before and it's going to happen again. Accelerating it isn't a concern.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on May 05, 2017, 05:26:24 PM
If he believes the scientists, why is he constantly calling them liars? Quite the pickle
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on May 05, 2017, 05:28:50 PM
If he believes the scientists, why is he constantly calling them liars? Quite the pickle

Except scientists employed by the energy industry, dax thinks that's a group of straight shooters with no agenda or bias
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on May 05, 2017, 05:33:45 PM
If he believes the scientists, why is he constantly calling them liars? Quite the pickle

He thinks they're exaggerating the impact.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 05, 2017, 06:42:32 PM
This thread is 117 pages of you, fsd, and ksuw claiming a massive hoax by the world's scientific community in favor of some radical left agenda, but you know... Libs are the ones being deceitful and playing politics.

l-o-l

Flailing. Stick to your 3 or 4 <20 word trite and meaningless quips :twocents:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on May 05, 2017, 11:16:14 PM
Don't worry, cam, who represents the party of knowledge, has repeatedly stated the world is in imminent danger (which is insane and ignorant), and equivocates the recognition of this mistruth as super-moral, above all moral principles, which provides a false post-facto justification for taking money away from one group of people and giving it to another.

Most people who orchestrate ponzi schemes ate afflicted with this type of psychopathy

organized religion
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on May 05, 2017, 11:16:56 PM
Repeat after me: Regulating CO2 emissions has nothing to do with clean air or water....

CO2 acidifies water so...
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on May 06, 2017, 07:29:22 AM
KSUW, Dax, FSD, Libs, SteveDave I think I am an now a warmalist apostate now.  I laugh at everything being blamed on global warming. The following article says we are going to have to ice our wallies regularly or face defacto heat castration.  Having a hunk of ice hanging on my hangythingers is too painfful to imagine.  Please Trump change your mind.
 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.inverse.com/amp/article/25464-climate-change-fertility-decline-sex-babies-sperm-global-warming
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on May 09, 2017, 12:43:30 PM
Al Gore and warmalist crusaders are trying to revise the concept of a carbon tax.  The premise is if you make too costly to use fossil fuels, people will quit using them.  Thus less carbon in the atmosphere, ice will reform, and the vulnerable planet saved.  Just like high taxes on cigs.  I you had to pay a $15 a gallon carbon tax on car gas, you would likely go amish.   Clinton and Gore tried to ram a carbon tax through in the late 90s, and farm groups and truckers yelled bankruptcy.  I have to admit Gore is persistent, but deluded to think we can have economic stability and the capacity to feed a growing world population without using fossil fuels.  His latest proposal would destroy our economic system and agriculture.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-fools-errand-al-gores-15-trillion-carbon-tax/article/2622479
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 10, 2017, 02:48:41 PM
If he believes the scientists, why is he constantly calling them liars? Quite the pickle

Except scientists employed by the energy industry, dax thinks that's a group of straight shooters with no agenda or bias

Lol, you're so rough ridin' dumb sometimes.
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 10, 2017, 02:50:58 PM
Nice work Obama, private jet and a 14 internal combustion gasoline powered vehicle convoy to deliver a climate speech.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on May 11, 2017, 12:59:19 PM
Nice work Obama, private jet and a 14 internal combustion gasoline powered vehicle convoy to deliver a climate speech.

What percentage of the problem would you say this is?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on May 11, 2017, 01:02:09 PM
Nice troll attempt TBT. We all know it would be completely practical and feasible for Obama to have flown commercial and taken the bus or a cab from the airport to where he was going.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 11, 2017, 02:25:12 PM
Nice troll attempt TBT. We all know it would be completely practical and feasible for Obama to have flown commercial and taken the bus or a cab from the airport to where he was going.

No one said fly commercial.  But a 14 car convoy?  Come on.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on May 11, 2017, 02:36:58 PM
Dax doesn't know all former presidents have secret service protection for life
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 11, 2017, 03:30:50 PM
Dax doesn't know all former presidents have secret service protection for life

Not 14 vehicles worth.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on May 11, 2017, 03:41:15 PM
Dax doesn't know all former presidents have secret service protection for life

Not 14 vehicles worth.
By your disdain it appears you know exactly how many people were in the group so, what would have been the appropriate amount of vehicles?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 11, 2017, 03:45:48 PM
Dax doesn't know all former presidents have secret service protection for life

Not 14 vehicles worth.
By your disdain it appears you know exactly how many people were in group so, what would have been the appropriate amount of vehicles?

You're pretty serious here.

Sounds like it was basically Obama and maybe Michelle. Toss a whole bunch of cop cars and a couple of helicopters.   

$3.2 Million for the speech. 

Such a humanitarian!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on May 11, 2017, 03:47:08 PM
Dax doesn't know all former presidents have secret service protection for life

Not 14 vehicles worth.
By your disdain it appears you know exactly how many people were in group so, what would have been the appropriate amount of vehicles?

You're pretty serious here.

Sounds like it was basically Obama and maybe Michelle. Toss a whole bunch of cop cars and a couple of helicopters.   

$3.2 Million for the speech. 

Such a humanitarian!

Your boy Trump pays himself in tax payer money more than that every weekend he goes to Mar-A-Largo :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 11, 2017, 03:49:17 PM
Dax doesn't know all former presidents have secret service protection for life

Not 14 vehicles worth.
By your disdain it appears you know exactly how many people were in group so, what would have been the appropriate amount of vehicles?

You're pretty serious here.

Sounds like it was basically Obama and maybe Michelle. Toss a whole bunch of cop cars and a couple of helicopters.   

$3.2 Million for the speech. 

Such a humanitarian!

Your boy Trump pays himself in tax payer money more than that every weekend he goes to Mar-A-Largo :lol:

Yep, it's terrible.  Very Obama like.  Must be a thing. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on May 11, 2017, 04:26:27 PM
Good to see deflection and obfuscation is still in dax's bag-o-tricks
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on May 15, 2017, 09:22:09 AM
Good to see deflection and obfuscation is still in dax's bag-o-tricks

Trump going to Trump.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/05/california-farm-workers-just-got-poisoned-nasty-pesticide-greenlghted-trump (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/05/california-farm-workers-just-got-poisoned-nasty-pesticide-greenlghted-trump)

(FYI, even Nixon wouldn't stoop this low... Then again DJT does seem to be trying to outdo him for worst president ever)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on May 15, 2017, 10:19:23 AM
Good to see deflection and obfuscation is still in dax's bag-o-tricks

Drumpf going to Drumpf.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/05/california-farm-workers-just-got-poisoned-nasty-pesticide-greenlghted-trump (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/05/california-farm-workers-just-got-poisoned-nasty-pesticide-greenlghted-trump)

(FYI, even Nixon wouldn't stoop this low... Then again DJT does seem to be trying to outdo him for worst president ever)

Of course not, Nixon is why we have the EPA, and a lot of other positives. The terrible tragedy of his presidency is trying to cover up a 3rd rate burglary (not saying I like him, just the irony of it all).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 15, 2017, 03:15:05 PM
Nixon >>> ford >>> obama >>> carter
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on May 18, 2017, 02:10:00 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/the-solution-to-climate-change-might-be-right-under-our-feet/ar-BBBf0qi
This article says it is likely carbon dioxide can be pulled out of plant emissions, liquefied, and pumped into deep earth for storage for billions of years.  This is hilarious.  What are all of these environmental groups that want us to live like squirrelified amish going to do.  This article points out that such draconian changes will not be needed.  The warmalist will have no hysteria to peddle and get rich on.  This is from the left media bellcow, NBC.   This is better than trump dipping his genitals in battery acid and.the media blaming Russians that it was only the boyz.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: The Big Train on May 20, 2017, 09:28:27 AM
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flooded-thanks-global-warming/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 20, 2017, 09:34:13 AM
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flooded-thanks-global-warming/
:lol: "failsafe" didn't make it 10 years.

Retards


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on May 20, 2017, 09:38:43 AM
I think I just spotted a FakeSD troll post!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 23, 2017, 08:34:23 PM
Quote
The EPA’s more than 20 scientific advisory boards are in particular stocked with academics who receive EPA grants. As part of a 2016 lawsuit, the Energy and Environment Legal Institute showed that 24 of the 26 members of EPA’s then clean-air advisory panel had received or were receiving EPA grants. The institute estimated the 24 received $190 million. At the EPA’s ozone panel, 17 of 20 advisers received $192 million in agency grants.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/board-of-scientific-conformity-1495494734?mod=e2tw

AMAZE
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on May 23, 2017, 08:43:56 PM
https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flooded-thanks-global-warming/
:lol: "failsafe" didn't make it 10 years.

Retards

That's hilarious
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on May 28, 2017, 06:15:22 AM
Trump likely will pull out.  Trump is making the  Whore-opean countried angry.  I say get out of the Paris agreement  and let them bitch in Europe. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2017, 06:14:01 AM
(https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/paris-accord-impact.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on June 01, 2017, 07:06:25 AM
One thing being overlooked by everyone is the fact that Obama circumvented the treaty process of the Constitution to commit our country to adhere to an agreement that will bankrupt us, cripple job growth, cede our sovereignty on energy to international tribunals.
Many don't remember Obama signed a Presidential Treaty with China on climate hysteria.  I think it requires us to match China carbon cutting.  Suprise, China announced today that it would abide  by the Paris accord.  Trump so say that he will only abide by a Treaty approved by Congress.  Government by dictator was obama's legacy.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 01, 2017, 08:20:58 AM
Who needs the environment anyway?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 01, 2017, 08:58:17 AM
What's everyone's favorite part of the Paris pact? Here's mine....

Quote
5. Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate.

I really don't think I could write such beautifully wordy yet completely meaningless psychobabble if I tried. Whoever wrote this spent at least 12 years in higher education.

Predictably, liberals are melting down hard over Trump withdrawing from this nonsense.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 01, 2017, 09:31:21 AM
That makes perfect sense to me, maybe you are just too dumb  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 01, 2017, 10:03:11 AM
Ooooh, do tell what you think it means, lib7tard
 :bwpopcorn:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 01, 2017, 10:21:19 AM
It's an awful sentence. I'd also be interested in hearing exactly what a gender-responsive approach to climate change might be.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 01, 2017, 10:25:57 AM
If you've been around women then you know they are always cold unless they are in menopause or pregnancy or something
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 01, 2017, 10:29:13 AM
If you've been around women then you know they are always cold unless they are in menopause or pregnancy or something

I debated whether to cry sexist or acknowledge that this was hilarious. It's both I guess. Well done.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 01, 2017, 10:53:33 AM
(https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/paris-accord-impact.jpg)

Dax, bless your soul, how can you show us a graph based on what I presume to be science when you don't believe the very people who study and produce it?

And do you understand what the consequences of +4.5C are?

Let's see a graphic visual of that...

(https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/6/62/4_5_degrees.png)



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 01, 2017, 11:01:12 AM
camKSU you posted a graph with the text written in comic sans
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 01, 2017, 11:04:13 AM
Furthermore.... and I'll try and slow this down for you mouth breathing knuckle draggers... that minute very small difference at the year 2100 will amount to a significant very large difference down the road on the graph.

A lot of the temperature change has already been baked into the equation, what the paris agreement is about is minimizing the impact and changing our course, starting the process of doing more and more moving forward.

Turning our backs on this is extremely embarrassing and detrimental to working on a global scale on problems like this in the future.

North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, China, and India were all on board with this, for crying out loud, but Scott Pruitt's puppet masters and Trump the toddler are against it so let's just continue our rape and pillaging of our children's future with the status quo.... cause freedom and capitalism!

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 01, 2017, 11:04:57 AM
camKSU you posted a graph with the text written in comic sans

Trying to speak their language, C43
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2017, 11:28:50 AM
Gosh Cam, bless your little old heart.   What the graph is saying given the models from the warmest alarmists and all available data based on warmist alarmists prognostications.   That adhering to the Paris Accord in full for the next 80 years will virtually do nothing to stop temperature rise based on warmest alarmist projections.   In addition, what tiny variances do exist based on warmest alarmist modeling and projections between adhering and not adhering to the Paris Accord, will likely be washed up in the "noise" of NOAA's measurement methodology.

Oh, and you clearly never really read my posts, and you prove it every single time you say it's a science "you don't believe in". 




Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 01, 2017, 11:30:09 AM
Dear Leader had a great album titled The Alarmist.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 01, 2017, 11:42:46 AM
Gosh Cam, bless your little old heart.   What the graph is saying given the models from the warmest alarmists and all available data based on warmist alarmists prognostications.   That adhering to the Paris Accord in full for the next 80 years will virtually do nothing to stop temperature rise based on warmest alarmist projections.   In addition, what tiny variances do exist based on warmest alarmist modeling and projections between adhering and not adhering to the Paris Accord, will likely be washed up in the "noise" of NOAA's measurement methodology.

Oh, and you clearly never really read my posts, and you prove it every single time you say it's a science "you don't believe in".

Dax, I have no trouble reading your graph or your posts (outside of your overwhelming cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy)... My problem is that you claim to believe science and yet you don't trust scientists. You think 97% of scientists are "alarmists" and that the guys saying that GOD will save us from destruction (if it even exists) are on to something with their denialism.

Just keep grasping at your dwindling straws for justification in what you believe, the rest of the world (pretty much everyone) is moving on from trying to explain it to you.

The rough ridin' pope, leader of the largest and oldest church (a faith-based organization) not known for flippantly hopping on trends, is able to comprehend the direness of the situation.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2017, 12:10:22 PM
Lol, apparently you're not getting that according to the some of the most heralded alarmist findings that warming is inevitable no matter what is done. No matter what draconian measures are instituted, no matter what massive economic shift takes place.   According to the data as produced, the earth is still going to get warmer (I'll leave poor siting, fudged numbers, and the purposeful cooling of the past out of it). 

Then to double down and say it's suddenly going to reverse itself because of what man does? 

You guys can't even answer simple questions like what is the optimum PPM level of CO2, what's going to get us back to what you've decided is "normal". 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on June 01, 2017, 12:51:24 PM
Lol, apparently you're not getting that according to the some of the most heralded alarmist findings that warming is inevitable no matter what is done. No matter what draconian measures are instituted, no matter what massive economic shift takes place.   According to the data as produced, the earth is still going to get warmer (I'll leave poor siting, fudged numbers, and the purposeful cooling of the past out of it). 

Then to double down and say it's suddenly going to reverse itself because of what man does? 

You guys can't even answer simple questions like what is the optimum PPM level of CO2, what's going to get us back to what you've decided is "normal". 
*not a scientist

but i'm pretty damn sure pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere is not going to help the situation.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Mrs. Gooch on June 01, 2017, 01:18:31 PM
Well I'm not going out and cleaning up the massive amount of plastic waste from the ocean so I might as well just throw a bunch more plastic in the river.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on June 01, 2017, 01:51:55 PM
Lol, apparently you're not getting that according to the some of the most heralded alarmist findings that warming is inevitable no matter what is done. No matter what draconian measures are instituted, no matter what massive economic shift takes place.   According to the data as produced, the earth is still going to get warmer (I'll leave poor siting, fudged numbers, and the purposeful cooling of the past out of it). 

Then to double down and say it's suddenly going to reverse itself because of what man does? 

You guys can't even answer simple questions like what is the optimum PPM level of CO2, what's going to get us back to what you've decided is "normal".

Even if we knew the magic number you still wouldn't believe it.  The simple truth I know is that you have no rough ridin' idea what is going on.  There isn't data past 100 years ago because guess what Dax we didn't have the rough ridin' technology then to record it accurately on the scale we can now.

To just say eff what the data says and burn and drill because it's too hard to change is a stupid rough ridin' excuse.  I know change is hard for old people but we only have one earth.  We don't have any other feasible place to go, so trying to change the cycle we are on doesn't seem that stupid.  Unless of course you use the stupid mindset that you see the world in.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2017, 01:59:36 PM
Lol, apparently you're not getting that according to the some of the most heralded alarmist findings that warming is inevitable no matter what is done. No matter what draconian measures are instituted, no matter what massive economic shift takes place.   According to the data as produced, the earth is still going to get warmer (I'll leave poor siting, fudged numbers, and the purposeful cooling of the past out of it). 

Then to double down and say it's suddenly going to reverse itself because of what man does? 

You guys can't even answer simple questions like what is the optimum PPM level of CO2, what's going to get us back to what you've decided is "normal".

Even if we knew the magic number you still wouldn't believe it.  The simple truth I know is that you have no rough ridin' idea what is going on.  There isn't data past 100 years ago because guess what Dax we didn't have the rough ridin' technology then to record it accurately on the scale we can now.

To just say eff what the data says and burn and drill because it's too hard to change is a stupid rough ridin' excuse.  I know change is hard for old people but we only have one earth.  We don't have any other feasible place to go, so trying to change the cycle we are on doesn't seem that stupid.  Unless of course you use the stupid mindset that you see the world in.

Lol, in terms of your historical "thoughts" welcome to what was said 100 plus pages ago. 

Never said burn and drill either.

Damn.  Sad.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 01, 2017, 02:00:54 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/01/republican-senators-paris-climate-deal-energy-donations (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/01/republican-senators-paris-climate-deal-energy-donations)

 :shakesfist:

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on June 01, 2017, 02:03:42 PM
Lol, apparently you're not getting that according to the some of the most heralded alarmist findings that warming is inevitable no matter what is done. No matter what draconian measures are instituted, no matter what massive economic shift takes place.   According to the data as produced, the earth is still going to get warmer (I'll leave poor siting, fudged numbers, and the purposeful cooling of the past out of it). 

Then to double down and say it's suddenly going to reverse itself because of what man does? 

You guys can't even answer simple questions like what is the optimum PPM level of CO2, what's going to get us back to what you've decided is "normal".

Even if we knew the magic number you still wouldn't believe it.  The simple truth I know is that you have no rough ridin' idea what is going on.  There isn't data past 100 years ago because guess what Dax we didn't have the rough ridin' technology then to record it accurately on the scale we can now.

To just say eff what the data says and burn and drill because it's too hard to change is a stupid rough ridin' excuse.  I know change is hard for old people but we only have one earth.  We don't have any other feasible place to go, so trying to change the cycle we are on doesn't seem that stupid.  Unless of course you use the stupid mindset that you see the world in.

Lol, in terms of your historical "thoughts" welcome to what was said 100 plus pages ago. 

Never said burn and drill either.

Damn.  Sad.

Your same "thoughts" are just repeats every few pages anyways because of your limited grasp on the subject.  Sad.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 01, 2017, 02:04:33 PM
Well I'm not going out and cleaning up the massive amount of plastic waste from the ocean so I might as well just throw a bunch more plastic in the river.

Do you even know the optimal ppm for plastic in water?????
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on June 01, 2017, 02:08:34 PM
Well I'm not going out and cleaning up the massive amount of plastic waste from the ocean so I might as well just throw a bunch more plastic in the river.

Do you even know the optimal ppm for plastic in water?????
Well until we do lets keep throwing more in.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: passranch on June 01, 2017, 02:13:25 PM
+1

Good work guys!  Take the rest of the afternoon off!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on June 01, 2017, 02:15:45 PM
Well I'm not going out and cleaning up the massive amount of plastic waste from the ocean so I might as well just throw a bunch more plastic in the river.

Do you even know the optimal ppm for plastic in water?????
Well until we do lets keep throwing more in.

The more we do now the easier it is to fix later I always say.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on June 01, 2017, 02:20:05 PM
Example: the quicker we cut down the rain forest the quicker it grows back. #science
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on June 01, 2017, 02:34:14 PM
Quote
"I believe there's climate change. I believe there's been climate change since the beginning of time," Walberg said. "Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No." He continued: "Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I'm confident that, if there's a real problem, he can take care of it."

nothing to worry about dudes
http://time.com/4800000/tim-walberg-god-climate-change/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: bucket on June 01, 2017, 02:35:11 PM
Never said burn and drill either.

Damn.  Sad.

But you're against alternative energy, so?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 01, 2017, 02:41:32 PM
Quote
"I believe there's climate change. I believe there's been climate change since the beginning of time," Walberg said. "Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No." He continued: "Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I'm confident that, if there's a real problem, he can take care of it."

nothing to worry about dudes
http://time.com/4800000/tim-walberg-god-climate-change/

God gave us cars and the oil/gas/coal in the ground... we would be spiting God if we didn't use them. And the arrogance of thinking we affect anything or have the power to impact the climate. We can do whatever we want as this is our dominion and God will just fix it all. Faith alone is our salvation. #MAGA

/s
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on June 01, 2017, 02:43:12 PM
Quote
"I believe there's climate change. I believe there's been climate change since the beginning of time," Walberg said. "Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No." He continued: "Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I'm confident that, if there's a real problem, he can take care of it."

nothing to worry about dudes
http://time.com/4800000/tim-walberg-god-climate-change/

OMG! :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on June 01, 2017, 02:44:12 PM
What sucks is the I told you so will be when sea levels have risen and our crops are gone and we are all mumped.  It won't be very much fun at all
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 01, 2017, 02:50:50 PM
I'm glad I'll be dead before any of this matters.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on June 01, 2017, 03:11:18 PM
Good day.  I will admit it  is  hotter today  than 3 months ago.  If a problem get a better deal.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on June 01, 2017, 03:19:30 PM
It's ok, clearly the US can't handle decision making anymore, let's just keep sliding down the relevance ladder and let big kids do all the thinking and work for us.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Panjandrum on June 01, 2017, 03:33:41 PM
It's ok, clearly the US can't handle decision making anymore, let's just keep sliding down the relevance ladder and let big kids do all the thinking and work for us.

I read a hottake somewhere that said the world may be better off with us on the sidelines for a while until we get our house in order.  The world can move faster to address the problem if they aren't dealing with our Trump drama.

A part of me agrees with that.  What will be interesting to see is how individual states, like California, may end up making their own commitments with other nations.

I did listen to his speech.  God, it's like he was reading a Breitbart article in the Rose Garden.  It made me nauseous.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on June 01, 2017, 03:36:23 PM
That's because he was.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 01, 2017, 03:42:37 PM
Libs meltin' down. Take a breather fellas. Maybe do some meditation. Here's a few questions to meditate on....

What is the optimal global temperature?

How much will the temperature rise if CO2 increases from .04 percent to .05 percent?

Am I confident enough in my answers that I'm ok cutting thousands of US jobs and driving up the cost of energy (and thereby all the goods and services I consume?)

Did I enjoy air condition today? Drive a car? Charge my phone?

What's it mean to take a gender-responsive approach to climate change?


Breath in.... breath out....
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on June 01, 2017, 03:47:27 PM
It's ok, clearly the US can't handle decision making anymore, let's just keep sliding down the relevance ladder and let big kids do all the thinking and work for us.

I read a hottake somewhere that said the world may be better off with us on the sidelines for a while until we get our house in order.  The world can move faster to address the problem if they aren't dealing with our Drumpf drama.

A part of me agrees with that.  What will be interesting to see is how individual states, like California, may end up making their own commitments with other nations.

I did listen to his speech.  God, it's like he was reading a Breitbart article in the Rose Garden.  It made me nauseous.

That's pretty much my attitude. It'll be more work than it should, but if he can get away with saying and doing how he pleases, I'm going to get away with not giving a crap about him. The world is pretty much there already
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Panjandrum on June 01, 2017, 03:48:59 PM
Libs meltin' down. Take a breather fellas. Maybe do some meditation. Here's a few questions to meditate on....

What is the optimal global temperature?

How much will the temperature rise if CO2 increases from .04 percent to .05 percent?

Am I confident enough in my answers that I'm ok cutting thousands of US jobs and driving up the cost of energy (and thereby all the goods and services I consume?)

Did I enjoy air condition today? Drive a car? Charge my phone?

What's it mean to take a gender-responsive approach to climate change?


Breath in.... breath out....

Everything you said is stupid.  Shut up.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 01, 2017, 03:52:54 PM


Breath in.... breath out....

I've got a machinehead
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 01, 2017, 04:02:33 PM
If meditation does not work, how about a memorial? Have you read the Paris Agreement (I think we all know the answer)? In memorial to the Paris Agreement, organize a group of like-minded liberal friends to take turns reading from the Paris Agreement. Between each paragraph, repeat in unison: "Trump is an evil puppet of the Kremlin and we're all going to die from global warming and our children (if we had any) are gonna die even worse."

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=paris+agreement+text&spf=1496350825657 (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=paris+agreement+text&spf=1496350825657)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 01, 2017, 04:10:24 PM


The climate people being more dogmatic than the branch dividians is one of my favorite things.

I mean, look how holy rough ridin' unreasonable their responses itt are.  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 01, 2017, 04:16:50 PM


The climate people being more dogmatic than the branch dividians is one of my favorite things.

I mean, look how holy rough ridin' unreasonable their responses itt are. 



Breath in.... breath out....

I've got a machinehead
^ it's better than rest
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 01, 2017, 04:18:57 PM
Does ksuw really love his 7 kids or is he willing to sell them out to save a few bucks on the electric bill?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: AbeFroman on June 01, 2017, 04:19:29 PM
So this is almost "literally" cutting off the nose to spite the face? Trumpsters are so eager to do things just to spite libs they are willing to kill their own grandchildren. Good to know.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on June 01, 2017, 04:46:02 PM
Libs meltin' down. Take a breather fellas. Maybe do some meditation. Here's a few questions to meditate on....

What is the optimal global temperature?

How much will the temperature rise if CO2 increases from .04 percent to .05 percent?

Am I confident enough in my answers that I'm ok cutting thousands of US jobs and driving up the cost of energy (and thereby all the goods and services I consume?)

Did I enjoy air condition today? Drive a car? Charge my phone?

What's it mean to take a gender-responsive approach to climate change?


Breath in.... breath out....

Everything you said is stupid.  Shut up.

Makes sense why they voted for that idiot to begin with.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 01, 2017, 04:55:48 PM
Quote
"I believe there's climate change. I believe there's been climate change since the beginning of time," Walberg said. "Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No." He continued: "Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I'm confident that, if there's a real problem, he can take care of it."

nothing to worry about dudes
http://time.com/4800000/tim-walberg-god-climate-change/

I get having faith that there is a god, but having faith that god is just going to shield you from anything bad ever happening has never made sense to me.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on June 01, 2017, 05:18:18 PM
Quote
"I believe there's climate change. I believe there's been climate change since the beginning of time," Walberg said. "Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No." He continued: "Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I'm confident that, if there's a real problem, he can take care of it."

nothing to worry about dudes
http://time.com/4800000/tim-walberg-god-climate-change/

I get having faith that there is a god, but having faith that god is just going to shield you from anything bad ever happening has never made sense to me.

my thoughts exactly rage

Libs meltin' down. Take a breather fellas. Maybe do some meditation. Here's a few questions to meditate on....

What is the optimal global temperature?

How much will the temperature rise if CO2 increases from .04 percent to .05 percent?

Am I confident enough in my answers that I'm ok cutting thousands of US jobs and driving up the cost of energy (and thereby all the goods and services I consume?)

Did I enjoy air condition today? Drive a car? Charge my phone?

What's it mean to take a gender-responsive approach to climate change?


Breath in.... breath out....

Everything you said is stupid.  Shut up.

Makes sense why they voted for that idiot to begin with.

my thoughts exactly tbt
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 01, 2017, 05:19:38 PM
What exactly is changing? 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: cfbandyman on June 01, 2017, 05:21:07 PM
What exactly is changing?

the US not wanting to be a leader in the world anymore
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 01, 2017, 05:27:24 PM
If that's it then people are sure making a big stink over nothing.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 01, 2017, 05:30:58 PM


The climate people being more dogmatic than the branch dividians is one of my favorite things.

I mean, look how holy rough ridin' unreasonable their responses itt are.  :lol:

:lol: I know, right? They either can't or won't answer any of the basic questions I posed, they have no idea what the Paris Agreement even says, but they are super outraged about Trump withdrawing from it! Super worried the US won't "lead on climate change." :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 01, 2017, 05:33:38 PM
If that's it then people are sure making a big stink over nothing.

Climate change is a hoax by the Chinese anyway
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on June 01, 2017, 05:45:03 PM
ksu and his merry band of dumbasses are worth responding to anymore
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 01, 2017, 06:05:21 PM
Lol, apparently you're not getting that according to the some of the most heralded alarmist findings that warming is inevitable no matter what is done. No matter what draconian measures are instituted, no matter what massive economic shift takes place.   According to the data as produced, the earth is still going to get warmer (I'll leave poor siting, fudged numbers, and the purposeful cooling of the past out of it). 

Then to double down and say it's suddenly going to reverse itself because of what man does? 

You guys can't even answer simple questions like what is the optimum PPM level of CO2, what's going to get us back to what you've decided is "normal".

Even if we knew the magic number you still wouldn't believe it.  The simple truth I know is that you have no rough ridin' idea what is going on.  There isn't data past 100 years ago because guess what Dax we didn't have the rough ridin' technology then to record it accurately on the scale we can now.

To just say eff what the data says and burn and drill because it's too hard to change is a stupid rough ridin' excuse.  I know change is hard for old people but we only have one earth.  We don't have any other feasible place to go, so trying to change the cycle we are on doesn't seem that stupid.  Unless of course you use the stupid mindset that you see the world in.

Lol, in terms of your historical "thoughts" welcome to what was said 100 plus pages ago. 

Never said burn and drill either.

Damn.  Sad.

Your same "thoughts" are just repeats every few pages anyways because of your limited grasp on the subject.  Sad.

There's no other way to respond to you and your sock CAM.   You keep saying the same crap over and over again.   LOL, I've never proposed nor endorsed burn-burn-burn, slash and burn, drill-drill-drill.

Limited grasp?  LOL, okay TBT, you keep posting the same idiotic rant.

There's no greater idiocy than all of the so called "solutions" to a so called "problem" that cannot even be properly defined because the systems in play are so variable and so complex.   Warmist alarmist literally believe they can throw anything out there to scare people and all the sheep are supposed to line up and accept it.    Remember some of the clams, "We're going to have to change the Fukishima Scale to take into account the greater number of stronger tornadoes and they'll be more tornadoes because of global warming".   Reality, a decline in Tornadoes, and no acknowledgement at all as to the more sophisticated technology in play to detect and evaluate tornadoes, technology  that didn't exist 25 years.   No acknowledgement at all to the urban sprawl which has heightened the awareness and impact of severe storms when they do strike.    Once the so called "Tornado Drought" was underway, the claims were then reversed to imply that "global warming" was causing a reduction in severe storms. 

We were going to have even more and more protracted severe droughts.   Reality:  No more or less severe droughts now than during any other time in a substantial period of earth's history.    More severe land falling hurricanes:  Reality:  Fewer land falling hurricanes.   Hurricanes and Typoons are stronger than ever!!  Yet no acknowledgement as to the evolution of the technology used to detect and evaluate tropical storms, that again, didn't even exist 25 years ago. 

The list goes on for days.


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 01, 2017, 06:07:21 PM
Round up of the most unhinged reactions. https://news.grabien.com/story-10-dumbest-reactions-trump-quitting-paris-climate-accord (https://news.grabien.com/story-10-dumbest-reactions-trump-quitting-paris-climate-accord)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on June 01, 2017, 06:14:53 PM
I know facts aren't very important here, but saying that this is an issue only for liberals is a pretty big misrepresentation.

(http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Paris-YCOM.png)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on June 01, 2017, 06:25:12 PM
Round up of the most unhinged reactions. https://news.grabien.com/story-10-dumbest-reactions-trump-quitting-paris-climate-accord (https://news.grabien.com/story-10-dumbest-reactions-trump-quitting-paris-climate-accord)

I would hardly call them "unhinged."
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 01, 2017, 06:33:27 PM
I would just like to understand the incremental difference between what will likely happen now vs what was likely to happen before.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 01, 2017, 07:30:10 PM
Quote
"I believe there's climate change. I believe there's been climate change since the beginning of time," Walberg said. "Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No." He continued: "Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I'm confident that, if there's a real problem, he can take care of it."

nothing to worry about dudes
http://time.com/4800000/tim-walberg-god-climate-change/

I get having faith that there is a god, but having faith that god is just going to shield you from anything bad ever happening has never made sense to me.
God did give us one flood already
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 01, 2017, 08:20:43 PM


The climate people being more dogmatic than the branch dividians is one of my favorite things.

I mean, look how holy rough ridin' unreasonable their responses itt are.  :lol:

:lol: I know, right? They either can't or won't answer any of the basic questions I posed, they have no idea what the Paris Agreement even says, but they are super outraged about Trump withdrawing from it! Super worried the US won't "lead on climate change." :lol:

The US withdrawing from the Paris Accord is their book of revelations. Amaze
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 01, 2017, 08:22:52 PM
What exactly is changing?

We aren't going to pay trillions of dollars so everyone else can pollute more to save the world from an unmeasurable and insignificant amount of CO2 in 80 years.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 01, 2017, 08:33:17 PM
Did anyone get my Bush references? They were pretty cool.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 01, 2017, 08:59:24 PM
Quote
"I believe there's climate change. I believe there's been climate change since the beginning of time," Walberg said. "Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No." He continued: "Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I'm confident that, if there's a real problem, he can take care of it."

nothing to worry about dudes
http://time.com/4800000/tim-walberg-god-climate-change/

I get having faith that there is a god, but having faith that god is just going to shield you from anything bad ever happening has never made sense to me.
God did give us one flood already

But he also promised never to do it again.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 01, 2017, 09:01:16 PM
Quote
"I believe there's climate change. I believe there's been climate change since the beginning of time," Walberg said. "Do I think man has some impact? Yeah, of course. Can man change the entire universe? No." He continued: "Why do I believe that? Well, as a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us. And I'm confident that, if there's a real problem, he can take care of it."

nothing to worry about dudes
http://time.com/4800000/tim-walberg-god-climate-change/

I get having faith that there is a god, but having faith that god is just going to shield you from anything bad ever happening has never made sense to me.
God did give us one flood already

But he also promised never to do it again.
Won't this one be on us?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 01, 2017, 09:02:23 PM
I guess the last one was on us as well. Meh. I'm not witty at the moment. Point Emo.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 01, 2017, 09:35:41 PM
I know facts aren't very important here, but saying that this is an issue only for liberals is a pretty big misrepresentation.

(http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Paris-YCOM.png)

The fact that you seemingly believe a majority of people in any given state have ever even heard of the Paris accord shows how rough ridin' delusional and disconnected you are.

Good grief
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 01, 2017, 09:39:22 PM
Round up of the most unhinged reactions. https://news.grabien.com/story-10-dumbest-reactions-trump-quitting-paris-climate-accord (https://news.grabien.com/story-10-dumbest-reactions-trump-quitting-paris-climate-accord)

I would hardly call them "unhinged."

Batshit crazy would also work

The end of the world! AMAZE
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on June 01, 2017, 10:08:48 PM
I know facts aren't very important here, but saying that this is an issue only for liberals is a pretty big misrepresentation.

(http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Paris-YCOM.png)

The fact that you seemingly believe a majority of people in any given state have ever even heard of the Paris accord shows how rough ridin' delusional and disconnected you are.

Good grief

Is this one less confusing for you?

(http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Politics-and-Global-Warming-November-2016-01.png)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 01, 2017, 10:13:34 PM
The question validates my point.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 01, 2017, 10:19:10 PM
Does ksuw really love his 7 kids or is he willing to sell them out to save a few bucks on the electric bill?

Meh, loving your kids means letting their mom stay at home to raise them.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: gatoveintisiete on June 01, 2017, 10:20:37 PM
if the Paris accords helps the environment, how come countries that signed on to it like China and Indonesia don't participate in the earth saving like everybody else?  Seems strange
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 01, 2017, 10:22:09 PM
I think my favorite part of that chart is a majority of West Virginians supporting the Paris Agreement. :lol:

But I guess the same folks who accept the notion of catastrophic AGW without question will accept charts like these, too.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 01, 2017, 10:23:56 PM
if the Paris accords helps the environment, how come countries that signed on to it like China and Indonesia don't participate in the earth saving like everybody else?  Seems strange

That's loosely covered in the text of the agreement that none of the liberals have actually read but are sooper butt hurt about Trump walking away from.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 01, 2017, 10:28:16 PM
"Do you think the US should particpate in the agreement it agreed to a year ago?"

 :ROFL:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 01, 2017, 10:35:56 PM
None of us will be talking when any of this is proven true or false. Most of us will be dead. So it's really just a free for all to day whatever you want without repercussion. Kudos to the trolls in here stirring the pot.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on June 01, 2017, 10:59:28 PM
Worker at Cabela's: Most people prefer the striper lure to the blue fly lure.

FSD: That's rough ridin' stupid. Most people have never been fly fishing. Good grief.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Panjandrum on June 01, 2017, 11:11:37 PM
I'm still pissed, so I'm going to vent.

It's so damn annoying to say you care about this issue, but some damn jackass comes at you and insinuates that because you aren't Ed Bagley Jr., Ubering people around in a rickshaw while drinking collected rainwater in a recycled plastic bottle, that you are some poser.  I drive ULEV vehicles.  I buy Energy Star everything.  When I had to replace my HVAC and water heater, I spent ungodly amounts of money on a high efficiency paired system and a ultra high efficiency water heater.  Did I have to?  No.  Will it save me money in the long run? Maybe not.  But that's my contribution.  I sleep better at night.

Do I think the agreement is the end all be all? No. It's non-binding for Christ's sake. But what does it say that we don't even give enough of a crap to join a non-binding agreement that LITERALLY the rest of the world is a part of? Well, except Nicaragua, who wanted an even more strict agreement, and Syria, which is less of a country and more of a parking lot these days.

What this means is that our "President", and the goddamn oil and coal lobby that we call the Republican members of Congress, feel like it's a good idea to tell the rest of the world to screw off because they are so desperate to look like they're actually accomplishing something.  They can't ban Muslims, the can't reform health care, and the OMB apparently can't even use a calculator, so, hey, eff Paris.

On top of that, even the staunchest Trump supporter has to admit that at least some of this has to do with the fact that his European trip was a disaster, and he was essentially laughed out of the continent.  It's no small coincidence that he probably took a beating behind closed doors when he met with the G7, and promptly came home and gave them the middle finger.  He's a rough ridin' child that is willing to basically give the entire green energy future to the Chinese because Angela Merkel probably treated him like an idiot all week (because he is) and Marcon gave him a firm handshake.

And this short sighted "Dealmaker" thinks that giving money to developing nations is a bad investment?  I mean maybe, just maybe, this business "guru" could have seen an opportunity to sell green tech, developed, engineered, and manufactured in America to these countries WITH THE MONEY WE GAVE THEM.  But, no, let's sell off half of the strategic petroleum reserves to a global market that is already heavy on the supply side.  Because making a few quick bucks there and selling off our fuel reserves doesn't mean a damn thing when you can just rip up Yellowstone and put up a few rigs.  Hell, let's find some Indian reservations and strip mine them for clean, CLEAN coal. Real CLEEEEAN coal.  But when these countries actually decide to buy green tech, I'm sure the Chinese will be thrilled to sell them all of the solar panels and wind turbines they need.

A fraction of this is about the environment.  We've already hit the CPP goals for carbon reduction due to our rapid move to natural gas and the private sector quickly moving towards renewables.  All this is going to do is make people even more likely to buy an electric car and a high efficiency dishwasher because they want to stick it to Trump.  But what this is really about is continually ceding ground to the Chinese and Europe.  It's giving a win to those dumbass nationalist assholes who think we can stem the tide of globalization, automation, and international cooperation for some mythical past where everything is a zero sum battle for world domination and supremacy.  It's about some Creationist in the Bible Belt who thinks Republican Jesus is going to use the cosmic Hoover to suck the carbon right out of the sky...

Now, more than any time in the last five months, we see pure idiocy.  Not just incompetence and disorganization, but pure, unyielding evidence that this entire cadre of door humping retards can't even get on board with a non-binding treaty, that has goals so low we can shuffle over them, and provides great global PR and a drivers seat to dictate the market for what will be the most lucrative industry in the 21st century.

I'm not worried about the planet.  We'll figure that out.  I'm worried that we're actually going to have to spend literal decades cleaning up amazingly avoidable bullshit.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on June 01, 2017, 11:33:46 PM
Nicely put
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Panjandrum on June 01, 2017, 11:48:47 PM
I'm sorry.  I forgot to give the President credit for some of his other wins that protect Americans, since he pointed out he's such a steward of American safety and prosperity today.

Trump has rolled back hunting regulations on Alaskan bears, since he's the President of the people Juneau (and not Japan).

Trump has aggressively fought Net Neutrality and Internet Privacy Regulations, because while our national energy interests should be sovereign, your personal data and information shouldn't be.

Also, he's rolled back requirements set by the Labor Dept. for workplaces to report injuries because, well, there's no good reason for that.  He's just an bad person.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 02, 2017, 07:21:11 AM
Nothing embodies how worthless the Paris Accord is more than the fact China is now expected to be the world leader in carbon reduction.
 :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 02, 2017, 07:21:56 AM
I'm still pissed, so I'm going to vent.

It's so damn annoying to say you care about this issue, but some damn jackass comes at you and insinuates that because you aren't Ed Bagley Jr., Ubering people around in a rickshaw while drinking collected rainwater in a recycled plastic bottle, that you are some poser.  I drive ULEV vehicles.  I buy Energy Star everything.  When I had to replace my HVAC and water heater, I spent ungodly amounts of money on a high efficiency paired system and a ultra high efficiency water heater.  Did I have to?  No.  Will it save me money in the long run? Maybe not.  But that's my contribution.  I sleep better at night.

(https://i.imgflip.com/1q696f.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Panjandrum on June 02, 2017, 07:28:55 AM
I'm not going to justify all of the things I do. There's more.

Of course, you're too goddamn obtuse to have a discussion with, so there's little point.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 02, 2017, 07:58:41 AM
I'm not going to justify all of the things I do. There's more.

Of course, you're too goddamn obtuse to have a discussion with, so there's little point.

I didn't ask you to justify anything. You're the one who brought these things up as if you're Mother effing Teresa. Owning a high efficiency AC and appliances is your contribution?! Do you realize (you don't) that if everyone on earth owned such things CO2 emissions would skyrocket? The only thing you're "contributing" is far more carbon than the average human being. That, and huge gobs of hypocrisy.

You are melting down over the US withdrawing from a non-binding agreement you have not even read while enjoying your carbon spewing AC, fridge, and internet most of the world will never experience.

The best part of your ignorant, whiny, sniveling, delusional, hypocritical, and pretentious rant is that, just like all the liberals in meltdown, you have no recognition of how ignorant, whiny, sniveling, delusional, hypocritical, and pretentious you are. It is hilarious!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: AbeFroman on June 02, 2017, 07:58:49 AM
Fsd and ksuw are just miserable pieces of crap that contribute nothing to this world. When other people do proactive conscious things they laugh and mock because they want people to be as miserable as them. It's pretty simple. Luckily their kind is a dying breed. The younger generations contain less of their types.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on June 02, 2017, 08:07:39 AM
That was the first multi paragraph Pan post that I have ever read and now I wish I had read more of his novels in the past.  :clap:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 02, 2017, 08:08:10 AM
Panj you would do much more good by killing yourself.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on June 02, 2017, 08:09:06 AM
I'm not going to justify all of the things I do. There's more.

Of course, you're too goddamn obtuse to have a discussion with, so there's little point.

I didn't ask you to justify anything. You're the one who brought these things up as if you're Mother effing Teresa. Owning a high efficiency AC and appliances is your contribution?! Do you realize (you don't) that if everyone on earth owned such things CO2 emissions would skyrocket? The only thing you're "contributing" is far more carbon than the average human being. That, and huge gobs of hypocrisy.

You are melting down over the US withdrawing from a non-binding agreement you have not even read while enjoying your carbon spewing AC, fridge, and internet most of the world will never experience.

The best part of your ignorant, whiny, sniveling, delusional, hypocritical, and pretentious rant is that, just like all the liberals in meltdown, you have no recognition of how ignorant, whiny, sniveling, delusional, hypocritical, and pretentious you are. It is hilarious!
You are one shitty little person.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Tobias on June 02, 2017, 08:14:08 AM
i bet panj didn't even walk that post to the internet office.  probably used a computer or something :curse:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 02, 2017, 08:18:16 AM
I think we should just build more nuclear plants so we wouldn't need to buy high efficiency appliances.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 02, 2017, 08:19:10 AM
Here's the thing:  we have created and live in a consumer driven economy.  We value consumption.  And (probably) this consumption is bad for Mother Earth.  Europe has really put a damper on consumption via taxes and regulation.  People have small homes and old small shitty cars because they don't get to keep much of their wages (taxes) and then everything else is expensive so their money doesn't go as far as here.  This way of living flies in the face of our culture, our dreams, our beliefs.  That's just how it is, right wrong better or worse. 

One thing I'd like to really understand is if we are any happier than them.  I don't think anyone can make an argument that we absolutely are.  It's either no or too gray to measure. 

Anyway, none of us has any room to puff our chests unless you're literally burning any income that is in excess of your bare minimum to live comfortably.  You make money, you spend it, and that is consumption, EnergyStar or not. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 02, 2017, 08:21:25 AM
Ksuw seems like the type of person that keeps the thermostat at 82 during the summer and his family hates him for it
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on June 02, 2017, 08:30:34 AM
KSUW and his wife scream at each other nightly over their overdrawn bank account while kids cry in the background.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on June 02, 2017, 08:33:04 AM
FSD falls asleep every night in an old, dirty recliner in front of the TV while drinking a 12 pack of Milwaukee's Best.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: bucket on June 02, 2017, 08:38:23 AM
Here's the thing:  we have created and live in a consumer driven economy.  We value consumption.  And (probably) this consumption is bad for Mother Earth.  Europe has really put a damper on consumption via taxes and regulation.  People have small homes and old small shitty cars because they don't get to keep much of their wages (taxes) and then everything else is expensive so their money doesn't go as far as here.  This way of living flies in the face of our culture, our dreams, our beliefs.  That's just how it is, right wrong better or worse. 

One thing I'd like to really understand is if we are any happier than them.  I don't think anyone can make an argument that we absolutely are.  It's either no or too gray to measure. 

Anyway, none of us has any room to puff our chests unless you're literally burning any income that is in excess of your bare minimum to live comfortably.  You make money, you spend it, and that is consumption, EnergyStar or not.

I don't think this is right.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 02, 2017, 08:40:54 AM
Sorry you've never travelled to or lived in Europe or worked extensively with Europeans bucket.  :(
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 02, 2017, 08:43:21 AM
Just from the last couple pages....

Everything you said is stupid.  Shut up.

ksu and his merry band of dumbasses are worth responding to anymore

Of course, you're too goddamn obtuse to have a discussion with, so there's little point.

Fsd and ksuw are just miserable pieces of crap that contribute nothing to this world. When other people do proactive conscious things they laugh and mock because they want people to be as miserable as them. It's pretty simple. Luckily their kind is a dying breed. The younger generations contain less of their types.

You are one shitty little person.

KSUW and his wife scream at each other nightly over their overdrawn bank account while kids cry in the background.

Liberals are so mentally flaccid, their arguments so bankrupt, their hypocrisy so naked, that all they can muster is name calling in response. Sad.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on June 02, 2017, 08:52:19 AM
Just from the last couple pages....

Everything you said is stupid.  Shut up.

ksu and his merry band of dumbasses are worth responding to anymore

Of course, you're too goddamn obtuse to have a discussion with, so there's little point.

Fsd and ksuw are just miserable pieces of crap that contribute nothing to this world. When other people do proactive conscious things they laugh and mock because they want people to be as miserable as them. It's pretty simple. Luckily their kind is a dying breed. The younger generations contain less of their types.

You are one shitty little person.

KSUW and his wife scream at each other nightly over their overdrawn bank account while kids cry in the background.

Liberals are so mentally flaccid, their arguments so bankrupt, their hypocrisy so naked, that all they can muster is name calling in response. Sad.

Missed one:

Ksuw seems like the type of person that keeps the thermostat at 82 during the summer and his family hates him for it
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: bucket on June 02, 2017, 08:53:20 AM
Sorry you've never travelled to or lived in Europe or worked extensively with Europeans bucket.  :(

I'm sorry that you don't understand why the price of living in Europe is higher than Kansas.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 02, 2017, 08:54:18 AM
Sorry you've never travelled to or lived in Europe or worked extensively with Europeans bucket.  :(
I will say that I always feel warm or hot when I am at my French friend's apartment and in her car. I asked her what the deal was, she said they didn't have AC growing up.

I am definitely made softer by growing up with A.C.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 02, 2017, 08:55:58 AM
Missed one:

Ksuw seems like the type of person that keeps the thermostat at 82 during the summer and his family hates him for it

Nah, I don't take Lib7 seriously because he's usually just trying to make a joke and it's usually pretty funny.

(Oh and i keep the thermostat at 70 during the summer because that's what my wife prefers, though I'd be more around 72 personally. And we definitely didn't waste money on a high efficiency AC because the break even point was something like 12 years).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 02, 2017, 09:03:29 AM
Sorry you've never travelled to or lived in Europe or worked extensively with Europeans bucket.  :(

I'm sorry that you don't understand why the price of living in Europe is higher than Kansas.

Feel free to 'splain it for me.  Anyway I'm less focused on the why, what's important is the what.  We consume more than them, and it is ingrained in our culture.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Kat Kid on June 02, 2017, 09:22:29 AM
Sorry you've never travelled to or lived in Europe or worked extensively with Europeans bucket.  :(

I'm sorry that you don't understand why the price of living in Europe is higher than Kansas.

Feel free to 'splain it for me.  Anyway I'm less focused on the why, what's important is the what.  We consume more than them, and it is ingrained in our culture.

Well, for one, tons more people would rather live in Europe than in Kansas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 02, 2017, 09:26:14 AM
A few thousand years of culture might be a cause of living smaller too, but it's probably just taxes
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 02, 2017, 09:38:06 AM
Sorry you've never travelled to or lived in Europe or worked extensively with Europeans bucket.  :(

I'm sorry that you don't understand why the price of living in Europe is higher than Kansas.

Feel free to 'splain it for me.  Anyway I'm less focused on the why, what's important is the what.  We consume more than them, and it is ingrained in our culture.

Well, for one, tons more people would rather live in Europe than in Kansas.

That is a foolish comparison. People would no doubt prefer to live like a rich person in Europe, like what they experience on vacation. So would I. The clifftop villa I stayed at in Ravello was gorgeous. That's not how ordinary Europeans live. They live in cramped apartments and take the train, bike or scooter unless they're affluent enough to own a shitbox car.

I can tell you of all the allied officers my family hosts, every single one of them is thrilled to be visiting Leavenworth, Kansas for a year and every one of them tries to extend their stay to a second year if their military will allow it. These people hail from all the enlightened European cities like Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Rome. They love Kansas. First thing they do is buy a big old minivan for the family if they have kids (most do). They marvel at things like mowing the yard and owning a "massive" 4-bedroom home. They all buy smokers and ship them home when they leave. It's actually pretty cute.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 02, 2017, 09:42:51 AM
Sorry you've never travelled to or lived in Europe or worked extensively with Europeans bucket.  :(

I'm sorry that you don't understand why the price of living in Europe is higher than Kansas.

Feel free to 'splain it for me.  Anyway I'm less focused on the why, what's important is the what.  We consume more than them, and it is ingrained in our culture.

Well, for one, tons more people would rather live in Europe than in Kansas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's fine.  But nowhere did I mention Kansas.  This is a US vs Western Europe comparo. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on June 02, 2017, 09:44:39 AM
Supply and demand? Ha! That's preposterous!
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 02, 2017, 09:48:31 AM
Sort of a weird angle here guys.  Some of the countries with the lowest population densities are also the most expensive.  Whatever who cares not relevant.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: bucket on June 02, 2017, 09:50:02 AM
Sorry you've never travelled to or lived in Europe or worked extensively with Europeans bucket.  :(

I'm sorry that you don't understand why the price of living in Europe is higher than Kansas.

Feel free to 'splain it for me.  Anyway I'm less focused on the why, what's important is the what.  We consume more than them, and it is ingrained in our culture.

Well, for one, tons more people would rather live in Europe than in Kansas.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's fine.  But nowhere did I mention Kansas.  This is a US vs Western Europe comparo.

That's fair. I believe that what you and KSUW described applies to a lot of Americans living in the city. In other words, living in cramped apartments and taking public transportation where it's available. Europe no doubt takes it a step further with social programs, free education, etc.

I guess the issue I took with your original post is acting like it's only Europeans who have these cramped living arrangements.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 02, 2017, 12:37:17 PM
Just from the last couple pages....

Everything you said is stupid.  Shut up.

ksu and his merry band of dumbasses are worth responding to anymore

Of course, you're too goddamn obtuse to have a discussion with, so there's little point.

Fsd and ksuw are just miserable pieces of crap that contribute nothing to this world. When other people do proactive conscious things they laugh and mock because they want people to be as miserable as them. It's pretty simple. Luckily their kind is a dying breed. The younger generations contain less of their types.

You are one shitty little person.

KSUW and his wife scream at each other nightly over their overdrawn bank account while kids cry in the background.

Liberals are so mentally flaccid, their arguments so bankrupt, their hypocrisy so naked, that all they can muster is name calling in response. Sad.

As predictable as the response to the branch dividian who questioned whether david caresh was a profit of god. You're messing with their religion, and they're dogmatic in their orthodoxy.

They are so pathetic.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 02, 2017, 12:43:53 PM
Those people would be loving the crap out of trump
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 02, 2017, 01:10:55 PM
Is it as creepy as it sounds having a grown male soldier from Italy living with you?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Panjandrum on June 02, 2017, 01:29:38 PM
I'm not going to justify all of the things I do. There's more.

Of course, you're too goddamn obtuse to have a discussion with, so there's little point.

I didn't ask you to justify anything. You're the one who brought these things up as if you're Mother effing Teresa. Owning a high efficiency AC and appliances is your contribution?! Do you realize (you don't) that if everyone on earth owned such things CO2 emissions would skyrocket? The only thing you're "contributing" is far more carbon than the average human being. That, and huge gobs of hypocrisy.

You are melting down over the US withdrawing from a non-binding agreement you have not even read while enjoying your carbon spewing AC, fridge, and internet most of the world will never experience.

The best part of your ignorant, whiny, sniveling, delusional, hypocritical, and pretentious rant is that, just like all the liberals in meltdown, you have no recognition of how ignorant, whiny, sniveling, delusional, hypocritical, and pretentious you are. It is hilarious!

I love how if you don't live in a mud hut, you're a hypocrite.  To assume that life is so binary that if you aren't living on the extreme fringe that you don't have a dog in the fight.

Do I make the vast majority of my purchasing decisions on energy efficiency where applicable?  Yes.  Do I use more carbon than your average European?  Yes.  Do I live in the most powerful country in the world that could do something relevant about Climate Change?  Yes.

Once I can legitimately replace my roof tiles with ones from Solar City that power my Tesla Power Wall, I will.  Once Tesla, or other automotive providers, create diverse, cost effective transportation powered solely by batteries, I'll buy them.  There?  Does that make you happy?  I'm sorry that I don't have an option to buy an electric van.  That's a Detroit problem, not a me problem.

Maybe I want to live in a country where we continue to use the EPA to push American innovation in the automotive industry for better gas mileage, less emissions, and more options for consumers to buy environmentally friendly vehicles.

Maybe I want to live in a country where we make it a priority to use subsidies and tax breaks to help make living environmentally friendly much more palatable.  More tax breaks for solar and wind.  More subsidies for efficient products.

But here is the damn fallacy that makes me so angry at the Republican party and their supporters; why try and stifle what would be great for America, American industry, and the world in the long run?  Other than the obvious truth that the vast majority of Republicans are on the fossil fuel lobby payroll, but beyond them being sniveling, morally bankrupt cowards, why are they against pumping some life into an industry that is set to outpace fossil fuel job creation by vast margins in the next decade?  To prevent a guy working at an industry on the tail end of the product life cycle from losing his job?  He'll get another job if he takes advantage of job training that the government "could" ultimately help provide and subsidize.

This is just one issue that is so damn cut and dry that it's hard to imagine anyone being against it.  Unless the limit of someone's vision is five feet in front of their face, that is.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 02, 2017, 02:03:25 PM
This might be the most libtarded thing ever posted:

"use the epa to push american innovation"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 02, 2017, 02:05:36 PM
Also, what an AMAZE pretense for the argument against the "stifling" of industry.

JFC, he's an unwitting parody of a libtard, a goddamn satirical cartoon, a meme.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 02, 2017, 02:19:06 PM
Panj it'd be easier to move to the country you want to live in than to change the one you're living in now.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 02, 2017, 02:37:42 PM
Is it as creepy as it sounds having a grown male soldier from Italy living with you?

They don't live with the host. You have them over for dinner occasionally, take them to events like baseball games and stuff, it's fun.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 02, 2017, 02:43:29 PM
That does sound fun.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on June 02, 2017, 03:46:19 PM
Develop all forms of  energy and let the market sort things out.  This crap about making the world great again is a horse turd sandwich.  Why the hell does America  have an obligation to share most of the burden saving the planet.  I don't  see any rich warmalist giving their riches to peons who want solar power for their mud huts.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 02, 2017, 04:09:42 PM
guys, be nicer
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 02, 2017, 04:55:52 PM
Is it as creepy as it sounds having a grown male soldier from Italy living with you?

They don't live with the host. You have them over for dinner occasionally, take them to events like baseball games and stuff, it's fun.

Good, that sounded crazy weird like they were a foreign exchange student
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Panjandrum on June 02, 2017, 05:16:36 PM
Panj it'd be easier to move to the country you want to live in than to change the one you're living in now.

Go where the sinners are.

Seems like this is ground zero.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on June 02, 2017, 06:12:09 PM
What do you think is going to happen in 50 years to the earth at current trajectory panj?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Tobias on June 02, 2017, 06:20:49 PM
emo of all people should appreciate someone challenging themself
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 02, 2017, 07:16:42 PM
Flesmeth gnignellahc enoemos etaicerppa dluohs elpoep lla fo ome
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Panjandrum on June 02, 2017, 07:24:52 PM
What do you think is going to happen in 50 years to the earth at current trajectory panj?

Well, they're finding that things are progressing, negatively, faster than they thought.

So, I have no idea. Nothing good if we maintain the status quo.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 02, 2017, 09:04:51 PM
emo of all people should appreciate someone challenging themself

He doesnt seem to be handling it very well.  Puni didn't either. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on June 02, 2017, 10:31:10 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-evangelical-green-groups-pan-trumps-climate-accord-exit/ar-BBBQ9AG
There is  nothing in the Bible about protecting the environment from climate change.  People are trying to  infuse pantheism into Christianity.  When Christ returns he will destroy this earth.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Panjandrum on June 02, 2017, 11:44:12 PM
emo of all people should appreciate someone challenging themself

He doesnt seem to be handling it very well.  Puni didn't either.

And why should I handle it well?  I've outlined why one shouldn't.

To even remotely defend this is beyond reproach.  It's not even worth debate. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on June 03, 2017, 12:26:06 AM
I'm 93 posts behind, but skimming them makes it even more believable that the Dax/FSD/KSUW of the world  don't care about anything related to the environment.

The global grasp is so lacking.  They lack the understanding that simple change can have a global impact. They think only a single person is trying to change, which by themselves won't do crap. 

They ignore the massive marches because hurting feels is such a burden.  Instead of looking at improving worldwide emissions they look at what they "could" have done.  Being respectable was gone long ago, but even worth reading their posts has passed
It's bearable mark.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 03, 2017, 07:11:13 AM
emo of all people should appreciate someone challenging themself

He doesnt seem to be handling it very well.  Puni didn't either.

And why should I handle it well?  I've outlined why one shouldn't.

To even remotely defend this is beyond reproach.  It's not even worth debate.

Then you're just as boneheaded as the people you're lashing out at.  Sad.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Panjandrum on June 03, 2017, 08:06:40 AM
emo of all people should appreciate someone challenging themself

He doesnt seem to be handling it very well.  Puni didn't either.

And why should I handle it well?  I've outlined why one shouldn't.

To even remotely defend this is beyond reproach.  It's not even worth debate.

Then you're just as boneheaded as the people you're lashing out at.  Sad.

There. Is. No. Debate. The science is settled.

You want to talk solutions and ideas on how to bring renewable energy to the market through public and/or private means? Fine. Let's do that.

But there is no debate on whether climate change is happening. There is no debate on whether or not humans are causing it.  There is a little wiggle on impacts, but that's like debating if you want your whole house to burn down vs. your garage.

There is no point to having meaningful discussions with most conservatives on this issue because you want to take the debate to some weird ass fringe where we may as well debate whether or not the sky is green.

That's what's sad. We need to have a debate on how to combat climate change. Not whether or not it exists or if we should just ignore it. The reason the entire world is pissed is because we have the greatest ability to impact change, and 40% of our country has been brainwashed to believe there's no there, there.

So, you want a debate? Fine. Let's talk solutions. But say the science isn't settled, and you can go sit in the corner with the people who think Obama is listening to people through their microwaves. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 03, 2017, 08:14:50 AM
It is absolutely cometely utterly irrelevant and there isn't a more banal or frivolous thing you could possibly worry about. The world is not going to end, cities won't be swollowed by the ocean, the air will remain breathable and water drinkable. Nothing noticeable will change. Nobody has presented one shred of evidence otherwise.

It's a rough ridin' money grab and you're a rough ridin' sucker for allowing them to take your money.

Lastly, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim clean technology is so rapidly progressing as to be competitive with fossil fuels, while simultaneously throwing a fit of hysteria at the notion of the government curtailing its support for clean energy, whether through enormous tax incentives or by loosening the punishimg regulations on fossil fuels.

But, by far and away the most pathetic thing about this, is your pius and dogmatic view on the matter which you use to justify your infantile and mean spirited attacks against anyone who hasn't swollowed the bowl of kool aid with you.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 03, 2017, 08:18:38 AM
emo of all people should appreciate someone challenging themself

He doesnt seem to be handling it very well.  Puni didn't either.

And why should I handle it well?  I've outlined why one shouldn't.

To even remotely defend this is beyond reproach.  It's not even worth debate.

Then you're just as boneheaded as the people you're lashing out at.  Sad.

There. Is. No. Debate. The science is settled.

You want to talk solutions and ideas on how to bring renewable energy to the market through public and/or private means? Fine. Let's do that.

But there is no debate on whether climate change is happening. There is no debate on whether or not humans are causing it.  There is a little wiggle on impacts, but that's like debating if you want your whole house to burn down vs. your garage.

There is no point to having meaningful discussions with most conservatives on this issue because you want to take the debate to some weird ass fringe where we may as well debate whether or not the sky is green.

That's what's sad. We need to have a debate on how to combat climate change. Not whether or not it exists or if we should just ignore it. The reason the entire world is pissed is because we have the greatest ability to impact change, and 40% of our country has been brainwashed to believe there's no there, there.

So, you want a debate? Fine. Let's talk solutions. But say the science isn't settled, and you can go sit in the corner with the people who think Obama is listening to people through their microwaves.

This is exactly why you are losing the debate badly.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 03, 2017, 08:24:48 AM
I'm 93 posts behind, but skimming them makes it even more believable that the Dax/FSD/KSUW of the world  don't care about anything related to the environment.

The global grasp is so lacking.  They lack the understanding that simple change can have a global impact. They think only a single person is trying to change, which by themselves won't do crap. 

They ignore the massive marches because hurting feels is such a burden.  Instead of looking at improving worldwide emissions they look at what they "could" have done.  Being respectable was gone long ago, but even worth reading their posts has passed
It's bearable mark.

You guys are so foolish as to consequence of any of this, you've actuallu taken the most fringe position itt:

Anyone who doesn't support the paris circle jerk mass cash transfer hates the environment.

Completely juvenile, but wonderfully demonstrative of the dearth of critical thought and abundance of ignorance on the issue. I will say, this sort of response is page 1 of the libtard playbook, completely predictable.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on June 03, 2017, 08:38:47 AM
I'm 93 posts behind, but skimming them makes it even more believable that the Dax/FSD/KSUW of the world  don't care about anything related to the environment.

The global grasp is so lacking.  They lack the understanding that simple change can have a global impact. They think only a single person is trying to change, which by themselves won't do crap. 

They ignore the massive marches because hurting feels is such a burden.  Instead of looking at improving worldwide emissions they look at what they "could" have done.  Being respectable was gone long ago, but even worth reading their posts has passed
It's bearable mark.

You guys are so foolish as to consequence of any of this, you've actuallu taken the most fringe position itt:

Anyone who doesn't support the paris circle jerk mass cash transfer hates the environment.

Completely juvenile, but wonderfully demonstrative of the dearth of critical thought and abundance of ignorance on the issue. I will say, this sort of response is page 1 of the libtard playbook, completely predictable.

It's hilarious to me that climate change deniers talk about me being foolish of consequence. The consequence for climate change deniers is that their children and grandchildren will have a different planet than us. Devoid of so many things that are deteriorating right now because of climate change.

Wrapping your entire body in tin foil in 100 degree heat and telling yourself it's 50 degrees out is the stupidity climate change deniers have. Use whatever stupid political label for me you want but you have a very descriptive and truthful label.  Stupid.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 03, 2017, 08:39:04 AM
And of course this is about impact. Nobody is denying that it's warmer when there are 5 people in a closet (where you idiots belong) than when there is just 1. You don't need billions of dollars in scientific funding to establish that. And there is a very significant debate worth having about cost v reward, and you are wholly unwilling to have that debate because you don't have a leg to stand on. What you want to do is extraordinarily expensive and will result in no measurable change.  So you make absurd and outlandish attacks like "you hate the environment" or "the science is settled" or "the world is going to end". It's pathetic.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 03, 2017, 08:42:48 AM
I'm 93 posts behind, but skimming them makes it even more believable that the Dax/FSD/KSUW of the world  don't care about anything related to the environment.

The global grasp is so lacking.  They lack the understanding that simple change can have a global impact. They think only a single person is trying to change, which by themselves won't do crap. 

They ignore the massive marches because hurting feels is such a burden.  Instead of looking at improving worldwide emissions they look at what they "could" have done.  Being respectable was gone long ago, but even worth reading their posts has passed
It's bearable mark.

You guys are so foolish as to consequence of any of this, you've actuallu taken the most fringe position itt:

Anyone who doesn't support the paris circle jerk mass cash transfer hates the environment.

Completely juvenile, but wonderfully demonstrative of the dearth of critical thought and abundance of ignorance on the issue. I will say, this sort of response is page 1 of the libtard playbook, completely predictable.

It's hilarious to me that climate change deniers talk about me being foolish of consequence. The consequence for climate change deniers is that their children and grandchildren will have a different planet than us. Devoid of so many things that are deteriorating right now because of climate change.

Wrapping your entire body in tin foil in 100 degree heat and telling yourself it's 50 degrees out is the stupidity climate change deniers have. Use whatever stupid political label for me you want but you have a very descriptive and truthful label.  Stupid.

Nobody had the same planet as their predecessors. It's rough ridin' insane to think we need to freeze time and embalm the planet as it is today. Most importantly, the thing that's caused to come completely unglued doesn't even purport to do what you want.

You are a puppet. Accept it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on June 03, 2017, 08:47:05 AM
Stupid. Accept it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 03, 2017, 08:57:38 AM
It is absolutely cometely utterly irrelevant and there isn't a more banal or frivolous thing you could possibly worry about. The world is not going to end, cities won't be swollowed by the ocean, the air will remain breathable and water drinkable. Nothing noticeable will change. Nobody has presented one shred of evidence otherwise.

It's a rough ridin' money grab and you're a rough ridin' sucker for allowing them to take your money.

Lastly, you can't have it both ways. You can't claim clean technology is so rapidly progressing as to be competitive with fossil fuels, while simultaneously throwing a fit of hysteria at the notion of the government curtailing its support for clean energy, whether through enormous tax incentives or by loosening the punishimg regulations on fossil fuels.

But, by far and away the most pathetic thing about this, is your pius and dogmatic view on the matter which you use to justify your infantile and mean spirited attacks against anyone who hasn't swollowed the bowl of kool aid with you.
This may be the nicest FSD post in the pit that I've seen in ages. Perhaps a corner is being turned. I, for one, am optimistic.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 03, 2017, 09:00:15 AM
Only one name call after that! I'm jazzed to read pit posts that are a debate rather than name calling and hyperbole. :D
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 03, 2017, 09:34:16 AM
Quote
We won’t dwell on the media hysteria since the Trump decision, or why many of you, dear readers, in defiance of your own reason, will participate in the hysteria even when you know better. Human beings are social animals. When a mob is forming, we experience high anxiety if we’re not part of it.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-skips-climate-church-1496431295
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on June 03, 2017, 10:09:13 AM
Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on June 03, 2017, 11:00:45 AM
These dang warmalists act like a teenager who have had their girlie mgazines taken by mom.  We can't masturbate without them.  Global warming can be fought without a crap agreement we pay for.  Warmalists act like this Paris agreement is their girly magazines, or maybe Holy Book.  They are saying if you are against the Paris agreement you are a climate denyer.  Maybe you  are just against crap agreements.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/does-donald-trump-still-think-climate-change-is-a-hoax-no-one-can-say/ar-BBBQ29J
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on June 03, 2017, 12:58:44 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBU9oy-VwAAvIEA.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 03, 2017, 01:18:16 PM
Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 03, 2017, 02:15:12 PM
I'm 93 posts behind, but skimming them makes it even more believable that the Dax/FSD/KSUW of the world  don't care about anything related to the environment.

The global grasp is so lacking.  They lack the understanding that simple change can have a global impact. They think only a single person is trying to change, which by themselves won't do crap. 

They ignore the massive marches because hurting feels is such a burden.  Instead of looking at improving worldwide emissions they look at what they "could" have done.  Being respectable was gone long ago, but even worth reading their posts has passed
It's bearable mark.

You're right, it's about collective change - one person is irrelevant. So once every person on the planet makes the same "contribution" as Panjy by owning a high efficiency AC and Energy Star fridge, that's going to reduce carbon emissions?

Actually, it would increase emissions by a staggering amount. So please continue with your rank hypocrisy. It is really funny.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on June 03, 2017, 02:59:23 PM
Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 03, 2017, 03:08:59 PM
Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

Or..... we could stop pretending we can really control the thermostat if only we spend enough money and raise the price of energy enough. I know this is difficult to grasp -  but one alternative is to just live our lives.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on June 03, 2017, 03:10:11 PM
we should have stayed in it and not complied with it
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 03, 2017, 03:28:35 PM
Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

It was meant to be as shallow and thoughtless as your questions. Demonstration only. Not substantive discussion points.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on June 03, 2017, 04:29:37 PM
Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

Or..... we could stop pretending we can really control the thermostat if only we spend enough money and raise the price of energy enough. I know this is difficult to grasp -  but one alternative is to just live our lives.

So, it makes you feel good not to pursue what you believe to be a fruitless endeavor. It makes other people feel good to pursue what they believe is not a fruitless endeavor. What is the reason to exit the agreement?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on June 03, 2017, 05:29:24 PM
http://www.npr.org/2017/05/25/530051945/as-trump-slams-nato-allies-obama-defends-international-order
Obama and Europe want a transnational juanta of elite socialists.  Climate change is an issue manufactured as a means and vehicle to attain their dream.  Paris Accord was going to be the foundation.  Now we ripped the guts out of their dream.  George Soros has spent billions pushing nations without borders.  Trump exerting our sovereignty is what is pissin off the elites.  Big dang laugh.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 03, 2017, 06:19:27 PM
 :jeffy:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 03, 2017, 06:40:22 PM
And of course this is about impact. Nobody is denying that it's warmer when there are 5 people in a closet (where you idiots belong) than when there is just 1. You don't need billions of dollars in scientific funding to establish that. And there is a very significant debate worth having about cost v reward, and you are wholly unwilling to have that debate because you don't have a leg to stand on. What you want to do is extraordinarily expensive and will result in no measurable change.  So you make absurd and outlandish attacks like "you hate the environment" or "the science is settled" or "the world is going to end". It's pathetic.

This is a good post. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 03, 2017, 06:50:20 PM
Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

Or..... we could stop pretending we can really control the thermostat if only we spend enough money and raise the price of energy enough. I know this is difficult to grasp -  but one alternative is to just live our lives.

So, it makes you feel good not to pursue what you believe to be a fruitless endeavor. It makes other people feel good to pursue what they believe is not a fruitless endeavor. What is the reason to exit the agreement?

The juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: chum1 on June 03, 2017, 07:19:51 PM
Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

Or..... we could stop pretending we can really control the thermostat if only we spend enough money and raise the price of energy enough. I know this is difficult to grasp -  but one alternative is to just live our lives.

So, it makes you feel good not to pursue what you believe to be a fruitless endeavor. It makes other people feel good to pursue what they believe is not a fruitless endeavor. What is the reason to exit the agreement?

The juice isn't worth the squeeze.

You think staying in vs. exiting can be quantified? I don't.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 03, 2017, 07:33:11 PM
Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

Or..... we could stop pretending we can really control the thermostat if only we spend enough money and raise the price of energy enough. I know this is difficult to grasp -  but one alternative is to just live our lives.

So, it makes you feel good not to pursue what you believe to be a fruitless endeavor. It makes other people feel good to pursue what they believe is not a fruitless endeavor. What is the reason to exit the agreement?

The juice isn't worth the squeeze.

You think staying in vs. exiting can be quantified? I don't.

Then how can we make any judgements for or against?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: chum1 on June 03, 2017, 08:37:35 PM
Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

Or..... we could stop pretending we can really control the thermostat if only we spend enough money and raise the price of energy enough. I know this is difficult to grasp -  but one alternative is to just live our lives.

So, it makes you feel good not to pursue what you believe to be a fruitless endeavor. It makes other people feel good to pursue what they believe is not a fruitless endeavor. What is the reason to exit the agreement?

The juice isn't worth the squeeze.

You think staying in vs. exiting can be quantified? I don't.

Then how can we make any judgements for or against?

Is there value in being a part of the team rather than pissing off everyone else on the team? What sorts of values are there in exiting the agreement?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 03, 2017, 08:40:39 PM
Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

Or..... we could stop pretending we can really control the thermostat if only we spend enough money and raise the price of energy enough. I know this is difficult to grasp -  but one alternative is to just live our lives.

So, it makes you feel good not to pursue what you believe to be a fruitless endeavor. It makes other people feel good to pursue what they believe is not a fruitless endeavor. What is the reason to exit the agreement?

So now we're down to acknowledging this is nothing more than liberal butthurt feelings. Progress!!!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on June 03, 2017, 08:59:48 PM
Does anyone think that staying committed to the agreement was bad? Why? What's the rationale for leaving?

If people want to buy certain kinds of products over others, for whatever reason, why should amyone care? That's their business.

What's so special about today's climate? What if tomorrow's is better?

So, we should reverse course on previous decisions on the basis that we might like the alternative better? Wouldn't it follow that we should continually be reversing ourselves? Because there are continually alternatives we might like better? I don't think this is a very practical suggestion.

Or..... we could stop pretending we can really control the thermostat if only we spend enough money and raise the price of energy enough. I know this is difficult to grasp -  but one alternative is to just live our lives.

So, it makes you feel good not to pursue what you believe to be a fruitless endeavor. It makes other people feel good to pursue what they believe is not a fruitless endeavor. What is the reason to exit the agreement?

So now we're down to acknowledging this is nothing more than liberal butthurt feelings. Progress!!!

I'd put it this way. You say that all there is on the other side is liberal butthurt. Show me that you've got more than conservative butthurt on your side.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on June 03, 2017, 09:44:05 PM
If I've learned anything from posting on here it's that Dax, FSD, and KSUW are smarter than NASA scientists.

Let me remind you that Dax, FSD, and KSUW are not being paid to peddle lies like the NASA scientists are to people in this country.

The fact that we're seeing more hurricanes and large-scale wildfires in addition to the fact that we reach record high temperatures every year is no reason to be alarmed. WARMER WEATHER IS BETTER!

Trying to protect ourselves and future generations would be stupid.

Investing in alternative energy is dumb. Therefore the Paris Climate Agreement is very dumb!

Cancer is in no way related to climate change!!!

Miami underwater? Who cares!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 03, 2017, 11:20:30 PM
Large scale wildfires lol.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 03, 2017, 11:27:04 PM
So someone give me an objective thumbnail sketch of what this changes.  I'm incredibly busy with things and need to know if I should cate
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: bucket on June 03, 2017, 11:36:05 PM
Large scale wildfires lol.

Please explain why that's lol?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 04, 2017, 07:17:36 AM
Large scale wildfires lol.

Please explain why that's lol?

Please explain to me why it's attributable to global warming.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 04, 2017, 07:30:38 AM
The fact that we're seeing more hurricanes and large-scale wildfires in addition to the fact that we reach record high temperatures every year is no reason to be alarmed. WARMER WEATHER IS BETTER!

You should try doing basic google searches before making claims like this - you'd avoid sounding foolish.

From NOAA 2017, hardly an AGW skeptic.... https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/ (https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/)

TL/DNR Version: increased hurricane activity during the past century is due to better monitoring of hurricanes and is not indicative of an adverse effect of global warming.

Quote
Gabriel A. Vecchi and Thomas R. Knutson

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA, Princeton, NJ.

How well do we know the historical cyclone record?

Observational records of tropical storm and hurricanes are essential in order to discern how climatic changes have influenced tropical storms and hurricanes, and to build predictive understanding of the influence of climate on hurricanes. Here we provide a brief summary of work, in which GFDL scientists have been involved, that aim at assessing and improving our century-scale records of Atlantic tropical cyclones. This website includes access to storm databases with estimates of the influence of observational changes, images and audio files.

Recent papers (Vecchi and Knutson 2008; Landsea et al 2010; Vecchi and Knutson 2011.; Villarini et al. 2011) suggest that, based on careful examination of the Atlantic tropical storm database (HURDAT) and on estimates of how many storms were likely missed in the past, it is likely that the increase in Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency in HURDAT since the late-1800s is primarily due to improved monitoring.

There has been a very pronounced increase in the number of tropical storms and hurricanes in the Atlantic since the late-1980s. However, to gain insight on the influence of climate change on Atlantic tropical storm and hurricane frequency, we must focus on longer (> 100 yr) records of Atlantic hurricane activity since very strong year-to-year and decade-to-decade variability appears in records of Atlantic tropical cyclones. If greenhouse warming causes a substantial increase in hurricane activity, then the century scale increase in global and tropical Atlantic SSTs since the late 1800s should have been accompanied by a long-term rising trend in measures of Atlantic hurricanes activity.

Existing records of past Atlantic tropical storm numbers (1878 to present) in fact do show a pronounced upward trend, correlated with rising SSTs (see Figs. 1 and 9 of Vecchi and Knutson 2008). However, the density of reporting ship traffic over the Atlantic wasrelatively sparse during the early decades of this record, such that if storms from the modern era (post 1965) had hypothetically occurred during those earlier decades, a substantial number would likely not have been directly observed by the ship-based “observing network of opportunity.” We find that, after adjusting for such an estimated number of missing storms, there is a small nominally positive upward trend in tropical storm occurrence from 1878-2006. But statistical tests reveal that this trend is so small, relative to the variability in the series, that it is not significantly distinguishable from zero (Figure 2). Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.

Your increased wildfire claim is likewise incorrect, and further incorrect because we would be expected to have more wildfires during drier conditions caused by El Niño climate cycles.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 04, 2017, 07:46:54 AM
I asked some very fundamental questions several pages back that the liberals refused to answer. Instead I got a bunch of name calling. Liberals glom on to the latest "study" promising catastrophe they read a headline about, but they've never really stopped to ask themselves the much more fundamental questions.

They say the earth is warming, but they can't tell you what our optimal planetary temperature is.

They say CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm, but they can't tell you with any certainty how much warming will be caused by an increase in CO2 from, say, .04 percent to .05 percent of the atmosphere and they don't acknowledge that the models hypothesizing this warming effect have badly missed the mark.

They say we should go ahead and scale back our CO2 emissions anyway because what's the harm, but never want to talk about how many American jobs they'd be willing to destroy, or how much higher the price of gas and electricity (and thereby everything else) should be, of how many trillions of dollars we should spend reducing the plant food we emit with every breath.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 04, 2017, 07:53:20 AM
Lol@bucket.

Climate change causes cancer??? What about AIDS?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 04, 2017, 07:58:58 AM
I did some planting of plants this morning. I'm combating global warming!

(Ignore the fact that the plants were already alive and i just transplanted them from the nursery. I guess you could say that them being closer to where I breath is a bigger help though.)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 04, 2017, 08:15:17 AM
I did some planting of plants this morning. I'm combating global warming!

(Ignore the fact that the plants were already alive and i just transplanted them from the nursery. I guess you could say that them being closer to where I breath is a bigger help though.)

Pop quiz: what gas do plants require for photosynthesis?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 04, 2017, 08:17:38 AM
:dubious:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 04, 2017, 08:17:54 AM
I did some planting of plants this morning. I'm combating global warming!

(Ignore the fact that the plants were already alive and i just transplanted them from the nursery. I guess you could say that them being closer to where I breath is a bigger help though.)

Pop quiz: what gas do plants require for photosynthesis?

American tax dollars???
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 04, 2017, 08:18:47 AM
I did some planting of plants this morning. I'm combating global warming!

(Ignore the fact that the plants were already alive and i just transplanted them from the nursery. I guess you could say that them being closer to where I breath is a bigger help though.)

Pop quiz: what gas do plants require for photosynthesis?

American tax dollars???
Hahaha. The saying has been wrong the whole time?

It's actually money that grows trees? Who added the "on"? Mfer
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 04, 2017, 08:34:18 AM
What a noble agreement

Quote
Like the Iran nuclear deal, this was, in effect, a treaty. But because President Obama never brought it to the Senate for ratification (it wouldn’t have passed in its current form) it amounts to an executive order that Trump felt free to undo. Why wouldn’t he? He campaigned against it, and nearly the entire Republican Party considers it a lousy deal for American taxpayers, bad for the U.S. economy and of infinitesimal benefit to the environment.

For starters, the accord is non-binding and countries are free to set their own goals. Putting his money where his mouth was, Obama committed the U.S. to achieving a 26 percent to 28 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2025. The other big polluters didn’t match Obama’s bravado. China, the only nation to emit more carbon dioxide than the United States, merely offered that its carbon emissions would cap in 2030. India announced goals that represented an increase in what it had already predicted. Pakistan promised to try to reduce its output after reaching “peak” emissions “to the extent possible.”

To facilitate these nebulous and unenforceable goals, the Obama administration agreed to spearhead a transfer of wealth from prosperous nations to developing economies: These payments were to total $10 billion, $3 billion of it from the U.S., of which $1 billion has already been paid. So Trump saved American taxpayers $2 billion on Thursday, which is a nice day’s work for a guy who’s not even taking a salary
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 04, 2017, 09:35:27 AM
The United States:  Okay we're going to give somebody a lot of money, institute draconian policies that will place many of our citizens in energy poverty while killing economic growth.  Even though we don't have the faintest of clues if what we do is going to accomplish anything at all.  Oh, and through this process we're going to pump a whole bunch of money into the pockets of a very small handful of new energy oligarchs who are politically connected. 

Other noted G7 and developing countries:  Okay, sounds great Obama err the United States.  Okay, we promise to take these ideas under consideration.  We promise to show up at conferences to tell everyone how strongly we are considering making changes.  We'll then talk about some long term goals, show some really great power points and then go home and basically do nothing.   We'll assign some politicians to some committees and they'll meet (at some really nice hotels and resorts) to talk about things.  Oh, but keeping pumping that cash in there United States. 

Barrack:  Sounds like a great deal!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 04, 2017, 10:21:27 AM
What an emotional issue for regresocons, my goodness
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 04, 2017, 10:47:04 AM
The United States:  Okay we're going to give somebody a lot of money, institute draconian policies that will place many of our citizens in energy poverty while killing economic growth.  Even though we don't have the faintest of clues if what we do is going to accomplish anything at all.  Oh, and through this process we're going to pump a whole bunch of money into the pockets of a very small handful of new energy oligarchs who are politically connected. 

Other noted G7 and developing countries:  Okay, sounds great Obama err the United States.  Okay, we promise to take these ideas under consideration.  We promise to show up at conferences to tell everyone how strongly we are considering making changes.  We'll then talk about some long term goals, show some really great power points and then go home and basically do nothing.   We'll assign some politicians to some committees and they'll meet (at some really nice hotels and resorts) to talk about things.  Oh, but keeping pumping that cash in there United States. 

Barrack:  Sounds like a great deal!


:dunno:
Considering the alternative this actually sounds like a lot of progress and a great framework to build from when ignoring your over-the-top exaggerations ("energy poverty", "kill economic growth", climate change denialism, etc).

I mean moving the entire world towards greater sustainability, clean alternative energy sources, reduced emissions is going to be a pretty hard, messy, and definitely not perfect at first, transition. But just like with healthcare or wall street reform, because of how large, powerful, and entrenched the status quo is, incremental progress is easier and better than doing nothing at all or doubling down on failed policies. Google, Apple, GE, Tesla, 150 Mayors, the Vatican, the rest of the planet, and most americans are all on the same page in what this was, that being a first step forward, cooperation and compromise together. But no, not to the GOP and Trump...  to them itt was a "bad deal" (not for the rest of us but for their oil gas extraction buddies).

Silver-lining in this all is that Trump is becoming the villain that everyone can rally against. It's almost as if he watched the classic oscar Willis film Unbreakable and thought to himself, "I have to be as bad a president as I possibly can be so that the best heros will emerge to take me down". I'm an optimist in that I still have hope in humanity. Trump, the GOP, Putin, Alex Jones,  David Duke, Dax, KSU-W, Reno, FSD, Emo, etc... they all are pessimists that want to regress society (and the world) back to barbaric tribalism. It's the only way they feel they will maintain their "superiority" to young people, LGBT, women, muslims, europeans, asians, jews, moderates, the pope, liberals, progressives, uppity blacks, regular everyday americans, etc...

It's really sad we will have to endure the consequences of their intellectually and philosophically corrupt and bankrupt decisions for decades to come.

 :fan-1:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Cartierfor3 on June 04, 2017, 12:38:45 PM
I did some planting of plants this morning. I'm combating global warming!

(Ignore the fact that the plants were already alive and i just transplanted them from the nursery. I guess you could say that them being closer to where I breath is a bigger help though.)

Pop quiz: what gas do plants require for photosynthesis?

I read this in Dennis Hopper's voice
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on June 04, 2017, 12:46:57 PM
Your increased wildfire claim is likewise incorrect, and further incorrect because we would be expected to have more wildfires during drier conditions caused by El Niño climate cycles.

Not according to the EPA.

Quote
Although wildfires occur naturally and play a long-term role in the health of these ecosystems, climate change threatens to increase the frequency, extent, and severity of fires through increased temperatures and drought (see the U.S. and Global Temperature and Drought indicators). Earlier spring melting and reduced snowpack (see the Snowpack indicator) result in decreased water availability during hot summer conditions, which in turn contributes to an increased wildfire risk, allowing fires to start more easily and burn hotter. An increase in the length of the fire season has been observed in some areas.2
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on June 04, 2017, 03:21:26 PM
Large scale wildfires lol.

Please explain why that's lol?

Please explain to me why it's attributable to global warming.

come take a drive through the sierra nevadas.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 04, 2017, 04:11:29 PM
Has there be any changes to land management policies in the past 20 years or so?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 04, 2017, 04:40:02 PM
The United States:  Okay we're going to give somebody a lot of money, institute draconian policies that will place many of our citizens in energy poverty while killing economic growth.  Even though we don't have the faintest of clues if what we do is going to accomplish anything at all.  Oh, and through this process we're going to pump a whole bunch of money into the pockets of a very small handful of new energy oligarchs who are politically connected. 

Other noted G7 and developing countries:  Okay, sounds great Obama err the United States.  Okay, we promise to take these ideas under consideration.  We promise to show up at conferences to tell everyone how strongly we are considering making changes.  We'll then talk about some long term goals, show some really great power points and then go home and basically do nothing.   We'll assign some politicians to some committees and they'll meet (at some really nice hotels and resorts) to talk about things.  Oh, but keeping pumping that cash in there United States. 

Barrack:  Sounds like a great deal!
[/quote]

:dunno:
Considering the alternative this actually sounds like a lot of progress and a great framework to build from when ignoring your over-the-top exaggerations ("energy poverty", "kill economic growth", climate change denialism, etc).   LOL, there is no framework for anything here at all.  It's one country committing that they'll kinda sorta try and do something, then apologize for all of their old "sins" with money.  While the other huge polluters in the world say they're gonna think about it and get back to us.

I mean moving the entire world towards greater sustainability, clean alternative energy sources, reduced emissions is going to be a pretty hard, messy, and definitely not perfect at first, transition. But just like with healthcare or wall street reform, because of how large, powerful, and entrenched the status quo is, incremental progress is easier and better than doing nothing at all or doubling down on failed policies.   That's a lot of gibberish to say that the government needs to let the free market system act to fix the so called "problem" of which, again, we cannot even adequately assess, define, study or even determine the specific causation of the problem because the systems in play are so vast and complex.   To say otherwise is just nonsense.  Oh and the free market system doesn't mean the cleptocracy of chosen ones that I'll address here in a moment.

Google:  Nearly every piece of Google logo'd or licensed gear is manufactured in countries which will likely adhere to nothing in regards to the PA (it's really a treaty that should have been ratified by Congress).    Their entire movement into transportation and other areas is clearly motivated by profit and they are lobbying for a policy which will increase their profit the most based on their business model.   There's not an ounce of altruism in what they're doing, and they're going to farm being one of the chosen ones for as long as they can (can't blame them). 

Apple:  :lol:  Apple is one of the biggest polluters in the world, offshoring nearly every facet of their manufacturing to countries who are on the "we'll think about it list".    To use their name is laughable, but you can suggest that they are clearly motivated by margin and profit. 

GE:   :lol:  GE has 10 factories in India (just one example), clearly one of the "we'll think about it and get back to you".   GE will keep enough domestic manufacturing to not make too many people mad but will continue to ramp up production in non-adhering countries. 

Tesla:   :lol: :lol: :lol:

150 Mayors, the Vatican, the rest of the planet, and most americans are all on the same page in what this was, that being a first step forward, cooperation and compromise together. But no, not to the GOP and Trump...  to them itt was a "bad deal" (not for the rest of us but for their oil gas extraction buddies).   LOL, way to paint with the broadest of brushes. 

Silver-lining in this all is that Trump is becoming the villain that everyone can rally against. It's almost as if he watched the classic oscar Willis film Unbreakable and thought to himself, "I have to be as bad a president as I possibly can be so that the best heros will emerge to take me down". I'm an optimist in that I still have hope in humanity. Trump, the GOP, Putin, Alex Jones,  David Duke, Dax, KSU-W, Reno, FSD, Emo, etc... they all are pessimists that want to regress society (and the world) back to barbaric tribalism. It's the only way they feel they will maintain their "superiority" to young people, LGBT, women, muslims, europeans, asians, jews, moderates, the pope, liberals, progressives, uppity blacks, regular everyday americans, etc...  That's one of the biggest bags of gibberish I've ever read on this board, but not at all unexpected from you. 

It's really sad we will have to endure the consequences of their intellectually and philosophically corrupt and bankrupt decisions for decades to come.   People who think will never acknowledge or accept that the "science is settled" on anything relative to a system as complex as Earth's climate.   You simply parrot and regurgitate nonsensical talking points.

 

Cam, I give your OP:   :jerk: :jerk: :jerk: :jerk: :jerk:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 04, 2017, 04:43:04 PM
I don't understand why being motivated by profit is a bad thing.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 04, 2017, 04:45:18 PM
I don't understand why being motivated by profit is a bad thing.

Where did I say it was?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 04, 2017, 04:47:04 PM
(https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/changing-artic_monthly_wx_review.png)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 04, 2017, 04:51:45 PM
I don't understand why being motivated by profit is a bad thing.

Where did I say it was?
I thought you were implying that. If not, my mistake.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: puniraptor on June 04, 2017, 05:34:47 PM
profit's weakness as a motivation is that it limits decision making to effects in one human lifespan

a fine way to live a life, but the best way to sustain a civilization?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: michigancat on June 04, 2017, 05:51:47 PM
What a noble agreement

Quote
Like the Iran nuclear deal, this was, in effect, a treaty. But because President Obama never brought it to the Senate for ratification (it wouldn’t have passed in its current form) it amounts to an executive order that Trump felt free to undo. Why wouldn’t he? He campaigned against it, and nearly the entire Republican Party considers it a lousy deal for American taxpayers, bad for the U.S. economy and of infinitesimal benefit to the environment.

For starters, the accord is non-binding and countries are free to set their own goals. Putting his money where his mouth was, Obama committed the U.S. to achieving a 26 percent to 28 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2025. The other big polluters didn’t match Obama’s bravado. China, the only nation to emit more carbon dioxide than the United States, merely offered that its carbon emissions would cap in 2030. India announced goals that represented an increase in what it had already predicted. Pakistan promised to try to reduce its output after reaching “peak” emissions “to the extent possible.”

To facilitate these nebulous and unenforceable goals, the Obama administration agreed to spearhead a transfer of wealth from prosperous nations to developing economies: These payments were to total $10 billion, $3 billion of it from the U.S., of which $1 billion has already been paid. So Trump saved American taxpayers $2 billion on Thursday, which is a nice day’s work for a guy who’s not even taking a salary

I bet the international PR hit/goodwill lost was worth more than $2 billion.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 04, 2017, 05:54:33 PM
Too lazy to look back in this thread, I know it was mentioned many times that if clean energy were more profitable that the private sector would take care of it. That the govt should not be giving money to green energy projects. Now it seemed profit seeking was being used as a reason to discount the support of corporations that are for green projects.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 04, 2017, 06:37:41 PM

Considering the alternative this actually sounds like a lot of progress and a great framework to build from when ignoring your over-the-top exaggerations ("energy poverty", "kill economic growth", climate change denialism, etc).

I mean moving the entire world towards greater sustainability, clean alternative energy sources, reduced emissions is going to be a pretty hard, messy, and definitely not perfect at first, transition. But just like with healthcare or wall street reform, because of how large, powerful, and entrenched the status quo is, incremental progress is easier and better than doing nothing at all or doubling down on failed policies.

It's quite telling how important this issue actually is when everyone who is allegedly concerned gets together and essentially agrees to do nothing and change nothing.

Bravo!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: puniraptor on June 04, 2017, 06:58:08 PM
what do you think about the talking point that we are giving up our seat in international leadership to our rivals?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 04, 2017, 08:05:31 PM
https://twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/871192013756125184

AMAZE
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: michigancat on June 04, 2017, 08:48:45 PM
what do you think about the talking point that we are giving up our seat in international leadership to our rivals?
That's similar to what I was getting at. Leading the conversation is probably worth $2 billion easily because it will have huge implications on trade agreements moving forward. Maybe not immediately but over time.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on June 04, 2017, 09:05:22 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dailycaller.com/2017/06/03/obamas-decisions-doomed-the-paris-climate-accord-to-failure-in-the-us-experts-say/
It's obama's fault.  If he would have followed the constitution instead of using executive dictatorship  action, he would have a ratified treaty that Trump could not have done a thing about.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 04, 2017, 09:46:50 PM
Warmist Zealots, it bears repeating every couple of dozen pages that this whackjob is on your team. Maybe reflect on that.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/04/al_gore_i_dont_have_a_private_jet_i_live_a_carbon-free_lifestyle.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/04/al_gore_i_dont_have_a_private_jet_i_live_a_carbon-free_lifestyle.html)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 05, 2017, 07:01:45 AM
Large scale wildfires lol.

Please explain why that's lol?

Please explain to me why it's attributable to global warming.

come take a drive through the sierra nevadas.

Not attributable. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 05, 2017, 07:08:50 AM
Bigger bogeyman, climate change or Trump?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 05, 2017, 09:33:51 AM
Answers your questions Dax and supports the Trump is a toddler loser argument

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5scez5dqtAc[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: gatoveintisiet on June 05, 2017, 10:10:29 AM
Answers your questions Dax and supports the Trump is a toddler loser argument

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5scez5dqtAc[/youtube]

 :lol: that's great
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 05, 2017, 11:28:36 AM
CAM may be the biggest gurgling simpleton on this board.  Given the competition, that's pretty amazing.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on June 05, 2017, 12:06:27 PM
CAM may be the biggest gurgling simpleton on this board.  Given the competition, that's pretty amazing.

Avoid, deflect and obfuscate... classic Dax.

LOL  :lol:

 :jerk:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 05, 2017, 12:11:59 PM
CAM may be the biggest gurgling simpleton on this board.  Given the competition, that's pretty amazing.

Avoid, deflect and obfuscate... classic Dax.

LOL  :lol:

 :jerk:

Lol, I took you're last idiotic post point by point. 

You showed the "depth" of your "intellect" with your "at least it's a start" comment the ended with gurgling gibberish.

A non binding, unenforceable agreement is your definition of a "start".   Half of the nations that signed on to the last "binding" climate agreement have already pulled out and the United States never signed on to begin with. 

So, please parrot out something that was covered 100 pages ago. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on June 05, 2017, 12:24:14 PM
CAM may be the biggest gurgling simpleton on this board.  Given the competition, that's pretty amazing.

Avoid, deflect and obfuscate... classic Dax.

LOL  :lol:

 :jerk:

Lol, I took you're last idiotic post point by point. 

You showed the "depth" of your "intellect" with your "at least it's a start" comment the ended with gurgling gibberish.

A non binding, unenforceable agreement is your definition of a "start".   Half of the nations that signed on to the last "binding" climate agreement have already pulled out and the United States never signed on to begin with. 

So, please parrot out something that was covered 100 pages ago.

 :ROFL:

You say I'm a gurgling simpleton when you are the one who blindly and loyally supports Trump, the true epitome of a gurgling simpleton.

Also, your "point by point" takedown, like most of the trash you spew out, is so incredibly and blatantly ill-informed and off base it is not worth my time (or others) responding or refuting it.

By the way, the darkness of your cynicism and your ready willingness to support fascists and plutocrats is frankly alarming and you should probably retreat to your bunker so as to avoid as much interaction and impact in larger society as possible. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 05, 2017, 12:34:14 PM
CAM may be the biggest gurgling simpleton on this board.  Given the competition, that's pretty amazing.

Avoid, deflect and obfuscate... classic Dax.

LOL  :lol:

 :jerk:

Lol, I took you're last idiotic post point by point. 

You showed the "depth" of your "intellect" with your "at least it's a start" comment the ended with gurgling gibberish.

A non binding, unenforceable agreement is your definition of a "start".   Half of the nations that signed on to the last "binding" climate agreement have already pulled out and the United States never signed on to begin with. 

So, please parrot out something that was covered 100 pages ago.

 :ROFL:

You say I'm a gurgling simpleton when you are the one who blindly and loyally supports Trump, the true epitome of a gurgling simpleton.

Also, your "point by point" takedown, like most of the trash you spew out, is so incredibly and blatantly ill-informed and off base it is not worth my time (or others) responding or refuting it.

The darkness of your cynicism and your ready willingness to support fascists and plutocrats is frankly alarming and you should probably retreat to your bunker so as to avoid as much interaction and impact in larger society as possible. :thumbsup:

Dude, your last post was nothing but glowing praise for the kleptocrats and the crony capitalist oligarchs.   Regulation plays straight into the hands of huge corporations who are politically connected. 

You're clearly in love with a former Pres who ran the biggest domestic spying campaign in US history.  One that has the former East German Stasi apparatchiks looking on in awe.  A guy who willfully and unilaterally signed the US on to an agreement that required the Russians and Chinese to ostensibly do nothing and unlike the United States they've paid nothing and will never pay anything into the fund.   A non legally binding agreement that literally means nothing.   An agreement that if unilaterally enforced would most certainly have those kleptocrats you love moving even more of their  manufacturing offshore to non compliant countries.

You're an idiot. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on June 05, 2017, 01:16:36 PM
come take a drive through the sierra nevadas.

Not attributable.

there's no way to know.  but predictions predict that future climates will resemble those of the last few years more than they resemble this year.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: bucket on June 05, 2017, 01:19:47 PM
Large scale wildfires lol.

Please explain why that's lol?

Please explain to me why it's attributable to global warming.

come take a drive through the sierra nevadas.

Not attributable.

How so? Climate change hasn't exasperated drought in California?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on June 05, 2017, 01:21:04 PM
realized i may not have placed enough dots for people to connect.  after four years of drought the sierra nevadas look like this.  because of the hotness and the dryness.

(http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/45/72/10/9937432/5/920x920.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2017, 01:25:12 PM
That looks like pine beetle - not drought.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on June 05, 2017, 01:26:26 PM
That looks like pine beetle - not drought.

pine beetles kill when trees don't have enough water to fight them off.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 05, 2017, 01:31:16 PM
realized i may not have placed enough dots for people to connect.  after four years of drought the sierra nevadas look like this.  because of the hotness and the dryness.

(http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/45/72/10/9937432/5/920x920.jpg)

Yet climatologists grudgingly attributed the Western drought to weather patterns found regularly relative to Earths history for that part of the world.  As of now only a small portion of the Sierra Nevada range is classified as abnormally dry or D0 on a 0-4 scale.

Droughts in that part of the world have lasted decades in the past. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 05, 2017, 01:31:53 PM
That looks like pine beetle - not drought.

pine beetles kill when trees don't have enough water to fight them off.

Not to quibble with you because of course drought stress can contribute to all sorts of diseases and infestations, but pine beetles have little difficulty infesting healthy trees, too. I'm simply pointing out that your picture is pine beetle damage - not necessarily drought.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on June 05, 2017, 01:34:08 PM
Not to quibble with you because of course drought stress can contribute to all sorts of diseases and infestations, but pine beetles have little difficulty infesting healthy trees, too. I'm simply pointing out that your picture is pine beetle damage - not necessarily drought.

the difference is the dying, not the being infested.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: cfbandyman on June 05, 2017, 01:36:13 PM
CAM may be the biggest gurgling simpleton on this board.  Given the competition, that's pretty amazing.

Avoid, deflect and obfuscate... classic Dax.

LOL  :lol:

 :jerk:

Lol, I took you're last idiotic post point by point. 

You showed the "depth" of your "intellect" with your "at least it's a start" comment the ended with gurgling gibberish.

A non binding, unenforceable agreement is your definition of a "start".   Half of the nations that signed on to the last "binding" climate agreement have already pulled out and the United States never signed on to begin with. 

So, please parrot out something that was covered 100 pages ago.

 :ROFL:

You say I'm a gurgling simpleton when you are the one who blindly and loyally supports Drumpf, the true epitome of a gurgling simpleton.

Also, your "point by point" takedown, like most of the trash you spew out, is so incredibly and blatantly ill-informed and off base it is not worth my time (or others) responding or refuting it.

The darkness of your cynicism and your ready willingness to support fascists and plutocrats is frankly alarming and you should probably retreat to your bunker so as to avoid as much interaction and impact in larger society as possible. :thumbsup:

Dude, your last post was nothing but glowing praise for the kleptocrats and the crony capitalist oligarchs.   Regulation plays straight into the hands of huge corporations who are politically connected. 

You're clearly in love with a former Pres who ran the biggest domestic spying campaign in US history.  One that has the former East German Stasi apparatchiks looking on in awe.  A guy who willfully and unilaterally signed the US on to an agreement that required the Russians and Chinese to ostensibly do nothing and unlike the United States they've paid nothing and will never pay anything into the fund.   A non legally binding agreement that literally means nothing.   An agreement that if unilaterally enforced would most certainly have those kleptocrats you love moving even more of their  manufacturing offshore to non compliant countries.

You're an idiot.

How you always bring this around on something that has nothing to do with the subject at hand is pretty amaze.
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 05, 2017, 01:40:57 PM
CAM may be the biggest gurgling simpleton on this board.  Given the competition, that's pretty amazing.

Avoid, deflect and obfuscate... classic Dax.

LOL  :lol:

 :jerk:

Lol, I took you're last idiotic post point by point. 

You showed the "depth" of your "intellect" with your "at least it's a start" comment the ended with gurgling gibberish.

A non binding, unenforceable agreement is your definition of a "start".   Half of the nations that signed on to the last "binding" climate agreement have already pulled out and the United States never signed on to begin with. 

So, please parrot out something that was covered 100 pages ago.

 :ROFL:

You say I'm a gurgling simpleton when you are the one who blindly and loyally supports Drumpf, the true epitome of a gurgling simpleton.

Also, your "point by point" takedown, like most of the trash you spew out, is so incredibly and blatantly ill-informed and off base it is not worth my time (or others) responding or refuting it.

The darkness of your cynicism and your ready willingness to support fascists and plutocrats is frankly alarming and you should probably retreat to your bunker so as to avoid as much interaction and impact in larger society as possible. :thumbsup:

Dude, your last post was nothing but glowing praise for the kleptocrats and the crony capitalist oligarchs.   Regulation plays straight into the hands of huge corporations who are politically connected. 

You're clearly in love with a former Pres who ran the biggest domestic spying campaign in US history.  One that has the former East German Stasi apparatchiks looking on in awe.  A guy who willfully and unilaterally signed the US on to an agreement that required the Russians and Chinese to ostensibly do nothing and unlike the United States they've paid nothing and will never pay anything into the fund.   A non legally binding agreement that literally means nothing.   An agreement that if unilaterally enforced would most certainly have those kleptocrats you love moving even more of their  manufacturing offshore to non compliant countries.

You're an idiot.

How you always bring this around on something that has nothing to do with the subject at hand is pretty amaze.

That's a tapout if there ever was one.  Now tell us again about Elon Musk and his "outrage".    Apple is going spend another $500 million this year on facilities in China, hopefully with fewer worker suicides, pollution face masks can be accessorized as well.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 05, 2017, 01:44:55 PM
The daxbot input decoder seems to be broken
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 05, 2017, 01:47:25 PM
The daxbot input decoder seems to be broken

Lol. CAM and lib, a "dynamic" duo. 

Sad.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 05, 2017, 02:00:49 PM
Maybe this is a demo of the cheaper pull string daxbot, every pull spits out a post about a random topic
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 05, 2017, 02:01:40 PM
I hope liberal colleges or benghazi is next. Play the hits dax!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 05, 2017, 02:18:02 PM
sys has that forest been allowed to live naturally since human contact?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on June 05, 2017, 03:15:50 PM
The daxbot input decoder seems to be broken

Nah, he's just so predictable he's becoming reliable to set my watch by it. Also, still lolers at his response.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 05, 2017, 03:32:48 PM
It's hot as eff outside. Manhattan warming in full force.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 05, 2017, 04:00:46 PM
Weird takes guys.  Not a lot of there, there. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on June 05, 2017, 07:01:04 PM
sys has that forest been allowed to live naturally since human contact?

density is definitely a contributing factor.  more trees trying to get at the same water means less water per tree.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 05, 2017, 07:07:28 PM
Speaking to the European side of these things. My French friend just turned on her one window unit for her apartment today at 4pm for the first time.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 05, 2017, 07:08:00 PM
She lives in a second story apt as well. I told her I'd be sweating my balls off already and probably would have died.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 05, 2017, 07:08:23 PM
Probably 900 sq ft
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: EMAWican on June 05, 2017, 07:20:37 PM
I'll just keep saying this in this thread, but maybe these scientists should work on settling the science in accurately predicting the weather 12 hours from now.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 05, 2017, 07:32:21 PM
Zing!
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 05, 2017, 08:47:58 PM
sys has that forest been allowed to live naturally since human contact?

density is definitely a contributing factor.  more trees trying to get at the same water means less water per tree.

Have you read much on cheat grass?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: puniraptor on June 05, 2017, 08:57:28 PM
I'll just keep saying this in this thread, but maybe these scientists should work on settling the science in accurately predicting the weather 12 hours from now.

I still wouldn't listen. I make all my decisions based on yesterday's weather.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on June 05, 2017, 09:11:07 PM
Have you read much on cheat grass?

i'm familiar with it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 05, 2017, 09:27:15 PM
Have you read much on cheat grass?

i'm familiar with it.

You're familiar the natural burn cycle is like 1/4th of the habitat it is overtaking? 

My point is that wildfires are not attributable to global warming.  It's man made deficiencies in management. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on June 05, 2017, 09:44:13 PM
they aren't mutually exclusive, emo.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 05, 2017, 10:25:50 PM
How can we possibly say that with any certainty?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on June 06, 2017, 12:05:56 AM
logic.  evidence.  either is sufficient to solve that puzzle.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on June 06, 2017, 12:10:10 AM
actually, now that i've said that, i'm not sure evidence is sufficient, without the application of some logic.  it seems like it should be, but i'm not sure.  i need to go sit in on a philosophy class or something, my brain is getting soft.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 06, 2017, 05:50:32 AM
What may be logical is often not true.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 06, 2017, 05:52:27 AM
And in this case you're ignoring one logic to pay heed to another.  Not very logical IMO. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on June 06, 2017, 08:08:11 AM
neither of your last two posts makes any sense.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 06, 2017, 10:04:18 AM
Emo, just ignore sys

He's willfully obtuse

Sad
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: cfbandyman on June 06, 2017, 10:22:26 AM
Emo, just ignore sys

He's willfully obtuse

Sad

dax calling someone obtuse is acute
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 06, 2017, 10:23:43 AM
And never right
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 06, 2017, 10:25:31 AM
Emo, just ignore sys

He's willfully obtuse

Sad

dax calling someone obtuse is acute

No
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 07, 2017, 09:20:45 PM
(https://i.redd.it/zsi5uxhuxa2z.jpg)

alarmists smdh
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 08, 2017, 06:36:18 AM
Lol.

SMDH
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 08, 2017, 08:59:47 AM
Kinda makes you wonder what they were burning before coal and why we haven't just gone back to that.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on June 08, 2017, 11:20:48 AM
Yes whale oil is the wave of the future. Totally sustainable.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Panjandrum on June 08, 2017, 11:48:29 AM
I bailed on this conversation after I read a comparison about the Earth getting warmer because there are more people here.

Now we're into wood and whale oil burning.

An intelligent conversation can't occur here because this is the battlefield we choose to fight on.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 08, 2017, 12:26:45 PM
Supposedly sarcasm is lost on the uber intelligent.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on June 09, 2017, 10:42:12 AM
(https://i.redd.it/zsi5uxhuxa2z.jpg)

alarmists smdh

FAKE NEWS
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 18, 2017, 04:38:38 PM
I always take petty delight when karma interferes with climate change research. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/15/arctic-expedition-cancelled-due-to-excess-climate-change/ (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/15/arctic-expedition-cancelled-due-to-excess-climate-change/)

The best part is how they just soldier on. There is no claim too embarrassing in furtherance of The Narrative (and grant money). Too much ice to study global warming? That means global warming!!! :ROFL:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on June 18, 2017, 06:40:05 PM
the amount that the globe has warmed over the last week is intolerable.  human life may, or may not, survive until thursday.  not to mention dogs and mice.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 18, 2017, 07:30:41 PM
I always take petty delight when karma interferes with climate change research. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/15/arctic-expedition-cancelled-due-to-excess-climate-change/ (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/15/arctic-expedition-cancelled-due-to-excess-climate-change/)

The best part is how they just soldier on. There is no claim too embarrassing in furtherance of The Narrative (and grant money). Too much ice to study global warming? That means global warming!!! :ROFL:

All climate "change" is triggered by AGW.  So if there's no ice or crap tons of ice, it's all man made climate disruption.   

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 18, 2017, 07:45:48 PM
I always take petty delight when karma interferes with climate change research. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/15/arctic-expedition-cancelled-due-to-excess-climate-change/ (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/15/arctic-expedition-cancelled-due-to-excess-climate-change/)

The best part is how they just soldier on. There is no claim too embarrassing in furtherance of The Narrative (and grant money). Too much ice to study global warming? That means global warming!!! :ROFL:

All climate "change" is triggered by AGW.  So if there's no ice or crap tons of ice, it's all man made climate disruption.

Right out of the tarot card, madame cleo handbook
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on June 19, 2017, 04:06:03 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCtK0QWUMAELqv4.jpg)

Go ahead and lock the thread
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on June 19, 2017, 04:32:08 PM
So we went from a Physicist to

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6ZtbbxOdJApeKbkI/source.gif)

This truly is Trumps America.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 19, 2017, 04:44:02 PM
So we went from a Physicist to

(https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6ZtbbxOdJApeKbkI/source.gif)

This truly is Trumps America.

Nope, denied.   The warmist alarmists have already decreed that physicists do not count (unless they agree with them).

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 19, 2017, 04:47:48 PM
Meanwhile dax only trusts climate science from energy companies
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 19, 2017, 04:52:02 PM
Dax also believes coke when they fund studies that prove soda is totally healthy
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 19, 2017, 05:16:48 PM
Meanwhile dax only trusts climate science from energy companies

liblogic aka I'll Take Alex Jones for $1000:  Anyone not in total agreement with our propaganda has been "bought off" by Big Energy

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 19, 2017, 05:18:27 PM
Dax also believes coke when they fund studies that prove soda is totally healthy

I don't answer to the Coca-Cola bottling company, lib.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DUAK7t3Lf8s/hqdefault.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 19, 2017, 06:56:51 PM
The ocean doesn't effect climate, per the libtard.  :lol:

:chrisfarleyelnino:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on June 19, 2017, 07:25:45 PM
The ocean doesn't effect climate, per the libtard.  :lol:

:chrisfarleyelnino:

What do you think is raising the ocean temp?  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 19, 2017, 07:38:47 PM
What raised it the last time?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: bucket on June 19, 2017, 07:51:09 PM
What raised it the last time?
:dunno:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 19, 2017, 08:29:03 PM
The ocean doesn't effect climate, per the libtard.  :lol:

:chrisfarleyelnino:

What do you think is raising the ocean temp?  :lol:

T-Y  :love:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 19, 2017, 08:42:57 PM
Lol at Rick perry
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on June 19, 2017, 09:09:07 PM
The ocean doesn't effect climate, per the libtard.  :lol:

:chrisfarleyelnino:

What do you think is raising the ocean temp?  :lol:

T-Y  :love:
:confused:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 19, 2017, 10:16:27 PM
Well, it's a start! Several prominent warmists acknowledge there's a big discrepancy between their models and measured temperatures (see post 1 this thread) and are studying why.

https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html (https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2973.html)

TL-DNR: Our models have overestimated climate sensitivity to CO2.

Quote
Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates

Ben Santer, et al.

Abstract

In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. Because observations and coupled model simulations do not have the same phasing of natural internal variability, such decadal differences in simulated and observed warming rates invariably occur. Here we analyse global-mean tropospheric temperatures from satellites and climate model simulations to examine whether warming rate differences over the satellite era can be explained by internal climate variability alone. We find that in the last two decades of the twentieth century, differences between modelled and observed tropospheric temperature trends are broadly consistent with internal variability. Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 07:29:08 AM
Their models are repeatedly way off.  But that doesn't stop the propaganda. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 20, 2017, 08:14:33 AM
Clearly, climate change is to blame for the inaccuracies of the models. Gotta fix it quick or the models arr doomed!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 20, 2017, 08:54:49 AM
Refresh me, please. Are there posters on here that think climate change isn't happening? Or do they just believe it isn't caused by man?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 20, 2017, 09:06:20 AM
Dax thinks it's a hoax by the Chinese
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 09:20:17 AM
Poor lib, just reduced to really bad sarcasm from the cheapseats, if not straight up tapping out before he even gets started these days.

Sad
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on June 20, 2017, 09:46:38 AM
Refresh me, please. Are there posters on here that think climate change isn't happening? Or do they just believe it isn't caused by man?

In true shill fashion, the deniers are now pivoting to climate change may be real but not significantly affected by man. And when that fails they then move to their next argument that china/india/developing countries are way worse so why should we change our lifestyles/society here in the west. And when that fails then they argue if you don't live completely off-grid, ride a bike everywhere, only eat vegan, then you are hypocrite and shouldn't even try to live a cleaner life. And when that fails they say the collection data and models are flawed, despite many studies and science refuting their claims. And on, and on, and on.

But really what it all boils down to is that they are change-averse. They can't handle having to adjust their decisions/lives or having the government put in place regulations that force them to think about the impacts of the status quo. They grasp with all their might to save 50k coal jobs, dying industries, and nostalgia to a bygone era when you could burn tires in your back yard, fill up with leaded gasoline, and sit by grandpas bedside while he died of black lung.

Sad. Almost feel bad for them. My only solace is that they will soon die and not have to bear the discomfort of having to breathe clean air or drink clean water... And we can all move on from their willful ignorance and join the rest of the modern world, embracing technological progress, alternative energy, building efficiency, and sustainability.

RIP deniers.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 09:51:53 AM
Refresh me, please. Are there posters on here that think climate change isn't happening? Or do they just believe it isn't caused by man?

In true shill fashion, the deniers are now pivoting to climate change may be real but not significantly affected by man. And when that fails they then move to their next argument that china/india/developing countries are way worse so why should we change our lifestyles/society here in the west. And when that fails then they argue if you don't live completely off-grid, ride a bike everywhere, only eat vegan, then you are hypocrite and shouldn't even try to live a cleaner life. And when that fails they say the collection data and models are flawed, despite many studies and science refuting their claims. And on, and on, and on.

But really what it all boils down to is that they are change-averse. They can't handle having to adjust their decisions/lives or having the government put in place regulations that force them to think about the impacts of the status quo. They grasp with all their might to save 50k coal jobs, dying industries, and nostalgia to a bygone era when you could burn tires in your back yard, fill up with leaded gasoline, and sit by grandpas bedside while he died of black lung.

Sad. Almost feel bad for them. My only solace is that they will soon die and not have to bear the discomfort of having to breathe clean air or drink clean water... And we can all move on from their willful ignorance and join the rest of the modern world, embracing technological progress, alternative energy, building efficiency, and sustainability.

RIP deniers.

LOL, the simple facts are the biggest advocates of AGW, are also some of the biggest individual consumers of fossil fuels on the planet.   Always willing to hop into airplanes and fly all over the planet to tell everyone else how they need to live their lives.  But I digress.

Just because you want to hook your wagon to an utterly meaningless Paris Accord which affords absolutely ZERO accountability to some of the biggest polluters (countries) on the planet, doesn't mean it shouldn't be subjected to the scorn and ridicule it so rightly deserves.

As we've discussed.  AGW propagandists are once again being shown trying to play both sides of the coin in order to advance their political agenda.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on June 20, 2017, 10:11:18 AM
Refresh me, please. Are there posters on here that think climate change isn't happening? Or do they just believe it isn't caused by man?

In true shill fashion, the deniers are now pivoting to climate change may be real but not significantly affected by man. And when that fails they then move to their next argument that china/india/developing countries are way worse so why should we change our lifestyles/society here in the west. And when that fails then they argue if you don't live completely off-grid, ride a bike everywhere, only eat vegan, then you are hypocrite and shouldn't even try to live a cleaner life. And when that fails they say the collection data and models are flawed, despite many studies and science refuting their claims. And on, and on, and on.

But really what it all boils down to is that they are change-averse. They can't handle having to adjust their decisions/lives or having the government put in place regulations that force them to think about the impacts of the status quo. They grasp with all their might to save 50k coal jobs, dying industries, and nostalgia to a bygone era when you could burn tires in your back yard, fill up with leaded gasoline, and sit by grandpas bedside while he died of black lung.

Sad. Almost feel bad for them. My only solace is that they will soon die and not have to bear the discomfort of having to breathe clean air or drink clean water... And we can all move on from their willful ignorance and join the rest of the modern world, embracing technological progress, alternative energy, building efficiency, and sustainability.

RIP deniers.

LOL, the simple facts are the biggest advocates of AGW, are also some of the biggest individual consumers of fossil fuels on the planet.   Always willing to hop into airplanes and fly all over the planet to tell everyone else how they need to live their lives.  But I digress.

Just because you want to hook your wagon to an utterly meaningless Paris Accord which affords absolutely ZERO accountability to some of the biggest polluters (countries) on the planet, doesn't mean it shouldn't be subjected to the scorn and ridicule it so rightly deserves.

As we've discussed.  AGW propagandists are once again being shown trying to play both sides of the coin in order to advance their political agenda.

So because the Paris Accord doesn't go far enough to address climate change the US should then lead the rest of the world by throwing the whole thing in trash? Doesn't that conflict with your viewpoint that climate change isn't a big deal? Great logic, dax!

And to say that the people trying to change things are some of the biggest polluters and because of that we shouldn't listen to them is another logical fallacy. It neither refutes what they are saying or why we should change.

You (and your ilk) are so woefully wrapped up in conspiracy theories that you are blind from seeing and accepting the science and facts right in front of you, supported by people educated and devoted to studying it. "If obama, the liberals, and europeans want it then it must be wrong and they must be trying to trick us! TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP! MAGA!"

Sad.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 10:18:14 AM
Refresh me, please. Are there posters on here that think climate change isn't happening? Or do they just believe it isn't caused by man?

In true shill fashion, the deniers are now pivoting to climate change may be real but not significantly affected by man. And when that fails they then move to their next argument that china/india/developing countries are way worse so why should we change our lifestyles/society here in the west. And when that fails then they argue if you don't live completely off-grid, ride a bike everywhere, only eat vegan, then you are hypocrite and shouldn't even try to live a cleaner life. And when that fails they say the collection data and models are flawed, despite many studies and science refuting their claims. And on, and on, and on.

But really what it all boils down to is that they are change-averse. They can't handle having to adjust their decisions/lives or having the government put in place regulations that force them to think about the impacts of the status quo. They grasp with all their might to save 50k coal jobs, dying industries, and nostalgia to a bygone era when you could burn tires in your back yard, fill up with leaded gasoline, and sit by grandpas bedside while he died of black lung.

Sad. Almost feel bad for them. My only solace is that they will soon die and not have to bear the discomfort of having to breathe clean air or drink clean water... And we can all move on from their willful ignorance and join the rest of the modern world, embracing technological progress, alternative energy, building efficiency, and sustainability.

RIP deniers.

LOL, the simple facts are the biggest advocates of AGW, are also some of the biggest individual consumers of fossil fuels on the planet.   Always willing to hop into airplanes and fly all over the planet to tell everyone else how they need to live their lives.  But I digress.

Just because you want to hook your wagon to an utterly meaningless Paris Accord which affords absolutely ZERO accountability to some of the biggest polluters (countries) on the planet, doesn't mean it shouldn't be subjected to the scorn and ridicule it so rightly deserves.

As we've discussed.  AGW propagandists are once again being shown trying to play both sides of the coin in order to advance their political agenda.

So because the Paris Accord doesn't go far enough to address climate change the US should then lead the rest of the world by throwing the whole thing in trash? Doesn't that conflict with your viewpoint that climate change isn't a big deal? Great logic, dax!  (LOL, climate change, which has occurred since earth existed is always a "big deal", after all climate change buried much of North America under hundreds if not thousands of feet of ice at one time.   The encroachment of the ice and the retreat of the ice formed much of topography we have today which in turn defines all matter of our geological existence.   Just because you're all in on AGW doesn't mean others don't understand or get the impact of climate change.  Idiotic comment CAM).

And to say that the people trying to change things are some of the biggest polluters and because of that we shouldn't listen to them is another logical fallacy. It neither refutes what they are saying or why we should change.  (This is not a difficult concept, it's not the least bit surprising that you're willing to give AGW advocates a pass on their massive hypocrisy).

You (and your ilk) are so woefully wrapped up in conspiracy theories that you are blind from seeing and accepting the science and facts right in front of you, supported by people educated and devoted to studying it. "If obama, the liberals, and europeans want it then it must be wrong and they must be trying to trick us! TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP! MAGA!"   (Just more droll from a guy who will never get it.  You literally end every one of your amateurish screeds with the same dribble.  Sad indeed)

Sad.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on June 20, 2017, 10:23:37 AM
You do realize that the last ice age was due to a global extinction level event (impact from more than likely an asteroid or comet) not just a random fluctuation in the earths climate, right? Ya know that thing that killed off all the dinosaurs.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 10:26:54 AM
You do realize that the last ice age was due to a global extinction level event (impact from more than likely an asteroid or comet) not just a random fluctuation in the earths climate, right? Ya know that thing that killed off all the dinosaurs.

Who said or claimed a "random fluctuation".   There's also been a series of "mini" ice ages over the Earth's history.   In fact, AGW'ers have done their best to erase the last mini ice age right off the record books. 

Remember, in the 1970's, the headlines were that were headed to another ice age. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 20, 2017, 10:32:22 AM
Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 20, 2017, 10:35:10 AM
Dax, what do you think of Pruitt saying that Trump and the administration have created 50k coal jobs since taking office? Any opinion on Pruitt appointing Oil/Gas/Extraction/Production lobbyists to the EPA?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/06/pruitts-claim-that-almost-50000-jobs-have-been-gained-in-coal/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/06/pruitts-claim-that-almost-50000-jobs-have-been-gained-in-coal/)
https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-patrick-traylor-2440855827.html (https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-patrick-traylor-2440855827.html)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 10:36:46 AM
Wind and solar accounted for less than a quarter of the energy consumed from biomass consumption (wood, poop, leaves etc). 

Accounting for less than 2% of total energy consumed in 2015.

Just 98% more to go even after trillions in mandated investment into wind and solar worldwide.   Gosh, just don't see how the concept of energy poverty could be denied given the amount of consumer funds that have been extracted from the masses to bolster a system that produces less than 2% of the worlds power.









Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on June 20, 2017, 10:37:59 AM
Well the last mini ice age in the late 1880's was linked to a very significant eruption of the volcano Krakatoa but that does not fit your narrative does it?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 10:44:23 AM
Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

(http://www.jookos.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Time-magazine-mid-70s-vs-now-climate.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBSJN3GV0AARwbT.jpg)


(http://climatechangenationalforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Ice-Age.png)




LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 10:47:25 AM
Well the last mini ice age in the late 1880's was linked to a very significant eruption of the volcano Krakatoa but that does not fit your narrative does it?

Weird, have I ever said that earth's climate hasn't been impacted by solar activity, volcanic activity or anything of the sort?   The problem that people like you have, you've gone all in on  AGW.  All roads lead to AGW no matter what else is happening in terms of naturally occurring climate variability and geological activity.  Not to mention land use practices, technological capabilities of detection etc. etc.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 20, 2017, 10:49:09 AM
The time magazine cover with the penguin is fake, dax. The blue cover with the frozen guy is real, though.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on June 20, 2017, 10:50:31 AM
I would not be the least bit shocked if you were a flat earther too. sad
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 10:50:47 AM
Dax, what do you think of Pruitt saying that Trump and the administration have created 50k coal jobs since taking office? Any opinion on Pruitt appointing Oil/Gas/Extraction/Production lobbyists to the EPA?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/06/pruitts-claim-that-almost-50000-jobs-have-been-gained-in-coal/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/06/pruitts-claim-that-almost-50000-jobs-have-been-gained-in-coal/)
https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-patrick-traylor-2440855827.html (https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-patrick-traylor-2440855827.html)

Considering that after trillions have been spent on renewables and it still accounts for less than 5% of the worlds power.   What idiots like you don't get is, your renewable utopia will be built on the back of fossil fuels.

But I'm just remembering that people like you laugh at the concept of energy poverty while systems that receive more government subsidies than any other energy producing system (taxpayer money on top of the monthly bill) is still meeting so little of the worlds energy demands.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 20, 2017, 10:51:07 AM
Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 10:51:29 AM
I would not be the least bit shocked if you were a flat earther too. sad

tapping out again?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on June 20, 2017, 10:52:24 AM
I would not be the least bit shocked if you were a flat earther too. sad

tapping out again?


Yes, I refuse to argue with idiots.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 10:52:52 AM
Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

(http://www.jookos.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Time-magazine-mid-70s-vs-now-climate.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBSJN3GV0AARwbT.jpg)


(http://climatechangenationalforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Ice-Age.png)




LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 20, 2017, 10:54:47 AM
Dax, what do you think of Pruitt saying that Trump and the administration have created 50k coal jobs since taking office? Any opinion on Pruitt appointing Oil/Gas/Extraction/Production lobbyists to the EPA?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/06/pruitts-claim-that-almost-50000-jobs-have-been-gained-in-coal/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/06/pruitts-claim-that-almost-50000-jobs-have-been-gained-in-coal/)
https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-patrick-traylor-2440855827.html (https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-patrick-traylor-2440855827.html)

Considering that after trillions have been spent on renewables and it still accounts for less than 5% of the worlds power.   What idiots like you don't get is, your renewable utopia will be built on the back of fossil fuels.

But I'm just remembering that people like you laugh at the concept of energy poverty while systems that receive more government subsidies than any other energy producing system (taxpayer money on top of the monthly bill) is still meeting so little of the worlds energy demands.

Not answering the questions... Got it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 10:55:32 AM
I would not be the least bit shocked if you were a flat earther too. sad

tapping out again?


Yes, I refuse to argue with idiots.


You brought up two factors, of which I have never denied either.  Derp, Volcanoes Derp Climatic/Geological events derp.   You bring those things up yet clearly side with an agenda which purposely seeks to mitigate or completely dismiss the same in order to further its agenda.

Yes, you are an idiot.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 10:56:29 AM
Dax, what do you think of Pruitt saying that Trump and the administration have created 50k coal jobs since taking office? Any opinion on Pruitt appointing Oil/Gas/Extraction/Production lobbyists to the EPA?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/06/pruitts-claim-that-almost-50000-jobs-have-been-gained-in-coal/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/06/pruitts-claim-that-almost-50000-jobs-have-been-gained-in-coal/)
https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-patrick-traylor-2440855827.html (https://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-patrick-traylor-2440855827.html)

Considering that after trillions have been spent on renewables and it still accounts for less than 5% of the worlds power.   What idiots like you don't get is, your renewable utopia will be built on the back of fossil fuels.

But I'm just remembering that people like you laugh at the concept of energy poverty while systems that receive more government subsidies than any other energy producing system (taxpayer money on top of the monthly bill) is still meeting so little of the worlds energy demands.

Not answering the questions... Got it.

Face it, you just reconcile yourself to the reality that what you desire needs fossil fuels (lots of them) every step of the way.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 20, 2017, 10:56:49 AM
Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 20, 2017, 10:58:47 AM
One of those is fake, the other is the one that was retracted because the author was "over enthusiastic". Smdh dax, how about some infowars links next?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 11:01:22 AM
Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 20, 2017, 11:01:59 AM
Let this sink in, dax the denier just posted a photoshopped time magazine cover as proof that global warming is a hoax by the Chinese
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 11:02:25 AM
One of those is fake, the other is the one that was retracted because the author was "over enthusiastic". Smdh dax, how about some infowars links next?

You bring so little any more.

Sad
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 20, 2017, 11:03:00 AM
Let this sink in, dax the denier just posted a photoshopped time magazine cover as proof that global warming is a hoax by the Chinese
:ROFL:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 20, 2017, 11:05:52 AM
Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).

Flailing... Wildly.
http://exxonknew.org/timeline/ (http://exxonknew.org/timeline/)
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016 (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016)
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public)


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 11:10:14 AM
Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).

Flailing... Wildly.
http://exxonknew.org/timeline/ (http://exxonknew.org/timeline/)
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016 (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016)
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public)

That's what I call playing fast and loose with "lying to the public", you implied that there was some sort of broad based consumer disinformation campaign.   That's nothing more than stuff out of beltway lobbying 101, which the vast majority of American's pay no attention to or don't even know even exists.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 20, 2017, 11:10:51 AM
You do realize that the last ice age was due to a global extinction level event (impact from more than likely an asteroid or comet) not just a random fluctuation in the earths climate, right? Ya know that thing that killed off all the dinosaurs.

This isn't even remotely true. The last major "ice age" - the Pleistocene Epoch - occurred long, long, looooong after the dinosaurs were gone, and while it is certainly possible that a comet impact could cause an ice age, scientists generally agree that ice ages are caused by a complex relationship between things like ocean current, atmospheric composition, distance from the sun, intensity of solar radiation, etc.

I'm not even sure what point you were trying to make, but your statement was so utterly silly that you should probably just stop now.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 20, 2017, 11:12:02 AM
Be cool man, dax is feeling a little embarrassed over his depantsing earlier. No need to rub his face in it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 20, 2017, 11:13:32 AM
Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).

Flailing... Wildly.
http://exxonknew.org/timeline/ (http://exxonknew.org/timeline/)
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016 (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016)
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public)

That's what I call playing fast and loose with "lying to the public", you implied that there was some sort of broad based consumer disinformation campaign.   That's nothing more than stuff out of beltway lobbying 101, which the vast majority of American's pay no attention to or don't even know even exists.

Ok, Dax. Do you have a tattoo on your forehead that says "gullible"? How about "In Exxon We Trust"? 'Cause you sure do put a lot of trust in them!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 20, 2017, 11:14:16 AM
dax did you know that cover was completely fake or did you get duped by another website?  It is a pretty good totally fake cover I have to say
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 11:14:27 AM
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/doc/147902052.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=&type=historic&date=washingtonpost+%2C+&author=Washington+Post+Staff+Writer%3B+By+David+R.+Boldt&pub=The+Washington+Post%2C+Times+Herald+%281959-1973%29&desc=Colder+Winters+Held+Dawn+of+New+Ice+Age&pqatl=top_retrieves

Plus, lol at Newsweek, actually coming back three decades later, in the midsts of AGW hysteria saying that they "got it wrong" thirty years earlier.

http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-prediction-perils-111927

Propagandists playing every side of the coin . . . again.

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 11:16:00 AM
Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).

Flailing... Wildly.
http://exxonknew.org/timeline/ (http://exxonknew.org/timeline/)
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016 (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016)
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public)

That's what I call playing fast and loose with "lying to the public", you implied that there was some sort of broad based consumer disinformation campaign.   That's nothing more than stuff out of beltway lobbying 101, which the vast majority of American's pay no attention to or don't even know even exists.

Ok, Dax. Do you have a tattoo on your forehead that says "gullible"? How about "In Exxon We Trust"? 'Cause you sure do put a lot of trust in them!

No, I just understand the difference between a mass consumer driven marketing campaign, and what corporations send their lobbyists up from K street to talk to congress people about most behind closed doors.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 11:16:49 AM
dax did you know that cover was completely fake or did you get duped by another website?  It is a pretty good totally fake cover I have to say

There was a Time or Newsweek cover from that time, that was very similar.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 20, 2017, 11:19:16 AM
Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).

Flailing... Wildly.
http://exxonknew.org/timeline/ (http://exxonknew.org/timeline/)
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016 (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016)
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public)

That's what I call playing fast and loose with "lying to the public", you implied that there was some sort of broad based consumer disinformation campaign.   That's nothing more than stuff out of beltway lobbying 101, which the vast majority of American's pay no attention to or don't even know even exists.

Ok, Dax. Do you have a tattoo on your forehead that says "gullible"? How about "In Exxon We Trust"? 'Cause you sure do put a lot of trust in them!

No, I just understand the difference between a mass consumer driven marketing campaign, and what corporations send their lobbyists up from K street to talk to congress people about most behind closed doors.

It's so hard to keep up with what you view as normal k-street stuff and what you view as corruption/disinformation! It's almost like if they are republicans it is cool and if they are democrats it's bad.

 :ROFL:

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 11:22:33 AM
Links to those headlines? Must have been a lot of them to make such an impression on you and not just one article once that the author retracted a year later

LOL, AGW propagandists (like you) have been trying to make this go away for years. 

LOL, you're implying that global warming propagandist articles (white papers) are not ever retracted and that there hasn't been a steady admission that the models were way off.

Dax, do you think science changes based on new information? Or do you view science as static? What about Exxon admitting that CO2 is heavily impacting climate change?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

You're so dumb, you don't get that I basically just showed that science changes all the time.   That's why your propaganda that the "science is settled" on AGW is patently absurd and anti-science.

And exxon knowing about manmade CO2 climate impacts since 1977, but pumping out propoganda contrary to it?

First off, what you're implying is that they everybody duped.   I don't recall any Exxon campaign on any broad scale to convince people CO2 wasn't a problem.   I mean, you guys can't answer simple (but actually extremely complex) questions, like, "What is the optimal level of CO2 PPM in earths atmosphere?"  If your science is "settled' then certainly you can tell us what is the best level of CO2 content in the atmosphere, is, right?   Of course you are so dumb you don't see that this is how fear mongering propaganda is born.    You want to fix a problem that you can't even properly define or even categorically say is a problem (if you're being truthful).

Flailing... Wildly.
http://exxonknew.org/timeline/ (http://exxonknew.org/timeline/)
http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016 (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/got-science/2016/got-science-may-2016)
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/12/13188/rex-tillerson-and-exxon-spent-big-climate-change-denial-while-misleading-public)

That's what I call playing fast and loose with "lying to the public", you implied that there was some sort of broad based consumer disinformation campaign.   That's nothing more than stuff out of beltway lobbying 101, which the vast majority of American's pay no attention to or don't even know even exists.

Ok, Dax. Do you have a tattoo on your forehead that says "gullible"? How about "In Exxon We Trust"? 'Cause you sure do put a lot of trust in them!

No, I just understand the difference between a mass consumer driven marketing campaign, and what corporations send their lobbyists up from K street to talk to congress people about most behind closed doors.

It's so hard to keep up with what you view as normal k-street stuff and what you view as corruption/disinformation! It's almost like if they are republicans it is cool and if they are democrats it's bad.

 :ROFL:

First of all, I've discussed Big Energy on here many times (t sucks to try and talk to an idiot who keeps covering stuff from a 100 pages ago).   What idiots like you don't get is they hold the patents many of the things that you hold so dear, including the licensing on the majority of the carbon trading systems in existence.

But you're too stupid to realize that you implied that there was some sort of mass consumer oriented disinformation campaign and what you just showed me was nothing more than politicking.   I'm sure in about two minutes I can drum up enough BS that was used to drive trillions in taxpayer investment in wind/solar which still only meets 2% of the worlds energy needs.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 11:35:53 AM
(http://cdn.mrc.org/archive/bmi/uploads/images/nty-timeline.jpg)

(http://cdn.mrc.org/archive/bmi/uploads/images/nty-timeline2.jpg)

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 20, 2017, 12:06:42 PM
I would not be the least bit shocked if you were a flat earther too. sad

tapping out again?


Yes, I refuse to argue with idiots.

Avoid talking in front of mirrors.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 20, 2017, 12:11:49 PM
(http://cdn.mrc.org/archive/bmi/uploads/images/nty-timeline.jpg)

(http://cdn.mrc.org/archive/bmi/uploads/images/nty-timeline2.jpg)

I'm sorry dax but I can no longer take any information from you on this subject as credible without sources.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 12:18:43 PM
You can look it up yourself.  Source, direct quote and dates. 

Put down the bong and quit being lazy.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 12:24:00 PM
Here, lib, since you're so lazy, I'll help out a little.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9906E2DC1239E63BBC4951DFB366838E669EDE

I wonder if those, you know, got retracted 30 years later.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 20, 2017, 12:29:08 PM
I'm not going to waste my time on more fake evidence dax, you did this to yourself. Sad, but I think we can close this thread
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 12:31:09 PM
I'm not going to waste my time on more fake evidence dax, you did this to yourself. Sad, but I think we can close this thread

I can admit I forgot about the fake Time cover.  You implied there was a singular article.

So, that's about right.  Best to admit that you really suck at this (and you have, good for you) when you try and engage. 

Sad

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 20, 2017, 12:38:41 PM
dax did you know that cover was completely fake or did you get duped by another website?  It is a pretty good totally fake cover I have to say

There was a Time or Newsweek cover from that time, that was very similar.

The similar cover was from 2007.

(http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2007/1101070409_400.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on June 20, 2017, 12:50:34 PM
This is tough to watch Dax flail around not being able to post his usual infowars links anymore. Sad.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 20, 2017, 12:52:45 PM
This is tough to watch Dax flail around not being able to post his usual infowars links anymore. Sad.

Given the amount of whackadoo conspiracies the resident left comes up with, it would seem they're (you're) channeling their inner Alex Jones.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 21, 2017, 09:42:06 AM
The real story here is not that the models got it all wrong, we've known the models are severely flawed for a long time (but let's continue to drive policy off of them anyway).

The real (but not surprising) story is the persistent attempts to message the data by Warmist Alarmist "consensus" Scientists to make the pause disappear (like they make so many other things disappear through data manipulation).

 https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/20/the-new-consensus-on-global-warming-a-shocking-admission-by-team-climate/

Quote
What’s interesting, though, is Santer and his co-authors say their paper is “unlikely to reconcile the divergent schools of thought regarding the causes of differences between modeled and observed warming rates.”

#(un)knownscience

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 26, 2017, 03:18:10 PM
Scientists again confirm through multiple sources in multiple locations that the oceans (and thus the globe) are warming... Rapidly.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/26/new-study-confirms-the-oceans-are-warming-rapidly (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/26/new-study-confirms-the-oceans-are-warming-rapidly)
:fan-1:

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/d04759366e8ef111c404f977e4e1ee3502332e0e/0_0_709_765/master/709.jpg?w=965&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=98a55f32682f98321d10a0121f51c82d)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 26, 2017, 03:23:59 PM
I'll wait a few pages before I decide what to believe. Tia.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 26, 2017, 03:45:08 PM
Weird, the warmest alarmist also basically admitted that the pause in increasing temps (I won't get into their persistent data manipulation that cools the past to make the today look warmer) that went on for twenty years (while they were saying it was getting warmer) was in fact real.

#settledscience
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on June 26, 2017, 03:46:23 PM
Scientists again confirm through multiple sources in multiple locations that the oceans (and thus the globe) are warming... Rapidly.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/26/new-study-confirms-the-oceans-are-warming-rapidly (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jun/26/new-study-confirms-the-oceans-are-warming-rapidly)
:fan-1:

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/d04759366e8ef111c404f977e4e1ee3502332e0e/0_0_709_765/master/709.jpg?w=965&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=98a55f32682f98321d10a0121f51c82d)

But, but, but we don't know what the optimal ocean temperature even is.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 26, 2017, 03:52:49 PM
Ah yes, The Guardian, possibly the greatest propaganda conduit the Warmist Alarmists have.

Good to see their back in-line with the company line.

In other great news, according to Richard Branson (huge polluter BTW, built his fortune on the back of fossil fuels) is saying that more companies are going to start doing their own R&D on "green" energy sources because of the U.S. decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement.   Fantastic news for the U.S. taxpayers who, based solely on the agreement would have been the only ones footing any bills for anything (already down with a cool billion bucks), while the rest of the major polluters were phoning it in and going to get back to us in 20-30 years.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 26, 2017, 04:11:56 PM
https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761

Translated:  Every Tesla and Nissan Leaf battery produced under current  production methods equals 7 or 8 years of emissions from a typical modern internal combustion engine. 

Battery powered cars:  Leading to a worse tomorrow?

#moregovernmentsubsidies!






Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on June 26, 2017, 04:26:04 PM
Weird, the warmest alarmist also basically admitted that the pause in increasing temps (I won't get into their persistent data manipulation that cools the past to make the today look warmer) that went on for twenty years (while they were saying it was getting warmer) was in fact real.

#settledscience

So... You're not going to address the study or the science? Got it.

#daxipad
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 26, 2017, 04:26:54 PM
Weird, the warmest alarmist also basically admitted that the pause in increasing temps (I won't get into their persistent data manipulation that cools the past to make the today look warmer) that went on for twenty years (while they were saying it was getting warmer) was in fact real.

#settledscience

So... You're not going to address the study or the science? Got it.

#daxipad

Phogistan Sock?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 26, 2017, 04:30:48 PM
I have no doubt that they're finding that the oceans are warming.   We just in the last few years got access to a buoy system that's providing data that's never been obtainable before in history.  We're comparing unprecedented levels of data against data that was either collected in extremely primitive manner relative to today's technology and/or data that didn't exist at all. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on June 26, 2017, 04:45:06 PM
https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761

Translated:  Every Tesla and Nissan Leaf battery produced under current  production methods equals 7 or 8 years of emissions from a typical modern internal combustion engine. 

Battery powered cars:  Leading to a worse tomorrow?

#moregovernmentsubsidies!

It said,  "2.7 years for a battery of the same size as the Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of the Tesla-size." Not 7-8 years. I would be interested to know how much the drilling, transport, processing, and delivery of gas/oil accounts for when comparing natural gas vehicles.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 26, 2017, 04:50:44 PM
https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761

Translated:  Every Tesla and Nissan Leaf battery produced under current  production methods equals 7 or 8 years of emissions from a typical modern internal combustion engine. 

Battery powered cars:  Leading to a worse tomorrow?

#moregovernmentsubsidies!

It said,  "2.7 years for a battery of the same size as the Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of the Tesla-size." Not 7-8 years. I would be interested to know how much the drilling, transport, processing, and delivery of gas/oil accounts for when comparing natural gas vehicles.

The road to the green utopia is paved with fossil fuels friend.   

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on June 26, 2017, 06:19:26 PM
Weird, the warmest alarmist also basically admitted that the pause in increasing temps (I won't get into their persistent data manipulation that cools the past to make the today look warmer) that went on for twenty years (while they were saying it was getting warmer) was in fact real.

#settledscience

So... You're not going to address the study or the science? Got it.

#daxipad

I didn't notice any science in that article.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on June 26, 2017, 07:10:31 PM
Weird, the warmest alarmist also basically admitted that the pause in increasing temps (I won't get into their persistent data manipulation that cools the past to make the today look warmer) that went on for twenty years (while they were saying it was getting warmer) was in fact real.

#settledscience

So... You're not going to address the study or the science? Got it.

#daxipad

I didn't notice any science in that article.

It's almost as if you are blind to what is right in front of you, deniers.

"There’s just no reasoning with Perry’s kind of denial. After watching spats like this for more than a decade now, I’ve come to the realization that there is no graph, no chart, no international consensus statement, no engraved stone tablet lowered from heaven that could convince someone who — by choice — refuses to believe a fact. It doesn’t matter to them how confident the scientific community is. And we’ve reached the point where debating denial is a waste of time."

https://grist.org/article/the-fact-is-facts-dont-matter-to-climate-deniers/amp/ (https://grist.org/article/the-fact-is-facts-dont-matter-to-climate-deniers/amp/)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 26, 2017, 07:11:38 PM
https://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-utslapp-fran-elbilarnas-batterier-6851761

Translated:  Every Tesla and Nissan Leaf battery produced under current  production methods equals 7 or 8 years of emissions from a typical modern internal combustion engine. 

Battery powered cars:  Leading to a worse tomorrow?

#moregovernmentsubsidies!

It said,  "2.7 years for a battery of the same size as the Nissan Leaf and 8.2 years for a battery of the Tesla-size." Not 7-8 years. I would be interested to know how much the drilling, transport, processing, and delivery of gas/oil accounts for when comparing natural gas vehicles.

The road to the green utopia is paved with fossil fuels friend.
These are words that, while true, mean nothing.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on June 26, 2017, 07:12:55 PM
I'm going to go ahead and blame all of this rain on global warming.
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 26, 2017, 07:14:14 PM
You are fighting for a dogma that the primary body of propaganda has defined and redefined at least 3 times in the last 15 years.  Now included in the definition (quietly) is reference to natural causes. 

All roads do not lead back to AGW, no matter how many times alarmists try to make that so, and totally meltdown at the slightest hint of disagreement.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 26, 2017, 07:30:28 PM
Is temperature measured in Joules now?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 26, 2017, 08:44:55 PM
Is temperature measured in Joules now?

Did you noticed thay they added up the alleged increase in "temps" for each ocean to get "global" increase?
 :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 27, 2017, 09:06:28 AM
Just a little dumpster diving to remind CAMspittleSOCK that energy poverty is very real.   

Sad that such a denialist continues to post on this board.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/energy-poverty-low-income-households/486197/

In other news, highly taxpayer/user subsidized "green" energy is being sold by California to neighboring states for either next to nothing or even free on the days that Solar and Wind are producing too much energy, because the infrastructure is not in place to properly regulate too much energy production when the sun shines and the wind blows, and then the need to dial back traditional energy is there . . . only to have to dial it back up again when the wind doesn't blow and it's cloudy.  Too much is just as bad, as not enough (which can happen often with wind and solar as well.   Both issues only reinforce that the road to green utopia is paved with fossil fuels).

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 27, 2017, 09:23:01 AM
Just a little dumpster diving to remind CAMspittleSOCK that energy poverty is very real.   

Sad that such a denialist continues to post on this board.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/energy-poverty-low-income-households/486197/

In other news, highly taxpayer/user subsidized "green" energy is being sold by California to neighboring states for either next to nothing or even free on the days that Solar and Wind are producing too much energy, because the infrastructure is not in place to properly regulate too much energy production when the sun shines and the wind blows, and then the need to dial back traditional energy is there . . . only to have to dial it back up again when the wind doesn't blow and it's cloudy.  Too much is just as bad, as not enough (which can happen often with wind and solar as well.   Both issues only reinforce that the road to green utopia is paved with fossil fuels).

Why u mad tho?

Everything you just posted is better than the alternative of burn baby burn, and you are absolutely right that the road to a sustainable and renewable future is paved with finite fossil fuels, no one is saying to full stop all fossil fuels entirely world wide tomorrow, but it is going to take regulations and a concerted international coalition to get us closer and faster to where we need to be.

 :Pound on:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 27, 2017, 09:30:15 AM
Just a little dumpster diving to remind CAMspittleSOCK that energy poverty is very real.   

Sad that such a denialist continues to post on this board.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/energy-poverty-low-income-households/486197/

In other news, highly taxpayer/user subsidized "green" energy is being sold by California to neighboring states for either next to nothing or even free on the days that Solar and Wind are producing too much energy, because the infrastructure is not in place to properly regulate too much energy production when the sun shines and the wind blows, and then the need to dial back traditional energy is there . . . only to have to dial it back up again when the wind doesn't blow and it's cloudy.  Too much is just as bad, as not enough (which can happen often with wind and solar as well.   Both issues only reinforce that the road to green utopia is paved with fossil fuels).

Why u mad tho?

Everything you just posted is better than the alternative of burn baby burn, and you are absolutely right that the road to a sustainable and renewable future is paved with finite fossil fuels, no one is saying to full stop all fossil fuels entirely world wide tomorrow, but it is going to take regulations and a concerted international coalition to get us closer and faster to where we need to be.

 :Pound on:

I don't know if I should continue responding to the resident energy poverty denialist.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 27, 2017, 09:34:41 AM
Just a little dumpster diving to remind CAMspittleSOCK that energy poverty is very real.   

Sad that such a denialist continues to post on this board.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/06/energy-poverty-low-income-households/486197/

In other news, highly taxpayer/user subsidized "green" energy is being sold by California to neighboring states for either next to nothing or even free on the days that Solar and Wind are producing too much energy, because the infrastructure is not in place to properly regulate too much energy production when the sun shines and the wind blows, and then the need to dial back traditional energy is there . . . only to have to dial it back up again when the wind doesn't blow and it's cloudy.  Too much is just as bad, as not enough (which can happen often with wind and solar as well.   Both issues only reinforce that the road to green utopia is paved with fossil fuels).

Why u mad tho?

Everything you just posted is better than the alternative of burn baby burn, and you are absolutely right that the road to a sustainable and renewable future is paved with finite fossil fuels, no one is saying to full stop all fossil fuels entirely world wide tomorrow, but it is going to take regulations and a concerted international coalition to get us closer and faster to where we need to be.

 :Pound on:

I don't know if I should continue responding to the resident energy poverty denialist.
:ROFL:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 27, 2017, 09:37:25 AM
eff the poor, right CAM?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on June 27, 2017, 09:41:03 AM
eff the poor, right CAM?

No, no... That's the gop's stance remember? Who do you think is going to suffer the most under global warming and rising seas? The rich?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 27, 2017, 09:44:24 AM
eff the poor, right CAM?

No, no... That's the gop's stance remember? Who do you think is going to suffer the most under global warming and rising seas? The rich?

Two thoughts.  It's good to know that you support the vicious cycle of perpetual poverty in order to support your agenda.   I think if we were to pull back the demographics of "the rich" we'd find the ranks filled with hardcore libs.    You know, extolling "saving the world" while buying private islands, setting up "get away" jet service plans etc. etc.   

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on July 06, 2017, 11:35:47 AM
Pruitt = Corporate Stooge

From the "liberal media rag" the Chicago Sun-Times
"In his five months on the job, Pruitt has tried to block, delay or entirely uproot more than 30 environmental regulations. He is shredding the Clean Power Plan, designed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. He wants to revoke plans to reduce pollution in waterways. He has ended a ban on a pesticide the EPA had found was dangerous to children. He has delayed a rule to stop chemical plant explosions and spills. He has become Donald Trump’s point man in undermining America’s compliance with the Paris climate change accord and wants to gum up the works by starting a debate on whether human-caused climate change is real."

http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/scott-pruitts-short-tenure-as-epa-chief-already-a-scandal/ (http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/scott-pruitts-short-tenure-as-epa-chief-already-a-scandal/)

A real poster boy for the party that started the National Park Service and EPA.
SAD!

 :bang:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 06, 2017, 01:32:29 PM
He has a lot more work to do, imho. All of that stuff was complete bullshit, unsupported by science, and nothing but an effort to ruin certain industries.

Hopefully he's successful in returning the epa to its core mission of protecting the environment. There's nothing more disgusting than an administrative body being used as a political tool to harass legitimate business.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: slackcat on July 06, 2017, 06:35:43 PM
Article is such a waste, lib hack writing.   :buh-bye:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 06, 2017, 07:41:11 PM
We're decades and trillions away from renewables even coming remotely close to meeting energy demands.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on July 06, 2017, 07:51:46 PM
So why even try!  Burn baby burn!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 07, 2017, 05:47:07 AM
So why even try!  Burn baby burn!

Who said anything about not trying?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 07, 2017, 06:03:45 AM
Classic example of an unsettled science.

2011:  Climate change will drive more windy conditions (so lets blow up the coal plant and replace with wind farms)

2017:  Climate change is driving less windy conditions (wish we hadn't blown up that power plant).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/05/south-australia-where-did-the-wind-power-go/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Yard Dog on July 07, 2017, 12:18:59 PM
So why even try!  Burn baby burn!

I think the fiscal in me doesn't like the waste of tax dollars that go to failed research. Where the realist in me knows that actual solutions will only come out of research. . .which will only happen with the proper funding.

If I knew that funding was going to people with a real shot at changing the energy game I'd support it 100%. . .I just do not trust the bureaucracy of the federal government to make those choices wisely and without bias.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: passranch on July 07, 2017, 03:00:54 PM
So why even try!  Burn baby burn!

I think the fiscal in me doesn't like the waste of tax dollars that go to failed research. Where the realist in me knows that actual solutions will only come out of research. . .which will only happen with the proper funding.

If I knew that funding was going to people with a real shot at changing the energy game I'd support it 100%. . .I just do not trust the bureaucracy of the federal government to make those choices wisely and without bias.

That sounds like a you problem.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Tobias on July 07, 2017, 03:15:30 PM
can confirm i have not been consulted
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on July 10, 2017, 10:55:32 AM
Just another well-cited, extensively reviewed article outlining the projected future of climate change and how mumped up everything is going to be. But please, continue the blind defense of leaving global treaties and pacts that begin to start a global effort to combat the effects and causes... Grasping at straws and digging your head in the sand further.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html)

 :fan-1:
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 10, 2017, 11:43:53 AM
Nothing worse than people who believe that a treaty that requires exactly NO/ZERO action or change of behavior from a multitude of parties is actually going to accomplish anything.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on July 10, 2017, 11:44:46 AM
Cam might turn me into a daxian denier type just out of spite
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 10, 2017, 11:48:57 AM
CAM is an energy poverty denialist. 

Just read an article that new taxes in California are going to further grow the level of energy poverty in that state and widining the disposable income gap.  I'll try and find it. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on July 10, 2017, 11:52:57 AM
Cam might turn me into a daxian denier type just out of spite

Cool.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on July 10, 2017, 12:29:54 PM
Just another well-cited, extensively reviewed article outlining the projected future of climate change and how mumped up everything is going to be. But please, continue the blind defense of leaving global treaties and pacts that begin to start a global effort to combat the effects and causes... Grasping at straws and digging your head in the sand further.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html)

 :fan-1:

that article leads me to believe if the entire planet cut off 100% of fossil fuels tomorrow cold turkey, we'd still be F'd
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on July 10, 2017, 01:42:55 PM
Just another well-cited, extensively reviewed article outlining the projected future of climate change and how mumped up everything is going to be. But please, continue the blind defense of leaving global treaties and pacts that begin to start a global effort to combat the effects and causes... Grasping at straws and digging your head in the sand further.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html)

 :fan-1:

that article leads me to believe if the entire planet cut off 100% of fossil fuels tomorrow cold turkey, we'd still be F'd

Agreed. From everything I have read up to this point, my understanding is that it's not if we are going to get f'd but how bad. Basically, in a manner of speaking we can take climate change out to dinner, romance it a bit, wear protection and add lube by changing our current systems and trajectory OR we can get jumped in an alley and raw-dogged by an STD infested gang by continuing our behaviors and ignoring the science.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on July 10, 2017, 01:53:11 PM
i may end up taking my family of 8 and moving to the remote pacNW, captain fantastic style
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on July 10, 2017, 01:57:01 PM
Global Warming is going to be a boon for Canada and Alaska, etc.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Panjandrum on July 10, 2017, 02:16:26 PM
that article leads me to believe if the entire planet cut off 100% of fossil fuels tomorrow cold turkey, we'd still be F'd

This is the biggest thing...

Quote
What follows is not a series of predictions of what will happen — that will be determined in large part by the much-less-certain science of human response. Instead, it is a portrait of our best understanding of where the planet is heading absent aggressive action. It is unlikely that all of these warming scenarios will be fully realized, largely because the devastation along the way will shake our complacency. But those scenarios, and not the present climate, are the baseline. In fact, they are our schedule.

There have been some good signs lately in terms of action.  The G20, minus us, reaffirmed their commitment to Paris, and most signs point to market forces and state/local action helping us meet (and possibly exceed) our targets.  Morgan Stanley just did research and found that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest form of energy there is.* Tesla is providing a new battery in South Australia that may help provide much better storage for renewables.  Volvo made the decision to go all electric/hybrid, Tesla released the Model 3, and some estmates are that at least 1/3 of all cars on the road will be fully electric by 2040.

It's not enough, right now, but there's positive momentum. I've read some other analysts who say we're underestimating how fast solar is going to grow.  So, I'm hopeful.

A 2 degree rise is likely to happen.  There isn't much that can stop that unless we find ways to extract carbon.  If you believe like a lot of futurists do (i.e. Kurzwell, Burke), we'll be hitting that technological singularity in the middle of the 21st century, and nanotech can help us reverse some of the negative effects of climate change.  While NASA, SpaceX, and others continue to work on a Mars colony, what we learn from trying to terraform Mars can be used here on some scale.  A lot of these things all come to a head between 2040-2050 by most estimates, which is when some MIT research from earlier this year says we need to be well on the road to zero carbon. 

Also, the amount of carbon is a sliding scale if we're able to reduce methane, etc.

I think what the NY Mag put out there serves a purpose, and that's to try and spur some action, but I think we'll ultimately be alright on some level.  There's no time to procrastinate, but I don't think most are. Ultimately, what Trump, Republicans, etc. are trying to do with fossil fuels right now will ultimately fail. There's no going back now. We've reached a confluence where most of the world sees an existential threat, business sees an economic threat, and governments see a host of very expensive problems that only get more expensive if they don't act now.

*http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-energy-renewables-cheapest-power-says-morgan-stanley-2017-7 (http://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-energy-renewables-cheapest-power-says-morgan-stanley-2017-7)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 10, 2017, 02:40:18 PM
No warmist alarmist should be taken seriously on this issue until the concept (that is embedded in warmist alarmist dogma) that all roads lead to AGW is eradicated.   Even the 3rd edition of the IPCC's so called definition of climate change NOW includes natural climate variability. 









Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 10, 2017, 02:42:32 PM
BTW, you Cali residents should probably prepare the UPS's and Standby Generators on 8/21, just in case.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on July 10, 2017, 02:53:36 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sixth-mass-extinction-biological-annihilation/
At the end of the article guess what the cause is?  Doggabit humans.  Global warming, over population, hunting, tree killing, road building, unnatural sexual act ........
I thought we had evolution to help critters adapt.  Maybe species are devolving with messed up gene pools.  Maybe we are losing polar bears due to retardation?  Deer are getting more stupid too.  I blame this on the Chinese.  They throw invasive species in containers coming to America and these critters have killed our pine trees and ruined fishing holes.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on July 10, 2017, 03:07:05 PM
No warmist alarmist should be taken seriously on this issue until the concept (that is embedded in warmist alarmist dogma) that all roads lead to AGW is eradicated.   Even the 3rd edition of the IPCC's so called definition of climate change NOW includes natural climate variability.

one great thing about natural climate variability is that we know for sure it hasn't wiped out 97% of life on earth at any time in history.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 10, 2017, 03:24:02 PM
No warmist alarmist should be taken seriously on this issue until the concept (that is embedded in warmist alarmist dogma) that all roads lead to AGW is eradicated.   Even the 3rd edition of the IPCC's so called definition of climate change NOW includes natural climate variability.

one great thing about natural climate variability is that we know for sure it hasn't wiped out 97% of life on earth at any time in history.

So AGW is going to wipe out 97% of life on earth? 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: mocat on July 10, 2017, 03:31:20 PM
No warmist alarmist should be taken seriously on this issue until the concept (that is embedded in warmist alarmist dogma) that all roads lead to AGW is eradicated.   Even the 3rd edition of the IPCC's so called definition of climate change NOW includes natural climate variability.

one great thing about natural climate variability is that we know for sure it hasn't wiped out 97% of life on earth at any time in history.

So AGW is going to wipe out 97% of life on earth?

who knows? what we do know is that natural climate variability is as comfortable and safe as a warm (LOL) blanket, and it has most certainly not ever wiped out almost all life on earth multiple times.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 10, 2017, 07:34:18 PM
If you think the world is going to end from agw in your lifetime, you are a fucktard.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 10, 2017, 07:36:24 PM
Mars colony  :lol:

Zero carbon  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 10, 2017, 08:19:07 PM
No warmist alarmist should be taken seriously on this issue until the concept (that is embedded in warmist alarmist dogma) that all roads lead to AGW is eradicated.   Even the 3rd edition of the IPCC's so called definition of climate change NOW includes natural climate variability.

one great thing about natural climate variability is that we know for sure it hasn't wiped out 97% of life on earth at any time in history.

So AGW is going to wipe out 97% of life on earth?

who knows? what we do know is that natural climate variability is as comfortable and safe as a warm (LOL) blanket, and it has most certainly not ever wiped out almost all life on earth multiple times.

Okay then
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: puniraptor on July 12, 2017, 03:12:43 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sixth-mass-extinction-biological-annihilation/
At the end of the article guess what the cause is?  Doggabit humans.  Global warming, over population, hunting, tree killing, road building, unnatural sexual act ........
I thought we had evolution to help critters adapt.  Maybe species are devolving with messed up gene pools.  Maybe we are losing polar bears due to retardation?  Deer are getting more stupid too.  I blame this on the Chinese.  They throw invasive species in containers coming to America and these critters have killed our pine trees and ruined fishing holes.
Blame emo. Hunters only take the prime examples. Nobody wants to snipe the ugly lumpy lopsided elk.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on July 12, 2017, 07:22:16 AM
Burn baby burn!

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/885108317722378242
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on July 12, 2017, 08:02:36 AM
We don't know what the optimal amount of ice in Antarctica even is TBT .
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on July 12, 2017, 08:06:57 AM
relax TBT it's summertime
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 12, 2017, 08:20:18 AM
 :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on July 12, 2017, 09:24:56 AM
relax TBT it's summertime

It's the middle of winter there tho
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: mocat on July 12, 2017, 09:37:02 AM
relax TBT it's summertime

It's the middle of winter there tho

oh no crap?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2017, 10:33:02 AM
Hmm per NASA it appears that current Antarctic ice extent is running just a smidge below the 1989-98 and 1999-2008 trend line.   But admittedly well below the record ice extent of 2012-2014
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2017, 10:39:42 AM
Looks like Ice Area as of 7/9 was about 12.5 million square kilometers (if I'm reading that right) which is just below the 79 to 89 trendline of about 12.8 to 13 million square kilometers.  But again, a good chunk down from the record ice area trendlines of of 2012 to 2014 which was 13.5 to 14.5 million square kilometers on July 9th.
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2017, 10:42:55 AM
FYI.  Protracted period of minimal solar activity coming up (like even lower than what has been occurring). But warmest alarmists have completely dismissed the little star known as . . . The Sun. 

So no worries guys
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on July 12, 2017, 10:45:59 AM
Dax, maps are going to have to be redrawn now. Think of the Rand McNally. Poor chaps.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2017, 11:15:28 AM
Dax, maps are going to have to be redrawn now. Think of the Rand McNally. Poor chaps.

A pickle
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Panjandrum on July 12, 2017, 11:16:35 AM
If you think the world is going to end from agw in your lifetime, you are a fucktard.

No one thinks that.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Panjandrum on July 12, 2017, 11:17:30 AM
What I've read is that this break from the Larsen C shelf has not been linked to warming as of yet.  The retreat of Larsen A and B has been.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on July 12, 2017, 11:17:39 AM
Dax, maps are going to have to be redrawn now. Think of the Rand McNally. Poor chaps.

A pickle
:D
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2017, 11:28:10 AM
Oh man, Erdogan in Turkey now isn't so sure he can get Turkey to sign that Paris Accord.

Seems he's concerned about not getting his money now. 

Weird.   

Lots of money?  Yes, yes, we'll sign (and then do nothing . . . but collect the money).



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on July 12, 2017, 11:29:21 AM
That is definitely a world leader that others should take their ques from.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2017, 11:39:08 AM
That is definitely a world leader that others should take their ques from.

Agreed, we can all support a "show me the money" kind of guy when (according to resident warmist alarmists) the fate of the entire planet is on the line.

 :thumbsup:

Get Erdogan on a video conference!

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on July 12, 2017, 11:42:46 AM
So it's us, turkey, and syria now. Pretty good company, I can see why dax is so pumped about this  :thumbs:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on July 12, 2017, 11:44:32 AM
So it's us, turkey, and syria now. Pretty good company, I can see why dax is so pumped about this  :thumbs:

Don't forget Nicaragua. Nicaragua said it wasn't tough enough.  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on July 12, 2017, 11:46:37 AM
I can't wait for best buds,  dax and erdogan, to really show all these hoaxy warmists alarmists wtf is really going on 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on July 12, 2017, 11:52:03 AM
Everything is fine guys

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/sea-level-rise-flood-global-warming-science/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2017, 11:53:07 AM
I can't wait for best buds,  dax and erdogan, to really show all these hoaxy warmists alarmists wtf is really going on

Well lib, I know you don't remember much  :bong: but in other threads I lamented Erdogan's consolidation of power and apparent attempt to move Turkey into an even greater theocratic mindset, when Turkey had been more of a model of governmental secularism relative to other Islamic oriented nations.    In essence the Middle East was and is on the cusp consisting exclusively of highly theocratic Islamic governments (which would include multiple U.S. allies) and one predominately secular albeit Judeo Christian leaning country.

But, details, ya know.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2017, 11:56:35 AM
Everything is fine guys

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/sea-level-rise-flood-global-warming-science/

Say TBT, what level of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to prevent this sea level rise?   A really indepth article BTW, filled with lots of data and science.

Thanks!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on July 12, 2017, 11:56:59 AM
Sounds exactly like the type of bro we should agree on climate change with  :billdance:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2017, 11:58:47 AM
Sounds exactly like the type of bro we should agree on climate change with  :billdance:

Yep, dude was ready to agree with anythng, as long as he got paid.

True humanitarian right there.  :thumbsup:



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on July 12, 2017, 12:26:17 PM
Everything is fine guys

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/sea-level-rise-flood-global-warming-science/

Say TBT, what level of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to prevent this sea level rise?   A really indepth article BTW, filled with lots of data and science.

Thanks!

Glad you found it helpful :thumbs:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 13, 2017, 08:39:38 AM
If you think the world is going to end from agw in your lifetime, you are a fucktard.

No one thinks that.

Okay, mars colony guy
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on July 14, 2017, 03:43:49 PM
Well hell is breaking lose.  Antarctica is coming apart, and I just read polar bears are going to start eating humans; gonna get on a train and go to NY.  I suppose to eat winoes.  Too bad they won't eat rats.  I am not sure how to solve the ice melt, but we can shoot the man eating bastard; on second thought this could be skewered as being a rabid hydrophobe.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 15, 2017, 07:45:07 AM
Think about this too, it's winter in Antarctica! :runaway:

Remember titanic? Huge ice bergs crushing cruise ships all over the north atlantic. Global warming was full steam ahead 100 years ago.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 15, 2017, 05:17:49 PM
Jack could have fit on that door
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 17, 2017, 07:55:30 AM
Maybe about 3 decades of kind of knowing what goes on in Antarctica and having the technology to kind of get the whole picture. 

But . . . Unprecedented
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on July 17, 2017, 08:02:45 AM
Hoax!!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 17, 2017, 10:40:45 AM
Hoax!!

Still so angry at pretty much everything these days.

Sad, so very very sad.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on July 17, 2017, 11:43:40 AM
Hoax!!

Still so angry at pretty much everything these days.

Sad, so very very sad.

jfc, how sad this is always dax's fall back
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Brock Landers on July 17, 2017, 12:56:33 PM
Jack could have fit on that door

Not a good look for Rose.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on July 17, 2017, 12:59:07 PM
(https://images7.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED772/5952c0fa54f55.jpeg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 17, 2017, 01:20:08 PM
Hoax!!

Still so angry at pretty much everything these days.

Sad, so very very sad.

First off, where did I call anything a hoax?   It's weird that the two guys who bring the least to this forum sound exactly the same.  Socks?


jfc, how sad this is always dax's fall back

Anybody seen candyman and lib in the same room at the same time?

I mention we've only had the capability of studying the antarctic in a fashion that's even remotely holistic for about 20-30 years tops, and that means I'm calling things a hoax?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on July 17, 2017, 06:23:19 PM
We already know that's what you believe.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Tobias on July 17, 2017, 06:28:41 PM
i think I've liveblogged candyman w/ lib before
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on July 17, 2017, 07:04:25 PM
Live blog was with jakesie, movie suggestion was from me (you're welcome)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 17, 2017, 07:44:36 PM
Don't worry, the mars colony will be up in running by 2050. You guys should reserve your rooms.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 22, 2017, 07:04:39 PM
 :users:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/our-changing-news-climate-1500412008?mod=e2tw
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 03, 2017, 11:39:47 AM
I feel bad for the libs. I would hate to put my dog down to avoid being a hypocrite.

https://patch.com/california/hollywood/fido-fluffy-are-hurting-environment-ucla-study-says (https://patch.com/california/hollywood/fido-fluffy-are-hurting-environment-ucla-study-says)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on August 03, 2017, 05:33:31 PM
I am taking a day off.  Watching Fox News; binge watching and checking Drudge.  My cat is sleeping on my lap.  It farted.  Then this .....
https://patch.com/california/hollywood/fido-fluffy-are-hurting-environment-ucla-study-says
I ain't killing Clyde.  To hell with environmental nuts.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 03, 2017, 08:20:09 PM
RenoSockSB has jumped the shark
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Tobias on August 03, 2017, 08:25:17 PM
what's your cat's name reno?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: renocat on August 03, 2017, 08:52:23 PM
what's your cat's name reno?
My tomcat is named Mo.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Tobias on August 03, 2017, 09:03:21 PM
Dammit!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 03, 2017, 09:03:57 PM
Oops
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: renocat on August 03, 2017, 09:30:59 PM
Dammit!
I been known to say that to him, especially when he is gone for a few days on a breeding mission to neighboring farms or hunching my wive's cat.  Mo is short for Molester.  I guess I am contributing to global warming letting him make more kitties.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 03, 2017, 09:33:36 PM
Wive's cat's name?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on August 03, 2017, 10:03:55 PM
Wive's cat's name?
Lizzy, Lezzy, Orangie, Stupid cat
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: The Big Train on August 03, 2017, 10:07:26 PM
Wive's cat's name?
Lizzy, Lezzy, Orangie, Stupid cat

Who's wive is Stupid cat?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on August 03, 2017, 10:16:18 PM
Wive's cat's name?
Lizzy, Lezzy, Orangie, Stupid cat

Who's wive is Stupid cat?
Good one.  I got suckered in to this one big time.  Train I will get censored if I divulge my wife's pet name.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: The Big Train on August 03, 2017, 10:19:18 PM
Wive's cat's name?
Lizzy, Lezzy, Orangie, Stupid cat

Who's wive is Stupid cat?
Good one.  I got suckered in to this one big time.  Train I will get censored if I divulge my wife's pet name.

Well I mean nobody knows who you are, so why worry about that and just tell us?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on August 03, 2017, 11:30:04 PM
Wive's cat's name?
Lizzy, Lezzy, Orangie, Stupid cat

Who's wive is Stupid cat?
Good one.  I got suckered in to this one big time.  Train I will get censored if I divulge my wife's pet name.

Well I mean nobody knows who you are, so why worry about that and just tell us?
Reno-cat.  Ree-no-cat. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 03, 2017, 11:55:10 PM
I was cold at the Royals game. today is August 3rd.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Stupid Fitz on August 07, 2017, 02:40:34 PM
I was cold at the Royals game. today is August 3rd.

Debate over  :driving:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on August 07, 2017, 03:16:19 PM
Wayne Tracker is no Carlos Danger but still pretty :lol:

http://time.com/4700576/rex-tillerson-used-email-alias-exxon-climate-change-investigation/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 07, 2017, 03:50:05 PM
Wayne Tracker is no Carlos Danger but still pretty :lol:

http://time.com/4700576/rex-tillerson-used-email-alias-exxon-climate-change-investigation/

Right out of the Elizabeth Carlisle playbook.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 07, 2017, 07:36:31 PM
It's insane the boondoggles the NY AG is able to pursue solely bc the NYSE is located in NYC. He's a political hatchet man, just like the eff pros procurers and thieving assholes before him.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 09, 2017, 01:24:26 PM
And thus we have further evidence as to why the NYT's is failing:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/08/scientists-call-out-new-york-times-for-incorrect-claim-about-climate-report.html

Should we start a thread:  Will the Trump Presidency be the official end of the NYT's (and Salon, who can't pay the rent)?

When you're trying to save yourself, all negative Trump all the time is the only way to get the New McCainites (posing as libs) to look at your stuff and slurp the Kool-Aid.

Sad in a Jim Jonesian kind of way

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 09, 2017, 02:40:46 PM
I saw a ton of libtards tweet that nyt story. Haha
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on August 09, 2017, 05:23:17 PM
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/345599-usda-office-told-to-use-weather-extremes-instead-of-climate-change
Go farmers
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 09, 2017, 05:25:33 PM
Climate change hurt those little snowflakes feelings  :frown:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on August 09, 2017, 09:28:43 PM
http://mashable.com/2017/08/09/north-korea-nuclear-war-climate-change-winter/#2vU4ifQGyiqn
Well shitdoggy, Trump is going to solve global warming.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 09, 2017, 09:48:23 PM
Quote
Trump's words, threatening to meet North Korea's threats with a "fire and fury like the world has never seen" were the starkest warning of a nuclear strike from any U.S. president in modern times.

It's not just national security experts who are horrified by Trump's words. Trump's rhetoric, and history of openly considering using nuclear weapons, is also concerning to climate scientists.

A perfect summation of climate "science"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 09, 2017, 09:51:08 PM
The fact that all we have to do is detonate a few nukes to reverse centuries of agw has to be a nice warm blanket for the chicken little libtard climatephobe.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on August 10, 2017, 12:40:21 PM
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/895634473425014785
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2017, 12:54:09 PM
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/895634473425014785

The movement (or non movement) of planets/stars/moons in our solar system is infinitely more predictable than the climate of Earth.

Many of the climate models which drove the policy and attempted policy from 10-15 years ago have proven to be way off.   If planetary movement/orbit et. al. "predictability" was that far off, we'd likely be extinct.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 10, 2017, 01:18:00 PM
And the eclipse isn't a global socialist conspiracy dur
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2017, 01:58:13 PM
Every idea or opinion that is not in lock step with my self-affirmed thoughts and ideals is a conspiracy

Don't be like that McCainite Lib7

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 10, 2017, 02:56:10 PM
You might want to reread your post there friend
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2017, 03:09:35 PM
You might want to reread your post there friend

Did, awesome as always.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on August 10, 2017, 04:19:55 PM
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/895634473425014785

He's not as bright as I thought. What a stupid comparison.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 10, 2017, 08:30:42 PM
Nothing a few nukes can't solve
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bubbles4ksu on August 10, 2017, 09:01:20 PM
Nothing a few nukes can't solve
we could solve overpopulation and global warming with two ohio class boats.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on August 13, 2017, 07:47:37 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 13, 2017, 09:35:59 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa.html

When you've got holdovers from the sue and settle shakedown days of the EPA, you've got to keep them out of the room. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on August 14, 2017, 02:09:16 PM
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/1934-had-worst-drought-of-last-thousand-years/
The Little Chicken Gore environmentalists are crying about the heat spell and drought in the NW Hippieland is the worst ever; proof of global warming.  Bull crock.  CO2 emissions ain't the culprit.  Tearing up the prairie and denuding the Amazon have greater effects on weather.  Oceans are big garbage sinks and minute plant life is croa king and putting less oxygen into the atmosphere.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on August 23, 2017, 07:27:14 AM
We all know what Denyax will do when he doesn't read this article. Pretty crazy tho

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/23/climate/alaska-permafrost-thawing.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on August 23, 2017, 07:44:35 AM
We don't even know what the optimal levels of permafrost even are.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Yard Dog on August 23, 2017, 09:18:25 AM
Does that make that region more inhabitable?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on August 23, 2017, 11:22:53 AM
It's almost as if the polluters knew what was happening and its causes but put out propaganda to the contrary for decades. If only we had some evid...

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-exxonmobil-20170822-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-exxonmobil-20170822-story.html)

 :shakesfist:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 23, 2017, 06:02:39 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/12/scientists-discover-91-volcanos-antarctica

https://www.climatedepot.com/2017/08/22/new-study-multiple-lines-of-evidence-show-medieval-warm-period-was-warmer-than-today/

#settledsciencetho

#greenenergy . . . still meeting less than 10% of total world energy demand


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ChiComCat on August 24, 2017, 11:03:42 AM
So scientists are biased but Climate Depot isn't?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 24, 2017, 01:15:10 PM
So scientists are biased but Climate Depot isn't?

Don't be dense, climate depot simply posted the full article from a publication that's normally behind a pay wall.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on August 24, 2017, 07:56:11 PM
So scientists are biased but Climate Depot isn't?

Don't be dense, climate depot simply posted the full article from a publication that's normally behind a pay wall.





KSU dub is going to shame you so hard for getting your news illegally
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on August 29, 2017, 05:36:47 AM
Well here comes the Professor Chicken Littles, and their scientific sensationalism about climate change on the heels of a storm.  They lose any credibility they have.  From CBS news ......

While scientists are quick to say climate change didn't cause Harvey and that they haven't determined yet whether the storm was made worse by global warming, they do note that warmer air and water mean wetter and possibly more intense hurricanes in the future.

"This is the kind of thing we are going to get more of," said Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer. "This storm should serve as warning."

There's a scientifically accepted method for determining if some wild weather event has the fingerprints of man-made climate change, and it involves intricate calculations. Those could take weeks or months to complete, and then even longer to pass peer review.

Hogwash.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: mocat on August 29, 2017, 06:27:01 AM
Interesting read

http://splinternews.com/how-fossil-fuel-money-made-climate-denial-the-word-of-g-1797466298 (http://splinternews.com/how-fossil-fuel-money-made-climate-denial-the-word-of-g-1797466298)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 29, 2017, 06:58:09 AM
The Word of God!

4th Cat 4 or above Hurricane to hit US in last 48 years.  Prior to that in the previous time period of similar length, 14.   12 years without a land falling major hurricane (also global warming BTW). 

Houston itself has been flooded numerous times over the last 200 years, including recording water 54 feet deep in Buffalo Bayou in 1935. 

Texas has been hit by hundreds of Tropical Storms including multiple major hurricanes.

What won't be discussed as it should is the concept of building a megalopolis at 80 feet (or less) above sea level and then directing its Major drainage systems towards downtown. 

As long as the coastal areas are allowed to be built up like they are then there's going to be more events like this.   
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on August 29, 2017, 07:28:33 AM
This isn't mother natures fault, it's the citizens of Houston.

-Dax
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 29, 2017, 08:16:50 AM
The Word of God!

4th Cat 4 or above Hurricane to hit US in last 48 years.  Prior to that in the previous time period of similar length, 14.   12 years without a land falling major hurricane (also global warming BTW). 

Houston itself has been flooded numerous times over the last 200 years, including recording water 54 feet deep in Buffalo Bayou in 1935. 

Texas has been hit by hundreds of Tropical Storms including multiple major hurricanes.

What won't be discussed as it should is the concept of building a megalopolis at 80 feet (or less) above sea level and then directing its Major drainage systems towards downtown. 

As long as the coastal areas are allowed to be built up like they are then there's going to be more events like this.

I guess we could just tell people they can't live near the coasts, but we'd be giving up a whole lot of GDP to do that.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 29, 2017, 09:26:21 AM
This isn't mother natures fault, it's the citizens of Houston.

-Dax

Yeah, that's what I said downgrade.

Again, never tell anyone you went to K-State.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on August 29, 2017, 10:02:50 AM
Dax is so easy to disprove

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_4_Atlantic_hurricanes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes

Cat 4

Hurricane frequency
Period   Number   Number per year
1851–1900   13   0.26
1901–1950   29   0.58
1951–1975   22   0.88
1976–2000   24   0.96
2001–present   21   1.4

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 29, 2017, 10:10:18 AM
Dax enjoys qualifiers
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on August 29, 2017, 10:17:01 AM
Dax enjoys qualifiers

Which are *made landfall in the US. All the lists for both Cat 4 and Cat 5 prove the #s and frequency increase over time
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 29, 2017, 10:20:15 AM
Maybe he forgot which qualifiers infowars was using, ever think of that?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on August 29, 2017, 10:47:25 AM
Quote
Climate change may have helped Harvey to form and intensify

This year saw high sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, where Harvey formed. According to an analysis published in March, the Gulf stayed above 73 degrees Fahrenheit the entire winter.

At the time Harvey intensified into a Category 4 hurricane, it was over a section of the Gulf that was about 4 degrees above normal, says Martin Hoerling, a research meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo.

"The water in the Gulf of Mexico is the heat reservoir to support these hurricanes," says Ben Kirtman, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Miami. The warm water and air above the Gulf means there's more energy to drive a storm such as Harvey.

Kirtman says that doesn't mean Harvey was directly caused by climate change. Rather, climate change is shaping conditions for storms like this one. So if Harvey was a 1-in-100-year storm, for example, "maybe it becomes a storm that could happen one in 50 years, or one in 20 years, or one in 10 years," Kirtman says.

But climate change isn't completely responsible for the devastation

The key feature that makes Harvey so devastating is that it stalled out over Texas. It lingered in the same region for days, dumping rainfall over Houston that is being measured in feet, not inches.

Hoerling says that meandering storms appear to be a feature of the region. Tropical storms Claudette in 1979 and Allison in 2001 also created enormous rainfall totals because of their slow-moving characters.

And the biggest contributor might be a different man-made factor

Hoerling says the growth of the Houston metropolitan area may have a far larger influence on the storm's effects than climate change. Houston has been booming since the mid-2000s, and its ever-expanding suburbs have meant fewer natural barriers for heavy rainfall.

"As the suburbs have grown, pavement has spread," he says. That increases runoff and makes it difficult for the flat metropolitan area to drain. "The rate at which that water has to be dealt with is different than it was 40 years ago."
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 29, 2017, 12:27:24 PM
Hey candyman, has technology improved any over the last 100-120 years?

I know resident libs much prefer to play around with broadbrushed unqualified statistics, but when it comes to storms like this it's important to  qualify based on the region.   Give it try sometime.
 

It's weird, but not unexpected that lib always knows way more about what Infowars is saying than I do (or anybody else on this board for that matter).   

So, can anyone answer what PPM we need to be at in order to not make storms like Harvey dump so much moisture (even though had Harvey not stalled it would have still have likely dumped the same amount of moisture, just not as much in the same spot)?   





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on August 29, 2017, 12:55:50 PM
Hey candyman, has technology improved any over the last 100-120 years?

I know resident libs much prefer to play around with broadbrushed unqualified statistics, but when it comes to storms like this it's important to  qualify based on the region.   Give it try sometime.
 

It's weird, but not unexpected that lib always knows way more about what Infowars is saying than I do (or anybody else on this board for that matter).   

So, can anyone answer what PPM we need to be at in order to not make storms like Harvey dump so much moisture (even though had Harvey not stalled it would have still have likely dumped the same amount of moisture, just not as much in the same spot)?

You're not shifting this argument bad person. You cherry picked and lost. Try again next time.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on August 29, 2017, 02:27:21 PM
Every dang weather disaster and every malady known to  man is attributed to the  pseudo science.of global alarmism.  Don't blame God for hurricanes.  He created a perfect world watered by mist.  Then wango, eve got devil seduced and gullible Adam woman stoopid.  God kicked em out of paradise, and the world including the weather went screwy.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 29, 2017, 02:28:55 PM
That's not real bud, hate to tell you
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Cartierfor3 on August 29, 2017, 04:12:06 PM
man, i never get tired of the renocat sock
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on August 30, 2017, 09:12:20 AM
It's fascinating to go back a week or so and read what the meteorologists "forecasted" and weather centers "predicted" about Harvey and then compare to what actually and unfortunately happened (55% of the time they're right 85%?). We still can't accurately forecast/predict common reoccurring weather events like rain, clouds, air temp, etc., but climate "scientists" can immediately claim that climate change had a substantial effect on Harvey.

 :lol:
 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 30, 2017, 09:19:30 AM
Are you intentionally being a dumbass? Just wondering
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on August 30, 2017, 09:29:11 AM
Science helps us to understand why things happen, but historical is woefully inadequate is explaining the mystery of the everything.  This makes people who worship humanism cringe.  Science is their gospel, and it's infallible.  They forget science emanates from the minds of humans.  Humans that that come from the Church of Humankind.  What evil things do humans do to other human?  I gladly stand with God.  Climate change hysteria is the tool humanists are trying to use to control mankind.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Yard Dog on August 30, 2017, 09:30:43 AM
Emawican seems to be being purposefully dense. I would suggest you do a little critical thinking with your responses. Predicting the future of weather will always be more difficult than mapping trends that have already occurred.

But to be fair, every interview I have heard the interviewer was really pressing for the tie in with climate change and the expert was usually able to say something like, "it most definitely could be related to climate change." Though an expert they had on (NPR) said that the slowness of the storm (which is what is making it so devastating) has nothing to do with climate change.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 30, 2017, 09:31:44 AM
Historically, god has been a much more effective tool to control mankind
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on August 30, 2017, 09:49:34 AM
Historically, god has been a much more effective tool to control mankind
True.  Very true.  Evil uses good.  Probably why their is so much hate and loathing towards Christianity.   Man likes to find vehicles to use to control others.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Woogy on August 30, 2017, 10:12:17 AM
Though an expert they had on (NPR) said that the slowness of the storm (which is what is making it so devastating) has nothing to do with climate change.

Yes, pretty obvs just observing the weather:  High pressure parked over the plains, low pressure to the east over Ohio/Tennessee valleys created a northerly air flow between them pointed straight at east Texas blocking Harvey's pressure center from moving northeastward.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on August 30, 2017, 10:13:28 AM
Emawican seems to be being purposefully dense. I would suggest you do a little critical thinking with your responses. Predicting the future of weather will always be more difficult than mapping trends that have already occurred.

But to be fair, every interview I have heard the interviewer was really pressing for the tie in with climate change and the expert was usually able to say something like, "it most definitely could be related to climate change." Though an expert they had on (NPR) said that the slowness of the storm (which is what is making it so devastating) has nothing to do with climate change.

I'll be. Lucky for us we can easily predict the future of climate change by mapping trends that have already occurred.

Interesting that the experts aren't noting that the rise in Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes the last several decades also follows the advances in technology, and specifically satellite tech.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 30, 2017, 11:35:43 AM
Hey candyman, has technology improved any over the last 100-120 years?

I know resident libs much prefer to play around with broadbrushed unqualified statistics, but when it comes to storms like this it's important to  qualify based on the region.   Give it try sometime.
 

It's weird, but not unexpected that lib always knows way more about what Infowars is saying than I do (or anybody else on this board for that matter).   

So, can anyone answer what PPM we need to be at in order to not make storms like Harvey dump so much moisture (even though had Harvey not stalled it would have still have likely dumped the same amount of moisture, just not as much in the same spot)?

You're not shifting this argument bad person. You cherry picked and lost. Try again next time.

Oh, piss off. I couldn't have been more explicit and LOL in your dumbass face trying to compare the ability to detect, measure and study storms decades ago as compared to today. 





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Yard Dog on August 30, 2017, 11:45:06 AM
Emawican seems to be being purposefully dense. I would suggest you do a little critical thinking with your responses. Predicting the future of weather will always be more difficult than mapping trends that have already occurred.

But to be fair, every interview I have heard the interviewer was really pressing for the tie in with climate change and the expert was usually able to say something like, "it most definitely could be related to climate change." Though an expert they had on (NPR) said that the slowness of the storm (which is what is making it so devastating) has nothing to do with climate change.

I'll be. Lucky for us we can easily predict the future of climate change by mapping trends that have already occurred.

Interesting that the experts aren't noting that the rise in Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes the last several decades also follows the advances in technology, and specifically satellite tech.

I would think it is less about 100% certainty with those predictions and more about what is likely. I don't think the government should waste money subsidizing solutions that are not profitable and are relatively ineffective. But, I also think it is ludicrous to say that there isn't proof of human's affect on the atmosphere. I'm a "better safe than sorry" kind of guy on this topic. Seems silly to laugh off what so many scientists are saying. From a marketing perspective it is also horrible messaging to come across as the party that ignores science.

The messaging should be about how previous money given to renewable research has largely gone wasted instead of pushing the narrative that an entire community of intelligent people are in the pocket of the opposing party.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on September 05, 2017, 11:59:22 AM
you are the 3%

https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on September 05, 2017, 12:35:45 PM
We don't even know the optimal percentage of climate change denier papers there should even be.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on September 05, 2017, 01:10:08 PM
It's ok, dax knows more than people who study these things for a living, rest easy
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ChiComCat on September 05, 2017, 02:05:01 PM
The Cabal of Scientists strike again
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on September 05, 2017, 02:10:13 PM
Scientists will stop at nothing to implement their global socialist agenda smdh
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 05, 2017, 02:39:26 PM
"Paper Wars" one side telling the other side all their data is wrong, unprecedented!!   Now, even warmest alarmist scientists are starting to fight among themselves over their modeling (which has been way way off). 

Katrina-Global Warming
No Land-falling Major Hurricanes for 12 years-Global Warming
2 Major Hurricanes (at the height of Atlantic Hurricane Season)-Global Warming
Joplin Tornado-Global Warming The Fukushima Scale isn't enough!
Years Long Tornado Drop-Global Warming

Never miss an opportunity to never be wrong, the new science.


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on September 06, 2017, 07:46:25 AM
I have a very hard time believing Dax will disagree with dear leader

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/905383515302264832
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 06, 2017, 11:42:53 AM
Technology we have today is incredible.  To able to measure storms in real time from space. Amazing isn't it The Big Tuck?

I suspect had storms like Andrew (160 MPH sustained with gusts into the 170's using 1980's technology) had that kind of technology they would have similar records. 

Lived on the coast for 2 decades and from day 1 it was never a matter of if, simply when. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on September 06, 2017, 11:58:05 AM
Amazing how dax seems to sync up with rush Limbaugh on pretty much everything. Rush also thinks this hurricane is fake and hurricane people have been infiltrated by the global socialist conspiracy
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 06, 2017, 12:16:40 PM
Blaming a hurricane on global warming is pretty low and ignorant, even for the climate alarmists.  Bunch of pyschopaths.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 06, 2017, 06:41:58 PM
Amazing how dax seems to sync up with rush Limbaugh on pretty much everything. Rush also thinks this hurricane is fake and hurricane people have been infiltrated by the global socialist conspiracy

I think this hurricane is fake?

Weird rough ridin' take from the resident weirdo.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on September 13, 2017, 04:58:20 PM
http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511

This is an interesting, albeit lengthy, article about how rising CO2 levels increase plant growth via photosynthesis but has led to negative nutritional output. Carbs increase however protein, zinc, etc. decrease. The research is in its infancy but is starting to bear results. It could show how the changing nutrition levels in plants affect infant mortality, obesity, wildlife, etc.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on September 13, 2017, 06:23:41 PM
Using logic you could argue global warming is making hurricanes less dangerous.  Irma was the 7th worst storm.  The 1935 hurricane was the worst.  It was a colder climate in 1935.  Warmalists say warmer = meaner storms.  Actuality turns their logic upside down.  I am sure if some guy had not took a whiz off his boat east of Florida and cooled the water minimumly, Irma would have been the all time rip-snorter.  Al will have to adjust his voodoo program to account for such variables.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on September 17, 2017, 07:56:14 AM
Fake news but if infowars said this it would be law.

https://twitter.com/cnn/status/909394039644057600
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on September 18, 2017, 08:55:18 PM
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) compared Trump supporters to Neanderthal-era cave-dwellers at a global warming speech in New York City.

He said the "derivation" of the term "Trump-ite" is similar to that of "troglodyte," which is the scientific term for cavemen.

"You should check out the derivation of Trump-ite and troglodyte, because they both refer to people who dwell in deep dark caves," he said, according to Politico.

The left according to Rush use this issue as the reason why the government must control every aspect of our lives and thwart individualism and liberty.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on September 18, 2017, 09:12:57 PM
California gov Jerry brown is very perceptive
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: mocat on September 18, 2017, 09:40:58 PM
California gov Jerry brown is very perceptive

He is a huge stud
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on September 19, 2017, 04:58:52 PM
Well nuclear horsefarts!  I just read on the CBS news site, that a federal judge ruled against the city do-gooders by saying that can't require a beverage company to put a warning on sugary drinks that says such drinks can cause obesity.  The city is trying to figure how to get around this because they are so worried about the health of fatties (except trumplings).  Climate change to the rescue.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-shift-obesity-packs-serious-climate-consequences/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 31, 2017, 10:18:32 PM
Apparently this was allowed until now

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/925500149882916865

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 31, 2017, 10:24:00 PM
California gov Jerry brown is very perceptive

He is a huge stud

Also, rack these fucktard posts  :love:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on November 01, 2017, 11:56:56 AM
Apparently this was allowed until now

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/925500149882916865

 :facepalm:

Do you live in the upside-down world at all times or just political realms? The reason I ask is because it is clear and blatant that Pruitt is expelling scientists and qualified individuals for folks with more "diverse" views and backgrounds... AKA... Oil, Gas, Extraction and Production industry insiders and stooges. His justification? The scientists that currently serve on the panels are potentially biased if they recieve EPA grants for their work... But the industry insiders aren't biased by their pay, investments, or grants from the Oil and Gas lobby. Sound logic there GOP/Koch Shills /s

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/pruitt-guts-epa-science-panels-will-appoint-new-members/2017/10/31/2a8203e8-bea6-11e7-9294-705f80164f6e_story.html?utm_term=.fe77664c5a51 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/pruitt-guts-epa-science-panels-will-appoint-new-members/2017/10/31/2a8203e8-bea6-11e7-9294-705f80164f6e_story.html?utm_term=.fe77664c5a51)

ALSO** I recently came across a great graph that illustrates CO2 ppm historically over hundreds of thousands of years giving dax, ksuw, fsd, and the other knuckle-draggers an idea of the uncharted waters we are in the middle of... Not that I have any reason to believe it will break through their brainwashing/programming. But nonetheless, there it is...

https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gas-levels-2503831950.html (https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gas-levels-2503831950.html)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on November 01, 2017, 12:43:36 PM
better allocation of resources: abandon cities like Miami, New Orleans and Houston wholesale or build dutch delta-works like structures off their coasts?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: catastrophe on November 01, 2017, 12:48:47 PM
better allocation of resources: abandon cities like Miami, New Orleans and Houston wholesale or build dutch delta-works like structures off their coasts?

I've listened to a bunch of interesting stuff on this and experts saying you cannot even call these natural disasters anymore because we have done so much to make inhabitable places habitable just to see them predictably wiped away by storms.

Reducing the amount the federal government subsidizes flood insurance would be a great first step and seemingly a no-brainer for a Trump administration that loves to talk about saving money and ending handouts.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: passranch on November 01, 2017, 01:22:49 PM
boy, I sure could go for a little "global warming" today!  Amirite fellas?   :Keke:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 01, 2017, 02:58:56 PM
Apparently this was allowed until now

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/925500149882916865

 :facepalm:

Do you live in the upside-down world at all times or just political realms? The reason I ask is because it is clear and blatant that Pruitt is expelling scientists and qualified individuals for folks with more "diverse" views and backgrounds... AKA... Oil, Gas, Extraction and Production industry insiders and stooges. His justification? The scientists that currently serve on the panels are potentially biased if they recieve EPA grants for their work... But the industry insiders aren't biased by their pay, investments, or grants from the Oil and Gas lobby. Sound logic there GOP/Koch Shills /s

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/pruitt-guts-epa-science-panels-will-appoint-new-members/2017/10/31/2a8203e8-bea6-11e7-9294-705f80164f6e_story.html?utm_term=.fe77664c5a51 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/pruitt-guts-epa-science-panels-will-appoint-new-members/2017/10/31/2a8203e8-bea6-11e7-9294-705f80164f6e_story.html?utm_term=.fe77664c5a51)

ALSO** I recently came across a great graph that illustrates CO2 ppm historically over hundreds of thousands of years giving dax, ksuw, fsd, and the other knuckle-draggers an idea of the uncharted waters we are in the middle of... Not that I have any reason to believe it will break through their brainwashing/programming. But nonetheless, there it is...

https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gas-levels-2503831950.html (https://www.ecowatch.com/greenhouse-gas-levels-2503831950.html)

I don't think you are fully appreciatinh the egregious conflicts of interest and obvious self dealing.

No amount of "big oil" paranoia can justify that
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on November 01, 2017, 03:14:38 PM
Most of these big thinker scientists advising EPA on global warmed up hogbunk work for organizations that advocate about global warming.  So Pruitt has ended this incestuous relationship.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on November 01, 2017, 03:16:56 PM
Better to have advisors that make more money when they don't have to worry about hurting the environment  :thumbs:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 01, 2017, 03:33:46 PM
So Jerry Brown.  I was reminded to look at the latest on Jerry’s bullet train project. Now I’m an advocate of public works, that’s what governments are for. 

But still troubling:  Now projected (if completed in total) to come in $40 billion over budget.

But even more concerning for Warmist Alamists. 

All those diesel powered Frazier’s and Nile’s and their little cousins.  The steel mills, concrete plants and particulate in the air.   The horror.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on November 01, 2017, 03:37:45 PM
 :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 01, 2017, 03:40:54 PM
Bullet Train on the back of Big Fossil Fuel.

$100 Billion for old technology.

SMDH


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: SdK on November 01, 2017, 06:27:27 PM
I'm a fan on cutting flood subsidies that make insurance companies profits.

Also in favor of better planning for cities that allow for adequate drainage and/or absorption.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on November 01, 2017, 08:52:05 PM
i was working on jerry's bullet train today.  second time in the last five years dax has mentioned a project i was working on.  makes me feel very relevant.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 02, 2017, 02:47:12 PM
i was working on jerry's bullet train today.  second time in the last five years dax has mentioned a project i was working on.  makes me feel very relevant.

Cool project, but an unbelievable carbon footprint.

Carbon based energy:  Building a greener tomorrow

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on November 02, 2017, 03:22:38 PM
Dax you seem excited
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 03, 2017, 07:07:54 AM
Sys:  What’s the projected time span before the bullet train (very inefficiently) offsets it’s construction?

I mean $100 Billion for a train when Hyperloop is nearly here.  SMDH
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on November 03, 2017, 09:12:42 AM
they don't go over the budget with us during tailgate meetings, dax.

it is prolly the most mumped up and wtf is going on here project i've ever worked on, so it would amaze me if their budget wasn't totally mumped and on track to get more mumped (disclaimer - the project is broken up and bid out into different segments, which are theoretically independent or mostly so of other construction segments, so it's possible the segment i'm working on is uniquely mumped up).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on November 03, 2017, 01:40:07 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html)

 :horrorsurprise:

The Trump admin. (& 13 federal agencies) put out a climate change report that implicates humans as the overwhelming cause of global climate change... How are the knuckle-draggers going to try and wiggle out of this one!?!

 :bwpopcorn:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on November 03, 2017, 01:58:01 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/03/climate/us-climate-report.html)

 :horrorsurprise:

The Trump admin. (& 13 federal agencies) put out a climate change report that implicates humans as the overwhelming cause of global climate change... How are the knuckle-draggers going to try and wiggle out of this one!?!

 :bwpopcorn:

It's important to note this determination is only since the "mid-20th century" aka the 1950s.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 03, 2017, 02:47:30 PM
Humans Impact The Environment:  News at 11

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 03, 2017, 02:48:32 PM
UAH Sat data coming, will global cooling continue?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on November 03, 2017, 02:50:32 PM
What is the optimal level of human caused climate change tho?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on November 03, 2017, 09:00:41 PM
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/926619770618859521
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on November 04, 2017, 08:41:30 AM
this is evolving on schedule

there is no climate change
the climate changes but it's cyclical
it's happening but it's not caused by humans
it's caused by humans
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on November 04, 2017, 11:53:52 AM
There is a link to humans and more carbon being in the air.  Not fossil fuels, but too many humans and the need to break out virgin forests and prairie to grow food and paving over places to put people.  Plants convert carbon dioxide to oxygen.  We need more plants and wise use of water.   I assume plowing up the middle of our continent has changed weather patterns.  The Environmental Church of Abnormalists wants us to adopt a whole bunch of screwy ideas so we can appease their pantheistic Mother Earth Deities.   We need a green revolution such as green roofs etc.  Bulldozing KU for a park ....
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 05, 2017, 05:56:16 AM
What is the optimal level of human caused climate change tho?

What is the optimum level of Co2? 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on November 06, 2017, 12:34:04 PM
What is the optimal level of human caused climate change tho?

What is the optimum level of Co2?

(https://climate.nasa.gov/system/downloadable_items/43_24_g-co2-l.jpg)

Probably somewhere right there in the middle, Dax, you willfully obtuse knuckle-dragger.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 06, 2017, 12:56:06 PM
Interesting that the claim only goes back 650,000 years (pfft, not even close to the beginning of the quaternary system), yet the chart only goes back 500,000 years and stops in July 2013 (are they still manipulating 2014-2017 data?). What are they hiding!?!?!?

#thetruthisoutthere
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: camKSU on November 06, 2017, 01:18:51 PM
Interesting that the claim only goes back 650,000 years (pfft, not even close to the beginning of the quaternary system), yet the chart only goes back 500,000 years and stops in July 2013 (are they still manipulating 2014-2017 data?). What are they hiding!?!?!?

#thetruthisoutthere

"On the next infrowars segment... the earth is really flat and gravity isn't real"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 06, 2017, 01:20:50 PM
What is the optimal level of human caused climate change tho?

What is the optimum level of Co2?

(https://climate.nasa.gov/system/downloadable_items/43_24_g-co2-l.jpg)

Probably somewhere right there in the middle, Dax, you willfully obtuse knuckle-dragger.

Probably?

Okay then. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 06, 2017, 01:22:01 PM
CAMsock is such a simpleton.  In his little world, all roads lead to CO2 levels.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on November 06, 2017, 01:28:07 PM
What is the optimal level of human caused climate change tho?

What is the optimum level of Co2?

(https://climate.nasa.gov/system/downloadable_items/43_24_g-co2-l.jpg)

Probably somewhere right there in the middle, Dax, you willfully obtuse knuckle-dragger.

Probably?

Okay then.

I'm not a scientist (but I trust the overwhelming consensus) so I am not qualified to answer your question definitively. However just using basic logic while looking at the graph, if the world has had drastically lower CO2 levels then we currently do and scientists can show how CO2 affects the global climate then obviously we are in uncharted waters in terms of the magnitude of the impact this will have on the environment... keep grasping at straws though, alex jones has all the answers I'm sure.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 06, 2017, 01:39:04 PM
It’s good to know that the non scientist is inextricably tied to a singular dogma relative to the most complex ecological system on the planet.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on November 06, 2017, 01:47:44 PM
as someone who knows what every relevant gE poster does for a living I can say confidently we don't have any climate scientists on the board. we have other kinds of scientists tho. and like 9,000 attorneys, and 7 MDs, and a bunch of normal business men and women with important business jobs, and a deteriorating number of college students, and a guy who just owns gE for a living.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: camKSU on November 06, 2017, 01:58:43 PM
It’s good to know that the non scientist is inextricably tied to a singular dogma relative to the most complex ecological system on the planet.

Dax, don't be so reductive. It's not like human-caused climate change is some fringe science by some small minority. It is an overwhelming consensus, across a varied spectrum of sciences, theorized and studied for decades. And because I haven't gone to school for many years in this subject, spent an inordinate amount of time afterward professionally researching the topic, I chose to trust the experts. Keep putting your faith in the 3% of scientists who are deniers, oh and alex jones. I bet the lizard people are really frustrated they can't brainwash you  :bang:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on November 06, 2017, 06:43:51 PM
https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/927255409726857216
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on November 06, 2017, 07:05:38 PM
That seems pretty stupid but I'm no scientist
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 06, 2017, 08:27:17 PM
What kind of shitty satellite can only monitor the arctic, and why can't the thousands of satellites already in orbit monitor the arctic!?!?!

#trump  :curse:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 06, 2017, 08:32:25 PM
Interesting that the claim only goes back 650,000 years (pfft, not even close to the beginning of the quaternary system), yet the chart only goes back 500,000 years and stops in July 2013 (are they still manipulating 2014-2017 data?). What are they hiding!?!?!?

#thetruthisoutthere

"On the next infrowars segment... the earth is really flat and gravity isn't real"

Next from nasa, a chart from 400,000 bc to the renaissance period showing flat earth settled science, followed to a dramatic spike caused by a round earth hethens, with a caption "for 400,000 years the world was flat"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on November 07, 2017, 06:52:49 AM
https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/927255409726857216

Interesting comparison.

https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/927687791319896064
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: IPA4Me on November 07, 2017, 07:35:22 AM
https://twitter.com/JacquelynGill/status/927255409726857216

Interesting comparison.

https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/927687791319896064
Counter point.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/11/trump-wrongly-blamed-for-destroying-sea-ice-satellite/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on November 07, 2017, 07:56:00 AM
Interesting that the claim only goes back 650,000 years (pfft, not even close to the beginning of the quaternary system), yet the chart only goes back 500,000 years and stops in July 2013 (are they still manipulating 2014-2017 data?). What are they hiding!?!?!?

#thetruthisoutthere

"On the next infrowars segment... the earth is really flat and gravity isn't real"

Next from nasa, a chart from 400,000 bc to the renaissance period showing flat earth settled science, followed to a dramatic spike caused by a round earth hethens, with a caption "for 400,000 years the world was flat"

it's obvious you don't know how historical atmospheric CO2 levels are measured
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 07, 2017, 08:57:39 AM
Turns out I was right about the satellite thing.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on November 07, 2017, 11:35:51 AM
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/927900975670669313
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on November 07, 2017, 12:13:18 PM
This gobal warming is horse manure.  I just stepped outside to get something from my car, and dang near got my mangolians froze off.  It should be 50 outside according to the warmalists.  It still gets dang cold in Kansas.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on November 07, 2017, 12:40:29 PM
opening point: nasa, 99.9% of scientists

counter point: renocat

I'm going to wait for more evidence
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 07, 2017, 12:46:34 PM
Who all is in favor of a deal where the US sends others cpuntries billions of dollars in exchange for self imposed economic sanctions?

Syria, Iran, Russian, Venezuela, et al: We are!
Trump:  Uhhhh, no thanks
Libtards: Climate denier!!!!!  [Debunked] 99.9% consensus!!!!  #nevertrump

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2017, 01:01:27 PM
Warmist Propagandists hate Dr Spencer.   But he’s not fully on board with them.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on November 07, 2017, 01:12:08 PM
Definitely a hoax
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on November 09, 2017, 08:54:25 AM
https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/928437272348946432
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2017, 02:21:58 AM
Climate:  Just basic science!  (When we need it to be)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2017, 05:57:35 AM
Hot water melts ice:  Basic Science

http://www.newsweek.com/antarctica-melting-below-mantle-plume-almost-hot-yellowstone-supervolcano-705086
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: mocat on November 10, 2017, 06:19:34 AM
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/927900975670669313

Embarrassing
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2017, 06:30:36 AM
Syria:  We’ll do anything to stop the West from bombing us. 
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2017, 06:31:42 AM
The Paris Climate Accord:  The only thing we’ll actually have to do is sign it
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on November 16, 2017, 06:40:24 AM
http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/world/article/Pope-rebukes-climate-deniers-as-perverse-in-12361964.php
Perverse ,,,,,, so says the leader of priest who molest kids, gay priests, of a religion that puts a mortal at the same level of Jesus.  Get out of your modified clan suit and stick to preaching the gospel.  I am sure that the Vatican and big old cathedrals are real energy efficient.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on November 16, 2017, 07:28:02 AM
Perverse is a good description but I think obtuse fits very well also.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Cire on November 18, 2017, 08:28:04 AM
https://scienmag.com/study-settles-prehistoric-puzzle-confirms-modern-link-of-carbon-dioxide-global-warming/

Uh oh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on November 19, 2017, 10:10:09 PM
https://electrek.co/2017/11/16/cheapest-electricity-on-the-planet-mexican-solar-power/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on December 05, 2017, 06:40:52 AM
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ocean-pollution-united-nations-environmental-summit/
The UN is sounding the alarm that our oceans may be dead by mid century due to plastic pollution.  I have read plant life absorb and convert 1/3 of the earthly carbon dioxide to oxygen.  Kill ocean plant life and kill us.  Also giant blogs of plastics floating on the surface of oceans effect ocean heating and evaporation, andthus weather patterns.  Trumpi are on board with the UN coalition to clean up oceans and to prevent more pollution.  I DON'TLIKE PLASTIC BAGS.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on December 16, 2017, 01:29:37 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/15/sex-between-snow-monkeys-and-sika-deer-may-be-new-behavioural-tradition
This is the best evidence that I have seen that suggests the world is becoming messed up dud to changing climate.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on December 24, 2017, 01:47:28 PM
What kind of trash human beings eff with Santa to make a political point? :facepalm:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/23/govt-website-claims-santa-will-move-to-the-south-pole-to-escape-global-warming/ (http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/23/govt-website-claims-santa-will-move-to-the-south-pole-to-escape-global-warming/)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on December 24, 2017, 02:05:11 PM
What kind of trash human beings eff with Santa to make a political point? :facepalm:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/23/govt-website-claims-santa-will-move-to-the-south-pole-to-escape-global-warming/ (http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/23/govt-website-claims-santa-will-move-to-the-south-pole-to-escape-global-warming/)
Just can't stop with fictional science, now they are trampling on folklore.  How in the hell does a solar powered sleigh work at night?  Reindeer fart methane.  What you gonna do with Rudolph?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 24, 2017, 02:10:34 PM
Batteries
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on December 24, 2017, 02:38:44 PM
We should all be more upset about some fictional character than factual issues for sure.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 24, 2017, 04:24:46 PM
He's moving to the South Pole to get away from losery, crook, annoying Canadiens.

Just like the libtards are moving to alabama to get away from the vise of libtard government
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on January 03, 2018, 04:03:24 PM
http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/01/03/nws-freezing-rain-could-transition-into-light-snow/998935001/
Time for the warmalists to adjust their algorithms.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on January 03, 2018, 06:08:09 PM
This is the same stupid ass logic our dumbass president used a few days ago.  The way Reno posts I actually believe he is that stupid too.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on January 03, 2018, 10:00:28 PM
When a hurricane happens, warmalists decry it as proof of climate change.  Warmalists believe carbon fuel use is the cause of climate change. I believe that the climate is changing because of more   people using things and belching carbon, and more plants being killed.  Add to us using oceans for garbage disposal for plastics, we definitely need to clean oceans and plant stuff.

Warmalists want to end using fossil fuel.  The Union of Concerned Scientists having been pushing this for years.  They have tried tying the political agenda to a variety of issue.  This sounds like an impressive group, but ....
"The Union of Concerned Scientists is a left-wing advocacy organization that spreads unscientific alarmism about environment and energy topics. It is currently bragging about being a major architect and proponent of using the federal RICO Act against executives at fossil fuel companies and nonprofit think tanks, such as The Heartland Institute.

Despite the impression given by its name and the image the way in which the media portrays it, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is not a professional scientific organization; in fact, for a $25.00 donation, you can also become a “concerned scientist.” Though founded in 1969 by faculty, including some scientists, and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, UCS’ mission from the beginning has never been the pursuit of knowledge through scientific discovery. It has instead pursued left-wing advocacy on technology, environmental, and energy issues—regardless of what the scientific data have shown."
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on January 03, 2018, 10:00:56 PM
DNR
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on January 03, 2018, 11:35:31 PM
 I find it sad that people blindly follow scientists who are not infallible.  When you don’t follow along too, they resort to bullying and shaming instead of logical refutation.  From the April 27, 2017 National Review,."...they are the bullies attacking anyone who dares to question climate science or who doubts whether human activity is causing climate change. Most Americans are unaware of the vicious campaign — including character assassination, political witch-hunts, and media propaganda — waged by climate activists against people who do not recite the strictest tenets of the manmade-climate-change creed."
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on January 24, 2018, 12:46:44 PM
Probably as good of thread as any

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/24/cape-town-to-run-out-of-water-by-12-april-amid-worst-drought-in-a-century
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 24, 2018, 01:31:30 PM
6.6 gallons a day still seems like a good amount
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 24, 2018, 01:35:32 PM
6.6 gallons a day still seems like a good amount

It's not.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on January 24, 2018, 01:51:41 PM
6.6 gallons a day still seems like a good amount

It's not.

You can survive on it that's about it
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 25, 2018, 08:54:40 AM
Probably as good of thread as any

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/24/cape-town-to-run-out-of-water-by-12-april-amid-worst-drought-in-a-century

So they had a drought just like this one about 100 years ago. Not bad if it's every 100 years.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on January 25, 2018, 12:26:37 PM
Climate seems to be changing in the way periods of crap weather lasts. Still need convincing it's all due to carbon dioxide emissions.  Definitely man is ravaging the planet with a fearsome rape mindset.  Killing trees, plowing prairies, breeding like rabbits, and living in deserts.
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: The Big Train on February 22, 2018, 08:07:01 PM
Just watched “Before the Flood”.  It’s a pretty good movie on climate change and how we can still change. 

Dax, FSD and John Dougie are ones who I strongly urge to watch.  I know you guys won’t because you are ignorant dumbasses but I still implore you to give it a chance.  It’s on Netflix.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 28, 2018, 04:09:53 PM
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/college-republicans-carbon-climate-change-plan/554465/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on February 28, 2018, 08:17:44 PM
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/968931095399030784?s=19
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 02, 2018, 09:11:06 AM
In other news, "compliance" with Paris Accord . . . not so great.

Stunning.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: puniraptor on March 03, 2018, 07:15:29 AM
Tariff on carbon dioxide
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on March 03, 2018, 05:35:42 PM
https://twitter.com/politico/status/970074368662437888

I see why he's Trump's EPA man and this thread is named after him
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on March 03, 2018, 05:45:52 PM
What a dumbass. That quality is why Dax, FSD, and others in this thread like him so much. So much they can relate to.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 04, 2018, 12:49:54 PM
I have a very strong feeling that The Big Tuck thinks movies like Gasland, An Inconvenient Truth, and The Day After Tomorrow are true.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 19, 2018, 08:53:40 PM
https://twitter.com/JimmyPrinceton/status/975776227477909506?s=20 (https://twitter.com/JimmyPrinceton/status/975776227477909506?s=20)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on March 19, 2018, 09:12:02 PM
Reowned?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 20, 2018, 09:12:53 AM
Yes, you may recall that the NYT fired most of its editors a few months ago.

There are probably bigger examples of hypocrisy than the liberal AGW crusade, but I’m hard pressed to think of one.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on April 21, 2018, 10:21:12 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/since-2016-half-the-coral-in-the-great-barrier-reef-has-perished/558302/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 21, 2018, 11:54:28 AM
Damn you El Nino .

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on April 21, 2018, 11:59:52 AM
:love:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on April 21, 2018, 04:09:03 PM
https://www.rdmag.com/article/2018/04/ozone-depletion-not-greenhouse-gases-cause-global-warming-says-researcher
This guy argues CFC caused ozone depletion and global temperatures increased rapidly up to 1998 when CFC was banned, now the rise is miniscule.  He says poor Tumphole countries still cheat and put CFC in their air conditioning causing some depletion.  Just a thought to consider.  Man has impacted climate.  Still not convinced by Carbonuts
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: The Big Train on April 22, 2018, 11:39:19 AM
Happy Earth Day everyone!

(https://68.media.tumblr.com/1cb97e2b7c7a6fcb54113b5e86be599d/tumblr_ohe9w8v5fc1qfr6udo1_500.gif)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on April 26, 2018, 10:26:54 AM
Welp

https://twitter.com/johnrobertsfox/status/989520682395594754?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on June 22, 2018, 06:39:24 PM
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1009833086413045761
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on June 22, 2018, 07:07:45 PM
do you even oil fungus bro? https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/jp5k9x/the-plan-to-mop-up-the-worlds-largest-oil-spill-with-fungus (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/jp5k9x/the-plan-to-mop-up-the-worlds-largest-oil-spill-with-fungus)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: catastrophe on June 22, 2018, 07:18:12 PM
Welp

https://twitter.com/johnrobertsfox/status/989520682395594754?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just lol-ing to myself that there was a headline in April acting like some corruption/incompetence allegation might be the end of Pruitt.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on June 23, 2018, 10:35:12 PM
It’s only fitting that Pruitt get fired for doing something that someone in his position is actually supposed to be doing.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 26, 2018, 09:14:26 AM
LOL

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1011443163758809090?s=19
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on June 26, 2018, 11:17:50 AM
LOL

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1011443163758809090?s=19
Oil wins!!!! 
 :Woohoo:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on June 28, 2018, 11:22:10 AM
Record high temperatures multiple times this year, including today.  Average temperatures have risen every year.  Everything seems pretty normal.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on June 28, 2018, 11:47:16 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/28/rising-elizabeth-rush-extract-towns-flooding
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on June 28, 2018, 12:18:28 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jun/28/rising-elizabeth-rush-extract-towns-flooding

Quote
Like Miami Beach, Shorecrest was built atop a former wetland.

What a trash article. Interesting trash take on human-impact and land conversion of a historic wetland (nature's relief valves for flooding) now being impacted by another human-impact. "First impact in time, first in bitching right" apparently. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on June 28, 2018, 12:20:04 PM
"We built in an area that used to only flood occasionally, and now it floods ALL the time because of other people's land use conversion!"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Yard Dog on July 06, 2018, 12:35:05 PM
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/5/17538084/scott-pruitt-resigns-epa-scandal

Scotty is out. New guy is worse?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 06, 2018, 01:29:35 PM
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/5/17538084/scott-pruitt-resigns-epa-scandal

Scotty is out. New guy is worse?

He's not worse, but he's probably just as bad as far as protecting the general health and environment goes.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/the-epa-is-hiding-proof-that-formaldehyde-causes-leukemia.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on July 07, 2018, 11:02:35 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/8wt0ce/the_arctic_103_years_ago_compared_to_today/?st=JJCB9X9A&sh=3138be04
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 10, 2018, 05:31:52 PM
U.S. CO2 Emissions . . . down (again) another .5% year over year in 2017.

Canada up . . . (again) 3.4% year over year. 

China up . . . (again) and still easily the worlds largest emitter of CO2

India up . . . (again)

Europe . . . collectively up 2.5% year over year.   Germany . . . up, France . . . up 

But, but Paris!


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 13, 2018, 03:48:56 PM
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/7/13/17551878/natural-gas-markets-renewable-energy
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 13, 2018, 07:08:32 PM
U.S. CO2 Emissions . . . down (again) another .5% year over year in 2017.

Canada up . . . (again) 3.4% year over year. 

China up . . . (again) and still easily the worlds largest emitter of CO2

India up . . . (again)

Europe . . . collectively up 2.5% year over year.   Germany . . . up, France . . . up 

But, but Paris!

I’d like this link, I believe you but this is intriguing because who the eff does Canada think they are?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 20, 2018, 04:30:44 PM
Spot the problem:

(https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Santa-Ana-weather-station-closeup.jpg)

(https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/rome_italy_airport_weather_station_large2.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on July 20, 2018, 05:54:43 PM
I'm not positive, but I think dax just blew this climate change hoax all to hell  :Wha:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 20, 2018, 06:00:09 PM
Never said it was hoax, bro
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: 8manpick on July 20, 2018, 06:12:56 PM
I dunno dax, how about you run an Openfoam model and let me know what effect that "a/c unit” has on the weather station?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 20, 2018, 06:19:00 PM
I dunno dax, how about you run an Openfoam model and let me know what effect that "a/c unit” has on the weather station?

Sorry, my flow simulator is on the fritz.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 20, 2018, 07:10:04 PM
i know the answer to this one.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 28, 2018, 03:19:19 AM
https://twitter.com/JoeyFishman/status/1022863092256923649
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 28, 2018, 06:32:59 AM
Probably shouldn't have vetoed that bill to bury the power lines Gov. Brown, but, you've got that "bullet train" to pay for, so just easier to blame climate change, not stupidity and that pesky La Nina:

http://calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/newsreleases/2018/2017_WildfireSiege_Cause.pdf



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 28, 2018, 06:42:55 AM
This just in, 7.1 million people move to the Sonoran Desert (a 2 million person increase in 18 years), then wonder why it's hot and dry, and worry if there's enough water to sustain . . . 7.1 million people.




Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 28, 2018, 09:26:57 AM
https://twitter.com/JoeyFishman/status/1022863092256923649

It's nice and cool here in Kansas. Maybe the WaPo should look there for anecdotal incidents of alleged climate change.
 :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on July 28, 2018, 09:28:09 AM
Also, eff California. They get exactly what they deserve.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 29, 2018, 04:48:05 PM
of course the summers are warming faster than the winters.  if you know anything at all about religion, that was to be assumed.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-20/climate-change-is-disrupting-the-planet-s-seasons
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on July 29, 2018, 06:08:11 PM
California is experiencing the apocalypse for its evil ways, you are going to be turned into a pillar of salt if you don’t get out soon sys.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 04, 2018, 10:10:26 PM
Quote
We estimate that the second terawatt of wind and solar will arrive by mid-2023 and cost 46% less than the first.

https://twitter.com/BloombergNEF/status/1025713019056267264
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on August 07, 2018, 09:46:54 AM
just like the good old days

https://twitter.com/archpaper/status/1026587385042292737
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 07, 2018, 10:10:23 AM
holy crap.

i've spent half of this year watching people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to abate asbestos.  good to know that'll still be a job in fifty years.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: 8manpick on August 07, 2018, 10:14:45 AM
holy crap.

i've spent half of this year watching people spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to abate asbestos.  good to know that'll still be a job in fifty years.
MAGA, bringing back and prolonging dying jobs!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 07, 2018, 10:57:18 AM
Total world energy consumption in 2017 was approx 22,000 TWH, a nearly 3% increase year over  year.   So, that "green energy", just a bit short of meeting the demand.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ChiComCat on August 07, 2018, 11:01:13 AM
Were you expecting green energy to be meeting world demand?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 07, 2018, 11:03:07 AM
the graph was of generation capacity.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 07, 2018, 11:10:48 AM
Were you expecting green energy to be meeting world demand?

Did I say I was expecting it to meet demand?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ChiComCat on August 07, 2018, 11:12:36 AM
Then I don't understand the point of your post
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on August 07, 2018, 11:14:56 AM
Another example of misleading click-bait headline.

Extremely important clarification: the US never stopped manufacturing products with asbestos in them. IIRC they use around 300-350 tons of asbestos per year.

Also, today's asbestos use isn't the same as the old friable asbestos as filler in every building material use.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 07, 2018, 11:20:06 AM
Then I don't understand the point of your post

 No where did I say "I expect" green energy to meet global demand.  It's actually the exact opposite, I expect "green energy" will never meet global demand based on current trends.   Not without a complete paradigm shift(s) of which several of the choices are not good things.

 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 07, 2018, 11:24:42 AM
emawican, if you read the article, it stated that almost all of the asbestos currently used in the us is used by chlorine manufacturers.


if your point was that companies aren't going go around shoving asbestos in building materials again just because the federal govt is relaxing regulations, i agree with you.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on August 07, 2018, 11:45:50 AM
emawican, if you read the article, it stated that almost all of the asbestos currently used in the us is used by chlorine manufacturers.


if your point was that companies aren't going go around shoving asbestos in building materials again just because the federal govt is relaxing regulations, i agree with you.

Quote
"EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing"

Let's slow down on the EPA allowing companies to produce friable asbestos insulation fantasy talking point.

People that live, work, or even visit a building that was built prior to 1985 are around asbestos everyday. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 07, 2018, 11:55:04 AM
emawican, if you read the article, it stated that almost all of the asbestos currently used in the us is used by chlorine manufacturers.


if your point was that companies aren't going go around shoving asbestos in building materials again just because the federal govt is relaxing regulations, i agree with you.

Most companies won't, but some companies are just very poorly run.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 07, 2018, 12:01:06 PM
Is enawican in the pocket of big asbestos?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 07, 2018, 12:20:42 PM
Fun fact: asbestos is a naturally occuring mineral.

Made up Fact: you can buy asbestos extract from your young living pyramid scheme dealer.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: EMAWican on August 07, 2018, 12:29:38 PM
Is enawican in the pocket of big asbestos?
Nope.

sys should just watch me BBS about asbestos.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 07, 2018, 12:41:49 PM
emawican, if you read the article, it stated that almost all of the asbestos currently used in the us is used by chlorine manufacturers.


if your point was that companies aren't going go around shoving asbestos in building materials again just because the federal govt is relaxing regulations, i agree with you.

Quote
"EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing"

Let's slow down on the EPA allowing companies to produce friable asbestos insulation fantasy talking point.

People that live, work, or even visit a building that was built prior to 1985 are around asbestos everyday.

What % have been abated?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Kat Kid on August 07, 2018, 02:17:48 PM
Fun fact: asbestos is a naturally occuring mineral.

Made up Fact: you can buy asbestos extract from your young living pyramid scheme dealer.

Fun Fact: Radon is a naturally occurring gas.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on August 07, 2018, 02:20:00 PM
Fun fact: asbestos is a naturally occuring mineral.

Made up Fact: you can buy asbestos extract from your young living pyramid scheme dealer.

Fun Fact: Radon is a naturally occurring gas.

radon is super bad in Nebraska. we don't have it but some people I know tested for it and had like 30x the level when you need to do something about it. really has to suck when you spend your entire life not burning delicious heaters only to get radon cancer.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 07, 2018, 03:56:18 PM
Fun fact: asbestos is a naturally occuring mineral.

Made up Fact: you can buy asbestos extract from your young living pyramid scheme dealer.

Fun Fact: Radon is a naturally occurring gas.

So is neon, wgaf. 

Did you know they mine asbestos out of the ground???  I always thought it was a manufactured product.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 07, 2018, 03:56:40 PM
Fun fact: asbestos is a naturally occuring mineral.

Made up Fact: you can buy asbestos extract from your young living pyramid scheme dealer.

Fun Fact: Radon is a naturally occurring gas.

radon is super bad in Nebraska. we don't have it but some people I know tested for it and had like 30x the level when you need to do something about it. really has to suck when you spend your entire life not burning delicious heaters only to get radon cancer.

You're a dumbass
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 07, 2018, 03:59:00 PM
FSD hates your analogy of 2 naturally occurring carcinogens

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 07, 2018, 04:00:30 PM
Like radium???? 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 07, 2018, 04:02:42 PM
Or carbon dioxide (per obama)???

The on point hard hitting analogies are endless
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: EMAWican on August 07, 2018, 04:06:53 PM
emawican, if you read the article, it stated that almost all of the asbestos currently used in the us is used by chlorine manufacturers.


if your point was that companies aren't going go around shoving asbestos in building materials again just because the federal govt is relaxing regulations, i agree with you.

Quote
"EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing"

Let's slow down on the EPA allowing companies to produce friable asbestos insulation fantasy talking point.

People that live, work, or even visit a building that was built prior to 1985 are around asbestos everyday.

What % have been abated?

Asbestos only has to be abated based on planned disturbance (demo or renovation), type, and/or condition of the material. If a material has over 1% asbestos, it is then regulated as an "asbestos containing material."

Asbestos is in everything - floor tiles and mastic, pinhole/textured ceiling tiles (the drop ceilings everywhere), sheet rock and joints, plaster, adhesives, fireproofing, piping joints, insulation, roofing materials, weather proofing materials, window glazing, caulks, cove base and mastic, insulation, doors, valve packings, industrial fuses, etc. So neglecting materials with 0.01-0.9999% asbestos and asbestos materials that aren't required to be abated I'd put it at around 10-15%. 85-90% of buildings have asbestos in them somewhere.

There's asbestos in building materials that were installed as recently as the mid to late-2000s but those are pretty rare.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 07, 2018, 04:10:10 PM
Like radium????

"yes just like radium"

someone who failed science and doesn't understand manufacturing
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 07, 2018, 04:12:51 PM
emawican, if you read the article, it stated that almost all of the asbestos currently used in the us is used by chlorine manufacturers.


if your point was that companies aren't going go around shoving asbestos in building materials again just because the federal govt is relaxing regulations, i agree with you.

Quote
"EPA is now allowing asbestos back into manufacturing"

Let's slow down on the EPA allowing companies to produce friable asbestos insulation fantasy talking point.

People that live, work, or even visit a building that was built prior to 1985 are around asbestos everyday.

What % have been abated?

Asbestos only has to be abated based on planned disturbance (demo or renovation), type, and/or condition of the material. If a material has over 1% asbestos, it is then regulated as an "asbestos containing material."

Asbestos is in everything - floor tiles and mastic, pinhole/textured ceiling tiles (the drop ceilings everywhere), sheet rock and joints, plaster, adhesives, fireproofing, piping joints, insulation, roofing materials, weather proofing materials, window glazing, caulks, cove base and mastic, insulation, doors, valve packings, industrial fuses, etc. So neglecting materials with 0.01-0.9999% asbestos and asbestos materials that aren't required to be abated I'd put it at around 10-15%. 85-90% of buildings have asbestos in them somewhere.

There's asbestos in building materials that were installed as recently as the mid to late-2000s but those are pretty rare.

you forgot welding rods, grinding wheels, break pads, gaskets and even Christmas tree decorations!

But I get you.  There is asbestos in the ambient air everywhere.  I forget what the background level is in most cities...
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 08, 2018, 12:47:13 AM
all that predicted new renewable generation capacity looks to be occupied with new transport demand.  although i'm not sure i have quite the confidence in this prediction as the last one i posted.

https://twitter.com/BloombergNEF/status/1026844937072123904
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on August 08, 2018, 08:00:22 AM
allow me to step in and inform everyone that there is not a single non-toxic substance in the universe. the only thing that's crucial is the level of the dose and the length of the exposure (acute vs. chronic).
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2018, 08:37:48 AM
Take us through the battery production process Trey.   

From the mines to the production floor.

Here’s a primer. It takes as much 500k gallons of water to mine 1 ton of Lithium.   Lithium is found in places that water is scarce. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on August 08, 2018, 09:02:30 AM
Take us through the battery production process Trey.   

From the mines to the production floor.

Here’s a primer. It takes as much 500k gallons of water to mine 1 ton of Lithium.   Lithium is found in places that water is scarce.

what does your crusade against Li-containing batteries have to do with my post about asbestos toxicity, other than the fact that you are the asbestos of posters? that's a hypothetical question, btw, don't answer because I don't care.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 08, 2018, 09:03:45 AM
Good grief dax  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2018, 10:36:26 AM
Take us through the battery production process Trey.   

From the mines to the production floor.

Here’s a primer. It takes as much 500k gallons of water to mine 1 ton of Lithium.   Lithium is found in places that water is scarce.

what does your crusade against Li-containing batteries have to do with my post about asbestos toxicity, other than the fact that you are the asbestos of posters? that's a hypothetical question, btw, don't answer because I don't care.

You did not quote.  See also sys’s post. 

FFS you resident LibBots are lazy AF.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 08, 2018, 10:38:24 AM
He's confused again  :frown:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2018, 10:40:54 AM
He's confused again  :frown:

You literally respond to every post I put on here.

You and the The Big Tuck are obsessed with me. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 08, 2018, 10:42:39 AM
I'm worried for your health. What if you have a bout of confusion while driving?  :frown:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2018, 10:45:09 AM
I'm worried for your health. What if you have a bout of confusion while driving?  :frown:

If sys hadn’t posted what he posted then you might have a point.

But again.  Just admit you’re obsessed with everything I say and you’ll feel better. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: treysolid on August 08, 2018, 10:48:48 AM
Take us through the battery production process Trey.   

From the mines to the production floor.

Here’s a primer. It takes as much 500k gallons of water to mine 1 ton of Lithium.   Lithium is found in places that water is scarce.

what does your crusade against Li-containing batteries have to do with my post about asbestos toxicity, other than the fact that you are the asbestos of posters? that's a hypothetical question, btw, don't answer because I don't care.

You did not quote.  See also sys’s post.

FFS you resident LibBots are lazy AF.

only one of the current conversational tracks was talking about the toxicity of various substances. (hint: it wasn't the renewable energy one). don't blame me for your lack of perception.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 08, 2018, 01:13:49 PM
All I know is that lithium is something we definitely want to have in large concentrations in large population centers. Cadmium too.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on August 08, 2018, 01:46:42 PM
All I know is that lithium is something we definitely want to have in large concentrations in large population centers. Cadmium too.

Of course. Pb-acid batteries are definitely the epitome of energy storage technology anyway, right?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 08, 2018, 02:44:33 PM
All I know is that lithium is something we definitely want to have in large concentrations in large population centers. Cadmium too.

and the ever present radium
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 08, 2018, 02:50:39 PM
 :nono:  we're not really interested in nuclear power anymore, especially not close to any major city. Something bad could happen.

All I know is that lithium is something we definitely want to have in large concentrations in large population centers. Cadmium too.

and the ever present radium
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 08, 2018, 02:52:13 PM
All I know is that lithium is something we definitely want to have in large concentrations in large population centers. Cadmium too.

Of course. Pb-acid batteries are definitely the epitome of energy storage technology anyway, right?

Isn't pb lead ????  :runaway:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 08, 2018, 03:19:09 PM
:nono:  we're not really interested in nuclear power anymore, especially not close to any major city. Something bad could happen.

All I know is that lithium is something we definitely want to have in large concentrations in large population centers. Cadmium too.

and the ever present radium


that makes even less sense then usual
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2018, 09:29:48 PM
Take us through the battery production process Trey.   

From the mines to the production floor.

Here’s a primer. It takes as much 500k gallons of water to mine 1 ton of Lithium.   Lithium is found in places that water is scarce.

what does your crusade against Li-containing batteries have to do with my post about asbestos toxicity, other than the fact that you are the asbestos of posters? that's a hypothetical question, btw, don't answer because I don't care.

You did not quote.  See also sys’s post.

FFS you resident LibBots are lazy AF.

only one of the current conversational tracks was talking about the toxicity of various substances. (hint: it wasn't the renewable energy one). don't blame me for your lack of perception.

Um hmm
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 12, 2018, 12:47:32 AM
https://twitter.com/chriscmooney/status/1027621174958862337
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 14, 2018, 11:10:27 AM
https://twitter.com/adam_tooze/status/1028717759461384193
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on August 14, 2018, 12:57:39 PM
all that predicted new renewable generation capacity looks to be occupied with new transport demand.  although i'm not sure i have quite the confidence in this prediction as the last one i posted.

https://twitter.com/BloombergNEF/status/1026844937072123904

Well it is growing by about 25%+ the last two years and is on pace currently this year to sell over 250k cars this year (for the US and a 31% growth). It's not that far fetched, just as wind and especially solar continues to grow around 15-20% a year. Compound growth is a force.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 14, 2018, 02:54:32 PM
yep.  and north america is not even a very good market.  europe and asia are structurally more amenable.  the change that has already occurred is pretty amazing and what's coming over the next couple decades appears very likely to dwarf that.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 16, 2018, 02:15:59 PM
Here's a fun article that answers the question "is the earth warming or cooling" based upon different start dates. https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2018-8-9-how-do-you-tell-if-the-earths-climate-system-is-warming (https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2018-8-9-how-do-you-tell-if-the-earths-climate-system-is-warming)

The whole article is worth reading, but here's the conclusion....

Quote
So here's the real answer to the question of whether the earth's ciimate system "is warming": 

If your start date is June 2018, it "is warming."
If your start date is January 2016, it "is cooling."
If your start date is January 1998, it "is cooling."
If your start date is 1880, it "is warming."
If your start date is the year 1000, it "is cooling."
If your start date is the Dark Ages, it "is warming."
If your start date is Roman times, it "is cooling."

In short, the question is completely meaningless.

This was prompted by YouTube recently deciding to add "disclaimers" to videos posted by AGW skeptics. The text of the YouTube disclaimer is lifted from... a Wikipedia article. :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on August 16, 2018, 02:20:15 PM
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 16, 2018, 02:25:56 PM
That's great stuff, K-S-U.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 16, 2018, 02:31:45 PM
Lots of concerns about Lake Mead.   For myself, I find it just stunning that a lake on the Semi-Arid Colorado Plateau is having trouble meeting the water demands of 25 million people and growing every year, with one Lake Mead served MSA growing by 1 million people every ten years over the last 20 years.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 16, 2018, 02:32:53 PM
Ok
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 16, 2018, 03:18:53 PM
one thing i always try to remember is that whenever a non-herpetologist talks with me about snakes, they always sound like a dumbass.  even really smart, extremely educated people.  and snakes are about as easy as it gets.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 16, 2018, 04:25:39 PM
I think it's funny that the science of snakes is called herpetology. Did you guys know that the new Sedgwick County Zoo Director is a herpetologist? He's made lots of trips to Armenia to study Armenian Pit Vipers. Like, that specific snake is his specialty. Amazing.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 16, 2018, 05:34:01 PM
Did you know the SG county zoo is basically 6 possums and a dying bear given to it by a game preserve in Oklahoma?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 16, 2018, 06:42:14 PM
Did you know the SG county zoo is basically 6 possums and a dying bear given to it by a game preserve in Oklahoma?

The Sedgwick County Zoo is frequently rated as one of the best zoos in the country. Not even shitting you. South Central KS has no business having awesome stuff like the SCZ or the Cosmosphere, but it’s here.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.kansas.com/news/article1093110.html (https://www.google.com/amp/amp.kansas.com/news/article1093110.html)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: mocat on August 16, 2018, 06:59:50 PM
I am so glad kc is not one of those hayseed places like omaha or stl where people are constantly JO'ing their zoo's "rating"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 16, 2018, 07:06:19 PM
That’s because the Kansas City Zoo is a dumpster fire.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 16, 2018, 07:32:08 PM
I think it's funny that the science of snakes is called herpetology. Did you guys know that the new Sedgwick County Zoo Director is a herpetologist? He's made lots of trips to Armenia to study Armenian Pit Vipers. Like, that specific snake is his specialty. Amazing.

heh.  i met jeff at a snake conference a few years back.  we talked about how weird it was that people who hadn't spent most of their lives studying snakes would think they knew crap about snakes that the people that had spent almost their entire lives studying them didn't.  that and tomatoes.

armenian vipers are vipers, by the way, not pit vipers.  there's no such thing as an armenian pit viper.  weird how you got a basic fact wrong when talking about something you don't know much about.

i didn't know jeff had left st louis.  pretty giant coup for ol' wichita.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on August 16, 2018, 09:44:17 PM
That’s because the Kansas City Zoo is a dumpster fire.

It is very sad and I wish the city or some rich local would fix it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on August 16, 2018, 09:47:28 PM
i didn't know jeff had left st louis.  pretty giant coup for ol' wichita.

Not really. We’re like the Alabama coaching job of zoos. Everyone wants it but I just hope he can handle the pressure. Ironically, our reptile house is a dump, though (but we do have an Armenian Pit Viper).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 16, 2018, 09:50:14 PM
That’s because the Kansas City Zoo is a dumpster fire.

Yeah but it's in beautiful swope park, the SECOND BIGGEST CITY PARK behind central park in NYC!!!!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 16, 2018, 09:51:03 PM
Talking about city parks is big time. Zoos, not so much
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 16, 2018, 09:52:54 PM
Why would anyone study snakes for a living. Sounds more like a hobby, or fettish.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on August 16, 2018, 10:18:47 PM
Herp derp ologist is what I always say
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: puniraptor on August 17, 2018, 09:21:10 AM
Sys I was having a hike in gunma prefecture recently near tanigawadake and saw a black one. Was it dangerous?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: puniraptor on August 17, 2018, 09:21:45 AM
Appx 0.8m long. Black.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: 8manpick on August 17, 2018, 09:48:09 AM
That’s because the Kansas City Zoo is a dumpster fire.

Yeah but it's in beautiful swope park, the SECOND BIGGEST CITY PARK behind central park in NYC!!!!

Isn't central park the 5th biggest park in NYC?

Top Ten Largest Parks:
Pelham Bay Park Bronx 2,765 acres.
Greenbelt, Staten Island 1,778 acres.
Van Cortlandt Park, Bronx 1,146 acres.
Flushing Meadows/Corona Park, Queens 898 acres.
Central Park, Manhattan 843 acres.
Marine Park, Brooklyn 798 acres.
Bronx Park, Bronx 718 acres.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 17, 2018, 09:49:53 AM
Golden gate park is like 1.5x bigger than Central Park  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on August 17, 2018, 10:58:56 AM
Sys I was having a hike in gunma prefecture recently near tanigawadake and saw a black one. Was it dangerous?

maybe.  if you were to eff with it, anyways.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 17, 2018, 11:01:52 AM
http://baikada.com/JSM/archives/category/shikoku


decide which one of these it was or if maybe it was a stick instead.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on August 17, 2018, 11:07:49 AM
Giant centipede is my guess.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: renocat on August 17, 2018, 12:47:41 PM
Spotted owl envirospazes responsible for CA fires not global warming
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 17, 2018, 01:02:35 PM
I am so glad kc is not one of those hayseed places like omaha or stl where people are constantly JO'ing their zoo's "rating"

It would be super horrible. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 17, 2018, 01:03:20 PM
That’s because the Kansas City Zoo is a dumpster fire.

Pro tip:  No one in a real city GAF
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on August 17, 2018, 02:23:11 PM
That’s because the Kansas City Zoo is a dumpster fire.

Pro tip:  No one in a real city GAF

exactly
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on August 17, 2018, 02:24:31 PM
it's just "world's largest ball of twine" or "winston churchill once gave a speech here" except a place where they keep animals in jail 247365
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on August 17, 2018, 02:24:59 PM
You can pak at our zoo, so I call bullshit on this one.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on August 17, 2018, 02:25:51 PM
That’s because the Kansas City Zoo is a dumpster fire.

Yeah but it's in beautiful swope park, the SECOND BIGGEST CITY PARK behind central park in NYC!!!!

Isn't central park the 5th biggest park in NYC?

Top Ten Largest Parks:
Pelham Bay Park Bronx 2,765 acres.
Greenbelt, Staten Island 1,778 acres.
Van Cortlandt Park, Bronx 1,146 acres.
Flushing Meadows/Corona Park, Queens 898 acres.
Central Park, Manhattan 843 acres.
Marine Park, Brooklyn 798 acres.
Bronx Park, Bronx 718 acres.

yeah no idea where fsdrunk was going here
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 17, 2018, 02:49:44 PM
That’s because the Kansas City Zoo is a dumpster fire.

Yeah but it's in beautiful swope park, the SECOND BIGGEST CITY PARK behind central park in NYC!!!!

Isn't central park the 5th biggest park in NYC?

Top Ten Largest Parks:
Pelham Bay Park Bronx 2,765 acres.
Greenbelt, Staten Island 1,778 acres.
Van Cortlandt Park, Bronx 1,146 acres.
Flushing Meadows/Corona Park, Queens 898 acres.
Central Park, Manhattan 843 acres.
Marine Park, Brooklyn 798 acres.
Bronx Park, Bronx 718 acres.

yeah no idea where fsdrunk was going here

I think it is some seed talking point
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: 8manpick on August 17, 2018, 04:00:45 PM
That’s because the Kansas City Zoo is a dumpster fire.

Yeah but it's in beautiful swope park, the SECOND BIGGEST CITY PARK behind central park in NYC!!!!

Isn't central park the 5th biggest park in NYC?

Top Ten Largest Parks:
Pelham Bay Park Bronx 2,765 acres.
Greenbelt, Staten Island 1,778 acres.
Van Cortlandt Park, Bronx 1,146 acres.
Flushing Meadows/Corona Park, Queens 898 acres.
Central Park, Manhattan 843 acres.
Marine Park, Brooklyn 798 acres.
Bronx Park, Bronx 718 acres.

yeah no idea where fsdrunk was going here

I think it is some seed talking point

A quick googling shows Swope Park as 1,805 acres, which makes it twice as big as wimpy little Central Park, NYC.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 17, 2018, 04:17:06 PM
no one GAF.  It's really Loose park or gtfo in KC
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 17, 2018, 07:05:48 PM
It was something I remember the City pushing as a kid in the 90's. No recollection as to what the actual stat is, but it's second to Central Park in something and we kansas citians should all be really proud.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 17, 2018, 07:06:50 PM
jfc

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/17/interior-secretarys-school-friend-crippling-climate-research-scientists-say
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 17, 2018, 07:14:52 PM
Good to know anyone who played football is unqualified to dole out federal money.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 19, 2018, 11:35:13 PM
abolish bitcoin, truly one of the stupidest ideas mankind has ever had.

https://twitter.com/LukewSavage/status/1031213285050220544
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: tdaver on August 19, 2018, 11:43:44 PM
Lots of concerns about Lake Mead.   For myself, I find it just stunning that a lake on the Semi-Arid Colorado Plateau is having trouble meeting the water demands of 25 million people and growing every year, with one Lake Mead served MSA growing by 1 million people every ten years over the last 20 years.

Will be even more of a concern after they run a pipe from Lake Powell to St George.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 20, 2018, 09:50:30 AM
abolish bitcoin, truly one of the stupidest ideas mankind has ever had.

https://twitter.com/LukewSavage/status/1031213285050220544

All the skyscrapers that every major banks powers 24/7 365, all the data centers worth of servers that they use, all of the transportation costs to move gold and fiat. All of those things use zero energy, got it. I saw that and was wondering which dumbass would post it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 20, 2018, 01:03:21 PM
Lots of concerns about Lake Mead.   For myself, I find it just stunning that a lake on the Semi-Arid Colorado Plateau is having trouble meeting the water demands of 25 million people and growing every year, with one Lake Mead served MSA growing by 1 million people every ten years over the last 20 years.

Will be even more of a concern after they run a pipe from Lake Powell to St George.

Who would have ever thought a lake wasn't an infinite source of water????
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on August 20, 2018, 09:56:34 PM
All the skyscrapers that every major banks powers 24/7 365, all the data centers worth of servers that they use, all of the transportation costs to move gold and fiat. All of those things use zero energy, got it. I saw that and was wondering which dumbass would post it.

that's absolutely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) (except for the extraction cost of gold, which you didn't exactly mention, but i'll give you credit for it anyways).  those things you did actually mention exist for people to live and work in, providing all sorts of services.  they aren't idly humming along performing an ever expanding quantity of meaningless calculations merely so that money can exist.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 20, 2018, 10:15:38 PM
All the skyscrapers that every major banks powers 24/7 365, all the data centers worth of servers that they use, all of the transportation costs to move gold and fiat. All of those things use zero energy, got it. I saw that and was wondering which dumbass would post it.

that's absolutely Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) (except for the extraction cost of gold, which you didn't exactly mention, but i'll give you credit for it anyways).  those things you did actually mention exist for people to live and work in, providing all sorts of services.  they aren't idly humming along performing an ever expanding quantity of meaningless calculations merely so that money can exist.

I hardly ever agree with Dax, even tho in private settings like Plug.DJamer we agreed immensely. His deleted post today shows we agree on Bitcoin. He claims you are a dumbass, and with most things I disagree. However in crypto, you sys, are a dumbass.

Those jobs use resources and every single financial building in the world consumes resources.  What most bitcoin haters don’t understand(including, you, sys) is that the energy consumption of the network is what secures it.  Show me a power consumption of all banks, big and small, who have connections to the internet, worldwide, and prove they don’t use astronomical amounts of energy, from the buildings, to the data centers, to the ships that carry gold across the ocean.

The biggest thing that dumbasses like sys don’t get is a vast majority of the power of the miners is cheap. It is power that is renewable, mostly from hydroelectric plants, that would otherwise be unused because demand is so small.

You must have no trust in an internet currency. How is that achieved? It’s achieved through math, the universal truth. How is math achieved to be safe and secure, well you spread it out and DECENTRALIZE it.  No central bank or government controls it.

Sys, this is a stupid hill to die on. If you want to continue this dumb rough ridin' charade of personal opinion about something you don’t understand, that’s fine. I’m more than happy to disprove your claims as it pertains to energy and waste.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on August 20, 2018, 10:19:23 PM
What most bitcoin haters don’t understand(including, you, sys) is that the energy consumption of the network is what secures it. 

of course i understand that.  that's what makes it such a stupidly designed currency.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 20, 2018, 10:21:47 PM
What most bitcoin haters don’t understand(including, you, sys) is that the energy consumption of the network is what secures it. 

of course i understand that.  that's what makes it such a stupidly designed currency.

Glad to know that’s the extend of your understanding. Makes everything else so much more clear.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ChiComCat on August 21, 2018, 08:54:34 AM
How would you know that a majority of bitcoin mining power is from hydroelectric plants?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on August 21, 2018, 09:35:57 AM
How would you know that a majority of bitcoin mining power is from hydroelectric plants?

China
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 21, 2018, 09:54:08 AM
How would you know that a majority of bitcoin mining power is from hydroelectric plants?

That’s the only way the electricity is cheap enough to make large scale mining profitable.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/09/bitcoin-mining-energy-prices-smalltown-feature-217230

https://www.coindesk.com/hydro-quebec-suspends-new-mining-operations/

https://www.hydroworld.com/articles/2018/01/bitcoins-and-hydropower-what-s-the-big-deal.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 22, 2018, 12:30:30 PM
https://twitter.com/michaelrlowry/status/1032130894952316928
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Yard Dog on August 22, 2018, 02:40:03 PM
https://twitter.com/michaelrlowry/status/1032130894952316928

Didn't KSU Volleyball just land in Hawaii?  :ohno:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 24, 2018, 09:15:09 AM
https://twitter.com/nomadj1s/status/1032965211244904448
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 24, 2018, 09:22:06 AM
Lol
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 24, 2018, 09:50:38 AM
read thread.

https://twitter.com/stephenjudkins/status/1032413256952905736
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 26, 2018, 03:00:12 AM
https://www.ofnumbers.com/2018/08/26/how-much-electricity-is-consumed-by-bitcoin-bitcoin-cash-ethereum-litecoin-and-monero/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: catastrophe on August 26, 2018, 11:25:52 AM
Does the energy waste only apply to bitcoin? or all crypto currencies? Cause don’t most people think bitcoin isn’t scalable enough to function as a legit currency?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 26, 2018, 12:02:55 PM
https://www.ofnumbers.com/2018/08/26/how-much-electricity-is-consumed-by-bitcoin-bitcoin-cash-ethereum-litecoin-and-monero/

Interesting and well written article.  I disagree with some of the opinions and out context statements in the article about why we need the power consumption to be that high.  I enjoy reading the hard numbers about mining in general tho.   :thumbs:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 26, 2018, 12:16:57 PM
Does the energy waste only apply to bitcoin? or all crypto currencies? Cause don’t most people think bitcoin isn’t scalable enough to function as a legit currency?

Quote
Does the energy waste only apply to bitcoin? or all crypto currencies?

98% of the blockchain implementations out there today are a giant waste.  They all claim to be the next better version of Bitcoin.  The hard truth is that most of the other implementations will fail and nobody will care, but if Bitcoin fails then the entire ecosystem will fail and blockchain as a whole will die.

Quote
Cause don’t most people think bitcoin isn’t scalable enough to function as a legit currency?

Blockchains are inherently terrible at scaling.  Block generation times, restrictions on transactions per second, potential centralization that could cause transaction censorship's, etc.  Bitcoin is the closest thing to digital gold in that using just gold as a currency is hard.  It's heavy, takes a while to move great distances, etc.  It touches on it in the article sys posted but Lightning Network is how Bitcoin will scale.  Layer 2 implementations that are built on top of the blockchain that can handle more transactions per second, while also having the security of the underlying network.

Bcash advocates think just increasing the block size is how you scale, which is incredibly stupid.  At some point the chain will be too big for an average user to maintain and only people with large amounts of capital will be able to run full unpruned nodes.  This leads to centralization and defeats the whole purpose of an uncensorable, distributed and open network.  Bcash also thinks 0-confs will help it scale and make it's transactions instant, which is also stupid because it opens it up to double spend attacks.

The article also talks about the number of merchants using Bitcoin and LN as a payment system and portrays it in a very negative way.  For one, LND which was the first lightning network implementation of the 3 major ones to release a mainnet beta only happened in like March.  We are just at the very beginning of layer 2 solution adoptions that will scale Bitcoin and make it a viable payment option as a currency.  These things don't get built over night, you don't want a piece of software that billions of people could use to have bugs and it not be secure.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 26, 2018, 12:42:42 PM
So, how do you earn bitcoin?  Isn’t this just a way for lazy-unemployed people to try to make $$?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 26, 2018, 12:51:28 PM
So, how do you earn bitcoin?  Isn’t this just a way for lazy-unemployed people to try to make $$?

Miners earn from fees and the block reward.  The block reward halves every ~4 years(which is every 210,000 blocks).  It started at 50 BTC per block mined, halved to 25, and is currently at 12.5 BTC per block mined.  Paying a higher fee gives the miners a bigger incentive to include your transaction in the next block.

Currently you have to make a considerable capital investment to mine Bitcoin profitably.  You have to use ASIC chips and be running 24/7/365.  You have to have money to make money mining BTC, so it's not just lazy-unemployed people trying to make $$.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 26, 2018, 01:02:31 PM
But it’s basically buying a fast computer?  That’s why it’s essentially fake
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on August 26, 2018, 01:35:12 PM
So, how do you make money with the internet?  Isn’t this just a way for lazy-unemployed people to try to make $$?

:lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 26, 2018, 01:38:27 PM
But it’s basically buying a fast computer?  That’s why it’s essentially fake

I thought you were actually trying to have an intelligent conversation, my mistake.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 26, 2018, 01:53:43 PM
I’m legit curious and I suppose I could google but, idc that much
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on August 26, 2018, 01:59:04 PM
Ok, googled it.  Created by free software for literally doing nothing.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 26, 2018, 04:42:55 PM
Cool.   :thumbs:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 26, 2018, 05:56:27 PM
Not gonna lie, I'm really looking forward to the friction between the irrational climate change chicken littles and the irrational crypto sci-fi morons
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 28, 2018, 10:09:56 PM
https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/1034609231129804801
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 28, 2018, 10:51:01 PM
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/03/06/are-californias-poor-losing-out-in-states-drive-for-clean-energy-future/

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 28, 2018, 11:13:45 PM
https://twitter.com/ClaraJeffery/status/1034609231129804801

Who WHO WHOOOOOOO gives a eff
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 28, 2018, 11:17:14 PM
Exactly! Burn baby burn because climate change isn't a thing! Dump toxic sludge in the oceans! Nuke islands and spread the radioactive waste worldwide! Set the forest on fire, WHO CARES! CO2 is my friend, a close one too! I huff rubber cement and car exhaust 10 times a day and it's fine, it's how I usually post!

- FSD
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 29, 2018, 12:47:03 AM
Who WHO WHOOOOOOO gives a eff

1/6th of us economy.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: gatoveintisiete on August 29, 2018, 12:58:49 AM
And 100% of the states that will need bailed out
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 29, 2018, 01:02:11 AM
And 100% of the states that will need bailed out

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2018/0615/California-sees-9-billion-surplus-passes-budget-to-help-poor
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 29, 2018, 08:29:00 AM
The largest consumer of gasoline, largest generator of auto emissions and the one state who can't generate enough electricity to avoid brownouts is "going green" on the grid.

You guys are so stupid.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 29, 2018, 03:03:09 PM
The largest consumer of gasoline

2nd.

http://blogs.platts.com/2017/03/31/pickup-prius-texas-california-gasoline/


largest generator of auto emissions

2nd in total co2, 3rd lowest in per capita co2 (didn't find a quick link to tranport only co2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions


the one state who can't generate enough electricity to avoid brownouts is "going green" on the grid.

i've lived here for 7 years, i've experienced 0 brownouts.  dunno how that compares to the national average.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 29, 2018, 03:31:36 PM
It's quite the achievement for a place where 40% of the population lives below the poverty line. 

You should be proud of your enormous carbon footprint, which is easily top 10 (5?) in the world.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 29, 2018, 03:37:52 PM
3rd lowest in the us is pretty good.  but it's nice that they're not content with that.  moving to 100% renewable electricity generation is a good goal.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 29, 2018, 03:38:47 PM
You guys are I am so stupid.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on August 29, 2018, 03:40:46 PM
It's quite the achievement for a place where 40% of the population lives below the poverty line. 

You should be proud of your enormous carbon footprint, which is easily top 10 (5?) in the world.

Sounds like you just unearthed the reason California is aggressively pursuing emissions-free electricity. Good sleuthing there, Sherlock.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 29, 2018, 04:38:23 PM
https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/06/with-california-taxpayers-facing-a-1-trillion-unfunded-pension-liability-lawmakers-focus-on-foam-and-plastic-straws/

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/12/californias-77-billion-high-speed-rail-project-is-in-trouble.html   (and on the run towards $100 Billion)


https://www.insidesources.com/california-gas-tax-subsidizes-electric-cars/

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/how-california-promotes-energy-poverty-6168.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 29, 2018, 04:56:24 PM
Using current technological prowess to get to the 100% renewable goal using solar and wind and using current outputs and footprints as our guide then:

-16K square miles of wind turbines will be needed to reach stated goal for wind output

-Approximately 500 square miles of solar energy panels to reach stated goal for solar output

In essence to meet stated goals, California will have to produce more renewable energy by 2048 than the entire world produces now.   Using known technology, the environmental costs in land use alone will be astronomical, not even taking into all the other environmental impacts.





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 29, 2018, 05:23:47 PM
They're rough ridin' clueless, they're basically at the point where they're simply making the libtard wishlist legislation with no possible way of implementing or paying for it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 29, 2018, 05:27:29 PM
3rd lowest in the us is pretty good.  but it's nice that they're not content with that.  moving to 100% renewable electricity generation is a good goal.

If they can get the number of people living in poverty up to 80% and maybe ban the sale of used cars, I'm confident California can make it impossible for enough people to own a car to bring their per capita emissions down to China's level. Very altruistic ambissions. Maybe throw out some child tax credit to get the birth rate up and they could achieve India like per capita emissions.

What a bunch of fucktards
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 29, 2018, 05:34:33 PM
“It’s impossible to switch to green energy because it’s never going to get better, more efficient, or cheaper. So why even try? Shut it all down so we can burn baby burn.”

- Dax
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 29, 2018, 06:36:38 PM
“It’s impossible to switch to green energy because it’s never going to get better, more efficient, or cheaper. So why even try? Shut it all down so we can burn baby burn.”

- Dax

That's not what I said.   

But, I knew that's exactly how you were going to respond.   

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 29, 2018, 06:39:44 PM
“It’s impossible to switch to green energy because it’s never going to get better, more efficient, or cheaper. So why even try? Shut it all down so we can burn baby burn.”

- Dax

That's not what I said.   

But, I knew that's exactly how you were going to respond.

So what did you mean by your post? Or more specifically what were you implying?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 29, 2018, 08:35:19 PM
TBT is beyond help. People in a vegetative state contribute more to humanity.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 29, 2018, 08:36:10 PM
Using current technological prowess to get to the 100% renewable goal using solar and wind and using current outputs and footprints as our guide then:

-16K square miles of wind turbines will be needed to reach stated goal for wind output

-Approximately 500 square miles of solar energy panels to reach stated goal for solar output

In essence to meet stated goals, California will have to produce more renewable energy by 2048 than the entire world produces now.   Using known technology, the environmental costs in land use alone will be astronomical, not even taking into all the other environmental impacts.

If they started it today, they couldn't get it done by 2048.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 29, 2018, 09:31:47 PM
Green energy is really enraging
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on August 29, 2018, 09:58:02 PM
Green energy is really enraging

It infuriates them


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 29, 2018, 10:07:05 PM
Nothing is enraging.  But the simpletons in the Lib movement when it comes to "green energy" are  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 29, 2018, 10:14:46 PM
Our emissions are going down, China/Europe/India going up.  Paris signatories . . . . all talk, as predicted. 

Plastic in the seas?   China/Asia/North Africa

https://www.dw.com/en/almost-all-plastic-in-the-ocean-comes-from-just-10-rivers/a-41581484



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 29, 2018, 10:16:48 PM
Using current technological prowess to get to the 100% renewable goal using solar and wind and using current outputs and footprints as our guide then:

-16K square miles of wind turbines will be needed to reach stated goal for wind output

-Approximately 500 square miles of solar energy panels to reach stated goal for solar output

In essence to meet stated goals, California will have to produce more renewable energy by 2048 than the entire world produces now.   Using known technology, the environmental costs in land use alone will be astronomical, not even taking into all the other environmental impacts.

not gonna bother to look for data on the first two.  the last assertion is laughably false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 29, 2018, 10:21:09 PM
If they started it today, they couldn't get it done by 2048.

they're on track to get to 50% renewable by 2020, ten years ahead of the 2030 goal.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 29, 2018, 10:36:59 PM
Using current technological prowess to get to the 100% renewable goal using solar and wind and using current outputs and footprints as our guide then:

-16K square miles of wind turbines will be needed to reach stated goal for wind output

-Approximately 500 square miles of solar energy panels to reach stated goal for solar output

In essence to meet stated goals, California will have to produce more renewable energy by 2048 than the entire world produces now.   Using known technology, the environmental costs in land use alone will be astronomical, not even taking into all the other environmental impacts.

not gonna bother to look for data on the first two.  the last assertion is laughably false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California

Based on 2048 demand, no it is not.  Wind turbine production in Cali has also dropped over the last 4 years, because of environmental restrictions.


 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 29, 2018, 10:40:35 PM
the last assertion is laughably false.

Based on 2048 demand, no it is not.  Wind turbine production in Cali has also dropped over the last 4 years, because of environmental restrictions.

i've posted links that show that it is.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 29, 2018, 10:42:00 PM
the last assertion is laughably false.

Based on 2048 demand, no it is not.  Wind turbine production in Cali has also dropped over the last 4 years, because of environmental restrictions.

i've posted links that show that it is.

Wikipedia?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 29, 2018, 10:58:36 PM
Sysgender is rough ridin' delusional and lives in an echochamber, this isn't new.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 29, 2018, 11:13:38 PM
Wikipedia?

and the ones i posted a couple weeks back.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Kat Kid on August 29, 2018, 11:15:25 PM
Using current technological prowess to get to the 100% renewable goal using solar and wind and using current outputs and footprints as our guide then:

-16K square miles of wind turbines will be needed to reach stated goal for wind output

-Approximately 500 square miles of solar energy panels to reach stated goal for solar output

In essence to meet stated goals, California will have to produce more renewable energy by 2048 than the entire world produces now.   Using known technology, the environmental costs in land use alone will be astronomical, not even taking into all the other environmental impacts.

very good bet that renewable energy tech won't improve over the next 30 years.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 29, 2018, 11:25:38 PM
very good bet that renewable energy tech won't improve over the next 30 years.

it's factually incorrect by orders of magnitude today, with no assumed improvement.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 30, 2018, 06:33:54 AM
CDE estimates California will need 354K GW per year by 2030 to meet the states electricity needs.   Cali green energy proponents are relying on solar and wind, 354K GW demand is currently 3 - 3.5x total solar/wind energy production in the United States.   

Under current laws its getting harder and harder to build wind generation systems in California.   Even with offsets from individual dwelling solar capacity the amount of land needed even with improvements to technology to get to 100% green energy is massive.   Not to mention the carbon footprint output getting to the goal.   There's little doubt energy poverty in California is going to spike dramatically to reach this "goal", particularly when factoring in other rising costs of living in California.   Energy poverty is considered any household that spends 10% or more of total earnings on energy bills, in California that's more than 1 million households and growing. 

California will no doubt be at the top in the country in the divide between the have's and the have nots.   Maybe that's the goal, state depopulation?  Difficult if Cali politicians get their open borders and free health care for illegals, medical refugee'ism will likely grow the population even more.














Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 30, 2018, 08:24:15 AM
“It’s impossible to switch to green energy because it’s never going to get better, more efficient, or cheaper. So why even try? Shut it all down so we can burn baby burn.”

- Dax

Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 30, 2018, 09:43:54 AM
No, what’s hilarious is the mindset.  1 million households already in energy poverty in California, 6 million living below the poverty line based on US standards, more when CA COL is factored in. 

An industry that requires copious supplementation in a state where energy costs are already 50% higher on average. 

But you’re an idiot who see’s no pain points.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ChiComCat on August 30, 2018, 10:00:31 AM
Quote from: Cat from DC  date: all the damn time
Switching to renewable energy will have no pain points

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 30, 2018, 10:12:01 AM
very good bet that renewable energy tech won't improve over the next 30 years.

it's factually incorrect by orders of magnitude today, with no assumed improvement.

As to wind energy, this is patently false.

Solar will likely continue to achieve substantial improvements at a decreasing rate, which isn't saying much given it's basically none of the supply.

You guys simply don't know what you're talking about, and simply drinking the kool aid.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 31, 2018, 07:53:21 PM
CDE estimates California will need 354K GW per year by 2030 to meet the states electricity needs.   Cali green energy proponents are relying on solar and wind, 354K GW demand is currently 3 - 3.5x total solar/wind energy production in the United States.   

you've mumped up the units again.  gw does not equal gwh.  possibly your inability to comprehend the most basic facts about electricity explains how you get this so hilariously wrong.  at any rate, 2017 global electricity production from renewables was over 5500k gwh, more than an order of magnitude greater than the estimate of california's 2030 need you claim (which you don't link).

your claim that california's 2045 consumption would exceed current global consumption is outrageously incorrect.


http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2017/Jul/IRENA_Renewable_energy_highlights_July_2017.pdf?la=en&hash=011BFA5D92B82E343C53687DE31C3F2AF266B436

http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2017/Jul/IRENA_Renewable_Energy_Statistics_2017.pdf
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on August 31, 2018, 08:33:05 PM
LOL at thinking GWh contra GW with solar (maybe 8 hrs of production per day) means more solar capacity. Also lol conflating global output with us output.  Good grief, dax is right and you are clueless.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 31, 2018, 08:58:42 PM
LOL at thinking GWh contra GW with solar (maybe 8 hrs of production per day) means more solar capacity. Also lol conflating global output with us output.  Good grief, dax is right and you are clueless.

when someone repeatedly mistakes generation capacity and production and they also throw out numbers that are wildly nonfactual, it's appropriate to conclude that they don't know what they're talking about.


Also lol conflating global output with us output.

i did not conflate the two.  i posted information showing that dax's assertion, quoted below, was wildly nonfactual.

In essence to meet stated goals, California will have to produce more renewable energy by 2048 than the entire world produces now.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 01, 2018, 08:54:36 AM
CDE estimates California will need 354K GW per year by 2030 to meet the states electricity needs.   Cali green energy proponents are relying on solar and wind, 354K GW demand is currently 3 - 3.5x total solar/wind energy production in the United States.   

you've mumped up the units again.  gw does not equal gwh.  possibly your inability to comprehend the most basic facts about electricity explains how you get this so hilariously wrong.  at any rate, 2017 global electricity production from renewables was over 5500k gwh, more than an order of magnitude greater than the estimate of california's 2030 need you claim (which you don't link).

your claim that california's 2045 consumption would exceed current global consumption is outrageously incorrect.


http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2017/Jul/IRENA_Renewable_energy_highlights_July_2017.pdf?la=en&hash=011BFA5D92B82E343C53687DE31C3F2AF266B436

http://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2017/Jul/IRENA_Renewable_Energy_Statistics_2017.pdf

The CDE predicated annual demand is GWh, I simply accidently left off the h.

Between 326K and 356K GWh by 2030 (2030 is not 2048, BTW).   The operative words are also solar and wind.    The CDE is also predicating that CA energy consumption will be accelerating year over year and will do so for the next 20 years with an annual avg growth rate of 1.02% per year, that's double the year over year growth of demand from 2000-2016.   

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on September 01, 2018, 09:06:45 AM
Sys, my good friend Dax isn't someone to push false facts or misinformation to advance his ideals!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 01, 2018, 09:31:38 AM
Sys, my good friend Dax isn't someone to push false facts or misinformation to advance his ideals!

I get that it was wrong on world wide total renewables, but the Cali Greenies are pushing solar and wind. 

 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 02, 2018, 12:18:51 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/08/30/climate/how-much-hotter-is-your-hometown.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 04, 2018, 12:02:09 AM
California's energy sitch is fine, having one of your largest public utilities declare bankruptcy is totes norms

https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-puts-customers-on-hook-for-utilitys-wildfire-liability-1536000502?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/xXAZjTEdyz

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 04, 2018, 12:05:18 AM
LOL at thinking GWh contra GW with solar (maybe 8 hrs of production per day) means more solar capacity. Also lol conflating global output with us output.  Good grief, dax is right and you are clueless.

when someone repeatedly mistakes generation capacity and production and they also throw out numbers that are wildly nonfactual, it's appropriate to conclude that they don't know what they're talking about.


Also lol conflating global output with us output.

i did not conflate the two.  i posted information showing that dax's assertion, quoted below, was wildly nonfactual.

In essence to meet stated goals, California will have to produce more renewable energy by 2048 than the entire world produces now.

United States and global are not synonymous
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 04, 2018, 12:54:49 PM
Really surprised Cali isn't blaming global warming for the wild fires, and meanie insurance companies for the public utility carrying insufficient coverage and being too poor to maintain existing infrastructure.

Quote
State investigators have so far concluded that equipment from PG&E’s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. unit caused 16 of last year’s blazes, and the utility has said it expects to incur losses related to at least 14 of them. PG&E faces at least 780 civil lawsuits brought by individuals, municipalities and insurance companies alleging it was negligent and seeking to recoup money for fire-related damage and deaths.

PG&E provides electricity and natural gas to about 16 million people living in Central and Northern California. It has cut its dividend and took a $2.5 billion charge in the second quarter related to claims made against the utility in connection with the wildfires.


Some analysts have pegged PG&E’s potential liability from the 2017 fires at as much as $15 billion. The utility currently has less than $900 million in insurance to help pay for wildfire liability. It has said it is looking at other insurance coverage options but that increases will likely come at a higher price, as carriers have “significantly” raised premiums.

At least the consumer is footing the bill and not the State or its moron representatives. Critical as the grossly mismanaged electricity generation and distribution system embarks on an astromically expensive and inherently unreliable green energy initiative that will heavily rely on the dilapidated and burned up transmission system. I mean, what libtard wouldn't be excited about paying substantially more for less???  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on September 16, 2018, 04:12:58 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/15/hurricane-category-6-this-is-how-world-ends-book-climate-change
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 17, 2018, 08:47:34 AM
How do we know the world hasn't already seen Cat. 6 hurricanes?   

Easy answer:  We don't know

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 17, 2018, 09:19:52 AM
We also don’t know the optimal amount of Cat 6 hurricanes we should have.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on September 17, 2018, 09:28:12 AM
Also maybe humans aren't native to earth and have survived a billion cat 6 space hurricanes so pud smdh
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 17, 2018, 10:51:56 AM
Let's set climate policy around hypothetical(s).

Meanwhile many of the Paris signatories fail to live up to their commitment (no one with a brain is surprised).

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on September 17, 2018, 11:00:16 AM
so they are kidding though that a cat 6 would end the world?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on September 17, 2018, 12:48:59 PM
so they are kidding though that a cat 6 would end the world?

it's an excerpt from a book.  the title of the book is "this is the way the world ends".
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on September 17, 2018, 02:59:05 PM
so they are kidding though that a cat 6 would end the world?

it's an excerpt from a book.  the title of the book is "this is the way the world ends".

The world ends when our sun swells up and consumes it.  End of book.  $29.95 ($35.99 CDN)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 17, 2018, 09:10:32 PM
But they care so very, very much, and that has to be worth something:

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

One of the hottest spots during the just-concluded Global Climate Action Summit was the private runway at San Francisco International Airport, where SFO spokesman Doug Yakel reports corporate jet traffic was up 30 percent over normal.

Airport sources told us that the carbon-spewing corporate jets nearly filled the landing area’s parking slots and that many had flown in for the conference.

The three-day climate confab drew more than 4,000 elected officials, business executives, and environmentalists from around the globe and was aimed at addressing how to lower the carbon emissions responsible for global warming.

The summit was organized by Gov. Jerry Brown, who has been known to fly private.

In 2015, Brown flew with real estate mega-millionaire and major Democratic Party donor George Marcus via private jet to a climate change conference at the Vatican.

The next year, the go-green governor jetted off with Marcus for a two-week trip that included stops in Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, and Ukraine.

This time, the governor and his wife, Anne Gust Brown, stayed grounded and carpooled in from Sacramento with his security detail.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 17, 2018, 09:19:33 PM
so they are kidding though that a cat 6 would end the world?

it's an excerpt from a book.  the title of the book is "this is the way the world ends".

It's fan fiction, so absolutely relevant to climate change science. Maybe you haven't seen the movie Twister, but that's a F-6 tornado that would have ended today's world
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 17, 2018, 09:27:18 PM
Dax bitches constantly about how much green energy costs and that we shouldn't do it.  Then he complains about people that can actually make a difference and create more efficient ways of producing green energy.  Climate Change deniers like Dax just crack me up, they just want to burn baby burn at any cost necessary.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 17, 2018, 09:31:16 PM
Green Energy isn't going to save the world from climate change. A semi-informed 5-year old with a toy abacus could figure that out.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 17, 2018, 09:37:49 PM
Green Energy isn't going to save the world from climate change. A semi-informed 5-year old with a toy abacus could figure that out.

Oh?  What's the plan then?  Just burn baby burn because it doesn't matter?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 17, 2018, 09:40:21 PM
Green Energy isn't going to save the world from climate change. A semi-informed 5-year old with a toy abacus could figure that out.

Oh?  What's the plan then?  Just burn baby burn because it doesn't matter?

Yep. That is the plan, and that's exactly why.  How could you not know that?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 17, 2018, 09:44:58 PM
Green Energy isn't going to save the world from climate change. A semi-informed 5-year old with a toy abacus could figure that out.

Oh?  What's the plan then?  Just burn baby burn because it doesn't matter?

Yep. That is the plan, and that's exactly why.  How could you not know that?

Well for one I'm not a dumbass climate change denier.  Two, resources eventually will run out.  I mean I know you are a giant POS and only care about yourself.  In your scenario all of your offspring(please god let there be few of them) will either, A: die from normal climate change(your view) or B: die because our entire world economy collapses from over consumption.

Sounds like a great utopia.   :thumbs:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 17, 2018, 09:51:04 PM
I probably won't be able to help you understand why you're a useful idiot, but what you just typed is why.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 17, 2018, 09:54:47 PM
I probably won't be able to help you understand why you're a useful idiot, but what you just typed is why.

Just like normal you have nothing else to say.  You are a POS that is just a rough ridin' moron.  Ignorance is bliss.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on September 17, 2018, 10:18:25 PM
Good grief  :facepalm:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 17, 2018, 10:26:33 PM
Like clockwork.  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 18, 2018, 10:10:54 AM
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/alclimatereport/

We went a step further in that paper and demonstrated that climate models failed completely to replicate the downward temperature trend in Alabama over the past 120 years – 76 different models with a 100% failure rate.  Would you trust these same models to tell you about the future as the Times does?  Why did they not check the models for validity?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on September 19, 2018, 03:07:38 AM
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/9/14/17853884/utilities-renewable-energy-100-percent-public-opinion
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on October 07, 2018, 08:16:46 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2018, 02:00:04 PM
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612238/wide-scale-us-wind-power-could-cause-significant-warming/

Wind power they said . . . save the world they said.

Also, since so many on here like to brag about your air travels.   Please list all the ways that you're going to reduce your air travel in the future and/or your methodologies for offsetting your air travel.   For example:  Buy a Prius, or plant copious amounts of trees, stop eating beef entirely, or a combination of all things similar.  Looking forward to your responses.




Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2018, 02:03:03 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html

Translation: Give us a $122 Trillion Dollars to "fix" an issue that we've created out of flawed models.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on October 10, 2018, 03:16:40 PM
So we're back to hoax again?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on October 10, 2018, 03:25:38 PM
No no no, dax has stated many times it's not a hoax, it's just scientists all over the world are collectively lying in an attempt to bilk dax out of his hard earned money
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2018, 03:35:40 PM
The one thing I like about resident LibBots is that there's never any middle ground.   

It's Bushian in a "for us or again us" context, but appropriate.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CHONGS on October 10, 2018, 03:41:29 PM
The one thing I like about resident LibBots is that there's never any middle ground.   

It's Bushian in a "for us or again us" context, but appropriate.

Also, since so many on here like to brag about your air travels.   Please list all the ways that you're going to reduce your air travel in the future and/or your methodologies for offsetting your air travel.   For example:  Buy a Prius, or plant copious amounts of trees, stop eating beef entirely, or a combination of all things similar.  Looking forward to your responses.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2018, 03:48:05 PM
One is a truth, and the other is a question.   Pretty straight forward Chin.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on October 10, 2018, 03:50:11 PM
Oh I know you are very good at just asking questions.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on October 10, 2018, 03:51:53 PM
Dax is right, eff the planet, we should wait for some REAL signals that we are effecting climate change before we even consider changing. There’s no point in listening to these “scientists” until Dax sees some real proof.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2018, 03:53:01 PM
Dax is right, eff the planet, we should wait for some REAL signals that we are effecting climate change before we even consider changing. There’s no point in listening to these “scientists” until Dax sees some real proof.

Nothing of the sort, but you're dumb and angry, not a good combo.

But I appreciate you posting that IPCC link, an entity that exists at the behest of politicians and bureaucrats, and an entity that has been more wrong than right during it's 20 plus year history. 


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on October 10, 2018, 03:54:44 PM
Dax is right, eff the planet, we should wait for some REAL signals that we are effecting climate change before we even consider changing. There’s no point in listening to these “scientists” until Dax sees some real proof.

Nothing of the sort, but you're dumb and angry, not a good combo.

You’ll be in a nursing home when this stuff starts hitting the fan. I will just be getting into my prime and I’d really like the world to not be done by then.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2018, 03:55:40 PM
Dax is right, eff the planet, we should wait for some REAL signals that we are effecting climate change before we even consider changing. There’s no point in listening to these “scientists” until Dax sees some real proof.

Nothing of the sort, but you're dumb and angry, not a good combo.

You’ll be in a nursing home when this stuff starts hitting the fan. I will just be getting into my prime and I’d really like the world to not be done by then.

I edited my post, please re-read, you're easily propagandized, because you're dumb.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on October 10, 2018, 03:56:58 PM
Dax is right, eff the planet, we should wait for some REAL signals that we are effecting climate change before we even consider changing. There’s no point in listening to these “scientists” until Dax sees some real proof.

Nothing of the sort, but you're dumb and angry, not a good combo.

You’ll be in a nursing home when this stuff starts hitting the fan. I will just be getting into my prime and I’d really like the world to not be done by then.

I edited my post, please re-read, you're easily propagandized, because you're dumb.

So it is a hoax. Glad that’s finally established.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2018, 03:57:55 PM
Dax is right, eff the planet, we should wait for some REAL signals that we are effecting climate change before we even consider changing. There’s no point in listening to these “scientists” until Dax sees some real proof.

Nothing of the sort, but you're dumb and angry, not a good combo.

You’ll be in a nursing home when this stuff starts hitting the fan. I will just be getting into my prime and I’d really like the world to not be done by then.

I edited my post, please re-read, you're easily propagandized, because you're dumb.

So it is a hoax. Glad that’s finally established.

That's not what I said, again, resident LibBots have no middle ground.  Sad . . . and how positively authoritarian. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on October 10, 2018, 04:02:05 PM
This gif perfectly reflects how I see Dax reacting when crap really does start hitting the fan. While spouting of. about how it’s a hoax from the democrats and all political.

(https://i.giphy.com/media/z9AUvhAEiXOqA/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2018, 04:10:46 PM
Per the IPCC intitial reports some 20 plus years ago, the crap was already supposed to be hitting the fan.

Meanwhile, in Hurricane news, a little history from our own United States Air Force indicates that since the 1850's, that Michael is the 7th Cat 4 plus Hurricane to hit the Florida Panhandle.  All told 13 major hurricanes have hit within 60 miles of Elgin AFB since the mid 1800's, 26 hurricanes in total, and 56 tropical storms overall.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2018, 04:20:48 PM
Why would Exxon do this?

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-exxon-mobil-mn-lobby-carbon.html

Well, Big Energy owns all kinds of patents, Big Energy even owns the licenses to carbon trading platforms.

Big Energy has an army of lawyers and lobbyists, they can withstand regulation much more easily than smaller competitors.

Pro-Carbon Taxers:  Helping Big Energy every step of the way



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on October 10, 2018, 04:36:51 PM
Why would Exxon do this?

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-exxon-mobil-mn-lobby-carbon.html

Well, Big Energy owns all kinds of patents, Big Energy even owns the licenses to carbon trading platforms.

Big Energy has an army of lawyers and lobbyists, they can withstand regulation much more easily than smaller competitors.

Pro-Carbon Taxers:  Helping Big Energy every step of the way

Two hoax confirmations in less than an hour. That’s got to be some kind of record.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2018, 04:41:52 PM
Why would Exxon do this?

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-exxon-mobil-mn-lobby-carbon.html

Well, Big Energy owns all kinds of patents, Big Energy even owns the licenses to carbon trading platforms.

Big Energy has an army of lawyers and lobbyists, they can withstand regulation much more easily than smaller competitors.

Pro-Carbon Taxers:  Helping Big Energy every step of the way

Two hoax confirmations in less than an hour. That’s got to be some kind of record.

Yes The Big Tuck, large corporations don't encourage further regulation of their industry(ies) at strategic moments in time.     

Good lawd, how can you be this stupid?

Plus, this would not be a hoax, dummy.   Rather a conspiracy, based on known reality.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on October 11, 2018, 12:48:38 PM
Dax - burn it hotter and longer because it’s all a hoax by the Democrats and “scientists”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-climate-report-was-too-cautious-some-scientists-say/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 11, 2018, 03:51:58 PM
Dax - burn it hotter and longer because it’s all a hoax by the Democrats and “scientists”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-climate-report-was-too-cautious-some-scientists-say/

They've been saying the same thing for 20 plus years.

I guess you missed my post from earlier.  University Alabama-Huntsville (a good engineering and climate studies school BTW) broke down over 70 temp studies and model projections just for the State of Alabama and every single one of them was wrong, 100% failure.  Also if you read the IPCC report it essentially calls for taking the profit margin of just about every company in the world and handing it over to some nebulous UN entity to "fight" climate change.

Oh, and that's not calling anything a hoax, dummy.




Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: bucket on October 11, 2018, 08:35:14 PM
Dax - burn it hotter and longer because it’s all a hoax by the Democrats and “scientists”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-climate-report-was-too-cautious-some-scientists-say/

They've been saying the same thing for 20 plus years.

I guess you missed my post from earlier.  University Alabama-Huntsville (a good engineering and climate studies school BTW) broke down over 70 temp studies and model projections just for the State of Alabama and every single one of them was wrong, 100% failure.  Also if you read the IPCC report it essentially calls for taking the profit margin of just about every company in the world and handing it over to some nebulous UN entity to "fight" climate change.

Oh, and that's not calling anything a hoax, dummy.

Dax, how did you hold up for Michael?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 12, 2018, 09:18:47 AM
No issues here, thanks for asking.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on October 15, 2018, 06:26:02 PM
lmao

https://twitter.com/mitchellvii/status/1051958103078526982?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: 8manpick on October 15, 2018, 07:08:53 PM
Holy crap.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on October 15, 2018, 07:21:18 PM
has anyone explained to bill that ice isn't found only in the sea?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on October 15, 2018, 07:32:03 PM
What's better? The combo of the inane tweet and that smug profile pic? Or awkwardly throwing in "assumes a hexagonal shape" to try to make himself sound smarter?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on October 15, 2018, 07:47:44 PM
I don’t know where he gets his molds, Amazon only sells small, large, and two packs.

Outset Silicone Hexagon Ice Cube Tray, Large Cubes https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005IZS7JS/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_tttXBb4QXFMFJ
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 16, 2018, 06:17:09 AM
https://www.bloombergquint.com/pursuits/even-used-planes-get-picked-over-as-luxury-jet-set-buys-again

I've also noticed that in countries that are signatories to the Paris Climate Accord, private business jet use and sales are skyrocketing.

May be one reason why their CO2 emissions are actually going up, rather than down.

But, they did sign that piece of paper.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on October 16, 2018, 07:43:27 AM
I think everyone itt can agree that not following agreed to environmental rules/regulations is bad
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 16, 2018, 08:00:40 AM
I think everyone itt can agree that not following agreed to environmental rules/regulations is bad

 . . . you forgot to add "But I'm leaving out the part where resident LibBots and I melted down about the U.S. not signing a meaningless piece of paper".

Always here to help Steve.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: 8manpick on October 16, 2018, 08:09:16 AM
What if the models are all wrong because the government is controlling superstorms and hurricanes in a way to maximally increase funding to fight climate change?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: puniraptor on October 17, 2018, 09:54:09 PM
geoengineering brainstorm

assumption: even on a warmup up rising sea level melty icecap planet, there will be places at the extreme poles that are always freezing

scheme: pump seawater to the freezing places and freeze it up thereby lowering the sealevel back to florida exists levels
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on October 17, 2018, 10:04:55 PM
geoengineering brainstorm

assumption: even on a warmup up rising sea level melty icecap planet, there will be places at the extreme poles that are always freezing

scheme: pump seawater to the freezing places and freeze it up thereby lowering the sealevel back to florida exists levels

It’s not warming, everything is still cold in the ice caps, that’s why they are called the ice caps lol.

Unless this is coal/oil powered why even bother?  The winds could be the strongest and most consistent on earth but the cost is way to high to even try.

Have you seen what the “scientists have said”?  They are basically saying what you said, which is a hoax.

- Dax
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on October 17, 2018, 10:25:22 PM
geoengineering brainstorm

assumption: even on a warmup up rising sea level melty icecap planet, there will be places at the extreme poles that are always freezing

scheme: pump seawater to the freezing places and freeze it up thereby lowering the sealevel back to florida exists levels

Hydro powered pumps, perfect
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 17, 2018, 10:52:28 PM
The Big Tuck is the most unhappy person I've ever seen, always mad about something.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 17, 2018, 10:55:34 PM
BTW, U.S. emissions just hit a 67 year low, while the rest of the world is on the rise.

But we didn't sign that meaningless piece of paper.

Must remind myself that 100's of climate alarmists signed a petition to ban water at one of their conclaves a few years back.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on October 17, 2018, 10:57:46 PM
BTW, U.S. emissions just hit a 67 year low

Progress! :emawkid:


“Make America Great Again”

- Bill Clinton
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 17, 2018, 11:05:15 PM
We should not sign other meaningless pieces of paper that LibBots meltdown about when we don't sign.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on October 17, 2018, 11:10:20 PM
geoengineering brainstorm

assumption: even on a warmup up rising sea level melty icecap planet, there will be places at the extreme poles that are always freezing

scheme: pump seawater to the freezing places and freeze it up thereby lowering the sealevel back to florida exists levels

Hydro powered pumps, perfect

Obviously harnessed from the perpetually melting snowcaps
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 17, 2018, 11:35:48 PM
Perpetually melting  :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: puniraptor on October 18, 2018, 12:21:25 AM
dax, back to speaking about nazi geoengineering, i saw some calcs showing that draining the mediterranean would result in a 12 meter global sea level rise (not accounting for shoreline slopes because thats too hard)

thats alot more than i expected
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on October 18, 2018, 07:24:25 AM
He's still confused about your brilliant scheme
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: puniraptor on October 18, 2018, 07:27:57 AM
Thinking about draining the Mediterranean is actually how I came up with my pole pumper epiphany
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on October 18, 2018, 07:41:08 AM
I knew a pole pumper once.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on October 18, 2018, 07:49:42 AM
:lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 18, 2018, 07:57:32 AM
dax, back to speaking about nazi geoengineering, i saw some calcs showing that draining the mediterranean would result in a 12 meter global sea level rise (not accounting for shoreline slopes because thats too hard)

thats alot more than i expected

Pfft, Alantropa . . .  :lol:

BTW LibDerp7 is a complete weirdo, ignore him.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: star seed 7 on October 18, 2018, 08:28:33 AM
I knew a pole pumper once.

 :worthless:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on October 18, 2018, 12:08:22 PM
uh, no. all of this is a huge no.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on October 18, 2018, 12:17:58 PM
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-10-17/greenhouse-gas-emissions-fall-almost-3-percent-in-2017 (https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2018-10-17/greenhouse-gas-emissions-fall-almost-3-percent-in-2017)

also, it was market forces that decreased emissions. If natural gas becomes more expensive than coal, you can expect emissions to go back up. The whole point of the Paris accord what to set lofty goals in an attempt to force governments to push towards research that would deliver sufficient energy without using fossil fuels. It was simply an anchoring point.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on October 18, 2018, 01:29:10 PM
The whole point of the paris accord was to artificially penalize countries rich with natural resources (eg USA) so shitty broke dick countries (eg Europe) could better compete with them in manufacturing
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 18, 2018, 01:41:37 PM
My understanding of the Paris Accord is that it can't penalize anyone because none of the pledges are binding.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on October 18, 2018, 03:06:57 PM
My understanding of the Paris Accord is that it can't penalize anyone because none of the pledges are binding.

That's correct.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on October 18, 2018, 03:09:54 PM
Per the IPCC intitial reports some 20 plus years ago, the crap was already supposed to be hitting the fan.

Meanwhile, in Hurricane news, a little history from our own United States Air Force indicates that since the 1850's, that Michael is the 7th Cat 4 plus Hurricane to hit the Florida Panhandle.  All told 13 major hurricanes have hit within 60 miles of Elgin AFB since the mid 1800's, 26 hurricanes in total, and 56 tropical storms overall.

where did you find this stat?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on October 31, 2018, 10:23:24 PM
https://twitter.com/bradplumer/status/1057770518739410945
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 01, 2018, 02:02:22 AM
Wind Power:  For a warmer earth

https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30446-X#%20
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on November 01, 2018, 11:35:12 AM
The whole point of the paris accord was to artificially penalize countries rich with natural resources (eg USA) so shitty broke dick countries (eg Europe) could better compete with them in manufacturing

was not aware Europe was a "broke dick" country.

illuminating
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on November 01, 2018, 01:47:06 PM
I see nobody has any legitimate disagreement with my assessment of the Paris accord.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2018, 04:30:26 PM
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/#_edn1

Hmm . . .

The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was  sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.

Moreover, even if the paper’s results had been correct, they would not have justified its findings regarding an increase to 2.0°C in the lower bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity range and a 25% reduction in the carbon budget for 2°C global warming.

Because of the wide dissemination of the paper’s results, it is extremely important that these errors are acknowledged by the authors without delay and then corrected.

Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper’s findings now correct the record too.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on November 07, 2018, 05:57:11 PM
Burn baby burn
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Kat Kid on November 07, 2018, 06:01:19 PM
I heard someone make a good point about why geoengineering is an inevitable response that we need to put significant resources toward to prevent the effects of climate change.

Granting that the Earth's climate changes on its own, we need to make preparations to prevent mass starvation and crop failures in the event (which we have evidence to believe is already happening) that the Earth is warming (for whatever reason).  Geoengineering makes a lot of Green types pretty mad, but it seems inevitable to me to prevent huge famines.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2018, 06:12:16 PM
Burn baby burn

Continue to parrot faulty science!! . . . Perpetually Angry The Big Tuck
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on November 07, 2018, 06:23:08 PM
Science  :curse:

Logic  :angry:

Reason  :chainsaw:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 07, 2018, 07:45:47 PM
Science  :curse:

Logic  :angry:

Reason  :chainsaw:

Only a supreme dumbass such as yourself wouldn’t understand that I posted an article from a scientist saying other scientists are wrong, and very explicitly stating why he believes they are wrong. 

Posted on Dr. Judith Curry’s website.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 12, 2018, 10:13:14 AM
Apparently our own Kansas State University refutes the science that wind energy proliferation will actually warm the earth via air flow disruption.

https://www.k-state.edu/media/newsreleases/2018-11/westar111218.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 13, 2018, 10:24:43 AM
The Sun, not cooperating to advance the agenda.

https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on November 13, 2018, 11:46:28 AM
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/12/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-analysis-12-highlights-lower-cost-of-renewables/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 14, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html

Remember, finding major flaws in widely heralded scientific studies is in fact . . . anti-science, according to some on this blog.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on November 15, 2018, 07:28:51 AM
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1063051510135820288
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 15, 2018, 08:03:34 AM
Always appreciate takes that imply that the only way climate changes is because of AGW. 

Apparently they’ve never heard of natural variability.   

Some in the MSM have done a total 180 on California.   Just a couple of years ago they told us the historical facts that droughts in the region have in some cases  lasted decades even centuries over the course of history.   Now it’s all AGW fault. 

The Agenda never sleeps. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on November 17, 2018, 02:14:30 PM
Good thing not everyone is like Dax and says “Welp it’s too expensive might as well not even try and make it better and cheaper burn baby burn”.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/its-now-cheaper-to-build-a-new-wind-farm-than-to-keep-a-coal-plant-running/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on November 22, 2018, 06:57:24 AM
Every debate on this subject in the entire history of debates on this subject:

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1065585502970159106
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on November 23, 2018, 05:46:14 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/23/climate/us-climate-report.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on November 23, 2018, 11:14:32 PM
I have never understood how if they can't accurately forecast the weather a month out how we're supposed to believe they can predict the climate 50-100 years in the future.

It's a blatant attempt to scare folks into giving up their money and control to big daddy government to save the day. And the leftist masses are just ignorant enough to fall for it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on November 23, 2018, 11:23:06 PM
Dax?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on November 23, 2018, 11:24:27 PM
I've frequently said that the warmer temperatures of the Holocene Climatic Optimum of about 9,000 years ago were likely necessary to make civilization possible. Without those higher temperatures, it would have been more difficult for mankind to settle down and become farmers instead of being nomadic hunters. The more realistic projections for Global Warming would bring the temperature up close to the Climatic Optimum in maybe 100 years.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on November 24, 2018, 05:27:40 AM
yeah, you won't shut up about the rough ridin' holocene climatic optimum.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on November 24, 2018, 12:12:33 PM
this is interesting because I just watched a video on the PETM
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Kat Kid on November 26, 2018, 03:23:14 PM
dax has posted on here that many scientists participate in the global warming mythology because of profit motive--there is a lot of money to be made by claiming the Earth is warming and pollution by people is the cause because the government provides lots of "green funding" and journals like "Nature" will dole out the cash and prestige.  Not clear why academic journals and government grants would have more resources than the array of multi-national corporations that benefit from our current energy consumption but sure, let's stipulate that.

Now, how can we explain how the multi-national energy extraction giants behaved with their own internal research?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DssuyEvUwAAQ62_.jpg:large)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on November 29, 2018, 09:39:39 AM
https://twitter.com/MonmouthPoll/status/1068157756945956864
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 08, 2018, 02:22:45 PM
France doesn't seem to like the consequences

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-protests/french-police-clash-with-yellow-vest-protesters-on-champs-elysees-idUSKBN1O700H
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on December 13, 2018, 08:46:19 AM
 :runaway:

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1073136712468058112?s=19
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on December 16, 2018, 12:12:12 AM
I think the climate seems normal, nothing going on here, nothing at all. -Dax-FSD

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/11/climate/arctic-warming.amp.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: 8manpick on December 27, 2018, 04:18:14 PM
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1061367825724522497?s=20

Old tweet, but good point
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 08, 2019, 05:17:57 PM
Quote
A scientist is part of what the Polish philosopher of science Ludwik Fleck called a “thought collective”: a group of people exchanging ideas in a mutually comprehensible idiom. The group, suggested Fleck, inevitably develops a mind of its own, as the individuals in it converge on a way of communicating, thinking and feeling.

This makes scientific inquiry prone to the eternal rules of human social life: deference to the charismatic, herding towards majority opinion, punishment for deviance, and intense discomfort with admitting to error. Of course, such tendencies are precisely what the scientific method was invented to correct for, and over the long run, it does a good job of it.

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-sugar-conspiracy
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on January 11, 2019, 10:06:04 AM
https://twitter.com/MikeHudema/status/1083594428814712832
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 11, 2019, 10:18:04 AM
https://twitter.com/MikeHudema/status/1083594428814712832

SysWhack-A-Doo . . . has science and technology changed any over the last 137 years?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 11, 2019, 10:32:27 AM
Yikes, very informative sys
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ChiComCat on January 11, 2019, 10:46:02 AM
No, science and technology have not changed over 137 years.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 11, 2019, 11:22:41 AM
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/china-putting-major-breaks-on-solar-deployment-as-new-market-rules-imposed

But everybody else, sign up for that Paris thing and . . . eff off! (China)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on January 11, 2019, 08:30:59 PM
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/china-putting-major-breaks-on-solar-deployment-as-new-market-rules-imposed

But everybody else, sign up for that Paris thing and . . . eff off! (China)

Dax, the article you posted is from June of last year. The below link, China reveals new subsidy-free solar and wind policy, is from yesterday and from the same website.

https://www.pv-tech.org/news/china-reveals-new-subsidy-free-solar-and-wind-policy

I miss you
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 11, 2019, 08:33:41 PM
China also just said that all non fossil fuel investment must meet a mandate of being cheaper than coal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/06/05/why-did-china-tap-the-brakes-on-its-solar-program/amp/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on January 12, 2019, 07:35:40 AM
Are you like one of those AI twitter handles?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on January 12, 2019, 08:33:12 AM
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/china-putting-major-breaks-on-solar-deployment-as-new-market-rules-imposed

But everybody else, sign up for that Paris thing and . . . eff off! (China)

Dax, the article you posted is from June of last year. The below link, China reveals new subsidy-free solar and wind policy, is from yesterday and from the same website.

https://www.pv-tech.org/news/china-reveals-new-subsidy-free-solar-and-wind-policy

I miss you

See here’s the thing, we don’t know the optimal amount of years old an article should be.  As long as it fits the “this is all a hoax” agenda it’s fair game.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 12, 2019, 08:47:27 AM
The adults are talking here The Big Tuck, run along. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on January 19, 2019, 01:32:35 PM
Here you go Dax, even the climate change deniers are publishing articles about climate change being real.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/antarctic-ice-is-melting-six-times-faster-than-it-did-in-the-1980s-and-could-destabilize-glaciers
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 21, 2019, 07:01:09 PM
 :lol: Sure thing The Big Tuck.   Have they recently discovered substantially higher volcanic activity under the Antarctic, many times greater than what was known before?   

In other news, 1,500 or so private jets descending on the DAVOS conference, guzzling millions of gallons fossil fuels and spewing tons of carbon into the atmosphere.   While there, their many luxury vehicles will guzzle additional tens of thousands of gallons of fossil fuels, and their luxury accommodations require massive amounts of energy, almost exclusively carbon based in order to provide power and warmth.   Not to mention the agriculture onslaught of carbon needed to provide the many thousands of luxury meals featuring some of the most carbon intensive food products known to the world today. 

One of the primary topics . . . man made climate change. 





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on January 21, 2019, 08:44:05 PM
:lol: Sure thing The Big Tuck.   Have they recently discovered substantially higher volcanic activity under the Antarctic, many times greater than what was known before?   

In other news, 1,500 or so private jets descending on the DAVOS conference, guzzling millions of gallons fossil fuels and spewing tons of carbon into the atmosphere.   While there, their many luxury vehicles will guzzle additional tens of thousands of gallons of fossil fuels, and their luxury accommodations require massive amounts of energy, almost exclusively carbon based in order to provide power and warmth.   Not to mention the agriculture onslaught of carbon needed to provide the many thousands of luxury meals featuring some of the most carbon intensive food products known to the world today. 

One of the primary topics . . . man made climate change.

What makes you believe that the vast majority of people going to the WEF represent or speak on behalf of people who *actually* care about the environment?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on January 21, 2019, 08:45:40 PM
it's a lovely little hypocrisy strawman that you've made
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 22, 2019, 11:03:55 AM
Gee trey, I just re-read what I posted and no where in there did I say any of the attendees spoke for anyone.

But a simple cursory review of the attendee list shows a number of people who have told us that we're all gonna die (except them) if we don't quit using fossil fuels, for example - David Attenborough.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on January 22, 2019, 12:41:37 PM
Gee trey, I just re-read what I posted and no where in there did I say any of the attendees spoke for anyone.

But a simple cursory review of the attendee list shows a number of people who have told us that we're all gonna die (except them) if we don't quit using fossil fuels, for example - David Attenborough.

Can you please confirm for me that David Attenborough is chartering a private jet to Davos? Thank you.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 22, 2019, 01:37:55 PM
Gee trey, I just re-read what I posted and no where in there did I say any of the attendees spoke for anyone.

But a simple cursory review of the attendee list shows a number of people who have told us that we're all gonna die (except them) if we don't quit using fossil fuels, for example - David Attenborough.

Can you please confirm for me that David Attenborough is chartering a private jet to Davos? Thank you.

No I cannot, but he has no problem sharing his (undoubtedly) extremely profound and cutting edge ideas with those that did . . .

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/1500-private-jets-expected-at-davos-despite-global-warming-being-a-major-concern-2019-01-22

But they are "encouraged" to take offsetting measures, ya see . . .

https://www.france24.com/en/20190122-never-mind-climate-change-davos-prefers-private-jets
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on January 22, 2019, 04:31:41 PM
sorry insane republicans.  in 5 years this one is gonna be about where gay marriage is today.

https://twitter.com/maxjrosenthal/status/1087830096470249472
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on January 22, 2019, 04:47:44 PM
sorry insane republicans.  in 5 years this one is gonna be about where gay marriage is today.

https://twitter.com/maxjrosenthal/status/1087830096470249472

Republicans secretly know climate change is real. They're just hoping rising sea levels will wipe out the Dems.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 22, 2019, 05:01:02 PM
Useful idiots are easily propagandized.

How telling pictures of the California Fires . . . just two years ago Cali media was running articles about how the drought were caused by El/La Nino/a cycles, then came the articles talking about the region has historically (that's Earth history, not climate alarmist "history") had experienced droughts that lasted decades, even centuries.   But two years later, that just doesn't fit the narrative anymore.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on January 22, 2019, 05:02:47 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 22, 2019, 05:08:15 PM
:lol:

Speaking of useful idiots
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on January 22, 2019, 05:09:20 PM
:lol:

Speaking of useful idiots

Climate change: hoax or no hoax?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 22, 2019, 05:11:28 PM
:lol:

Speaking of useful idiots

Climate change: hoax or no hoax?

The climate has always changed and always will change.   

We now have climate "scientists" writing scary papers where they now use such scientific words as "belief".

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on January 22, 2019, 05:13:11 PM
:lol:

Speaking of useful idiots

Climate change: hoax or no hoax?

The climate has always changed and always will change.   

We now have climate "scientists" writing scary papers where they now use such scientific words as "belief".

Dax a yes or no question is the easiest of any question to answer.  There’s no other context needed.  Is man made climate change a hoax or not?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 22, 2019, 05:16:40 PM
:lol:

Speaking of useful idiots

Climate change: hoax or no hoax?

The climate has always changed and always will change.   

We now have climate "scientists" writing scary papers where they now use such scientific words as "belief".

Dax a yes or no question is the easiest of any question to answer.  There’s no other context needed.  Is man made climate change a hoax or not?

LOL, your own favorite scientists can't answer that question, and always manage to leave a lot of open ended-ness to every belief-conclusion, which translates into . . . . we need more money.

The AGW is not the cataclysmic event that alarmist say that it is, but if you want me to say that man is impacting the environment than, yes.   Ever since man has existed.

But, you're too stupid to get that.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on January 22, 2019, 05:22:57 PM
:lol:

Speaking of useful idiots

Climate change: hoax or no hoax?

The climate has always changed and always will change.   

We now have climate "scientists" writing scary papers where they now use such scientific words as "belief".

Dax a yes or no question is the easiest of any question to answer.  There’s no other context needed.  Is man made climate change a hoax or not?

LOL, your own favorite scientists can't answer that question, and always manage to leave a lot of open ended-ness to every belief-conclusion, which translates into . . . . we need more money.

The AGW is not the cataclysmic event that alarmist say that it is, but if you want me to say that man is impacting the environment than, yes.   Ever since man has existed.

But, you're too stupid to get that.

Good grief.  Thank you for at least answering.

So in light of this, did pre-industrial revolution people impact it more or less than post-industrial revolution?

Or is it your opinion when we were hunter-gathers we impacted it the same as we do today?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 22, 2019, 05:26:58 PM
Here's a perfect example The Big Tuck:

“Arctic Amplification is consistent with computer models, simulating the response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. However, the underlying physical processes for the intensified warming still remain elusive. 

Using complex computer simulations, the scientists were able to disprove previously suggested hypotheses, that emphasized the role of transport of heat from the tropics to the poles as one of the key contributors to the amplified warming in the Arctic.
[/b]
“Our study clearly shows that local carbon dioxide forcing and polar feedbacks are most effective in Arctic amplification compared to other processes”, says Assistant Project Leader Malte F. Stuecker, the corresponding author of the study.”


Translation:  We don't really know anything more now, than we did before the study.   But we're going to make you believe that we're on to something so we can get more money.   Not only that, there's huge debate as to whether you can even call it "intensified warming" . . intensified warming relative to what?   For how long?  When?   But this the game that's played, and AGW zealots get all pissy when just as smart people as these "scientists" start picking these things apart. 

https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/190661.php
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on January 22, 2019, 05:47:30 PM
 :excited:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on January 22, 2019, 07:00:08 PM
If Trump says it's a hoax, dax knows it's a hoax.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on January 22, 2019, 09:20:39 PM
Just as I believe humans are contributing to climate change because I defer to the consensus among those who study it.

This is a hard divergence from Trumpism that Dax should consider. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on January 22, 2019, 10:52:51 PM
wow dax, your scientific literacy is complete ass. you couldn't be more wrong about your interpretation of the text that you bolded.

hugs and kisses,

treysolid (actual scientist)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 23, 2019, 08:29:43 AM
“Regional green house gasses”. LOL, WTF?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 23, 2019, 08:31:44 AM
wow dax, your scientific literacy is complete ass. you couldn't be more wrong about your interpretation of the text that you bolded.

hugs and kisses,

treysolid (actual scientist)

Not really. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: treysolid on January 23, 2019, 10:36:19 AM
“Regional green house gasses”. LOL, WTF?

Don't ridicule a hypothesis just because you don't know about carbon and methane release from thawing permafrost.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on January 28, 2019, 09:42:22 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1090074254010404864
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 28, 2019, 10:11:39 PM
Don "teach me how to" trump
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 29, 2019, 08:11:19 AM
Somebody let Don know that the "Polar Vortex" aka Winter, is also part of the Global Warming Initiative. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 29, 2019, 07:07:10 PM
PG&E green energy "leader" filing bankruptcy (still want to pay $180 million in bonuses though) . . . maybe if they'd put more money in maintaining those power lines (in a geographic region of the world that has experienced droughts that have lasted decades even centuries over the course of world history . . . and was never meant to support tens of millions of people) instead of "investing" in "green" energy, they wouldn't be facing $30 billion in liabilities.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 09:45:21 AM
https://carnegiescience.edu/news/china-not-walking-walk-methane-emissions

But they signed the Paris Agreement!!!

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: catastrophe on January 30, 2019, 09:50:51 AM
Good point about how there is no downside to staying in the Paris accords Dax.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 10:08:47 AM
Good point about how there is no downside to staying in the Paris accords Dax.

Translation:  Meaningless . . . a futile, purely symbolic gesture
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: bucket on January 30, 2019, 10:24:09 AM
Good point about how there is no downside to staying in the Paris accords Dax.

Translation:  Meaningless . . . a futile, purely symbolic gesture

https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1089336109685985280
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 10:48:01 AM
Good point about how there is no downside to staying in the Paris accords Dax.

Translation:  Meaningless . . . a futile, purely symbolic gesture

https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1089336109685985280


Great propaganda, but they were talking about that before the Paris Agreement even existed and won't come close to offsetting China's onslaught of growing emissions.


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: catastrophe on January 30, 2019, 12:23:19 PM
Good point about how there is no downside to staying in the Paris accords Dax.

Translation:  Meaningless . . . a futile, purely symbolic gesture

FYI - like most of foreign policy is symbolic gestures.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 06:31:11 PM
Elon "fossil fuels are the dumbest experiment in human history" Musk logged 159K miles in calendar year 2018 on his Gulfstream 650

Gallons of Fuel Burned Per Hour of Flight Time at Cruising Speed/Altitude:  500 gph


Congrats Elon, keep pouring through that investor money, and don't forget that pending Tesla debt payment.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on January 30, 2019, 07:18:00 PM
Eat crap Elon!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on January 30, 2019, 07:23:15 PM
The airline exhaust argument always puzzles me. Sure, they produce a lot of emissions, but what's the alternative? No one ever go anywhere?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on January 30, 2019, 07:35:08 PM
I do like this graphic, though.

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1090373564837122058
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on January 30, 2019, 07:36:46 PM
Also, rough ridin' lol

https://twitter.com/drewharwell/status/1090599769079189504
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 08:45:03 PM
The airline exhaust argument always puzzles me. Sure, they produce a lot of emissions, but what's the alternative? No one ever go anywhere?

FFS Spracs
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on January 30, 2019, 08:46:26 PM
The airline exhaust argument always puzzles me. Sure, they produce a lot of emissions, but what's the alternative? No one ever go anywhere?

FFS Spracs

I'm always open to having my mind changed. Make the case.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on January 30, 2019, 08:56:07 PM
I think Dax is making the case that all business executives should fly commercial and I stand 100% with him
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 09:03:30 PM
Elon can consume all the fossil fuels he wants.   

Just don’t think and say crap like this:

“We know we’ll run out of dead dinosaurs to mine for fuel & have to use sustainable energy eventually. So why not go renewable now & avoid increasing risk of climate catastrophe?” - on the same day his jet flew over Mexico for a personal trip.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on January 30, 2019, 09:04:57 PM
Are you saying he shouldn't fly unless/until he invents an electric airplane?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on January 30, 2019, 09:15:26 PM
I'd say Elon is putting his talents to use on the largest problem areas considering that 83% of transport-related emissions are produced by cars and trucks while aircraft account for only 9%.

Also, electrified airplanes won't ever be feasible without HUGE advances in battery and material technology.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on January 30, 2019, 09:17:06 PM
spracne, dax is to perceived hypocrisy as you are to puns.  a man cannot turn from whence the siren song summons him
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 09:23:05 PM
The return to carbon neutral on electric cars is still huge.  Battery production is still horrific for the environment and a massive consumer of natural resources. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 09:25:00 PM
spracne, dax is to perceived hypocrisy as you are to puns.  a man cannot turn from whence the siren song summons him

It’s not perceived sysWhack-a-Doo, the numbers speak for themselves, dumbass.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on January 30, 2019, 09:32:07 PM
The mining of most of the heavy metals used in ICs is also horrific but I don't see you on a campaign to stop using computers. You seem to only have a stick in your ass about the one technology that can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: treysolid on January 30, 2019, 09:35:30 PM
spracne, dax is to perceived hypocrisy as you are to puns.  a man cannot turn from whence the siren song summons him

It’s not perceived sysWhack-a-Doo, the numbers speak for themselves, dumbass.

Umm, I don't want to be perceived as having a hard-on for the truth or anything, but I'm the only person ITT at the moment producing any numbers. TYVM.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on January 30, 2019, 09:37:44 PM
You seem to only have a stick in your ass about the one technology that can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

a coincidence.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 09:41:27 PM
The mining of most of the heavy metals used in ICs is also horrific but I don't see you on a campaign to stop using computers. You seem to only have a stick in your ass about the one technology that can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Because there’s better ways than electric cars.   

Do they talk about the “dead earth” around IC production facilities like they do about battery production facilities?

Don’t worry bro, more layoffs at Tesla.  Somebody better will come along.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on January 30, 2019, 09:44:17 PM
If you want to point out that renewables are not yet cheap/efficient enough to transition away from fossil fuels, I agree. That doesn't mean we should be hostile towards trying to get them to that point, though. It needs to happen, eventually.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 09:48:13 PM
You seem to only have a stick in your ass about the one technology that can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

a coincidence.

Always wrong SysWhackadoo, but you keep trying.

SysWhackadoo:  A proud proponent of destroying the planet on the road to try and “save” it
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: treysolid on January 30, 2019, 09:48:45 PM
The mining of most of the heavy metals used in ICs is also horrific but I don't see you on a campaign to stop using computers. You seem to only have a stick in your ass about the one technology that can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Because there’s better ways than electric cars.   

I'm ALL ears...
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 09:49:31 PM
If you want to point out that renewables are not yet cheap/efficient enough to transition away from fossil fuels, I agree. That doesn't mean we should be hostile towards trying to get them to that point, though. It needs to happen, eventually.

You are trying hard, I’ll give you that.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on January 30, 2019, 09:52:35 PM
If you want to point out that renewables are not yet cheap/efficient enough to transition away from fossil fuels, I agree. That doesn't mean we should be hostile towards trying to get them to that point, though. It needs to happen, eventually.

You are trying hard, I’ll give you that.

??? Look, I appreciate you bringing balance to the force around here. You serve an important function. But if you disagree with what I said, point out your specific objections, and maybe we can all learn something, together.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 09:54:26 PM
The mining of most of the heavy metals used in ICs is also horrific but I don't see you on a campaign to stop using computers. You seem to only have a stick in your ass about the one technology that can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Because there’s better ways than electric cars.   

I'm ALL ears...

Don’t worry Trey, while your still fapping it out over electric cars, the Chinese will control the fuel cell vehicle market. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: treysolid on January 30, 2019, 09:57:47 PM
The mining of most of the heavy metals used in ICs is also horrific but I don't see you on a campaign to stop using computers. You seem to only have a stick in your ass about the one technology that can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Because there’s better ways than electric cars.   

I'm ALL ears...

Don’t worry Trey, while your still fapping it out over electric cars, the Chinese will control the fuel cell vehicle market.

Great, I love fuel cells - what we talking about here? Hydrogen? Methanol? Solid oxide? Give me some specs, man.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on January 30, 2019, 09:58:32 PM
Also, Elon saying "avoid increasing the risk of" climate change doesn't exactly hit my ears as the words of a zealot. That's a pretty muted statement.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 10:02:21 PM
If you want to point out that renewables are not yet cheap/efficient enough to transition away from fossil fuels, I agree. That doesn't mean we should be hostile towards trying to get them to that point, though. It needs to happen, eventually.

You are trying hard, I’ll give you that.

??? Look, I appreciate you bringing balance to the force around here. You serve an important function. But if you disagree with what I said, point out your specific objections, and maybe we can all learn something, together.

Further subsidization of electric vehicles or US based companies pursuing that path outside the special use segment is a fools errand. 

The market is going to shift to FCV/NFV (new fuel vehicles) and the US needs to get ahead of the curve.

The Chines govt is ending subsidies for EV but continuing subsidies for FCV because that’s where they are headed.  Hyundai is working on more FCV as well.
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 10:03:20 PM
The mining of most of the heavy metals used in ICs is also horrific but I don't see you on a campaign to stop using computers. You seem to only have a stick in your ass about the one technology that can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Because there’s better ways than electric cars.   

I'm ALL ears...

Don’t worry Trey, while your still fapping it out over electric cars, the Chinese will control the fuel cell vehicle market.

Great, I love fuel cells - what we talking about here? Hydrogen? Methanol? Solid oxide? Give me some specs, man.

This isn’t the Scientific American forum, take your smartest guy in the room act down the hall.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on January 30, 2019, 10:16:54 PM
spracne, dax is to perceived hypocrisy as you are to puns.  a man cannot turn from whence the siren song summons him

I think superficial yet not actual hypocrisy is the basis of his entire theory of morality.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 10:22:48 PM
spracne, dax is to perceived hypocrisy as you are to puns.  a man cannot turn from whence the siren song summons him

I think superficial yet not actual hypocrisy is the basis of his entire theory of morality.

Morality ain’t got nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on January 30, 2019, 10:24:25 PM
The mining of most of the heavy metals used in ICs is also horrific but I don't see you on a campaign to stop using computers. You seem to only have a stick in your ass about the one technology that can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Because there’s better ways than electric cars.   

I'm ALL ears...

Don’t worry Trey, while your still fapping it out over electric cars, the Chinese will control the fuel cell vehicle market.

Great, I love fuel cells - what we talking about here? Hydrogen? Methanol? Solid oxide? Give me some specs, man.

This isn’t the Scientific American forum, take your smartest guy in the room act down the hall.

If you lack a fundamental understanding of the base technology, then you're going to be immediately out of your depth when it comes to predicting market forces. Fuel cell prototypes for cars are overwhelmingly hydrogen-based. And as of right now, 95% of the world production of hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. So...not as clean as you think. Plus, consumer sentiment for riding around in a land-based version of the Hindenburg is going to be quite the obstacle to mass adoption.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 30, 2019, 10:31:42 PM
The mining of most of the heavy metals used in ICs is also horrific but I don't see you on a campaign to stop using computers. You seem to only have a stick in your ass about the one technology that can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Because there’s better ways than electric cars.   

I'm ALL ears...

Don’t worry Trey, while your still fapping it out over electric cars, the Chinese will control the fuel cell vehicle market.

Great, I love fuel cells - what we talking about here? Hydrogen? Methanol? Solid oxide? Give me some specs, man.

This isn’t the Scientific American forum, take your smartest guy in the room act down the hall.

If you lack a fundamental understanding of the base technology, then you're going to be immediately out of your depth when it comes to predicting market forces. Fuel cell prototypes for cars are overwhelmingly hydrogen-based. And as of right now, 95% of the world production of hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. So...not as clean as you think. Plus, consumer sentiment for riding around in a land-based version of the Hindenburg is going to be quite the obstacle to mass adoption.

1.  I don’t need to get down into the weeds to read about and comprehend market forces

2.  Never said anything about how clean or not clean FC’s were

3.  If FCV are indeed as dangerous as you claim why are some the biggest liability claim targets on our planet pursuing them?  Why in the world are municipalities hauling around people by the bus load in fuel cell vehicles?   
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: treysolid on January 30, 2019, 10:55:21 PM
The mining of most of the heavy metals used in ICs is also horrific but I don't see you on a campaign to stop using computers. You seem to only have a stick in your ass about the one technology that can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Because there’s better ways than electric cars.   

I'm ALL ears...

Don’t worry Trey, while your still fapping it out over electric cars, the Chinese will control the fuel cell vehicle market.

Great, I love fuel cells - what we talking about here? Hydrogen? Methanol? Solid oxide? Give me some specs, man.

This isn’t the Scientific American forum, take your smartest guy in the room act down the hall.

If you lack a fundamental understanding of the base technology, then you're going to be immediately out of your depth when it comes to predicting market forces. Fuel cell prototypes for cars are overwhelmingly hydrogen-based. And as of right now, 95% of the world production of hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. So...not as clean as you think. Plus, consumer sentiment for riding around in a land-based version of the Hindenburg is going to be quite the obstacle to mass adoption.

1.  I don’t need to get down into the weeds to read about and comprehend market forces
I suppose that a poor comprehension still counts as a comprehension of sorts
2.  Never said anything about how clean or not clean FC’s were
Remember when you were railing against electric cars because of how terrible lithium mining is for the environment... and then proceeded to claim that fuel cells were better...
3.  If FCV are indeed as dangerous as you claim why are some the biggest liability claim targets on our planet pursuing them?  Why in the world are municipalities hauling around people by the bus load in fuel cell vehicles?
Hydrogen has the same stigma as nuclear fission. It doesn't matter if the plant will never melt down, people don't want to live near it, because what if? You're correct that there are fuel cell buses used for public transport in the States, but there's less than 70 in the entire country ( :lol:) People probably aren't even aware that they might be riding in a hydrogen-powered bus and even if they are, they're more willing to take the risk of a 15 minute ride to work as opposed to having a vehicle full of hydrogen sitting in their garage night after night while they sleep
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 31, 2019, 11:49:07 AM
The mining of most of the heavy metals used in ICs is also horrific but I don't see you on a campaign to stop using computers. You seem to only have a stick in your ass about the one technology that can help reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Because there’s better ways than electric cars.   

I'm ALL ears...

Don’t worry Trey, while your still fapping it out over electric cars, the Chinese will control the fuel cell vehicle market.

Great, I love fuel cells - what we talking about here? Hydrogen? Methanol? Solid oxide? Give me some specs, man.

This isn’t the Scientific American forum, take your smartest guy in the room act down the hall.

If you lack a fundamental understanding of the base technology, then you're going to be immediately out of your depth when it comes to predicting market forces. Fuel cell prototypes for cars are overwhelmingly hydrogen-based. And as of right now, 95% of the world production of hydrogen comes from fossil fuels. So...not as clean as you think. Plus, consumer sentiment for riding around in a land-based version of the Hindenburg is going to be quite the obstacle to mass adoption.

1.  I don’t need to get down into the weeds to read about and comprehend market forces
I suppose that a poor comprehension still counts as a comprehension of sorts
2.  Never said anything about how clean or not clean FC’s were
Remember when you were railing against electric cars because of how terrible lithium mining is for the environment... and then proceeded to claim that fuel cells were better...
3.  If FCV are indeed as dangerous as you claim why are some the biggest liability claim targets on our planet pursuing them?  Why in the world are municipalities hauling around people by the bus load in fuel cell vehicles?
Hydrogen has the same stigma as nuclear fission. It doesn't matter if the plant will never melt down, people don't want to live near it, because what if? You're correct that there are fuel cell buses used for public transport in the States, but there's less than 70 in the entire country ( :lol:) People probably aren't even aware that they might be riding in a hydrogen-powered bus and even if they are, they're more willing to take the risk of a 15 minute ride to work as opposed to having a vehicle full of hydrogen sitting in their garage night after night while they sleep

Thanks for that series of straw men Trey, none of which has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.  Unless you're going to try and tell us the manufacturing of batteries doesn't pollute etc. etc.

Here's a little pro-tip friend, a major world wide automobile manufacturer, who, out of all automobile companies that have existed on this planet has probably made the most right calls in their entire existence . . . is going very deep with FUEL CELL Vehicles, in fact, some of their engineers equate electric cars with the steam locomotive, perfect for the short term, but not at all the long play. 

Now, you can continue your silly little smartest guy in the room charade and keep harping about all the "bombs" that will be going down the road, but I doubt said huge automobile company is going to spend billions to send people out on the streets in bombs, with said company just crossing their fingers and hoping the dumb ol public, various oversight agencies and all the lawyers out in that public don't figure that out.

Now lets talk about distribution.   Pro-Top 2:  Very smart massive automobile company is working with commercial truck builders on FC's for commercial trucks.    I know you're not the brightest person, but one can only imagine the joy many of the hated by greenies trucking companies would have if they could get long range, powerful, fuel cell vehicles and be able to hit the roads cranking a lot less emissions.   Now, if that application comes to pass, the distribution problem will be resolved, almost over night.   Thus endeth Pro Tip 2.

Pro Tip 3:  The manufacturing process of fuel cells is rapidly evolving to the point that precious metal needs in that process are being eliminated in factors calculated in tens of percentage points at a time.    Not to mention engineering evolving to the point that FC's will essentially be mere bolt on's to existing models/chassis and much easier to implement into mass assembly processes and requiring less re-tooling of plants.   End of Pro Tip 3.





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CHONGS on January 31, 2019, 12:17:07 PM
Quote
Here's a little pro-tip friend, a major world wide automobile manufacturer, who, out of all automobile companies that have existed on this planet has probably made the most right calls in their entire existence . . . is going very deep with FUEL CELL Vehicles, in fact, some of their engineers equate electric cars with the steam locomotive, perfect for the short term, but not at all the long play. 
Why are you being coy about who this is?  Is this some super secret insider info only dax has heard about?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CHONGS on January 31, 2019, 12:19:56 PM
OMG are you talking about Hyundai Motor Group? :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 31, 2019, 12:22:43 PM
Toyota, you may have heard of them.

Why would you laugh about Hyundai though, they generated $91 billion dollars in revenue last year.   FFS Chin.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CHONGS on January 31, 2019, 12:31:06 PM
Oh dax....
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 31, 2019, 12:32:18 PM
Oh dax....

LOL, tap out noted.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 31, 2019, 12:32:43 PM
For SysWhack-A-Doo

https://cafcp.org/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CHONGS on January 31, 2019, 12:34:40 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on January 31, 2019, 12:36:25 PM
For SysWhack-A-Doo

https://cafcp.org/

looks great.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on January 31, 2019, 12:41:09 PM
Sys just got savagely owned I think
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on January 31, 2019, 12:51:51 PM
I don't think you know what the definition of a straw-man argument is. All of my points are valid. Hydrogen fuel cells still have many obstacles to climb before they are commercially-viable.

A) The stigma of having an extremely explosive substance powering vehicles. Already stated.
B) How is the hydrogen made? A FC that uses hydrogen made from coal gasification (the most common method currently) is way less clean that an electric motor powered by renewable energy. I'm not implying that every EV uses clean energy, but it's feasible - unlike hydrogen generation, which doesn't even have the option of using renewable power right now because water hydrolysis is super inefficient (currently).
C) How are you going to transport the hydrogen? Pipes? Who's going to build all that infrastructure? Tanker trucks? There's not a great, safe way to transport this fuel on a national scale, which gives EVs a huge leg up because we already have a pre-existing electrical grid.
D) There's also the fact that EVs are ~100% efficient (battery to electric motor) while HFCs (hydrogen to electric motor) are only 40-60% efficient.

If Toyota can figure out solutions to all of this, good on them. And you'll be seeing me driving around in my hydrogen car in 2035. But I'm pretty skeptical for right now.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 31, 2019, 06:26:43 PM
Thanks for all of your Captain Obvious talking points Trey.   Anyone with the slightest semblance of knowledge on the topic already knows all of what you just said.


I appreciate how you've dismissed all the inherent issues with EV's, and the fact that EV's power systems still require copious amounts of resources in order to produce and are a long, long way from being able to do anything beyond boutique level lifting on a broad scale.    Not to mention the inherent issues of time to recharge etc. etc.  Which renders EV unfeasible for many transportation industries. 

FCV/NCV will be trickle down from commercial grade into the main stream, IMO.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on January 31, 2019, 10:41:38 PM
Thanks for all of your Captain Obvious talking points Trey.   Anyone with the slightest semblance of knowledge on the topic already knows all of what you just said.


I appreciate how you've dismissed all the inherent issues with EV's, and the fact that EV's power systems still require copious amounts of resources in order to produce and are a long, long way from being able to do anything beyond boutique level lifting on a broad scale.    Not to mention the inherent issues of time to recharge etc. etc.  Which renders EV unfeasible for many transportation industries. 

FCV/NCV will be trickle down from commercial grade into the main stream, IMO.

Yeah, I'm sure you knew all that crap.  :jerk:

I haven't dismissed ANY of the disadvantages of Li-ion EVs, I simply haven't addressed them and I don't think they outweigh the positives for long-term implementation. Yes, Lithium mining is resource intensive (particularly water-intensive), but that burden can be partially offset due to the fact that Lithium batteries are recyclable. Also, let's not act like coal gasification isn't incredibly resource intensive as well, considering that coal is only 5% hydrogen and you also need a considerable amount of water for the extraction process. Lithium mining also has a much smaller carbon footprint (1 ton carbon dioxide for every ton of lithium carbonate) compared to coal mining and gasification (4 tons of carbon dioxide for every ton of coal). And I would argue that Lithium mining has a drastically smaller human cost associated with it as well.

Recharge time is definitely a huge obstacle for widespread implementation of Li-ion EVs for long distance transport. Nobody wants to wait an hour for every 250-350 miles (or so) that they drive. I personally think that this is a relatively minor problem since the vast majority of driving is performed in this range. Long-haul trucking will require further innovation, but this is a problem that is well-understood by the battery industry. I would say that the main challenges moving forward with Li-ion tech is improving battery safety, increasing storage density and efficiency (solid-state batteries can help here), and decreasing charge time (hopefully by incorporating supercapacitor-type technology). Thankfully, there's a ton of innovation in the field right now.

From a personal standpoint, I'm a huge fan of EVs because I believe that the increased load from having our daily commutes powered by electricity is pretty much the only thing that will be able to force utilities to overhaul and upgrade the electrical grid. Even if EV technology is surpassed by something else in the future (perhaps even hydrogen fuel cells), the improvements made to the grid in the next 10-15 years are going to make us much safer and more energy secure (fewer blackouts, etc).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on January 31, 2019, 11:54:18 PM
Is the answer to do away with doors? Anecdotal, I know, but when my office door is open compared to when my door is closed, there is nearly a 0:1 gasification ratio in my environment.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: puniraptor on February 01, 2019, 03:34:53 AM
The true future is wireless electricity. BEV and FCV are just placeholders
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 01, 2019, 07:12:46 AM
Thanks for all of your Captain Obvious talking points Trey.   Anyone with the slightest semblance of knowledge on the topic already knows all of what you just said.


I appreciate how you've dismissed all the inherent issues with EV's, and the fact that EV's power systems still require copious amounts of resources in order to produce and are a long, long way from being able to do anything beyond boutique level lifting on a broad scale.    Not to mention the inherent issues of time to recharge etc. etc.  Which renders EV unfeasible for many transportation industries. 

FCV/NCV will be trickle down from commercial grade into the main stream, IMO.

Yeah, I'm sure you knew all that crap.  :jerk:

I haven't dismissed ANY of the disadvantages of Li-ion EVs, I simply haven't addressed them and I don't think they outweigh the positives for long-term implementation. Yes, Lithium mining is resource intensive (particularly water-intensive), but that burden can be partially offset due to the fact that Lithium batteries are recyclable. Also, let's not act like coal gasification isn't incredibly resource intensive as well, considering that coal is only 5% hydrogen and you also need a considerable amount of water for the extraction process. Lithium mining also has a much smaller carbon footprint (1 ton carbon dioxide for every ton of lithium carbonate) compared to coal mining and gasification (4 tons of carbon dioxide for every ton of coal). And I would argue that Lithium mining has a drastically smaller human cost associated with it as well.

Recharge time is definitely a huge obstacle for widespread implementation of Li-ion EVs for long distance transport. Nobody wants to wait an hour for every 250-350 miles (or so) that they drive. I personally think that this is a relatively minor problem since the vast majority of driving is performed in this range. Long-haul trucking will require further innovation, but this is a problem that is well-understood by the battery industry. I would say that the main challenges moving forward with Li-ion tech is improving battery safety, increasing storage density and efficiency (solid-state batteries can help here), and decreasing charge time (hopefully by incorporating supercapacitor-type technology). Thankfully, there's a ton of innovation in the field right now.

From a personal standpoint, I'm a huge fan of EVs because I believe that the increased load from having our daily commutes powered by electricity is pretty much the only thing that will be able to force utilities to overhaul and upgrade the electrical grid. Even if EV technology is surpassed by something else in the future (perhaps even hydrogen fuel cells), the improvements made to the grid in the next 10-15 years are going to make us much safer and more energy secure (fewer blackouts, etc).

It is highly doubtful that massive improvements to the power grid will occur in the next 10-15 years.  This is why back up power systems companies are flourishing.  Right now we have one of the largest public utilities in the country in or about to be in bankruptcy because they didn’t properly maintain their grid.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on February 01, 2019, 07:38:19 AM
lmao

https://twitter.com/revrrlewis/status/1091318044943540225?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: treysolid on February 01, 2019, 09:06:25 AM
It is highly doubtful that massive improvements to the power grid will occur in the next 10-15 years.  This is why back up power systems companies are flourishing.  Right now we have one of the largest public utilities in the country in or about to be in bankruptcy because they didn’t properly maintain their grid.

These two statements appear incongruent. You're essentially stating that you believe that utilities would rather go bankrupt than make the necessary investments in their infrastructure?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 01, 2019, 10:20:27 AM
It is highly doubtful that massive improvements to the power grid will occur in the next 10-15 years.  This is why back up power systems companies are flourishing.  Right now we have one of the largest public utilities in the country in or about to be in bankruptcy because they didn’t properly maintain their grid.

These two statements appear incongruent. You're essentially stating that you believe that utilities would rather go bankrupt than make the necessary investments in their infrastructure?

PG&E is likely going to file bankruptcy (if they haven't already) because they failed to properly maintain their power grid, which in turn caused numerous wildfires in which they were found liable for . . . if one of the largest power companies in the United States has done such a poor job of maintaining their grid, then you can only imagine what it's like elsewhere.     On most grids a singular ice storm or hurricane would render them non-workable for weeks, if not months in some circumstances.   We're talking decades and billions upon billions of dollars to remedy that situation.   That's not a system you want to go all in on with the backbone of your transportation systems.   Not to mention the fact that EV's are no where near being able to haul the proverbial freight if you will on the commercial side.    FYI Germany is converting 15 trains to FC power.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: treysolid on February 01, 2019, 11:07:38 AM
It is highly doubtful that massive improvements to the power grid will occur in the next 10-15 years.  This is why back up power systems companies are flourishing.  Right now we have one of the largest public utilities in the country in or about to be in bankruptcy because they didn’t properly maintain their grid.

These two statements appear incongruent. You're essentially stating that you believe that utilities would rather go bankrupt than make the necessary investments in their infrastructure?

PG&E is likely going to file bankruptcy (if they haven't already) because they failed to properly maintain their power grid, which in turn caused numerous wildfires in which they were found liable for . . . if one of the largest power companies in the United States has done such a poor job of maintaining their grid, then you can only imagine what it's like elsewhere.     On most grids a singular ice storm or hurricane would render them non-workable for weeks, if not months in some circumstances.   We're talking decades and billions upon billions of dollars to remedy that situation.   That's not a system you want to go all in on with the backbone of your transportation systems.   Not to mention the fact that EV's are no where near being able to haul the proverbial freight if you will on the commercial side.    FYI Germany is converting 15 trains to FC power.

Yeah...that's typically how infrastructure upgrades work. And once upgraded, there's no reason to not trust that network with the demands of an electrified transportation system. And it's not going to happen all overnight - we're at least 30-75 years (if not longer) away from phasing combustion engines out of cars. Yes, it will cost untold billions to upgrade the grid, but there's already a ton of infrastructure in place and the benefits will go beyond facilitation of EVs - that money needs to be spent there anyway. Building all-new infrastructure to pump and transport hydrogen around the country will probably cost more, and run into alot of domain and regulatory problems along the way. The German FC train idea is actually a pretty good one. Since rail is limited to very few designated starting and stopping destinations, the infrastructure needed is alot less onerous than it would be to enable small vehicle transportation.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 01, 2019, 11:37:56 AM
60 degrees on sunday.  May be the hottest on record.  Undisputed evidence of global warming?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on February 01, 2019, 11:56:00 AM
60 degrees on sunday.  May be the hottest on record.  Undisputed evidence of global warming?

Lulz...60 wouldn’t even register in the top 10.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 01, 2019, 12:30:28 PM
60 degrees on sunday.  May be the hottest on record.  Undisputed evidence of global warming?

Lulz...60 wouldn’t even register in the top 10.

For KC on 2/3?  I guess I will take your word for it
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on February 04, 2019, 08:44:58 AM
60 degrees on sunday.  May be the hottest on record.  Undisputed evidence of global warming?

Lulz...60 wouldn’t even register in the top 10.

For KC on 2/3?  I guess I will take your word for it

record is 76 from 1934
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 04, 2019, 08:52:15 AM
Polar Vortex Tesla . . . more like Elsa
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on February 07, 2019, 12:19:48 PM
lmao

https://twitter.com/marshallshafer/status/1092890087598288896?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 07, 2019, 08:38:30 PM
Dumb
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on February 11, 2019, 10:51:07 AM
For anyone who was curious about the EV vs. FCV debate, a very thorough analysis here:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7MzFfuNOtY&t=786s[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 11, 2019, 01:22:13 PM
The price for hydrogen will come down.   Really hammers home how FCV will do most of the heavy lifting, and as the infrastructure get rolled out to support that, then efficiencies will enter the system.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on February 11, 2019, 02:17:03 PM
Sure. All while the state-of-the-art for EVs stands still for the next 20 years.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 11, 2019, 02:44:24 PM
Sure. All while the state-of-the-art for EVs stands still for the next 20 years.  :rolleyes:

I didn't say that trey, you really need to get better at this.

The simple facts are, FCV's are much farther along in being able to move and start doing the heavy lifting on the commercial side than EV's.   In fact a real green initiative (not the communist one) should be to supplant all traditional powered commercial over the road/track vehicles with FCV's within a decade.   



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 11, 2019, 03:42:05 PM
good video, trey.  thanks for posting.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: puniraptor on February 11, 2019, 05:31:21 PM
materials science advances will lead to higher energy density batteries without the use of exotic (and ecologically costly) materials

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on February 11, 2019, 10:48:58 PM
Sure. All while the state-of-the-art for EVs stands still for the next 20 years.  :rolleyes:

I didn't say that trey, you really need to get better at this.

The simple facts are, FCV's are much farther along in being able to move and start doing the heavy lifting on the commercial side than EV's.   In fact a real green initiative (not the communist one) should be to supplant all traditional powered commercial over the road/track vehicles with FCV's within a decade.

8 times as expensive and less than half as efficient = poised for a real takeover

is the REAL green initiative the one where we use a bunch of coal and natural gas to get hydrogen?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: puniraptor on February 11, 2019, 10:55:35 PM
dax,

what if we could make an electric car battery out of coal? would that be cool?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 12, 2019, 08:37:38 AM
EV's for the foreseeable future are boutique automobiles. 

FCV's are leaps and bounds ahead of EV's in terms of being able to do the heavy lifting.   In fact, FCV's could replace every over-the-road/rail diesel (or similar) engine in short order if that was desired, with similar capacities, and increasing ranges.   EV's aren't even close to being able to meet  that kind of demand in capability over a broad scale.   The need for precious materials in FCV's is diminishing by factors measured in the ten's of percentage points. 

But  :lol: at your coal comments.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 12, 2019, 08:56:08 AM
materials science advances will lead to higher energy density batteries without the use of exotic (and ecologically costly) materials

Charging technologies are also advancing also. 15 minute for a full charge is close.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 12, 2019, 02:44:52 PM
what a rough ridin' joke.  lol @ california.

https://twitter.com/awalkerinLA/status/1095414002379718656

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on February 12, 2019, 04:36:30 PM
Kansas should build one from Wichita to Garden City, 'cause it would be easy.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2019, 04:03:49 AM
Just another blue state fail.

SMDH
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: puniraptor on February 13, 2019, 06:44:15 AM
What if the electric car were made of oil and battery was made from natural gas?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 13, 2019, 08:24:40 AM
Kansas should build one from Wichita to Garden City, 'cause it would be easy.

They should connect Pittsburg, too.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2019, 10:35:16 AM
What if the electric car were made of oil and battery was made from natural gas?

That’s really weak. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on February 22, 2019, 05:27:06 PM
using little kids as pawns is terrible and also feinstein hilariously rough ridin' owning those little shits for being too young to vote is terrible

https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1099075460649107458
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on February 22, 2019, 05:38:39 PM
using little kids as pawns is terrible and also feinstein hilariously rough ridin' owning those little shits for being too young to vote is terrible

https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1099075460649107458
This smells like a setup to me. Seems deceptively edited. I'd bet the adults were acting out of line, but they made it seem like she was flexing at the children for voicing their concerns. Also, kudos to her for KO'ing that 16-year-old
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on February 22, 2019, 06:02:38 PM
agree spracne. also yes, she reck'd that kid.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on February 22, 2019, 07:44:28 PM
congratulations to our new UN ambassador

https://twitter.com/CBCPolitics/status/922807122055790593
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2019, 07:51:09 PM
No open mindedness allowed. 

#settledscience.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 22, 2019, 07:53:02 PM
also feinstein hilariously rough ridin' owning those little shits for being too young to vote is terrible.

MY senator (the good one).   :love:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: WillieWatanabe on February 22, 2019, 10:09:21 PM
using little kids as pawns is terrible and also feinstein hilariously rough ridin' owning those little shits for being too young to vote is terrible

https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1099075460649107458
This smells like a setup to me. Seems deceptively edited. I'd bet the adults were acting out of line, but they made it seem like she was flexing at the children for voicing their concerns. Also, kudos to her for KO'ing that 16-year-old

you so right.

https://twitter.com/SirajAHashmi/status/1099144025981022213
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 22, 2019, 10:44:35 PM
i liked the dunk tape better.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 25, 2019, 01:12:57 AM
this is (checks notes for michigancat), a bit misleading.


https://twitter.com/JaredWalczak/status/1099719091508707328
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 25, 2019, 08:11:39 AM
Vlad "Green Snow and Ham" Putin having a bad PR day.

Russia, former Eastern Bloc Countries, China . . . huge polluters.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/24/green-snow-falling-russia-shakes-vladimir-putins-popularity/

I'll have to check, but I believe most signed on to the utterly meaningless Paris Climate Accord.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 25, 2019, 11:16:25 AM
https://twitter.com/jdickerson/status/1099991466200518657
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 25, 2019, 11:41:21 AM
Can we presume that Multi-Millionaire DiFi is in agreement with the majority leader that the Senate needs to go on record about the Green Deal?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 25, 2019, 12:43:40 PM
I think the Senate should have to vote on everything that comes out of committee or gets proposed from the White House.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 25, 2019, 05:55:12 PM
Poor forest management caused by ridiculous regulatory oversight makes California wildfires net Co2 emitter and likely remaining unchanged for decades as new growth couples with trees passing through the normal life cycle remain unharvested and instead lay as kindling for PG&E's poorly managed power lines to set ablaze.   Harvest abl- board feet and natural board feet creation far outstrips harvesting.   Timber industry has nothing close to the needed capacity in California to make a dent in this situation.   

http://bofdata.fire.ca.gov/board_business/binder_materials/2019/0119m/full0119/full_13_presentation_ab_1504_2017_reporting_period_update_n._tase.pdf

Climate change will be blamed without a thought to California's highly discernible wet/dry seasons.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 27, 2019, 03:49:29 PM
Super concerned about the environment . . . but just couldn't tear themselves away from that Patty Melt down in the Capital Food Court.

"The Denial Playbook"  sits on the shelf next to the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/26/politics/republicans-climate-change-house-hearing-adjourn-10-minutes-2-democrats/index.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 25, 2019, 04:46:58 PM
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-wildfire-20190322-story.html

A brief moment of sanity in California.

'grats to cRusty and Sys-Whack-A-Doo

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on March 25, 2019, 07:41:00 PM
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/key-greenland-glacier-growing-again-after-shrinking-years-nasa-study-ncna987116 (https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/key-greenland-glacier-growing-again-after-shrinking-years-nasa-study-ncna987116)

I love articles like this. Not because it proves or disproves global warming or AGW, but for how (1) surprised and (2) defensive the scientists interviewed are. Rest assured - this expansion is only temporary!! I’m not sure what temporary means, or how this dude -the same guy who didn’t see this coming - could pretend to know. Love it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 26, 2019, 08:14:14 AM
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/key-greenland-glacier-growing-again-after-shrinking-years-nasa-study-ncna987116 (https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/key-greenland-glacier-growing-again-after-shrinking-years-nasa-study-ncna987116)

I love articles like this. Not because it proves or disproves global warming or AGW, but for how (1) surprised and (2) defensive the scientists interviewed are. Rest assured - this expansion is only temporary!! I’m not sure what temporary means, or how this dude -the same guy who didn’t see this coming - could pretend to know. Love it.

Other scientific parties either called this a long time ago, or gave very viable reasons as to why the shrinking was occurring that wasn't 100% AGW dogma.   They were immediately shunned by the propagandist community.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on April 19, 2019, 09:46:05 PM
No big deal

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/science/what-are-microplastics.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 19, 2019, 11:22:01 PM
No big deal

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/18/science/what-are-microplastics.html

Hey you finally posted something that’s kind of a big deal. 

Sadly most of the plastic in the oceans comes from river outflows in third world countries.   

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on April 19, 2019, 11:26:40 PM
I finally get it now. It’s all the third world people who have no money’s fault. Industry can pump and pump, but those people who look different....
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 19, 2019, 11:31:50 PM
I finally get it now. It’s all the third world people who have no money’s fault. Industry can pump and pump, but those people who look different....

Only you would get mad about reality

It has nothing to with skin color.  But only a dumbass like you would play the race card here

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.7b02368
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on April 19, 2019, 11:34:40 PM
I’m open to a more thorough explanation of what you meant
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 19, 2019, 11:42:10 PM
I’m open to a more thorough explanation of what you meant

First off LOL at your NYT’s article that’s about a year late. 

Extensive studies show that 90-95% of the plastic in the oceans comes from 10 rivers, mainly in China and Asia (India).

Of course the LibDerp WhackaDoo plan is just to offload money from the non-polluters on to the polluters.  India and China are more than capable of picking up their trash.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on April 19, 2019, 11:48:29 PM
I’m open to a more thorough explanation of what you meant

First off LOL at your NYT’s article that’s about a year late. 

Extensive studies show that 90-95% of the plastic in the oceans comes from 10 rivers, mainly in China and Asia (India).

Of course the LibDerp WhackaDoo plan is just to offload money from the non-polluters on to the polluters.  India and China are more than capable of picking up their trash.

Research for a cause happens AFTER something happens, not sure why this triggers you so much.

Why don’t you present evidence earlier in most of your arguments? I feel like it’s because we all make fun of what you actually read. Then you are relegated to searching for off brand sites that parrot points already made.

This is a blog bad, not mine.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 20, 2019, 01:28:25 AM
I’m open to a more thorough explanation of what you meant

First off LOL at your NYT’s article that’s about a year late. 

Extensive studies show that 90-95% of the plastic in the oceans comes from 10 rivers, mainly in China and Asia (India).

Of course the LibDerp WhackaDoo plan is just to offload money from the non-polluters on to the polluters.  India and China are more than capable of picking up their trash.

Research for a cause happens AFTER something happens, not sure why this triggers you so much.

Why don’t you present evidence earlier in most of your arguments? I feel like it’s because we all make fun of what you actually read. Then you are relegated to searching for off brand sites that parrot points already made.

This is a blog bad, not mine.

LOL, you and the rest of your resident LibDerp friends in this particular forum are on script 24/7/365.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on April 22, 2019, 08:34:26 PM
https://twitter.com/ilhan/status/1120380707463938048
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on April 22, 2019, 10:31:09 PM
https://twitter.com/ilhan/status/1120380707463938048

babies.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on April 22, 2019, 10:34:21 PM
https://twitter.com/ilhan/status/1120380707463938048

babies.

This in the context of our perception of earth. Obviously more people isn’t the best for earth, dumbass. If there are no more babies earth is fine, because there is nothing perceiving it.

God you are so weird sometimes
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on April 23, 2019, 08:11:55 AM
If you haven't created a kid, you have done your part. Everyone else should be paying extreme carbon taxes.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on April 29, 2019, 09:33:16 AM
my president.

https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1122849071889129473
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 29, 2019, 10:21:28 AM
It's sad to see that the sysbot won't even support his own immigration causes as low carbon footprint country living peoples flee to high carbon footprint countries because of the terrible standard of living in the low carbon footprint countries.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on April 29, 2019, 10:27:24 AM
Got'emmmmmmmm
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 30, 2019, 08:40:11 AM
I expect Beta, I mean Beto to lead by example.

Campaign Trail:
-Electric Cars or Hydrogen Powered Tour Buses . . . certainly no fossil fueled large SUV's of any kind
-No Airplane Flights (until electric powered planes are invented)
-Thermostats at all venues set at 78 degrees or higher for cooling, or no higher than 68 for heating
-No dry cleaning or modern washing of any clothes.   Certainly no dryers, all clothes line dried
-Only 100% alternative energy hotel accommodations


Since Fossil Fuels will be the catalyst for the green "revolution" should probably re-think that driving up the price part.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on May 07, 2019, 03:13:43 PM
This is one of my favorite subs

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/blr18e/how_10_year_average_global_temperature_compares/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 09, 2019, 05:09:03 PM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-03/sweden-s-lack-of-electricity-capacity-is-threatening-growth

Fossil Fuels . . . the engine of the green economy.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on May 13, 2019, 02:50:32 PM
https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/1127681719216353280
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 13, 2019, 03:21:15 PM
The worst part of this is that sadly the propagandists will have the useful idiots chirping that C02 by itself is a climate driver.   It is not.

What this also may indicate is that, if you thought this last winter sucked, just wait.  About a decade ago we were supposed to having snow less winters right about now  :frown:

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on May 13, 2019, 04:15:01 PM
https://twitter.com/alecmacgillis/status/1127609389316222977?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on May 13, 2019, 04:23:29 PM
So refreshing when they just come out and say it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on May 13, 2019, 10:30:10 PM
Yet, Dax response:

*crickets sounds* 









*/cricket sounds*
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 13, 2019, 10:31:26 PM
Completely obsessed

SMDH
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on May 13, 2019, 10:37:22 PM
If I hadn’t said anything, 6 hours after it was posted, would you have ever?

I have stuff going on, retirement you should be free to do whatever.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 13, 2019, 11:21:38 PM
If I hadn’t said anything, 6 hours after it was posted, would you have ever?

I have stuff going on, retirement you should be free to do whatever.

I have stuff going on as well, but I know it takes your very slow mind awhile to process things and that's why you're always way, way behind.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on May 20, 2019, 03:32:23 PM
Probably not a big deal

https://twitter.com/neilrkaye/status/1129347990777413632
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on May 20, 2019, 03:34:42 PM
Crazy to think Dax has seen over 80% of CO2 emissions in his lifetime.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2019, 04:04:56 PM
What's crazy is that LibDerps such as yourself has bequeathed a trace gas as the sole driver of the Earth's climate.

You can also never answer the question, what is the correct PPM level of CO2 . . . you just know there's too much now, but can never say what the level should be.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2019, 10:34:24 PM
Where are the biggest ozone killers coming from these days?   The Northeast provinces of China.

I'm sure ChiCom Joe will put a stop to that.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1193-4
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on May 22, 2019, 10:56:37 PM
"China is 100% burn baby burn so we should follow suit, burn that mother rough ridin' FF baby, I'm 60+ so I don't care anymore, it's all the millennial fault for trying to avert disaster, I WANT DISASTER." - Dax
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2019, 11:05:45 PM
"China is 100% burn baby burn so we should follow suit, burn that mother rough ridin' FF baby, I'm 60+ so I don't care anymore, it's all the millennial fault for trying to avert disaster, I WANT DISASTER." - Dax

The United States emissions are on the decline, meanwhile China, who owns your party's future nominee lock-stock-and barrel is one of two of the fastest growing polluters in the world.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on May 22, 2019, 11:10:25 PM
"China is 100% burn baby burn so we should follow suit, burn that mother rough ridin' FF baby, I'm 60+ so I don't care anymore, it's all the millennial fault for trying to avert disaster, I WANT DISASTER." - Dax

The United States emissions are on the decline, meanwhile China, who owns your party's future nominee lock-stock-and barrel is one of two of the fastest growing polluters in the world.

What are Russia's plans for our future?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 22, 2019, 11:12:25 PM
"China is 100% burn baby burn so we should follow suit, burn that mother rough ridin' FF baby, I'm 60+ so I don't care anymore, it's all the millennial fault for trying to avert disaster, I WANT DISASTER." - Dax

The United States emissions are on the decline, meanwhile China, who owns your party's future nominee lock-stock-and barrel is one of two of the fastest growing polluters in the world.

What are Russia's plans for our future?

Given the adversarial condition between the two countries and an unprecedented level of near military confrontation, not good.

I'm sure ChiCom Joe will go face down ass up relative to China, just like his previous boss did with China and Russia.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on May 23, 2019, 03:45:04 PM
We are pumping 4 times what we used to just a few decades ago but 4 times isn’t a lot because we don’t even know the optimal level but 4 times doesn’t seem like it’s that much.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/bs0nw0/running_total_of_global_fossil_fuel_co%E2%82%82_emissions/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 23, 2019, 06:14:55 PM
We are pumping 4 times what we used to just a few decades ago but 4 times isn’t a lot because we don’t even know the optimal level but 4 times doesn’t seem like it’s that much.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/bs0nw0/running_total_of_global_fossil_fuel_co%E2%82%82_emissions/

China and India.

Saw more proof that China is likely purposely releasing ozone depleting gasses into the atmosphere because it appears they've secretly re-introduced those gases back into their production processes to increase efficiencies and lower costs.

I'm sure your guy ChiCom Joe is gonna be all over that.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 03, 2019, 08:39:10 PM
The trump admin summed up in a tweet

https://twitter.com/alexnazaryan/status/1135646520601120768
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 21, 2019, 04:56:54 PM
Climate Emergency! Climate Emergency!

https://globalnews.ca/news/5401586/canada-national-climate-emergency/

Gonna move some fossil fuels . . . the elixir that will pave the way to the Green Utopia (mass dehumanization measures optional) on through here while we're Emergency'ing.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-18/canada-s-trudeau-approves-trans-mountain-pipeline-expansion

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 21, 2019, 05:17:55 PM
Climate Emergency! Climate Emergency!

https://globalnews.ca/news/5401586/canada-national-climate-emergency/

Gonna move some fossil fuels . . . the elixir that will pave the way to the Green Utopia (mass dehumanization measures optional) on through here while we're Emergency'ing.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-18/canada-s-trudeau-approves-trans-mountain-pipeline-expansion

(https://thenib.imgix.net/usq/8688038d-f99b-4224-872b-b8dd626f868c/mister-gotcha-4-9faefa.png?auto=compress,format&cs=srgb&_=9faefab75c06b49cfcf18e1394c50376)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 21, 2019, 05:47:09 PM
Climate Emergency! Climate Emergency!

https://globalnews.ca/news/5401586/canada-national-climate-emergency/

Gonna move some fossil fuels . . . the elixir that will pave the way to the Green Utopia (mass dehumanization measures optional) on through here while we're Emergency'ing.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-18/canada-s-trudeau-approves-trans-mountain-pipeline-expansion


That's a pretty solid go to tap out you're developing Parody Poster LibDerp7

Now, I know you're gonna claim you're just gE'ing, but in your dumb little head you're actually being serious.  Relax, smoke a few bowls.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 21, 2019, 06:07:02 PM
Dax, I was smoking a bowl when I posted that so I think I'm significantly more chill than you rn  :cool:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 21, 2019, 07:33:56 PM
Dax, I was smoking a bowl when I posted that so I think I'm significantly more chill than you rn  :cool:

Nah man . . . your developing go to Tap Out is kind of funny Parody Poster LibDerp7

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on June 23, 2019, 02:27:46 PM
https://twitter.com/QasimRashid/status/1142783025207480320
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on June 28, 2019, 07:39:21 PM
:Wha: renewable energy gets cheaper over time :horrorsurprise: I have been told countless times by the resident burn baby burner that it’s too much money. Should probably stop trying now it’s not getting any more efficient.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/26/energy-renewable-electricity-coal-power
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on June 29, 2019, 05:11:26 PM
This is bad news for all the wars trump and war pig Dax want to start.

https://theconversation.com/amp/us-military-is-a-bigger-polluter-than-as-many-as-140-countries-shrinking-this-war-machine-is-a-must-119269
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Ksuminnesotacat on June 29, 2019, 08:00:57 PM
I heard today that the climate change heatwave was unprecedented it was 95 degrees today in Paris omg! Surely it was climate change related as the news said. As I was driving I-70 my thermometer on the truck burning lots of diesel”never invest in a dodge eco diesel total garbage” said 98 degrees.

Either the French are really a bunch of pussies or we are just Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) for doing this to ourselves here in Central Kansas. Time to break out the bicycle I guess but we will turn into a bunch of twilighters because I ain’t peddling around in this crap.   
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on June 29, 2019, 09:23:20 PM
I heard today that the climate change heatwave was unprecedented it was 95 degrees today in Paris omg! Surely it was climate change related as the news said. As I was driving I-70 my thermometer on the truck burning lots of diesel”never invest in a dodge eco diesel total garbage” said 98 degrees.

Either the French are really a bunch of pussies or we are just Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) for doing this to ourselves here in Central Kansas. Time to break out the bicycle I guess but we will turn into a bunch of twilighters because I ain’t peddling around in this crap.
Did your truck have A/C? I'll bet your home does too, pussy.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Ksuminnesotacat on June 29, 2019, 10:14:31 PM
I heard today that the climate change heatwave was unprecedented it was 95 degrees today in Paris omg! Surely it was climate change related as the news said. As I was driving I-70 my thermometer on the truck burning lots of diesel”never invest in a dodge eco diesel total garbage” said 98 degrees.

Either the French are really a bunch of pussies or we are just Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) for doing this to ourselves here in Central Kansas. Time to break out the bicycle I guess but we will turn into a bunch of twilighters because I ain’t peddling around in this crap.
Did you truck have A/C? I'll bet your home does too, pussy.


Damn right they do what do you think I am Floridian jeez my handle says minnesotacat spracs! And you know it never gets over 47 up there s Geez!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 30, 2019, 07:18:52 AM
This is bad news for all the wars trump and war pig Dax want to start.

https://theconversation.com/amp/us-military-is-a-bigger-polluter-than-as-many-as-140-countries-shrinking-this-war-machine-is-a-must-119269

The Big Tuck is absolutely enraged that there’s been no new wars under Trump.  By this point in his presidency The Big Dummies Hero has already wrecked Libya turning it over to AQ and slave traders and was in the process of shipping Libyan Army weapons to Syria to help wreck that country. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on June 30, 2019, 07:20:34 AM
When I stayed in Belgium the ac was broke in the hotel and it was only like 78 degrees outside and I thought I was going to die.

Survived tho.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Ksuminnesotacat on June 30, 2019, 08:45:33 AM
When I stayed in Belgium the ac was broke in the hotel and it was only like 78 degrees outside and I thought I was going to die.

Survived tho.

There in lies the problem! The EU has spent so much time manufacturing up climate alarms and well just not working all that much like twelve days out of the month and I think somewhere between 1492 and 1902 they shuttered all Vocational colleges over there, thus the climate frenzie when it’s gets to 90. No hvac skill anymore. Thanks for helping point this out Libstra  :driving:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 30, 2019, 08:48:29 AM
When I stayed in Belgium the ac was broke in the hotel and it was only like 78 degrees outside and I thought I was going to die.

Survived tho.

There in lies the problem! The EU has spent so much time manufacturing up climate alarms and well just not working all that much like twelve days out of the month and I think somewhere between 1492 and 1902 they shuttered all Vocational colleges over there, thus the climate frenzie when it’s gets to 90. No hvac skill anymore. Thanks for helping point this out Libstra  :driving:

The EU's biggest economy, after making a huge gov led effort to go "green" . . . now buys copious amounts of fossil fuels from Vlad Putin to make up the slack because "green" energy can't deliver what's needed to keep the economy going.   

Fossil Fuels:  Greasing the treads of the "Green" economy

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on June 30, 2019, 09:53:33 AM
When I stayed in Belgium the ac was broke in the hotel and it was only like 78 degrees outside and I thought I was going to die.

Survived tho.

There in lies the problem! The EU has spent so much time manufacturing up climate alarms and well just not working all that much like twelve days out of the month and I think somewhere between 1492 and 1902 they shuttered all Vocational colleges over there, thus the climate frenzie when it’s gets to 90. No hvac skill anymore. Thanks for helping point this out Libstra  :driving:

The EU's biggest economy, after making a huge gov led effort to go "green" . . . now buys copious amounts of fossil fuels from Vlad Putin to make up the slack because "green" energy can't deliver what's needed to keep the economy going.   

Fossil Fuels:  Greasing the treads of the "Green" economy
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 01, 2019, 01:25:48 PM
https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0

Happy 3rd 10th Anniversary to the end of the world.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 18, 2019, 04:21:51 PM
An old article, but a really weird one.

It appears that at one time a forest with trees and everything was growing in ice.

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/melting-glacier-exposes-frozen-forest-20130924

That's pretty freaking amazing.   Should have had a lot more study and attention given to a plant based eco system that could literally grow in ice.   

Ice:  The giver of life!



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: 8manpick on July 18, 2019, 05:59:50 PM
An old article, but a really weird one.

It appears that at one time a forest with trees and everything was growing in ice.

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/melting-glacier-exposes-frozen-forest-20130924

That's pretty freaking amazing.   Should have had a lot more study and attention given to a plant based eco system that could literally grow in ice.   

Ice:  The giver of life!
Your take on that article cannot possibly have been that the forest was actually growing.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 18, 2019, 10:46:17 PM
An old article, but a really weird one.

It appears that at one time a forest with trees and everything was growing in ice.

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/melting-glacier-exposes-frozen-forest-20130924

That's pretty freaking amazing.   Should have had a lot more study and attention given to a plant based eco system that could literally grow in ice.   

Ice:  The giver of life!
Your take on that article cannot possibly have been that the forest was actually growing.

Lol, if you have a degree from Kstate.  Don’t tell anyone.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on July 18, 2019, 10:54:32 PM
Welcome to the "if you have a degree from Kstate.  Don’t tell anyone." club, 8MP!  This is a very exclusive club and I'm glad you are finally a member.   :thumbs:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on July 25, 2019, 08:56:24 PM
Nothing to worry about, burn baby burn.

https://twitter.com/ericholthaus/status/1154392115478241281
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 25, 2019, 09:22:23 PM
Weather ='s Climate (The Big Dummy)

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 25, 2019, 09:26:37 PM
For those keeping record at home, developing nations now account for 64% of all carbon emissions and have increased their carbon emissions by 4.5 billion metric tons (U.S. decreased by 530 million metric tons over same period) over the last decade (developing nations also account for the vast majority of plastic found in the oceans).

But, lets kill our economy so they can continue polluting.

China and India are building 100's of new coal fired energy plants.  China plans on building in 1100GW's of additional power from coal into their grid over the next 10 years.






Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on July 25, 2019, 09:30:41 PM
Weather ='s Climate (The Big Dummy)

Setting new highs year over year all over the world is not just random weather you dumbass.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on July 25, 2019, 09:31:14 PM
For those keeping record at home, developing nations now account for 64% of all carbon emissions and have increased their carbon emissions by 4.5 billion metric tons (U.S. decreased by 530 million metric tons over same period) over the last decade (developing nations also account for the vast majority of plastic found in the oceans).

But, lets kill our economy so they can continue polluting.

China and India are building 100's of new coal fired energy plants.

I would burn you but I’m trying to go green.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on July 25, 2019, 09:32:02 PM
Since when has being innovative ever killed an economy?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 25, 2019, 09:32:44 PM
Weather ='s Climate (The Big Dummy)

Setting new highs year over year all over the world is not just random weather you dumbass.

LOL, France set a new high the other day at 1 weather station and they treated it like it was country wide.  A weather station 30 feet from a black top highway.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 25, 2019, 09:36:02 PM
Since when has being innovative ever killed an economy?

Green "innovation" accounts for 6% of the U.S. total energy consumption . . . this has nothing to do with innovation.   We are going up against economies and governments who talk a good game and do the exact opposite, the Paris Accord is utterly worthless.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: treysolid on July 25, 2019, 09:37:31 PM
Weather ='s Climate (The Big Dummy)

Setting new highs year over year all over the world is not just random weather you dumbass.

LOL, France set a new high the other day at 1 weather station and they treated it like it was country wide.  A weather station 30 feet from a black top highway.

Wait until the end:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yIHxOui9nQ[/youtube]
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on July 25, 2019, 09:40:17 PM
Everyone in daxderp nation knows that all weather data is made up or inaccurate. Also climate change is a hoax by the Chinese to bankrupt the country.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on July 25, 2019, 09:41:15 PM
Since when has being innovative ever killed an economy?

Green "innovation" accounts for 6% of the U.S. total energy consumption . . . this has nothing to do with innovation.   We are going up against economies and governments who talk a good game and do the exact opposite, the Paris Accord is utterly worthless.

It has everything to do with innovation.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 25, 2019, 09:44:05 PM
Since when has being innovative ever killed an economy?

Green "innovation" accounts for 6% of the U.S. total energy consumption . . . this has nothing to do with innovation.   We are going up against economies and governments who talk a good game and do the exact opposite, the Paris Accord is utterly worthless.


It has everything to do with innovation.

If you think you're going to come anywhere close to driving the power needs of the economy using green "innovation" then you're insane, we're literally decades away from "zero emission" energy being anywhere close to meeting the power needs of the U.S. economy, there's still a 94% gap to make up.   LibDerp Leadership will have already sent the economy into the shitter if they get their way.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 25, 2019, 09:45:47 PM
Weather ='s Climate (The Big Dummy)

Setting new highs year over year all over the world is not just random weather you dumbass.

LOL, France set a new high the other day at 1 weather station and they treated it like it was country wide.  A weather station 30 feet from a black top highway.

Wait until the end:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yIHxOui9nQ[/youtube]

Gotta keep going in and cooling the past to make the present look warmer in comparison.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on July 25, 2019, 09:54:37 PM
Since when has being innovative ever killed an economy?

Green "innovation" accounts for 6% of the U.S. total energy consumption . . . this has nothing to do with innovation.   We are going up against economies and governments who talk a good game and do the exact opposite, the Paris Accord is utterly worthless.


It has everything to do with innovation.

If you think you're going to come anywhere close to driving the power needs of the economy using green "innovation" then you're insane, we're literally decades away from "zero emission" energy being anywhere close to meeting the power needs of the U.S. economy, there's still a 94% gap to make up.   LibDerp Leadership will have already sent the economy into the shitter if they get their way.

I'm curious to know what your actual argument is here. I can only assume it's that we need to do the cheap and easy thing by burning more fossil fuels like India and China otherwise our economy will crater, because that's what you said. But I'm not interested if it's only "The Paris Accord sucks!"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: treysolid on July 25, 2019, 09:55:19 PM
Weather ='s Climate (The Big Dummy)

Setting new highs year over year all over the world is not just random weather you dumbass.

LOL, France set a new high the other day at 1 weather station and they treated it like it was country wide.  A weather station 30 feet from a black top highway.

Wait until the end:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yIHxOui9nQ[/youtube]

Gotta keep going in and cooling the past to make the present look warmer in comparison.

wut?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 25, 2019, 10:00:24 PM
Weather ='s Climate (The Big Dummy)

Setting new highs year over year all over the world is not just random weather you dumbass.

LOL, France set a new high the other day at 1 weather station and they treated it like it was country wide.  A weather station 30 feet from a black top highway.

Wait until the end:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yIHxOui9nQ[/youtube]

Gotta keep going in and cooling the past to make the present look warmer in comparison.

wut?

GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) once a system of 7000 weather stations across the globe,now a system of 1000 of which nearly 50% are located on the grounds of airports in urban centers.  Most rural stations not impacted by urban sprawl and the UHI (Urban Heat Island) no longer exist.

Then NOAA (and similar) go in and start playing around with the data.   Former NOAA scientists who were concerned about things like UHI are now all retired and their concerns shoved aside etc. etc. etc.





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 25, 2019, 10:10:40 PM
Since when has being innovative ever killed an economy?

Green "innovation" accounts for 6% of the U.S. total energy consumption . . . this has nothing to do with innovation.   We are going up against economies and governments who talk a good game and do the exact opposite, the Paris Accord is utterly worthless.


It has everything to do with innovation.

If you think you're going to come anywhere close to driving the power needs of the economy using green "innovation" then you're insane, we're literally decades away from "zero emission" energy being anywhere close to meeting the power needs of the U.S. economy, there's still a 94% gap to make up.   LibDerp Leadership will have already sent the economy into the shitter if they get their way.

I'm curious to know what your actual argument is here. I can only assume it's that we need to do the cheap and easy thing by burning more fossil fuels like India and China otherwise our economy will crater, because that's what you said. But I'm not interested if it's only "The Paris Accord sucks!"

Look at the desires of individuals in your own party.   If they get their way, they'll crater the whole deal long before renewable will come close to maintaining the economic engine that exists today.   

Let's look at another thing, auto emissions.   You've got states like California passing all kinds of draconian green laws while lower classes have to fight their way through shittyy mass transit systems that have seen ridership drop 25% in the last decade because the systems suck so bad.   Thus more cars than ever are on the roads in California. 

Yet, rather than concentrate on urban mass transit Moon Beam spent billions on the train to no where.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 29, 2019, 07:17:45 AM
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on July 29, 2019, 09:40:31 AM
One paper denying climate change against hundreds of others. Case closed guys it’s all fake.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 29, 2019, 10:46:30 AM
One paper denying climate change against hundreds of others. Case closed guys it’s all fake.

LOL and your low IQ use of "denying", just another day with The Big Dummy.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: LickNeckey on July 29, 2019, 11:00:56 AM
Weather ='s Climate (The Big Dummy)

Setting new highs year over year all over the world is not just random weather you dumbass.

LOL, France set a new high the other day at 1 weather station and they treated it like it was country wide.  A weather station 30 feet from a black top highway.

Wait until the end:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yIHxOui9nQ[/youtube]

Gotta keep going in and cooling the past to make the present look warmer in comparison.

wut?

GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) once a system of 7000 weather stations across the globe,now a system of 1000 of which nearly 50% are located on the grounds of airports in urban centers.  Most rural stations not impacted by urban sprawl and the UHI (Urban Heat Island) no longer exist.

Then NOAA (and similar) go in and start playing around with the data.   Former NOAA scientists who were concerned about things like UHI are now all retired and their concerns shoved aside etc. etc. etc.

just urban heat islands and screwy data

Nothing to see here...
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2019, 03:27:30 PM
Weather ='s Climate (The Big Dummy)

Setting new highs year over year all over the world is not just random weather you dumbass.

LOL, France set a new high the other day at 1 weather station and they treated it like it was country wide.  A weather station 30 feet from a black top highway.

Wait until the end:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yIHxOui9nQ[/youtube]

Gotta keep going in and cooling the past to make the present look warmer in comparison.

wut?

GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) once a system of 7000 weather stations across the globe,now a system of 1000 of which nearly 50% are located on the grounds of airports in urban centers.  Most rural stations not impacted by urban sprawl and the UHI (Urban Heat Island) no longer exist.

Then NOAA (and similar) go in and start playing around with the data.   Former NOAA scientists who were concerned about things like UHI are now all retired and their concerns shoved aside etc. etc. etc.

just urban heat islands and screwy data

Nothing to see here...

It's all data, dummy

Meanwhile, since once again weather is climate . . .

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2019/07/30/minnesota-weather-temperatures-dip-to-37-degrees-in-international-falls-breaking-121-year-record/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2019, 03:36:19 PM
The U.S. Climate Reference Network https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/land-based-station-data/land-based-datasets/us-climate-reference-network-uscrn  (which NOAA doesn't use in their official reports anymore because they got mad at the GAO)

Says that 6 of the last 9 months in the United States have been below normal temp (since once again weather equals climate due to Europe having nearly the exact same heat wave that they had in 1947)


201810   -0.18°F
201811   -2.56°F
201812   2.39°F
201901   0.63°F
201902   -3.15°F
201903   -2.81°F
201904   1.55°F
201905   -1.13°F
201906   -0.14°F



   




Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on July 30, 2019, 03:49:10 PM
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2019, 03:55:31 PM
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

I can expand further as to why NOAA quit using USCRN if you'd like.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 30, 2019, 04:00:54 PM
In Germany, new wind energy generation construction has nearly come to a complete stop.

Why?  Money?  Nope.    Environmentalists.  Primary reason:  Protection of endangered bird species and protected forest lands.





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on July 31, 2019, 12:17:24 PM
https://twitter.com/EtheHerring/status/1156149048988119040?s=20
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on July 31, 2019, 06:24:42 PM
https://twitter.com/EtheHerring/status/1156149048988119040?s=20

Obviously they cooled off that past chart SD

Gotta keep going in and cooling the past to make the present look warmer in comparison.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 01, 2019, 03:36:41 PM
It was hot in France for a couple of weeks, like it was really hot in France for a couple of weeks during the summer of . . . 1947

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Ksuminnesotacat on August 02, 2019, 08:51:57 PM
Models are wrong.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on August 03, 2019, 07:10:06 AM
Finally

https://twitter.com/jswatz/status/1157331249834467328?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 05, 2019, 05:18:16 PM
Hottest month ever recorded no big deal burn baby burn

http://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/climate/july-hottest-month-climate.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 05, 2019, 05:32:30 PM
Dr. Roy Spencer of the UA-Huntsville disagrees

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Tobias on August 05, 2019, 07:52:30 PM
Dr. Roy Spencer

:lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 05, 2019, 08:15:20 PM
Dr. Roy Spencer

:lol:

 :lol:  I knew that was going to happen.

Oh he used to be on Limbaugh so in Tobias World that means he doesn't know anything.

Oh, lets all jet to a Google conference on climate change and sign a petition to ban water while we're there.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2019, 04:37:26 PM
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/swedes-are-switching-planes-trains-here-s-why-n1027666

All AGW LibDerps:  Please respond below if you pledge to end frequent leisure air travel.   

Also, affirm that you'll implore your elite leaders to cut back on their private air travel by 75%

#libderpsleadthewaytosavetheplanet



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on August 14, 2019, 06:52:14 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190814/2d6ae932a18ca5ad091b2f9164040a96.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 14, 2019, 07:18:50 AM
The lacking desire to give up leisure air travel is very telling. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 17, 2019, 10:11:06 AM
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cape-cods-new-normal-sharks-are-everywhere-11566034200

Having once lived among the Beach Life crowd (not to be confused with the Salt Life crowd which leans right-fishing/hunting/boating people) who predominately leans left, I have to  :lol: at the notion of nature pissing them off so much with its abundance that they're just gonna have to pack up the Land Rover (with board racks) and the beach house and find some other place in nature to build a new house and pave the roads. 

#FirstWorldProblems
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 17, 2019, 10:21:42 AM
:confused:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 17, 2019, 10:26:42 AM
:confused:

Did you even read the article, dummy?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 17, 2019, 10:51:07 AM
:confused:

Did you even read the article, dummy?

(https://i.giphy.com/media/x4Kf5T61uPjzi/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 17, 2019, 11:13:34 AM
:confused:

Did you even read the article, dummy?

(https://i.giphy.com/media/x4Kf5T61uPjzi/giphy.gif)

So just admit that the only reason you responded because you're obsessed with me.   

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on August 17, 2019, 12:24:23 PM
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on August 17, 2019, 12:31:09 PM
https://twitter.com/krangtnelson/status/1161804313687220224


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on August 17, 2019, 09:15:36 PM
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-08-17/alaska-records-its-warmest-month-ever

prolly UHI related...
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 19, 2019, 10:54:00 AM
https://twitter.com/ladbible/status/1163359697845571585
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 19, 2019, 12:30:27 PM
Underneath glaciers they're finding the remnants of forests.

Climate is static (LibDerp Nation)



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on August 19, 2019, 01:15:37 PM
the climate might be changing but there is no possible way that trillions of metric tons of greenhouse gasses introduced by humans have any impact

-Dax

(ps the notion that you are accepting that the climate is changing is a positive step friend!)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 19, 2019, 01:28:40 PM
the climate might be changing but there is no possible way that trillions of metric tons of greenhouse gasses introduced by humans have any impact

-Dax

(ps the notion that you are accepting that the climate is changing is a positive step friend!)

Never said any of that (Dax)

I've always accepted that climate is changing because the climate has always been changing . . . (Dax)

I know perpetual scare tactics LibDerp Nation only listens to one set of people on this topic and when someone dares disagree then the usual suspects all line up and attempt to ensure that person is 1.  Shut up  2.  Character assassinated 3.  Research papers blocked 4.  Funding denied



Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on August 19, 2019, 01:33:32 PM
I've always accepted that climate is changing because the climate has always been changing . . . (Dax)

dax's second post in this thread:

(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
 
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 19, 2019, 01:43:04 PM
I've always accepted that climate is changing because the climate has always been changing . . . (Dax)

dax's second post in this thread:

(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
 
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s

Temps are the only component of climate (mocat)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on August 19, 2019, 02:47:02 PM
Dax

do you believe the planet is warming?

do you believe it plausible that trillions of metric tons of greenhouse gasses could affect climate?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 19, 2019, 02:47:42 PM
I'm not an alarmist by any means, but the Earth is indeed warming.  Climate change is a real thing.  14 of the last 15 years have been the hottest average global temperatures on record.  The chance that that is just a coincidence is less than 1 divided by all of the stars in the universe.


 :nerd:

By "hottest on record" you mean in the last 150 or so years since we have had accurate thermometers in some parts of the world.

We can go ahead and say 20 of the past 21 years. Nothing is happening of note in Dax land tho. Just do nothing, and burn rough ridin' baby burn. That’s what we know and what we should do in Dax’s eyes.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 19, 2019, 03:16:59 PM
Dax

do you believe the planet is warming?

do you believe it plausible that trillions of metric tons of greenhouse gasses could affect climate?

Yes, they can impact the environment.

I suspect you and people like The Big Dummy who are so concerned about all of this, have done little to nothing to alter your lifestyle in order to help change the course on our inevitable demise due to (according to people like you) AGW.

Sadly, people like you and The Big Dummy never question anything, you simply parrot what a community with a vested interest (to the tune of hundreds of millions rolling into the billions of dollars) in AGW being the be all and end all . . .  tells you what to say.







Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 19, 2019, 04:24:32 PM
Dax

do you believe the planet is warming?

do you believe it plausible that trillions of metric tons of greenhouse gasses could affect climate?

Yes, they can impact the environment.

I suspect you and people like The Big Dummy who are so concerned about all of this, have done little to nothing to alter your lifestyle in order to help change the course on our inevitable demise due to (according to people like you) AGW.

Sadly, people like you and The Big Dummy never question anything, you simply parrot what a community with a vested interest (to the tune of hundreds of millions rolling into the billions of dollars) in AGW being the be all and end all . . .  tells you what to say.

I have had 100% renewable energy for as long as Westar offered it in MHK. I have done paper bags at the grocery store for years. I don’t buy any drinks in plastic bottles. I keep my A/C close to 80 during the summer months and set my heat to kick on only if it gets into the low 60’s during the winter. I recycle and don’t get lids or straws when I get fountain drinks.

So don’t give me that you degenerate geriatric eff. Your generation is a part of the problem and mine will have to deal with all of your shitty decisions. Go eff yourself.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 19, 2019, 04:50:44 PM
I'd rather earth suck for future generations than live in an 80 degree house  :sdeek:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: meow meow on August 19, 2019, 04:52:52 PM
do you sleep in a pool of sweat? 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 19, 2019, 04:54:42 PM
DaBigGreen
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 19, 2019, 04:54:59 PM
You can more than do your part by just not having any kids. People over age 30 without kids should be tax exempt, imo.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 19, 2019, 04:55:53 PM
Doing my part in a cool 68 degree home  :gocho:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 19, 2019, 04:57:15 PM
Doing my part in a cool 68 degree home  :gocho:

 :Purple Koolaid:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on August 19, 2019, 07:47:32 PM
Jeez, anger issues . . .
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Tobias on August 19, 2019, 07:59:54 PM
I’d be cranky af if I lived in an 80 degree hell
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 19, 2019, 08:09:22 PM
I work for a living and work has the A/C way up so it’s not like I’m just sitting in 80 degrees all day long like you guys.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on August 19, 2019, 08:43:09 PM
Guys, if forests could grow inside ice glaciers, I am sure they can find a way to grow when it's a little warm outside. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 20, 2019, 01:10:59 AM
You can more than do your part by just not having any kids. People over age 30 without kids should be tax exempt, imo.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2019, 09:43:56 AM
No wonder so many Whack-A-Doos love Bernie.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/08/22/bernie-sanders-climate-plan-green-new-deal-follow-costs-16-trillion/2081655001/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2019, 09:48:32 AM
BTW, developing nations CO2 (and similar evil emissions) are increasing at a rate that absolutely obliterates any reductions in emissions by developed countries.

At current pace China's energy needs will grow by 58% over the next decade and it will almost all be driven by coal powered power plants, China is easily on pace to consume more coal then the majority of the rest of the world combined.   

But that Paris accord, tho





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on August 22, 2019, 10:31:24 AM
BTW, developing nations CO2 (and similar evil emissions) are increasing at a rate that absolutely obliterates any reductions in emissions by developed countries.

At current pace China's energy needs will grow by 58% over the next decade and it will almost all be driven by coal powered power plants, China is easily on pace to consume more coal then the majority of the rest of the world combined.   

But that Paris accord, tho

so are you insinuating that greenhouse gas emissions are problematic?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 22, 2019, 10:43:15 AM
Crap, dax forgot that climate change is hoax by the Chinese
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2019, 11:06:50 AM
Two extremely quick tapouts from the bong squad, who constantly forget I've never said it was hoax.  Surprising, but yet again, not . . .

But while Whack-A-Doo nation constantly wants to slap the U.S. down about 5 rungs so it becomes the banana republic that they so desperately want by wasting trillions of dollars on wholly unreliable and extremely expensive "green energy" to "combat" the natural climate cycles of the planet.   China (not really a developing country) and the rest of the developing countries say by thought, word and deed that the "crisis" is not what the Whack-A-Doos say it is.

But I keep forgetting, you guys just parrot whatever you're told . . . sad.





Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: LickNeckey on August 22, 2019, 11:51:52 AM
(1) Warming not ‘global’. It is shown in satellite data to be northern hemisphere only
 
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
 
(3) Models suggest atmosphere should warm 20% faster than surface but surface warming was 33% faster during the time satellites and surface observations used. This suggests GHG theory wrong, and surface temperature contaminated
 
(4) Temperatures longer term have been modified to enhance warming trend and minimize cyclical appearance. Station dropout, missing data, change of local siting, urbanization, instrumentation contaminate the record, producing exaggerating warming. The GAO scolded NOAA for poor compliance with siting standards.
 
(5) Those who create the temperature records have been shown in analysis and emails to take steps to eliminate inconvenient temperature trends like the Medieval Warm Period, the 1940s warm blip and cooling since 1998. Steps have included removal of the urban heat island adjustment and as Wigley suggested in a climategate email, introduce 0.15C of artificial cooling of global ocean temperatures near 1940.
 
(6) Forecast models have failed with temperature trends below even the assumed zero emission control scenarios
 
(7) Climate models all have a strong hot spot in the mid to high troposphere in the tropical regions. Weather balloons and satellite show no warming in this region the last 30 years.
 
(8) Ocean heat content was forecast to increase and was said to be the canary in the coal mine. It too has stalled according to NOAA PMEL. The warming was to be strongest in the tropics where the models were warming the atmosphere the most. No warming has been shown in the top 300 meters in the tropical Pacific back to the 1950s.
 
(9) Alarmists had predicted permanent El Nino but the last decade has featured 7 La Nina and just 3 El Nino years. This is related to the PDO and was predicted by those who look at natural factors.
 
(10) Alarmists had predicted much lower frequency of the negative modes of the AO and NAO due to warming. The trend has been the opposite with a record negative AO/NAO in 2009/10
 
(11) Alarmists predicted an increase in hurricane frequency and strength globally but the global activity had diminished after 2005 to a 30+ year low. The U.S. has gone seven consecutive years without a landfalling major hurricane, the longest stretch since the 1860s
 
(12) Alarmists have predicted a significant increase in heat records but despite heat last two summers, the 1930s to 1950s still greatly dominated the heat records. Even in Texas at the center of the 2011 heat wave, the long term (since 1895) trends in both temperature and precipitation are flat. And when stations with over 80 years of temperature data were considered, the number of heat records last July were not extraordinary relative to past hot summers.
 
(13) Extremes of rainfall and drought were predicted to increase but except during periods of strong El Nino and La Nina, no trends are seen
 
(14) Alarmists indicated winter would become warmer and short. The last 15 years has seen a decline in winter temperatures in all regions. In places winter have been the coldest and longest in decades and even centuries.
 
(15) Alarmists had indicated snow would become increasingly rare in middle latitudes especially in the big cities where warming would be greatest. All time snow records were set in virtually all the major cities and northern hemisphere snow coverage in winter has increased with 4 of the top 5 years since 2007/08. Also among the east coast high impact snowstorms tracked by NOAA (NESIS), 11 of the 46 have occurred since 2009.
 
(16) Alarmists had indicated a decline of Antarctic ice due to warming.  The upward trends since 1979 continues.
 
(17) Alarmists had indicated Greenland and arctic ice melt would accelerate. The arctic ice tracks with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the IARC shows the ice cover was similarly reduced in the 1950s when the Atlantic was last in a similar warm mode. In Greenland, the warmth of the 1930s and 1940s still dominates the records and longer term temperatures have declined.
 
(18) Sea level rise was to accelerate upward due to melting ice and warming. Sea levels actually slowed in the late 20th century and have declined or flattened the last few years. Manipulation of data (adjustment for land rises following the last glaciation) has been applied to hide this from the public.
 
(19) Alarmists claimed that drought western snowpack would diminish and forest fires would increase in summer. Snowpack and water equivalent were at or near record levels in recent winters from Alaska to the Pacific Northwest and Northern Rockies. Glaciers are advancing.  Fires have declined.
 
(20) Alaska was said to be warming with retreating glaciers. But that warming is tied intimately to the PDO and thr North Pacific pattern NP and happens instantly with the flips from cold to warm and warm to cold. Two of the coldest and snowiest winters on records occurred since the PDO/NP flipped cold again (2007/08 and 2011/12). January 2012 was the coldest on record in many towns and cities and snowfall was running 160 inches above normal in parts of the south. Anchorage Alaska set an all time record for seasonal snow in 2011/12. In 2007/08, glaciers all advanced for the first time since the Little Ice Age. In 2011/12, the Bering Sea ice set a new high in the satellite era. Latest ever ice out date records were set in May 2013.
 
(21) Mt. Kilimanjaro glacier was to disappear due to global warming. Temperatures show no warming in recent decades. The reduction in glacial ice was due to deforestation near the base and the state of the AMO. The glaciers have advanced again in recent years
 
(22) Polar bears were claimed to be threatened. Polar bear populations instead have increased to record levels and threaten the populace.
 
(23) Australian drought was forecast to become permanent. Steps to protect against floods were defunded. Major flooding did major damage and rainfall has been abundant in recent years tied to the PDO and La Nina as predicted by honest scientists in Australia. All years with La Nina and cold PDO composited show this rainfall. Drought was associated with El Ninos and warm PDO fro 1977 to 1998
 
(24) The office of the Inspector General report found that the EPA cut corners and short-circuited the required peer review process for its December 2009 endangerment finding, which is the foundation for EPA’s plan to regulate greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report confirmed that EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program-which EPA acknowledges is the “scientific foundation for decisions” - is flawed, echoing previous concerns from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that the agency is basing its decisions on shoddy scientific work.
 
(25) Of 18,531 citations in the 2007 IPCC Assessment Report, 5,587 or 30% were non-peer-reviewed material, including activist tracts, press releases, and in one amazing case, “Version One” of a Draft. In important instances, IPCC lead authors chose non-peer-reviewed material, or papers of low credibility, favoring their argument, in the face of prolific peer-reviewed material to the contrary. Instances include alleged climate relevance to malaria, hurricanes, species extinction, and sea levels.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on August 22, 2019, 11:52:13 AM
 :Ugh:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2019, 02:38:31 PM
Lick, operating a good 5 plus years behind the curve apparently doesn't know that it's officially "Global Climate Disruption" and not warming.

I'm trying to understand how people who literally hang on everything I post every single day of their lives don't get that the primary point has always been the alarm-ism and that the draconian and insane measures the alarmists want to take will likely not do anything to solve the "problem" and likely make life much more difficult for most people.   



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on August 22, 2019, 04:03:33 PM
warming stopped in the 1990s but it has picked up again?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on August 22, 2019, 04:05:07 PM
people who literally hang on everything I post every single day of their lives

this is my favorite defense. i've only seen dax and wacky attempt it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2019, 04:29:53 PM
people who literally hang on everything I post every single day of their lives

this is my favorite defense. i've only seen dax and wacky attempt it.

Reality is the best defense.

Lick seems to be on some sort of weird kick saying I don't believe in climate change and I've never not believed in climate change.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: 8manpick on August 22, 2019, 04:55:22 PM
There are like 70 posts a day on the board, it’s not that hard to follow every single one
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 22, 2019, 04:58:46 PM
Easy for a youngbuck to say. Wait a few dozen years and you'll start to be easily confused as well.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2019, 04:59:49 PM
8man, one person who reads all my posts (and responds to most) just responded to you.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: passranch on August 23, 2019, 02:44:38 PM
There's only one person more committed to making snappy comments on most (all?) the threads in the pit than libstradamus
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Yard Dog on August 28, 2019, 04:04:23 PM
Mentioned in another thread but belongs here:

https://twitter.com/hale_razor/status/1165273510941323265?s=21
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on August 28, 2019, 04:20:57 PM
Yard Dog!  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on August 28, 2019, 05:09:24 PM
lmao


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 28, 2019, 05:37:24 PM
 :lol:

But you guys cut back now, don't want to flood your guy's house.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 28, 2019, 05:58:45 PM
There's absolute consensus among all scientists that AGW is happening (consensus science is a foundational precept of all scientific endeavors i.e. world is flat, the sun revolves around the Earth yada yada yada), will get worse and the seas will inevitably rise and there's nothing we can do about it unless 2/3's of the population is culled and the rest return to gathering pre-historic existence.   

With that said, this is what the models (all confirmed BTW, 100% accurate) show for how Barry "murderer of brown people" Obama's  house will look by 2100 . . . so grand kids, you'll have to move to the mountains.

(https://i1.wp.com/cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Obama-House-Underwater.jpg?w=700&ssl=1)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 28, 2019, 06:16:42 PM
Rofl
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 28, 2019, 06:18:16 PM
Rofl

Please don't flood the Obama's out, Parody Poster LibDerp7
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 01, 2019, 11:53:41 AM
Pretty normal, nothing changing or anything. Should probably just burn baby burn some more.

https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/1168194524289609728
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Ksuminnesotacat on September 01, 2019, 07:15:59 PM
Hope it misses all together


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on September 01, 2019, 10:17:16 PM
Sotacat, you rough ridin' moron  :lol:
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 02, 2019, 05:27:55 PM
Lol 

I guess they were jet settin all over the world in 1935 (the 30’s were really hot but don’t tell the data manipulating alarmists).

Also technology hasn’t changed.  The ability to detect, measure and kind of sort of attempt to understand hurricanes (and all climatic events) is no better today than it was 10-20-50 years ago.  Sad to say
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on September 02, 2019, 05:30:16 PM
Fascism was really popular in the 30's as well, you would have loved it dax
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 02, 2019, 05:33:18 PM
Fascism was really popular in the 30's as well, you would have loved it dax

The New Puritan Lib Jackboots weren’t on the March.  But the constant call for boycotts by LibDerp Nation of today are very similar to Nazi book burning.  Hell we now have actors in Hollywood openly campaigning to keep conservative actors out of jobs. SMDH, very open minded though.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 02, 2019, 07:17:52 PM
Lol 

I guess they were jet settin all over the world in 1935 (the 30’s were really hot but don’t tell the data manipulating alarmists).

Also technology hasn’t changed.  The ability to detect, measure and kind of sort of attempt to understand hurricanes (and all climatic events) is no better today than it was 10-20-50 years ago.  Sad to say

It’s impossible for you to differentiate between random weather and climate change.

You bitch about consistent change as “random weather” then presented with facts you say it’s something else.

We have records from 1935, they aren’t close to what consistently happens today. 1935 was random weather, this is not when it consistently happens. You are such a crusty old man who just doesn’t get it. It’s truly sad you rough ridin' degenerate.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on September 02, 2019, 07:27:25 PM
Train gets super mad while message boarding. Lighten up, bud. This is supposed to be a fun diversion. Instead, you be casting aspersions.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 02, 2019, 07:35:27 PM
In the pit anything goes
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 02, 2019, 09:18:35 PM
Lol 

I guess they were jet settin all over the world in 1935 (the 30’s were really hot but don’t tell the data manipulating alarmists).

Also technology hasn’t changed.  The ability to detect, measure and kind of sort of attempt to understand hurricanes (and all climatic events) is no better today than it was 10-20-50 years ago.  Sad to say

It’s impossible for you to differentiate between random weather and climate change.

You bitch about consistent change as “random weather” then presented with facts you say it’s something else.

We have records from 1935, they aren’t close to what consistently happens today. 1935 was random weather, this is not when it consistently happens. You are such a crusty old man who just doesn’t get it. It’s truly sad you rough ridin' degenerate.

Actually you and your ilk can’t differentiate between “random weather”.  WTF is “random weather”?  We are approaching the height of Hurricane Season.  If this storm actually hits Florida it will be what?  Like the 121st Hurricane to hit Florida since 1850 and even more total tropical storms over the same period. This hurricane is in, wait for it . . .Hurricane Alley at or near the height of Hurricane Season. 

The fact that you dumbasses want to take every weather event and apply it to your dumbass agenda is just LOL’able on every level.  You guys literally play every side of the coin. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 03, 2019, 10:26:19 PM
100 years apart

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190904/eca798a4266fd0857cdd22b38a130658.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 04, 2019, 09:31:07 AM
Climate is static and never changes (The Big Dummy)

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 06, 2019, 07:20:41 AM
T&P's to resident climate alarmists that Dorian wasn't a major landfalling Hurricane.   I know you guys were hoping for a major hurricane and massive destruction along the U.S. coast so you could advance your agenda.   I'm sorry it didn't work out like you'd hoped.  (you of course refuse to take into consideration the onslaught of development along the U.S. coasts which only fuels you drama queens).

You'll just have to play the power of the storm over the Bahama's as Dorian was the second most powerful (that's 2nd most) ever recorded (and the most powerful ever recorded with modern technology, which means there were likely many more powerful storms in the past as paleoclimatologists are starting to discover along the gulf coast as they also understand the long term ebb and flow of tropical storm activity over the millennia, note to alarmists, the findings aren't good for your agenda) as it passed over islands that are just a foot or two above sea level.   
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on September 06, 2019, 07:29:17 AM
Ok
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 06, 2019, 07:43:05 AM
eff yeah tell that cloud who’s boss dad!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on September 06, 2019, 08:21:01 AM
Those are just pics of Winter vs Summer, right?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on September 06, 2019, 08:29:23 AM
Yup
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 06, 2019, 01:45:05 PM
Again, sorry it wasn’t nearly as catastrophic as you guys wanted.  Maybe next time you’ll get the death and mayhem you need to politicize and advance the agenda.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on September 06, 2019, 02:05:46 PM
if the president sharpie'd a hurricane map on Veep, like i wouldn't even chuckle bc it would be too cartoonish to be funny. but it happened irl. amazing.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 06, 2019, 02:36:11 PM
if the president sharpie'd a hurricane map on Veep, like i wouldn't even chuckle bc it would be too cartoonish to be funny. but it happened irl. amazing.

Wrong thread, dumbass.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on September 06, 2019, 02:37:50 PM
my bad dad
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on September 06, 2019, 02:41:46 PM
T&P's to resident climate alarmists that Dorian wasn't a major landfalling Hurricane.   I know you guys were hoping for a major hurricane and massive destruction along the U.S. coast so you could advance your agenda.   I'm sorry it didn't work out like you'd hoped.  (you of course refuse to take into consideration the onslaught of development along the U.S. coasts which only fuels you drama queens).

You'll just have to play the power of the storm over the Bahama's as Dorian was the second most powerful (that's 2nd most) ever recorded (and the most powerful ever recorded with modern technology, which means there were likely many more powerful storms in the past as paleoclimatologists are starting to discover along the gulf coast as they also understand the long term ebb and flow of tropical storm activity over the millennia, note to alarmists, the findings aren't good for your agenda) as it passed over islands that are just a foot or two above sea level.   

 :Ugh:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 06, 2019, 02:47:08 PM
https://www.thegwpf.com/wmo-boss-says-climate-discussion-has-gone-off-the-rails/

Sadly, the world is full of people like The Big Dummy who are completely freaking out because people like him buy into the propaganda 100%.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on September 06, 2019, 03:02:54 PM
https://www.thegwpf.com/wmo-boss-says-climate-discussion-has-gone-off-the-rails/

Sadly, the world is full of people like The Big Dummy who are completely freaking out because people like him buy into the propaganda 100%.

Although he is critical of right wing populists who do not accept any climate action, he warns of what might happen if fuel taxes are raised too far, noting the protests of the French gilets jaunes.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 06, 2019, 03:09:34 PM
https://www.thegwpf.com/wmo-boss-says-climate-discussion-has-gone-off-the-rails/

Sadly, the world is full of people like The Big Dummy who are completely freaking out because people like him buy into the propaganda 100%.

Although he is critical of right wing populists who do not accept any climate action, he warns of what might happen if fuel taxes are raised too far, noting the protests of the French gilets jaunes.

Oh thanks, I can't read, so I appreciate it.





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 06, 2019, 06:06:02 PM
It's all fun and games for the Eco-Woke until they meet up with that BMW 7 series product manager.

http://news.trust.org/item/20190905173607-o9fd2
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 06, 2019, 06:11:24 PM
What a bunch of rough ridin' dummies, there's no ice in the arctic anymore dummies

https://www.livescience.com/icebreaker-to-trap-itself-in-sea-ice.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 22, 2019, 09:42:48 AM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/climate/air-travel-emissions.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 23, 2019, 01:24:36 PM
NBD

https://twitter.com/weatherchannel/status/1176199802293489669
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 18, 2019, 08:09:04 AM
The Sun, that little star in the sky is approaching a solar minimum activity level (that being lack of activity) of a duration that hasn’t been observed in over a century. 

Sadly The Sun has been rendered a non factor in the climate debate. 

The Sun:  Might as well be Pluto :(



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 22, 2019, 04:30:31 AM
Better get this adjusted

https://twitter.com/dbirch214/status/1186405596788121602?s=21
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on October 30, 2019, 09:58:29 PM
NBD

https://twitter.com/byjacobward/status/1189305629879554048
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 31, 2019, 08:09:56 AM
NBD

https://twitter.com/byjacobward/status/1189305629879554048

A major study!!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 31, 2019, 09:39:08 AM
https://theshiftproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-02.pdf

The Big Dummy . . . please send up some smoke signals or send a carrier pigeon our way when you have devolved your current life style to a pre-industrial agrarian existence . . . oh, no fire, so carrier pigeon or messenger on foot please.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on November 02, 2019, 03:47:29 PM
https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1190728294674685952

Inmate fire fighters  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on November 02, 2019, 03:55:45 PM
Why is that funny?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on November 02, 2019, 03:59:43 PM
Why is that funny?

Because it's genius, outside the box thinking.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 04, 2019, 03:24:37 PM
Revert to Global Climate Disruption mantra immediately, repeat, Global Climate Disruption

The Sun doesn’t matter (warmest alarmist propagandists)

https://twitter.com/electroversenet/status/1191289997250506752?s=21
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on November 04, 2019, 03:26:48 PM
Usually birther dougie is the first "it's cold so climate change is a hoax" poster each fall, grats on the title this year.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on November 04, 2019, 03:31:45 PM
Because it's genius, outside the box thinking.

prison labor is hardly an innovation.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on November 04, 2019, 03:37:01 PM
Because it's genius, outside the box thinking.

prison labor is hardly an innovation.

Hardly the same as a chain gang
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 04, 2019, 04:28:35 PM
Usually birther dougie is the first "it's cold so climate change is a hoax" poster each fall, grats on the title this year.

Why would someone who believes (me) that climate cycles are an absolute fact think climate change is a hoax?

Weird take, but not unexpected.

It's just a shame that warmist alarmist propagandists have sold out on a singular dogma.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 04, 2019, 04:32:42 PM
Brilliant strategy by the ChiComs, while they build dozens upon dozens of coal burning power plants to fuel their manufacturing economy on the cheap, they continually propagate "renewable" reliance across the globe.  Ensuring years upon years of more costly and less reliable energy production and spreading energy poverty (like in California) across the globe, while their manufacturing plants operate 24/7/365 on coal power.

https://time.com/5714267/china-green-energy/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-china-coal/china-plans-226-gw-of-new-coal-power-projects-environmental-groups-idUSKBN1W40HS
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 05, 2019, 06:00:43 AM
"The vast majority of the more than $244 billion that China has spent on energy projects worldwide since 2000 have been on fossil fuels, according to data from the Global Development Policy Center, a policy-oriented research body affiliated with Boston University. Despite Xi telling journalists at April’s second Belt and Road Forum in Beijing that he embraces “open, clean and green development,” China has financed more than 300 foreign coal plants from Egypt to the Philippines."

But what about Paris, the accords? 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 05, 2019, 06:02:28 AM
Wah wah waah . . .

Another false LibBot narrative destroyed. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/11/04/why-everything-they-say-about-california-fires--including-that-climate-matters-most--is-wrong/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on November 14, 2019, 04:57:16 PM
This sucks crap


https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1194995443677253634


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on November 14, 2019, 05:51:41 PM
Those Republican numbers are higher than I expected
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 14, 2019, 06:43:26 PM
As long as a scientist or "academic" says it then it has to be true and 1000% fact (LibBot Nation)

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on November 14, 2019, 06:45:16 PM
Yeah dax, sucks crap


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on November 14, 2019, 06:45:45 PM
Those Republican numbers are higher than I expected

I’m bringing up the number


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 14, 2019, 06:49:03 PM
If scientists use the word "verified" (highly scientific word, verified) then we question nothing and believe it all (LibBot Nation)

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on November 14, 2019, 09:10:25 PM
This sucks crap


https://local12.com/news/local/ohio-house-passes-bill-allowing-student-answers-to-be-scientifically-wrong-due-to-religion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 15, 2019, 08:21:48 AM
Sadly LibBots believe the "97% consensus" even though such liberties were taken as counting scientists who gave no affirmation for or against the AGW theory as being part of the consensus.

If a scientists says it, then it's right (Useful Idiot LibBot Nation)



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on November 15, 2019, 08:35:58 AM
2+2=5
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on November 15, 2019, 08:48:55 AM
you don't have to make up stuff in dax posts; you can just quote them from the first page of this thread:

It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 15, 2019, 08:53:01 AM
Any 'scientist' will do as long as we agree with them and he/she with us (LibBot Nation)

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 15, 2019, 08:59:41 AM
you don't have to make up stuff in dax posts; you can just quote them from the first page of this thread:

It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s

Sadly,  useful idiots LibBots don't get that they really don't know much of anything at the end of the day besides the fact that a lot more study is required.   You guys (sadly) just read the headlines.

Example:   Climate alarmists are now propagating the lie that these arctic blasts are a new phenomenon wholly derivative of AGW causing a "wavy" jet stream/tropospheric polar vortex.     When in reality these "waves" or dips or whatever you want to call them have been discussed for decades, long before AGW dogma was in vogue.    The counter argument is that true "global warming" would actually have the reverse effect/affect with few if any "polar blasts".



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on November 15, 2019, 09:13:12 AM
Those Republican numbers are higher than I expected

I’m bringing up the number


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only because you haven't figured out that you aren't a republican anymore.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on November 15, 2019, 09:45:06 AM
Those Republican numbers are higher than I expected

I’m bringing up the number


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only because you haven't figured out that you aren't a republican anymore.

a large shitty portion of the republican party changed their views on a lot of things but I'm still sitting here where I started.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 15, 2019, 09:53:46 AM
An even shittier band of LibBot lemmings (okay, like about 98%) believes everything they're told in regards to "global warming" and never asks any questions, simply serving to propagate falsehoods like the useful idiots they are.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: catastrophe on November 15, 2019, 10:52:32 PM
This sucks crap


https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1194995443677253634


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FWIW - I probably also would have answered with the Pubs on that kind of question.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on November 16, 2019, 12:39:00 PM
2+2=5

 :lol: It's so true omg.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on November 24, 2019, 04:47:05 PM
Interested to see how the resident “climate change is a hoax” people react to this.


https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/e11khw/research_has_found_for_the_first_known_time_that/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 25, 2019, 10:44:26 AM
Would the first person who has said that that the climate is not changing please post their full name below.

Title: Re: If the models are all wrong
Post by: mocat on November 25, 2019, 10:48:21 AM
(2) It is now not warming. Warming (global mean and northern hemisphere) stopped in the 1990s
 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 25, 2019, 11:18:23 AM
Temp =‘s climate.

LOL

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on November 25, 2019, 11:20:21 AM
 :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 25, 2019, 11:30:14 AM
Would someone please step up and admit they believe the climate is not changing. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on November 25, 2019, 11:42:22 AM
The president of the United States thinks it's a hoax by the Chinese
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 25, 2019, 11:44:44 AM
The president of the United States thinks it's a hoax by the Chinese

Sadly, one of the presidential dem nominees thinks the Chinese are great stewards of the environment.

Now, would someone please fess up and tell us that you don't believe the climate is changing??

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on November 25, 2019, 11:47:10 AM
This is the exact kind of response I was expecting.  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 25, 2019, 04:44:26 PM
This is the exact kind of response I was expecting.  :lol:

The Big Dummy, do you own and use a smart phone?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 06, 2019, 05:04:31 PM
(https://preview.redd.it/dme0bny121341.jpg?auto=webp&s=ccd7cfbcaf658571babd1279e0a47ae8b4101ffb)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 06, 2019, 06:35:26 PM
Wrong thread dax
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on December 07, 2019, 08:12:01 AM
Yikes :frown:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 07, 2019, 08:30:20 AM
Oh Lib, always upset about something. Sad
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on December 07, 2019, 03:49:36 PM
It’s probably just a coincidence.


https://twitter.com/climateben/status/1202558142514712576
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on December 07, 2019, 03:52:47 PM
I genuinely wanted to look at his data/methodology, but there was none. That guy reads like a schill.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 07, 2019, 04:21:38 PM
Well his name is Climate Ben so.....
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 09, 2019, 01:12:34 PM
 :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 09, 2019, 07:18:52 PM
But, but they signed the Paris Climate Agreement!!

Gas and oil pipelines, massive world wide investment in oil and fossil fuel exploration, financing hundreds of coal burning power plants in China and across the globe.   

Chairman Xi says talk to the hand, greenies.  :frown:

https://twitter.com/BloombergNRG/status/1204149995894648833
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: catastrophe on December 09, 2019, 08:22:21 PM
If only the US had encouraged them to honor their commitment. :frown:

Well I guess that’s a leadership vacuum for you.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 10, 2019, 01:18:42 PM
If only the US had encouraged them to honor their commitment. :frown:

Well I guess that’s a leadership vacuum for you.

 :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on December 11, 2019, 07:59:10 AM
If China is rough ridin' up the environment we should also eff it up more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 11, 2019, 08:07:49 AM
If China is rough ridin' up the environment we should also eff it up more


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But we're not, dummy.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on December 11, 2019, 11:19:02 AM
probs not a big deal

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEBTEEXD4G8533lumimhARpIqGAgEKg8IACoHCAowjtSUCjC30XQwzqe5AQ?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 11, 2019, 12:37:51 PM
 :lol: Yet we know that in predominately ice bound areas of Greenland and Alaska (and similar regions) were once covered by lush forests.

But in Warmist Alarmist world, climate is linear and all roads lead to AGW.





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on December 11, 2019, 01:08:23 PM
Yes 55 million years ago Earth went through an extended period of natural global warming, capped off by a supercharged spike of carbon dioxide that accelerated the greenhouse effect.


but yeah prolly nothing to be worried about...
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 11, 2019, 01:16:27 PM
Yes 55 million years ago Earth went through an extended period of natural global warming, capped off by a supercharged spike of carbon dioxide that accelerated the greenhouse effect.


but yeah prolly nothing to be worried about...

In Warmist Alarmist World, climate is on a linear trajectory perpetually moving away from history, which is  :lol: . . . unless of course singular climatic events allow the Warmist Alarmist a unilateral declarative moment.   When historical references are made i.e. worse droughts, ice free poles, bigger storms/worse storms etc. etc., the Warmist Alarmist must rebutt immediately as all roads lead to AGW.





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Cire on December 11, 2019, 01:33:16 PM
Agree that China doesn't really GAF because when there's flooding/crop failure etc their gov will just move people around, build new cities etc.

We should still be doing everything in our power to move forward with alternative tech and mitigation of the effects climate change will bring.

Saying it's a hoax/non issue/can't change it, isn't/shouldn't be the point.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 11, 2019, 01:36:32 PM
Agree that China doesn't really GAF because when there's flooding/crop failure etc their gov will just move people around, build new cities etc.

We should still be doing everything in our power to move forward with alternative tech and mitigation of the effects climate change will bring.

Saying it's a hoax/non issue/can't change it, isn't/shouldn't be the point.

Would the people who don't believe that climate changes, please respond below and state why. 

Also anyone who doesn't believe that mankind doesn't impact the environment,  please respond below and state why you believe what you believe. 

Thank you.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on December 11, 2019, 01:52:42 PM
climate changes

greenhouse gases help to drive said changes

greenhouse gasses can be released in impactful quantities through natural events or exacerbated by man made actions

it is seemingly increasingly likely that these two could soon dovetail into a significant thermal event.



stop being a dumbass
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 11, 2019, 02:07:39 PM
climate changes

greenhouse gases help to drive said changes

greenhouse gasses can be released in impactful quantities through natural events or exacerbated by man made actions

it is seemingly increasingly likely that these two could soon dovetail into a significant thermal event.



stop being a dumbass

LOL, thanks Capt Obvious.

The problem you have is that Warmist Alarmists attribute all "climate change" solely to mankinds activity.











Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on December 11, 2019, 02:16:13 PM
no they don't

it is another example of the strange lengths you go to create strwmen to rage against

the article i linked is about a potentially significant amount of greenhouse gasses that are in no way man made
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 11, 2019, 02:23:45 PM
no they don't

it is another example of the strange lengths you go to create strwmen to rage against

the article i linked is about a potentially significant amount of greenhouse gasses that are in no way man made

The primary forces driving the Warmist Alarmist agenda are solely focused on the activities of mankind and consistently ignore climatic cycles, historical events, and things like the constant fiddling with historical data by entities like NOAA.

In addition, there is regular ignoring of flip-flopping by scientists when it affirms the warmest alarmist agenda.   I'm just starting to look at an article that discusses glacerial loss in some regions and it attributed to global warming . . . when the same scientists just a few years back attributed the same loss to deforestation.   The situation in California regarding the drought was attributed to LaNina/Nino cycles 3 and 4 years ago with the reminder that the region has suffered droughts that have lasted many many times longer than the issues its facing now.   Roll the clock forward and now it's being solely attributed to "global warming".   That's just two examples of many.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on December 11, 2019, 02:27:33 PM
:lol: Yet we know that in predominately ice bound areas of Greenland and Alaska (and similar regions) were once covered by lush forests.

But in Warmist Alarmist world, climate is linear and all roads lead to AGW.

How many mass extinction events between then and now? Climate is only important in how it confers the ability to support the current spectrum of life on the planet. Here's a reason why we should be worried - apex predators rarely ever survive extinction events.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on December 11, 2019, 02:31:41 PM
would you be willing to share these articles?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 11, 2019, 02:33:03 PM
It's important to remember that grandax believes climate change is real, he just thinks the scientists are lying
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on December 11, 2019, 02:42:40 PM
i recently read these articles

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50708544

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/12/10/arctic-may-have-crossed-key-threshold-emitting-billions-tons-carbon-into-air-long-dreaded-climate-feedback/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/10/climate/climate-change-arctic-warming.html

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 11, 2019, 02:43:04 PM
It's important to remember that grandax believes climate change is real, he just thinks the scientists are lying

It's important to remember that LibBot.9 is not the brightest bulb in the box and so he's left to kind of flail about, but he tries very very hard, so we have to give him that.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 11, 2019, 02:55:48 PM
And by lying he means perpetrating a global hoax
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on December 11, 2019, 03:04:51 PM
so in summation

Dax believes that Climate Changes

Dax believes that Greenhouse Gasses impact this change

Dax does not believe humans impact this change?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 11, 2019, 03:59:42 PM
he believes that the sound from windmills causes brain cancer and vaccines cause autism ffs.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: XocolateThundarr on December 13, 2019, 02:15:18 PM
I just stumbled across this today.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/12/deep-solar-minimum-on-the-verge-of-an-historic-milestone/?fbclid=IwAR1zTyfPLVUYAW7jCYLuY7WZG1cNitAIWIFuF2ntoZYPfShmZMMbSnewETk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 14, 2019, 10:00:19 AM
Hey guys, your goddess wants to begin the executions.

https://twitter.com/climaterealists/status/1205592684263608321
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on December 14, 2019, 10:04:36 AM
All the old climate change deniers are so scared of Greta. It’s pretty satisfying.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 14, 2019, 10:09:10 AM
so in summation

Dax believes that Climate Changes

Dax believes that Greenhouse Gasses impact this change

Dax does not believe humans impact this change?

Water vapor also impacts the environment, land use also impacts the environment, the Sun (under going a massive solar minimum) impacts the environment, all kinds of things impact the environment.  The Magnetic Poles are moving, they don’t even really have the first clue what that means for climate. 

For the warmest alarmist the great bogeyman is a trace gas and only a trace gas.  The warmest alarmist can’t even quantify the optimum level of this trace gas but spews forth the that the science is settled.   Yet this trace gas is an absolute requirement for life on this earth.



Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 14, 2019, 10:10:27 AM
All the old climate change deniers are so scared of Greta. It’s pretty satisfying.

She has the unilateral draconian proclamations of a dictatorial nature that draws simpletons like you like a moth to light.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on December 14, 2019, 10:14:55 AM
All the old climate change deniers are so scared of Greta. It’s pretty satisfying.

She has the unilateral draconian proclamations of a dictatorial nature that draws simpletons like you like a moth to light.

Just quivering in the corner scared. It’s so great :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 14, 2019, 10:16:54 AM
All the old climate change deniers are so scared of Greta. It’s pretty satisfying.

She has the unilateral draconian proclamations of a dictatorial nature that draws simpletons like you like a moth to light.

Just quivering in the corner scared. It’s so great :lol:

You’re the kind of useful idiot people like Greta (or really her controllers) are looking for.

Congrats future Brown Shirt.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on December 14, 2019, 11:03:47 PM
So, wait, there was climate change that would have affected the dinosaurs before the asteroid hit?  So like natural climate change was happening, because of CO2 emissions?  Am I reading this article correctly?  SO if humans did the same thing in creating excess CO2 emissions that would be a big deal, right?  Might repeat history?

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2019/12/earth-was-stressed-before-dinosaur-extinction/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Shooter Jones on December 15, 2019, 08:51:48 PM
Wonder how much single use plastic she blew through while actually riding first class?

https://twitter.com/gretathunberg/status/1205969006982815751?s=21
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 16, 2019, 10:41:20 AM
So, wait, there was climate change that would have affected the dinosaurs before the asteroid hit?  So like natural climate change was happening, because of CO2 emissions?  Am I reading this article correctly?  SO if humans did the same thing in creating excess CO2 emissions that would be a big deal, right?  Might repeat history?

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2019/12/earth-was-stressed-before-dinosaur-extinction/

 :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Woogy on December 16, 2019, 01:52:20 PM
So, wait, there was climate change that would have affected the dinosaurs before the asteroid hit?  So like natural climate change was happening, because of CO2 emissions?  Am I reading this article correctly?  SO if humans did the same thing in creating excess CO2 emissions that would be a big deal, right?  Might repeat history?

https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2019/12/earth-was-stressed-before-dinosaur-extinction/

Yes, Asteroids attracted by excess CO2.
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 17, 2019, 05:44:07 AM
BTW earth is being hit with some of the highest levels of cosmic radiation ever recorded.   So if you’re flying, you just got two dental X-Rays on every flight. 

Magnetic poles are shifting towards Russia.  Putin - Trump conspiracy no doubt.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on December 17, 2019, 09:17:15 AM
BTW earth is being hit with some of the highest levels of cosmic radiation ever recorded.   So if you’re flying, you just got two dental X-Rays on every flight. 

Magnetic poles are shifting towards Russia.  Putin - Trump conspiracy no doubt.

so I had a dental xray yesterday morning then flew.  Am I fuked?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on December 17, 2019, 10:45:25 AM
All the old climate change deniers are so scared of Greta. It’s pretty satisfying.

She has the unilateral draconian proclamations of a dictatorial nature that draws simpletons like you like a moth to light.

I would like to know which proclamations you speak of.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 17, 2019, 11:08:05 AM
All the old climate change deniers are so scared of Greta. It’s pretty satisfying.

She has the unilateral draconian proclamations of a dictatorial nature that draws simpletons like you like a moth to light.

I would like to know which proclamations you speak of.

Why is it so hard for you to follow along? 

What part of " . . . up against the wall" is confusing?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on December 17, 2019, 12:03:01 PM
the part where conservatives have unilaterally latched on to this one statement made by a child who was conducting an interview in her second language and determined that she meant calling for acts of violence rather than having your back against the wall implying "putting them in a difficult position"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 17, 2019, 12:05:06 PM
the part where conservatives have unilaterally latched on to this one statement made by a child who was conducting an interview in her second language and determined that she meant calling for acts of violence rather than having your back against the wall implying "putting them in a difficult position"

If you need to believe that she's not a propaganda puppet, then go ahead, don't cost nothin.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 17, 2019, 12:06:54 PM
Dax, do you think she's an actress? I've seen that a lot from your texags colleagues.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 17, 2019, 12:10:56 PM
Dax, do you think she's an actress? I've seen that a lot from your texags colleagues.

The sad thing is, that people like you will believe in anybody as long as what they're saying matches your dogma.

Sad

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on December 17, 2019, 12:12:43 PM
Dax, do you think she's an actress? I've seen that a lot from your texags colleagues.

The sad thing is, that people like you will believe in anybody as long as what they're saying matches your dogma.

Sad

 :ROFL:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 17, 2019, 12:15:40 PM
Dax, do you think she's an actress? I've seen that a lot from your texags colleagues.

The sad thing is, that people like you will believe in anybody as long as what they're saying matches your dogma.

Sad

 :ROFL:

Lick, I do appreciate your great urge to stick up for Greta and her handlers at every turn.   People like you are easily propagandized . . . I think people like you are often referred to as "useful idiots" and that's okay.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 17, 2019, 12:29:24 PM
Dax, do you think she's an actress? I've seen that a lot from your texags colleagues.

The sad thing is, that people like you will believe in anybody as long as what they're saying matches your dogma.

Sad

OK, but you didn't answer the question
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on December 17, 2019, 12:32:26 PM
who was the poster who kept saying check her imdb page lol
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on December 17, 2019, 12:33:19 PM
lmao


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on December 17, 2019, 12:35:07 PM
oh yeah it was my guy sotercat

Googled her, and it turns out that meme might not be completely representing all the facts and nuances there. Damn, that sucks!

https://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry

Did you IMDb ole Greta as well and her Actor and Actress  laiden family too. Sucks that damn.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 17, 2019, 12:35:47 PM
who was the poster who kept saying check her imdb page lol

'sotacat I believe
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Justwin on December 17, 2019, 12:43:41 PM
BTW earth is being hit with some of the highest levels of cosmic radiation ever recorded.   So if you’re flying, you just got two dental X-Rays on every flight. 

Magnetic poles are shifting towards Russia.  Putin - Trump conspiracy no doubt.

No big deal on the cosmic radiation if you are a person that actually cares about the environment and don't fly anywhere.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on December 17, 2019, 01:16:11 PM
Dax, do you think she's an actress? I've seen that a lot from your texags colleagues.

The sad thing is, that people like you will believe in anybody as long as what they're saying matches your dogma.

Sad

 :ROFL:

Lick, I do appreciate your great urge to stick up for Greta and her handlers at every turn.   People like you are easily propagandized . . . I think people like you are often referred to as "useful idiots" and that's okay.

Dax - you idiots the climate changes.  Arctic was once Tropical (due to extreme levels of greenhouse gasses) *

*https://www.foxnews.com/story/scientists-say-arctic-once-was-tropical

Greta - please curb greenhouse gasses or it will be bad

Dax - I can't believe you uselful idiots have been propagandized by this climate actress

LN -  :confused:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: passranch on December 17, 2019, 02:56:24 PM
Dax, do you think she's an actress? I've seen that a lot from your texags colleagues.

The sad thing is, that people like you will believe in anybody as long as what they're saying matches your dogma.

Sad

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/023/397/C-658VsXoAo3ovC.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 18, 2019, 06:10:20 AM
Dax, do you think she's an actress? I've seen that a lot from your texags colleagues.

The sad thing is, that people like you will believe in anybody as long as what they're saying matches your dogma.

Sad

OK, but you didn't answer the question

I haven’t even given that a single thought.  Quit being such a weirdo FFS.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on December 18, 2019, 06:57:57 AM
So you’d have to put some serious thought into that one before offering your opinion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 18, 2019, 07:06:42 AM
Mull it over and get back to me bud
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 18, 2019, 01:39:52 PM
No

I mean only total weirdos think that and mega weirdos ask other people their opinion on such things.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on December 18, 2019, 04:54:32 PM
i think propaganda puppet is interchangeable with actress, lib
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Ksuminnesotacat on December 18, 2019, 05:00:30 PM
Momo you might be an Actress if your Mom and Grandpa is one and just maybe if you just went on a world anger tour convicting olds across the globe of ruining everything. Annnd you just happen to have a camera man along to document said world tour and put out a documentary to show on Hulu in 2020? I don’t know maybe not? Lolz
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on December 18, 2019, 05:03:04 PM
Momo you might be an Actress if your Mom and Grandpa is one and just maybe if you just went on a world anger tour convicting olds across the globe of ruining everything. Annnd you just happen to have a camera man along to document said world tour and put out a documentary to show on Hulu in 2020? I don’t know maybe not? Lolz

Look at this total wierdo dax lol
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Ksuminnesotacat on December 18, 2019, 05:04:22 PM
Momo you might be an Actress if your Mom and Grandpa is one and just maybe if you just went on a world anger tour convicting olds across the globe of ruining everything. Annnd you just happen to have a camera man along to document said world tour and put out a documentary to show on Hulu in 2020? I don’t know maybe not? Lolz

Look at this total wierdo dax lol

I know right? But I did like the propaganda puppet that was pretty good?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 18, 2019, 05:32:42 PM
Momo you might be an Actress if your Mom and Grandpa is one and just maybe if you just went on a world anger tour convicting olds across the globe of ruining everything. Annnd you just happen to have a camera man along to document said world tour and put out a documentary to show on Hulu in 2020? I don’t know maybe not? Lolz

Look at this total wierdo dax lol

Look at the mega weirdo who is obsessed with stuff like this . . . it's, sad.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on December 18, 2019, 06:33:11 PM
Lib, why are you so obsessed with that Swedish girl? smDh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 18, 2019, 06:43:39 PM
Yeah that’s it SD.  #eyeroll
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on December 28, 2019, 09:19:09 AM
this seems very cool and chill

https://twitter.com/Ad_Inifinitum/status/1210652504968585217
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on December 28, 2019, 09:59:11 AM
this seems very cool and chill

https://twitter.com/Ad_Inifinitum/status/1210652504968585217

Pfft but we don’t know the optimal amount of sea ice we need spaghetti monster Dave. Who even said we need any arctic sea ice anyway?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: passranch on January 02, 2020, 01:38:59 PM
this seems very cool and chill

https://twitter.com/Ad_Inifinitum/status/1210652504968585217

Good.  Get rid of that gross, old ice.  Now we get nice fresh new ice every year!  Win-win!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on January 02, 2020, 02:54:03 PM
https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1212824458538434560

Let this be a learning experience
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 09, 2020, 07:28:58 PM
Somebody check the math.


https://twitter.com/robertmcutler/status/1215192869989965824?s=21
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 09, 2020, 07:30:35 PM
https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1212824458538434560

Let this be a learning experience

They literally had 10x the acreage burned 45 years ago. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: bucket on January 09, 2020, 07:55:57 PM
https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1212824458538434560

Let this be a learning experience

They literally had 10x the acreage burned 45 years ago.

How many fatalities and properties damaged?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 09, 2020, 08:26:15 PM
You mean back when they had 15 million fewer people?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 10, 2020, 07:04:39 AM
Time to pick up the pace of carbon shaming around here. 

Sorry resident warmest alarmists, it’s for your own good.   Walk the walk. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/sweden-flight-shame-movement-arlanda-airport-gotherburg-climate-change-a9277936.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: LickNeckey on January 10, 2020, 09:20:56 AM
https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/1212824458538434560

Let this be a learning experience

They literally had 10x the acreage burned 45 years ago.

good to know that a changing climate has not impacted this situation
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on January 11, 2020, 11:37:44 AM
Oh, no crap?

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Cire on January 13, 2020, 12:40:04 PM
Sounds like you are in Kahoots with Big Climate DBT
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 13, 2020, 01:56:34 PM
Lol, more revising the revisions to get a desired outcome.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on January 13, 2020, 10:21:31 PM
https://twitter.com/PoliticoRyan/status/1216925025766342656
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on January 14, 2020, 02:17:50 AM
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3a8q9w/5-hiroshima-bombs-of-heat-every-second-the-worlds-oceans-absorbed-record-level-heat-last-year?utm_source=digg (https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3a8q9w/5-hiroshima-bombs-of-heat-every-second-the-worlds-oceans-absorbed-record-level-heat-last-year?utm_source=digg)

cue dax talking about underwater volcanoes
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 14, 2020, 09:01:48 PM
Some of you need to be volunteering.    Godspeed

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/save-the-planet-half-earth-kim-stanley-robinson
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on January 16, 2020, 10:17:20 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/eph6o8/average_world_temperature_since_1850_oc/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: slackcat on January 17, 2020, 05:47:31 AM
1907-1913 were sure cold
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on January 19, 2020, 09:05:07 AM
NBD


https://twitter.com/wiredscience/status/1218910991687344129
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on February 07, 2020, 01:08:19 PM
we've got penguins in shorts and tank tops now which is chill AF

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1225822044127928321
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 07, 2020, 01:28:43 PM
Well, not that fits the narrative that climate alarmists want to spew, but there's a bit of a controversy brewing in Australia about the fact that the chief Australian climate office has gone back and "corrected" the historical weather data.   In turn, this has made the past cooler and the present appear to be much warmer.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has "remodeled" the historical data collected by weather stations across Australia and then passed the "remodeled" data on to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research who thus conclude, based on the "remodeled" historical data, that it's much warmer now.

Of course the scientist who is studying all this remodeling and calling it out, is being attacked by the usual climate mob who offer nothing beyond the usual scoffing and derision. 





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 07, 2020, 01:55:00 PM
I think we should be using the models they were using in the 1920s to model past climate, personally. It's just dishonest to update models with findings from research.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 07, 2020, 01:56:43 PM
I think we should be using the models they were using in the 1920s to model past climate, personally. It's just dishonest to update models with findings from research.

That's an excellent point Rage.   However in this case, they're not "remodeling" models, they're "remodeling" the actual historical temp data from weather stations. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on February 07, 2020, 03:12:03 PM
dax where do you get the energy to nonstop pit 247365
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: ChiComCat on February 07, 2020, 03:19:56 PM
dax where do you get the energy to nonstop pit 247365

Coal
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 07, 2020, 03:42:40 PM
dax where do you get the energy to nonstop pit 247365

Coal

Fueled off the nuclear powered posting onslaught of LibDork.9 and SteveDave among a few.   

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on February 07, 2020, 07:40:04 PM
we've got penguins in shorts and tank tops now which is chill AF

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1225822044127928321

The tourist scene is really gonna pick up with this being the coolest place in town now.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 09, 2020, 12:39:55 AM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on February 09, 2020, 01:04:32 AM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 09, 2020, 02:02:01 PM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on February 09, 2020, 02:16:44 PM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

I wasn't pointing to single-day temp readings. But you did point to expanding sea ice as an argument against global warming. Only difference between me and you is I actually know the science behind why that's happening.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 09, 2020, 04:24:07 PM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

I wasn't pointing to single-day temp readings. But you did point to expanding sea ice as an argument against global warming. Only difference between me and you is I actually know the science behind why that's happening.

 :lol: :lol: then why do your alarmist idiot friends constantly talk about sea ice, sea ice extent, sea ice density and then try to scare the crap out of everybody while spending copious amounts of cash monitoring all of that stuff?

The science behind what's happening?  That's there's ice at the poles??



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on February 09, 2020, 06:35:00 PM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

I wasn't pointing to single-day temp readings. But you did point to expanding sea ice as an argument against global warming. Only difference between me and you is I actually know the science behind why that's happening.

 :lol: :lol: then why do your alarmist idiot friends constantly talk about sea ice, sea ice extent, sea ice density and then try to scare the crap out of everybody while spending copious amounts of cash monitoring all of that stuff?

The science behind what's happening?  That's there's ice at the poles??

The science behind the apparent paradox that sea ice coverage around antarctica is actually increasing despite the fact that the southern ocean is actually warming faster (0.17 degrees/decade) than the average for all the oceans (0.1 degree/decade). Ozone depletion above the antarctic is leading to a cooling of the stratosphere, which leads to an increase in the strength of antarctic cyclones and the more drastic disruption of sea ice. This increased disruption leads to the increased formation of polynyas, which in turn increases the rate of ice formation. Also, increased precipitation (due to warmer air) keeps low salinity water at the surface (which is cold) from mixing, with the deeper, saltier water (which is warmer), so less warm water is getting pulled up to the surface and therefore less sea ice melts as a result.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on February 09, 2020, 06:40:01 PM
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/3oriff9hTp2iu3B90k/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 09, 2020, 08:11:15 PM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

I wasn't pointing to single-day temp readings. But you did point to expanding sea ice as an argument against global warming. Only difference between me and you is I actually know the science behind why that's happening.

 :lol: :lol: then why do your alarmist idiot friends constantly talk about sea ice, sea ice extent, sea ice density and then try to scare the crap out of everybody while spending copious amounts of cash monitoring all of that stuff?

The science behind what's happening?  That's there's ice at the poles??

The science behind the apparent paradox that sea ice coverage around antarctica is actually increasing despite the fact that the southern ocean is actually warming faster (0.17 degrees/decade) than the average for all the oceans (0.1 degree/decade). Ozone depletion above the antarctic is leading to a cooling of the stratosphere, which leads to an increase in the strength of antarctic cyclones and the more drastic disruption of sea ice. This increased disruption leads to the increased formation of polynyas, which in turn increases the rate of ice formation. Also, increased precipitation (due to warmer air) keeps low salinity water at the surface (which is cold) from mixing, with the deeper, saltier water (which is warmer), so less warm water is getting pulled up to the surface and therefore less sea ice melts as a result.

Fantastic, but sea ice extent in the Antarctic as of right now is still running  at the lower portion of the range since accurate recording began.   In fact, as of right now, it's running at about a half million square kilometers below the peaks of this time year of the range as recorded over the last 10 to 20 years or so, albeit as of right now there is more ice in the Antarctic than there as been at this same time in the previous 4 years.   

Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on February 09, 2020, 08:34:18 PM
I think the issue comes down to what is the proper amount of sea ice that we need? The conclusion is we just don’t know that so there is no climate change and the Chinese are responsible.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 09, 2020, 08:37:41 PM
I think the issue comes down to what is the proper amount of sea ice that we need? The conclusion is we just don’t know that so there is no climate change and the Chinese are responsible.


It's like a Gatling Gun of tapouts at this point.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on February 10, 2020, 01:01:21 AM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

I wasn't pointing to single-day temp readings. But you did point to expanding sea ice as an argument against global warming. Only difference between me and you is I actually know the science behind why that's happening.

 :lol: :lol: then why do your alarmist idiot friends constantly talk about sea ice, sea ice extent, sea ice density and then try to scare the crap out of everybody while spending copious amounts of cash monitoring all of that stuff?

The science behind what's happening?  That's there's ice at the poles??

The science behind the apparent paradox that sea ice coverage around antarctica is actually increasing despite the fact that the southern ocean is actually warming faster (0.17 degrees/decade) than the average for all the oceans (0.1 degree/decade). Ozone depletion above the antarctic is leading to a cooling of the stratosphere, which leads to an increase in the strength of antarctic cyclones and the more drastic disruption of sea ice. This increased disruption leads to the increased formation of polynyas, which in turn increases the rate of ice formation. Also, increased precipitation (due to warmer air) keeps low salinity water at the surface (which is cold) from mixing, with the deeper, saltier water (which is warmer), so less warm water is getting pulled up to the surface and therefore less sea ice melts as a result.

Fantastic, but sea ice extent in the Antarctic as of right now is still running  at the lower portion of the range since accurate recording began.   In fact, as of right now, it's running at about a half million square kilometers below the peaks of this time year of the range as recorded over the last 10 to 20 years or so, albeit as of right now there is more ice in the Antarctic than there as been at this same time in the previous 4 years.   

lol wut

uhh...so as you can see, we are definitely at the peak of this nadir and, uh...we are decelerating more quickly even though our inertia, uh, seems to be holding us back from continuing on, and, ummm, uhhhhh
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 10, 2020, 10:47:53 AM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

I wasn't pointing to single-day temp readings. But you did point to expanding sea ice as an argument against global warming. Only difference between me and you is I actually know the science behind why that's happening.

 :lol: :lol: then why do your alarmist idiot friends constantly talk about sea ice, sea ice extent, sea ice density and then try to scare the crap out of everybody while spending copious amounts of cash monitoring all of that stuff?

The science behind what's happening?  That's there's ice at the poles??

The science behind the apparent paradox that sea ice coverage around antarctica is actually increasing despite the fact that the southern ocean is actually warming faster (0.17 degrees/decade) than the average for all the oceans (0.1 degree/decade). Ozone depletion above the antarctic is leading to a cooling of the stratosphere, which leads to an increase in the strength of antarctic cyclones and the more drastic disruption of sea ice. This increased disruption leads to the increased formation of polynyas, which in turn increases the rate of ice formation. Also, increased precipitation (due to warmer air) keeps low salinity water at the surface (which is cold) from mixing, with the deeper, saltier water (which is warmer), so less warm water is getting pulled up to the surface and therefore less sea ice melts as a result.

Fantastic, but sea ice extent in the Antarctic as of right now is still running  at the lower portion of the range since accurate recording began.   In fact, as of right now, it's running at about a half million square kilometers below the peaks of this time year of the range as recorded over the last 10 to 20 years or so, albeit as of right now there is more ice in the Antarctic than there as been at this same time in the previous 4 years.   

lol wut

uhh...so as you can see, we are definitely at the peak of this nadir and, uh...we are decelerating more quickly even though our inertia, uh, seems to be holding us back from continuing on, and, ummm, uhhhhh

Tapout noted.   You know exactly what I said, you just don't like the fact that I bothered to look at the actual data.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on February 10, 2020, 10:56:45 AM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

ironically this is what many pubs I know do to disprove global warming
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 10, 2020, 11:06:03 AM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

ironically this is what many pubs I know do to disprove global warming

Single day records are "ironically" what many warmest alarmists use to "prove" global warming.   Case in point, one weather station (located mere feet from a steel railing and black asphalt highway) in France caused, dare I say, a total meltdown last summer.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: hjfklmor on February 10, 2020, 12:17:55 PM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

ironically this is what many pubs I know do to disprove global warming

Single day records are "ironically" what many warmest alarmists use to "prove" global warming.   Case in point, one weather station (located mere feet from a steel railing and black asphalt highway) in France caused, dare I say, a total meltdown last summer.

I'm assuming you're referring to the heat wave that set record highs in multiple locations across France and caused hundreds of deaths from heat exhaustion?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 10, 2020, 12:31:07 PM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

ironically this is what many pubs I know do to disprove global warming

Single day records are "ironically" what many warmest alarmists use to "prove" global warming.   Case in point, one weather station (located mere feet from a steel railing and black asphalt highway) in France caused, dare I say, a total meltdown last summer.

I'm assuming you're referring to the heat wave that set record highs in multiple locations across France and caused hundreds of deaths from heat exhaustion?

Sure, and once people start looking at the records they discovered it was not unprecedented (and it rarely is).

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 10, 2020, 01:07:28 PM
It's all just a hoax by the Chinese
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 10, 2020, 01:17:01 PM
It's all just a hoax by the Chinese

The Niagara Falls of tap outs strikes again.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on February 10, 2020, 10:44:19 PM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

I wasn't pointing to single-day temp readings. But you did point to expanding sea ice as an argument against global warming. Only difference between me and you is I actually know the science behind why that's happening.

 :lol: :lol: then why do your alarmist idiot friends constantly talk about sea ice, sea ice extent, sea ice density and then try to scare the crap out of everybody while spending copious amounts of cash monitoring all of that stuff?

The science behind what's happening?  That's there's ice at the poles??

The science behind the apparent paradox that sea ice coverage around antarctica is actually increasing despite the fact that the southern ocean is actually warming faster (0.17 degrees/decade) than the average for all the oceans (0.1 degree/decade). Ozone depletion above the antarctic is leading to a cooling of the stratosphere, which leads to an increase in the strength of antarctic cyclones and the more drastic disruption of sea ice. This increased disruption leads to the increased formation of polynyas, which in turn increases the rate of ice formation. Also, increased precipitation (due to warmer air) keeps low salinity water at the surface (which is cold) from mixing, with the deeper, saltier water (which is warmer), so less warm water is getting pulled up to the surface and therefore less sea ice melts as a result.

Fantastic, but sea ice extent in the Antarctic as of right now is still running  at the lower portion of the range since accurate recording began.   In fact, as of right now, it's running at about a half million square kilometers below the peaks of this time year of the range as recorded over the last 10 to 20 years or so, albeit as of right now there is more ice in the Antarctic than there as been at this same time in the previous 4 years.   

lol wut

uhh...so as you can see, we are definitely at the peak of this nadir and, uh...we are decelerating more quickly even though our inertia, uh, seems to be holding us back from continuing on, and, ummm, uhhhhh

Tapout noted.   You know exactly what I said, you just don't like the fact that I bothered to look at the actual data.

making fun of your word salad is not the same as tapping out. your argument still isn't valid - sea ice doesn't correlate to warming for precisely the reasons i explained. find yourself a new argument.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 11, 2020, 12:17:30 AM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

I wasn't pointing to single-day temp readings. But you did point to expanding sea ice as an argument against global warming. Only difference between me and you is I actually know the science behind why that's happening.

 :lol: :lol: then why do your alarmist idiot friends constantly talk about sea ice, sea ice extent, sea ice density and then try to scare the crap out of everybody while spending copious amounts of cash monitoring all of that stuff?

The science behind what's happening?  That's there's ice at the poles??

The science behind the apparent paradox that sea ice coverage around antarctica is actually increasing despite the fact that the southern ocean is actually warming faster (0.17 degrees/decade) than the average for all the oceans (0.1 degree/decade). Ozone depletion above the antarctic is leading to a cooling of the stratosphere, which leads to an increase in the strength of antarctic cyclones and the more drastic disruption of sea ice. This increased disruption leads to the increased formation of polynyas, which in turn increases the rate of ice formation. Also, increased precipitation (due to warmer air) keeps low salinity water at the surface (which is cold) from mixing, with the deeper, saltier water (which is warmer), so less warm water is getting pulled up to the surface and therefore less sea ice melts as a result.

Fantastic, but sea ice extent in the Antarctic as of right now is still running  at the lower portion of the range since accurate recording began.   In fact, as of right now, it's running at about a half million square kilometers below the peaks of this time year of the range as recorded over the last 10 to 20 years or so, albeit as of right now there is more ice in the Antarctic than there as been at this same time in the previous 4 years.   

lol wut

uhh...so as you can see, we are definitely at the peak of this nadir and, uh...we are decelerating more quickly even though our inertia, uh, seems to be holding us back from continuing on, and, ummm, uhhhhh

Tapout noted.   You know exactly what I said, you just don't like the fact that I bothered to look at the actual data.

making fun of your word salad is not the same as tapping out. your argument still isn't valid - sea ice doesn't correlate to warming for precisely the reasons i explained. find yourself a new argument.

First, you need to get a whole bunch of people in the “scientific” community roped in.   Second, exactly.  I’m glad we can agree.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: treysolid on February 11, 2020, 01:08:51 AM
As of 2/6 there's more ice extent and ice area in Antarctica than in the previous 4 years on 2/6 and the trend line is running about right in the middle of the last 10 recorded years.

But hey, the records are only about 10 years old and there's more people doing more recording in Antarctica with more technology in play than ever before in history.

 

If you think sea ice extent is the important factor that disproves global warming here, you are sorely mistaken.

If you think that pointing to temp readings on a single day are proof of global warming than you are sorely mistaken.

I wasn't pointing to single-day temp readings. But you did point to expanding sea ice as an argument against global warming. Only difference between me and you is I actually know the science behind why that's happening.

 :lol: :lol: then why do your alarmist idiot friends constantly talk about sea ice, sea ice extent, sea ice density and then try to scare the crap out of everybody while spending copious amounts of cash monitoring all of that stuff?

The science behind what's happening?  That's there's ice at the poles??

The science behind the apparent paradox that sea ice coverage around antarctica is actually increasing despite the fact that the southern ocean is actually warming faster (0.17 degrees/decade) than the average for all the oceans (0.1 degree/decade). Ozone depletion above the antarctic is leading to a cooling of the stratosphere, which leads to an increase in the strength of antarctic cyclones and the more drastic disruption of sea ice. This increased disruption leads to the increased formation of polynyas, which in turn increases the rate of ice formation. Also, increased precipitation (due to warmer air) keeps low salinity water at the surface (which is cold) from mixing, with the deeper, saltier water (which is warmer), so less warm water is getting pulled up to the surface and therefore less sea ice melts as a result.

Fantastic, but sea ice extent in the Antarctic as of right now is still running  at the lower portion of the range since accurate recording began.   In fact, as of right now, it's running at about a half million square kilometers below the peaks of this time year of the range as recorded over the last 10 to 20 years or so, albeit as of right now there is more ice in the Antarctic than there as been at this same time in the previous 4 years.   

lol wut

uhh...so as you can see, we are definitely at the peak of this nadir and, uh...we are decelerating more quickly even though our inertia, uh, seems to be holding us back from continuing on, and, ummm, uhhhhh

Tapout noted.   You know exactly what I said, you just don't like the fact that I bothered to look at the actual data.

making fun of your word salad is not the same as tapping out. your argument still isn't valid - sea ice doesn't correlate to warming for precisely the reasons i explained. find yourself a new argument.

First, you need to get a whole bunch of people in the “scientific” community roped in.   Second, exactly.  I’m glad we can agree.

I'm also glad we both agree that the Southern Ocean is experiencing the effects of a global warming trend.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on February 11, 2020, 08:19:28 AM
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/29/frances-new-hottest-recorded-temperature-ever-is-in-question-guess-where-it-was-measured/

 :Ugh:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 11, 2020, 09:58:25 AM
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/29/frances-new-hottest-recorded-temperature-ever-is-in-question-guess-where-it-was-measured/

 :Ugh:

Look, warmest alarmest at "skeptical science" are in the middle of a silencing campaign, so you better go over there and get signed up.   

Because nothing says science like silencing scientists.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on February 13, 2020, 09:31:05 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/f388j6/oc_global_warming_of_the_seas/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2020, 09:32:34 PM
Da Big Parrot Boy strikes again
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on February 13, 2020, 09:34:57 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/13/january-hottest-earth-record-climate-crisis
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2020, 09:36:50 PM
The Guardian is the favorite climate alarmist parrot boy publication  :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on February 13, 2020, 09:42:16 PM
Tap out accepted.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 13, 2020, 09:50:39 PM
Oh Da Big Parrot Boy  :facepalm:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on February 17, 2020, 03:56:27 PM
https://twitter.com/aaronblake/status/1229523709704232968


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on February 17, 2020, 03:57:05 PM
Owning the environment/libs >


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 17, 2020, 03:59:40 PM
Total roman war helmet performed on the environment by trump  :Woot:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2020, 04:03:29 PM
LOL, and then the rest of the story:   "the emission standards and other requirements of the MATS rule would remain in place as EPA is not proposing to remove coal- and oil-fired power plants from the list of sources that are regulated under (the Clean Air Act)."

Time to convene a bunch of people on NPR from non-profit "think tanks" to hash this out.






Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on February 22, 2020, 08:18:03 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/f7is48/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on February 22, 2020, 03:51:28 PM
https://www-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.businessinsider.com/ski-resorts-face-no-snow-empty-mountains-lost-customers-photos-2020-2?amp_js_v=a3&amp_gsa=1&amp&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fski-resorts-face-no-snow-empty-mountains-lost-customers-photos-2020-2

Awaiting appropriate Daxnalysis
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2020, 04:01:07 PM
So which is it now?  More snow or less snow?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on April 28, 2020, 04:36:29 PM
Game over man, game rough ridin' over!


www.euractiv.com – https://www.euractiv.com/section/climate-environment/news/oyster-flatulence-worries-climate-scientists/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on April 30, 2020, 04:16:15 PM
the collapse in oil services makes it super cheap to develop geothermal assets now (drill rigs can do either), if we wanted to spend some stimulus money.

https://twitter.com/TimMLatimer/status/1255846809919983617
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on May 05, 2020, 12:21:11 AM
we may be getting close to done with new build fossil fuel power plants.

https://twitter.com/joesmyth/status/1257498358261809153
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2020, 12:41:07 AM
While Sys whackadoo dreams of still extremely unreliable “green energy”.    That’s shown time and time again that it’s unable to meet the mandate of cheap reliable energy (which is why Angie Merkel needs not one but now two Vlad Putin gas pipelines).   

Energy poverty spreads like a scourge across the land.


https://www.axios.com/jackson-natural-gas-3e1af88d-a823-4096-975d-c9b0ad207806.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on May 05, 2020, 08:39:12 AM
I hate to do this to you dax because I know how hard you cape for the right, but you may want to look into what's going on with Trump and clean/renewable energy.

You do know that DJT's uncle ended up with all of Tesla's work, notes, etc., correct? 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2020, 08:41:36 AM
I hate to do this to you dax because I know how hard you cape for the right, but you may want to look into what's going on with Trump and clean/renewable energy.

You do know that DJT's uncle ended up with all of Tesla's work, notes, etc., correct?

Start a new Thread Bqqkie

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on May 05, 2020, 09:14:29 AM
I hate to do this to you dax because I know how hard you cape for the right, but you may want to look into what's going on with Trump and clean/renewable energy.

You do know that DJT's uncle ended up with all of Tesla's work, notes, etc., correct?

Start a new Thread Bqqkie

Noted.

(https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/948463151748878472/C4447E435E8E43F6020D91FFEEA2691EC17575BC/)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2020, 09:18:31 AM
I hate to do this to you dax because I know how hard you cape for the right, but you may want to look into what's going on with Trump and clean/renewable energy.

You do know that DJT's uncle ended up with all of Tesla's work, notes, etc., correct?

Start a new Thread Bqqkie

Noted.

(https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/948463151748878472/C4447E435E8E43F6020D91FFEEA2691EC17575BC/)

Book, you show up out of no where after being gone forever, and now you want to take this thread into Tesla and Trump's ancestors in a response that literally has NOTHING to do with what's being discussed in terms of actual policy that's being implemented.

Now, provide a link from a non Q source relative to what Trump is doing in regards to non renewable energy and please tell me how that is relevant to actual dirt moving and policy that's being implemented or propagated right now in the real world.   Start with how that's even remotely relateable to a natural gas pipeline in Illinois and energy poverty/debt.

   



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on May 05, 2020, 09:20:40 AM
Sad to see dax source pearl clutching when he uses q sources on the reg
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2020, 09:41:13 AM
Sad to see dax source pearl clutching when he uses q sources on the reg

Every source that you don't approve of (because it goes against your indoctrination) is a "Q source" in your world.

That's how you've always rolled Useful Idiot .9.   Sad that you can't be true to yourself.

S M D H

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on May 05, 2020, 09:46:09 AM
Sad to see dax source pearl clutching when he uses q sources on the reg

He really is not very good at this... 

https://www.history.com/news/nikola-tesla-files-declassified-fbi

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2020, 09:55:09 AM
Sad to see dax source pearl clutching when he uses q sources on the reg

He really is not very good at this... 

https://www.history.com/news/nikola-tesla-files-declassified-fbi

 :lol: :lol:

That's a history lesson, what does that have to do with current policy and situations that are occuring right now?  Nothing

Link to non Q source. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on May 05, 2020, 10:43:05 AM
Stay tuned old timer.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on May 05, 2020, 12:06:59 PM
I hate to do this to you dax because I know how hard you cape for the right, but you may want to look into what's going on with Trump and clean/renewable energy.

You do know that DJT's uncle ended up with all of Tesla's work, notes, etc., correct?

Start a new Thread Bqqkie

Noted.

(https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/948463151748878472/C4447E435E8E43F6020D91FFEEA2691EC17575BC/)

Book, you show up out of no where after being gone forever ...
 

Dax: SEAT'S TAKEN!

Bqqkie:

(https://media.giphy.com/media/kDRacElvbMPDO/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Bqqkie Pimp on May 05, 2020, 12:14:23 PM
lmao
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 05, 2020, 12:29:34 PM
Stay tuned old timer.

I've only got 3 monitors in my home office, plus a projection screen.   Do I need to wire my home sports bar screens into this set up so I can monitor all the thing I need to "stay tuned" on??   Mrs. Dax ain't gonna allow the living room TV and her office, so I got 6 total.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on May 14, 2020, 10:50:21 PM
long term; hell, medium term, this is more important than the coronavirus.

https://twitter.com/ramez/status/1261011825354657792
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on May 14, 2020, 10:55:04 PM
Awesome
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on May 14, 2020, 11:07:23 PM
Sorry but Dax has been telling us FOR YEARS, that stuff like this would never happen. How bad does that make him look, wow, pretty bad. Considering he will see real change in his lifetime, I guess lots of boomers go through that tho.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 15, 2020, 06:45:30 AM
Sorry but Dax has been telling us FOR YEARS, that stuff like this would never happen. How bad does that make him look, wow, pretty bad. Considering he will see real change in his lifetime, I guess lots of boomers go through that tho.
Yes, “Green Energy” has proven so impactful and effective for Germany that they not only need 1 but now 2 natural gas pipelines from Vlad Putin and Gazprom.   
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on May 20, 2020, 02:44:00 PM
good job outta aoc.

https://twitter.com/ThirdWayEnergy/status/1262803166053183488
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on May 20, 2020, 06:30:03 PM
Sys didn’t you show that solar energy is on track to be super rough ridin' cheap in the near term?  Why do we need nuclear, not enough capacity from solar alone?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on May 20, 2020, 07:25:00 PM
yeah, there are some carbon activists that want to shut down existing plants and aoc has at least flirted (or more) with that in the past so it's good to see her turning a new leaf.

right now it's not really economical to build new nuclear plants because they're all basically custom builds and there's no political will to force them into production.  it probably could be economical to build if someone would commit to building a bunch of them with some sort of standardized, modular design, but that seems pretty unlikely to happen anytime soon.

if it was something that was politically possible, i'd be happy to see more nuclear.  it has a lot of advantages.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2020, 08:34:17 PM
Good luck with all of that guys.   The Crescent Dunes solar generation station in Nevada was shut down last year for 1.  Failure to meet contracted power output requirements 2.  MWh production was (check notes) 4x the cost per MWh production of more conventional power plants.

$737 million in U.S. gov't loan guarantees at stack.  Waah-waa-waaaahhhh

They're gonna try again down the road  :crossfingers: :crossfingers:  Another billion dollars at stack.   This time they're gonna try battery storage to make up for when the sun don't shine.   Sadly, no battery production on earth (a production process that in itself is extremely impactful on the environment) could ever hope to meet the demand that will be placed on this facility to serve the Las Vegas market. 

Failure of solar power to meet the energy needs of the communities it serves means that an equal or greater amount of conventionally produced energy must be ready to go at a moments notice to offset solar energies inability to meet real world demands.







Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on May 20, 2020, 08:35:54 PM
dax, the energy you spend fighting renewable energy is a non-renewable energy we need to tap
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2020, 08:35:58 PM
I think AOC will be a fine president
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2020, 08:39:27 PM
dax, the energy you spend fighting renewable energy is a non-renewable energy we need to tap

Useful Idiot Steve Dave, I'm not fighting anything, dummy.

It's just a pipe dream.   U.S. energy demands provided we ever recover from RONA Bros controlling states, will continue to far outstrip "green" energy demands for decades to come.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2020, 08:40:57 PM
I think AOC will be a fine president

She's very Hitlarian in body position and gestures when she's at the podium in the house.   So it's not the least bit surprising that Useful Idiot nation is drawn to her. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: michigancat on May 20, 2020, 08:43:36 PM


I think AOC will be a fine president

She's very Hitlarian in body position and gestures when she's at the podium in the house.   So it's not the least bit surprising that Useful Idiot nation is drawn to her.

Dax you're such a weirdo
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2020, 08:51:55 PM


I think AOC will be a fine president

She's very Hitlarian in body position and gestures when she's at the podium in the house.   So it's not the least bit surprising that Useful Idiot nation is drawn to her.

Dax you're such a weirdo

No more weird than watching you and sys try to be analytical rona bros



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2020, 08:57:30 PM
Idk why he is talking about CSP for renewable power generation  :dunno:

Because they spent a billion dollars on it and it failed.

Now they're gonna go a different route and also put in a bunch of huge batteries for low generation periods.   There's not enough capacity.  So again, if solar lags on generation, conventional energy production must be ready to go online immediately to make up for the lag.   

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: dal9 on May 20, 2020, 09:01:07 PM
i think "community input" for nuclear power plants is basically gonna be "put it in that other community"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on May 20, 2020, 09:42:26 PM
i agree with dax, solar thermal is dead.  prolly won't see another plant built.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 20, 2020, 11:09:58 PM
If Jill Joe truly acquiesces to the GND collectivist whack-a-doo's, China will own it all in the next 5 to 10 years.

For example, as the Australian "green energy" whack-a-doo's continue to press forward, Australian heavy industry see's no future, "green energy" will not be able to meet their needs consistently.

The German "green energy" effort failed . . . "green energy" is a niche play and should always be treated as such.   This is why Angie Merkel has 1 and wants another gas pipeline from Vlad Putin. 

China on the other hand has no real interest and never will  have any interest in truly going green.   Right now, 177 mega oil tankers are unloading oil in China.   The road to over 450 Chinese designed and built coal energy plants both in China and world wide continues unabated.

China says they'll invest $1 trillion dollars on the road to China 2025 to overtake every major technology sector including chip making in the next 4 to 5 years. 

This will come as a surprise to some, but right now, the pollution forecast in China's industrialized areas is "very unhealthy", yesterday it was "very unhealthy" and tomorrow it will be "very unhealthy" . . . and they don't give a crap.

 





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 18, 2020, 03:36:20 PM
The EU:  All talk, no walk on climate change. 

 But Ang Merkel is gonna get that 2nd natural gas pipeline from Vlad Putin if she has to ground the entire German Air Force to get it . . . Oh, but you U.S. taxpayers better stop Trump from moving a few thousand troops out!  We need that tax base in Germany!.

https://www.eurointelligence.com/public/briefings/2020-07-15.html?cHash=4f0b7274d391c1db19987596b93446a8
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 24, 2020, 05:42:11 PM
Lower Demand-Check

Sunny Weather-Check

Windy Weather-Check

Ang Merkel . . . stills wants that second pipeline.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 24, 2020, 07:09:14 PM
 :ksu:
Forbes: European Renewables Just Crushed Fossil Fuels. Here’s How It Happened.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2020/07/23/european-renewables-just-crushed-fossil-fuels-heres-how-it-happened/

that's pretty rough ridin' great.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on August 07, 2020, 05:53:07 PM
https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/canada-s-last-remaining-intact-ice-shelf-collapses-1.5055572

prolly nbd tho
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 07, 2020, 06:10:59 PM
Emissions are down all over the globe, well, except for one place.

They're running "extremely unhealthy" as usual in their industrial areas.

I'm sure ChiCom Joe is going to give them the old what for about it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on August 08, 2020, 12:59:56 PM
So emissions are a problem?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2020, 02:50:04 PM
So emissions are a problem?

According to you guys it's the only thing that impacts climate.   There's one or two countries that lead the world by far in terms of continuously being in the realm of "extremely unhealthy" on a daily basis, and one of those is not the United States.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on August 08, 2020, 03:15:51 PM
Who is "you guys"?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2020, 04:46:57 PM
Oh Please . . .  :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on August 08, 2020, 05:13:37 PM
I expect China to adhere to the Paris Accord, and if they don't! Tariff the eff out of them!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2020, 09:47:29 PM
I expect China to adhere to the Paris Accord, and if they don't! Tariff the eff out of them!

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on August 08, 2020, 09:59:30 PM
I expect China to adhere to the Paris Accord, and if they don't! Tariff the eff out of them!

 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 ;)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2020, 10:03:47 PM
Here's a surprise, central industrial region of China has the highest CO emissions right now in the world.  BTW, it'll be that way tomorrow, and the next day and the next day.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on August 08, 2020, 10:05:36 PM
Here's a surprise, central industrial region of China has the highest CO emissions right now in the world.  BTW, it'll be that way tomorrow, and the next day and the next day.

It's impossible to phase out coal.

 :zzz:

I'm not getting into this tonight.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 08, 2020, 10:06:48 PM
Get into this tonight!
Get into this tonight!
Get into this tonight!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2020, 10:27:35 PM
The Chinese bought 300K more BMW's than American's last year Da Big Sociopath.

They really support an emissions cheat, just like you.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 08, 2020, 10:31:54 PM
The Chinese bought 300K more BMW's than American's last year Da Big Sociopath.

They really support an emissions cheat, just like you.
It’s really gonna make you mad when you find out its a hybrid.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 08, 2020, 10:45:05 PM
Um-hmm
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Katpappy on August 09, 2020, 09:22:30 PM
How many will admire this natural beauty.
https://canyouactually.com/wp-content/uploads/1-226.jpg                                           
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on August 23, 2020, 09:20:49 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/aug/23/earth-lost-28-trillion-tonnes-ice-30-years-global-warming

prolly nbd
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 23, 2020, 10:13:12 PM
Cue the Daxbot “The Guardian is the most climate alarmist news out there.”

That is a crazy amount of melt tho.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 23, 2020, 10:15:43 PM
Climate is nearly static and is only truly impacted by one thing (Da Big Sociopath:  Fossil Fuel Consumer)

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 08, 2020, 09:49:40 PM
The prospect of climate seriously impacting things such as commodities and possibly our very existence in some parts of the world (if not the whole world) is something that has been dealt with by mankind for centuries. 

How could this possibly be news to anyone with an IQ above 47?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 13, 2020, 12:25:02 AM
Probably fine.


https://twitter.com/rgatess/status/1304835330390908929
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 13, 2020, 08:35:22 AM
Incredible what technology allows us to discover. 

Thanks for posting fellow fossil fuel consumer DaBig Psycho.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on September 14, 2020, 03:34:44 PM
He is so rough ridin' stupid.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1305580235941974017
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 14, 2020, 04:34:41 PM
That still doesn't change the fact that the timber industry in California is all but destroyed.

The 9th District (huge surprise) has blocked logging multiple times on Federal land.   AG Moon Beam worked hard to block logging on Federal land . . . among many.

But DaBig Psycho hates facts.





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 14, 2020, 04:44:06 PM
But who could have possibly have seen this coming?

While the Whack-A-Doo environmentalist keep pointing to climate change, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that region of our earth has experienced droughts that have lasted decades (even centuries)   

But, millions upon millions of people decided to move there anyway, and it's a case study in urban sprawl.   

California and Northern Arizona weren't meant to support the daily water habits of 46 million (or more) people.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 15, 2020, 12:41:19 PM
Nothing in weather is unprecedented, the Atlantic Basin 1971: 

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200915/1899ac8bb2054cff46f24ec0e743bb99.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: MakeItRain on September 16, 2020, 01:20:36 AM
He is so rough ridin' stupid.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1305580235941974017

I legit want to fight Chad Wolf, like I seriously want to beat his ass. eff that bitch.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 16, 2020, 05:29:00 AM
Wrong thread, dummy.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: MakeItRain on September 17, 2020, 01:19:00 PM
He is so rough ridin' stupid.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1305580235941974017

I legit want to fight Chad Wolf, like I seriously want to beat his ass. eff that bitch.

Saw Chad Wolf trending on twitter and I was unhappy to discover he wasn't dead.

Also eff the air quality right now, I have no idea how those people out west are even able to breathe right now.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on September 17, 2020, 02:40:14 PM
That still doesn't change the fact that the timber industry in California is all but destroyed.

The 9th District (huge surprise) has blocked logging multiple times on Federal land.   AG Moon Beam worked hard to block logging on Federal land . . . among many.

But DaBig Psycho hates facts.

wait so the Federal Government is the one managing all of this land so poorly???

wish the Pres would do better
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on September 17, 2020, 02:55:22 PM
That still doesn't change the fact that the timber industry in California is all but destroyed.

The 9th District (huge surprise) has blocked logging multiple times on Federal land.   AG Moon Beam worked hard to block logging on Federal land . . . among many.

But DaBig Psycho hates facts.

wait so the Federal Government is the one managing all of this land so poorly???

wish the Pres would do better

Thanks for skipping over all the legal action that state of California has taken to stop the forest industry on Federal lands, Lick.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on October 12, 2020, 11:58:00 PM
https://twitter.com/ldq915/status/1315748269356650498
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 13, 2020, 07:11:12 AM
A little over a year ago India announced they expect coal powered energy production to increase 23% over 3 years.

Prediction:  Within 3 to 5 years into this initiative India will determine that such a move is not obtainable, and that energy costs will outstretch the means of a substantial portion of the populace to pay for it.   

Just like Angie Merkel dialed up a 2nd natural gas pipeline from Vlad Putin.

 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 13, 2020, 09:12:21 AM
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04082020/china-n2o-super-pollutant-nylon-emissions-climate-change

Fund our emissions reductions, or we'll do nothing about them (Chinese Communist Party)

But hey, they're not that bad (K-Street Stooge ChiCom Joe Biden)

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 16, 2020, 10:01:29 AM
Boris, Vlad Putin is on the line, something about a pipeline . . . Merkel's got 2 he said!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/14/national-grid-warns-of-short-supply-of-electricity-over-next-few-days#:~:text=National%20Grid%20has%20warned%20that,low%20wind%20speeds%20this%20week.&text=The%20warning%20is%20the%20second,system%20operator%20in%20recent%20weeks.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 23, 2020, 12:01:58 PM
Halfway decent article (I'm curious on a follow up on this once) on potential Chinese Climate policy.

https://www.vox.com/2020/10/15/21516537/climate-change-china-xi-jinping-coal-carbon-neutral

Excellent tactical propaganda move by Xi as China is a screaming freight train of being the worlds leader in carbon emissions.   

We're going to really really try and do better . . . please build your stuff in China.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on December 01, 2020, 03:45:24 PM
It's behind a paywall.   But I'm sure you all will be just as stunned as I was to learn (and now know) that a UN commission on climate and development is rife with corruption and financial mismanagement.  Particularly a commission set up within the UN by the World Bank.   Here a few excerpts from the Financial Times:


Quote
"Issues identified by the audit could seriously compromise the achievement of the objectives of the audited entity,
"

Quote
"Matters of misconduct and misappropriation of funds continue to obstruct sustainable development across the world,"
Quote
"The words' climate' and 'corruption,' people see these as two different worlds, but there is a lot of overlap," said Brice Böhmer, the head of climate governance integrity at Transparency International, the global anti-corruption group.

Note, the following is from an unnamed source, so using resident BidenVoter logic.   The following is 1000% fact, and the absolute truth.

Quote
No one is accountable; no one is responsible. The UNDP lets itself off the hook," the person said, also asking not to be named. "These funds are intended for the poorest of the poor . . . at what point will donors [to the GEF] decide to suspend funding?"


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: treysolid on December 02, 2020, 12:45:35 AM
Let's all celebrate the fact that we've hit peak oil  :party: :party: :party:
It's all downhill from here (and that's good!)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on December 02, 2020, 12:48:31 AM
Let's all celebrate the fact that we've hit peak oil  :party: :party: :party:
It's all downhill from here (and that's good!)

not sure i believe those projections (but maybe!).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 10, 2021, 07:21:30 AM
Congrats to Germany.   The solar panels are covered in snow, there's very little wind so the wind turbines are mainly idle and pulling power off the coal/Vlad Putin natural gas powered grid in order to keep from freezing. 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 10, 2021, 04:46:07 PM
my apologies to all of you gambling on bitcoin futures, but this is insane.  it should be illegal.

https://twitter.com/pseudocia/status/1359588931508011008
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 10, 2021, 04:56:10 PM
It should be, but I'm not sure how you can get rid of it at this point.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 10, 2021, 05:13:02 PM
Totally sustainable
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 11, 2021, 11:49:46 AM
Full disclosure:  Crypto ETF stakeholder

Still very hilarious to think that some of our biggest climate change drama queens are huge Crypto people.

One situation I am very familiar with,  the mining operation had to have consumed a massive amount of electricity, 1000's upon 1000's of KW's. 

Burning the planet to the ground for profit and greed . . . sad





Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on February 11, 2021, 11:50:34 AM
agreed

crypto is stupid
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 11, 2021, 12:22:37 PM
What this should remind everyone of is:

1.  Even with more energy efficient devices the proliferation of and cheapening of massive computer processing power coupled with the nearly exponential growth in smart devices across the globe.   So called 'green energy'  has no prayer of meeting demand in the timeframe that's being laid out by people looking to score political points but not solve any real problems.

2.  The proliferation of technology to support all this places insatiable demand on precious metals and materials and all the environmental impact that comes with obtaining those materials






Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on February 11, 2021, 12:50:56 PM
so we should stop trying to seek technological advacnement to attain these goals???
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 12, 2021, 12:47:56 AM
so we should stop trying to seek technological advacnement to attain these goals???

Before I respond, I just want to congratulate the sysbot @sys for actually posting something relevant and meaningful, it happens every 6 months or so.  A nice change from his usual utterly meaningless and rando bullshit.

Lick . . .  no

Also recognize that the biggest virtue signalers relative to the climate are some of the largest individual fossil fuel consumers on the planet, if not the biggest consumers of fossil fuels on the planet relative to individual consumption.










Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on February 12, 2021, 01:50:56 AM
Full disclosure:  Crypto ETF stakeholder

Still very hilarious to think that some of our biggest climate change drama queens are huge Crypto people.

One situation I am very familiar with,  the mining operation had to have consumed a massive amount of electricity, 1000's upon 1000's of KW's. 

Burning the planet to the ground for profit and greed . . . sad

So, by "stakeholder," do you mean a friend or loved one (if possible) holds a security interest, or what?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 12, 2021, 06:24:42 AM
So dumb.    Terrible posting Spracs
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 22, 2021, 11:29:13 PM
More terrible news on Bitcoin.

Not only is the process one of the most glutinous users of energy resources on the planet, 20% of it is 'mined' in a coal rich region of China, where terrible human rights abuses are taking place.    The speculation is that cheap coal driven power fuels the operation(s).

https://www.barrons.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-in-xinjiang-china-could-be-a-red-flag-for-regulators-51613764881

 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on February 23, 2021, 09:09:56 AM
It is a sticky situation.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on March 28, 2021, 06:58:02 PM
eff yeah.

https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1376134220809072640
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on March 28, 2021, 07:01:37 PM
eff yeah.

https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1376134220809072640
LOL. Your hate of crypto is such a loser misinformed mentality. More for the rest of us, I guess.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on March 28, 2021, 07:03:01 PM
Like, so misinformed. I doubt you will read this since it actually makes sense but here it is.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/.amp/business/bitcoin-will-save-our-earth
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on March 28, 2021, 07:08:07 PM
you're in a cult, dbt.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on March 28, 2021, 07:09:26 PM
you're in a cult, dbt.
You’re in denial of actual facts.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on March 28, 2021, 07:11:36 PM
you're in a cult, dbt.

I bet you wouldn't say that to stevedave's face.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on March 28, 2021, 07:16:09 PM
stevedave, if you're in that cult, get out before you get mumped.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on March 28, 2021, 07:22:59 PM
LOL. So misinformed.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on March 29, 2021, 07:54:29 AM
I don't think sd is in the cult, just using the cult for financial gain.

Also lol at that link, it's like dax posting something from Democrats-r-bad.com
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on March 29, 2021, 07:56:12 AM
Here's an article from oil magazine that says spilling oil in the ocean is actually good!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 29, 2021, 08:10:41 AM
I don't think sd is in the cult, just using the cult for financial gain.

Also lol at that link, it's like dax posting something from Democrats-r-bad.com

 :lol: :lol: 

Nobody circles the wagons like ProgFascist.7



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: michigancat on March 29, 2021, 02:03:14 PM
I don't think sd is in the cult, just using the cult for financial gain.

Also lol at that link, it's like dax posting something from Democrats-r-bad.com

plus the "you probably won't read this" reminds me of "95% of you won't share"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on March 29, 2021, 02:27:00 PM
he was right, though.  i didn't read it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: michigancat on March 29, 2021, 04:11:01 PM
he was right, though.  i didn't read it.
Oh yeah, I never share something that says "bet you won't share"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: star seed 7 on March 31, 2021, 06:25:48 PM
he was right, though.  i didn't read it.
Oh yeah, I never share something that says "bet you won't share"

I hope you'll share it with your gE friends
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 03, 2021, 03:53:09 AM
https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-owners-switching-gas-charging-a-hassle-study-2021-4
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 03, 2021, 09:20:00 AM
https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-owners-switching-gas-charging-a-hassle-study-2021-4

Yeah, I don't think most renters are going to be able to own an electric vehicle. Charging stations at apartment complexes should probably be part of the infrastructure bill (maybe they already are?).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 03, 2021, 10:20:59 AM
https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-owners-switching-gas-charging-a-hassle-study-2021-4

Yeah, I don't think most renters are going to be able to own an electric vehicle. Charging stations at apartment complexes should probably be part of the infrastructure bill (maybe they already are?).

Going green . . . as long as it's convenient.

Good opportunity for suburbia greenies to go electric and assuage their conscience over contributing to urban sprawl, paved roads and car centric suburban design.



 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: michigancat on May 03, 2021, 11:02:13 AM
We rent a house but charge with a 110. The landlord of the triplex next door installed a level 2 charger for his tenants. Depending on how the rental market shakes out over the next few years I can see lots of apartment complexes adding stations
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on May 03, 2021, 11:16:32 AM
Yeah, like 5 years ago ev charging in new construction (commercial and large apartment complexes) was included in maybe one in 10 projects that I would review. Today it's closer to half and pretty much included in all projects that are decently large. I deal mostly with the Midwest and SE.

There is still a ways to go, but it's definitely getting more popular.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on May 04, 2021, 08:29:52 AM
Not exactly new or breaking info (new nuclear's window has been closing fast), author's voice/writing style was entertaining tho

CleanTechnica: Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Are Mostly Bad Policy.

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/03/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-are-mostly-bad-policy/

Cleantechnica is basically what the right assumes every climate driven person is. It's pretty much lefty tucker carlson but you know, not actually idiots but the same need to cast fire and brimstone on anyone who isn't lockstep on wind/solar/electric cars. Very preachy/propogandy. Doesn't lessen the entertainment value though. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on May 04, 2021, 08:34:28 AM
Yeah, like 5 years ago ev charging in new construction (commercial and large apartment complexes) was included in maybe one in 10 projects that I would review. Today it's closer to half and pretty much included in all projects that are decently large. I deal mostly with the Midwest and SE.

There is still a ways to go, but it's definitely getting more popular.

The growth of chargers I think is going at a fine pace. Especially once people realize most their charging can be done at home.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on May 09, 2021, 09:13:54 PM
there's going to come a point, probably pretty soon, where coal is close to free.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on May 09, 2021, 09:16:06 PM
that 3-5% compared to 20% number is insane to anyone who remembers, like, the world in 2013.  a good test will be what that oil number looks like in 2-3 years.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 10, 2021, 10:35:45 AM
The Chinese have no intention of de-commissioning their coal fired plants.   But they'll convince iPOTUS and Biden Voter that they're going to, just like they always do.
 

They stealthily fund Western green lunatics to lobby against coal/cheap power.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on May 10, 2021, 01:14:48 PM
I always enjoy dax's "we should pollute more than China" talking point.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 10, 2021, 01:43:50 PM
Simple brained ProgFascist.7 being simple brained.

#onbrand

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on May 28, 2021, 03:55:19 PM
The market doing its thing

Quote
“These boards can’t continue ignoring their shareholders. Shareholders have said 'enough.' Shareholders are using their power. This has been a long time coming.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/26/big-oil-exxon-climate-491104

Yeah, you can see it in power (for a while). Good to see oil and gas is now facing the music a bit.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on June 20, 2021, 09:15:56 AM
It is highly doubtful that massive improvements to the power grid will occur in the next 10-15 years.  This is why back up power systems companies are flourishing.  Right now we have one of the largest public utilities in the country in or about to be in bankruptcy because they didn’t properly maintain their grid.

These two statements appear incongruent. You're essentially stating that you believe that utilities would rather go bankrupt than make the necessary investments in their infrastructure?

PG&E is likely going to file bankruptcy (if they haven't already) because they failed to properly maintain their power grid, which in turn caused numerous wildfires in which they were found liable for . . . if one of the largest power companies in the United States has done such a poor job of maintaining their grid, then you can only imagine what it's like elsewhere.     On most grids a singular ice storm or hurricane would render them non-workable for weeks, if not months in some circumstances.   We're talking decades and billions upon billions of dollars to remedy that situation.   That's not a system you want to go all in on with the backbone of your transportation systems.   Not to mention the fact that EV's are no where near being able to haul the proverbial freight if you will on the commercial side.    FYI Germany is converting 15 trains to FC power.

https://twitter.com/candacefor24/status/1405926016254631936
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on June 20, 2021, 10:07:22 AM
Texas is basically the goEMAW’ers min paying their student loans right now in the hopes that the federal govt comes in with some money/forgiveness. Bernie is writing a $6T infrastructure plan. They want to use that money, get their state fixed, then campaign against big govt spending and socialism in their stable AC/heat.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on June 28, 2021, 07:53:00 PM
https://twitter.com/MarkTomasovic/status/1409644188191268866
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 28, 2021, 07:55:49 PM
Green Parties:  On the decline in Europe.

Ang Merkel about to gas up some more with Nordstream 2
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 02, 2021, 05:56:48 AM
I won't get too deep into the fact that we now have tens of millions of people living in a place that was never really meant to have tens of millions of people living there.   Nor will I delve far into the fact that over the course of earth's history that part of the planet has been prone to massive droughts that have lasted decades, even centuries. 

Suffice it to say, 'green energy' cannot and will not sustain California and the Western U.S.   But something has to be blamed, and that something is the gosh darn climate.

https://www.caiso.com/Documents/CapacityProcurementMechanismSignificantEvent-JointStatementandLetter.pdf


Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 02, 2021, 05:13:50 PM
https://twitter.com/beardedcrank/status/1411080944921071616
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: chum1 on July 02, 2021, 05:39:03 PM
That looks like a scene from an action movie.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on July 02, 2021, 05:56:00 PM
That looks like a scene from an action movie.

Yes it does. Looks fake af.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on July 02, 2021, 07:32:11 PM
It's the trailer from Barge Gas finally out?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: mocat on July 02, 2021, 07:44:33 PM
It's the trailer from Barge Gas finally out?

lmao
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: MadCat on July 06, 2021, 10:56:31 AM
That looks like a scene from an action movie.

Yes it does. Looks fake af.
Cover your heart, Indy
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 06, 2021, 11:30:37 AM
The greenies getting all worked up about this are quite amazing in their total lack of awareness.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DQ12 on July 06, 2021, 01:02:09 PM
It's the trailer from Barge Gas finally out?
If you squint you can kind of make out Violin among the flames.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on July 06, 2021, 01:37:49 PM
It looks like James Franco's front yard in This Is The End.  Fully expecting to see a coked up Michael Cera fall in.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 09, 2021, 03:06:06 PM
This is good news for those of you, part of the millions upon millions who live in places that nature never intended (well more so than other places, I suppose) for millions upon millions of human beings to inhabit.   

https://interestingengineering.com/nanofiber-membrane-filters-999-of-salt-from-seawater-within-minutes

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 09, 2021, 07:38:55 PM
that red line from like about 1985 on is one of the saddest failures in human history.

https://twitter.com/NatBullard/status/1413564503002845186
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on July 09, 2021, 09:14:16 PM
Just a hot day nbd

https://twitter.com/michaelemann/status/1413677845990105096
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on July 10, 2021, 05:01:44 PM
“June is always hot, nbd”

https://twitter.com/weatherchannel/status/1413974560433610753
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Woogy on July 12, 2021, 08:42:56 AM
that red line from like about 1985 on is one of the saddest failures in human history.

https://twitter.com/NatBullard/status/1413564503002845186

Isn't that more or less Chernobyl then regulations (idk how you can spin them as completely unjustified) and public sentiment went sour for the most part, nimby.

Does seem unfortunate that the US can't leverage existing sites and infrastructure to quickly be able to build new nuclear generation in a way that cost doesn't keep expanding and construction is on a quicker timescale instead of just decommissioning nuclear plants.

Three Mile Island in 1979.  There was just a tail for sites already under construction, like Wolf Creek which came on line in mid 80's. Chernobyl in 86 just reinforced that lifetime financials would be impossible for nuke plants due to regulation, nimbyism, and expensive, one off designs.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 12, 2021, 08:45:16 AM
Climate never changes, it’s always static, until now of course (The Big Psycho)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 15, 2021, 10:24:32 PM
China Central Planning:  Releasing 10 million tons of the dirtiest burning coal on the planet into immediate energy production.

(But at least Joe signed us back in to the meaningless Paris accords so we can feel better about ourselves)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 15, 2021, 10:27:37 PM
For those keeping track at home that’s approximately 86,000 railway cars filled to the brim with the dirtiest coal on the planet.  Going to dirtiest coal power stations on the planet.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 22, 2021, 04:03:43 AM
no carbon tax and we're paying people to have kids pretty well sums up how serious this country is about climate change.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 22, 2021, 10:32:52 AM
I see the CTC as an incentive to have children.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: IPA4Me on July 22, 2021, 11:49:45 AM
It is for people with bad math skills.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 22, 2021, 03:40:07 PM
Wrong thread, maybe?, but I find it hard to believe CTC in it's new form has strong incentives to have more children.

i mean it's obviously an incentive to have children.  i think what you're really arguing that it's not a very strong incentive and wouldn't result in a meaningfully higher birth rate.

and, maybe?  afaik, no one is trying to address that question as either a negative or positive.

just looking at it intuitively, i'm not worried about the temporary version offering a meaningful incentive.  i think people understand that it is too uncertain to impact choices.  if it were made permanent, we're talking like what 50k over a child's minority?  something like that?  my guess is that that sort of money isn't going to induce a couple that doesn't want children to rear one, but it might well induce a katkid or a michigancat to go ahead and have that 9th child that they currently think they can't afford.

at any rate, i'd certainly like to see the question addressed with data before we start shoveling cash in the wrong direction.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 22, 2021, 03:42:50 PM
What we really need is a tax exemption for everyone who has not had a child at any point. That would incentivize contraception. The tax credit may not be a strong incentive, but it removes the financial penalty for having children that would naturally come about as God intended.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 22, 2021, 03:44:30 PM
What we really need is a tax exemption for everyone who has not had a child at any point. That would incentivize contraception. The tax credit may not be a strong incentive, but it removes the financial penalty for having children that would naturally come about as God intended.

that's right.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 22, 2021, 04:35:42 PM
I would support extending the childless tax exemption to those who adopt, fwiw.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 22, 2021, 05:19:47 PM
i'd be cool with a generous tax credit for a first child that goes to neutral for a second and strongly negative after that.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: MadCat on July 23, 2021, 09:12:45 AM
"Congratulations! You're pregnant!....ooh, it's triplets"
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 25, 2021, 03:34:25 PM
i trust krugman on this one, so let's go ahead and consider my opposition to the child tax credit as hardened.

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/status/1419371124371111937
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: IPA4Me on July 26, 2021, 02:31:53 PM
Empires fail without offspring. Heard Ken Gronbach speak in 2019 at a conference. Enlightening presentation.

https://twitter.com/fgiaonline/status/1407691973339889664
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 26, 2021, 02:53:28 PM
we can still stop this monstrosity.

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1419718688635301892
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 26, 2021, 03:31:45 PM
we can still stop this monstrosity.

https://twitter.com/gelliottmorris/status/1419718688635301892

Abort the credit.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 26, 2021, 03:49:46 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/26/ohio-senate-candidate-jd-vance

Well, eff this guy.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on July 26, 2021, 03:54:16 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jul/26/ohio-senate-candidate-jd-vance

Well, eff this guy.

Viktor Orbán doesn't seem like the type of leader you'd want to heap praise on.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on July 26, 2021, 04:44:57 PM
I don't know of any reason we should stop the CTC.  I mean, I have heard of plenty of stats stating money spent on young kids reduces crime, increases educational outcomes, increases both physical and mental health outcomes, etc.  Seems like anyone should be able to draw a line from that to themselves regardless of where they find themselves on the political spectrum.  :dunno:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 26, 2021, 04:53:55 PM
Fav cross comparison is olds being strongly against.

god bless the elderly.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on July 26, 2021, 06:21:47 PM
I keep wanting to come up with some story to go along with that trend and it's hard to other than the lazy story of a zero sum worry about competition with SS and medicare. I assume they generally give no effs about global population, resources and climate change.

i think it's just has children under 18 v doesn't have children under 18.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Kat Kid on July 29, 2021, 05:25:48 PM
Sys is more comfortable with human extinction than animal extinction.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sys on July 29, 2021, 06:33:51 PM
Sys is more comfortable with human extinction than animal extinction.

the difference being that we already have driven, or are currently driving, most large vertebrates towards extinction while there are almost 8 billion humans walking the earth.


Quote
Of all the mammals on Earth, 96% are livestock and humans, only 4% are wild mammals

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Kat Kid on July 29, 2021, 07:03:46 PM
Darwin baby


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 01, 2021, 10:46:45 AM
Norway:  Green initiatives to make everyone feel better about themselves, satisfy the virtue signalers and make it look like they're abiding by the Paris accords.   Oil and Gas to fuel (pun intended) economic growth

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Why-Norway-Wont-Give-Up-On-Oil-Gas.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: kim carnes on August 01, 2021, 05:16:40 PM
Darwin baby


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Interesting take from a socialist
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: MadCat on August 02, 2021, 12:41:22 PM
Quote
Of all the mammals on Earth, 96% are livestock and humans, only 4% are wild mammals

Where do mammalian pets fit in this statistic?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 02, 2021, 02:18:19 PM
Quote
Of all the mammals on Earth, 96% are livestock and humans, only 4% are wild mammals

Where do mammalian pets fit in this statistic?

i would assume livestock, but i haven't verified that.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 02, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
https://twitter.com/6point626/status/1336016384581578753

that was very interesting.  although solar is scraping the barrel in costs, it'd seem like with interest rates also hitting lows nuclear might be able justify itself at least in some parts of the world.


purely coincidentally, i was just looking through some stuff on emissions from cattle, and it seemed to me like you get into a similar issue with the numbers being presented to the public are just so much messier and variable in reality that you really need to take any of them with a large grain of salt.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 06, 2021, 02:04:04 PM
unfortunately the population is over 3x greater.

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1423713870531624960
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2021, 09:29:44 PM
China to restart 53 coal powered electrical plants that had been taken off line.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 12, 2021, 04:43:24 AM
politics getting in the way of coherent mgmt of the energy transition.  pipelines are very durable assets, but phasing them out years ahead of demand destruction is very inefficient.

https://twitter.com/ericnuttall/status/1425510811011846157
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 12, 2021, 04:49:26 AM
i will say that i don't really understand this year's divergence in u.s. gasoline and oil prices either.  be interesting to read a good accounting of it.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 19, 2021, 07:35:03 PM
i hope i live long enough to see greenland turn green.

https://twitter.com/rachjuramirez/status/1428443467324268547
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Yard Dog on August 20, 2021, 09:51:40 AM
i hope i live long enough to see greenland turn green.

https://twitter.com/rachjuramirez/status/1428443467324268547

To be fair, the reflecting pool is very very shallow. So that stat doesn't impress me much.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on August 20, 2021, 10:15:01 AM
Yeah, stats like that are useless and annoying.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 21, 2021, 02:27:23 PM
we've made a lot of progress.

https://twitter.com/JosephPolitano/status/1429160712463654923
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: IPA4Me on August 21, 2021, 02:33:15 PM
Twitter folk will hate on you for thinking things are getting better.

Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 24, 2021, 07:58:06 AM
As Vlad Putin’s BFF Ang Merkel slumps to all time political polling lows.  As the Biden Administration wimps out as expected and allows Nordstream 2 to go ahead and as Ang takes another hit off that Russo Gazpom pipe.

Germany is set to shutter its last nuclear power plant as Germans pay the highest energy bills in Europe. 

Renewables are unlikely to be able to meet projected demands. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 07, 2021, 08:14:09 AM
Welcome back - Coal

Back at the leading edge of energy production in many parts of the industrial world.  Coal mining operations can’t hire miners fast enough. 

Driven by the ongoing missteps regarding energy policy in numerous countries. 

In other news the Germans and Russians celebrate Nordstream 2 as former Eastern Bloc countries are left out.

Vlad Putin would once again like to thank the Biden Administration.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on October 07, 2021, 08:37:04 AM
Damn, you know the economy is humming when even the coal mining operations are hiring.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 07, 2021, 08:45:22 AM
Damn, you know the economy is humming when even the coal mining operations are hiring.
It’s primarily overseas. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 10, 2021, 01:06:50 PM
Bit coin miners now rollin hard with US natural gas to fuel their operations.

Pump up the volume on those methane emissions!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 15, 2021, 06:02:07 PM
In a shock to no one China and India have not submitted an updated climate pledge to the G20. 

China is now by far the greatest emitter of green house gases on the planet.

Xi has no plans to attend climate summit and China has more than doubled coal usage in the last year.

Stern letters coming
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 26, 2021, 04:40:12 PM
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2021-10-25/xis-not-there-cop26-hopes-dim-on-chinese-leaders-likely-absence

Surprising no one
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on November 29, 2021, 07:37:48 PM
a nuclear renaissance would be so amazing.

https://twitter.com/isabelleboemeke/status/1465324230225154060
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on November 29, 2021, 08:01:05 PM
Sure. Whatever makes the most sense is what I support.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on December 01, 2021, 02:35:30 PM
i like nuclear because of its extreme risk/reward. it's the opposite of a SLTH
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: kim carnes on December 01, 2021, 04:35:17 PM
I like it because it’s objectively the best way to produce power
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on December 02, 2021, 07:26:06 AM
Gotta find better ways to reuse/recycle/handle waste.

Otherwise great, especially with the SMR way of doing it
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: CHONGS on December 02, 2021, 07:49:40 AM
I'd really like fusion to become viable.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on January 07, 2022, 12:14:16 AM
great news, as is pretty standard from renewable energy industries.

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1479288345347854338

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on January 07, 2022, 12:15:25 AM
the best news.

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1479289116151877634
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: slackcat on January 07, 2022, 07:35:22 AM
I guess it depends on location but wind has been cheaper than coal generation for a while now in SEK/SWMO according to Liberty/Empire bean counters.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: bucket on February 17, 2022, 11:23:42 AM
https://twitter.com/SophiaCai99/status/1494358248043986946

This would be awesome and homeboy Jerry is driving it!  :driving:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 17, 2022, 11:54:50 AM
Part of the years long task force of various committees doing reports?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on February 17, 2022, 04:43:22 PM
kick his ass, bipartisan senators.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on March 19, 2022, 07:17:57 PM
70 degrees is a lot imo

https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1505191436232237058
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on May 19, 2022, 07:04:25 PM
pretty cool.

https://twitter.com/ella_nilsen/status/1527342921678147596
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on May 20, 2022, 08:43:49 AM
pretty cool.

https://twitter.com/ella_nilsen/status/1527342921678147596

"It's going to suck in all the birds and eagles are going to die!" 
 - dumbasses who say crap like that about windfarms
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on May 20, 2022, 09:10:42 AM
Probably better than a 50% chance that some dumbass tries to blow one of those things up.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on May 20, 2022, 09:43:03 AM
I don't want to read the article but what do they do with the captured co2?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 26, 2022, 04:34:37 AM
But prepare to freeze if the wind isn’t blowing in the middle of the winter . . . to save the world

https://twitter.com/aaronaclark1/status/1551778757437956097?s=21&t=yb5dMp7KSH58k0UlbVn63g
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: nicname on July 26, 2022, 12:22:38 PM
I don't want to read the article but what do they do with the captured co2?

It’s an elaborate harvesting scheme by Big BB Gun.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: cfbandyman on July 26, 2022, 03:42:15 PM
I don't want to read the article but what do they do with the captured co2?

Basically make rocks, or aggregate for concrete with it. Limestone for example is pretty hefty w/carbon
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on August 03, 2022, 11:18:24 PM
Why doesn’t the person who started this thread still post here? Very strange.

https://twitter.com/nwsbrownsville/status/1555036251140640768
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: LickNeckey on August 04, 2022, 10:00:23 AM
But prepare to freeze if the wind isn’t blowing in the middle of the winter . . . to save the world

https://twitter.com/aaronaclark1/status/1551778757437956097?s=21&t=yb5dMp7KSH58k0UlbVn63g

the pivot from "the models are wrong" we should do nothing

to

"but other people are worse" so we should do nothing has been a treat
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2022, 08:00:43 AM
All science that affirms our beliefs must be used to drive our agenda and used to formulate policy without question.  Because science . . .

https://www.science.org/content/article/star-marine-ecologist-committed-misconduct-university-says


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 10, 2022, 08:02:24 AM
But prepare to freeze if the wind isn’t blowing in the middle of the winter . . . to save the world

https://twitter.com/aaronaclark1/status/1551778757437956097?s=21&t=yb5dMp7KSH58k0UlbVn63g

the pivot from "the models are wrong" we should do nothing

to

"but other people are worse" so we should do nothing has been a treat
That’s a fantastic strawman, Lick. Easily one of your best.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 10, 2022, 07:52:25 PM
good perspective.

https://twitter.com/LPDonovan/status/1557521768646119424
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 14, 2022, 05:39:16 PM
Thank you for your request dated 26 November and received on the 5 December and the clarification dated 19 December 2019 under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs).

You asked for:

a) the number of trees felled for all onshore wind farm development in Scotland to date.

b) the area of felled trees, in hectares, for all onshore wind farm development in Scotland to date.

I enclose some of the information you requested.

Specifically data covering renewable developments on Scotland’s national forests and lands, which is managed on behalf of Scottish Ministers by Forestry and Land Scotland. The area of felled trees in hectares, from 2000 (the date when the first scheme was developed, is 6,994 hectares [70 km², 17,283 acres]. Based on the average number of trees per hectare, of 2000, this gives an estimated total of 13.9M.  John Cummings Secretariat & Governance Officer - Scottish Forestry via a Scottish Freedom of Information Request FoI/19/02646

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Cire on August 14, 2022, 06:17:48 PM
Why doesn’t the person who started this thread still post here? Very strange.

https://twitter.com/nwsbrownsville/status/1555036251140640768
Rona’d


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 14, 2022, 11:06:06 PM
Time to cut down another 14 million trees for some wind farms?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Cire on October 15, 2022, 09:00:57 PM
https://twitter.com/solomonrdavid/status/1581267605037674499?s=46&t=f_eHpgIc0bKpRh5w5RFDBA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Pete on October 15, 2022, 10:06:54 PM
https://twitter.com/solomonrdavid/status/1581267605037674499?s=46&t=f_eHpgIc0bKpRh5w5RFDBA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uh oh.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on October 15, 2022, 10:09:39 PM
This is excellent news for my crab stonks.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Pete on October 15, 2022, 10:12:45 PM
I went through a pretty heavy frozen crab phase in college. Used to make limestone mad when I’d boil up a couple pounds after the bars closed and then the place would smell terrible the next day. I didn’t realize at the time how lucky I was. Makes you really stop and think, man.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on October 15, 2022, 10:14:29 PM
But why aren't those little sea spiders just clicking on the floors of silent seas northward?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Pete on October 15, 2022, 10:20:44 PM
But why aren't those little sea spiders just clicking on the floors of silent seas northward?
That’s an excellent question, and I’m sure that’s why you asked it.

Maybe these little fuckers moved.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on October 16, 2022, 12:16:44 PM
China is overfishing, as usual they have no regulations for this stuff
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on October 16, 2022, 03:11:22 PM
China is overfishing, as usual they have no regulations for this stuff

I hear you calling for a boycott on 'goons, but I'm unsure whether I can meat you on that field.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Cire on October 16, 2022, 05:11:00 PM
I read a leading theory is that they are staying in cold pockets and then starving.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on October 16, 2022, 07:03:32 PM
The Chinese and Russian navy got very close to Alaska and by the sounds of it they pretty much surprised the USCG.   

So lawd only knows what their fishing boats are doing.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: passranch on October 17, 2022, 02:55:03 PM
This is excellent news for my crab stonks.

Not great news for Sig Hansen fans though.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on January 05, 2023, 11:27:37 AM
The only thing saving Europe's ass from freezing to death is global warming. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 05, 2023, 11:59:29 AM
The only thing saving Europe's ass from freezing to death is global warming. 

Incapable of your own thoughts . . . sad
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on January 05, 2023, 12:00:35 PM
is Europe warmer or are those weather stations just mis-placed?


people are asking
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 05, 2023, 12:03:01 PM
is Europe warmer or are those weather stations just mis-placed?


people are asking

The most accurate temp readings come from weather stations placed right next to asphalt parking lots or on the tops of roofs in Arizona . . . Lick

The earth has never warmed or cooled, it's always been the same . . . Lick

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on January 05, 2023, 12:09:17 PM
 :emawkid:

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 05, 2023, 12:10:45 PM
Nothing . . . as usual  :frown:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on January 05, 2023, 12:53:37 PM
The only thing saving Europe's ass from freezing to death is global warming. 

 :lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 05, 2023, 12:56:00 PM
Global warming is always man made @sys

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: passranch on January 09, 2023, 03:09:09 PM
Might possibly be the smoothest pivot since Kareem Abdul-Jabbar right there folks!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 09, 2023, 03:26:34 PM
Climate had been static for tens of thousands of years until about 20 years or so ago, give or take . . . #blueanongE

All climate warming is man made warming . . . #blueanongE

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 10, 2023, 03:43:13 PM
Commence the massive use of chlorofluorocarbons!!  This tyranny against our agenda will not stand! #blueanon

https://www.dw.com/en/ozone-layer-recovers-limiting-global-warming-by-05-celsius/a-64308435

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on January 30, 2023, 08:45:25 PM
this is good because i'm gonna keep eating ruminants regardless.

https://twitter.com/GaryWinslett/status/1620218707170693121
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on January 31, 2023, 09:31:58 AM
that ought to trigger some idiots
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 31, 2023, 09:40:29 AM
Yeah, a lot of people are only going to be eating pure gas cattle from their local grower.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Gooch on January 31, 2023, 09:46:44 AM
Healthy people/athletes can suddenly drop dead from eating no gas meat.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 31, 2023, 09:47:47 AM
People in western Kansas are going to be furious that their air stops smelling like crap.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on January 31, 2023, 09:51:28 AM
pretty clear that the less farty cows are an attempt by Bill Gates at population control.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on January 31, 2023, 10:18:26 AM
I find the less farty cows too sexy. Please make them farty again.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on January 31, 2023, 10:34:35 AM
I find the less farty cows too sexy. Please make them farty again.

lol well done
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 01, 2023, 02:21:22 PM
A green utopia for everyone some people!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11668015/Devastating-photos-cobalt-mines-Democratic-Republic-Congo-power-Apple-Tesla-more.html
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: I_have_purplewood on February 01, 2023, 03:03:43 PM
A green utopia for everyone some people!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11668015/Devastating-photos-cobalt-mines-Democratic-Republic-Congo-power-Apple-Tesla-more.html

Pffft, dailymail bub.  Plus I'm sure they get three squares.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 01, 2023, 04:26:01 PM
A green utopia for everyone some people!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11668015/Devastating-photos-cobalt-mines-Democratic-Republic-Congo-power-Apple-Tesla-more.html

Pffft, dailymail bub.  Plus I'm sure they get three squares.

and two snack breaks . .
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 01, 2023, 04:32:53 PM
tesla!?   :Wha:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: I_have_purplewood on February 01, 2023, 05:45:30 PM
tesla!?   :Wha:

SD, calling SD stat..  short that motherf'r now!!
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 30, 2023, 08:46:14 AM
#frown

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/21/solar-farms-energy-power-california-mojave-desert

https://desertreport.org/a-costly-omission-in-planning-for-climate-change/

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 19, 2023, 09:33:37 AM
Hurricanes are completely normal weather in California. - Dax

https://x.com/ericholthaus/status/1692905389681967604
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on August 19, 2023, 09:43:49 AM
Should help with wildfires tho
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 19, 2023, 10:00:19 AM
Nearly unprecedented, except for those (at minimum) two times in recorded history it's happened before.   :thumbsup:

Imagine living in Southern California and believing that you'll never-ever be hit by a tropical storm.

DuhBigPsycho - Drama queen

This is unprecedented!! Well, except for those times it's happened before.  :thumbsup:



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on August 19, 2023, 10:03:39 AM
I honestly didn't even know Cat 3-4 hurricanes in California were possible, but then again, I'm usually 3-4 steps behind. I'm a huge dumbass (dax, save your fingertips, friend).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 19, 2023, 10:12:14 AM
Admittedly in 1858 and 1939 the weather satellites, electronic ocean buoy systems and radars weren't quite up to the same level of technology that we have today.

So they may not recorded the whole of these types of unprecedented events.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sys on August 19, 2023, 07:02:09 PM
apparently that california hurricane is gonna push a lot of desert air into the great plains.  get ready to be hot, kansans.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: passranch on August 19, 2023, 09:13:40 PM
apparently that california hurricane is gonna push a lot of desert air into the great plains.  get ready to be hot, kansans.
Thank goodness. I was feeling pretty chilly today.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: mocat on August 19, 2023, 09:46:04 PM
Desert heat + midwest humidity, should be amaze
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Pete on August 19, 2023, 10:29:55 PM
What if that starts happening a bunch?  The breadbasket could end up the cactus basket. New Sahara?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Pete on August 19, 2023, 10:30:16 PM
Invade Canada.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2023, 08:57:54 AM
Hawaii -

Didn't alert the citizens

Didn't use the water (except for the wealthy enclaves) cus it's sacred

Didn't maintain the electrical grid

Didn't manage the fire

Didn't manage the natural resources that fueled the fires

But . . . decarbonization will stop fires.   :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: cfbandyman on August 22, 2023, 09:00:36 AM
Invade Canada.

currently 60F in Moose Jaw, but I mean it's only going to snow here in 4 weeks and I don't think anyone really wants that either
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2023, 09:44:46 AM
But green energy, tho . . . the world, NFG

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/more-coal-is-being-shipped-by-sea-than-ever-before
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on August 22, 2023, 10:57:15 AM
Dax it seemingly feels hot af here

Is this something I am experiencing or just a result of weather stations too close to the road
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on August 22, 2023, 11:01:57 AM
Hawaii -

Didn't alert the citizens

Didn't use the water (except for the wealthy enclaves) cus it's sacred

Didn't maintain the electrical grid

Didn't manage the fire

Didn't manage the natural resources that fueled the fires

But . . . decarbonization will stop fires.   :thumbsup:

If someone(s) is criminally negligent, we should can and prosecute their asses. However, I also have an inclination this came from Fox News, because my mom was preaching the same gospel during our weekly call.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2023, 12:23:03 PM
Everything I don't like comes from my mom and Fox News (or Nazi's, Russians, Trump or MAGA) . . . #blogkaren aka Co-Captain of Team Not Knowing aka I trust all sources no matter how insane if it sounds anti-Republican/Trump - I trust nothing if it makes a #blueanon leader look bad (which means I spend a lot of time not trusting anything)

https://abc7.com/maui-wildfires-warning-wildfire-hawaii/13638359/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/18/us/hawaii-diverting-water-delay-maui-fires/index.html

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/08/18/new-data-reveals-dozens-power-grid-malfunctions-leading-up-maui-wildfires/

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/hi/hawaii/news/2023/08/11/uh-wildfire-expert--invasive-grasses-growing-in-the-abandoned-plantations-fueled-wildfires-on-maui-and-hawaii-island



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on August 22, 2023, 12:46:43 PM
If someone(s) is criminally negligent, we should can and prosecute their asses. However, I also have an inclination this came from Fox News, because my mom was preaching the same gospel during our weekly call.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 22, 2023, 01:01:43 PM
 :lol: :lol: :lol:

#blogkaren - #onbrand
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on August 24, 2023, 09:51:33 PM
being required to pander to the absolute dregs of your base to have a chance to come in second in your party's vote is so rough ridin' sad

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1694521481487609872
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on August 24, 2023, 09:57:00 PM
Sasse could have saved us, but he mumped off to Florida.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 24, 2023, 10:50:14 PM
The best part of some of these kinds of posts is knowing that the posters are prolific fossil fuel users who have done little if anything to curb their lifestyle to reduce emissions. 

As they support politicians and talking heads who for the most part, are world class fossil fuel users. 

Buying an electric car (for example) does virtually nothing in terms of altering the path of our world's climate and the natural resource processes and the production processes of those vehicles are every bit as harmful if not more harmful to our planet than fossil fuel usage. Likely done on the backs of the most impoverished people in our world, living in the most austere settings, conducting operations utterly bereft of oversight and regulation on both the personal safety and environmental impact front.   :thumbsup:

But, you feel better about yourselves and that's what matters most.



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 24, 2023, 10:58:00 PM
Dax, do you believe in human-caused climate change?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 24, 2023, 11:00:56 PM
Dax, do you believe in human-caused climate change?

Not in the sense that a trace gas is causing irreparable harm to our world.  We need that trace gas to survive.

Now, if want to talk about things like land use, erosion, pesticides, third world countries dumping tons of plastics in the oceans and China and India pouring ungodly levels of particulate into the air, I'm your huckleberry.  :thumbsup:

What about you StalkerBot.7?



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 24, 2023, 11:29:56 PM
My answer is "yes", no need for additional qualifiers
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 24, 2023, 11:31:53 PM
There was really no need to answer, I already knew.

Dogmatic and easily manipulated - Thy name is #blueanon/#blueanongE

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: MadCat on August 25, 2023, 12:52:47 PM
If you want an example of what too much of that trace gas can do to an atmosphere, check out the surface temps on Venus  (hotter than on Mercury!)  :horrorsurprise:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 25, 2023, 03:12:40 PM
Clearly billions of 1st world living Venusites were the problem - SUV's, jets, prime beef, coal power plants, the works

Here on Earth - I don't think Mother Nature is going to give a single solitary eff about net zero, but I know you little nut jobs are going to do everything you can to encounter that reality. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: MadCat on August 25, 2023, 03:21:05 PM
The plants will party when all the animals are dead
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: mocat on August 25, 2023, 04:55:14 PM
The plants will party when all the animals are dead

post-punk album title from 1982
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on August 25, 2023, 06:26:47 PM
The plants will party when all the animals are dead

post-punk album title from 1982

lol
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: MakeItRain on August 25, 2023, 10:33:43 PM
Dax, do you believe in human-caused climate change?

Not in the sense that a trace gas is causing irreparable harm to our world.  We need that trace gas to survive.

Now, if want to talk about things like land use, erosion, pesticides, third world countries dumping tons of plastics in the oceans and China and India pouring ungodly levels of particulate into the air, I'm your huckleberry.  :thumbsup:

What about you StalkerBot.7?

My answer is "yes", no need for additional qualifiers

There was really no need to answer, I already knew.

Dogmatic and easily manipulated - Thy name is #blueanon/#blueanongE



Am I huffing paint or did you just agree with him then mock him because you both believe the same thing?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 25, 2023, 10:50:41 PM
You are huffing paint
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 25, 2023, 11:19:45 PM
You are huffing paint

LOL

I know you are but what am I!?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: MakeItRain on August 26, 2023, 12:16:11 AM
7 violated the first tenant of the pit, homeboy should have known better
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 26, 2023, 12:30:58 AM
Don't engage dax?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: MakeItRain on August 26, 2023, 12:08:48 PM
Don't agree with dax
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on August 26, 2023, 12:11:44 PM
Don't agree with dax

Oddly, nothing enrages him more. He's a weird guy, like that.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on August 26, 2023, 01:01:11 PM
Don't agree with dax

Oddly, nothing enrages him more. He's a weird guy, like that.
Doesn’t take compliments well either.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on August 26, 2023, 01:02:41 PM
Don't agree with dax

Oddly, nothing enrages him more. He's a weird guy, like that.
Doesn’t take compliments well either.

It's almost as if he desires conflict. I can't say, though.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Tobias on August 26, 2023, 04:47:59 PM
The plants will party when all the animals are dead

post-punk album title from 1982
lmao
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: GoodForAnother on August 27, 2023, 01:45:24 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/xFwm7nm/IMG-0308.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FHcsDQs)

 :D

(https://i.ibb.co/RNLFgtQ/IMG-0307.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xYVk2wz)

 :shakesfist:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Trim on August 27, 2023, 01:55:36 PM
Bad apostrophe placement.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 27, 2023, 02:36:12 PM
Good grief . . .

Climate Change as defined by the United Nations (a beloved #blueanon institution) - Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns.

Anthropogenic (man-made) climate change.  This is the warming of Earth's average temperature as a result of human activity, such as burning coal, oil and gas to produce energy to fuel our homes and transport and cutting down trees to produce the food we eat.

StalkerBot.7 asked - Dax, do you believe in human-caused climate change?

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on August 27, 2023, 08:21:28 PM
And you said no
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on August 27, 2023, 08:26:30 PM
And you said no
LMAO
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: MakeItRain on August 27, 2023, 08:41:37 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/xFwm7nm/IMG-0308.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FHcsDQs)

 :D

(https://i.ibb.co/RNLFgtQ/IMG-0307.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xYVk2wz)

 :shakesfist:

He's such a dipshit
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: GoodForAnother on August 27, 2023, 08:44:30 PM
(https://i.ibb.co/xFwm7nm/IMG-0308.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FHcsDQs)

 :D

(https://i.ibb.co/RNLFgtQ/IMG-0307.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xYVk2wz)

 :shakesfist:

He's such a dipshit

very weird guy, charming in his own way. to be so misinformed and yet so self-assured at the same time is incredible stuff to observe
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Sandstone Outcropping on September 14, 2023, 12:20:54 PM
https://twitter.com/Lauramaywendel/status/1701938064640086246?s=20
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on September 14, 2023, 12:24:26 PM
Ugh
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on September 14, 2023, 12:28:23 PM
lol
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on September 14, 2023, 12:29:43 PM
(https://media.tenor.com/nGxtcv5QKf8AAAAM/larry-david-checking-out.gif)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 09, 2023, 03:46:06 PM
I was told the earth was boiling

(https://i.ibb.co/zVJNynC/Snow-cover.jpg)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on November 09, 2023, 07:26:32 PM
Oh average global temps went down?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 09, 2023, 08:03:34 PM
The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Spracne on November 09, 2023, 08:06:04 PM
The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

There's no way you're this stupid, right?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 09, 2023, 08:53:30 PM
The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

There's no way you're this stupid, right?
There’s no way that you continue to not get it.

Since you decided to engage and not cry like a baby as usual.

What is the optimum level of CO2 (an absolute necessity for life on this planet)?
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on November 09, 2023, 09:17:34 PM
The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon
Nobody (here or anywhere else) ever said that

Nobody (here or anywhere else) ever said that

Nobody (here or anywhere else) ever said that

Dax, you kick the crap out of strawmen at an incredible pace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on November 09, 2023, 09:19:11 PM
The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

There's no way you're this stupid, right?
There’s no way that you continue to not get it.

Since you decided to engage and not cry like a baby as usual.

What is the optimum level of CO2 (an absolute necessity for life on this planet)?

I know dax is being a pudding brain just for the sake of it, but before you keep saying completely idiotic things I will just stop you right there and inform you there is a tremendous amount of scholarship on the topic of CO2 concentration in the air we breathe and I know you haven’t and won’t read any of it so I’ll give you the Cliffsnotes:

More is bad
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 09, 2023, 09:21:27 PM
LMAO, why does #blueanongE think they speak for the greater movement of millions of whack-a-doos?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: I_have_purplewood on November 09, 2023, 09:23:30 PM
The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there%u2019s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can%u2019t tell you what the right amount of %u201Cbad%u201D trace gases is, we just know there%u2019s too much . . . #blueanon
Nobody (here or anywhere else) ever said that

Nobody (here or anywhere else) ever said that

Nobody (here or anywhere else) ever said that

Dax, you kick the crap out of strawmen at an incredible pace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One of the best posters on this board who has now become worse than Wackycat.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 09, 2023, 09:25:07 PM
The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

There's no way you're this stupid, right?
There’s no way that you continue to not get it.

Since you decided to engage and not cry like a baby as usual.

What is the optimum level of CO2 (an absolute necessity for life on this planet)?

I know dax is being a pudding brain just for the sake of it, but before you keep saying completely idiotic things I will just stop you right there and inform you there is a tremendous amount of scholarship on the topic of CO2 concentration in the air we breathe and I know you haven’t and won’t read any of it so I’ll give you the Cliffsnotes:

More is bad
Once you’ve put a stake in the ground that “more” a non scientific term by every measure is bad. Then you must then establish and clarify what the optimum level is. 

So, what is the optimum level if we’re at a “more” state which is, according to you, bad??
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: I_have_purplewood on November 09, 2023, 09:27:01 PM
The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

There's no way you're this stupid, right?
There’s no way that you continue to not get it.

Since you decided to engage and not cry like a baby as usual.

What is the optimum level of CO2 (an absolute necessity for life on this planet)?

I know dax is being a pudding brain just for the sake of it, but before you keep saying completely idiotic things I will just stop you right there and inform you there is a tremendous amount of scholarship on the topic of CO2 concentration in the air we breathe and I know you haven’t and won’t read any of it so I’ll give you the Cliffsnotes:

More is bad

BAC who not only knows the intricacies of Israelie and Palestine history!  He is astute on all things global warming.  Very lucky to get his knowledge on everything.
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 09, 2023, 09:28:32 PM
Let it be known that henceforth all states of “more” (however the #blueanon brain defines that) are bad.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 09, 2023, 09:35:33 PM
The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon
Nobody (here or anywhere else) ever said that

Nobody (here or anywhere else) ever said that

Nobody (here or anywhere else) ever said that

Dax, you kick the crap out of strawmen at an incredible pace.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
“The era of global boiling has arrived” The UN

SteveDave-A Masterclass in not knowing
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on November 09, 2023, 09:55:05 PM
The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

There's no way you're this stupid, right?
There’s no way that you continue to not get it.

Since you decided to engage and not cry like a baby as usual.

What is the optimum level of CO2 (an absolute necessity for life on this planet)?

I know dax is being a pudding brain just for the sake of it, but before you keep saying completely idiotic things I will just stop you right there and inform you there is a tremendous amount of scholarship on the topic of CO2 concentration in the air we breathe and I know you haven’t and won’t read any of it so I’ll give you the Cliffsnotes:

More is bad
Once you’ve put a stake in the ground that “more” a non scientific term by every measure is bad. Then you must then establish and clarify what the optimum level is. 

So, what is the optimum level if we’re at a “more” state which is, according to you, bad??

Who TF cares what the “optimum” CO2 concentration is? Optimum for who/what? As it pertains to humans — which almost all of the participants in this dialogue are — well we know what the baseline is (around 400 ppm) and we know what happens when that concentration is increased (for you that means “more”) and the results are unfavorable. Diminished cognitive ability, inability to focus, drowsiness, headache, nausea.

But to your incredibly valid point, yeah, I suppose when it comes to tube worms living on deep sea hydrothermal vents, yeah bring on that CO2 babey, as much as possible. I think dax and his tube worms just put me in checkmate. CASE CLOSED
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: I_have_purplewood on November 09, 2023, 09:59:36 PM
The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

There's no way you're this stupid, right?
There’s no way that you continue to not get it.

Since you decided to engage and not cry like a baby as usual.

What is the optimum level of CO2 (an absolute necessity for life on this planet)?

I know dax is being a pudding brain just for the sake of it, but before you keep saying completely idiotic things I will just stop you right there and inform you there is a tremendous amount of scholarship on the topic of CO2 concentration in the air we breathe and I know you haven’t and won’t read any of it so I’ll give you the Cliffsnotes:

More is bad
Once you’ve put a stake in the ground that “more” a non scientific term by every measure is bad. Then you must then establish and clarify what the optimum level is. 

So, what is the optimum level if we’re at a “more” state which is, according to you, bad??

Who TF cares what the “optimum” CO2 concentration is? Optimum for who/what? As it pertains to humans — which almost all of the participants in this dialogue are — well we know what the baseline is (around 400 ppm) and we know what happens when that concentration is increased (for you that means “more”) and the results are unfavorable. Diminished cognitive ability, inability to focus, drowsiness, headache, nausea.

But to your incredibly valid point, yeah, I suppose when it comes to tube worms living on deep sea hydrothermal vents, yeah bring on that CO2 babey, as much as possible. I think dax and his tube worms just put me in checkmate. CASE CLOSED

 :love: :love: (ftp://:love: :love:).
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 09, 2023, 10:14:11 PM
The climate was static (until now): #blueanon/#blueanongE

The earth is boiling but in the NH there’s a lot of frozen stuff on the ground

We can’t tell you what the right amount of “bad” trace gases is, we just know there’s too much . . . #blueanon

There's no way you're this stupid, right?
There’s no way that you continue to not get it.

Since you decided to engage and not cry like a baby as usual.

What is the optimum level of CO2 (an absolute necessity for life on this planet)?

I know dax is being a pudding brain just for the sake of it, but before you keep saying completely idiotic things I will just stop you right there and inform you there is a tremendous amount of scholarship on the topic of CO2 concentration in the air we breathe and I know you haven’t and won’t read any of it so I’ll give you the Cliffsnotes:

More is bad
Once you’ve put a stake in the ground that “more” a non scientific term by every measure is bad. Then you must then establish and clarify what the optimum level is. 

So, what is the optimum level if we’re at a “more” state which is, according to you, bad??

Who TF cares what the “optimum” CO2 concentration is? Optimum for who/what? As it pertains to humans — which almost all of the participants in this dialogue are — well we know what the baseline is (around 400 ppm) and we know what happens when that concentration is increased (for you that means “more”) and the results are unfavorable. Diminished cognitive ability, inability to focus, drowsiness, headache, nausea.

But to your incredibly valid point, yeah, I suppose when it comes to tube worms living on deep sea hydrothermal vents, yeah bring on that CO2 babey, as much as possible. I think dax and his tube worms just put me in checkmate. CASE CLOSED

Case closed . . . there is no conceivable way that any element of climate beyond the rudimentary could ever be defined by "case closed". 

Yesterday, the CO2 levels at Mauna Kea were 416.55ppm . . . according to you, we are mere 16ppm away from "optimum" CO2 levels, or less than 5%.

So, 16ppm is "more" and "more" (according to you) is bad.

BTW, CO2 levels even slightly below 400PPM can have a profound impact on plant growth.










'
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on November 09, 2023, 10:22:50 PM
I’m waiting for you to say “you’re wrong and I have proof! And  that proof is I’ve been sitting in an incredibly poorly ventilated room for the last week and the CO2 level is currently at 4000 ppm and as you can see I’m doing just fine”

Please actually tell me that’s what’s happening. Please tell me your computer is in a poorly ventilated room, that would seriously explain so so much
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 09, 2023, 10:27:55 PM
You've pulled a number out of the sky, claimed it was "optimal".  You use highly unscientific words and then resort to ridiculous hypothetical situations. 

We are at optimum CO2 levels (according to you) and yet the UN (and others) say the Earth is boiling (while the NH has above average frozen participation on the ground). 

BTW, in green house scenarios, anything below 340ppm is considered a "no growth" environment for plants.  So we're literally hanging just above a no growth state for plants. 



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on November 09, 2023, 10:38:08 PM
You've pulled a number out of the sky, claimed it was "optimal".  You use highly unscientific words and then resort to ridiculous hypothetical situations. 

We are at optimum CO2 levels (according to you) and yet the UN (and others) say the Earth is boiling (while the NH has above average frozen participation on the ground). 

BTW, in green house scenarios, anything below 300ppm is considered a "no growth" environment for plants.

Dax wtf are you even talking about? At no point did I ever declare some optimal CO2 concentration. In fact I said who cares? And optimum for who/what?

I said the baseline (please tell me you know the difference between baseline and optimal?) is ~400 ppm, and that concentrations above that have been proven detrimental to human beings.

Have you considered reading for comprehension or nah just keep on truckin?
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on November 09, 2023, 10:45:52 PM
Pretty sure it’s keep on truckin
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 09, 2023, 10:51:35 PM
You've pulled a number out of the sky, claimed it was "optimal".  You use highly unscientific words and then resort to ridiculous hypothetical situations. 

We are at optimum CO2 levels (according to you) and yet the UN (and others) say the Earth is boiling (while the NH has above average frozen participation on the ground). 

BTW, in green house scenarios, anything below 300ppm is considered a "no growth" environment for plants.

Dax wtf are you even talking about? At no point did I ever declare some optimal CO2 concentration. In fact I said who cares? And optimum for who/what?

I said the baseline (please tell me you know the difference between baseline and optimal?) is ~400 ppm, and that concentrations above that have been proven detrimental to human beings.

Have you considered reading for comprehension or nah just keep on truckin?

LMAO, again, if your ilk is going to declare that we have too much C02, then the optimal level should be known, shouldn't it?  How can you declare that we have too much, or "more" (LMAO) CO2 and that's bad, (again using the established BAC baseline that "more" is bad) without knowing what the correct or optimal level should be? 

As far as the rest goes, you're just pulling ridiculous scenarios that have absolutely no bearing on reality.

So again, the earth is barely clinging to a C02 content level that keeps plants out of a no growth state (William Happers deceleration that the Earth is in C02 deficit, not surplus), yet #blueanon scientists and the #blueanon beloved UN is saying the Earth is boiling because we have too much C02 or "more" (which per BAC is bad). 

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 09, 2023, 10:52:55 PM
Pretty sure it’s keep on truckin

DuhBigPsycho: Travel thread (and beyond) indicates he's a prolific user of carbon emitting transportation methods.  But super super worried about the climate  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on November 09, 2023, 11:01:59 PM
Pretty sure it’s keep on truckin

DuhBigPsycho: Travel thread (and beyond) indicates he's a prolific user of carbon emitting transportation methods.  But super super worried about the climate  :thumbsup:
If more climate change deniers like you would get on board we would progress faster. Alas tho, you and your people have no intentions to do so. So I’ll keep using existing methods that would go regardless of my opinion.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2023, 07:18:36 AM
Pretty sure it’s keep on truckin

DuhBigPsycho: Travel thread (and beyond) indicates he's a prolific user of carbon emitting transportation methods.  But super super worried about the climate  :thumbsup:
If more climate change deniers like you would get on board we would progress faster. Alas tho, you and your people have no intentions to do so. So I’ll keep using existing methods that would go regardless of my opinion.

Calling someone who disagrees with the con job that #blueanon thought and political leaders are trying to foist on us relative to trace gas driven climate change a "climate denier" is the product of the simplest of brains.

I fully understand that mankind is impacting the environment, but trace gas emissions is no where near the top of the list. But at least you're willing to admit that you are not the least bit interested in practicing what you preach.  :thumbsup:

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on November 10, 2023, 07:22:46 AM
Old people still attempting to litigate man made global warming in the year of our lord 2023 is pretty fuckin’ wild


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2023, 07:28:46 AM
SteveDave - A solo accreditation threat for Kansas State University . . . and prolific carbon user and contributor to urban sprawl (a real climate problem)

Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on November 10, 2023, 07:33:46 AM
SteveDave - A solo accreditation threat for Kansas State University . . . and prolific carbon user and contributor to urban sprawl (a real climate problem)
Sure, but what is the point of your constant dumbassery here Dax? Man made global warming is 100% confirmed and is 100% confirmed to be a problem we need to deal with. Do you agree with that? Even most pubs finally do. Because it sure seems like you don’t the way you prance around here saying stupid crap like all of the above.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2023, 07:43:29 AM
100% confirmed?  100% confirmed by who?  People who stand to get billions of dollars of research funding.

Note: The editors of Science and Nature had a complete meltdown about this, and the usual's piled on and then started attacking the person and the methods.  So, who do we trust, the scientist, or the publishers and their economic sycophants? 

Trust the Science (unless we don't like what the scientist says):

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

To put it bluntly, climate science has become less about understanding the complexities of the world and more about serving as a kind of Cassandra, urgently warning the public about the dangers of climate change. However understandable this instinct may be, it distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public, and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.


https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: steve dave on November 10, 2023, 08:04:49 AM
jesus christ dax, the last soldier dying on this moron hill
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2023, 08:08:38 AM
 :lol: :lol:

SteveDave doesn't like what that climate scientist is saying.

Trust the Science: Unless it doesn't fit our narrative and agenda (#blueanon)

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Tobias on November 10, 2023, 12:08:45 PM
Nothing is confirmed.  So anyone saying it’s made up doesn’t have the first rough ridin' clue if it is or not.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on November 10, 2023, 12:28:35 PM
Dax makes a valid point. All of the independent scientists are in total groupthink lockstep. Why can’t they see the truth like the researchers from the oil and gas funded thinktanks? (Bc literally the Cato Institute et. al are the only ones making these spurious claims)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: wetwillie on November 10, 2023, 12:33:13 PM
Just tested my house and I'm at 401 PPM :ohno:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: steve dave on November 10, 2023, 12:41:55 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20231110/4ce5333f4e0edd8a82322451456a238f.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on November 10, 2023, 12:46:11 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 10, 2023, 01:28:49 PM
SteveDave: A perpetual regurgitative propaganda event

Only knowing and saying what he's told to believe and say.

Sad

The best (or worst) part is, simple brains like Steve and DuhBigPsycho believe that if you question one component (which is a theory), then you deny all components of the impact that mankind has on the environment and climate.

Neither are willing to alter any component of their lifestyle to make an impact on what they are told to believe.

Sad




Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Trim on November 11, 2023, 02:37:26 PM
Nothing is confirmed.  So anyone saying it’s made up doesn’t have the first rough ridin' clue if it is or not.

:lol:
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on November 12, 2023, 09:06:10 AM
Simple minds are easily amused

#trimdorkin

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: Cire on January 24, 2024, 07:07:25 PM
https://youtu.be/0O95kvMKPeQ?si=hJqMp0i5NR_Cux2N


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: DaBigTrain on February 28, 2024, 01:12:12 PM
Probably nothing

https://twitter.com/mikebettes/status/1762809505975320929
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 28, 2024, 01:14:22 PM
Global warming rules
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 28, 2024, 01:46:15 PM
132 local monthly heat records for Feb with absolutely no reference points to what an average year looks like and no data points that tell us how much higher a record was compared to the previous record years in a highly localized situation.   :lol: :lol:

Stunning indeed . . .

In other news, I was very pleased to see Florida P&L was going to use up 1000's of acres of farm land for solar farms. 

Very similar to the "we had to cut down hundreds of thousands of trees in order to save the planet" methods of some Euro countries.   :thumbsup:

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on February 28, 2024, 01:51:33 PM
Here, dax takes a diarrhea crap on a thread.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on February 28, 2024, 01:52:41 PM
do you guys remember the time he was saying that the earth wasn't in fact warming but the thermometers were just too close to the road?


classic

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 28, 2024, 02:55:34 PM
Here, dax takes a diarrhea crap on a thread.

OMG, here comes this SFB #karen who literally gets into every thread when he doesn't like mean things being said about his uber racist war monger Pedo Peter and shits all over it.  :lol:

I post something in direct response to a recent topic and #blogkaren here is  :curse: :curse: :curse:

1000% #onbrand

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 28, 2024, 02:58:30 PM
do you guys remember the time he was saying that the earth wasn't in fact warming but the thermometers were just too close to the road?


classic

Remember when people like Lick thought that an official temp station placed right next to a parking lot, on top of an asphalt roof, or next to an asphalt road in the middle of summer wouldn't be impacted by the
absorbed heat.  The Urban Heat Island Effect and similar is real and no amount of UHIE denialism from people like Lick is going to change that.

Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: CNS on February 28, 2024, 04:07:38 PM
I saw an article earlier this week that the last 12 months have been the hottest 12 month stretch recorded.  By far.

Saw another article on ocean temps being unexplainably high right now and how freaked out scientists are because they have no clue why the difference is so high right now.  Same article mentioned how pretty much no sea ice is forming in the north or south.  Might get super shitty super quick.  I vote for highway signs that say "Told you so" as you leave florida. 
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on February 28, 2024, 04:13:35 PM
do you guys remember the time he was saying that the earth wasn't in fact warming but the thermometers were just too close to the road?


classic

Remember when people like Lick thought that an official temp station placed right next to a parking lot, on top of an asphalt roof, or next to an asphalt road in the middle of summer wouldn't be impacted by the
absorbed heat.  The Urban Heat Island Effect and similar is real and no amount of UHIE denialism from people like Lick is going to change that.

Some people back away.

Dax doubles down.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 28, 2024, 05:55:10 PM
#blogkaren gonna #blogkaren  :thumbsup:

Imagine calling yourself an educated person and then believing sitting a thermometer next to asphalt or on a roof in the summer and then thinking that placement doesn't matter and won't impact temp readings.

Ladies and gentleman - I give you #blogkaren, LickNeckey and #blueanongE  :thumbsup:



Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: star seed 7 on February 28, 2024, 07:21:26 PM
do you guys remember the time he was saying that the earth wasn't in fact warming but the thermometers were just too close to the road?


classic

Remember when people like Lick thought that an official temp station placed right next to a parking lot, on top of an asphalt roof, or next to an asphalt road in the middle of summer wouldn't be impacted by the
absorbed heat.  The Urban Heat Island Effect and similar is real and no amount of UHIE denialism from people like Lick is going to change that.

Humans can't effect the climate idiot, it's a hoax by the Chinese
Title: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 28, 2024, 09:25:18 PM
LMAO- so clueless and a deflection on top of that.

Local air temps are not the climate





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on February 28, 2024, 10:09:28 PM
Climate is literally the average expression of temperature and precipitation at a given location.
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: Spracne on February 28, 2024, 10:26:07 PM
#blogkaren gonna #blogkaren  :thumbsup:

Imagine calling yourself an educated person and then believing sitting a thermometer next to asphalt or on a roof in the summer and then thinking that placement doesn't matter and won't impact temp readings.

Ladies and gentleman - I give you #blogkaren, LickNeckey and #blueanongE  :thumbsup:

(https://media3.giphy.com/media/8xhyUGh59otR4zytQL/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952qsi8pfvcbfe4tpl66j9y19dvnfwn784ggzfqqnu0&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g)
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 29, 2024, 07:05:06 AM
Still shitting all over threads.

SMDH sad


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: LickNeckey on March 03, 2024, 09:08:10 PM
https://scitechdaily.com/the-80-mph-glacier-fracture-a-wake-up-call-from-antarctica/
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: catastrophe on March 03, 2024, 09:18:09 PM
https://youtu.be/fbyc8WKi4wM?si=lhEkrSQGq_bP0jQh
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt &quot;If the models are all wrong&quot; thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 03, 2024, 09:41:18 PM
Oh no!! Another “wake up call”!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: BIG APPLE CAT on March 03, 2024, 11:46:04 PM
Dax and Cadbury Cream Egg commercials: the two entities that picked their lane in like 1982 and haven’t looked back since
Title: Re: The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread
Post by: sonofdaxjones on March 04, 2024, 01:43:02 PM
BAC . . . still in the same lane that tells him climate had been static for millions of years and only started changing in the last 35 years or so.  :thumbsup: