CDZ Climate Change effects already here, yet denial persists

[2aguy]

The radiation emitted from a modern plant meltdown is a helluva lot more than that sticking around from a 1945 atomic blast. Those in the exclusion zone are taking a risk, and maybe not a properly calculated risk. Jeremy Wade from Rivermonsters was in the exclusion zone a few years ago doing an episode and he had to get out within a certain timeline to prevent unacceptable risks.

I'm not bashing nuclear power per se. But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint...particularly with the zero day computer virus that is now loose in the world (and could sabotage a nuclear plant if in the wrong hands).

Ultimately, fusion would be the long-game. Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year. It's a matter of political will, and not forsaking a livable planet for oil profits.

But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint

Based on what?
A crappy, even for the Commies, I mean unbelievably crappy, Soviet design?
Or a massive tidal wave?
And even then, if the backup generators had been what, 10 or 15 feet higher, would have been a minor event.

Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year.

Do you want cheaper, reliable power?
Or more expensive, unreliable solar and wind?

Sun and wind are more expensive and going nowhere.........

That left-wing commie rag Fortune magazine disagrees with you:

Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does.

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

Yeah...I agree...but you don't do that by just stopping using the the actual energy sources that work now...oil, gas, coal and nuclear.....and go to a source of energy that doesn't work.......just because you like those sources better....that is not the way you get solar to be efficient...........

And odds are.....there is an energy source we don't even know about yet, that will come along and make the current methods unnecessary.........but you guys are going to make sure we never find it if you use emotion and bias to determine what energy we use.

 

[GaryDog]

But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint

Based on what?
A crappy, even for the Commies, I mean unbelievably crappy, Soviet design?
Or a massive tidal wave?
And even then, if the backup generators had been what, 10 or 15 feet higher, would have been a minor event.

Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year.

Do you want cheaper, reliable power?
Or more expensive, unreliable solar and wind?

Sun and wind are more expensive and going nowhere.........

That left-wing commie rag Fortune magazine disagrees with you:

Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does.

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

Yeah...I agree...but you don't do that by just stopping using the the actual energy sources that work now...oil, gas, coal and nuclear.....and go to a source of energy that doesn't work.......just because you like those sources better....that is not the way you get solar to be efficient...........

And odds are.....there is an energy source we don't even know about yet, that will come along and make the current methods unnecessary.........but you guys are going to make sure we never find it if you use emotion and bias to determine what energy we use.

Strawman argument. No one's suggesting we need to return to horse and buggy until solar is up to speed. And the magic pill you're hoping for won't come along when our government continues to subsidize oil over scientific discovery.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Sun and wind are more expensive and going nowhere.........

That left-wing commie rag Fortune magazine disagrees with you:

Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does.

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

Yeah...I agree...but you don't do that by just stopping using the the actual energy sources that work now...oil, gas, coal and nuclear.....and go to a source of energy that doesn't work.......just because you like those sources better....that is not the way you get solar to be efficient...........

And odds are.....there is an energy source we don't even know about yet, that will come along and make the current methods unnecessary.........but you guys are going to make sure we never find it if you use emotion and bias to determine what energy we use.

Strawman argument. No one's suggesting we need to return to horse and buggy until solar is up to speed. And the magic pill you're hoping for won't come along when our government continues to subsidize oil over scientific discovery.

Okay so you have a Solar house, what happens when you have the shortest day of the coldest month? How much energy will your panels generate? Where will that energy come from to keep you warm?

 

[GaryDog]

op cit the link in the OP.

Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.

Typical obfuscation for max fear factor. What's similar about 1998 and 2015/16? Does MoonBat KNOW? Probably.. Will he include in his report. Hell no..

Both 1998 and 2015 mark the TWO monster El Nino years that bracket a 17 year period with virtually NO increase in GMAST (global avg temp). Almost all those "records" (in between the El Nino years) were set by a typical margin of only less 0.15deg over the previous records. Which was AIDED by the constant fiddling of LOWERING historical temps in the 30s and 40s and RAISING temps in the past couple decades on the TERRESTRIAL data bases. The satellite records -- which USED to agree to brilliantly with the Land/Sea readings show far less in the way of records.

When you get a 3 or 4 degree El Nino period -- REASONABLE folks would point that out. But GW spin meisters will not. Also the spinsters will favor the 10,000 thermometer and cooked books temp records and shun the satellites that have WIDER and more consistent coverage of the globe.

When you're talking about thousands of years to compare to the current time in reference to global sea rise, temperature change, etc., it's asinine to believe that 1998-2015 has statistical significance. I'd hope you'd realize that after even a remedial statistics class in HS.

NONE -- not one of the simulated future projections of GW due to CO2 showed any comparable "pauses" or influence from climate variables OTHER than CO2. Means they are not reliable. Because after all -- if the Warmers CLAIM we will have 4 to 6 degC by 2100 -- THEN a statistical rate of warming NOW -- IS SIGNIFICANT. And that's what's the "dissent" and skepticism is all about ---- isn't it Gary Dog? Not about the temperature readings -- it's about the theoretical PROJECTIONS of whether this is a CRISIS -- or whether it's ho - hum.

Current rate of warming for the ENTIRE satellite era (1979 --- 2016) is around 0.126degC/Decade. That is 3 to 5 times LESS than the GW "models" predicted back in the 80s and 90s. Those numbers STARTED the panic. But they have failed. At the OBSERVED rate of warming --- 2100 would about 1.5degC warmer.

Go ahead --- tell us what the ESTIMATES are for 2050 and 2100 versus the measured reality.

Are you actually interested in learning something? Or do you want to rant about how climate models and current science isn't exact enough for your particular sensibilities?

There are signs that- global temps aside -- the predicted severity of storms, drought, rain, flooding, and polar melt is actually WORSE than was previously predicted.

The scientist who first warned of climate change says it’s much worse than we thought

https://app.box.com/s/i4u002tbpcvkamj9wq4n8t1u8wxsjhis

 

[GaryDog]

That left-wing commie rag Fortune magazine disagrees with you:

Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does.

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

Yeah...I agree...but you don't do that by just stopping using the the actual energy sources that work now...oil, gas, coal and nuclear.....and go to a source of energy that doesn't work.......just because you like those sources better....that is not the way you get solar to be efficient...........

And odds are.....there is an energy source we don't even know about yet, that will come along and make the current methods unnecessary.........but you guys are going to make sure we never find it if you use emotion and bias to determine what energy we use.

Strawman argument. No one's suggesting we need to return to horse and buggy until solar is up to speed. And the magic pill you're hoping for won't come along when our government continues to subsidize oil over scientific discovery.

Okay so you have a Solar house, what happens when you have the shortest day of the coldest month? How much energy will your panels generate? Where will that energy come from to keep you warm?

Ask Germany (you know, that notoriously sun-drenched paradise):

Solar power in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[flacaltenn]

op cit the link in the OP.

Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.

Typical obfuscation for max fear factor. What's similar about 1998 and 2015/16? Does MoonBat KNOW? Probably.. Will he include in his report. Hell no..

Both 1998 and 2015 mark the TWO monster El Nino years that bracket a 17 year period with virtually NO increase in GMAST (global avg temp). Almost all those "records" (in between the El Nino years) were set by a typical margin of only less 0.15deg over the previous records. Which was AIDED by the constant fiddling of LOWERING historical temps in the 30s and 40s and RAISING temps in the past couple decades on the TERRESTRIAL data bases. The satellite records -- which USED to agree to brilliantly with the Land/Sea readings show far less in the way of records.

When you get a 3 or 4 degree El Nino period -- REASONABLE folks would point that out. But GW spin meisters will not. Also the spinsters will favor the 10,000 thermometer and cooked books temp records and shun the satellites that have WIDER and more consistent coverage of the globe.

When you're talking about thousands of years to compare to the current time in reference to global sea rise, temperature change, etc., it's asinine to believe that 1998-2015 has statistical significance. I'd hope you'd realize that after even a remedial statistics class in HS.

NONE -- not one of the simulated future projections of GW due to CO2 showed any comparable "pauses" or influence from climate variables OTHER than CO2. Means they are not reliable. Because after all -- if the Warmers CLAIM we will have 4 to 6 degC by 2100 -- THEN a statistical rate of warming NOW -- IS SIGNIFICANT. And that's what's the "dissent" and skepticism is all about ---- isn't it Gary Dog? Not about the temperature readings -- it's about the theoretical PROJECTIONS of whether this is a CRISIS -- or whether it's ho - hum.

Current rate of warming for the ENTIRE satellite era (1979 --- 2016) is around 0.126degC/Decade. That is 3 to 5 times LESS than the GW "models" predicted back in the 80s and 90s. Those numbers STARTED the panic. But they have failed. At the OBSERVED rate of warming --- 2100 would about 1.5degC warmer.

Go ahead --- tell us what the ESTIMATES are for 2050 and 2100 versus the measured reality.

Are you actually interested in learning something? Or do you want to rant about how climate models and current science isn't exact enough for your particular sensibilities?

There are signs that- global temps aside -- the predicted severity of storms, drought, rain, flooding, and polar melt is actually WORSE than was previously predicted.

The scientist who first warned of climate change says it’s much worse than we thought

https://app.box.com/s/i4u002tbpcvkamj9wq4n8t1u8wxsjhis

Hansen is on record telling people that the oceans will boil. And made repeated comments about the "coal trains of death".. His predictions have already failed.

What I DID skim YESTERDAY -- is a brand new COMPREHENSIVE survey of climate scientists and about 40% of them ARE NOT convinced that models for increased severity of weather or precipt are adequate enough to accurately score even 50 years into the future. That's more important than the "activist in a labcoat" view of the problem.

Weather is not made more intense by uniform atmos heating. Weather works off of differentials of all the variables, like temp., baro pressure, humidity, etc. A thunderstorm would not notice a UNIFORM heating of the troposphere. Just has a hurricane "bloom" in an EXCEPTIONALLY warm Gulf of Mexico. Landed as a wimpy Cat1 storm.

Just like the climate is driven by MORE than just CO2 --- weather is driven by a LOT of conditions beside just temperature.

 

[GaryDog]

op cit the link in the OP.

Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.

Typical obfuscation for max fear factor. What's similar about 1998 and 2015/16? Does MoonBat KNOW? Probably.. Will he include in his report. Hell no..

Both 1998 and 2015 mark the TWO monster El Nino years that bracket a 17 year period with virtually NO increase in GMAST (global avg temp). Almost all those "records" (in between the El Nino years) were set by a typical margin of only less 0.15deg over the previous records. Which was AIDED by the constant fiddling of LOWERING historical temps in the 30s and 40s and RAISING temps in the past couple decades on the TERRESTRIAL data bases. The satellite records -- which USED to agree to brilliantly with the Land/Sea readings show far less in the way of records.

When you get a 3 or 4 degree El Nino period -- REASONABLE folks would point that out. But GW spin meisters will not. Also the spinsters will favor the 10,000 thermometer and cooked books temp records and shun the satellites that have WIDER and more consistent coverage of the globe.

When you're talking about thousands of years to compare to the current time in reference to global sea rise, temperature change, etc., it's asinine to believe that 1998-2015 has statistical significance. I'd hope you'd realize that after even a remedial statistics class in HS.

NONE -- not one of the simulated future projections of GW due to CO2 showed any comparable "pauses" or influence from climate variables OTHER than CO2. Means they are not reliable. Because after all -- if the Warmers CLAIM we will have 4 to 6 degC by 2100 -- THEN a statistical rate of warming NOW -- IS SIGNIFICANT. And that's what's the "dissent" and skepticism is all about ---- isn't it Gary Dog? Not about the temperature readings -- it's about the theoretical PROJECTIONS of whether this is a CRISIS -- or whether it's ho - hum.

Current rate of warming for the ENTIRE satellite era (1979 --- 2016) is around 0.126degC/Decade. That is 3 to 5 times LESS than the GW "models" predicted back in the 80s and 90s. Those numbers STARTED the panic. But they have failed. At the OBSERVED rate of warming --- 2100 would about 1.5degC warmer.

Go ahead --- tell us what the ESTIMATES are for 2050 and 2100 versus the measured reality.

Are you actually interested in learning something? Or do you want to rant about how climate models and current science isn't exact enough for your particular sensibilities?

There are signs that- global temps aside -- the predicted severity of storms, drought, rain, flooding, and polar melt is actually WORSE than was previously predicted.

The scientist who first warned of climate change says it’s much worse than we thought

https://app.box.com/s/i4u002tbpcvkamj9wq4n8t1u8wxsjhis

Hansen is on record telling people that the oceans will boil. And made repeated comments about the "coal trains of death".. His predictions have already failed.

What I DID skim YESTERDAY -- is a brand new COMPREHENSIVE survey of climate scientists and about 40% of them ARE NOT convinced that models for increased severity of weather or precipt are adequate enough to accurately score even 50 years into the future. That's more important than the "activist in a labcoat" view of the problem.

Weather is not made more intense by uniform atmos heating. Weather works off of differentials of all the variables, like temp., baro pressure, humidity, etc. A thunderstorm would not notice a UNIFORM heating of the troposphere. Just has a hurricane "bloom" in an EXCEPTIONALLY warm Gulf of Mexico. Landed as a wimpy Cat1 storm.

Just like the climate is driven by MORE than just CO2 --- weather is driven by a LOT of conditions beside just temperature.

Non one's disputing any of this. In fact it's the basis for the global warming alarmism. Just because scientists won't attest to pure accuracy of future models doesn't undermine the underlying consensus.

 

[flacaltenn]

op cit the link in the OP.

Typical obfuscation for max fear factor. What's similar about 1998 and 2015/16? Does MoonBat KNOW? Probably.. Will he include in his report. Hell no..

Both 1998 and 2015 mark the TWO monster El Nino years that bracket a 17 year period with virtually NO increase in GMAST (global avg temp). Almost all those "records" (in between the El Nino years) were set by a typical margin of only less 0.15deg over the previous records. Which was AIDED by the constant fiddling of LOWERING historical temps in the 30s and 40s and RAISING temps in the past couple decades on the TERRESTRIAL data bases. The satellite records -- which USED to agree to brilliantly with the Land/Sea readings show far less in the way of records.

When you get a 3 or 4 degree El Nino period -- REASONABLE folks would point that out. But GW spin meisters will not. Also the spinsters will favor the 10,000 thermometer and cooked books temp records and shun the satellites that have WIDER and more consistent coverage of the globe.

When you're talking about thousands of years to compare to the current time in reference to global sea rise, temperature change, etc., it's asinine to believe that 1998-2015 has statistical significance. I'd hope you'd realize that after even a remedial statistics class in HS.

NONE -- not one of the simulated future projections of GW due to CO2 showed any comparable "pauses" or influence from climate variables OTHER than CO2. Means they are not reliable. Because after all -- if the Warmers CLAIM we will have 4 to 6 degC by 2100 -- THEN a statistical rate of warming NOW -- IS SIGNIFICANT. And that's what's the "dissent" and skepticism is all about ---- isn't it Gary Dog? Not about the temperature readings -- it's about the theoretical PROJECTIONS of whether this is a CRISIS -- or whether it's ho - hum.

Current rate of warming for the ENTIRE satellite era (1979 --- 2016) is around 0.126degC/Decade. That is 3 to 5 times LESS than the GW "models" predicted back in the 80s and 90s. Those numbers STARTED the panic. But they have failed. At the OBSERVED rate of warming --- 2100 would about 1.5degC warmer.

Go ahead --- tell us what the ESTIMATES are for 2050 and 2100 versus the measured reality.

Are you actually interested in learning something? Or do you want to rant about how climate models and current science isn't exact enough for your particular sensibilities?

There are signs that- global temps aside -- the predicted severity of storms, drought, rain, flooding, and polar melt is actually WORSE than was previously predicted.

The scientist who first warned of climate change says it’s much worse than we thought

https://app.box.com/s/i4u002tbpcvkamj9wq4n8t1u8wxsjhis

Hansen is on record telling people that the oceans will boil. And made repeated comments about the "coal trains of death".. His predictions have already failed.

What I DID skim YESTERDAY -- is a brand new COMPREHENSIVE survey of climate scientists and about 40% of them ARE NOT convinced that models for increased severity of weather or precipt are adequate enough to accurately score even 50 years into the future. That's more important than the "activist in a labcoat" view of the problem.

Weather is not made more intense by uniform atmos heating. Weather works off of differentials of all the variables, like temp., baro pressure, humidity, etc. A thunderstorm would not notice a UNIFORM heating of the troposphere. Just has a hurricane "bloom" in an EXCEPTIONALLY warm Gulf of Mexico. Landed as a wimpy Cat1 storm.

Just like the climate is driven by MORE than just CO2 --- weather is driven by a LOT of conditions beside just temperature.

Non one's disputing any of this. In fact it's the basis for the global warming alarmism. Just because scientists won't attest to pure accuracy of future models doesn't undermine the underlying consensus.

Oh SURE -- they are disputing this. Hansen in particular started the fantasy that we are experiencing all these disasters TODAY with a couple weak ass papers equating TEMP. to violent weather.

And the consensus the public THINKS exists -- actually does not. I've posted the work of Bray and von Storch before in Enviro forum and this NEW "poll" is more of the same. There is NO overwhelming consensus that "climate science is settled". It's a myth due to a couple a couple cartoonists that run a GW activist site who tried to get scientific opinion by interpreting the Abstracts of a selected group of papers.

I'll be putting up the NEW results in Enviro this week. The paper may be paywalled and not generally available. I got it thru an academic service. So I don't KNOW if there is a public link. Go search enviro forum for threads by me with the keyword Storch and you will see the older one.

 

[westwall]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

No global warming for over 18 years now. The Arctic ice levels are within the 20 year norms so yeah, there IS nothing to see here. Just more globalist propaganda designed to make the middle class poor, and enrich the wealthiest of the one percenters.

Wrong on all counts. Not much more to say. You seem woefully misinformed on this issue.

Really? Why look at that. At the lower end, but still within the 20 year mean. And the "pause" is a well documented fact in 8 different data sets. The "study" that was released back in 2015 with a "reanalysis" of the satellite data that supposedly showed no pause has been shown to be wrong.

No, it is you who are factually wrong.

You don't know the difference between land ice and sea ice, and how it impacts the globe.
Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

Oh please. Antarctica has been gaining ice as is very well documented from any but your propaganda sites who are amazingly adept at ignoring the ice right in front of them. Here's the status as of today for the sea ice, and as everybody knows the more land ice you have, the more sea ice you end up with..

And here is the most recent paper, published in the Journal of Glaciology that shows beyond doubt that Antarctica is gaining ice, and has been for at least two decades.


"A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.



The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.



According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

 

[flacaltenn]

For GaryDog --- Older comprehensive opinion of climate scientists DONE by climate scientists discussed over in Enviro forum ---- Start Here Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

NEW ONE will be a new thread in that forum this week..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

Yeah...I agree...but you don't do that by just stopping using the the actual energy sources that work now...oil, gas, coal and nuclear.....and go to a source of energy that doesn't work.......just because you like those sources better....that is not the way you get solar to be efficient...........

And odds are.....there is an energy source we don't even know about yet, that will come along and make the current methods unnecessary.........but you guys are going to make sure we never find it if you use emotion and bias to determine what energy we use.

Strawman argument. No one's suggesting we need to return to horse and buggy until solar is up to speed. And the magic pill you're hoping for won't come along when our government continues to subsidize oil over scientific discovery.

Okay so you have a Solar house, what happens when you have the shortest day of the coldest month? How much energy will your panels generate? Where will that energy come from to keep you warm?

Ask Germany (you know, that notoriously sun-drenched paradise):

Solar power in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Damn you are not up to snuff on current events

Germany Votes To Abandon Most Green Energy Subsidies

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sun and wind are more expensive and going nowhere.........

That left-wing commie rag Fortune magazine disagrees with you:

Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does.

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

Yeah...I agree...but you don't do that by just stopping using the the actual energy sources that work now...oil, gas, coal and nuclear.....and go to a source of energy that doesn't work.......just because you like those sources better....that is not the way you get solar to be efficient...........

And odds are.....there is an energy source we don't even know about yet, that will come along and make the current methods unnecessary.........but you guys are going to make sure we never find it if you use emotion and bias to determine what energy we use.

Strawman argument. No one's suggesting we need to return to horse and buggy until solar is up to speed. And the magic pill you're hoping for won't come along when our government continues to subsidize oil over scientific discovery.

when our government continues to subsidize oil

So your ignorance is both wide and deep.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

Yeah...I agree...but you don't do that by just stopping using the the actual energy sources that work now...oil, gas, coal and nuclear.....and go to a source of energy that doesn't work.......just because you like those sources better....that is not the way you get solar to be efficient...........

And odds are.....there is an energy source we don't even know about yet, that will come along and make the current methods unnecessary.........but you guys are going to make sure we never find it if you use emotion and bias to determine what energy we use.

Strawman argument. No one's suggesting we need to return to horse and buggy until solar is up to speed. And the magic pill you're hoping for won't come along when our government continues to subsidize oil over scientific discovery.

Okay so you have a Solar house, what happens when you have the shortest day of the coldest month? How much energy will your panels generate? Where will that energy come from to keep you warm?

Ask Germany (you know, that notoriously sun-drenched paradise):

Solar power in Germany - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ask Germany (you know, that notoriously sun-drenched paradise):


the IEA reports that in 2015, German prices were 17.9 cents per kwh for industry, and 39.5 cents per kwh for residential customers, versus 7 and 12.5 cents respectively in the U.S.

That's weird, Germany said their citizens pay more than triple the average rate we pay here for electricity.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Sun and wind are more expensive and going nowhere.........

That left-wing commie rag Fortune magazine disagrees with you:

Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does.

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

Yeah...I agree...but you don't do that by just stopping using the the actual energy sources that work now...oil, gas, coal and nuclear.....and go to a source of energy that doesn't work.......just because you like those sources better....that is not the way you get solar to be efficient...........

And odds are.....there is an energy source we don't even know about yet, that will come along and make the current methods unnecessary.........but you guys are going to make sure we never find it if you use emotion and bias to determine what energy we use.

Strawman argument. No one's suggesting we need to return to horse and buggy until solar is up to speed. And the magic pill you're hoping for won't come along when our government continues to subsidize oil over scientific discovery.

Sun and wind are more expensive and going nowhere.........

That left-wing commie rag Fortune magazine disagrees with you:

Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does.

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

Yeah...I agree...but you don't do that by just stopping using the the actual energy sources that work now...oil, gas, coal and nuclear.....and go to a source of energy that doesn't work.......just because you like those sources better....that is not the way you get solar to be efficient...........

And odds are.....there is an energy source we don't even know about yet, that will come along and make the current methods unnecessary.........but you guys are going to make sure we never find it if you use emotion and bias to determine what energy we use.

Strawman argument. No one's suggesting we need to return to horse and buggy until solar is up to speed. And the magic pill you're hoping for won't come along when our government continues to subsidize oil over scientific discovery.

Ok. I have a question for you:

Should we continue to fund programs like Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) that help low-income families with their heating bills?

 

[320 Years of History]

the minority of scientists who predicted global cooling

I may be confusing things -- I'm right now checking to make sure my recollection is accurate -- but I think those scientists predicted that the planet would cool after the effects of the warming -- e.g., immense freshwater ice melt that raises sea levels and halts the Gulf Stream -- "do their thing." Frankly, I'd just as soon let things go that far.

 

[westwall]

the minority of scientists who predicted global cooling

I may be confusing things -- I'm right now checking to make sure my recollection is accurate -- but I think those scientists predicted that the planet would cool after the effects of the warming -- e.g., immense freshwater ice melt that raises sea levels and halts the Gulf Stream -- "do their thing." Frankly, I'd just as soon let things go that far.

They are the very same scientists who proclaimed that the North Pole would be ice free by 2013.

Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

Then, when that didn't happen, they pushed it out to 2016.....



US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016


US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 | Nafeez Ahmed



In the real world, the world where charlatans are vilified and ridiculed, the AGW supporters are so bad in their predictions that a well known charlatan, Sylvia Brown, had a better accuracy rate than these so called scientists.

 

[320 Years of History]

the minority of scientists who predicted global cooling

I may be confusing things -- I'm right now checking to make sure my recollection is accurate -- but I think those scientists predicted that the planet would cool after the effects of the warming -- e.g., immense freshwater ice melt that raises sea levels and halts the Gulf Stream -- "do their thing." Frankly, I'd just as soon let things go that far.

They are the very same scientists who proclaimed that the North Pole would be ice free by 2013.

Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

Then, when that didn't happen, they pushed it out to 2016.....



US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016


US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 | Nafeez Ahmed



In the real world, the world where charlatans are vilified and ridiculed, the AGW supporters are so bad in their predictions that a well known charlatan, Sylvia Brown, had a better accuracy rate than these so called scientists.

Good lord. You actually responded to my remarks by stating that scientists are off by some quantity of years with regard to predicting the rate of a global scale process. I realize we are living in the midst of that process, but that we are does not alter the fact that we are yet discussing a global planetary process.

• Do you honestly think that anyone 10K years from now will zoom in on whether the predictions were off by 3, 10, 20 or even 50 years?
• Do you honestly think that it matters in precisely what year the Permian extinction occurred?
• Does it matter whether the European bronze age ended precisely in 600 BC, 597 BC or 603 BC? Or that the bronze age ended in other parts of the world precisely in 1200 BC, 1230 BC, or 1170 BC?

Please stop talking to me about this. Why? Because the nature of your remarks above indicate you are concerned with whether the effects of climate change happen this year or next year, and that you'd even present remarks of that ilk informs me that you are unwilling to apply a rational temporal perspective to matter.

In considering and addressing matters that transpire on a planetary scale, one must always be cognizant of the vastly and literally larger than life scale of the events and processes under discussion. Your and anyone else's puerile comments about whether some specific event occurs in 2013 or 2016 shows a unwillingness to retain that level of temporal perspective with regard to the scope of events transpiring as part of the the matter at hand.
I truly don't care to engage in conversations with folks who exhibit pontifically such profound contextual myopia on any topic. It really doesn't matter why they do so; what matters in this regard is that they do so. Therefore, I'm politely asking you to refrain from replying to my posts on this topic because I cannot use the "ignore" feature with you.

 

[JoeMoma]

The reason that it is important to keep track of how well the predictions are being met is to have an understanding of whether the effects if global warming/climate change are exaggerated or not.

 

[320 Years of History]

The reason that it is important to keep track of how well the predictions are being met is to have an understanding of whether the effects if global warming/climate change are exaggerated or not.

I understand that, but given the nature and scale of the subject under discussion, it's just absurd to demand accuracy down to a score or two of years. In the scheme of planet-level processes and events, the entirety of human existence is but a "blink" temporally speaking.

I get that people want to know if they need to, say move from Miami, New Orleans, Houston or London this year or ten years from now, but in consideration of the processes and the object of them -- the Earth's ecosystems -- that level of precision is irrelevant and not realistically capable of being produced.

It's unfortunate that human lifespans aren't longer than they are, but that is what it is. How will future generations view us when they look back and see that we had enough pertinent, even if incomplete or imperfect, information at our disposal to have done something to avert setting off the spiral that resulted in "the mess" of a planet they inherited from us? Now what if those future generations are not 200 years distant from us, but instead our kids or grandkids?

Of course commencing to do something about climate change could all be for naught. But consider the consequence of that: new industries and innovations come about, new industries that would not have come about as quickly had we not been making such a concerted effort to implement lower impact ways of living our lives. That drives demand and catalyzes the creation of new suppliers, which in turn creates new jobs, which puts money in people's pockets. At the outset, the innovations will cost more. Over time, the innovations become ubiquitous and the price goes down just as happened with cell phones, phone calls, flat screen televisions, wrist watches, etc.

• The first quartz watches weren’t cheap. Some were even marketed as high-tech luxury timepieces. The first Astrons sold for $1,250 (the price of a Japanese compact car at the time), while early Pulsars cost $2,100. Thin watches produced by the Swiss and Japanese in the mid-1970s sold for $3,500 and $5,000, respectively. Today, one can buy a comparable quartz watch for $100 or less. I've actually received really inexpensive ones as "goody bag" gifts at fundraising events. The case build of them is lame, but their timekeeping ability is as good as most any quartz watch one can buy.
  
• In the 1970s, I recall seeing one our phone bills; it was ~$115. The bulk of that cost was due to long distance calls to Mississippi, California and Louisiana. IIRC, call-waiting and touch tone dialing were "big deal" features. Heck, back then, just calling from D.C. to Baltimore was long distance. Now what does one pay for long distance domestic calls? Nothing.

So when I consider the climate change issue, what drives my thoughts are the cost and benefits of doing nothing and later being found to have been wrong do nothing versus the cost and benefits of trying to do something and later being found to have been wrong to have tried. In that gamble/calculus, trying bests doing nothing.

 

[westwall]

the minority of scientists who predicted global cooling

I may be confusing things -- I'm right now checking to make sure my recollection is accurate -- but I think those scientists predicted that the planet would cool after the effects of the warming -- e.g., immense freshwater ice melt that raises sea levels and halts the Gulf Stream -- "do their thing." Frankly, I'd just as soon let things go that far.

They are the very same scientists who proclaimed that the North Pole would be ice free by 2013.

Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

Then, when that didn't happen, they pushed it out to 2016.....



US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016


US Navy predicts summer ice free Arctic by 2016 | Nafeez Ahmed



In the real world, the world where charlatans are vilified and ridiculed, the AGW supporters are so bad in their predictions that a well known charlatan, Sylvia Brown, had a better accuracy rate than these so called scientists.

Good lord. You actually responded to my remarks by stating that scientists are off by some quantity of years with regard to predicting the rate of a global scale process. I realize we are living in the midst of that process, but that we are does not alter the fact that we are yet discussing a global planetary process.

• Do you honestly think that anyone 10K years from now will zoom in on whether the predictions were off by 3, 10, 20 or even 50 years?
• Do you honestly think that it matters in precisely what year the Permian extinction occurred?
• Does it matter whether the European bronze age ended precisely in 600 BC, 597 BC or 603 BC? Or that the bronze age ended in other parts of the world precisely in 1200 BC, 1230 BC, or 1170 BC?

Please stop talking to me about this. Why? Because the nature of your remarks above indicate you are concerned with whether the effects of climate change happen this year or next year, and that you'd even present remarks of that ilk informs me that you are unwilling to apply a rational temporal perspective to matter.

In considering and addressing matters that transpire on a planetary scale, one must always be cognizant of the vastly and literally larger than life scale of the events and processes under discussion. Your and anyone else's puerile comments about whether some specific event occurs in 2013 or 2016 shows a unwillingness to retain that level of temporal perspective with regard to the scope of events transpiring as part of the the matter at hand.
I truly don't care to engage in conversations with folks who exhibit pontifically such profound contextual myopia on any topic. It really doesn't matter why they do so; what matters in this regard is that they do so. Therefore, I'm politely asking you to refrain from replying to my posts on this topic because I cannot use the "ignore" feature with you.

It's funny that you should try this tack. This is what we know. Fourteen thousand years ago there was a mile thick slab of ice sitting on top of where my house is now. Then, all of a sudden it melted away. The planet enjoyed a rapid warming that caused the majority of that continental ice sheet to melt away. In the intervening 14,000 years, there have been MULTIPLE periods of cooling and warming. What caused those? CO2 has risen and fallen with the temperatures (always lagging by hundreds of years by the way, CO2 has never once increased prior to the onset of global warming, I wonder why that is?) and the ice has come and gone, all independent of anything that man could have done back then.

So, there's this is a scientific axiom, it is called "Occams Razor" I suggest you look it up and apply what it means to the current rise in temperature. Go ahead, i dare you....