AGW failed again

[Markle]

Yeah, this. It's like they have no idea that scientists are competitive. Any climate scientist in the world would love to find irrefutable evidence that humans are not contributing to climate change. They'd be rich and famous.

Why and how would they be rich and famous?

Perhaps by causing thousands of Solyndra's and tearing down millions of worthless wind turbines?

Yeah, I don't see that happening.

 

[Old Rocks]

The IEA said that last year solar PV additions rose faster than any other fuel for the first time, surpassing the net growth in coal.

In power generation, the IEA said, renewable electricity is expected to grow by more than a third by 2022 to over 8,000 TWh. By then, renewables will account for 30 percent of power generation, up from 24 percent in 2016. The growth in renewable generation will be twice as large as that of gas and coal combined. While coal remains the largest source of electricity generation in 2022, the IEA said that renewables are expected to close the generation gap with coal by half by then.

Solar PV Was Fastest Growing Energy Source in the World in 2016

Even without subsidies, solar will continue to grow faster than any other source of electricity. The key is scalability.

 

[skookerasbil]

The IEA said that last year solar PV additions rose faster than any other fuel for the first time, surpassing the net growth in coal.

In power generation, the IEA said, renewable electricity is expected to grow by more than a third by 2022 to over 8,000 TWh. By then, renewables will account for 30 percent of power generation, up from 24 percent in 2016. The growth in renewable generation will be twice as large as that of gas and coal combined. While coal remains the largest source of electricity generation in 2022, the IEA said that renewables are expected to close the generation gap with coal by half by then.

Solar PV Was Fastest Growing Energy Source in the World in 2016

Even without subsidies, solar will continue to grow faster than any other source of electricity. The key is scalability.

Yep... but when you take a closer look and get an operational definition of "fastest" as applied to the title of the link.... well unfortunately it's the equivalent of a slug traveling across the United States from New York to California.... and that's not even an embellishment.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Lets see if anyone can refute this.

1990 IPCC report
"Based on current model results, we predict: • under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of. 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade)..."

Satellite data from 1990 onwards:

Total of just .40C warming in 2 1/2 decades.

Not even close!

 

[westwall]

The IEA said that last year solar PV additions rose faster than any other fuel for the first time, surpassing the net growth in coal.

In power generation, the IEA said, renewable electricity is expected to grow by more than a third by 2022 to over 8,000 TWh. By then, renewables will account for 30 percent of power generation, up from 24 percent in 2016. The growth in renewable generation will be twice as large as that of gas and coal combined. While coal remains the largest source of electricity generation in 2022, the IEA said that renewables are expected to close the generation gap with coal by half by then.

Solar PV Was Fastest Growing Energy Source in the World in 2016

Even without subsidies, solar will continue to grow faster than any other source of electricity. The key is scalability.

When starting from near zero it is easy to claim the "quickest growing" moniker.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The IEA said that last year solar PV additions rose faster than any other fuel for the first time, surpassing the net growth in coal.

In power generation, the IEA said, renewable electricity is expected to grow by more than a third by 2022 to over 8,000 TWh. By then, renewables will account for 30 percent of power generation, up from 24 percent in 2016. The growth in renewable generation will be twice as large as that of gas and coal combined. While coal remains the largest source of electricity generation in 2022, the IEA said that renewables are expected to close the generation gap with coal by half by then.

Solar PV Was Fastest Growing Energy Source in the World in 2016

Even without subsidies, solar will continue to grow faster than any other source of electricity. The key is scalability.

The total percentage of Solar in contrast the total worldwide amount of High Mass fuels production barely changed.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I notice that several alarmists here, post the consensus fallacy and think that is a rational argument to prove that the AGW conjecture is a success, when only a SINGLE refutation can destroy it totally.

Here it is,

The 1990 IPCC report PREDICTED an average of .30C per decade warming, with 1C warming by 2025. This was based on CO2 emission scenario, that was using the AGW conjectures warm forcing formula.

The Satellite data show about HALF the rate, which means EPIC FAIL!

Consensus babblings by ignorant dishonest and irrational alarmists routed by a single AGW failure!

View attachment 185418

Its evens less than half of the predictions.

The failure of his 1988 is even worse when you consider that his own CO2 emission scenario A ended up being LOWER than the actual rate, yet the satellite based warming rate is lower than the decreasing Scenario CO2 emission rate!

It is far worse than it seems.

 

[skookerasbil]

I notice that several alarmists here, post the consensus fallacy and think that is a rational argument to prove that the AGW conjecture is a success, when only a SINGLE refutation can destroy it totally.

Here it is,

The 1990 IPCC report PREDICTED an average of .30C per decade warming, with 1C warming by 2025. This was based on CO2 emission scenario, that was using the AGW conjectures warm forcing formula.

The Satellite data show about HALF the rate, which means EPIC FAIL!

Consensus babblings by ignorant dishonest and irrational alarmists routed by a single AGW failure!

View attachment 185418

Its evens less than half of the predictions.

The failure of his 1988 is even worse when you consider that his own CO2 emission scenario A ended up being LOWER than the actual rate, yet the satellite based warming rate is lower than the decreasing Scenario CO2 emission rate!

It is far worse than it seems.

Meh....the IPCC reports in the early 90's stated very clearly that computer models could not be used to predict the future climate. Anyone saying "far worse" is a k00k true believer.... thankfully these people have been marginalized in the real world

Let's face it 20 long years of alarmist predictions have had zero impact on western wations energy policies. Zero.... they can take all the bows they want about what a handful of scientists are saying and call it "decided".
... but not one of them can post a link in years that can show us where it is mattering in the real world

 

[Sunsettommy]

I notice that several alarmists here, post the consensus fallacy and think that is a rational argument to prove that the AGW conjecture is a success, when only a SINGLE refutation can destroy it totally.

Here it is,

The 1990 IPCC report PREDICTED an average of .30C per decade warming, with 1C warming by 2025. This was based on CO2 emission scenario, that was using the AGW conjectures warm forcing formula.

The Satellite data show about HALF the rate, which means EPIC FAIL!

Consensus babblings by ignorant dishonest and irrational alarmists routed by a single AGW failure!

View attachment 185418

Its evens less than half of the predictions.

The failure of his 1988 is even worse when you consider that his own CO2 emission scenario A ended up being LOWER than the actual rate, yet the satellite based warming rate is lower than the decreasing Scenario CO2 emission rate!

It is far worse than it seems.

Meh....the IPCC reports in the early 90's stated very clearly that computer models could not be used to predict the future climate. Anyone saying "far worse" is a k00k true believer.... thankfully these people have been marginalized in the real world

Let's face it 20 long years of alarmist predictions have had zero impact on western wations energy policies. Zero.... they can take all the bows they want about what a handful of scientists are saying and call it "decided".
... but not one of them can post a link in years that can show us where it is mattering in the real world

The 1990 IPCC report made a specific PREDICTION on the Per Decade warming rate, now they call them projections in all subsequent reports.

 

[skookerasbil]

I notice that several alarmists here, post the consensus fallacy and think that is a rational argument to prove that the AGW conjecture is a success, when only a SINGLE refutation can destroy it totally.

Here it is,

The 1990 IPCC report PREDICTED an average of .30C per decade warming, with 1C warming by 2025. This was based on CO2 emission scenario, that was using the AGW conjectures warm forcing formula.

The Satellite data show about HALF the rate, which means EPIC FAIL!

Consensus babblings by ignorant dishonest and irrational alarmists routed by a single AGW failure!

View attachment 185418

Its evens less than half of the predictions.

The failure of his 1988 is even worse when you consider that his own CO2 emission scenario A ended up being LOWER than the actual rate, yet the satellite based warming rate is lower than the decreasing Scenario CO2 emission rate!

It is far worse than it seems.

Meh....the IPCC reports in the early 90's stated very clearly that computer models could not be used to predict the future climate. Anyone saying "far worse" is a k00k true believer.... thankfully these people have been marginalized in the real world

Let's face it 20 long years of alarmist predictions have had zero impact on western wations energy policies. Zero.... they can take all the bows they want about what a handful of scientists are saying and call it "decided".
... but not one of them can post a link in years that can show us where it is mattering in the real world

The 1990 IPCC report made a specific PREDICTION on the Per Decade warming rate, now they call them projections in all subsequent reports.

Yep....and we know what the translation is there!

 

[Billy_Bob]

I notice that several alarmists here, post the consensus fallacy and think that is a rational argument to prove that the AGW conjecture is a success, when only a SINGLE refutation can destroy it totally.

Here it is,

The 1990 IPCC report PREDICTED an average of .30C per decade warming, with 1C warming by 2025. This was based on CO2 emission scenario, that was using the AGW conjectures warm forcing formula.

The Satellite data show about HALF the rate, which means EPIC FAIL!

Consensus babblings by ignorant dishonest and irrational alarmists routed by a single AGW failure!

View attachment 185418

Its evens less than half of the predictions.

The failure of his 1988 is even worse when you consider that his own CO2 emission scenario A ended up being LOWER than the actual rate, yet the satellite based warming rate is lower than the decreasing Scenario CO2 emission rate!

It is far worse than it seems.

Meh....the IPCC reports in the early 90's stated very clearly that computer models could not be used to predict the future climate. Anyone saying "far worse" is a k00k true believer.... thankfully these people have been marginalized in the real world

Let's face it 20 long years of alarmist predictions have had zero impact on western wations energy policies. Zero.... they can take all the bows they want about what a handful of scientists are saying and call it "decided".
... but not one of them can post a link in years that can show us where it is mattering in the real world

The 1990 IPCC report made a specific PREDICTION on the Per Decade warming rate, now they call them projections in all subsequent reports.

"now they call them projections in all subsequent reports."

This is how they keep their hypothesis alive, by making it appear that it can never be shown failed.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I notice that several alarmists here, post the consensus fallacy and think that is a rational argument to prove that the AGW conjecture is a success, when only a SINGLE refutation can destroy it totally.

Here it is,

The 1990 IPCC report PREDICTED an average of .30C per decade warming, with 1C warming by 2025. This was based on CO2 emission scenario, that was using the AGW conjectures warm forcing formula.

The Satellite data show about HALF the rate, which means EPIC FAIL!

Consensus babblings by ignorant dishonest and irrational alarmists routed by a single AGW failure!

View attachment 185418

Its evens less than half of the predictions.

The failure of his 1988 is even worse when you consider that his own CO2 emission scenario A ended up being LOWER than the actual rate, yet the satellite based warming rate is lower than the decreasing Scenario CO2 emission rate!

It is far worse than it seems.

Meh....the IPCC reports in the early 90's stated very clearly that computer models could not be used to predict the future climate. Anyone saying "far worse" is a k00k true believer.... thankfully these people have been marginalized in the real world

Let's face it 20 long years of alarmist predictions have had zero impact on western wations energy policies. Zero.... they can take all the bows they want about what a handful of scientists are saying and call it "decided".
... but not one of them can post a link in years that can show us where it is mattering in the real world

The 1990 IPCC report made a specific PREDICTION on the Per Decade warming rate, now they call them projections in all subsequent reports.

"now they call them projections in all subsequent reports."

This is how they keep their hypothesis alive, by making it appear that it can never be shown failed.

They still fail, Bob as weasel words can't protect their word games.

 

[ding]

You skip the OP and go strait for my JOKE? LOL

It's not a joke though, is it? As far as I can tell that's how people that don't agree with AGW see it. When the overwhelming majority of the people most qualified to have an opinion on this matter stop saying the same thing I might reconsider my position.

Ok
"i am a scientist hear me ROAR. So, since i cant prove it, we will all just agree man did it"
"man didnt do anything"
"i said HEAR ME ROAR!!!"
These people do the SAME thing the religious people did thousands and thousands of years ago. They have to fill in the HOLES with SOMETHING
Its sad really.
Now, do you have anything on the OP?

it's a cool story, bro

it's not in any way related to the thread title, but it's a cool story

Yea, i am sure other people besides AGW cultists thought it was AGW too.

stupid people discount possibilities they don't agree with

that's why they're stupid

If CO2 drives climate change now, then it has always driven climate change, right? Unless of course you believe there is something different about CO2 now.

Can you show me an example where CO2 drove climate change in the past?

 

[westwall]

It's not a joke though, is it? As far as I can tell that's how people that don't agree with AGW see it. When the overwhelming majority of the people most qualified to have an opinion on this matter stop saying the same thing I might reconsider my position.

Ok
"i am a scientist hear me ROAR. So, since i cant prove it, we will all just agree man did it"
"man didnt do anything"
"i said HEAR ME ROAR!!!"
These people do the SAME thing the religious people did thousands and thousands of years ago. They have to fill in the HOLES with SOMETHING
Its sad really.
Now, do you have anything on the OP?

it's a cool story, bro

it's not in any way related to the thread title, but it's a cool story

Yea, i am sure other people besides AGW cultists thought it was AGW too.

stupid people discount possibilities they don't agree with

that's why they're stupid

If CO2 drives climate change now, then it has always driven climate change, right? Unless of course you believe there is something different about CO2 now.

Can you show me an example where CO2 drove climate change in the past?

The AGW crowd don't do the Scientific Method. According to them, modern CO2 has magical powers that have never been seen before. They can't present anything observable to support their "theory", but they have faith that they are correct. Kind of sounds like a religion don't it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Good morning, cackling fools!

Let's examine a fundamental point that is being missed by you deniers:

This guess (OP topic), wrong or right, has no real bearing on AGW theory. In a surprise to exactly nobody, you deniers don't really take the time to think through any of this and to attempt to understand what is actually being said and what it means.

To illustrate:

Evolutionary theory explains how we got the diversity of species from one common ancestor.

Now, say a biology researcher takes a guess that a certain species shared a common ancestor with another species, withwith common ancestor being constrained to a particular place and time in history. But, oopsie, upon researching his guess and gathering evidence, he discovers that these two species could not have shared a common ancestor within this particular timeframe and location.

Is this a "failure of evolutionary theory"? Does this upend evolutionary theory? Of course, the correct answer is "no" to both questions.

In fact, this is not a "failure" of science at all, but rather a victory, as the evidence wins over hopes and feelings.

So, in short, the thread title is a lie, the OP is misguided at best (and a liar, at worst), and this is thread is just one big, incestual family reunion of a bunch of happily dumb, cackling deniers.

Have a nice day!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The AGW crowd don't do the Scientific Method

Haha....oh man...we all look forward to you showing them how, in your next published scientific article. Oops, I didn't mean "next", I meant "first".

 

[Sunsettommy]

The AGW crowd don't do the Scientific Method

Haha....oh man...we all look forward to you showing them how, in your next published scientific article. Oops, I didn't mean "next", I meant "first".

Have you ever done science research?

The Scientific Method REQUIRES that what is hypothesized must be testable. Climate models to year 2100 are not testable, which is why it is called wild guesses.

 

[ding]

Good morning, cackling fools!

Let's examine a fundamental point that is being missed by you deniers:

This guess (OP topic), wrong or right, has no real bearing on AGW theory. In a surprise to exactly nobody, you deniers don't really take the time to think through any of this and to attempt to understand what is actually being said and what it means.

To illustrate:

Evolutionary theory explains how we got the diversity of species from one common ancestor.

Now, say a biology researcher takes a guess that a certain species shared a common ancestor with another species, withwith common ancestor being constrained to a particular place and time in history. But, oopsie, upon researching his guess and gathering evidence, he discovers that these two species could not have shared a common ancestor within this particular timeframe and location.

Is this a "failure of evolutionary theory"? Does this upend evolutionary theory? Of course, the correct answer is "no" to both questions.

In fact, this is not a "failure" of science at all, but rather a victory, as the evidence wins over hopes and feelings.

So, in short, the thread title is a lie, the OP is misguided at best (and a liar, at worst), and this is thread is just one big, incestual family reunion of a bunch of happily dumb, cackling deniers.

Have a nice day!

If CO2 drives climate change then it always drove climate change. Can you show me an example when CO2 has driven climate change?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Good morning, cackling fools!

Let's examine a fundamental point that is being missed by you deniers:

This guess (OP topic), wrong or right, has no real bearing on AGW theory. In a surprise to exactly nobody, you deniers don't really take the time to think through any of this and to attempt to understand what is actually being said and what it means.

To illustrate:

Evolutionary theory explains how we got the diversity of species from one common ancestor.

Now, say a biology researcher takes a guess that a certain species shared a common ancestor with another species, withwith common ancestor being constrained to a particular place and time in history. But, oopsie, upon researching his guess and gathering evidence, he discovers that these two species could not have shared a common ancestor within this particular timeframe and location.

Is this a "failure of evolutionary theory"? Does this upend evolutionary theory? Of course, the correct answer is "no" to both questions.

In fact, this is not a "failure" of science at all, but rather a victory, as the evidence wins over hopes and feelings.

So, in short, the thread title is a lie, the OP is misguided at best (and a liar, at worst), and this is thread is just one big, incestual family reunion of a bunch of happily dumb, cackling deniers.

Have a nice day!

If CO2 drives climate change then it always drove climate change. Can you show me an example when CO2 has driven climate change?

You really expect this loudmouth fool to answer you with science stuff?

They sometimes refer to a certain paper to back their claim, ALWAYS the same paper when they want to argue that temperature follows CO2. But that paper was utterly exposed as being dishonest by leaving out the rest of the CO2 data that would destroy their claim.

Lets see if this science illiterate will surprise us of that paper.

 

[jc456]

It's not a joke though, is it? As far as I can tell that's how people that don't agree with AGW see it. When the overwhelming majority of the people most qualified to have an opinion on this matter stop saying the same thing I might reconsider my position.

Ok
"i am a scientist hear me ROAR. So, since i cant prove it, we will all just agree man did it"
"man didnt do anything"
"i said HEAR ME ROAR!!!"
These people do the SAME thing the religious people did thousands and thousands of years ago. They have to fill in the HOLES with SOMETHING
Its sad really.
Now, do you have anything on the OP?

it's a cool story, bro

it's not in any way related to the thread title, but it's a cool story

Yea, i am sure other people besides AGW cultists thought it was AGW too.

stupid people discount possibilities they don't agree with

that's why they're stupid

Oh, its only a possibility now?
I thought it was "settled science"
See, if it was broadcasted as a possibility, i probably wouldnt immediately discount the holes in the theory.

you don't like threats either?