Assuming it was a hoax, what would be the goal of the global warming hoax?

[jc456]

You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.

Climate change science is the best science ever.

Now, if we go by your rules I win because I just asserted something and that means it's true. Feel free to submit your findings to the scientific community. What's that? You don't have any findings? Well by golly, that's shocking.

How about proof that the science is flawed? Aw man, you have nothing again? Sheesh

Bullcrap. It is the worst so far the world has ever seen. It is nothing more than computer derived fiction. There is precious little empirical data....period.

You're letting him get to you rather than playing his game of being a dumb fk. He rates at the top of that pyramid with tooth and the others. Don't loose control. His is the hoax.

 

[jc456]

You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.

Climate change science is the best science ever.

Now, if we go by your rules I win because I just asserted something and that means it's true. Feel free to submit your findings to the scientific community. What's that? You don't have any findings? Well by golly, that's shocking.

How about proof that the science is flawed? Aw man, you have nothing again? Sheesh

Ah batman, it is you who has nothing, but you already knew that. Funny how that works.

Yeah, because I'm not a scientist but YOU are the idiot saying they are wrong.

So how about you present that proof? Aw man, not again. You forgot it?

Ah, a dumb fk that doesn't understand burden of proof. But he believes in the lie. He is the lie.
Hoax exists whether you approve or not. So, prove me wrong and show the CO2 empirical evidence that's been requested many times now in here. Without that proves the hoax. SEE?

 

[ClosedCaption]

You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.

Climate change science is the best science ever.

Now, if we go by your rules I win because I just asserted something and that means it's true. Feel free to submit your findings to the scientific community. What's that? You don't have any findings? Well by golly, that's shocking.

How about proof that the science is flawed? Aw man, you have nothing again? Sheesh

Ah batman, it is you who has nothing, but you already knew that. Funny how that works.

Yeah, because I'm not a scientist but YOU are the idiot saying they are wrong.

So how about you present that proof? Aw man, not again. You forgot it?

Ah, a dumb fk that doesn't understand burden of proof. But he believes in the lie. He is the lie.
Hoax exists whether you approve or not. So, prove me wrong and show the CO2 empirical evidence that's been requested many times now in here. Without that proves hoax. SEE?

Burden of proof? YOU are claiming they are WRONG. Where is your burden of proof?

I'm expecting laughing, calling names and no proof.

 

[Votto]

Dim lawmakers from coal producing states plead with Obama to reconsider the dictates from the EPA that will destroy their local economies.

More Than 600 Democratic Officials Sign Letter to Obama Opposing New Environmental Regulations — Here’s Why

Simply put, they need to change parties. They are no longer welcomed in their own party

 

[jc456]

You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.

Climate change science is the best science ever.

Now, if we go by your rules I win because I just asserted something and that means it's true. Feel free to submit your findings to the scientific community. What's that? You don't have any findings? Well by golly, that's shocking.

How about proof that the science is flawed? Aw man, you have nothing again? Sheesh

Ah batman, it is you who has nothing, but you already knew that. Funny how that works.

Yeah, because I'm not a scientist but YOU are the idiot saying they are wrong.

So how about you present that proof? Aw man, not again. You forgot it?

Ah, a dumb fk that doesn't understand burden of proof. But he believes in the lie. He is the lie.
Hoax exists whether you approve or not. So, prove me wrong and show the CO2 empirical evidence that's been requested many times now in here. Without that proves hoax. SEE?

Burden of proof? YOU are claiming they are WRONG. Where is your burden of proof?

I'm expecting laughing, calling names and no proof.

Ahem, noted in my previous post, you can use that post as my answer.

 

[CultureCitizen]

We will never see an emergency situation due to our own impact, or that we can do anything about.

I don't care what kind of fuels we use, or where they come from unless it can be proven beyond a doubt that it causes detriment to humanity.

In this I differ. In the past civilizations have fallen because of overuse of resources. This is still a danger.
The clearest example is what happened in the viking settlements of greenland. The viking settlements went the dodo way while the esquimos thrived. Yes human action and adapting to change are key factors.

 

[CultureCitizen]

But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.

If you HAVE NOT seen the admissions of the socio-political agenda behind this largely POLITICAL movement. Just ask.. Or better yet -- go find them yourself..

Well , believe it or not there's people who actually deny the warming ( yes , they simply deny Earth has had any warming at all), I have not been specific on that , because It is irrelevant for the discussion. I simply want to dwelve into the different theories of why would factual powers create a conspiracy about this.

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2.

A shift from fosil to renewables will necesarily have both economical and political implications. I did not start of this thread to "find by myself" but rather from hear them from others.

Nobody with any science background that matters denies the small warming blip during your lifetime. Or that CO2 MIGHT play a limited role in that. Fact is that natural variations have been largely under estimated and the role of CO2 is way over estimated. As witnessed by the failures of most climate models to predict temperature even 15 or 20 years out..

As for the 2degC trigger -- it's headline news. It's the mantra of the next Climate Conf. in Paris. And it's the most quoted number for the "trigger". Interestingly enough, the REAL warming powers of CO2 would NEVER get us to 5degC by itself.. Not without the speculated (imagined) list of positive feedbacks and magic multipliers that are the CORE of the debate.

If the Earth was gonna go suicidal with a 2degC spike in warming -- we wouldn't be here now. THAT's what your GW speculates.

So are you aware of the socio-political statements that CONFIRM the larger agenda of the GW Zealots?
I'll provide them for you if you're really oblivious to the movement side of this circus.

My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade.
I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) .
That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands.

Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.

How do you support your supposition? There is almost no empirical data to support that.

It's actually quite simple : co2 gives a blanket effect the effect is not immediate, it builds up with time.
Some people cheer at the fact that we have 400 ppm co2 and almost no warming .
But the correct expression is : we've had 400 ppm for one year and have had almost no warming. We will probably see the effects 5 or 10 years later. That's why I am almost certain we are under no immedeate threat.
By analogy when you put a lid on a pan being heated you will not notice the effect immediately , but wait five minutes and you'll notice the effect on the temperature.

 

[CultureCitizen]

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So tell me, where exaxctly is mans input signal? Where is the rise attributed to man contributions? It is not in the empirically observed evidence.

It is possible that the CO2 doesn't have an immediat effect , but rather it takes several years to cause an increase in temperature.
I'll admit that's speculation on my part, since I am no climatologist. On the other hand to say that chart is correct you would have to proove the oposite : that the full blown effects of increase in CO2 are felt in the following year in which it was produced.
There goes a plausible explanation for the lack of correlation in your chart .

All empirical data says otherwise. The data shows warming occurs and then, between 400 and 800 years AFTER the warming there is a corresponding rise in CO2. CO2 has NEVER initiated a rise in global temperature. It has always risen as a result of warming.

Interesting.... any links ?

 

[CultureCitizen]

I remain open to the discussion of the OP, it just happened that the last person discussing the topic ( the one with a green witch avatar) had the argumentative power of a dimwit, so I stopped discussing with him/her.
If you want to retake on the possible causes and consequences of the AWG-as-a-hoax you are most welcome. I actually had a good debate with WestWall and surprisingly we ended up agreeing on many important points ( though not on the AWG itself, which is kind of irrelevant given the nature of the OP ).

Well as it has been said, the purpose of any hoax would be for self aggrandizement.

These so called "experts", scientists according to liberals, have data they use to scare people into believing human beings and their prosperous lifestyles are causing a problem that only government can solve through regulations, taxes and massive pork projects that usually fail to achieve anything. These "scientists" receive huge funding grants for more "research", government gets empowered and grows larger, and crony corporations build shit like windmills and solar panels and even sometimes go bankrupt after being subsidized to the tune of $535,000,000.

Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post

A half a billion dollars alone could enrich a whole lot of people, and that is a pittance. It doesn't even register on the radar when considering all of the incredible sums of money the government has dumped into the gaping maw of environazi alarmists. That half a billion dollars was wasted on just one company, and there are many other examples of such waste.

Lets just imagine for a second that Bush or some other republicrat administration soaked the tax payer for $500 million that was given to a corporation that went tits up. Democrooks would have been howling for investigations, impeachment and prison sentences, but in this case...



Why?

Because criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths, their friends and donors are getting rich. Liberals are always pissing and moaning about rich corporations screwing the public and getting rich through fraud. Here's was stark glaring example but I have yet to see the occutards shitting all over the WH lawn over it.

You also need to consider the fact that the most prominent MMGW snake oil salesmen are doing the exact opposite of what they're telling the rest of us to do. They might throw a couple solar panels on their houses, but they're flying all over the world, using more energy as individuals than some small towns and demanding the rest of us shut off our AC. If that doesn't make it blatantly clear they themselves don't believe the bullshit they're promoting I don't know what does. The fact they're getting richer while doing so should be proof enough to you what the agenda is. If you can't see it, I don't know what else on earth can prove it to you. Jesus Christ Himself could come down from the clouds and tell you to your face and you'd respond with some shit about Him being corrupted by the oil industry.

You've been rather polite and I appreciate it, but I stand with my contention that liberals are mindless zealots completely lacking in cognitive capacity.

Now just so you know, in my early to late teens I believed in all the MMGW horse shit. I used to put up flyers and posters in school urging people to use less energy, less paper and that marijuana could save the environment if we used it for industry.

I woke up.

I still smoked the shit, but it finally occurred to me that if pot was useful for anything other than making TV tolerable, companies would use it.

First, thanks for presenting arguments instead of ranting, I really appreciate it.
In summary you seem to propose two motives :
1) Self aggrandizement
2) Government-Corporate corruption

Regarding self aggrandizement, yes, it is possible that some scientist are motivated by it. Extending such motivation to all scientists seems a little bit far fetched. So lets just say most of them (80%) are motivaded by it. That would still leave the reminding 20%. Now I will not discuss if that 20% is right or wrong in spite of their legitimate concern.

Regarding government corporate corruption, yes, I was aware of Solyndra as well as other green tech companies involved in corruption ( quite surprisingly Special Ed provided the links one of those rare days in which he didn't wake up in rant mode). I found that very sad.
That said, this kind of corruption is not exclusive of green tech companies as we saw in 2008. This leaves clear the fact that this free money scheme doesn't work and must be stopped.
I find other mechanisms might work better, like providing tax breaks for startups.

Since pollution is a global problem the source of pollution will shift as years pass : US was the biggest polluter until 2005, but now China has taken that place. The chinese have promissed to start decreasing their pollution levels by 2025, once that happens India will probably become the largest pollutor.
I tend to see this problem from a business perspective: it seems logic to invest in r&d for green technologies, ultimately India and China will seek to shift to green technologies ( I will include nuclear here although there are some known dangers associated with it ) because once they develop industrially their energy consumption will reach unsustainable levels.
Now some do's and dont's in my list:
Do: solar , wind, nuclear (if necesary), off the grid houses, 100+ mpg vehicles,
Don'ts : fracking, tar sands, deep oil, ultra dense cities, megalopolies.

And although this will probably be very debatable , cow population has to be stabilized :we can't get to the point where there are more cows than humans. Today there are about 1.5 billion cows in the world.

Cattle/cow population worldwide - how many, 2013 | Statistic

What do you have against cows? New Zealand's human population is outnumbered 20 to one by sheep. They are doing alright.

There are micro nuclear power plants that will do everything we need energy wise and are totally safe. Toshiba's 4S is just one variant of the technology....Bill Gates joined with them in 2010 as part of his green energy goals.

TOSHIBA - Multipurpose Energy Station 4S

http://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-toshibas-4s-reactor

It is not the number of cows, but the density. Canada and Rusia could have 10 or 20 times their population outnumbered by cows. Bangladesh on the other hand would have a hard time keeping a 50% ratio.

Nuclear is kind of ok, but then you have to consider the caveats : the rest of the world will also like to have nuclear power. Europe seems ok , as well as South and Central America .. the middle east is a tricker matter.
Also fuel has to be mined , which also has some risks and wastes have to be safely stored for thousands of years.
Better than tar sands and fracking, definitiveley, but not without caveats.

Read the Toshiba link. Their reactor uses depleted uranium. Far safer than any other fuel used on the planet. The density of the cows is immaterial. As flacaltenn so ably pointed out there were MILLIONS of critters before man started raising cows. There were a minimum of 60 million bison on the Great Plains in the 1850's. The USDA says there are 98.4 million cows in the US at this moment. The cows now are kept in limited ranges compared to the bison and wild cattle that lived in the 1850's so yet again a concern is shown to be no big deal when actual facts and figures are presented.

Reactors : I stand by my position. Would you rather fill middle east with solar panels and wind turbines or nuclear reactors, no matter how safe they are ?

Cows : I am unsure about the loading capacity for the US, The US is self suficient in beef so my bet is a 1 to 4 ratio is about enough ( probably more than enough ).

The density does matter, a lot, I've heard many times stories of droughts killing millions of cattle, so yes, it depend on the availability of food and water. Strikingly the country with the highest cattle headcount makes little use of them : India.
The fact that cows are kept in ranges is of no importance: the food and water they consume occupies certain amount of land.

 

[CultureCitizen]

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So tell me, where exaxctly is mans input signal? Where is the rise attributed to man contributions? It is not in the empirically observed evidence.

It is possible that the CO2 doesn't have an immediat effect , but rather it takes several years to cause an increase in temperature.
I'll admit that's speculation on my part, since I am no climatologist. On the other hand to say that chart is correct you would have to proove the oposite : that the full blown effects of increase in CO2 are felt in the following year in which it was produced.
There goes a plausible explanation for the lack of correlation in your chart .

One problem with your hypothesis, the residency time for CO2 in our atmosphere is less than 40 years ( could be as little as 7 years). It is not 100 years or 1000 years as postulated by our EPA and the IPCC which would allow us to build up exponentially and ultimately cause rapid rise in CO2 levels. A recent paper lays the driving premise of the EPA and IPCC waste..

CO2 residence time said to be 40 years, not 1000 per previous claims

Even then, the water (convection cycle) is not slowed by CO2 and it by itself, will allow heat escape faster than CO2 can retard it.

Ok , let's say the co2 takes 10 years to take its full effect. The co2 curve in the chart you showed should be shifted 10 years to show a correlation ( if my hunch is correct).That would be the input co2 levels, with a lag time.
Anyway that was this year, and it will probably take a while before we notice the effects. I am really waiting until 2020 to see the weather tendency. As I said earlier we are not in an emergency situation yet.

 

[flacaltenn]

But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.

If you HAVE NOT seen the admissions of the socio-political agenda behind this largely POLITICAL movement. Just ask.. Or better yet -- go find them yourself..

Well , believe it or not there's people who actually deny the warming ( yes , they simply deny Earth has had any warming at all), I have not been specific on that , because It is irrelevant for the discussion. I simply want to dwelve into the different theories of why would factual powers create a conspiracy about this.

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2.

A shift from fosil to renewables will necesarily have both economical and political implications. I did not start of this thread to "find by myself" but rather from hear them from others.

Nobody with any science background that matters denies the small warming blip during your lifetime. Or that CO2 MIGHT play a limited role in that. Fact is that natural variations have been largely under estimated and the role of CO2 is way over estimated. As witnessed by the failures of most climate models to predict temperature even 15 or 20 years out..

As for the 2degC trigger -- it's headline news. It's the mantra of the next Climate Conf. in Paris. And it's the most quoted number for the "trigger". Interestingly enough, the REAL warming powers of CO2 would NEVER get us to 5degC by itself.. Not without the speculated (imagined) list of positive feedbacks and magic multipliers that are the CORE of the debate.

If the Earth was gonna go suicidal with a 2degC spike in warming -- we wouldn't be here now. THAT's what your GW speculates.

So are you aware of the socio-political statements that CONFIRM the larger agenda of the GW Zealots?
I'll provide them for you if you're really oblivious to the movement side of this circus.

My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade.
I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) .
That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands.

Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.

How do you support your supposition? There is almost no empirical data to support that.

It's actually quite simple : co2 gives a blanket effect the effect is not immediate, it builds up with time.
Some people cheer at the fact that we have 400 ppm co2 and almost no warming .
But the correct expression is : we've had 400 ppm for one year and have had almost no warming. We will probably see the effects 5 or 10 years later. That's why I am almost certain we are under no immedeate threat.
By analogy when you put a lid on a pan being heated you will not notice the effect immediately , but wait five minutes and you'll notice the effect on the temperature.

The effect of the CO2 is an immediate change in the amount of IR radiation trapped (back-radiated) towards the surface. The timing of a temperature rise may have some settling period from that forcing. But the effect of CO2 BY ITSELF --- will never exceed that 1degC/doubling.

Now the planet doesn't have just one climate zone, and the arctic responds differently from the topics. And the land and ocean and deserts respond differently. All those are SHORT term variations in the way the radiative CO2 forcing converts to surface temperature. The LONG term conversion effects are all these "imagined" disaster scenarios, where the forcing for instance causes massive permafrost melt or changes the surface albedo or the amount of clouds.

So -- the effect of CO2 emissions THEMSELVES are probably less than a decade to settle to a new temperature. But one would expect both HIGHS and LOWs as the change settles out. The other magical stuff (which skeptics are ACTUALLY skeptical about) might take 50 to 200 years to equalize out. If it happened at all..

BTW -- if you ignore all the hysteria and failed climate modeling and use the basic Physics/Chem warming power of CO2 that I gave you --- the OBSERVED warming since the Indus. Age is right on target for about 1degC/doubling.

And 2degC by 2100 is no front page news. So the HYSTERICAL part of GW -- where the zealots and a handful of activist climate scientists have in the past RANTED about 5 or even 8 degC by 2100, is becoming less and less likely and the progress on the Climate Sensitivity numbers SHOW that decline in predictions just over the last decade of research..

 

[flacaltenn]

Well as it has been said, the purpose of any hoax would be for self aggrandizement.

These so called "experts", scientists according to liberals, have data they use to scare people into believing human beings and their prosperous lifestyles are causing a problem that only government can solve through regulations, taxes and massive pork projects that usually fail to achieve anything. These "scientists" receive huge funding grants for more "research", government gets empowered and grows larger, and crony corporations build shit like windmills and solar panels and even sometimes go bankrupt after being subsidized to the tune of $535,000,000.

Solyndra Scandal | Full Coverage of Failed Solar Startup - The Washington Post

A half a billion dollars alone could enrich a whole lot of people, and that is a pittance. It doesn't even register on the radar when considering all of the incredible sums of money the government has dumped into the gaping maw of environazi alarmists. That half a billion dollars was wasted on just one company, and there are many other examples of such waste.

Lets just imagine for a second that Bush or some other republicrat administration soaked the tax payer for $500 million that was given to a corporation that went tits up. Democrooks would have been howling for investigations, impeachment and prison sentences, but in this case...



Why?

Because criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths, their friends and donors are getting rich. Liberals are always pissing and moaning about rich corporations screwing the public and getting rich through fraud. Here's was stark glaring example but I have yet to see the occutards shitting all over the WH lawn over it.

You also need to consider the fact that the most prominent MMGW snake oil salesmen are doing the exact opposite of what they're telling the rest of us to do. They might throw a couple solar panels on their houses, but they're flying all over the world, using more energy as individuals than some small towns and demanding the rest of us shut off our AC. If that doesn't make it blatantly clear they themselves don't believe the bullshit they're promoting I don't know what does. The fact they're getting richer while doing so should be proof enough to you what the agenda is. If you can't see it, I don't know what else on earth can prove it to you. Jesus Christ Himself could come down from the clouds and tell you to your face and you'd respond with some shit about Him being corrupted by the oil industry.

You've been rather polite and I appreciate it, but I stand with my contention that liberals are mindless zealots completely lacking in cognitive capacity.

Now just so you know, in my early to late teens I believed in all the MMGW horse shit. I used to put up flyers and posters in school urging people to use less energy, less paper and that marijuana could save the environment if we used it for industry.

I woke up.

I still smoked the shit, but it finally occurred to me that if pot was useful for anything other than making TV tolerable, companies would use it.

First, thanks for presenting arguments instead of ranting, I really appreciate it.
In summary you seem to propose two motives :
1) Self aggrandizement
2) Government-Corporate corruption

Regarding self aggrandizement, yes, it is possible that some scientist are motivated by it. Extending such motivation to all scientists seems a little bit far fetched. So lets just say most of them (80%) are motivaded by it. That would still leave the reminding 20%. Now I will not discuss if that 20% is right or wrong in spite of their legitimate concern.

Regarding government corporate corruption, yes, I was aware of Solyndra as well as other green tech companies involved in corruption ( quite surprisingly Special Ed provided the links one of those rare days in which he didn't wake up in rant mode). I found that very sad.
That said, this kind of corruption is not exclusive of green tech companies as we saw in 2008. This leaves clear the fact that this free money scheme doesn't work and must be stopped.
I find other mechanisms might work better, like providing tax breaks for startups.

Since pollution is a global problem the source of pollution will shift as years pass : US was the biggest polluter until 2005, but now China has taken that place. The chinese have promissed to start decreasing their pollution levels by 2025, once that happens India will probably become the largest pollutor.
I tend to see this problem from a business perspective: it seems logic to invest in r&d for green technologies, ultimately India and China will seek to shift to green technologies ( I will include nuclear here although there are some known dangers associated with it ) because once they develop industrially their energy consumption will reach unsustainable levels.
Now some do's and dont's in my list:
Do: solar , wind, nuclear (if necesary), off the grid houses, 100+ mpg vehicles,
Don'ts : fracking, tar sands, deep oil, ultra dense cities, megalopolies.

And although this will probably be very debatable , cow population has to be stabilized :we can't get to the point where there are more cows than humans. Today there are about 1.5 billion cows in the world.

Cattle/cow population worldwide - how many, 2013 | Statistic

What do you have against cows? New Zealand's human population is outnumbered 20 to one by sheep. They are doing alright.

There are micro nuclear power plants that will do everything we need energy wise and are totally safe. Toshiba's 4S is just one variant of the technology....Bill Gates joined with them in 2010 as part of his green energy goals.

TOSHIBA - Multipurpose Energy Station 4S

http://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-toshibas-4s-reactor

It is not the number of cows, but the density. Canada and Rusia could have 10 or 20 times their population outnumbered by cows. Bangladesh on the other hand would have a hard time keeping a 50% ratio.

Nuclear is kind of ok, but then you have to consider the caveats : the rest of the world will also like to have nuclear power. Europe seems ok , as well as South and Central America .. the middle east is a tricker matter.
Also fuel has to be mined , which also has some risks and wastes have to be safely stored for thousands of years.
Better than tar sands and fracking, definitiveley, but not without caveats.

Read the Toshiba link. Their reactor uses depleted uranium. Far safer than any other fuel used on the planet. The density of the cows is immaterial. As flacaltenn so ably pointed out there were MILLIONS of critters before man started raising cows. There were a minimum of 60 million bison on the Great Plains in the 1850's. The USDA says there are 98.4 million cows in the US at this moment. The cows now are kept in limited ranges compared to the bison and wild cattle that lived in the 1850's so yet again a concern is shown to be no big deal when actual facts and figures are presented.

Reactors : I stand by my position. Would you rather fill middle east with solar panels and wind turbines or nuclear reactors, no matter how safe they are ?

Cows : I am unsure about the loading capacity for the US, The US is self suficient in beef so my bet is a 1 to 4 ratio is about enough ( probably more than enough ).

The density does matter, a lot, I've heard many times stories of droughts killing millions of cattle, so yes, it depend on the availability of food and water. Strikingly the country with the highest cattle headcount makes little use of them : India.
The fact that cows are kept in ranges is of no importance: the food and water they consume occupies certain amount of land.

Oh I'd prefer to fill the Arabian peninsula WITH ALL the windmills and solar panels we're paying for. So that they cease to exist as a threat because their societies can't function. What gives you the idea that any advanced society can THRIVE with wind and solar generating their electricity? Did you read this fairy tale somewhere?


Why don't you not worry about Mid East and worry about the 10 LARGEST emission nations first?

 

[westwall]

You calling it pseudo science doesn't mean it is. Watch.

Climate change science is the best science ever.

Now, if we go by your rules I win because I just asserted something and that means it's true. Feel free to submit your findings to the scientific community. What's that? You don't have any findings? Well by golly, that's shocking.

How about proof that the science is flawed? Aw man, you have nothing again? Sheesh

Ah batman, it is you who has nothing, but you already knew that. Funny how that works.

Yeah, because I'm not a scientist but YOU are the idiot saying they are wrong.

So how about you present that proof? Aw man, not again. You forgot it?

Ah, a dumb fk that doesn't understand burden of proof. But he believes in the lie. He is the lie.
Hoax exists whether you approve or not. So, prove me wrong and show the CO2 empirical evidence that's been requested many times now in here. Without that proves hoax. SEE?

Burden of proof? YOU are claiming they are WRONG. Where is your burden of proof?

I'm expecting laughing, calling names and no proof.

Wrong again. We are making no claims. It is your boys who are making the claims. Thus it is THEY who need to support their claims. Not us. That's how real science works.

 

[westwall]

But that's not the debate. The debate is over the CORE of GW theory that says a 2degC warming will send the planet into irreversible climate destruction. THAT'S worth being skeptical about.

If you HAVE NOT seen the admissions of the socio-political agenda behind this largely POLITICAL movement. Just ask.. Or better yet -- go find them yourself..

Well , believe it or not there's people who actually deny the warming ( yes , they simply deny Earth has had any warming at all), I have not been specific on that , because It is irrelevant for the discussion. I simply want to dwelve into the different theories of why would factual powers create a conspiracy about this.

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2.

A shift from fosil to renewables will necesarily have both economical and political implications. I did not start of this thread to "find by myself" but rather from hear them from others.

Nobody with any science background that matters denies the small warming blip during your lifetime. Or that CO2 MIGHT play a limited role in that. Fact is that natural variations have been largely under estimated and the role of CO2 is way over estimated. As witnessed by the failures of most climate models to predict temperature even 15 or 20 years out..

As for the 2degC trigger -- it's headline news. It's the mantra of the next Climate Conf. in Paris. And it's the most quoted number for the "trigger". Interestingly enough, the REAL warming powers of CO2 would NEVER get us to 5degC by itself.. Not without the speculated (imagined) list of positive feedbacks and magic multipliers that are the CORE of the debate.

If the Earth was gonna go suicidal with a 2degC spike in warming -- we wouldn't be here now. THAT's what your GW speculates.

So are you aware of the socio-political statements that CONFIRM the larger agenda of the GW Zealots?
I'll provide them for you if you're really oblivious to the movement side of this circus.

My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade.
I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) .
That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands.

Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.

How do you support your supposition? There is almost no empirical data to support that.

It's actually quite simple : co2 gives a blanket effect the effect is not immediate, it builds up with time.
Some people cheer at the fact that we have 400 ppm co2 and almost no warming .
But the correct expression is : we've had 400 ppm for one year and have had almost no warming. We will probably see the effects 5 or 10 years later. That's why I am almost certain we are under no immedeate threat.
By analogy when you put a lid on a pan being heated you will not notice the effect immediately , but wait five minutes and you'll notice the effect on the temperature.

The problem is you misunderstand how the greenhouse effect works. It doesn't warm up anything. It merely prevents heat from escaping into space. It is a blanket and not an electric blanket. Absent our atmosphere the Earth would be like the Moon, blistering hot during the day and hundreds below zero at night. Our atmosphere keeps the heat in. That's all. It does not add heat. The Sun is the source of heat on the planet with a dash of geologic heat from the core as it transmits to the mantle and finally the crust with eruptions.

 

[westwall]

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So tell me, where exaxctly is mans input signal? Where is the rise attributed to man contributions? It is not in the empirically observed evidence.

It is possible that the CO2 doesn't have an immediat effect , but rather it takes several years to cause an increase in temperature.
I'll admit that's speculation on my part, since I am no climatologist. On the other hand to say that chart is correct you would have to proove the oposite : that the full blown effects of increase in CO2 are felt in the following year in which it was produced.
There goes a plausible explanation for the lack of correlation in your chart .

All empirical data says otherwise. The data shows warming occurs and then, between 400 and 800 years AFTER the warming there is a corresponding rise in CO2. CO2 has NEVER initiated a rise in global temperature. It has always risen as a result of warming.

Interesting.... any links ?

Here you go....





"Carbon dioxide follows temperature in the Vostok Ice Cores
In the 1990′s the classic Vostok ice core graph showed temperature and carbon in lock step moving at the same time. It made sense to worry that carbon dioxide did influence temperature. But by 2003 new data came in and it was clear that carbon lagged behind temperature. The link was back to front. Temperatures appear to control carbon, and while it’s possible that carbon also influences temperature these ice cores don’t show much evidence of that. After temperatures rise, on average it takes 800 years before carbon starts to move. The extraordinary thing is that the lag is well accepted by climatologists, yet virtually unknown outside these circles. The fact that temperature leads is not controversial. It’s relevance is debated."

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed « JoNova

ANZICE - Antarctic Research Centre - Victoria University of Wellington

 

[Billy_Bob]

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2 or MMGW. During the time they claim runway rise, it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

So tell me, where exaxctly is mans input signal? Where is the rise attributed to man contributions? It is not in the empirically observed evidence.

It is possible that the CO2 doesn't have an immediat effect , but rather it takes several years to cause an increase in temperature.
I'll admit that's speculation on my part, since I am no climatologist. On the other hand to say that chart is correct you would have to proove the oposite : that the full blown effects of increase in CO2 are felt in the following year in which it was produced.
There goes a plausible explanation for the lack of correlation in your chart .

One problem with your hypothesis, the residency time for CO2 in our atmosphere is less than 40 years ( could be as little as 7 years). It is not 100 years or 1000 years as postulated by our EPA and the IPCC which would allow us to build up exponentially and ultimately cause rapid rise in CO2 levels. A recent paper lays the driving premise of the EPA and IPCC waste..

CO2 residence time said to be 40 years, not 1000 per previous claims

Even then, the water (convection cycle) is not slowed by CO2 and it by itself, will allow heat escape faster than CO2 can retard it.

Ok , let's say the co2 takes 10 years to take its full effect. The co2 curve in the chart you showed should be shifted 10 years to show a correlation ( if my hunch is correct).That would be the input co2 levels, with a lag time.
Anyway that was this year, and it will probably take a while before we notice the effects. I am really waiting until 2020 to see the weather tendency. As I said earlier we are not in an emergency situation yet.

One problem... our current lack of warming and no decrease in rate of CO2 climb. The paths, if we use your analogy, should have resulted in warming by this time.

It is common knowledge by most oceanographers that the heat storage of the oceans is about 12-16 years lag. We are now at 18 years 9 months of no warming. Not far enough beyond the known lag factor to totally disprove it but far enough along to show there is very little if no correlation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well , believe it or not there's people who actually deny the warming ( yes , they simply deny Earth has had any warming at all), I have not been specific on that , because It is irrelevant for the discussion. I simply want to dwelve into the different theories of why would factual powers create a conspiracy about this.

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2.

A shift from fosil to renewables will necesarily have both economical and political implications. I did not start of this thread to "find by myself" but rather from hear them from others.

Nobody with any science background that matters denies the small warming blip during your lifetime. Or that CO2 MIGHT play a limited role in that. Fact is that natural variations have been largely under estimated and the role of CO2 is way over estimated. As witnessed by the failures of most climate models to predict temperature even 15 or 20 years out..

As for the 2degC trigger -- it's headline news. It's the mantra of the next Climate Conf. in Paris. And it's the most quoted number for the "trigger". Interestingly enough, the REAL warming powers of CO2 would NEVER get us to 5degC by itself.. Not without the speculated (imagined) list of positive feedbacks and magic multipliers that are the CORE of the debate.

If the Earth was gonna go suicidal with a 2degC spike in warming -- we wouldn't be here now. THAT's what your GW speculates.

So are you aware of the socio-political statements that CONFIRM the larger agenda of the GW Zealots?
I'll provide them for you if you're really oblivious to the movement side of this circus.

My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade.
I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) .
That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands.

Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.

How do you support your supposition? There is almost no empirical data to support that.

It's actually quite simple : co2 gives a blanket effect the effect is not immediate, it builds up with time.
Some people cheer at the fact that we have 400 ppm co2 and almost no warming .
But the correct expression is : we've had 400 ppm for one year and have had almost no warming. We will probably see the effects 5 or 10 years later. That's why I am almost certain we are under no immedeate threat.
By analogy when you put a lid on a pan being heated you will not notice the effect immediately , but wait five minutes and you'll notice the effect on the temperature.

The problem is you misunderstand how the greenhouse effect works. It doesn't warm up anything. It merely prevents heat from escaping into space. It is a blanket and not an electric blanket. Absent our atmosphere the Earth would be like the Moon, blistering hot during the day and hundreds below zero at night. Our atmosphere keeps the heat in. That's all. It does not add heat. The Sun is the source of heat on the planet with a dash of geologic heat from the core as it transmits to the mantle and finally the crust with eruptions.

Interesting note; The paper I posted up thread shows how water vapor increases ever so slightly with CO2 rise. This minute rise in water vapor is not thwarted by CO2 as it rises above the so called "thermal Blanket" that the activist like to call it., and releases its IR to space.when the water cycle speeds up CO2 is powerless to stop the cooling that will happen.

The paper shows how three different systems thwart the CO2 slowing of IR in the lower areas of the atmosphere. Currently we are at 0.76 deg C Rise for 115 years and about 120ppm of rise. Far less than a 1.21 deg C rise that occurs with CO2 alone in the lab.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Ferdinand Engelbeen Phd;

Conclusion: Most of the CO2 increase is caused by human emissions. Most of the variability is natural variability. The match between temperature and CO2 rate of change is entirely spurious.

Source

I think that while we may be causing some rise it is not as much as many people think. 1.57ppm of our rise/yr is naturally occurring leaving just 1.0 ppm from man made emissions. But I do disagree with some of her numbers.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well , believe it or not there's people who actually deny the warming ( yes , they simply deny Earth has had any warming at all), I have not been specific on that , because It is irrelevant for the discussion. I simply want to dwelve into the different theories of why would factual powers create a conspiracy about this.

Hmm , I guess you should share your sources. I've heard 5 degrees C will send us into a heat spiral, not 2.

A shift from fosil to renewables will necesarily have both economical and political implications. I did not start of this thread to "find by myself" but rather from hear them from others.

Nobody with any science background that matters denies the small warming blip during your lifetime. Or that CO2 MIGHT play a limited role in that. Fact is that natural variations have been largely under estimated and the role of CO2 is way over estimated. As witnessed by the failures of most climate models to predict temperature even 15 or 20 years out..

As for the 2degC trigger -- it's headline news. It's the mantra of the next Climate Conf. in Paris. And it's the most quoted number for the "trigger". Interestingly enough, the REAL warming powers of CO2 would NEVER get us to 5degC by itself.. Not without the speculated (imagined) list of positive feedbacks and magic multipliers that are the CORE of the debate.

If the Earth was gonna go suicidal with a 2degC spike in warming -- we wouldn't be here now. THAT's what your GW speculates.

So are you aware of the socio-political statements that CONFIRM the larger agenda of the GW Zealots?
I'll provide them for you if you're really oblivious to the movement side of this circus.

My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade.
I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) .
That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands.

Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.

How do you support your supposition? There is almost no empirical data to support that.

It's actually quite simple : co2 gives a blanket effect the effect is not immediate, it builds up with time.
Some people cheer at the fact that we have 400 ppm co2 and almost no warming .
But the correct expression is : we've had 400 ppm for one year and have had almost no warming. We will probably see the effects 5 or 10 years later. That's why I am almost certain we are under no immedeate threat.
By analogy when you put a lid on a pan being heated you will not notice the effect immediately , but wait five minutes and you'll notice the effect on the temperature.

The problem is you misunderstand how the greenhouse effect works. It doesn't warm up anything. It merely prevents heat from escaping into space. It is a blanket and not an electric blanket. Absent our atmosphere the Earth would be like the Moon, blistering hot during the day and hundreds below zero at night. Our atmosphere keeps the heat in. That's all. It does not add heat. The Sun is the source of heat on the planet with a dash of geologic heat from the core as it transmits to the mantle and finally the crust with eruptions.

No , I didn't say it warmed anything I said :
"By analogy when you put a lid on a pan being heated", so I was comparing it to a lid put on top of a pan.
It seems you misunderstood my analogy.

 

[westwall]

Nobody with any science background that matters denies the small warming blip during your lifetime. Or that CO2 MIGHT play a limited role in that. Fact is that natural variations have been largely under estimated and the role of CO2 is way over estimated. As witnessed by the failures of most climate models to predict temperature even 15 or 20 years out..

As for the 2degC trigger -- it's headline news. It's the mantra of the next Climate Conf. in Paris. And it's the most quoted number for the "trigger". Interestingly enough, the REAL warming powers of CO2 would NEVER get us to 5degC by itself.. Not without the speculated (imagined) list of positive feedbacks and magic multipliers that are the CORE of the debate.

If the Earth was gonna go suicidal with a 2degC spike in warming -- we wouldn't be here now. THAT's what your GW speculates.

So are you aware of the socio-political statements that CONFIRM the larger agenda of the GW Zealots?
I'll provide them for you if you're really oblivious to the movement side of this circus.

My current position on AWG is that most of the warming we've had is manmade.
I don't think we are in an emergency situation yet and we will not be in one in the short term ( 5-10 years ) .
That said, I don't quite like fosil fuels, specially when they come from fracking or tar sands.

Regarding the global control agenda: some of it may be true, but solar , some storage technologies and 100+ mpg vehicles might just be doing the opposite.

How do you support your supposition? There is almost no empirical data to support that.

It's actually quite simple : co2 gives a blanket effect the effect is not immediate, it builds up with time.
Some people cheer at the fact that we have 400 ppm co2 and almost no warming .
But the correct expression is : we've had 400 ppm for one year and have had almost no warming. We will probably see the effects 5 or 10 years later. That's why I am almost certain we are under no immedeate threat.
By analogy when you put a lid on a pan being heated you will not notice the effect immediately , but wait five minutes and you'll notice the effect on the temperature.

The problem is you misunderstand how the greenhouse effect works. It doesn't warm up anything. It merely prevents heat from escaping into space. It is a blanket and not an electric blanket. Absent our atmosphere the Earth would be like the Moon, blistering hot during the day and hundreds below zero at night. Our atmosphere keeps the heat in. That's all. It does not add heat. The Sun is the source of heat on the planet with a dash of geologic heat from the core as it transmits to the mantle and finally the crust with eruptions.

No , I didn't say it warmed anything I said :
"By analogy when you put a lid on a pan being heated", so I was comparing it to a lid put on top of a pan.
It seems you misunderstood my analogy.

No, I understood your analogy, but as you don't understand the relationship between greenhouse gases and the global temperature your analogy fails. The pan is heated by external means but it can only heat it to a certain point, all covering the pan does is bring it up to that temperature faster. The same is true of the Earth. The Sun heats the planet but it can only heat it to a certain point. Any claim of runaway temperature from CO2 is thus a violation of physics as we know it. The Earth is not a perpetual motion machine.