how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[westwall]

How does big oil and big insurance make money from less demand for fossil fuels?

Insurance companies get to make money for nothing based on the climate fraud. Look at all those disasters that have been attributed to a non entity. They get to charge you money for your premiums and they have zero risk. It's an insurance mans wet dream.

Big Oil is heavily invested in the green tech. I thought you were up on these things? Big Oil has been pumping money into the various wind and solar companies and getting a nice tax break from the various governments...paid for by the little guy rate payers mind you. The demand for oil will never abate. If the EV technology gets to the point where it can supplant fossil fuels then the oil will be used for the manufacture of plastics and other more useful things like that.

It is a shame that a commodity like oil is used to power our vehicles. It truly is. It has so many more useful uses. Unfortunately it is STILL the most efficient method of powering our economy.

I have had insurance on my stuff since long before AGW was proven.

I have a Prius. It's available because auto engineers ignored people like you and payed attention to climate science. The bottom line? Big oil is losing money on people like me. I hope to soon put our military out of the business of defending our oil supplies. The new CAFE standards will give many more people the chance to save on transportation costs.

All because nobody is paying attention any more to your incessant whining.

You and your clones are here incessantly trying to bury what I and the others have to say. You want a whiner? Look in the mirror Tojo!

 

[westwall]

Every science experiment is a model of the natural world testing a hypothesis about it. Some support the hypothesis, some deny it. Scientists learn from every one. Political pundits learn from none of them.

That's why smart people learn about the natural world from scientists and morons learn about the natural world from political pundits.

Untrue. A good model yes, the problem is there is not one good climate computer model. Not one. They are all simplistic trying to model exceptionally complex systems. They were doomed to fail and have done nothing but fail since they were created.

Vague bs.

Yes. I am amazed that AGW supporters have been able to thrive for as long as they have with the vague BS they have been spouting for years. That's why you and your clones are here trying to bury what we have to say.



You will fail.

 

[westwall]

Tell us about the connection between GHGs and fresh water wells in California?

There is none. Look up what MTBE did to the water wells in California. MTBE that was mandated to be used by you environmentalists. You're not very good at this are you...

So what is the unacceptable level of MTBEs in ground water and how did it get there?

Any level is unacceptable as it is a carcinogen, highly caustic, and poisonous. And it got there because idiots like you mandated it to be used in gasoline, even after real scientists (of which I was one) told you how bad the crap was.

Yet another example of ignorant anti-science toads ignoring good hard science and stamping their feet to get what they wanted because it made them feel good. You idiots are all alike. Ready, Fire, Aim.

 

[westwall]

To Westwall, a good climate model would be one that demonstrates that the guess that was made a couple of decades ago by political entertainers, based on zero knowledge, had turned out to be correct.

To date, no climate theories or models or data support what he wants to be true, in order for him to not look ignorant, so they have failed him.

I agree that they have failed him.

Who they haven't failed is, pretty much, the rest of the world. The theories and models and data show that there is a big price to be paid for our unrestrained use of fossil fuels. Deaths and damage from extreme weather made more likely by energy imbalance in the atmosphere that warms the earth.

So, with that knowledge, we can make good decisions to minimize the real cost of our future energy.

Good for us. Bad for him. Intolerable to those who feel entitled.

I think that the proper name for such unproductive noise is whining.

So, this conflict between the doers and whiners, between those who work at progress and those who feel entitled, will go on.

Unfortunately for you not one of your computer models has ever predicted anything.

They predicted what's been measured. They didn't predict what you wish was true so that you might be mistaken for informed. Nothing has predicted, measured, or theorized that except for you and your homies.

No, they havn't. In fact they have been so catastrophically wrong that the last 15 year period of no rise in temps has completely flustered your High Priests. It seems they are not very good at their job and had to resort to lying. Unfortunately for them they got caught....because..........well you see they aren't that smart.

 

[PMZ]

There is none. Look up what MTBE did to the water wells in California. MTBE that was mandated to be used by you environmentalists. You're not very good at this are you...

What contaminated the groundwater was our addiction to fossil fuel fired traveling McMansions.

One of the choices required by that ridiculousness was between lead, and MTBE and ethanol.

The solution is well designed hybrids for now going to electrics.

Provably wrong. Lead was removed years before MTBE was ever added to the gasoline. Ethanol is a ******* joke. MORE CO2 is created in its manufacture than is the result of oil cracking and fuel and other POL consumption. You are simply, catastrophically wrong.

A TDI gets better fuel mileage than a hybrid. By a lot. It is also far less damaging to the environment to manufacture. Provably so.

You're batting .000. Time to get a pinch hitter 'cause you suck.

From Wkipedia on tetra ethyl lead:

"In most industrialised countries, a phaseout of TEL from motor fuels was completed by the early 2000s because of concerns over air and soil lead levels and the accumulative neurotoxicity of lead. Leaded fuel also spoils catalytic converters, which were introduced in the 1970s to meet tightening emissions regulations. The need for TEL was lessened by several advances in automotive engineering and petroleum chemistry. Safer methods for making higher octane blending stocks such as reformate and iso-octane reduced the need to rely on TEL, as did other antiknock additives of varying toxicity including metallic compounds such as MMT; oxygenates including MTBE, TAME, and ETBE."

A TDI gets better gas mileage than a hybrid except in an actual car driven on a real road. The higher cost in the US of diesel fuel negates any advantage it has over even non-hybrids.

Keep swinging hotshot. Statistics dictate that you'll connect by accident someday.

 

[PMZ]

Every science experiment is a model of the natural world testing a hypothesis about it. Some support the hypothesis, some deny it. Scientists learn from every one. Political pundits learn from none of them.

That's why smart people learn about the natural world from scientists and morons learn about the natural world from political pundits.

The fact remains that climate models have failed miserably. That is due to the fact that they are not based on real world physics. They are based in wishful thinking, assumptions, fabrications and outright fraud.

They have failed you miserably because you have failed miserably understanding science. They have supported qualified scientists and visa versa.

 

[itfitzme]

So this assembler asks me a question, and I tell him the answer. *He is stunned. *"I just asked the design engineer the same question," he says, "and he said exactly what you said." *"Of course he did," I replied, "That's because it's science and engineering. *There is only one answer, the right one, and we both studied engineering."

It's not a matter of opinion, dude. *Your task is to learn the science, the correct science, not some made up bs you found on some conspiracy theory website. This is why colleges have to be accredited. *So people don't waste their precious time and money learning some crackpot bs.* And so when some exec hires a couple of degreed engineers, he knows they didn't study some crackpot bs.

Would you want your doctor getting his medical degree from some crackpot university and perscribing you eye of newt for your herpies?

 

[itfitzme]

There is none. Look up what MTBE did to the water wells in California. MTBE that was mandated to be used by you environmentalists. You're not very good at this are you...

So what is the unacceptable level of MTBEs in ground water and how did it get there?

Any level is unacceptable as it is a carcinogen, highly caustic, and poisonous. And it got there because idiots like you mandated it to be used in gasoline, even after real scientists (of which I was one) told you how bad the crap was.

Yet another example of ignorant anti-science toads ignoring good hard science and stamping their feet to get what they wanted because it made them feel good. You idiots are all alike. Ready, Fire, Aim.

How much, exactly, in ppm. A number, numbnuts. And detail the mechanism by which it got there. Not some vague pussified bs that you always spout because you're to chicken to be specific.

 

[SSDD]

The absorption of energy puts the molecule at a higher energy state. What happens after that depends on the environment the molecule finds itself in. In a typical atmospheric environment, the energy does get re-emitted in all directions, half of it down. That's why the earth has to go to an elevated temperature to rebalance incoming solar energy. No matter how hard you try to sell the opposite, energy is conserved.

What does the Second Law of Thermodynamics say about energy moving from a higher entropy state (the atmosphere) to a lower entropy state (the surface of the earth)?

If you don't understand that question then what does the Second Law of Thermodynamics say about energy moving from a low temperature area (the atmosphere) to a higher temperature area (the surface of the earth)?

I don't know Professor Woods, but he doesn't sound any smarter than you do.

Of course you don't. They don't give out such information over at skeptical science. Wouldn't want to be tempting the faithful.

 

[SSDD]

They have failed you miserably because you have failed miserably understanding science. They have supported qualified scientists and visa versa.

The more the hoax breaks down, the more we see who the real deniers are.

Here are the models vs reality: As you can see, they have completely diverged from reality. Only a true denier would attempt to defend the obvious failure of climate models in favor of direct observation.

 

[itfitzme]

Unfortunately for you not one of your computer models has ever predicted anything.

They predicted what's been measured. They didn't predict what you wish was true so that you might be mistaken for informed. Nothing has predicted, measured, or theorized that except for you and your homies.

No, they havn't. In fact they have been so catastrophically wrong that the last 15 year period of no rise in temps has completely flustered your High Priests. It seems they are not very good at their job and had to resort to lying. Unfortunately for them they got caught....because..........well you see they aren't that smart.

You have difficulty with the concepts of accuracy, precision, statistcal significance, and confidence level. You really need to stay away from science.

I'd recommend that you avoid the fields of insurance, economics, and finance as well. Avoid the casinos, that'll drive you nuts.

 

[SSDD]

So what is the unacceptable level of MTBEs in ground water and how did it get there?

Any level is unacceptable as it is a carcinogen, highly caustic, and poisonous. And it got there because idiots like you mandated it to be used in gasoline, even after real scientists (of which I was one) told you how bad the crap was.

Yet another example of ignorant anti-science toads ignoring good hard science and stamping their feet to get what they wanted because it made them feel good. You idiots are all alike. Ready, Fire, Aim.

How much, exactly, in ppm. A number, numbnuts. And detail the mechanism by which it got there. Not some vague pussified bs that you always spout because you're to chicken to be specific.

Which part of "ANY" is it that you don't understand? You seem to have a perpetual problem with the meanings of words. Here, have a definition....on the house.

any - adj. - in whatever quantity or number, great or small

 

[SSDD]

You have difficulty with the concepts of accuracy, precision, statistcal significance, and confidence level. You really need to stay away from science.

Clearly and undeniably it is you who has problems with those concepts since you are still trying to defend climate models when they have diverged completely away from observation for more than 8 years even with constant tweaking.

You are laughable...and pitiful.

 

[westwall]

What contaminated the groundwater was our addiction to fossil fuel fired traveling McMansions.

One of the choices required by that ridiculousness was between lead, and MTBE and ethanol.

The solution is well designed hybrids for now going to electrics.

Provably wrong. Lead was removed years before MTBE was ever added to the gasoline. Ethanol is a ******* joke. MORE CO2 is created in its manufacture than is the result of oil cracking and fuel and other POL consumption. You are simply, catastrophically wrong.

A TDI gets better fuel mileage than a hybrid. By a lot. It is also far less damaging to the environment to manufacture. Provably so.

You're batting .000. Time to get a pinch hitter 'cause you suck.

From Wkipedia on tetra ethyl lead:

"In most industrialised countries, a phaseout of TEL from motor fuels was completed by the early 2000s because of concerns over air and soil lead levels and the accumulative neurotoxicity of lead. Leaded fuel also spoils catalytic converters, which were introduced in the 1970s to meet tightening emissions regulations. The need for TEL was lessened by several advances in automotive engineering and petroleum chemistry. Safer methods for making higher octane blending stocks such as reformate and iso-octane reduced the need to rely on TEL, as did other antiknock additives of varying toxicity including metallic compounds such as MMT; oxygenates including MTBE, TAME, and ETBE."

A TDI gets better gas mileage than a hybrid except in an actual car driven on a real road. The higher cost in the US of diesel fuel negates any advantage it has over even non-hybrids.

Keep swinging hotshot. Statistics dictate that you'll connect by accident someday.

Sure thing Tojo. I see your understanding of cars is as poor as your scientific acumen.


53/46 Toyota Prius c
51/48 Toyota Prius Liftback
47/47 Ford C-Max Hybrid
44/44 Honda Civic Hybrid
43/40 Lexus CT200h
42/48 Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid
41/36 Ford Fusion Hybrid
35/40 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid




"58.82 MPG World Record set by Jetta TDI

Herndon, VA – The most fuel efficient car across North America is not a hybrid. It’s a diesel. A Volkswagen Jetta TDI Clean Diesel, to be exact. Making its way across the nation and into a world records, a Jetta TDI recently achieved 58.82 MPG during a successful 9,419 mile bid for the lowest fuel consumption across the Continental United States. Despite being officially rated at “just” 30 MPG city and 41 MPG highway by the EPA, the Jetta TDI managed a whopping 14 percent improvement over the previous record of 51.58 MPG.

Set under real world conditions with a completely stocked Jetta TDI, the record attempt began on September 5, 2008, in Washington D.C., and passed through (take a deep breath): New York, NY; Rutland, VT; Toledo, OH; Des Moines, IA; Spearfish, SD; Missoula, MT; Winnemucca, NV; Santa Monica, CA; Durango, CO; Oklahoma City, OK; Mount Vernon, IL; and Ponchatoula, LA; before finishing up 20 days later and 11.04 tanks of fuel lighter in Beckley, WV. The world record was achieved using simple driving techniques that maximized the already exceptionally efficient TDI engine. Despite the less than ideal weather conditions, varied terrain and frequent traffic congestion, the entire journey’s fuel cost came in at a paltry $653, with the Jetta TDI Clean Diesel’s average consumption costing just 6.9 cents per mile.



58.82 MPG World Record set by Jetta TDI - TDI Truth & Dare - VW.com - Think Blue - VW.com

 

[itfitzme]

They have failed you miserably because you have failed miserably understanding science. They have supported qualified scientists and visa versa.

The more the hoax breaks down, the more we see who the real deniers are.

Here are the models vs reality: As you can see, they have completely diverged from reality. Only a true denier would attempt to defend the obvious failure of climate models in favor of direct observation.

Problem is you have to lie to demonstrate anything.

A Simple Model of Global Average Surface Temperature « Roy Spencer, PhD

"A Simple Model of Global Average Surface Temperature

And, yes, you can try this at home.

I put together a simple surface energy balance model in an Excel spreadsheet so people can play around with the inputs. It computes the time changing surface temperature for any combination of: *

1) absorbed sunlight (nominally 161 W/m2)
2) ocean mixed layer depth (does not affect final equilibrium temperature)
3) initial temperature of the ocean mixed layer (does not affect final equilibrium temperature)
4) atmospheric IR transmittance (yes, you can set it to 1 if you are carrying your sky dragon slayer [SDS] ID card)
5) effective temperature of downwelling sky radiation (nominally 283 K, but in effect becomes zero if transmittance=1)
6) surface convective heat loss (nominally 97 W/m2)"

And the output is;

So even your Dr. Roy Spencer has a model, not a good one though.

The BS you put up isn't a comparison of global mean temps to global measured data. *It is balloon data and selected satellite data. And who knows what the other shit is. It sure isn't what is published, by the IPCC, as their model output.

This is the IPCC model outputs compared to the real data.

 

[itfitzme]

You have difficulty with the concepts of accuracy, precision, statistcal significance, and confidence level. You really need to stay away from science.

Clearly and undeniably it is you who has problems with those concepts since you are still trying to defend climate models when they have diverged completely away from observation for more than 8 years even with constant tweaking.

You are laughable...and pitiful.

Problem is you have to lie to demonstrate anything.

A Simple Model of Global Average Surface Temperature « Roy Spencer, PhD

"A Simple Model of Global Average Surface Temperature

And, yes, you can try this at home.

I put together a simple surface energy balance model in an Excel spreadsheet so people can play around with the inputs. It computes the time changing surface temperature for any combination of: *

1) absorbed sunlight (nominally 161 W/m2)
2) ocean mixed layer depth (does not affect final equilibrium temperature)
3) initial temperature of the ocean mixed layer (does not affect final equilibrium temperature)
4) atmospheric IR transmittance (yes, you can set it to 1 if you are carrying your sky dragon slayer [SDS] ID card)
5) effective temperature of downwelling sky radiation (nominally 283 K, but in effect becomes zero if transmittance=1)
6) surface convective heat loss (nominally 97 W/m2)"

And the output is;

So even your Dr. Roy Spencer has a model, not a good one though.

The BS you put up isn't a comparison of global mean temps to global measured data. *It is balloon data.

This is the IPCC model outputs compared to the real data.

I shouldn't accuse younof lying. Perhaps you are just to stupid to know how to read a graph.

 

[SSDD]

Roy's model failed just like all the rest. It is truely sad to watch you attempt to defend that which has spectacularly and undeniably failed.

The more you talk, the more evident it becomes that you don't know squat.

 

[westwall]

So what is the unacceptable level of MTBEs in ground water and how did it get there?

Any level is unacceptable as it is a carcinogen, highly caustic, and poisonous. And it got there because idiots like you mandated it to be used in gasoline, even after real scientists (of which I was one) told you how bad the crap was.

Yet another example of ignorant anti-science toads ignoring good hard science and stamping their feet to get what they wanted because it made them feel good. You idiots are all alike. Ready, Fire, Aim.

How much, exactly, in ppm. A number, numbnuts. And detail the mechanism by which it got there. Not some vague pussified bs that you always spout because you're to chicken to be specific.

Ohhhhh, so NOW you want specific numbers eh numbskull Well here you go and it is in parts per BILLION, not million....idjit.


5. Three-quarters of Californias surface water reservoirs have no detectable or less than 5ppb MTBE. About 10% are above 14ppb. The California State standard is 35ppb maximum but will be reduced to 5ppb.

The mechanism was it was added to fuel. It was burned in cars. It ate its way through underground fuel tanks, it was washed into the storm drains, it was, in other words, a full out assault by you idjits on the water supply of California...


Fuels and Society i. MTBE in Water

 

[westwall]

They predicted what's been measured. They didn't predict what you wish was true so that you might be mistaken for informed. Nothing has predicted, measured, or theorized that except for you and your homies.

No, they havn't. In fact they have been so catastrophically wrong that the last 15 year period of no rise in temps has completely flustered your High Priests. It seems they are not very good at their job and had to resort to lying. Unfortunately for them they got caught....because..........well you see they aren't that smart.

You have difficulty with the concepts of accuracy, precision, statistcal significance, and confidence level. You really need to stay away from science.

I'd recommend that you avoid the fields of insurance, economics, and finance as well. Avoid the casinos, that'll drive you nuts.

Yes, I do have a problem with your methods, because you HAVE NO STANDARDS. For a scientist that is a HUGE issue.

 

[westwall]

They have failed you miserably because you have failed miserably understanding science. They have supported qualified scientists and visa versa.

The more the hoax breaks down, the more we see who the real deniers are.

Here are the models vs reality: As you can see, they have completely diverged from reality. Only a true denier would attempt to defend the obvious failure of climate models in favor of direct observation.

Problem is you have to lie to demonstrate anything.

A Simple Model of Global Average Surface Temperature « Roy Spencer, PhD

"A Simple Model of Global Average Surface Temperature

And, yes, you can try this at home.

I put together a simple surface energy balance model in an Excel spreadsheet so people can play around with the inputs. It computes the time changing surface temperature for any combination of: *

1) absorbed sunlight (nominally 161 W/m2)
2) ocean mixed layer depth (does not affect final equilibrium temperature)
3) initial temperature of the ocean mixed layer (does not affect final equilibrium temperature)
4) atmospheric IR transmittance (yes, you can set it to 1 if you are carrying your sky dragon slayer [SDS] ID card)
5) effective temperature of downwelling sky radiation (nominally 283 K, but in effect becomes zero if transmittance=1)
6) surface convective heat loss (nominally 97 W/m2)"

And the output is;

So even your Dr. Roy Spencer has a model, not a good one though.

The BS you put up isn't a comparison of global mean temps to global measured data. *It is balloon data and selected satellite data. And who knows what the other shit is. It sure isn't what is published, by the IPCC, as their model output.

This is the IPCC model outputs compared to the real data.

The new AGW mantra should be Simple Equals WRONG.