The Iron Law of power density and the myth of solar and wind energy .....

[ding]

Instruction book? I would recommend a product from the IPCC's third working groups called "Mitigating Climate Change" found at AR6 Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — IPCC

I can't get past their burying the GHG effect in their feedbacks and that you won't even acknowledge it.

 

[Crick]

something written by the people claiming a catastrophy [sic] isnt an instruction book,, its propaganda to support their false claims,,,

I thought you wanted to have some sort of conversation. Instead all you have done here is make unsubstantiated assertions. You have presented zero evidence for any of your many claims. Zero.

if youre going to lie at least make it believable,,

I have not lied.

the forrest [sic] in vermonyt [sic] has nothing to do with a building in california,, well other than a money making scam,,,

I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about now. Much of your posting has been simply incomprehensible.

and why do you ignore the scientist that claim its not happening??

Because they are much fewer and far less qualified than the scientists who say it is. Why do you not just ignore them but accuse them of pusing propaganda and false claims - of lying? Why would they lie to you?

 

[progressive hunter]

I thought you wanted to have some sort of conversation. Instead all you have done here is make unsubstantiated assertions. You have presented zero evidence for any of your many claims. Zero.

I have not lied.

I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about now. Much of your posting has been simply incomprehensible.

Because they are much fewer and far less qualified than the scientists who say it is. Why do you not just ignore them but accuse them of pusing propaganda and false claims - of lying? Why would they lie to you?

where did I ask for a conversion of anykind,,

I was specific I wanted something that shows what it is supposed to be,, and not from the people making the claim,,

I know its a trick question because the planet did not come with an instruction book that told us what to expect,,

of course the ones you dont agree with are less qualified,, if they agreed with you would you believe them?? my guess is you would,,

 

[Crick]

where did I ask for a conversion of anykind,,

when you can show me an instruction book on what the temp is supposed to be we can have a productive discussion on the topic,,​

until then its all made up BS to enrich elites and control the masses,,​

I was specific I wanted something that shows what it is supposed to be,, and not from the people making the claim,,

You did not add that qualification until after I had provided you a perfectly good answer that provided specifically the information for which you asked.

I know its a trick question because the planet did not come with an instruction book that told us what to expect,,

You did not ask to know what to expect. You asked to know what the temperature is "supposed to be"

of course the ones you dont agree with are less qualified,, if they agreed with you would you believe them?? my guess is you would,,

The vast majority of "scientists" who disagree with the IPCC conclusions are NOT climate scientists and they are VASTLY outnumbered by the climate scientists and the scientists of all fields who accept the IPCC conclusions.

 

[progressive hunter]

You did not add that qualification until after I had provided you a perfectly good answer that provided specifically the information for which you asked.

You did not ask to know what to expect. You asked to know what the temperature is "supposed to be"

The vast majority of "scientists" who disagree with the IPCC conclusions are NOT climate scientists and they are VASTLY outnumbered by the climate scientists and the scientists of all fields who accept the IPCC conclusions.

I was specific from the beginning I wanted an instruction book showing what the panet temp is supposed to be,,
not a claim by the same group of people claiming we are over heating and that humans are to blame,,

science is determined on a popular vote,,

 

[Crick]

I was specific from the beginning I wanted an instruction book showing what the panet temp is supposed to be,,

Correct. Your initial specification made no mention of the IPCC by any means. You gave no disqualifying criteria whatsoever.

not a claim by the same group of people claiming we are over heating and that humans are to blame,

No. You did not add this qualification till post #200. I provided you precisely what you asked for and you turned it down. You're not being completely honest with me here.

science is determined on a popular vote,,

The degree to which any scientific theory is deemed accepted can be determined by surveys or polls. That 99% of climate scientists accept the IPCC conclusions dramatically outweighs the opinions of the remaining 1% or the small fraction of other science branches that reject AGW. AGW is a very widely accepted theory. For all practifcal purposes, science is going to treat it as if it were an established fact, which makes me very curious as to why you reject it; why you believe it to be a "fraud".

 

[progressive hunter]

Correct. Your initial specification made no mention of the IPCC by any means. You gave no disqualifying criteria whatsoever.

No. You did not add this qualification till post #200. I provided you precisely what you asked for and you turned it down. You're not being completely honest with me here.

The degree to which any scientific theory is deemed accepted can be determined by surveys or polls. That 99% of climate scientists accept the IPCC conclusions dramatically outweighs the opinions of the remaining 1% or the small fraction of other science branches that reject AGW. AGW is a very widely accepted theory. For all practifcal purposes, science is going to treat it as if it were an established fact, which makes me very curious as to why you reject it; why you believe it to be a "fraud".

so you have nothing showing what the planets temp is supposed to be,,

without that how can you make a claim warming is bad??

it could be normal for the earth to warm,,

 

[Crick]

so you have nothing showing what the planets temp is supposed to be,,

You're beginning to annoy me. From this thread, post #195

All three of these show temperatures before AGW began. If the Earth is "supposed to be" a temperature, it is the temperature it had then.

without that how can you make a claim warming is bad??

Sea level rise, increasing temperatures, ice losses reducing drinking water supplies, crop failures, extreme weather events, ocean acidification, dramatically accelerated extinction rates.

it could be normal for the earth to warm,,

It is NOT normal for CO2 or temperatures to increase as quickly as they have over the last 150 years. CO2 is higher and increasing faster than it has in the last 3 million years. The Earth's current temperature is likely the hottest the planet has been in over 2 million years and it is still climbing at an unprecedented rate.

 

[Woodznutz]

Mainly cars for a start. EV's can't do it 1 for 1.
I would suggest even 1 for 10 will be very difficult.
Lacking means of necessary transportation is 'downward' until solutions are found and implemented.

Drive less, keep and maintain vehicles longer.

 

[progressive hunter]

You're beginning to annoy me. From this thread, post #195

View attachment 865386

View attachment 865387

View attachment 865388

All three of these show temperatures before AGW began. If the Earth is "supposed to be" a temperature, it is the temperature it had then.


Sea level rise, increasing temperatures, ice losses reducing drinking water supplies, crop failures, extreme weather events, ocean acidification, dramatically accelerated extinction rates.


It is NOT normal for CO2 or temperatures to increase as quickly as they have over the last 150 years. CO2 is higher and increasing faster than it has in the last 3 million years. The Earth's current temperature is likely the hottest the planet has been in over 2 million years and it is still climbing at an unprecedented rate.

I didnt ask for what the temps are/were,,

I asked for what they are supposed to be,,

how do you know its not normal for CO2 or temps to increase quickly??

wheres the instruction book that tells you that??

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're beginning to annoy me. From this thread, post #195

View attachment 865386

View attachment 865387

View attachment 865388

All three of these show temperatures before AGW began. If the Earth is "supposed to be" a temperature, it is the temperature it had then.


Sea level rise, increasing temperatures, ice losses reducing drinking water supplies, crop failures, extreme weather events, ocean acidification, dramatically accelerated extinction rates.


It is NOT normal for CO2 or temperatures to increase as quickly as they have over the last 150 years. CO2 is higher and increasing faster than it has in the last 3 million years. The Earth's current temperature is likely the hottest the planet has been in over 2 million years and it is still climbing at an unprecedented rate.

All three of these show temperatures before AGW began.

Didn't AGW begin in 1760?

It is NOT normal for CO2 or temperatures to increase as quickly as they have over the last 150 years.

I think you can only make a case for the first claim, not the second.

 

[Crick]

I didnt ask for what the temps are/were,,

You asked for what they are "supposed to be". I have ignored the meaninglessness of your request and have told you twice now that if the Earth is "supposed" to be any specific temperature, it would be the temperature it held prior to the beginning of AGW which would be prior to the invention of the steam engine.

I asked for what they are supposed to be,

I caught that.

how do you know its not normal for CO2 or temps to increase quickly??

You just got here, didn't you. Hundreds of data plots have been posted on this forum showing temperatures and CO2 levels going back decades, centuries, millenia and millions of years back. Neither CO2 nor temperature has increased at the rate it is currently increasing in almost 3 million years.

wheres the instruction book that tells you that??

You need to catch up with the actual science being discussed here. Try AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

 

[Robert W]

You asked for what they are "supposed to be". I have ignored the meaninglessness of your request and have told you twice now that if the Earth is "supposed" to be any specific temperature, it would be the temperature it held prior to the beginning of AGW which would be prior to the invention of the steam engine.

I caught that.

You just got here, didn't you. Hundreds of data plots have been posted on this forum showing temperatures and CO2 levels going back decades, centuries, millenia and millions of years back. Neither CO2 nor temperature has increased at the rate it is currently increasing in almost 3 million years.

You need to catch up with the actual science being discussed here. Try AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis — IPCC

Temperature rises and after that CO2 increases.

 

[Crick]

Temperature rises and after that CO2 increases.

It works both ways Robert. When temperatures rise, the solubility of gases in the oceans decreases and gas comes out of solution. When CO2 in the atmosphere increases, greenhouse warming traps more IR and temperatures rise. The question you ought to be asking is how is runaway heating avoided. Poster Reiny Days hopefully knows the answer as he has posted it a million times. Energy is radiated at rates proportional to the fourth power of temperature. As temperature increases, the rate of heat radiation to space increases much faster. It is that process that prevents runaway heating.

 

[Robert W]

It works both ways Robert. When temperatures rise, the solubility of gases in the oceans decreases and gas comes out of solution. When CO2 in the atmosphere increases, greenhouse warming traps more IR and temperatures rise. The question you ought to be asking is how is runaway heating avoided. Poster Reiny Days hopefully knows the answer as he has posted it a million times. Energy is radiated at rates proportional to the fourth power of temperature. As temperature increases, the rate of heat radiation to space increases much faster. It is that process that prevents runaway heating.

I do not recall knowing your educational background. I would ask this of you. Why do you refuse to agree with Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Patrick Moore Dr. John Christy?

 

[progressive hunter]

You just got here, didn't you. Hundreds of data plots have been posted on this forum showing temperatures and CO2 levels going back decades, centuries, millenia and millions of years back. Neither CO2 nor temperature has increased at the rate it is currently increasing in almost 3 million years.

all this fails the 1st rule of science which is observation,,

its all guesses based on assumptions not provable facts,,,


and even if it were true how do you or anyone else know its a bad thing and if the planet even cares??


and a solution sure isnt higher taxs and income redistribution from the poor to the rich,,,

 

[Crick]

I do not recall knowing your educational background. I would ask this of you. Why do you refuse to agree with Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Patrick Moore Dr. John Christy?

I attended four different universities and majored in Mechanical Engineering, Mathematics and finally Ocean Engineering. In the middle of it I joined the Navy and served six years as a submarine sonar tech. I got out and finished up with a BSc degree in Ocean Engineering.

I refuse to agree with them because a very large number of scientists disagree with them. It is not at all difficult to find scholarly criticism of any one of their positions. I have to ask why you include Patrick Moore in that group? He's not a climate scientist but a blatant PR man for mining companies. The fellow you're missing would be Dr Roy Spencer.

My question is why do you refuse to apparently even look at the work done by the hundreds of scientists who create the IPCC assessment reports?

 

[ding]

I attended four different universities and majored in Mechanical Engineering, Mathematics and finally Ocean Engineering. In the middle of it I joined the Navy and served six years as a submarine sonar tech. I got out and finished up with a BSc degree in Ocean Engineering.

I refuse to agree with them because a very large number of scientists disagree with them. It is not at all difficult to find scholarly criticism of any one of their positions. I have to ask why you include Patrick Moore in that group? He's not a climate scientist but a blatant PR man for mining companies. The fellow you're missing would be Dr Roy Spencer.

My question is why do you refuse to apparently even look at the work done by the hundreds of scientists who create the IPCC assessment reports?

Because they won't break out the GHG effect of CO2 from feedbacks. They are dishonest and you are dishonest.

 

[Crick]

Robert, Ding doesn't know what he's talking about. His statement is demonstrably false and I have demonstrated its falsehood on more than one occasion. I guess that makes him a liar. There are a number of people in this forum putting out bum dope. It's the primary reason I come here. I hate misinformation regarding an important topic like this and try to correct it as often as I can.

 

[Robert W]

I attended four different universities and majored in Mechanical Engineering, Mathematics and finally Ocean Engineering. In the middle of it I joined the Navy and served six years as a submarine sonar tech. I got out and finished up with a BSc degree in Ocean Engineering.

I refuse to agree with them because a very large number of scientists disagree with them. It is not at all difficult to find scholarly criticism of any one of their positions. I have to ask why you include Patrick Moore in that group? He's not a climate scientist but a blatant PR man for mining companies. The fellow you're missing would be Dr Roy Spencer.

My question is why do you refuse to apparently even look at the work done by the hundreds of scientists who create the IPCC assessment reports?

Well now I understand your level in this discussion. You think I have not studied the IPCC report? Well, there have been a number of the reports and yes, I have studied some of them. It shocked me you dismiss Dr. Moore and actually libelled him. I could indeed have included Spencer as well as many many others. Do you happen to know the CO2 level inside nuclear submarines? I think it is not secret.