Chill out, environmentalists, from what I’ve been reading energy company executives have little to no intention to move back to coal. Natural gas is cheaper and cleaner out of the gate. One of my sons is an engineer who designs HRSGs that recover heat from exhaust stacks of natural gas fired plants, scrub it, and then use it to make more steam to turn turbine generators, increasing efficiency by around 40%. Add to that the predicted resurgence of nuclear (which even activists urge looking at again) and coal is dead and buried. Talk to any REAL power engineer, not some pie-in-the-sky researcher in their lab, and they will tell you wind and solar don’t cut it for base load power generation for the foreseeable future, with or without giant Tesla batteries. Coal miners will still be screwed if that makes your hearts leap with joy.
Climate change is real. To stop further deterioration is not only USA's job with regulations to help slow down but every country and humans on earth must participate. One big problem is exploding over population and with medicine and with cure of deadly diseases, people don't die as many contributing to over population and adding to environmental impacts. Best thing is either control population or kill human race from earth. So, earth is left as beautiful as it was before human became smart to screw it up.
I applaude any company or individual that wants to improve the environment at their own expense or discomfort. A change in policy in Washington should not dissuade do-gooders from continuing to do good - just shut up about it and do it.
I like your last sentence, but... Who made humans the "designated survivor"? We certainally have not been in the past, that is, if you believe in current science.
An excellent point. I always love the ones who say we're killing the planet. No, we're not. If you believe climate change is man caused, we might make it uninhabitable for humans, but we're not "killing the planet". Only human arrogance would presume that's possible.
"If you believes climate change is human caused" Seriously? Human arrogance and far worse, ignorance, is behind human belief that we couldn't 'kill' the planet as we know it. A bunch of ants and cockroaches left with an almost atmosphere-less planet with Mars like temperature swings caused by humans seems pretty much like 'killing' to me even if it is a few hundred years off. However, feel free to select another 'life ending' description if you prefer.
Oh give us a break. Hyperbole much? What unfathomable pinheadedness to make such a claim.
Chill out, environmentalists, from what I’ve been reading energy company executives have little to no intention to move back to coal. Natural gas is cheaper and cleaner out of the gate. One of my sons is an engineer who designs HRSGs that recover heat from exhaust stacks of natural gas fired plants, scrubs it, and then uses it to make more steam to turn turbine generators, increasing efficiency by around 40%. Add to that the predicted resurgence of nuclear (which even activists urge looking at again) and coal is dead and buried. Talk to any REAL power engineer, not some pie-in-the-sky researcher in their lab, and they will tell you wind and solar don’t cut it for base load power generation for the foreseeable future. Coal miners will still be screwed if that makes your hearts leap with joy.
Then someone needs to educate Trump and those coal miners behind him while he signed to get rid of the EPA and just about everything else that was making an attempt to provide clean air, water, and food products. Trump really doesn't care about anyone except himself and his ability to make money. It doesn't cost more to use solar or natural gas, it just takes some short term changeover expenses. Companies know how to wiggle out of taxes when doing this so it doesn't even hurt them.
Of course, Trump could mandate the use of coal with the resulting lung disease both for the miners and everyone else, regardless of how much scrubbing is used, which of course won't be required after Trump gets rid of those requirements. We'll be back to the good old days of high air pollution.
Apple's energy policies have a lot less to do with climate change and a whole lot to do with insulating them from shocks and volatility with regard to various energy sources. Insulating Apple from such supply chain issues is wholly consistent with Tim Cook's management approach. It makes good business sense, given Apple's deep pockets, to invest in themselves so that energy market volatility has negligible, if any, impact on them. If it happens to coincidentally be marketable as fighting climate change, and therefore add to Apple's reputation, that is purely secondary.
Stick with it Apple. The current resident of Penn Avenue is only a temporary resident. The climate is forever (or well almost) Lead by example and show the naysayers what can be done.
This is the way it should be, driven by industry leaders showing example. We don't need government to tell us exactly how many sheets of paper to wipe our rear ends with all the time.
I would like to know the sources you use to claim that
Sure thing; every study ever done. What would you like specifically? Pick a claim about CO2 and I’ll disprove it. Anything at all. I have the data for it.
Prove it. Prove any ONE claim about the collective.
but every country and humans on earth must participate.
Okay, so shut up about your destruction of First World industry until you force Africa, India, and China to comply, too, as their input to even your claimed cause for your claimed sin is far larger than ours.
One big problem is exploding over population
Malthus was mentally ill, you know.
Best thing is either control population or kill human race from earth.
Yes, okay, you’re mentally ill. Thanks for admitting it.
man started changing the environment hundreds of years ago by farming, this has only accelerated and is now unstoppable. Move to somewhere on high ground and enjoy the sun whilst it lasts.
Can you answer this question? Why don’t the doomsayers just kill themselves? There’s a sect of the climate change cult that believes there’s nothing we can do at this point already. That it’s inevitable no matter how many “emissions” we cut. But they’re still alive. Shouldn’t they kill themselves? Aren’t they hypocrites if they don’t?
I would like to know the sources you use to claim that
Sure thing; every study ever done. What would you like specifically? Pick a claim about CO2 and I’ll disprove it. Anything at all. I have the data for it.
Do you have the data? Please, publish it, you will be a star in climatology research if you have the data to disprove the science done the last decades
But you can start showing the data that disproves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it doesn't makes temperature grow.
But you can start showing the data that disproves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it doesn't makes temperature grow.
CO2 lags all historical temperature increases.
Yes, climate changes. But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever. In order to establish an actual human impact in a statistically significant way, you must show a modern trend that deviates from a baseline of appropriate duration. Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation. Not only are we not in a period of “record high temperatures,” we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years.
There is absolutely no evidence that current temperatures are outside the trend of totally natural variation, and all attempts to make it appear that way are misleading you by truncating the data to a sample of statistically insignificant size. And then they apply their misleading, exponential curve-fits and smoothing effects for dramatic purposes. The earth had had ice caps for maybe about half of the time over the past 500 million years. The picture shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates.
The sea level has been rising at a very steady and predictable rate over the past 8-10,000 years since the emergence from the last major glacial period with no deviation at all from this trend even as humans began industrializing. When environmentalists show you graphs going back 50-100 years of rising sea level data, they omit the fact that this is both on-trend and completely expected.
We have no actual data that indicates that climate is in any way behaving abnormally, much less due to human impact. The only thing we have is a hypothesis that CO2 affects climate in a meaningful way, which is what climatologists attempt to model. But those models make terrible predictions.
If your hypothesis consistently churns out inaccurate predictions–no matter how many times you tweak the knobs and change little fudge-factors here and there–then your hypothesis is shit and must be discarded. Morons who believe in this garbage have no understanding of basic epistemology, let alone science–and that goes for the so-called “scientists” peddling this mystical bullshit.
CO2 is only hypothesized to have the impact on global climate that the alarmists claim. But this has failed to be demonstrated in two major (but related) ways. First, carbon dioxide levels are currently being measured at several hundred ppm higher than measured from ice core samples. Now, it must also be cautioned that you can’t necessarily compare these two sets of data because they represent two different methods of measurement, and have other potential biases. However, even assuming that its true that CO2 levels are much higher–and that they’re caused by human activity–current temperatures are not deviating from the normal historical trends in line with CO2.
A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2 ºC. Everyone agrees on this point because it’s a simple computation given the physical characteristics of CO2 which is well mixed in the atmosphere. Actual warming, again absent feedbacks, would likely be much less due to bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, something that we understand but find difficult to model (H2O levels vary dramatically day to day and even hour to hour with regional weather).
The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8 ºC of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming until a new equilibrium point is reached.
The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average feedback rate. Again, modeling H2O in the atmosphere is extremely difficult because it varies so much with weather. Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. In the late 1990s, the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
There is no data to suggest a positive H2O feedback either now or in Earth’s past. Indeed, we cannot model some periods in Earth’s history with an assumed positive H2O feedback. It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them.
If there is no positive H2O feedback, we literally have nothing to worry about. The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, and surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind, it’s simply “CO2 = bad” and “experts say we’re warming faster then ever.” The more you know.
Not only are current temperatures not outside the normal trend, we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years. Also, current temperatures (at the peak of the current 100ky cycle) are actually lower than past 100ky cycles, meaning that we are expected to either warm further just by way of natural variation or we are in an unusually cold peak period.
Second, climate models that use CO2 as a major driver for global temperatures are not producing accurate predictions for global temperatures. This is at least good initial evidence that the alarmist stance on the CO2/climate hypothesis is false. Notice that current temperatures are in no way deviating from normal trends. and that the two “scary red dots” are not observed data, but “predictions.” But, as we already know, the observed data is wildly lower than the predictions. These people are completely full of shit.
But you can start showing the data that disproves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it doesn't makes temperature grow.
A lot of absdolutely debunked denialist nonsense
So no, you don't have any data, you only regurgugate the same old denialist bullshit that has been debunked for decades.
The funny thing is that the graphs you show doesn't prove what you say, just the contrary. As you said, denialists like you are completely full of shit.
[quote] Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation[/quote]
Just this quote show what you know about5r science, absolutely nothing.
When even the DoD and ExxonMobil agree that we should lower Greenhouse emissions, perhaps it is a real problem
No, CO2 is long proven not to be any kind of “problem” with the climate.
I would like to know the sources you use to claim that
That's where the debate is. Unfortunately there's tons of bad info out there which is why the science community that works on this needs to be pressed for better & better research.
The hockey stick of CO2 & temp does seem manipulative by some accounts. When you look at them over centuries, they don't go hand in hand.
This is why we don't hear scientists give an answer to: "How much Co2 needs to be removed from the air to bring down the temperatures by 1*C "
Admittedly, I'm still agnostic on this issue as I haven't had enough time to dive into it. But there was a great (BBC, i think) debate about this that made me open up my mind a bit more.
Oh, no, there is no debate in the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Why wouldn't Apple stay the course, they already made most of the infrastructure investment and they almost at the point their operations can run without having to pay for electricity. They may be actually selling electricity to all of us as well. This is huge saving to Apple bottom line, and if they get their supplier inboard as well then apple can buy parts at lower costs. You know State government do not like power independent companies since State collect a tax on ever kilowatt of power they have to buy from the local power company. Calif is loosing lots of tax $ because companies like Apple are not longer paying their utility taxes.
The only way to solve the power pollution problem is to reduce consumption, not to put up windmill and solar farms. Both those technologies have downsides which do not exist in current coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants. If you want to make a huge impact change the usage side of the equation. I personal replace ever light bulb in my house with LED and cut my power bill in 1/2. The biggest users of power in my house is cooking and heating and cooling my house. I am working on reducing those in the house I plan to build. I want to get to the point my usage is minimal and then I will put in a solar panel since it become cost effective that way.
I would like to know the sources you use to claim that
Sure thing; every study ever done. What would you like specifically? Pick a claim about CO2 and I’ll disprove it. Anything at all. I have the data for it.
Do you have the data? Please, publish it, you will be a star in climatology research if you have the data to disprove the science done the last decades
But you can start showing the data that disproves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it doesn't makes temperature grow.
I think Tallest did a nice job of showing you can not trust what everyone is saying without seeing all the data. You have to look at it all over the entire history not just what is most recent. I would not disagree the climate is changing, but no one can say it is outside the norm and what is the norm they are using to compare against. Also remember that do not have temp data from all the way back only the last 200 yrs and only the last 30 yrs for the entire earth. They estimating what temps may have been back in time.
Here is something I just learned and no one seem to want to talk about and factor this into the overall discussion. Astrophysicist, when looking at other planets in other solar systems looking for earth like planet notices that planet with atmosphere tend to see the atmosphere escaping the planets gravity. They said they believe Mars use to have an atmosphere, and what happen to it. Well they began looking at the earth's atmosphere and they also notice our atmosphere is escaping and billions of pounds per year. The Earth atmosphere is made up of Hydrogen Helium, Nitrogen, Oxygen and lots of other things which the planet generates as well as humans. The reason the earth is losing its atmosphere is due to solar radiation. It is causing the lightest of the elements, Hydrogen and Helium if you do not remember your high school chemistry to escape into the outer space. Do the math, if the earth is losing Hydrogen and Helium every year at no fault of humans, what do you think is happening with the concentration of CO in the atmosphere?
Even if we stopped producing any CO today, the concentration of CO in the atmosphere will continue to raise. CO is a lot heavier so it will not escape the earth gravity from solar radiation as the same rate as the lighter elements.
I was watching the show "What on Earth" and they showed a infrared satellite image of the Pacific ocean from a number of years ago. It showed the surface temperatures had risen significantly over a period of two years and this was about the time all the climate scientist were screaming things were getting worse and they pointed to the ocean temps on the raise. Well the show then showed the same area in the third year and the ocean temps were back to normal if not lower and no one could explained what happen or why the change. The Show never said anything about how climate scientist was using this information to prove their point, but when the temp dropped all the climate scientist stop talking about since it no longer played into their story.
So no, you don't have any data, you only regurgugate the same old denialist bullshit that has been debunked for decades.
Great job, kiddo. You just denied thermodynamics itself. You have no argument, no evidence, no refutation, and are quite plainly undeserving of the courtesy afforded in a proper discussion. Why should anyone treat with you? Explain that. Why do you get to have a platform if your “argument” consists of “You’re wrong because I say so and I’m right because I say so; facts are racist, sexist, and bigoted.”?
The funny thing is that the graphs you show doesn't prove what you say, just the contrary.
Sorry you can’t read.
Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation
Just this quote show what you know about5r science, absolutely nothing.
“WAAAAAA MY CHERRYPICKING WAS CALLED OUT!” is the only takeaway here. You continue to refuse to provide evidence that I am wrong or even that your own statements are correct.
maestro64 said: Here is something I just learned and no one seem to want to talk about and factor this into the overall discussion. Astrophysicist, when looking at other planets in other solar systems looking for earth like planet notices that planet with atmosphere tend to see the atmosphere escaping the planets gravity.
In the case of Mars (and similar worlds), this most often happens because (well, we figure; most likely because) the planets’ gravity is too low to retain the gases in significant enough amounts. You mentioned we’re losing free hydrogen and helium (the latter of which will skyrocket in price once our stores run out; we’re wasting it on balloons…) but obviously retaining the others. We also see many exoplanets that lose their atmospheres far faster, but this is due to their proximity to their stars. The planets (up to and including ‘hot jupiter’ gas giants) basically become huge comets, with their atmospheres visibly streaming off into space away from their star. Since this happens, I imagine it’s not just gravity responsible for losing parts of atmospheres, but also the strength of a planet’s magnetic field and its ability to protect from solar interference.
Oh, and speaking of stars, solar astronomers are increasingly agreeing that we could see 2ºC of cooling in the near future due to minutely decreased stellar output. So there goes glubba schwarma’s lunacy that humans are the primary drivers of climate.
But you can start showing the data that disproves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it doesn't makes temperature grow.
CO2 lags all historical temperature increases.
Yes, climate changes. But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever. In order to establish an actual human impact in a statistically significant way, you must show a modern trend that deviates from a baseline of appropriate duration. Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation. Not only are we not in a period of “record high temperatures,” we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years.
There is absolutely no evidence that current temperatures are outside the trend of totally natural variation, and all attempts to make it appear that way are misleading you by truncating the data to a sample of statistically insignificant size. And then they apply their misleading, exponential curve-fits and smoothing effects for dramatic purposes. The earth had had ice caps for maybe about half of the time over the past 500 million years. The picture shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates.
The sea level has been rising at a very steady and predictable rate over the past 8-10,000 years since the emergence from the last major glacial period with no deviation at all from this trend even as humans began industrializing. When environmentalists show you graphs going back 50-100 years of rising sea level data, they omit the fact that this is both on-trend and completely expected.
We have no actual data that indicates that climate is in any way behaving abnormally, much less due to human impact. The only thing we have is a hypothesis that CO2 affects climate in a meaningful way, which is what climatologists attempt to model. But those models make terrible predictions.
If your hypothesis consistently churns out inaccurate predictions–no matter how many times you tweak the knobs and change little fudge-factors here and there–then your hypothesis is shit and must be discarded. Morons who believe in this garbage have no understanding of basic epistemology, let alone science–and that goes for the so-called “scientists” peddling this mystical bullshit.
CO2 is only hypothesized to have the impact on global climate that the alarmists claim. But this has failed to be demonstrated in two major (but related) ways. First, carbon dioxide levels are currently being measured at several hundred ppm higher than measured from ice core samples. Now, it must also be cautioned that you can’t necessarily compare these two sets of data because they represent two different methods of measurement, and have other potential biases. However, even assuming that its true that CO2 levels are much higher–and that they’re caused by human activity–current temperatures are not deviating from the normal historical trends in line with CO2.
A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2 ºC. Everyone agrees on this point because it’s a simple computation given the physical characteristics of CO2 which is well mixed in the atmosphere. Actual warming, again absent feedbacks, would likely be much less due to bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, something that we understand but find difficult to model (H2O levels vary dramatically day to day and even hour to hour with regional weather).
The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8 ºC of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming until a new equilibrium point is reached.
The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average feedback rate. Again, modeling H2O in the atmosphere is extremely difficult because it varies so much with weather. Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. In the late 1990s, the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
There is no data to suggest a positive H2O feedback either now or in Earth’s past. Indeed, we cannot model some periods in Earth’s history with an assumed positive H2O feedback. It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them.
If there is no positive H2O feedback, we literally have nothing to worry about. The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, and surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind, it’s simply “CO2 = bad” and “experts say we’re warming faster then ever.” The more you know.
Not only are current temperatures not outside the normal trend, we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years. Also, current temperatures (at the peak of the current 100ky cycle) are actually lower than past 100ky cycles, meaning that we are expected to either warm further just by way of natural variation or we are in an unusually cold peak period.
Second, climate models that use CO2 as a major driver for global temperatures are not producing accurate predictions for global temperatures. This is at least good initial evidence that the alarmist stance on the CO2/climate hypothesis is false. Notice that current temperatures are in no way deviating from normal trends. and that the two “scary red dots” are not observed data, but “predictions.” But, as we already know, the observed data is wildly lower than the predictions. These people are completely full of shit.
LOL ... Got to ask, which fossil fuel funded, right wing think tank did you get your mail order qualifications from?
When even the DoD and ExxonMobil agree that we should lower Greenhouse emissions, perhaps it is a real problem
No, CO2 is long proven not to be any kind of “problem” with the climate.
I would like to know the sources you use to claim that
That's where the debate is. Unfortunately there's tons of bad info out there which is why the science community that works on this needs to be pressed for better & better research.
The hockey stick of CO2 & temp does seem manipulative by some accounts. When you look at them over centuries, they don't go hand in hand.
This is why we don't hear scientists give an answer to: "How much Co2 needs to be removed from the air to bring down the temperatures by 1*C "
Admittedly, I'm still agnostic on this issue as I haven't had enough time to dive into it. But there was a great (BBC, i think) debate about this that made me open up my mind a bit more.
Oh, no, there is no debate in the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas
But .. but .. plants 'breath it' so it must be good, Sara Palin said so!
When even the DoD and ExxonMobil agree that we should lower Greenhouse emissions, perhaps it is a real problem
No, CO2 is long proven not to be any kind of “problem” with the climate. Apple’s charge on environmentalism in the tech industry has always been one of my favorite things about them. But environmentalism ≠ climate change.
Hmm yeah Neil deGrasse Tyson disagrees -- watch his material to see how CO2 as a greenhouse gas keeps the sun's heat trapped inside the atmosphere, and as our society's cheif byproduct is problematic for this reason. Also, Venus.
I'm going to go with our best & brightest minds over some anonymous guy named "Tallest skil" on a rumors forum.
Climate change is real. To stop further deterioration is not only USA's job with regulations to help slow down but every country and humans on earth must participate. One big problem is exploding over population and with medicine and with cure of deadly diseases, people don't die as many contributing to over population and adding to environmental impacts. Best thing is either control population or kill human race from earth. So, earth is left as beautiful as it was before human became smart to screw it up.
I applaude any company or individual that wants to improve the environment at their own expense or discomfort. A change in policy in Washington should not dissuade do-gooders from continuing to do good - just shut up about it and do it.
I like your last sentence, but... Who made humans the "designated survivor"? We certainally have not been in the past, that is, if you believe in current science.
An excellent point. I always love the ones who say we're killing the planet. No, we're not. If you believe climate change is man caused, we might make it uninhabitable for humans, but we're not "killing the planet". Only human arrogance would presume that's possible.
Nobody said killing the planet, that's your straw man invention. Warmer, melting ice caps, raising sea levels, loss of coastal land, etc.. All real and mesasurable. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which is fact -- it's what prevents us from being a cold rock. But more of it traps more heat than we'd like if we're prefer our current way of life and land mass.
If you don't believe man can produce gases that affect his living space, do this fun experiment -- lock yourself in the garage with the car engine running, and see what happens. Harmless gases, right?!
Climate change is real. To stop further deterioration is not only USA's job with regulations to help slow down but every country and humans on earth must participate. One big problem is exploding over population and with medicine and with cure of deadly diseases, people don't die as many contributing to over population and adding to environmental impacts. Best thing is either control population or kill human race from earth. So, earth is left as beautiful as it was before human became smart to screw it up.
I applaude any company or individual that wants to improve the environment at their own expense or discomfort. A change in policy in Washington should not dissuade do-gooders from continuing to do good - just shut up about it and do it.
I like your last sentence, but... Who made humans the "designated survivor"? We certainally have not been in the past, that is, if you believe in current science.
An excellent point. I always love the ones who say we're killing the planet. No, we're not. If you believe climate change is man caused, we might make it uninhabitable for humans, but we're not "killing the planet". Only human arrogance would presume that's possible.
Yes! A six mile diameter rock didn't kill the planet 65 million years ago, just everything larger than a chicken. We're just dealing with ourselves. The hubris is amazing. Reducing carbon production is a conservative position. Better safe than sorry. Burning all the available carbon chains is a liberal position. Ironic. Don't you think? Whatever drives clean energy technology is beneficial for all. Innovation is always good. Caveman burn wood, coal. Advanced humanity absorbs EM radiation, makes electron gradients and powers everything. The latter seems cooler.
Comments
Of course, Trump could mandate the use of coal with the resulting lung disease both for the miners and everyone else, regardless of how much scrubbing is used, which of course won't be required after Trump gets rid of those requirements. We'll be back to the good old days of high air pollution.
wood1208 said: Prove it. Prove any ONE claim about the collective.
Okay, so shut up about your destruction of First World industry until you force Africa, India, and China to comply, too, as their input to even your claimed cause for your claimed sin is far larger than ours.
Malthus was mentally ill, you know.
Yes, okay, you’re mentally ill. Thanks for admitting it.
Blunt said:Prove it.
Can you answer this question? Why don’t the doomsayers just kill themselves? There’s a sect of the climate change cult that believes there’s nothing we can do at this point already. That it’s inevitable no matter how many “emissions” we cut. But they’re still alive. Shouldn’t they kill themselves? Aren’t they hypocrites if they don’t?
But you can start showing the data that disproves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it doesn't makes temperature grow.
Yes, climate changes. But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever. In order to establish an actual human impact in a statistically significant way, you must show a modern trend that deviates from a baseline of appropriate duration. Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation. Not only are we not in a period of “record high temperatures,” we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years.
There is absolutely no evidence that current temperatures are outside the trend of totally natural variation, and all attempts to make it appear that way are misleading you by truncating the data to a sample of statistically insignificant size. And then they apply their misleading, exponential curve-fits and smoothing effects for dramatic purposes. The earth had had ice caps for maybe about half of the time over the past 500 million years. The picture shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates.
The sea level has been rising at a very steady and predictable rate over the past 8-10,000 years since the emergence from the last major glacial period with no deviation at all from this trend even as humans began industrializing. When environmentalists show you graphs going back 50-100 years of rising sea level data, they omit the fact that this is both on-trend and completely expected.
We have no actual data that indicates that climate is in any way behaving abnormally, much less due to human impact. The only thing we have is a hypothesis that CO2 affects climate in a meaningful way, which is what climatologists attempt to model. But those models make terrible predictions.
If your hypothesis consistently churns out inaccurate predictions–no matter how many times you tweak the knobs and change little fudge-factors here and there–then your hypothesis is shit and must be discarded. Morons who believe in this garbage have no understanding of basic epistemology, let alone science–and that goes for the so-called “scientists” peddling this mystical bullshit.
CO2 is only hypothesized to have the impact on global climate that the alarmists claim. But this has failed to be demonstrated in two major (but related) ways. First, carbon dioxide levels are currently being measured at several hundred ppm higher than measured from ice core samples. Now, it must also be cautioned that you can’t necessarily compare these two sets of data because they represent two different methods of measurement, and have other potential biases. However, even assuming that its true that CO2 levels are much higher–and that they’re caused by human activity–current temperatures are not deviating from the normal historical trends in line with CO2.
A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2 ºC. Everyone agrees on this point because it’s a simple computation given the physical characteristics of CO2 which is well mixed in the atmosphere. Actual warming, again absent feedbacks, would likely be much less due to bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, something that we understand but find difficult to model (H2O levels vary dramatically day to day and even hour to hour with regional weather).
The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8 ºC of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming until a new equilibrium point is reached.
The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average feedback rate. Again, modeling H2O in the atmosphere is extremely difficult because it varies so much with weather. Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. In the late 1990s, the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
There is no data to suggest a positive H2O feedback either now or in Earth’s past. Indeed, we cannot model some periods in Earth’s history with an assumed positive H2O feedback. It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them.
If there is no positive H2O feedback, we literally have nothing to worry about. The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, and surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind, it’s simply “CO2 = bad” and “experts say we’re warming faster then ever.” The more you know.
Not only are current temperatures not outside the normal trend, we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years. Also, current temperatures (at the peak of the current 100ky cycle) are actually lower than past 100ky cycles, meaning that we are expected to either warm further just by way of natural variation or we are in an unusually cold peak period.
Second, climate models that use CO2 as a major driver for global temperatures are not producing accurate predictions for global temperatures. This is at least good initial evidence that the alarmist stance on the CO2/climate hypothesis is false. Notice that current temperatures are in no way deviating from normal trends. and that the two “scary red dots” are not observed data, but “predictions.” But, as we already know, the observed data is wildly lower than the predictions. These people are completely full of shit.
So no, you don't have any data, you only regurgugate the same old denialist bullshit that has been debunked for decades.
The funny thing is that the graphs you show doesn't prove what you say, just the contrary. As you said, denialists like you are completely full of shit.
[quote] Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation[/quote]
Just this quote show what you know about5r science, absolutely nothing.
Time to move on.
Why wouldn't Apple stay the course, they already made most of the infrastructure investment and they almost at the point their operations can run without having to pay for electricity. They may be actually selling electricity to all of us as well. This is huge saving to Apple bottom line, and if they get their supplier inboard as well then apple can buy parts at lower costs. You know State government do not like power independent companies since State collect a tax on ever kilowatt of power they have to buy from the local power company. Calif is loosing lots of tax $ because companies like Apple are not longer paying their utility taxes.
The only way to solve the power pollution problem is to reduce consumption, not to put up windmill and solar farms. Both those technologies have downsides which do not exist in current coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants. If you want to make a huge impact change the usage side of the equation. I personal replace ever light bulb in my house with LED and cut my power bill in 1/2. The biggest users of power in my house is cooking and heating and cooling my house. I am working on reducing those in the house I plan to build. I want to get to the point my usage is minimal and then I will put in a solar panel since it become cost effective that way.
I think Tallest did a nice job of showing you can not trust what everyone is saying without seeing all the data. You have to look at it all over the entire history not just what is most recent. I would not disagree the climate is changing, but no one can say it is outside the norm and what is the norm they are using to compare against. Also remember that do not have temp data from all the way back only the last 200 yrs and only the last 30 yrs for the entire earth. They estimating what temps may have been back in time.
Here is something I just learned and no one seem to want to talk about and factor this into the overall discussion. Astrophysicist, when looking at other planets in other solar systems looking for earth like planet notices that planet with atmosphere tend to see the atmosphere escaping the planets gravity. They said they believe Mars use to have an atmosphere, and what happen to it. Well they began looking at the earth's atmosphere and they also notice our atmosphere is escaping and billions of pounds per year. The Earth atmosphere is made up of Hydrogen Helium, Nitrogen, Oxygen and lots of other things which the planet generates as well as humans. The reason the earth is losing its atmosphere is due to solar radiation. It is causing the lightest of the elements, Hydrogen and Helium if you do not remember your high school chemistry to escape into the outer space. Do the math, if the earth is losing Hydrogen and Helium every year at no fault of humans, what do you think is happening with the concentration of CO in the atmosphere?
Even if we stopped producing any CO today, the concentration of CO in the atmosphere will continue to raise. CO is a lot heavier so it will not escape the earth gravity from solar radiation as the same rate as the lighter elements.
I was watching the show "What on Earth" and they showed a infrared satellite image of the Pacific ocean from a number of years ago. It showed the surface temperatures had risen significantly over a period of two years and this was about the time all the climate scientist were screaming things were getting worse and they pointed to the ocean temps on the raise. Well the show then showed the same area in the third year and the ocean temps were back to normal if not lower and no one could explained what happen or why the change. The Show never said anything about how climate scientist was using this information to prove their point, but when the temp dropped all the climate scientist stop talking about since it no longer played into their story.
Sorry you can’t read.
“WAAAAAA MY CHERRYPICKING WAS CALLED OUT!” is the only takeaway here. You continue to refuse to provide evidence that I am wrong or even that your own statements are correct.
In the case of Mars (and similar worlds), this most often happens because (well, we figure; most likely because) the planets’ gravity is too low to retain the gases in significant enough amounts. You mentioned we’re losing free hydrogen and helium (the latter of which will skyrocket in price once our stores run out; we’re wasting it on balloons…) but obviously retaining the others. We also see many exoplanets that lose their atmospheres far faster, but this is due to their proximity to their stars. The planets (up to and including ‘hot jupiter’ gas giants) basically become huge comets, with their atmospheres visibly streaming off into space away from their star. Since this happens, I imagine it’s not just gravity responsible for losing parts of atmospheres, but also the strength of a planet’s magnetic field and its ability to protect from solar interference.
Oh, and speaking of stars, solar astronomers are increasingly agreeing that we could see 2ºC of cooling in the near future due to minutely decreased stellar output. So there goes glubba schwarma’s lunacy that humans are the primary drivers of climate.
But .. but .. plants 'breath it' so it must be good, Sara Palin said so!
I'm going to go with our best & brightest minds over some anonymous guy named "Tallest skil" on a rumors forum.
Nobody said killing the planet, that's your straw man invention. Warmer, melting ice caps, raising sea levels, loss of coastal land, etc.. All real and mesasurable. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which is fact -- it's what prevents us from being a cold rock. But more of it traps more heat than we'd like if we're prefer our current way of life and land mass.
If you don't believe man can produce gases that affect his living space, do this fun experiment -- lock yourself in the garage with the car engine running, and see what happens. Harmless gases, right?!