Originally posted by Arns85GT: So when you are discussing temperature, 0 degrees C does not equate to 0 degrees K
You don't understand what Marvin is trying to communicate to you. Your over confidence concerning your own scientific 'knowledge' is your biggest enemy.
"A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3. Note that focusing on surface air temperatures misses more than 90% of the overall warming of the planet." Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-12-2014).]
Are you arguing that from 1880 to 1910 there was measurable Global Warming due to the industrial age and the coal burning? Or are you arguing that from 1962 to 1979 there was measurable Global Warming due to industrialization and increased global population?
Study: Changes in Arctic melt season and implications for sea ice loss "The Arctic-wide melt season has lengthened at a rate of 5 days decade−1 from 1979 to 2013, dominated by later autumn freezeup within the Kara, Laptev, East Siberian, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas between 6 and 11 days decade−1."
This article repeats the flawed argument. From the article: "For seventeen-plus years, global atmospheric carbon dioxide has continued to increase, yet global temperatures have remained flat."
Again: They only look flat if you start with 1998.
If you start with 1997, they have risen.
If you start with 1999, they have risen.
If you start with ANY OTHER YEAR except 1998, there are obvious warming trends.
This is the definition of cherry picking.
And of course no article that dismisses global warming is complete without a reference to Al Gore: "This redistribution of wealth via climate catastrophe has made many quite wealthy, including Al Gore"
Also, you posted an article about Judith Curry, except that it was actually an article written by the group, Friends of Science. Who are they, exactly? From their main page:
"The sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not CO2."
In other words, they would deny AGW, no matter what. They have no objectivity.
It's like listening to MSNBC talk about politics. You already know what they are going to say.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 03-12-2014).]
Originally posted by Arns85GT: Once again quoting a an insurance actuary, a mechanical engineer, a computer engineer, a chemist and a student?
Wrong.
"A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3. Note that focusing on surface air temperatures misses more than 90% of the overall warming of the planet." Source.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: You really must do better
No scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. Source.
The American Wanker Thinker as an authoritative source for science? Really?
quote
Clearly you disregard the scientists you don't want to hear.
Quoted for irony.
Among other sources, I generally accept the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine as an authoritative source on technical topics. Here (repeated) is the official position of the National Academies on the subject of Global Warming/Climate Change:
"The new report [America's Climate Choices, 2011] reaffirms that the preponderance of scientific evidence points to human activities -- especially the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades. This trend cannot be explained by natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun. The report adds that the impacts of climate change on human and natural systems can generally be expected to intensify with warming."
You (Arn) are still arguing that the global climate is not warming. It would be more productive if you would abandon that position, join most of the rest of the world, and participate in the bigger and more important discussion: The Earth's climate is warming, and human activity is a major contributor. What can we do about it? What should we do about it? At what cost? What is the cost of doing nothing?
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-12-2014).]
Yes, the weather has been unusually cold this winter ... at least in the eastern two-thirds of the CONUS (and Canada). So what? In most of Alaska ... which, the last time I checked, was still part of the U.S. ... (and western Canada), 2014 saw one of the warmest Januaries on record. Much of Australia (an entire continent) has just experienced one of its hottest summers (>80th percentile) on record. So what?
Repeat after me:
Weather is not climate.
Local is not global.
Winter is not summer.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-14-2014).]
So what are his qualifications to post on climate issues? Who has/does he work for? How credible should he be taken?
According to a question asked in one of his own postings Mr Goddard says;
“I have a Bachelor of Science in Geology and a Masters In Electrical Engineering”
So academically he is about as qualified as myself and about as qualified as my cat to post his own analysis’s climate change. Also from various comments and posts it seems that he likes soccer and follows the English
do you ever look at peer reviewed real science sites or just post nut-con crap sites ? as all i have seen you post is pure crap and never real science only blogs
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
“Steven Goddard” - the "Arctic Is Recovering" guy - who prompted WUWT to post a retraction to Goddard's article due to, wait for it... "bias in the start/end point of the graph" - HA! Source.
You don't understand what Marvin is trying to communicate to you. Your over confidence concerning your own scientific 'knowledge' is your biggest enemy.
Talking about over confidence, look in the mirror and duck
Wind energy technology is the biggest flaw of a flawed argument. In Ontario the wind producers are paid 8.5cents per kwh and the electricity is sold for 4.5 cents per kwh, costing the taxpayers millions. The nuclear plants have to run on idle at times when there is sufficient wind driving up costs for them also. Ontario will have the highest cost for electricity in North America this year.
Germany is way ahead of us on the very path our politicians want us to follow – and the problems it has encountered as a result are big news there. In fact, Germany is being horribly caught out by precisely the same delusion about renewable energy that our own politicians have fallen for. Like all enthusiasts for “free, clean, renewable electricity”, they overlook the fatal implications of the fact that wind speeds and sunlight constantly vary. They are taken in by the wind industry’s trick of vastly exaggerating the usefulness of wind farms by talking in terms of their “capacity”, hiding the fact that their actual output will waver between 100 per cent of capacity and zero. In Britain it averages around 25 per cent; in Germany it is lower, just 17 per cent.
The more a country depends on such sources of energy, the more there will arise – as Germany is discovering – two massive technical problems. One is that it becomes incredibly difficult to maintain a consistent supply of power to the grid, when that wildly fluctuating renewable output has to be balanced by input from conventional power stations. The other is that, to keep that back-up constantly available can require fossil-fuel power plants to run much of the time very inefficiently and expensively (incidentally chucking out so much more “carbon” than normal that it negates any supposed CO2 savings from the wind).
All of their effort has not reduced CO2 in any way, and the influence on world climate is negligible.
CO2 continues to rise with the larger world population, and the climate continues to change, but it in no way relates to CO2 or other man made factors. The AGW argument is fatuous. The claims of catastrophic heating and wild claims of accellerated warmth have not materialized.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 03-14-2014).]
Wind energy technology is the biggest flaw of a flawed argument. In Ontario the wind producers are paid 8.5cents per kwh and the electricity is sold for 4.5 cents per kwh, costing the taxpayers millions. The nuclear plants have to run on idle at times when there is sufficient wind driving up costs for them also. Ontario will have the highest cost for electricity in North America this year.
Germany is ahead of us though the Telegraph All of their effort has not reduced CO2 in any way, and the influence on world climate is negligible.
CO2 continues to rise with the larger world population, and the climate continues to change, but it in no way relates to CO2 or other man made factors. The AGW argument is fatuous. The claims of catastrophic heating and wild claims of accellerated warmth have not materialized.
Arn
Christopher Booker?
quote
He argues that asbestos, passive smoking and BSE have not been shown to be dangerous. His views on these matters go against scientific consensus, and as a result have attracted much criticism from other journalists as well as public bodies. Thus his articles on asbestos and on global warming have been repeatedly challenged and the UK Health and Safety Executive has repeatedly refuted his claims about asbestos.
quote
Booker has also argued in support of intelligent design, claiming that supporters of the theory of evolution "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-14-2014).]
Wind energy technology is the biggest flaw of a flawed argument. In Ontario the wind producers are paid 8.5cents per kwh and the electricity is sold for 4.5 cents per kwh, costing the taxpayers millions. The nuclear plants have to run on idle at times when there is sufficient wind driving up costs for them also. Ontario will have the highest cost for electricity in North America this year.
I actually agree with you on this, to a point. The grids have to be upgraded to support the variable supply of wind, and in cases they are not, you get all kinds of inefficiencies (like idling baseload plants during windy conditions, etc).
Of course, the cost of renewables continues to fall every year, and money spent on them is supporting a promising future technology. It's not money thrown away. There is also a lot of progress being made in grid storage to smooth out the delivery of power from renewables.
But yes, nuclear continues to be shat on globally despite its far superior performance and cost/kilowatt, mostly due to political reasons.
The majority of Americans continue to believe that the effects of global warming are happening or will begin to happen during their lifetimes. At the same time, many fewer, currently 36%, believe global warming will pose a serious threat to their way of life during their lifetimes.
Originally posted by fierobear: You couldn't tell the difference.
You're of this grand delusion murder is an acceptable solution depending on political party.
Rationalizing and committing murder is bad for everyone. That includes you.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: I can explain it to you, but I [can't] understand it for you.
I don't need an explanation of your twisted rationalization for murder.
What this forum needs is for you to step up and admit you were wrong when you called for politically motivated murder and defended it. Especially considering the context of your rally cry for murder included fellow forum members.
Considering the very last post here from fierobear, I don't know what an average price is today for a good quality joint, but let's consider the expected impact of a carbon tax on fossil fuels. In theory, it would put cost-to-market pressure on both brewers and marijuana growers, but considerably more pressure on marijuana growers, since it currently requires so much more energy (by a large factor) for a grower to produce a joint, than the energy required for a brewer to produce a beer. Consumers who consider their marijuana purchases as discretionary and not mandatory are likely to reduce or eliminate their consumption in the face of higher retail prices for the product. Some may even switch to beer instead of marijuana. Drink more beer, smoke fewer joints. Marijuana growers, reacting to price resistance from consumers, would have a magnified incentive to look for ways to reduce their carbon footprint (which now exposes them to a carbon tax) as they plan how to grow and harvest their crops and process into their finished products.
What's not to like, from a "liberal" perspective?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-18-2014).]
Lol, this should make some liberals heads explode...
Growing pot takes a lot of energy...not sure how this is a surprise?
I guess in your twisted mind, anyone who doesn't think like you is 1) a hippie, 2) a liberal, 3) smokes weed all day on welfare, and 4) deserves to be murdered. Did I cover everything?
First study cited is by a Washington DC based political think tank, the Cato Institute.
Second study cited CSIRO, which explained things a bit better in their Q&A on the topic: "In other words, there are places that have become less green (ie lower cover), but they would have had even lower levels of cover had CO2 not increased."
"Q: Will this new information change the climate debate?" "A: No, these results should not change the climate change debate. They do, however, provide a little more understanding on which to base the debate. Whilst it may seem that an increase in the uptake of carbon by vegetation would serve to offset the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, the amounts in question are too small to make a significant difference to the overall global picture." Source.
The third study cited is from Nature, which basically states trees are responding to higher CO2 levels by being more efficient with water use. Of course there couldn't be any global change from trees changing their behavior due to global CO2 levels rising, right?
"How efficient trees are in using water has implications for ecosystem function, services and feedbacks to the climate system. These include enhanced timber yields and improved water availability, which could partially offset the effects of future droughts. However, reduced evapotranspiration, or the combination of evaporation and plant transpiration from the land to the atmosphere, resulting from higher water-use efficiency could lead to higher air temperatures, decreased humidity, and decreased recycling of continental precipitation. This could cause increased continental freshwater runoff, along with drought in parts of the world that rely on water transpired in other regions." Source.
Another shoddy fierobear article written to fit a political agenda. I'm so surprised...
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-18-2014).]
The Daily Caller? A political hack site published by "Neil Patel, former chief policy advisor to Vice President Cheney." [sarcasm] Now there's an authoritative, unbiased source for science journalism! [/sarcasm]
The fact that moderate levels of atmospheric CO2 promote plant growth is not news. But apparently fierobear didn't bother to read the article himself, or (as usual) chose to misrepresent it:
"While CO2 fertilization is boosting foliage expansion, however, scientists warn that the other effects of global warming like higher temperatures, water scarcity and severe weather could offset the gains in greenery."
The "Increased Atmospheric CO2 Is Actually Good For Us" argument has been advanced by global warming deniers for more than a decade, but it's no more valid now than it has ever been.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-18-2014).]
Study: Further summer speedup of Jakobshavn Isbræ “We are now seeing summer speeds more than 4 times what they were in the 1990s on a glacier which at that time was believed to be one of the fastest, if not the fastest, glacier in Greenland,” says Ian Joughin, a researcher at the Polar Science Center, University of Washington and lead-author of the study. Source.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 03-18-2014).]
