But global warming isn't happening?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
I know that this hot summer has turned my back yard into a forest. :) The trees are growing wild! And I give them all the water they need. I turn on the hose ad let it run for hours to soak the yard. I'm not good at water conservation. :-(

When I travel I take a wrench and a shower head with me. If I plan to stay for more than one night I change the shower head. 3/4 of the world is water. One would think the world's scientists would be working on a way to desalinate the ocean water. On the other hand global warming will increase evaporation resulting in more clouds and rain.

As the saying goes, "..... be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."

Now there's a happy note. :)
 
Dixie said:
Does that prevent high temperatures and drought?
Click to expand...
There's plenty we could do if we chose to but it would get in the way of profits so it's not likely to be done. You sound as though you think it's Gods will...personally I trust the climate scientists. This wasn't news in any way but was a handy way to push a book that recommends fracking.

As most readers are probably aware, there was an op-ed in the Saturday New York Times from Richard Muller announcing the Berkeley Earth team’s latest results. It was odd enough that a scientific paper was announced via an op-ed, rather than a press release, odder still that the paper was only being submitted and had not actually been accepted, and most odd of all was the framing – a ‘converted skeptic’ being convinced by his studies that the planet has indeed warmed and that human activity is the cause – which as Mike and Ken Caldiera pointed out has been known for almost 2 decades.

Not wanting to be upstaged, plenty of ‘unconverted skeptics’ – including Anthony Watts and Ross McKitrick decided to stage dramatic press events and release barbs of their own. This was followed by a general piling on of commenters and bloggers trying to spin the events in their preferred direction combined with plenty of cluelessness in the general media about exactly who these people are (no-one special), what earth-shattering discovery had been made (none) and what it all means (not a lot).

The ‘best’ response to this circus is to sit back and see how pretzel-like the logical justifications can become. I particularly like the recent twist to the “No true scotsman” post-hoc rationalisation. Since the ‘converted skeptic’/prodigal scientist meme is a very powerful framing for the media, the obvious riposte for the ‘skeptics’ is to declare that Muller was not a true skeptic. But since these terms have become meaningless in terms of any specific position, this ends up as a semantic argument that convinces no-one but the faithful.

The actual trigger for all this hoopla is the deadline for papers that can be cited in the Second Order Draft of the new IPCC report. They needed to have been submitted to a journal by Tuesday (31 July) to qualify. Of course, they also need to be interesting, relevant and known to the IPCC lead authors. But there seems to be far too much emphasis being put on this deadline. The AR5 report is pretty much 90% written, and the broad outlines have been known for ages. Very few of the papers that have been submitted this week are anything other than minor steps forward and only a small number will be accorded anything other than a brief mention in AR5, and most not even that.

Furthermore, once the SOD is finalised (Aug 10), Tuesday’s deadline becomes moot, and the only thing that matters for the final report is whether papers are accepted by March 2013. (In a spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that I was working on a couple of papers with an eye to making this deadline, but in the end decided it was preferable to take the time to do a good job on the papers than to submit something shoddy).

The only worthwhile substance to any of this is the work that has mostly been done by Robert Rohde on the Berkeley Earth code and database as we’ve noted previously – and once this weeks drama has faded into the distance overshadowed by some new blog-storm, this work will still be a useful advance.

But still the games go on. Senate hearings are one of the longest running games of political theatre going – where the Senators pretend to listen to the panelists and the panelists pretend that this is an efficient way to inform policymakers. This week’s was little different from the ones in the past – some earnest submissions from the mainstream, and a cherry-pickers delight of misinformation from the Republican invitee, John Christy, who even quoted the woefully inept first draft of the Watts paper as if it meant something.

To confuse the metaphor even further, Roger Pielke Sr loudly declared that whatever the results of the Watts paper it will end up being a game changer:

The TOB effect could result in a confirmation of the Watts et al conclusion, or a confirmation (from a skeptical source) that siting quality does not matter. In either case, this is still a game changing study.

If only people would change the games they play…

My inclination is just to sit back and watch the spectacle, admire the logic-defying leaps, marvel at the super-human feats of hubris and, in two weeks time, remark on how little actually changed.
Click to expand...
Links here... http://www.realclimate.org/

Deniers are insane and extremely poor stewards of our children's future.
 
Haiku said:
There's plenty we could do if we chose to but it would get in the way of profits so it's not likely to be done. You sound as though you think it's Gods will...personally I trust the climate scientists. This wasn't news in any way but was a handy way to push a book that recommends fracking.

Links here... http://ideletepropagandalinks.org

Deniers are insane and extremely poor stewards of our children's future.
Click to expand...

There is nothing you could do, and no science to support anything that is currently possible, which would significantly decrease the global temperature or end droughts. NOTHING! NADDA! ZIP! ZILCH!
 
Haiku said:
There's plenty we could do if we chose to but it would get in the way of profits so it's not likely to be done. You sound as though you think it's Gods will...personally I trust the climate scientists. This wasn't news in any way but was a handy way to push a book that recommends fracking.


Links here... http://www.realclimate.org/

Deniers are insane and extremely poor stewards of our children's future.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that scientists like Henrik Svensmark, Jasper Kirkby and Nir Shaviv are insane?

http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3b-the-svensmark-hypothesis/

http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/nir-shaviv-cloud-is-clearing.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/24/cloud-formation-study-climate-models
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Are you saying that scientists like Henrik Svensmark, Jasper Kirkby and Nir Shaviv are insane?

http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3b-the-svensmark-hypothesis/

http://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/nir-shaviv-cloud-is-clearing.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/24/cloud-formation-study-climate-models
Click to expand...

This....

As most readers are probably aware, there was an op-ed in the Saturday New York Times from Richard Muller announcing the Berkeley Earth team’s latest results. It was odd enough that a scientific paper was announced via an op-ed, rather than a press release, odder still that the paper was only being submitted and had not actually been accepted, and most odd of all was the framing – a ‘converted skeptic’ being convinced by his studies that the planet has indeed warmed and that human activity is the cause – which as Mike and Ken Caldiera pointed out has been known for almost 2 decades.

Not wanting to be upstaged, plenty of ‘unconverted skeptics’ – including Anthony Watts and Ross McKitrick decided to stage dramatic press events and release barbs of their own. This was followed by a general piling on of commenters and bloggers trying to spin the events in their preferred direction combined with plenty of cluelessness in the general media about exactly who these people are (no-one special), what earth-shattering discovery had been made (none) and what it all means (not a lot).

The ‘best’ response to this circus is to sit back and see how pretzel-like the logical justifications can become. I particularly like the recent twist to the “No true scotsman” post-hoc rationalisation. Since the ‘converted skeptic’/prodigal scientist meme is a very powerful framing for the media, the obvious riposte for the ‘skeptics’ is to declare that Muller was not a true skeptic. But since these terms have become meaningless in terms of any specific position, this ends up as a semantic argument that convinces no-one but the faithful.

The actual trigger for all this hoopla is the deadline for papers that can be cited in the Second Order Draft of the new IPCC report. They needed to have been submitted to a journal by Tuesday (31 July) to qualify. Of course, they also need to be interesting, relevant and known to the IPCC lead authors. But there seems to be far too much emphasis being put on this deadline. The AR5 report is pretty much 90% written, and the broad outlines have been known for ages. Very few of the papers that have been submitted this week are anything other than minor steps forward and only a small number will be accorded anything other than a brief mention in AR5, and most not even that.

Furthermore, once the SOD is finalised (Aug 10), Tuesday’s deadline becomes moot, and the only thing that matters for the final report is whether papers are accepted by March 2013. (In a spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that I was working on a couple of papers with an eye to making this deadline, but in the end decided it was preferable to take the time to do a good job on the papers than to submit something shoddy).

The only worthwhile substance to any of this is the work that has mostly been done by Robert Rohde on the Berkeley Earth code and database as we’ve noted previously – and once this weeks drama has faded into the distance overshadowed by some new blog-storm, this work will still be a useful advance.

But still the games go on. Senate hearings are one of the longest running games of political theatre going – where the Senators pretend to listen to the panelists and the panelists pretend that this is an efficient way to inform policymakers. This week’s was little different from the ones in the past – some earnest submissions from the mainstream, and a cherry-pickers delight of misinformation from the Republican invitee, John Christy, who even quoted the woefully inept first draft of the Watts paper as if it meant something.

To confuse the metaphor even further, Roger Pielke Sr loudly declared that whatever the results of the Watts paper it will end up being a game changer:

The TOB effect could result in a confirmation of the Watts et al conclusion, or a confirmation (from a skeptical source) that siting quality does not matter. In either case, this is still a game changing study.

If only people would change the games they play…

My inclination is just to sit back and watch the spectacle, admire the logic-defying leaps, marvel at the super-human feats of hubris and, in two weeks time, remark on how little actually changed.

http://www.realclimate.org/
Click to expand...
 
This information has been around for 30 years and this moron use's a press release for his paper...LOL You're all rubes.
 
apple0154 said:
I know that this hot summer has turned my back yard into a forest. :) The trees are growing wild! And I give them all the water they need. I turn on the hose ad let it run for hours to soak the yard. I'm not good at water conservation. :-(

When I travel I take a wrench and a shower head with me. If I plan to stay for more than one night I change the shower head. 3/4 of the world is water. One would think the world's scientists would be working on a way to desalinate the ocean water. On the other hand global warming will increase evaporation resulting in more clouds and rain.

As the saying goes, "..... be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should."

Now there's a happy note. :)
Click to expand...

Whereas over here we have had two years of drought followed by endless rain since April, luckily it eased up for the start of the Olympics. Unfortunately so much of the debate is driven by excessive emotionalism by people who haven't a clue about the basic science. That's why wind turbines have been so prevalent, the economics just don't make any sense but are driven by politicians responding to the plea that something must be done. Wind power doesn't even save on CO2 emissions, if people want clean energy then they should back nuclear, gas and geothermal powered electricity generation.

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/09/15-bad-things-windpower/
 
You sound as though you think it's Gods will...
Click to expand...

I guess I sound that way because inside your head, everyone who disagrees with your boneheaded notions must be a Jesus Lover?

Because I never said a single word about God or God's will... no one has, except YOU!

I think the 1° median rise in global temps over the past century are a normal part of the warming/cooling cycle of the planet. If people and scientists lived to be 20-30,000 years old, they would be able to observe this, but they don't. And science wasn't around 30,000 years ago to document it, so you don't have pinhead blogs from back then, talking about how we are causing the planet to freeze by not building more fires!

We are not in control of the planet and how it functions. Sorry if you thought that was the case. Seems like the constant floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, and volcanic eruptions, would be a clue for you, but apparently not, huh?
 
FactsRStubborn said:
It really is the only logical conclusion to your illogical premise. We are not running out of resources. We are not runnin out of space.

We are not overpopulated. But if you think that, then there are steps you can voluntarily take and leave the rest of us the fuck alone

1) you can sterilize yourself
2) you can turn queer since they can't procreate
3) you can kill yourself therefore not contributing to all of those things that worry you so

I suggest #3 and suggest you take as many like minded libtardiots with you as you can. It will serve two purposes

1) rid you if your human guilt and save the planet
2) take us one step close to ridding the scourge that is liberalism
Click to expand...

I did not say we were running out of resources, I said we are consuming finite resources. Is your argument that resources are infinite? I did not say we were overpopulated but since you bring it up what population do you think we can sustain.
The rest of your post is even more stupid than the words you appear to wish to attribute to me, and is worthy of no further response.
Now if you want to engage in any sort of debate with me re-read my posts. You will find I do not support the notion of man made global warming, I am not a scientist so I just do not know; so do please try to make yourself look less of a fool in future.
 
FactsRStubborn said:
Oh and global warming is a joke. The fact that so called scientists are making such a big deal over 100 years of temperature change in a world that is millions of years old shows what an agenda driven farce this is
Click to expand...

Global warming is not a joke, unless you drool and giggle over the humdrum. It is a concern. A concern. OK? You and your fellow macho men are a much greater threat to the planet's health than global warming, global cooling or global anything.
Every time one of you idiots type your half baked solutions to the problems of the universe when you should be concentrating on keeping your lolling tongue in your mouth and not waving over your chin, I realise how lucky I was to have been born British.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Whereas over here we have had two years of drought followed by endless rain since April, luckily it eased up for the start of the Olympics. Unfortunately so much of the debate is driven by excessive emotionalism by people who haven't a clue about the basic science. That's why wind turbines have been so prevalent, the economics just don't make any sense but are driven by politicians responding to the plea that something must be done. Wind power doesn't even save on CO2 emissions, if people want clean energy then they should back nuclear, gas and geothermal powered electricity generation.

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/09/15-bad-things-windpower/
Click to expand...
You don't seem to have a working knowledge of the difference between weather and global warming. How can you claim wind power doesn't save on CO2 emissions and then recommend nuclear, gas/fracking ? Insane.
 
Dixie said:
I guess I sound that way because inside your head, everyone who disagrees with your boneheaded notions must be a Jesus Lover?

Because I never said a single word about God or God's will... no one has, except YOU!

I think the 1° median rise in global temps over the past century are a normal part of the warming/cooling cycle of the planet. If people and scientists lived to be 20-30,000 years old, they would be able to observe this, but they don't. And science wasn't around 30,000 years ago to document it, so you don't have pinhead blogs from back then, talking about how we are causing the planet to freeze by not building more fires!

We are not in control of the planet and how it functions. Sorry if you thought that was the case. Seems like the constant floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, and volcanic eruptions, would be a clue for you, but apparently not, huh?
Click to expand...
You sound that way because you said there was nothing we could do about it...as though it was God's will. No, you don't seem to be aware of the science behind Hanson and what he's been saying all these years. You ignore so much it's unbelievable but probably why you can't connect the dots.
 
Haiku said:
You don't seem to have a working knowledge of the difference between weather and global warming. How can you claim wind power doesn't save on CO2 emissions and then recommend nuclear, gas/fracking ? Insane.
Click to expand...

Well, if you had read the link I gave you would know why wind power doesn't save on CO2.

Trying to pin down the arguments of wind promoters is a bit like trying to grab a greased balloon. Just when you think you’ve got a handle on it, it squirts away. Let’s take a quick highlight review of how things have evolved.
.
1 – Wind energy was abandoned well over a hundred years ago, as it was totally inconsistent with our burgeoning more modern needs of power, even in the late 1800s. When we throw the switch, we expect that the lights will go on — 100% of the time. It’s not possible for wind energy, by itself, to ever do this, which is one of the main reasons it was relegated to the dust bin of antiquated technologies (along with such other inadequate sources like horse power).

2 – Fast forward to several years ago. With politicians being convinced by lobbyists that Anthropological Global Warming (AGW) was an imminent threat, a campaign was begun to favor all things that would purportedly reduce CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. Wind energy was thus resurrected, as its marketers pushed the fact that wind turbines did not produce CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in their generation of electricity.

3 – Of course, just that by itself is not significant, so the original wind development lobbyists then made the case for a quantum leap: that by adding wind turbines to the grid we could significantly reduce CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from fossil fuel electrical sources (especially coal). This argument became the basis for many states’ implementing a Renewable Energy Standard (RES) — which mandated that their utilities use an increased amount of wind energy.

4 – Why was a mandate necessary? Simply because the real world reality of integrating wind energy made it a very expensive option. As such, no utility company would likely do this on their own. They had to be forced to.

5 – Interestingly, though the stated main goal of these RES’s was to reduce CO[SUB]2[/SUB], not a single state’s RES required verification of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] reduction either beforehand or after the fact from any wind project. The politicians simply took the lobbyists’ word that consequential CO[SUB]2[/SUB] savings would be realized.

6 – It wasn’t too long before utility companies and independent energy experts calculated that the actual CO[SUB]2[/SUB] savings were miniscule. This was due to the inherent nature of wind energy, and the realities of balancing the grid (with fossil fuel sources) on a second-by-second basis. The recently released Bentek study (How Less Became More) is a sample independent assessment of this aspect.

7 – The wind lobbyists soon added another rationale to prop up their case: energy diversity. Since we already had considerable diversity, and many asked “more diversity at what cost?” this hype never gained much traction.

8 – The next justification put forward by the wind marketers was energy independence. This cleverly played on the concern most people have about oil and mid-eastern instability. Many ads were run promoting wind energy as a good way of getting away from our “dependence on mid-eastern oil.”
None of these ads mentioned that only about 1% of our electricity is generated from oil. Or that the US exports more oil than we use for electricity. Or that our main import source for oil is Canada (not the mideast). Despite the significant misrepresentations, this claim still resonates with many people, so it continues to be pushed. Whatever works.

9 – Presumably, knowing full well that the assertions to date were specious, wind proponents manufactured still another claim: green jobs. This was carefully selected to coincide with widespread employment concerns. Unfortunately, when independent qualified parties looked closer at the situation, they concluded that the claims were wildly exaggerated. Big surprise!

10 – Relentlessly moving forward, the wind marketers then tried to change the focus from jobs to “economic development.” Developers utilized a computer program called JEDI to make bold economic projections. Unfortunately JEDI is a totally inadequate model for accurately arriving at such numbers, for a variety of good reasons. These contentions have also been shown to be inaccurate.

11 – Along the way, yet another claim has been made: that wind energy is low cost. This is surprisingly bold considering that if that was really true, then why would any RES be necessary? For some reason all “calculations” showing wind to be low cost conveniently ignore exorbitant subsidies, extra backup and balancing costs, additional transmission costs, etc. Independent analyses of levelized costs (e.g. from the EIA) have concluded that wind energy is much more expensive than any conventional source we have.

12 – Modern civilization is based on our ability to produce electrical POWER. Our modern sense of power is inextricably related to controlled performance expectations: when we throw the switch we expect the stove to go on 100% of the time — not just when the wind is blowing within a certain speed range. A fundamental assertion of wind promoters is that there is an equivalence between wind and conventional power sources. (That is the basis for such claims that XYX wind project will power 1000 homes.) This is false from several perspectives. The obvious error is that XYX wind project will NOT provide power to any 1000 homes: 24/7. It might not provide power for even 1 home 24/7.

13 – A more subtle (but significant) difference is in power quality. This term refers to such technical performance factors as voltage transients, voltage variations, waveform distortion (e.g. harmonics), frequency variations, etc. The reality is that wind energy introduces many more of these issues than does a conventional power facility. Additional costs are needed to deal with these wind caused problems. These are rarely identified in economic analyses.

14 – A key grid ingredient is Capacity Value (for layman: this is an indication of dependability). Conventional sources (e.g. nuclear) have a Capacity Value of about 99%. Wind has a Capacity Value of about 0%. Big difference! Wind apologists first stab at solving this major problem was to assert that if many wind projects over a wide geographic area were joined together, that the composite would look like a real (conventional) power source.
Like most of their claims this came from the imaginations of promoters, rather than empirical evidence. When real world data was looked at (e.g. a 1000± mile spread of wind projects in SE Australia on a single grid) no such result appeared. Back to the drawing board.

15 – Here is the latest spiel. Since this enormous Capacity Value discrepancy is indisputable, wind energy marketeers decided to adopt the strategy that wind energy isn’t a “capacity resource” after all, but rather an “energy resource.” Surprisingly, this is actually the first contention that is actually true! But what does this mean?

​
Click to expand...
 
I did not say we were running out of resources, I said we are consuming finite resources. Is your argument that resources are infinite?
Click to expand...

What "finite" resources are you talking about here? Oil? Okay... what proof do you have that this is a "finite" resource? I know that we believe oil comes from the decaying dinosaurs underneath the many layers of earth, but how do we know that we know everything? How do we know that it's impossible the planet may continue to produce oil from decayed plant/human/animal materials for eons into the future? It may be, that our planet is much more resourceful than we imagine.

Let's be clear before some pinhead chortles in... I am not saying that this IS THE CASE... but what if we don't KNOW everything? Just a question!!

I did not say we were overpopulated but since you bring it up what population do you think we can sustain.
Click to expand...

This is a compelling question, and probably deserves it's very own thread, but I would be interested in what you think we should do to control population? Should we set a 'maximum' limit, and say that everyone who enters the world over that limit has to be exterminated? How do you handle this one? Again... just curious as to what you think we can do, because I can't find a moral solution to this problem, to be honest. We continue to advance as a species, and become smarter and wiser, enabling us to live longer healthier lives, we eliminate diseases entirely, saving billions of lives probably, we've created modern conveniences to make surviving easier, and we've developed a mindset that 'living' is precious and important to everyone, and as a result, even more people are there to procreate. So what do we do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top