Climate change

[hrothgar]

Some other defamation and character assasinaton !

 

 

Baraka, you were the one who was stupid enough to cite Easterbrook as an authority on global warming.

 

Pointing out that the man is a crank, who has made enormous numbers of non credible claim is hardly character assassination.

 

On the subject of credibility, there are multiple web pages documenting Easterbrook's gross negligence during his testimony about climate change.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html is a good example.

 

The reason that non one is bother to respond to you various questions is quite simple.

 

If you are too stupid and lazy to verify the accuracy of the material that we post, why should anyone else take your claims seriously?

 

Good trolls don't cite studies that have extensive FAQs debunking them.

 

Go away

Create a new log ID

Try again

 

Maybe you'll have more luck...

[PassedOut]

Maybe everyone should have a look at these 2 videos. Shurely (sic), not everyone in these viseos (sic) are mistaken...

Why not? If it is the number of people claiming that climate change is a hoax that impresses you, consider that there are many, many more bright, hard-working, honest scientists providing solid evidence that the jokers in the videos are indeed mistaken.

 

In fact, it is a bit sad that anyone finds your videos convincing at all.

[hrothgar]

That's the only inteligent thing you have to say ? How about ansewring the question ?

 

Snark is always apropos.

 

(And I have told you several times why people don't waste their time responding to your random claim d'jour)

[cherdano]

Oh look, another dog whistle from Al about the evil international Jewish bankers...

LOL, I saw your post first and I couldn't believe the emphasis was already in the original.

[Al_U_Card]

LOL, I saw your post first and I couldn't believe the emphasis was already in the original.

G/S is just a "vampire-squid" sucking the economical life from everyone. That they back anything makes it suspect. Just ask Jimmy Cayne...

[PassedOut]

If you were a real math graduate you would answer that 5th grade question about the % of the Greenland icesheet that the falling ice bloc was.

Why should I help you with that? Learn to do your own work.

[baraka]

Why should I help you with that? Learn to do your own work.

 

Exactly like I thaugth. Never any answers. Always inuendoes, misdirection, defamation and character assasination. Never anything constructive. If you dont have the time for checking everything then why take the time to critic everything. You are a bunch of poses for Al Gore and nothing, I mean nothing will make you open your eyes. It's your job here to mess it up.

 

99.9% of the earth's humanity are either stupids, ignorants, lazies or fraudulent liars. I've met quite a bunch here. The worst kind are the fraudulent liars and this blog is full of them. Just poses for Al Gore.

[PassedOut]

Never any answers.

Stop being such a cry-baby. If you imagine that the glacial calculation you are asking for will support your claims about CO₂, just do the work, provide the result, and explain how it supports your view.

[hrothgar]

Exactly like I thaugth. Never any answers. Always inuendoes, misdirection, defamation and character assasination. Never anything constructive. If you dont have the time for checking everything then why take the time to critic everything. You are a bunch of poses for Al Gore and nothing, I mean nothing will make you open your eyes. It's your job here to mess it up.

 

99.9% of the earth's humanity are either stupids, ignorants, lazies or fraudulent liars. I've met quite a bunch here. The worst kind are the fraudulent liars and this blog is full of them. Just poses for Al Gore.

 

Respect is earned not owed.

 

It's pity that your own conduct meant that no one is willing to treat you with anything but contempt.

 

Try not to choke on all that bile...

 

I will note the following

 

> 99.9% of the earth's humanity are either stupids, ignorants, lazies or fraudulent liars.

 

When I see a rant like that one complaining that everyone else is stupid and containing any number of basic errors in spelling and grammar, I normally assume that the issues with intellect and communication lie with the poster rather than the 99.9%

Edited November 24, 2015 by hrothgar

[baraka]

Respect is earned not owed.

 

It's pity that your own conduct meant that no one is willing to treat you with anything but contempt.

 

Try not to choke on all that bile...

 

I will note the following

 

> 99.9% of the earth's humanity are either stupids, ignorants, lazies or fraudulent liars.

 

When I see a rant like that one complaining that everyone else is stupid and containing any number of basic errors in spelling and grammar, I normally assume that the issues with intellect and communication lie with the poster rather than the 99.9%

 

Oh well... keep at it ...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaLYj_3fwNE

[baraka]

Stop being such a cry-baby. If you imagine that the glacial calculation you are asking for will support your claims about CO₂, just do the work, provide the result, and explain how it supports your view.

 

I suppose this guy is a really bad phylosopher

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QmkHr0W5Vk

 

Really nasty.

[y66]

Kauffman was a partner at Goldman Sachs and head of a renewable energy investment firm before he became a senior adviser to Energy Secretary Steven Chu during Obama's first term.

 

Be very, very afraid, Solyndra-type afraid :ph34r:

Al, our biggest problem here in Virginia is monopoly control of the utility sector by Dominion Power. As David Roberts describes at length in

Power utilities are built for the 20th century. That’s why they’re flailing in the 21st.

 

For all the recent media attention to power utilities, most coverage has been about symptoms rather than root causes. There's a battle over rooftop solar here, a coal or nuke bailout there, a fight against efficiency over there, but casual news consumers are offered no way of making sense of these battles or how they fit into a larger story. They're left with the vague impression that utilities hate clean energy out of sheer greed or malice. And that's not quite right.

 

Greed and malice are definitely involved. But they, too, are symptoms. No matter how individually virtuous utility executives may be, these running battles between utilities and clean energy will continue until the root problem is addressed and solved.

 

The root problem is simple: It's the way utilities are structured. They are monopoly providers of a whole bundle of electricity services in a given geographic area. But technology has evolved to the point that many of those services could be provided just as reliably, or better, by participants in competitive markets — if there were any such markets. Competitors keep trying to squeeze into the electricity space, and utilities keep using their monopoly power to try to squeeze them back out. That's what all the fights are about.

 

There's no longer any compelling reason for all those services to be bundled by a single "vertically integrated" monopoly. The only thing left that calls for monopoly control is the distribution grid itself, managing it and interfacing with customers. As for the rest — electricity generation, procurement, and management — they should be "unbundled," spun off into competitive markets to accelerate innovation.

 

Until regulators divest utilities of monopoly control over electricity services, there will be fights between utilities and emerging competitors. That's the root of the issue.

Kauffman totally gets this. His Apple platform analogy is dead on IMO. Open up the grid to competition, make it smarter and less centralized, price externalities and watch what happens. Come on. This is all good and you know it.

[Daniel1960]

Oh well... keep at it ...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaLYj_3fwNE

 

Baraka,

While we can find numerous scientists, activists, politicians, etc. who wholly support one position or the other, you may want to look beyond that to what larger number believe. Here is a study of climate scientists (based on publications and contributions to the IPCC and other climate-related publications.

 

http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2015-climate-science-survey-questions-and-responses_01731.pdf

 

Roughly half of the respondents stated that mankind was more than 75% to blame for warming of the past 50 years. Slightly less than one-quarter stated between 25-75% of the warming, and the rest were less or unknown. Slightly less than half stated that sea level rise has accelerated to 3 mm/y, and that the lower level for sea level rise over the next century is ~1 foot. Only 6% of responses stated that sea level would rise more than 10 feet. These are scientists most active in climate studies. Note: it is not 97%, nor do a majority believe it is entirely manmade. On the opposing end, ~30% of respondents stated that the warming attributable to mankind was either less than 25% or unknown. Also, it was conducted four years ago, after the exceptionally warm 2012 and record low Arctic sea ice.

[billw55]

Exactly like I thaugth. Never any answers. Always inuendoes, misdirection, defamation and character assasination. Never anything constructive. If you dont have the time for checking everything then why take the time to critic everything. You are a bunch of poses for Al Gore and nothing, I mean nothing will make you open your eyes. It's your job here to mess it up.

 

99.9% of the earth's humanity are either stupids, ignorants, lazies or fraudulent liars. I've met quite a bunch here. The worst kind are the fraudulent liars and this blog is full of them. Just poses for Al Gore.

Well into Poe's Law territory now.

[PassedOut]

On the opposing end, ~30% of respondents stated that the warming attributable to mankind was either less than 25% or unknown.

No. See question 1a.

What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to

human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?

 

0 - 25%        6.5%
Less than 0%   0.2%
No warming     0.4%
Unknown        9.9% 

Looks more like 17% to me. And "unknown" does not mean "I think the percentage is small."

 

Good paper though. From the introduction, and supported in the text:

 

Consistent with previous studies, we found that the level of agreement with the IPCC position increases with increasing expertise in climate science, as judged by the self-reported number of peer-reviewed publications on climate change. Likewise, this level of agreement is stronger for respondents with self-reported domain expertise.

[Al_U_Card]

Al, our biggest problem here in Virginia is monopoly control of the utility sector by Dominion Power. As David Roberts describes at length in

Power utilities are built for the 20th century. That’s why they’re flailing in the 21st.

 

 

Kauffman totally gets this. His Apple platform analogy is dead on IMO. Open up the grid to competition, make it smarter and less centralized, price externalities and watch what happens. Come on. This is all good and you know it.

G/S is not a conspiracy, just a profit-oriented, ruthless organization. That sensible people work there goes without saying and that they can have good ideas too. Getting value for money (less interference from government and less subsidy/graft/agenda) is always a good thing.

Our utilities suffer from the greening of industry such that subsidies overtake efficiency and result in reliance on the unreliable (solar, wind etc.) Savvy and ingenuity will always provide the winning strategy if they are not strangled and held back by red tape and bureaucracy. The current paradigm of "worse than we thought/we're all gonna die/we are a plague on the planet" is only exacerbating the situation. This is mostly due to the agenda of the UN and the IPCC to foist a decarbonization scheme onto our industrial development.

[Daniel1960]

No. See question 1a.

What fraction of global warming since the mid-20th century can be attributed to

human induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations?

 

0 - 25%        6.5%
Less than 0%   0.2%
No warming     0.4%
Unknown        9.9% 

Looks more like 17% to me. And "unknown" does not mean "I think the percentage is small."

 

Good paper though. From the introduction, and supported in the text:

 

True, but it means that a significant portion is not convinced that the percentage is high. Also, there was another 12% stated I don't know or other. That adds up to almost 30.

 

The number of publications does not equate to expertise. That relates better to a closeness to academia, as universities highly encourage publication as opposed to government work and business research.

[PassedOut]

The number of publications does not equate to expertise.

Hence the specific confirming question about domain expertise.

 

What choice was available to responders convinced that GHG was responsible for somewhere between 40% and 60%? Would that be "other" or would it be "unknown?"

 

What we can say for certain is that only 7.1% of responders were convinced that GHG is responsible for 25% or less of the warming.

[Zelandakh]

What choice was available to responders convinced that GHG was responsible for somewhere between 40% and 60%? Would that be "other" or would it be "unknown?"

This is funny - you posted a portion of the answers then apparently forgot your own edit and believed these were the only answers. :lol: The full results are:-

--

More than 100% - 17.1%

76% - 100% - 32.3%

51% - 75% - 16.6%

26% - 50% - 5.2%

0% - 25% - 6.5%

Less than 0% - 0.2%

No warming - 0.4%

Unknown - 9.9%

I don't know - 8.8%

Other 3.1%

--

 

It is also possible to see from Q3a (How would you characterize the contribution of the following factors to the reported global warming of ~0.8C since pre-industrial times?) that GHGs have responses of:-

--

Strong warming - ~64%

Moderate warming - ~23%

Weak warming - ~6%

--

 

That would seem to be contradictory with any attempt to portray the results of 1a as a serious criticism of the CO₂ model.

 

The paper is also a little tricky in places. For example, on skimming through the answers to Q3c surprised me quite a lot. Only after reading in more detail did I see that the percentages given are from the total population whereas the questions were only asked to a small portion according to Q3a. That seems to be an obvious attempt to display the data in a way that minimises the relevance of such other factors. But maybe I am underestimating the target audience - I guess most of them know by now the tricks that can be used in such surveys...

[baraka]

Climate Change HOAX exposed by Geologist straight to the UK Govt

 

 

Well, well, well. Another nasty geologist taking a whack at Gore's CO2 scam. What a mean bastard !

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEPW_P7GVB8

[PassedOut]

This is funny - you posted a portion of the answers then apparently forgot your own edit and believed these were the only answers. :lol: The full results are:-

--

More than 100% - 17.1%

76% - 100% - 32.3%

51% - 75% - 16.6%

26% - 50% - 5.2%

0% - 25% - 6.5%

Less than 0% - 0.2%

No warming - 0.4%

Unknown - 9.9%

I don't know - 8.8%

Other 3.1%

--

Not at all. I assumed I was writing for careful readers. That was my mistake. :P

 

I had the full list in mind (and thought that would be obvious) when I asked Daniel:

 

What choice was available to responders convinced that GHG was responsible for somewhere between 40% and 60%? Would that be "other" or would it be "unknown?"

I meant to call attention to a problem with that list. And what would your choice be in that situation with the full list, the one I assumed that Daniel and everyone else knew was being discussed?

 

You can spin data many ways. Using Daniel's approach in another way, one could say this:

 

71.2% of responders are already convinced that GHG was responsible for more than a quarter of earth's warming -- and another 21.8% consider that possible -- for a total of 93%.

 

I encourage folks to read the actual papers (carefully) instead of accepting anyone's spin on them, even mine. And I will try to remember not to assume that I'm addressing careful readers here.

B-)

[baraka]

Baraka,

While we can find numerous scientists, activists, politicians, etc. who wholly support one position or the other, you may want to look beyond that to what larger number believe.

 

Sorry if I'm in disaccord. It's not what people think that,s important, it's the science.

 

For those who took the time to see the video I named The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…

 

Take note that Al Gore presents temperature and CO2 data from ice cores dating back some 650000 years. From his own admission those ice cores never melted away for the last 650000 years. We are supposed to believe that they will soon melt away and inundate everything. None sense. They never did and never will despite numerous hot spells. But that is not my main point here.

 

He presents 2 graphs, one at the top and the other at the bottom, to show the correlation between historical temperatures and CO2 levels. Quite impressive indeed. What he omits to say, and if you put the 2 graphs one on top of the other, is that you will find that its the temperature that leads to higher CO2 level, with an 800 years lag, and not the other way around. Its the temperature that leads and the CO2 that lags. So, CO2 levels cannot be the driver for climate change.

 

CO2 levels being the driver of climate change is a hoax.

 

Respectfully

[y66]

From The Economist: Climate change -- clear thinking needed:

 

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print-edition/20151128_LDD001_0.jpg

 

IN SOME ways, the climate talks that begin in Paris on November 30th will show world leaders at their best. Taking a break from pressing issues such as terrorist threats and stuttering economies, they will try to avert a crisis that will pose its gravest risks long after they have left office. It is the opposite of the myopic thinking that is often said to afflict politics. A pity, then, that politicians have set themselves an impossible task, and that they are mostly going about it in the wrong way.

 

That climate change is happening, that it is very largely man-made and that it is exceedingly dangerous, are all now hard to deny (though America’s leading Republican presidential candidates routinely try). This year will all but certainly be the hottest since 1880, when NASA’s records begin. If so, 2015 will break a record that was set only in 2014. Every single year so far this decade has been hotter than every single year before 1998.

 

The wind turbines and solar panels that are spreading across Europe, America and China are barely restraining carbon-dioxide emissions. Since the turn of the century, global energy has become more, not less, carbon intensive. Coal now supplies 41% of the world’s electricity and 29% of the world’s energy—a bigger share than at any time in at least four decades. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 40% higher than it was at the beginning of the industrial revolution.

 

A terrible two

 

The presidents and prime ministers who gather in Paris will insist that global warming must be halted before the world becomes 2°C (3.6°F) hotter than it was in pre-industrial days. That is what they have said for years but, considering the momentum behind climate change, this target is as unrealistic as it is arbitrary. If annual greenhouse-gas emissions remain at the present level, enough pollution will enter the atmosphere in just 30 years eventually to warm the world by two degrees.

 

Greens say that the target is a rallying point—that it is useful because it inspires action, and action, once under way, will inspire yet more action in a virtuous circle. If only world leaders would stiffen their spines and promise even more green energy, they argue, disaster could be averted. But this drastically understates the challenge. The parts of the planet that have become rich have done so by tapping a vast store of fossil energy with feckless, if understandable, abandon. For the rest of the world to join them over the century ahead, and then for all concerned—as well as the planet’s non-human inhabitants—to flourish in the centuries that follow, will take a lot more than just a big expansion of existing renewable technologies.

 

The world and its leaders need more ambition and more realism. The ambition requires increasing the options available. Generous subsidies perpetuate today’s low-carbon technologies; the goal should be to usher in tomorrow’s. Unfortunately, energy companies (unlike, say, drug firms or car companies) see investment in radical new technologies as a poor prospect, and governments have been feeble in taking up the slack. A broad commitment quickly to raise and diversify R&D spending on energy technologies would be more welcome than more or less anything else Paris could offer.

 

This would be costly. But remember three things. One is that spending money to reduce grave risks is reasonable. The second is that some of today’s climate policies cost a lot more than a greatly expanded research portfolio and yield rather less. The subsidies that have created thousands of wind and solar farms have achieved only a little and at great cost. Other green subsidies, such as some of those for biofuels, have done actual harm. There is plenty of money to be saved.

 

A third is that one of the best measures against climate change raises money. Well-designed carbon prices can boost green power, encourage energy-saving and suppress fossil-fired power much more efficiently than subsidies for renewables. A few brave places have plumped to set such prices through carbon taxes: the latest is Alberta, in Canada. Most countries that have tried to price carbon have instead issued tradable pollution permits—invariably too many of them, with the result that the price is too low to change behaviour. Ideally such countries would admit their mistake and start taxing. Failing that, they should keep their emissions-trading schemes but add a floor price, and raise it steadily.

 

The new research agenda needs to tackle the deficiencies of renewables. Though solar, in particular, has become a lot cheaper, new materials, manufacturing and assembly technologies could make it cheaper still. Better ways of storing energy are required—so that wind or solar power can be used, for example, in the cold, still winter evenings when European electricity demand tends to peak. So are better ways of getting it from A to B, either through larger grids or in the form of newly synthesised fuels. Could biotechnology produce photosynthetic bugs that pump out lots of usable fuels? No one knows. It would be worth a few billion to find out.

 

Nor should the ambitions for research be limited to renewables. There are other forms of fossil-fuel-free energy, such as nuclear. Innovation in nuclear energy is not easy: such power plants are dangerous and need vigilant, independent regulation; they are unpopular and currently vastly expensive. But a civilisation that looks decades or more ahead cannot exclude new forms of nuclear from the research agenda.

 

Living with it

 

Radical innovation is the key to reducing emissions over the medium and long term, but it will not stop climate change from getting worse in the meantime. This is where the realism comes in: many people will have to adapt to a hotter Earth, and some of them will need help.

 

More

[baraka]

The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group composed primarily of more than 25 retired NASA Apollo Program veterans, who joined together in February 2012 to perform an objective, independent study of scientific claims of significant Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). AGW is theorized to result primarily from emissions into the atmosphere of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), primarily Carbon Dioxide (CO2), as a result of fossil fuel burning.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A Report of The Right Climate Stuff Research Team

 

The Full Report can be found at:

 

http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/BoundingClimateSensitivityForRegDecisions

 

　

We have also concluded that increasing levels of GHG in the atmosphere cannot cause more than 1.2oC of additional warming above current global average temperatures, before all economically recoverable fossil fuels on the planet are consumed. This maximum possible additional AGW should be offset to some extent by a forecast of reduced solar output over the next couple of centuries, and that has already started to occur. Longer term, because of orbital mechanics cycles of the earths orbit around the Sun and small cyclical variations in tilt of the earths spin axis with respect to the earths orbital plane, we should continue a gradual global cooling trend into the next major glacial advance that should begin in about 10,000 years and last for about 70,000 years before the next major warming trend begins.

[hrothgar]

The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) research team is a volunteer group composed primarily of more than 25 retired NASA Apollo Program veterans, who joined together in February 2012 to perform an objective, independent study of scientific claims of significant Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). AGW is theorized to result primarily from emissions into the atmosphere of Greenhouse Gases (GHG), primarily Carbon Dioxide (CO2), as a result of fossil fuel burning.

 

 

Executive Summary

 

A Report of The Right Climate Stuff Research Team

 

The Full Report can be found at:

 

http://www.therightclimatestuff.com/BoundingClimateSensitivityForRegDecisions

 

We have also concluded that increasing levels of GHG in the atmosphere cannot cause more than 1.2oC of additional warming above current global average temperatures, before all economically recoverable fossil fuels on the planet are consumed. This maximum possible additional AGW should be offset to some extent by a forecast of reduced solar output over the next couple of centuries, and that has already started to occur. Longer term, because of orbital mechanics cycles of the earth’s orbit around the Sun and small cyclical variations in tilt of the earth’s spin axis with respect to the earth’s orbital plane, we should continue a gradual global cooling trend into the next major glacial advance that should begin in about 10,000 years and last for about 70,000 years before the next major warming trend begins.

 

Yo, shite for brains!

 

Once again, if you are going to bother to post your silly little screeds, please take the time and effort to ensure that there aren't already FAQ pages dubunking your latest discovery. I don't expect you to post anything intelligent, but stupid plus lazy is a particularly unflattering combination.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/NASA-retirees-letter2.html

 

I particularly like the following line:

 

"It's purely an appeal to authority, except that the participants have no authority or expertise in climate science."