I exchange money for a service. That service provides me fuel.
Fuel = energy.
Energy allows me to move my vehicle and its content about much faster and further than I could on foot.
It also allows me to transport items that are much heavier than I can on my own person.
This allows me to live further away in a more peaceful area that is cheaper. It always allows me to make a living, because I can transport goods I normaly couldnt.
This is one of the problems you guys have. You cannot understand that cheap energy is the ONLY reason you have such a high quality of life. Everything you have, from your job to education, to refrigeration and modern electronics is thanks to cheap energy.
You cannot just hand wave away the benefits of energy when calculating the costs.
Hundreds of billions spent on climate research in the few decades. Hundreds of billions more spent on green energy subsidies (including failed companies that took off like thieves in the night).
Though fossil fuel companies to make billions, the amount of money spent to push the AGW agenda dwarfs anything on the other side.
Its well on its way, technology is doing its thing. Renewables are dropping in price. Things are on track.
Its a fallacy that we need to accelerate this.
Trump is new to all this, this debate has been going on for much longer, its just the new face and you want to blame it all on him. He's right, its simple. The Paris deal was bad, is bad and would have done absolutely nothing but send money to the world bank.
The fact that you dont know how bad for the world economy this whole thing is, is the problem. I just dont know how to make you understand, but I guess maybe you just dont want to.
Supporting it would have cost hundreds of billions + increased energy prices for no reason. It would have meant giving over (eventually) control to an un-elected body in determining policy in the USA.
BTW, I see your Feynman quote. You should do a little research on what he though about the GHG effect, also about vague theories.
First you say oil is dying anyways so lets all jump on the "spend too much for expensive energy" bandwagon, and now you say its not dying fast enough so "lets all jump on the expensive energy" bandwagon. In short, you want poor people to die.
For the rest of your diatribe of words, you make allot of presumptions and obviously hate the USA, however you, like allot of your greeny friends, no nothing about the global economy.
We will see, but I have an overwhelming feeling that everything you mentioned, will NOT come to pass.
MightyMartian we all know you are a little irrational when it comes to this subject.
My point is that the Paris accord is a bad one.
Why would anyone remain in a deal that is bad? For appearances?
China is building nuclear plants. If the USA would be doing the same, Id be all for it.
You know nothing of what I have bought from the fossil industry, which is absolutely nothing exept for a tank of gasoline a few days ago.
If oil is dying, what is all the hubbub about? Why exactly do we need to transfer billions of dollars to the World Banks slush fund? And if demand is falling, why do we need to go to some crazy efforts to make useless promises to reduce emissions which have badly defined results?
Ive been saying for decades, technology will slowly but surely resolve these issues on their own given enough time. And there is NO REASON to believe we will hit a catastrophic brick wall before it takes us there.
The mental gymnastics you are doing to justify your comments is amazing.
AR5 was 4 years ago. Based on research compiled from 8 to 4 years ago.
The point I made, that you cannot refute, is that in the last 25 years (and more) most studies have been revising climate sensitivity downwards as we know more.
It wont go to zero, that is obvious.
AGW is not a set in stone science and you know this, you just choose to ignore that.
The reason to consider or at the very least pursue research concerning the no-feedback lowerbound is because of observation.
When nearly 30% of the CO2 increase has happened over the last 20 years and at the very same time, except for El Nino events, global average temperatures have flatlined statisticaly, its a clear indication of the above.
You know, all I'm saying is, there is no reason to be alarmist. There is no obvious catastrophic even coming. This needs to continue being researched and we learn more everyday that demonstrates things arent as tire as Hansen, Schmidt, Karl and Mann would want us to believe.
The fact that you are making a strong effort to deny that, is what makes your comments and train of though un scientific.
Call me a liar all you want, but you would also be calling all the climate scientists who published these studies (many of which are found in the IPCC) liars too.
There is no consensus.
It would do you good to do some research, might just help you understand that Wikipedia and the MSM are just pushing a narrative.
No one said CO2 is irrelevant. I said your reply was.
Saying GHG are the highest ever, does not mean the end of the world is coming. Observations do not demonstrate that it is.
CO2 heat trapping properties are logarithmic. Which means, to trap the same amount of heat 400ppm does, you will need to double de CO2 concentration to 800ppm. The effects per molecule are less the more you have.
Also, studies have been trying to determine the climate sensitivity to a double of CO2 for a long time now. The only consistency whe get from all these papers over the last 25 years is that as we learn more, that sensitivity is on a downward trend. This means, the more we know, the more we are realising that climate sensitivity to a double of CO2 gets lower and lower and lower. Currently probably somewhere between 0.5C to 1.1C for every doubling of CO2.
That my friend is what we call, not much to worry about. It indicates CO2 is not really the driver of the slight increase in global average temperatures we see.
In short, you cant call people liars when you just dont understand the subject.
Climate isnt black and white, its complex. And complexity comes with nuance and a spectrum of colors.
I dont really care what your particular about as you lack the knowledge to debate this subject.
I'm sorry your beliefs do not agree with science.
First off, if you dont know what you are talking about, how can you come to the conclusion that I am lying?
Or are you just mad I don't agree with your belief?
Second, I wasnt talking about CO2, so your whole post is just a long rant with no point.
You can deny my opinion and science all you like, but high and low resolution problems in various proxy datasets is well known. That you do not know about them, does not make then non existant.
You can see a study here that tries to improve temperature resolution by using multiple proxies from the same area.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Wrong. Fossil records do not have the resolution for which to compare rate of change. 100 year rate changes are smoothed by the resolution, so there is no way of telling if the current rate of 0.85c over 150 years is unique, however it most likely is not at all.
The survey is a lie. Its an obvious lie by a global warming alarmist agenda newly founded group.
If you want a real survey, here it is: http://data.myworld2015.org/
Even the UN cant massage the data of its own survey. Climate change is DEAD last issue around the world.
I will have to call b.s. on this survey from a newly founded global warming alarmist organisation.
You want a real survey, here it is : http://data.myworld2015.org/
Climate change is DEAD LAST.
Nobody is getting rich of government grants. Nobody. Maybe you should break out of your news bubble and stop listening to the people shoveling this crap at you.
I can name one. Jagadish Shukla.
And even his story has been swept under the rug by the MSM.
How many more are there that we do not know about?
Point is, you are wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The results are not reproducible.
You made that up. That is the problem with climate science.
Heck, they are going around saying now that climate science is "special" and does not need to be falsifiable.
They are basically redefining the definition of SCIENCE.
http://theconversation.com/cli...
How can we take seriously people who believe in the 90%-99% consensus (The party line is 97% you need to get it right).
Every study that tried to demonstrate this consensus had such horrible methodology it would be laughed at in any other field.
This means you are gullible, have read news papers, the mainstream media and just believe what others tell you.
Making off of me?
I exchange money for a service. That service provides me fuel.
Fuel = energy.
Energy allows me to move my vehicle and its content about much faster and further than I could on foot.
It also allows me to transport items that are much heavier than I can on my own person.
This allows me to live further away in a more peaceful area that is cheaper.
It always allows me to make a living, because I can transport goods I normaly couldnt.
This is one of the problems you guys have. You cannot understand that cheap energy is the ONLY reason you have such a high quality of life.
Everything you have, from your job to education, to refrigeration and modern electronics is thanks to cheap energy.
You cannot just hand wave away the benefits of energy when calculating the costs.
I think you only followed the money one way.
Hundreds of billions spent on climate research in the few decades.
Hundreds of billions more spent on green energy subsidies (including failed companies that took off like thieves in the night).
Though fossil fuel companies to make billions, the amount of money spent to push the AGW agenda dwarfs anything on the other side.
To say otherwise is ignorance or lies.
Or the fact that CO2 has nothing to do with asthma.
The problem with your statement is that the vaping industry is NOT the tobacco industry.
They arent the same companies.
They arent exceeding their goals. You just made that up.
They set goals 20 years into the future to begin with because they know that technology is already on its way to making these changes.
They know, that business as usual is enough.
The rest is just a grab for cash.
Why? Why does it need to die faster?
Its well on its way, technology is doing its thing. Renewables are dropping in price. Things are on track.
Its a fallacy that we need to accelerate this.
Trump is new to all this, this debate has been going on for much longer, its just the new face and you want to blame it all on him.
He's right, its simple. The Paris deal was bad, is bad and would have done absolutely nothing but send money to the world bank.
The fact that you dont know how bad for the world economy this whole thing is, is the problem. I just dont know how to make you understand, but I guess maybe you just dont want to.
Right.
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/27...
No it would not have been.
Non binding, means... NON binding.
Supporting it would have cost hundreds of billions + increased energy prices for no reason.
It would have meant giving over (eventually) control to an un-elected body in determining policy in the USA.
BTW, I see your Feynman quote. You should do a little research on what he though about the GHG effect, also about vague theories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
First you say oil is dying anyways so lets all jump on the "spend too much for expensive energy" bandwagon, and now you say its not dying fast enough so "lets all jump on the expensive energy" bandwagon. In short, you want poor people to die.
For the rest of your diatribe of words, you make allot of presumptions and obviously hate the USA, however you, like allot of your greeny friends, no nothing about the global economy.
We will see, but I have an overwhelming feeling that everything you mentioned, will NOT come to pass.
I agree with your comment about China.
Though Nuclear will be their main source of energy.
About your second comment, you are misinformed.
http://unfccc.int/cooperation_...
MightyMartian we all know you are a little irrational when it comes to this subject.
My point is that the Paris accord is a bad one.
Why would anyone remain in a deal that is bad? For appearances?
China is building nuclear plants. If the USA would be doing the same, Id be all for it.
You know nothing of what I have bought from the fossil industry, which is absolutely nothing exept for a tank of gasoline a few days ago.
If oil is dying, what is all the hubbub about? Why exactly do we need to transfer billions of dollars to the World Banks slush fund?
And if demand is falling, why do we need to go to some crazy efforts to make useless promises to reduce emissions which have badly defined results?
Ive been saying for decades, technology will slowly but surely resolve these issues on their own given enough time. And there is NO REASON to believe we will hit a catastrophic brick wall before it takes us there.
China signed it. Because they dont have to do anything until 2030.
India signed it, because it allows them to double their coal production.
So what is your point?
The Paris accord is bad. Being on the green side of the fence or not, its a BAD accord, except for the Word Bank, for them, its Grrreeeaat.
When you dont know what you are talking about you make up nonsense.
You do know China has signed into this non binding treaty that they will do absolutely nothing until 2030.
You know India will double its coal production under this agreement?
If you believe in the AGW propaganda or don't, the Paris accord is bad for America.
The mental gymnastics you are doing to justify your comments is amazing.
AR5 was 4 years ago. Based on research compiled from 8 to 4 years ago.
The point I made, that you cannot refute, is that in the last 25 years (and more) most studies have been revising climate sensitivity downwards as we know more.
It wont go to zero, that is obvious.
AGW is not a set in stone science and you know this, you just choose to ignore that.
The reason to consider or at the very least pursue research concerning the no-feedback lowerbound is because of observation.
When nearly 30% of the CO2 increase has happened over the last 20 years and at the very same time, except for El Nino events, global average temperatures have flatlined statisticaly, its a clear indication of the above.
You know, all I'm saying is, there is no reason to be alarmist. There is no obvious catastrophic even coming. This needs to continue being researched and we learn more everyday that demonstrates things arent as tire as Hansen, Schmidt, Karl and Mann would want us to believe.
The fact that you are making a strong effort to deny that, is what makes your comments and train of though un scientific.
Try actual peer reviewed studies.
https://landshape.files.wordpr...
Call me a liar all you want, but you would also be calling all the climate scientists who published these studies (many of which are found in the IPCC) liars too.
There is no consensus.
It would do you good to do some research, might just help you understand that Wikipedia and the MSM are just pushing a narrative.
No one said CO2 is irrelevant. I said your reply was. Saying GHG are the highest ever, does not mean the end of the world is coming. Observations do not demonstrate that it is. CO2 heat trapping properties are logarithmic. Which means, to trap the same amount of heat 400ppm does, you will need to double de CO2 concentration to 800ppm. The effects per molecule are less the more you have. Also, studies have been trying to determine the climate sensitivity to a double of CO2 for a long time now. The only consistency whe get from all these papers over the last 25 years is that as we learn more, that sensitivity is on a downward trend. This means, the more we know, the more we are realising that climate sensitivity to a double of CO2 gets lower and lower and lower. Currently probably somewhere between 0.5C to 1.1C for every doubling of CO2. That my friend is what we call, not much to worry about. It indicates CO2 is not really the driver of the slight increase in global average temperatures we see. In short, you cant call people liars when you just dont understand the subject. Climate isnt black and white, its complex. And complexity comes with nuance and a spectrum of colors. I dont really care what your particular about as you lack the knowledge to debate this subject. I'm sorry your beliefs do not agree with science.
First off, if you dont know what you are talking about, how can you come to the conclusion that I am lying? Or are you just mad I don't agree with your belief? Second, I wasnt talking about CO2, so your whole post is just a long rant with no point. You can deny my opinion and science all you like, but high and low resolution problems in various proxy datasets is well known. That you do not know about them, does not make then non existant. You can see a study here that tries to improve temperature resolution by using multiple proxies from the same area. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Wrong. Fossil records do not have the resolution for which to compare rate of change. 100 year rate changes are smoothed by the resolution, so there is no way of telling if the current rate of 0.85c over 150 years is unique, however it most likely is not at all.
The survey is a lie. Its an obvious lie by a global warming alarmist agenda newly founded group. If you want a real survey, here it is: http://data.myworld2015.org/ Even the UN cant massage the data of its own survey. Climate change is DEAD last issue around the world.
I will have to call b.s. on this survey from a newly founded global warming alarmist organisation. You want a real survey, here it is : http://data.myworld2015.org/ Climate change is DEAD LAST.
Quibbling? I think that is the most important part. Or do you think 0.1C over 100 years is the same as 10C over 100 years?
Nobody is getting rich of government grants. Nobody. Maybe you should break out of your news bubble and stop listening to the people shoveling this crap at you.
I can name one. Jagadish Shukla. And even his story has been swept under the rug by the MSM. How many more are there that we do not know about? Point is, you are wrong.
The problem is you graduated in 2002. If you had graduated in 1972, this propaganda had not yet been introduced to the education system.