The Climate thread

[elfenix 34,168]

32 minutes ago, zork said:

China is using their government to fund their installations of their technology

so?  we've been using everyone else's air as an open sewer for the past century+, you expect them to pay for us to clean up our mess?

33 minutes ago, zork said:

It would be like US Fed government buying Boeing planes for other countries

which we do all the fucking time.

 

33 minutes ago, zork said:

That is not true on a per capita basis.

[Brisketexan 104,465]

So per capita only counts if it is to bash the USA on the polluting side of the ledger?

Increase in investment. Coordinated export of green energy tech. They are taking leadership in the field...because we’re fucking moronically ceding the field, incrementally. Because see, we take the coal...and we clean it.

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Increase in investment. Coordinated export of green energy tech. They are taking leadership in the field...because we’re fucking moronically ceding the field, incrementally. Because see, we take the coal...and we clean it.

we have dropped our coal usage by almost 1/2 since 2000.

can't link diagram but see it here:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/220174/total-us-electricity-net-generation-by-fuel/

[zork 629]

7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

so?  we've been using everyone else's air as an open sewer for the past century+, you expect them to pay for us to clean up our mess?

which we do all the fucking time.

 

read the thread, per capita is the way to measure things.

[elfenix 34,168]

read the thread, per capita is the way to measure things.

In that case they're kicking our fucking ass by burning 7 metric tons of CO2 per capita compared to 16 metric tons of CO2 per capita

 

 

Oh and btw that figure needs to get to .5.

 

[zork 629]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

20 minutes ago, zork said:

read the thread, per capita is the way to measure things.

In that case they're kicking our fucking ass by burning 7 metric tons of CO2 per capita compared to 16 metric tons of CO2 per capita

yes.  and we are kicking their ass in per capita wind, solar installations as well as coal use reductions.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

Lots of people going to be triggered over a teenager today.

[Biff Tannen 45,477]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Lots of people going to be triggered over a teenager today.

oh boy is this great!

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,342]

New "blue" membrane could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy from rivers. A good friend of mine has been working on this.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue

 

[Biff Tannen 45,477]

3 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

New "blue" membrane could generate thousands of nuclear power plants worth of energy from rivers. A good friend of mine has been working on this.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/rivers-could-generate-thousands-nuclear-power-plants-worth-energy-thanks-new-blue

 

Pretty cool.

[High Plains Drifter 10,970]

On 12/3/2019 at 11:46 AM, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, his use of the 1931 floods as a baseline is pretty indefensible.  Seriously, that's just sloppy.  But the general thesis -- let's stick with what we know, as opposed to hyperbole and histrionics -- has merit.  Likewise, his suggestion that we look at the long game, and the fact that we MUST acknowledge the process of development in places like India, are both very realistic and must be part of the conversation.

 

 

Its not sloppy. Its out-right deliberate dishonesty intended to obfuscate and confuse so that GR types can rationalize away their denialism.

[GSU&UT 1,798]

 

[Pimphand 5,587]

10 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

 

Cold Fusion suppression is real just like all free energy suppression is real.

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Pimphand

[GSU&UT 1,798]

Cool, not sure what that has to do with the tweet I posted.

[elfenix 34,168]

why is andy dick being interviewed about google and what the fuck does that have to do with greta thunberg?

[Biff Tannen 45,477]

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/business/goldman-sachs-arctic/index.html

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

Sometime in the next week, we will experience famine, droughts, and nuclear conflict. Stay frosty amigos.

 

[TDunk 590]

 

Quote

Scientists have been predicating the effects of burning coal and fossil fuels on the temperature of the planet for over 100 years. A 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics contains an article titled “Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate—What Scientists Predict for the Future,” which has a caption that reads: “The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.”

Just one century later, and the effect is considerable indeed. Increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have produced hotter global temperatures, with the last five years (2014 to 2018) being the hottest years on record. 2016 was the hottest year since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) started recording global temperature 139 years ago. The effects of this global change include more frequent and destructive wildfires, more common droughts, accelerating polar ice melt and increased storm surges. California is burning, Venice is flooding, urban heat deaths are on the rise, and countless coastal and island communities face an existential crisis—not to mention the ecological havoc wreaked by climate change, stifling the planet’s ability to pull carbon back out of the atmosphere.

In 2015, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reached a consensus on climate action, known as the Paris Agreement. The primary goal of the Paris Agreement is to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels. To achieve this goal, major societal transformations will be required, including replacing fossil fuels with clean energy such as wind, solar and nuclear; reforming agricultural practices to limit emissions and protect forested areas; and perhaps even building artificial means of pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

 

[Zavala 1,384]

 

[Buzzrock 14,867]

https://reaction.life/the-bbc-bob-ward-and-the-climate-catastrophists-attack-on-dissent/

[elfenix 34,168]

Plan put together by Stanford researchers:

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/01/06/2000-gigawatts-of-solar-power-needed-for-100-renewables/

[elfenix 34,168]

as can be clearly seen, global warming has paused 4 times in the last 45 years

 

[Cacti 191]

4 hours ago, elfenix said:

Plan put together by Stanford researchers:

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/01/06/2000-gigawatts-of-solar-power-needed-for-100-renewables/

The authors say “we must stop” 80% of fossil fuel emissions by 2030 to avoid 1.5°C global warming, citing a previous study.

Is the 50 year, 100% renewables goal based on first stopping 80% of fossil fuel emissions in 10 years? If so, then we had better go to plan B, because neither the U.S. nor the rest of the world will come close to meeting the short-term goal.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

On 1/3/2020 at 1:01 AM, TDunk said:

 

 

CO2 doesn't drive temperature. It just doesn't. This is clear from the historical record.

[Bookman 4,610]

What's the physics argument that carbon dioxide doesn't drive temperature?

[Bateshorn 9,882]

You rang?- Svante Arrhenius

[MissingInAction 24,765]

12 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

CO2 doesn't drive temperature. It just doesn't. This is clear from the historical record.

Burning shit is bad. Why is that so god damn hard to understand? Set the carpet in your house on fire for a demonstration if you need it. You guys are like the fuckers who were convinced smoking cigarettes isn't unhealthy. 

[bolverk 29,360]

13 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

CO2 doesn't drive temperature. It just doesn't. This is clear from the historical record.

H2O won't make you wet. It just doesn't.

[elfenix 34,168]

18 minutes ago, bolverk said:

H2O won't make you wet. It just doesn't.

wet like south austin's mom

[High Plains Drifter 10,970]

 

The Earth doesn't orbit the sun. It just doesn't. This is clear from the historical record.

 

[Tom 2,959]

 

14 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

CO2 doesn't drive temperature. It just doesn't. This is clear from the historical record.

 

6 hours ago, Bookman said:

What's the physics argument that carbon dioxide doesn't drive temperature?

 

He doesn't have one.  He's just copying and pasting an often cited graph climate deniers use from the website geocraft.com -- a website that looks like it hasn't had a makeover since 1995 and is run by a guy named Monte Hieb.

Hieb, surprise surprise, has a background in the mining industry.  He is an engineer from West Virginia and not a credible voice on climate science.  

His graph and claims have been addressed and debunked by others if you google Hieb's name. Here is a quote from an article addressing someone else who used texashammer's same graph to make the same claim:

https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/heres-what-real-science-says-about-the-role-of-co2-as-earths-preeminent

 

You are deluded by hubris — the idea that by reading one graph of suspect origin you know better than an entire scientific community consisting of literally thousands of researchers, operating over many decades and doing the actual hard work of science — and holding up their findings to rigorous review by expert peers.

I went on to say this:

. . . your alleged “evidence” is a graph, in part hand-drawn, posted to a website that hasn’t been updated in six years by an obscure person with no discernible expertise in this area, and based on the work of a scientist who is not an expert in paleo temperature reconstructions and whose ideas were long ago supplanted by better work based on actual physical proxy records.

[Biff Tannen 45,477]

Yeah, but, the graph...

[Pato del Muerto 52,322]

17 hours ago, elfenix said:

as can be clearly seen, global warming has paused 4 times in the last 45 years

 

I don’t particularly care to parse such a chart into bits like this, especially when the data points are so varied. Change the Y axis to half degree steps and look at the entirety, and you will see a nice line that is steadily and slowly heading upward. 
it’s also not exponentially increasing and shouldn’t be reason for alarmism and hyperbole. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Pato del Muerto

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

13 hours ago, Bookman said:

What's the physics argument that carbon dioxide doesn't drive temperature?

It's not "physics". The physics argument you describe is the same argument Al Gore makes. CO2 absorbs a particular wavelength of energy. Everyone understands this. However, that energy is absorbed into what is called a "complex system". That term has a particular meaning in science.

It's a question of whether you understand what an experiment is. We are currently engaged in an experiment where we add CO2 to the atmosphere. The same experiment has been run in the past, with no affect on temperature. Since CO2 has been exogenously added to, or removed from, the atmosphere many times in the past without any temperature change, there will not be any temperature change now.

However, when you add fear to a failing social system, the output is money, prestige, and power. That experiment is also well understood.

A more persuasive argument is that we are at the end of the holocene. Cold is way more scary than warmth, which so far has been completely good for the climate. CO2 is plant food, the earth is 17% greener as a result of more CO2. 

I'll be looking for the chart that shows CO2 has ever driven temperature in the past.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Thetexashammer

[elfenix 34,168]

the error bars on your "chart" are wider than south austin's mom's vagina.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

10 minutes ago, elfenix said:

the error bars on your "chart" are wider than south austin's mom's vagina.

I don't bear the burden of proof. If you are going to assert an hypothesis without evidence, then you have no evidence and ought not be listened to. Or, in more technical scientific terminology, you are full of shit.

Did you know that northern hemishphere snowfall levels have been increasing? They used to say "snow will be athing of the past". There's more snow because it's getting colder. Please tell me that Rutgers is a part of the Denier Conspiracy., I need another good laugh.

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Thetexashammer

[elfenix 34,168]

14 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

I don't bear the burden of proof.

the other side has already presented mountains of evidence and more than met their burden.  when that happens, it becomes incumbent upon you to do something to refute their proof. you've not done so.  instead you play repeated games of whackamole with already debunked non-proof, which you and your tag team partners post over and over again thinking that's an argument. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by elfenix

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

Just now, elfenix said:

the other side has already presented mountains of evidence and more than met their burden.  when that happens, it becomes incumbent upon you to do something to refute their proof. you've not done so.

Show me where CO2 drives temperature.

[elfenix 34,168]

10 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Did you know that northern hemishphere snowfall levels have been increasing?

and it's disappearing earlier

https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/files/ru-mean-march-april-anomalies-nhland-v01r01.txt

[elfenix 34,168]

7 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Show me where CO2 drives temperature.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Edited January 8, 2020 by elfenix

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

40 minutes ago, elfenix said:

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

You appear to be confused. Where is the evidence that CO2 drives temperature?

[elfenix 34,168]

2 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

You appear to be confused. Where is the evidence that CO2 drives temperature?

you won't read this one either

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973

[Bookman 4,610]

7 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

It's not "physics". The physics argument you describe is the same argument Al Gore makes. CO2 absorbs a particular wavelength of energy. Everyone understands this. However, that energy is absorbed into what is called a "complex system". That term has a particular meaning in science.

It's a question of whether you understand what an experiment is. We are currently engaged in an experiment where we add CO2 to the atmosphere. The same experiment has been run in the past, with no affect on temperature. Since CO2 has been exogenously added to, or removed from, the atmosphere many times in the past without any temperature change, there will not be any temperature change now.

However, when you add fear to a failing social system, the output is money, prestige, and power. That experiment is also well understood.

A more persuasive argument is that we are at the end of the holocene. Cold is way more scary than warmth, which so far has been completely good for the climate. CO2 is plant food, the earth is 17% greener as a result of more CO2. 

I'll be looking for the chart that shows CO2 has ever driven temperature in the past.

It's not physics? So is it metaphysics?

And I understand what an experiment is. I did graduate from the sixth grade.

[Todd Gack 422]

14 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

It's not "physics". The physics argument you describe is the same argument Al Gore makes. CO2 absorbs a particular wavelength of energy. Everyone understands this. However, that energy is absorbed into what is called a "complex system". That term has a particular meaning in science.

It's a question of whether you understand what an experiment is. We are currently engaged in an experiment where we add CO2 to the atmosphere. The same experiment has been run in the past, with no affect on temperature. Since CO2 has been exogenously added to, or removed from, the atmosphere many times in the past without any temperature change, there will not be any temperature change now.

However, when you add fear to a failing social system, the output is money, prestige, and power. That experiment is also well understood.

A more persuasive argument is that we are at the end of the holocene. Cold is way more scary than warmth, which so far has been completely good for the climate. CO2 is plant food, the earth is 17% greener as a result of more CO2. 

I'll be looking for the chart that shows CO2 has ever driven temperature in the past.

Why is physics in quotes?  Does physics not explain how CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and causes temperatures to rise?  Or is that fake physics?   Is your assertion that this energy absorbed into your super fancy "complex system" somehow avoids following the rules of physics and *doesn't* cause temperatures to rise?  How can it take you 5 minutes to cook your grits when it takes the entire grit-eating world 20 minutes?

So lets say the CO2 never *initiates* global temperature rise.  We'll agree that those rises in temp are caused by orbital forcing (I don't know if that's completely true).  The fact remains that warmer oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere (there's that pesky physics again).  And that causes further warming.  Who gives a shit what started it?  If us humans are pumping in greenhouse gases that are amplifying the warming that was initiated by something other than CO2, maybe we should figure out how to stop pumping so much shit into the atmosphere.  Why does it matter that lighter fluid doesn't actually strike the match and produce the flame?  If the forest floor has lit matches scattered around, it's always a bad idea to go around throwing half-empty bottles of lighter fluid into said forest. 

[Biff Tannen 45,477]

3 hours ago, Todd Gack said:

If the forest floor has lit matches scattered around, it's always a bad idea to go around throwing half-empty bottles of lighter fluid into said forest. 

Yeah, but if we got some rakes...

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

9 hours ago, Todd Gack said:

Why is physics in quotes?  Does physics not explain how CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and causes temperatures to rise?  Or is that fake physics?   Is your assertion that this energy absorbed into your super fancy "complex system" somehow avoids following the rules of physics and *doesn't* cause temperatures to rise?  How can it take you 5 minutes to cook your grits when it takes the entire grit-eating world 20 minutes?

So lets say the CO2 never *initiates* global temperature rise.  We'll agree that those rises in temp are caused by orbital forcing (I don't know if that's completely true).  The fact remains that warmer oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere (there's that pesky physics again).  And that causes further warming.  Who gives a shit what started it?  If us humans are pumping in greenhouse gases that are amplifying the warming that was initiated by something other than CO2, maybe we should figure out how to stop pumping so much shit into the atmosphere.  Why does it matter that lighter fluid doesn't actually strike the match and produce the flame?  If the forest floor has lit matches scattered around, it's always a bad idea to go around throwing half-empty bottles of lighter fluid into said forest. 

Because everyone understands that, so it is not under dispute. CO2 is unlike most other gasses, it is less soluble in water at higher temperatures. This physical characteristic is well know.

You should reference a post I made above regarding "complex system". The only way to prove the AGW hypothesis is with evidence that exogenous CO2 leads to temperature increases, but we have plenty of example where that exact phenomenon doesn't change the temperature at all. The R^2 for CO2 is near zero. Restating something everyone already accepts does not make the R^2 0.93.

Quote

If the forest floor has lit matches scattered around, it's always a bad idea to go around throwing half-empty bottles of lighter fluid into said forest. 

Go to the master circuit at your house and flip it to the off position. Then take your car keys and throw them in the garbage. Don't worry, you won't have a job anymore anyway. 

The AGW hypothesis can only be proven one way, and it's not with an onslaught of liberal guilt.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Thetexashammer

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

21 hours ago, elfenix said:

you won't read this one either

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973

You're quoting a single, speculative paper and acting like it means something. There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin. You're out of your depth by a long way.

Aren't you the poster who said that you just deny any fact that doesn't support your opinion?

[elfenix 34,168]

hey more ignoring any fact that doesn't support your opinion.  you're a one trick pony. you should go back to shitty commercials on daytime tv.

Edited January 9, 2020 by elfenix

[ChiTownDoc 21,091]

Is this guy why they say ‘dumb as a bag of hammers’?

 

[High Plains Drifter 10,970]

10 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Because everyone understands that, so it is not under dispute. CO2 is unlike most other gasses, it is less soluble in water at higher temperatures. This physical characteristic is well know.

You should reference a post I made above regarding "complex system". The only way to prove the AGW hypothesis is with evidence that exogenous CO2 leads to temperature increases, but we have plenty of example where that exact phenomenon doesn't change the temperature at all. The R^2 for CO2 is near zero. Restating something everyone already accepts does not make the R^2 0.93.

Go to the master circuit at your house and flip it to the off position. Then take your car keys and throw them in the garbage. Don't worry, you won't have a job anymore anyway. 

The AGW hypothesis can only be proven one way, and it's not with an onslaught of liberal guilt.

 

Pretty much all gases are less soluble in water at higher temperatures. This fact regarding CO2 would be an example of your classic positive feedback loop.

AGW is not a hypothesis. It is a theory.

Neither hypotheses nor theories are ever "proven".

The Theory of AGW is well supported by evidence. A lot of evidence. The details are being quibbled over by the experts who study AGW, but so are the details of every other theory out there.

The R squared value for CO2 forcing is not zero. Its not even close.  Here is another link you either won't read or won't understand:

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=257

Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature.

To deny CO2's role as the main driver of climate change is to deny basic science. You might as well claim the sun revolves around the Earth.

And of course, you resort  a straw man, followed by the obligatory partisan insults.

 

You are either deliberately lying or very very stupid. Either way, you are now on ignore. Don't bother responding because I won't see your response.