Visit our Popular Forums

Bycrick · 26-02-2022, 09:49

"By 1863 anthropogenic CO2 emissions per annum were 35 times pre-industrial levels."

So what? Before there was an industry, "anthropogenic" emissions were negligible. There’s only room for so many campfires. Even counting such things the massive burning of grasslands to run buffalo off cliffs, until one has concentrated, large-scale processes, there aren’t many emissions.

lestersails · 26-02-2022, 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

Agreed lets get rid of all government subsidies and let the open market decide . But in the process we need to also get rid of any and all legislation/ regulations that are preferential in any way.

But first you may want to read this article .

https://insidesources.com/us-still-s...rly-7-billion/

Thanks for the useless url*. There is no argument that green energy is being subsidized.
My point was that if green and fossil fuels were equally subsidized, it would go a long, long way to mitigating ACC.
Free market.
Level playing field.
Fair competition.
No governmental subsidizing of one over the other.
You are opposed to that?

*Of course, the article you pointed to does not mention the enormous subsidies for fossil fuels. Why would you point to that article? I get it - you only want to criticize green subsidies but not fossil fuel subsidies. Denial, denial, denial.

Lake-Effect · 26-02-2022, 10:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bycrick

What bothers me most is the monolithic belief system of the climate change zealots. They not only know all the questions, but they’ve got all the answers. And even better, they’ve got the only answers. If one disagrees with any of their assertions, "scientific studies," or proposed solutions, one is immediately label ignorant of "science," a "denier," or a paid shill, or at least unwitting fellow traveler, of the evil fossil fuel industry, which is forcing all of this nasty stuff down our throats.

I guess to people clinging to the whole self-contradictory fringe "science" and mythology of climate-change skepticism and denial, a majority-held, scientifically well-supported position must indeed look "monolithic".

Quote:

One is apparently supposed to accept and agree with everything the say, or be cast out into the abyss.

One is supposed to bring valid scientific data and reasoning to a scientific debate, not junk "science", or bizarre accusations about corruption, group-think, and other conspiratorial fantasies. Can't do that? Buh-bye. Enjoy your ~~abyss~~ conspiratorial echo-chambers.

**newhaul** · 26-02-2022, 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

Global Climate Models have successfully forecast:

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.
Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.
They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.
The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.
The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.

Ok simple adjusting observations to match the models . And we both know they do and did.

All the rest simple we are just leaving a 100 or so year period of the strongest solar activity ever recorded .

Some are just normal happenings with the changing of solar activity. Now the stratosphere is not doing what they want it to nor is the troposphere.

Stop trying to blame the incorrect cause of all your woes.

lestersails · 26-02-2022, 10:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok simple adjusting observations to match the models . And we both know they do and did.

All the rest simple we are just leaving a 100 or so year period of the strongest solar activity ever recorded .

Some are just normal happenings with the changing of solar activity. Now the stratosphere is not doing what they want it to nor is the troposphere.

Stop trying to blame the incorrect cause of all your woes.

The solar radiation lie has been debunked many, many times. Denial, denial, denial.

**newhaul** · 26-02-2022, 10:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA-None

Support life or support humans?

Support plant life. Which in turn supports all life on this planet.

Yes I am a tertiary vegan.
Animals eat plants I eat animals.

P. People
E. Eating
T. Tasty
A. Animals

Montanan · 26-02-2022, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bycrick

"we may hope to enjoy …." Sounds more like dreaming than science, even if a scientist said it.

What bothers me most is the monolithic belief system of the climate change zealots. They not only know all the questions, but they’ve got all the answers. And even better, they’ve got the only answers. If one disagrees with any of their assertions, "scientific studies," or proposed solutions, one is immediately label ignorant of "science," a "denier," or a paid shill, or at least unwitting fellow traveler, of the evil fossil fuel industry, which is forcing all of this nasty stuff down our throats.

One is apparently supposed to accept and agree with everything the say, or be cast out into the abyss.

That leaves reasonable people to simply work hard to prevent them from gaining sufficient power to put their schemes into effect. I do that by voting against them and their "theories" every chance I get. They apparently dislike the idea that they might have trouble getting a majority of the voters to actually vote against their immediate self-interest in favor of some pie-in-the-sky perfect future. That’s why the drum-beating for "intergovernmental" mandated solutions where the "experts" decide what’s best for us poor benighted people for don’t completely agree with them.

Or it leaves reasoning people to work harder to discern how the climate science may be erroneous and propose contrarian science, instead of just opining and responding emotionally and non-scientifically.

**newhaul** · 26-02-2022, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by lestersails

Thanks for the useless url*. There is no argument that green energy is being subsidized.
My point was that if green and fossil fuels were equally subsidized, it would go a long, long way to mitigating ACC.
Free market.
Level playing field.
Fair competition.
No governmental subsidizing of one over the other.
You are opposed to that?

*Of course, the article you pointed to does not mention the enormous subsidies for fossil fuels. Why would you point to that article? I get it - you only want to criticize green subsidies but not fossil fuel subsidies. Denial, denial, denial.

Personally I would like to see governments keep their jobs out of everything no subsidies no tax breaks no nothing. Leet the people do it all on their own .

2022 chevy Silverado msrp 29,300 base bare nothing truck
https://www.chevrolet.com/trucks/sil...uild-and-price

Electric model when it becomes available.
39,9000 msrp

https://www.chevrolet.com/electric/s...ev/reservation

No decision to be made people will overwhelmingly go gasoline-powered

seandepagnier · 26-02-2022, 10:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bycrick

"I do that by voting against them and their "theories" every chance I get.

Voting is just in place to so people feel like they have some power when in fact they have none: zero. If you vote or not makes no difference at all. It is more significant what actions you personally choose which are relatively small considering you are one of billions.

Unless you have millions of dollars (or billions preferred) your "vote" is of absolutely zero consequence.
Why don't you pay a lobbyist and get them to change a vote that actually counts for something? Just need a few million or sometimes $50k is enough to buy the vote of the cheaper representatives.

AKA-None · 26-02-2022, 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by newhaul

Sorry but no measurable change in first graph in the last 40 years since 1980 to present.

The second graph actually looks stable with two rises and a major drop in the middle . Look at the graphs not just the number at the top.

What do you mean by stable?

If this were a control chart I’d be concerned the process is heading out towards some upper bound

**newhaul** · 26-02-2022, 10:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by lestersails

The solar radiation lie has been debunked many, many times. Denial, denial, denial.

You have no real idea do you
All you look at is the tsi . Which is not correct. You must look at the entirety of solar forcings . They finally started to do it with cmip6 but it is as of now just allowed not required. Hopefully in the next update cmip7 they require it to be included in the calculations.

Check it out .

**newhaul** · 26-02-2022, 10:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA-None

What do you mean by stable?

If this were a control chart I’d be concerned the process is heading out towards some upper bound

Since the early 1980's it has gone up and down with no significant rise or fall when averaged over the last 40 years.

Bet yuu look at the highs and they will correspond with higher solar activity and the lows with lower activity meaning the time and fall are related to the temperature of the water not man's activity.

If it were man there would be no lowering of sea level.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...uch%20as%207mm

Interesting article to think about.

**newhaul** · 26-02-2022, 10:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by AKA-None

What do you mean by stable?

If this were a control chart I’d be concerned the process is heading out towards some upper bound

Sorry didn't understand what specificly you were refer8ng to .

By stable I should have said a consistent rising slope then the big drop in the middle that is not explained but removes the prior rise then it continues on the same slope , looks like a copy of the lower set.

Bycrick · 26-02-2022, 10:48

Science has zero direct impact on politics. Congress doesn’t vote on scientific papers. No matter how many scientific papers you stack up, things will only change when you convince voters. So far, most voters won’t vote to increase their cost of living. So the zealots want to hide the costs (tax the rich, tax the big corporations, tax somebody else). If they can’t get the votes, then rule by mandates. We all know how well that works.