Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

not to mention all of the environmental damage caused by the extraction of those raw materials . Or the environmental impact of decommissioning at end of life .

As the article discusses, and even quantifies. Just thought it might offer a little "balance" to those who believe the only thing holding us back from renewables is a lack of will, politics, 'fake' science cooked up by oil cos., or any other excuse that detracts from the realities involved in realizing their goals.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

True but the concentration of methane is about 500 times less than CO2, so it is a much more significant issue in the form of methane than the CO2 it produces when it decomposes.

True.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

climatefeedback. Strictly adherent to the IPCC's original terms of reference
Which doesn't allow for natural forcings to be used in calculations for the various climate models.

Bull crap.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by newhaul

This just in its natural not man
Max is responsible for .01℃ of the warming . And its now back to cooling
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/w...not-supported/

Keep repeating that, certainly during next 10k years it will be true

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Bull crap.

do the math Jacko. It is a fact .

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Keep repeating that, certainly during next 10k years it will be true

fact of the matter it is cooling and I have posted the proof . We shall see in a few years how far it will fall . Before stabilizing out at the lower world temperature hopefully not more than 1.5 to 2℃ below the 1989-2010 average of crops will really suffer badly

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

explain how it can be found to have issues before it is even published if as you say it was not under peer review?

You are truly aliterate.

The Finnish paper is not published in any journal and has not undergone any peer-review.

It posted to arXiv which is NOT peer-reviewed.

on

Date: July 13, 2019.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

do the math Jacko. It is a fact .

What math?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

The secondary source in which the paper appeared, probably because establishment bias wouldn't allow it to be published (let alone peer reviewed) anywhere else. I see you still haven't learned the basics of the game of squash.

I see you have mastered pigeon chess

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by newhaul

fact of the matter it is cooling and I have posted the proof . We shall see in a few years how far it will fall . Before stabilizing out at the lower world temperature hopefully not more than 1.5 to 2℃ below the 1989-2010 average of crops will really suffer badly

Instead of yours, or anybodys "proof", I believe on my own observations. Winter is two months shorter up here than it used to be.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Instead of yours, or anybodys "proof", I believe on my own observations. Winter is two months shorter up here than it used to be.

The data from Roy Spencer and John Christy at UAH confirm your observation.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I see you have mastered pigeon chess

Filling in for L-E while he's off sailing are we? A more productive response might help explain why the Finnish paper was not published or peer reviewed. Or did those two scientists simply do all that work just to leave it posted on an obscure website?

Why do you continue to think that ignoring contrarian science, attacking its authors or publishers on superficial grounds, or suggesting people are idiots puts you or the mainstream science in a more positive light? Or is this approach all just about personal ego gratification as I strongly suspect? I read a couple of the critiques from the 8 scientists you posted and thought they were well written if not persuasive, but I'm hardly qualified to judge. But clearly neither are you, or you wouldn't need to be pretending so hard that you understand the science.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Instead of yours, or anybodys "proof", I believe on my own observations. Winter is two months shorter up here than it used to be.

Originally Posted by jackdale

The data from Roy Spencer and John Christy at UAH confirm your observation.

The data from UAH may confirm TD's warming observations, but Spencer & Christy haven't concluded that any consequential amount of the warming is from human causes, namely CO2. Suggesting otherwise is misleading, and rather transparently so.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

The data from UAH may confirm TD's warming observations, but Spencer & Christy haven't concluded that any consequential amount of the warming is from human causes, namely CO2. Suggesting otherwise is misleading, and rather transparently so.

I have not suggested otherwise. Stating I have done so is dishonest.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I have not suggested otherwise. Stating I have done so is dishonest.

now I have to throw the flag on that one you imply it all the time .