Global Warming Refuted

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Distraff, Apr 14, 2018.

  1. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    tell the folks at Glacier National Park that the Earth isn't warming

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  2. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The love of fast cars is actually shared. I am surely guilty of more than the average contributor both in emissions and tire shreds..

    I cannot wait until I can actually acquire a fully functioning race hybrid. (F1 type that doesn't cost me millions like a 918 or P1). It isn't because I'm worried about the outputs, it's because regenerative power is addictive...
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  3. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Earth is warming. Its ignorant to deny this.

    The Earth is warming at a faster rate than in previous centuries. Its ignorant to deny this.

    what is debatable is why this is happening.
     
  4. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like so many things, "bad for you" or "good for you" cannot be defined, which was the point. It also underscores the veracity of the "science" being positioned as the supporting evidence of those assertions. Clearly, these change, and likely, as our understanding of things improves, so will the evidence. I would caution, especially in how climate works, that for now, our ability to effectively model is pretty immature. That isn't a criticism, it is just an observation. CERN et al are probably going to be revolutionary once they get their lab set up... but I digress. The real criticism then is using what we know to be super immature methods to base actual policy on. Where the outcomes of the policy become massively intrusive on the off chance the model predictions are somewhat accurate, which frankly is highly questionable. If you simply understand the difference between mathematical "certainty" and reality, this could take us a long ways from where we are today and the breathless hyperventilation about a subject that evades our current ability to effectively describe it. So, like whether cholesterol from eggs is good or bad for you, I expect this conversation to evolve in the same way. Just like it has. We have moved from the fear of future ice ages to the fear of future furnace driven extinction. And where we haven't actually gone, is the somewhere in the middle approach that attempts to describe possibly positive outcomes for a climate that may, incrementally and slowly warm. I suppose that is just too unreasonable when the folks doing the research are constantly fighting for research dollars, and the media associated with them are desperate for income from readership.

    Either way, I expect the conversation will change. Just like the climates we live in.
     
  5. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. Claiming that sugar and tobacco pose no health issues was for the benefit of those respective industries. They lied. Climate change is pretty much the same thing. The US is the biggest threat to Climate change in the world. So why are they so keen to debunk the change in climate? Because they don't want to admit their guilt? Because, once again, doing something about it will cost American industries some money?
     
  6. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would simply hazard a guess that you are woefully out of your depth here. I am not claiming that sugar and tobacco pose no health risk. I would say that like so many things over indulgence is usually never good, and likely why it is listed as one of the deadly sins. I don't need science to explain to me that if I over eat especially sugar that my likelihood of developing type two diabetes or other maladies is probably higher. It certainly might, given the right set of individual metabolisms, very rapidly present itself.

    Similarly, smoking anything, tobacco, weed, synthesized drugs, etc probably isn't the best thing for you. I can tell you though, that I know folks who lived their entire lives smoking who never developed a cancer. Explain how that can be when the probability is so high... I know, you cannot. And frankly, neither can science. But, it doesn't also mean that everyone should do this, or that I think there is no risk. That is the level of superficiality that I reserve for folks, like you.

    If, as you say, the US is the "biggest threat to the climate" I would ask, have you not been paying attention? Did you suddenly forget about the other 7+ billion folks out there?

    Let me be clear. Malthusian viewpoints are never a good starting point. If you are a true believer, they lead to all manner of unpleasantness. Forced abortions, draconian shortages, all save for the so very few. The "deciders" that don't actually ever have to live under the restrictions they artificially enforce on everyone else. So I would caution folks with similar view points that blaming the US while convenient, isn't the only, or for that matter, the worst. But, if you take the position that places like China, or India, or Indonesia, or Brazil, or equatorial Africa cannot develop, aren't you the worst type of hypocrite? Because even if we, the US were to substantially change our economy to be less impactful, it still wouldn't change the trajectory of all of those other countries, would it? So, spare me your breathless superficial concern.
     
  7. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US is far from being the world's biggest threat. China alone spews more carbon in the air than the US, all of Europe, and India combined.
     
  8. wyly

    wyly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,857
    Likes Received:
    1,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    that's incorrect...no I'm not gonna look it up, google is your friend.

    it's unfair to not take into account population differences, china has nearly 5 times the usa population yet it's emissions are no where 5 times US emissions, chinese per capita emissions are about 40% of what americans produce, Indians about 15% of american emissions...worst per capita emission offenders are USA, Australia, Canada, UAE, Saudi Arabia... you can't hide behind "national" emissions stats, per capita emissions are what matter...

    China is also far ahead of the USA and most of the world for green energy conversion, china doesn't deny the reality of climate change it respects science and scientists...
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  9. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said we were not in a warming era. I said man is not causing it and that's very clear by the decade of exponential rises in our C02 output coinciding with a pause in warming.
     
  10. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have Chinese CO2 emissions really peaked?
    "Long term assumptions that China has low emissions per person have been shattered: China now emits more than the EU28 per person, and is well above the global average."

    "Why has coal consumption declined?

    One important point is that growth in total primary energy consumption has slowed. This is really driven by a weakening economy, GDP growth rates are much lower now than they were in the 2000s. Less economic activity, means less energy consumption."

    "The role of renewables and air pollution policies

    It is likely that non-fossil energy sources have helped to meet the increment in energy consumption. But, non-fossil sources have not grown to displace coal, rather, energy consumption growth has slowed so that non-fossil sources can provide a larger share of the growth.

    Air pollution policies have likely played a role, but how much is unclear. It is more likely that China is taking advantage of the lower coal consumption growth to implement and promote its air pollution policies.

    The “war on coal” sounds impressive, but this may just be a smart rhetorical deflection from continuing economic woes. The coal is still there, it is just that coal power plants are running less of the time.

    A recent study estimated that a decline in construction activity explained about three-quarters of the decline in coal use. This is since construction requires energy-intensive inputs of products such as cement and steel.

    Economic woes are behind the recent slowdown in Chinese coal consumption and emissions, but growth in renewables and concerns about air pollution contributed."

    http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/03/31/chinese-co2-emissions-really-peaked/
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2018
  11. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't forget the evidence that the earth is flat!
     
    politicalcenter likes this.
  12. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    About as much evidence for that as their is for AGW? In other words none.
     
  13. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Despite the scientific consensus, or because of that consensus?
     
  14. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    New study out, going to pop more than a few balloons today. Study basically says that the estimates that folks have been throwing around for the last decade or two are generally very overstated. The study suggests that they can find perhaps 1-1.2C of warming over the next century. Vastly different than those who were frothing about 3-8C. I assume that this is just the beginning of the flood of future studies that will quietly walk back the hyperventilation of AGW.
     
  15. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Daily Express? Chortle, chortle
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  17. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The study being discussed here and in post #39 is from Judith Curry. You can read it here. The conclusion is that the warming will be closer to 1.8C by 2100 as opposed to the IPCC estimate of 3.2C. Note, that this publication from Curry isn't the first of it's kind. She used the same technique in 2015. Marvel (2016), Richardson (2016), Armour (2017), and many others have peer reviewed rebuttals that say her technique is biased low. The consensus is not backing down. In fact, Curry has actually increased her estimate from 2015 in this particular publication. The implication should be obvious here. If this study is being held up as the crushing blow to AGW because of it's correctness than why did it have to change? It's also important to note that Curry is using the CMIP5 suite of models to come up with her 1.8C estimate. Oh, and the irony is that Curry believes aerosols from...gasp...humans are the main reason for her lower figure. It's not because she believes the CO2 greenhouse effect is less potent. At any rate, if you have a problem with using computer models then you should probably ignore this article altogether.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2018
    Bowerbird likes this.
  18. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lose fat, and it won't seem so hot outside.
     
  19. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I borrowed a '74 Subaru 4-door and drove it from Davenport, Iowa to Kansas City back in the day and got 39.8 mpg. I was drafting the truckers to get that, but still cars were much better then, and without those huge hits for electronics repairs.

    Admittedly, setting the valve clearance on a Subaru pancake was tricky, but not that difficult.
     
  20. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,989
    Likes Received:
    28,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fun story. Once upon a time, before nanny regs, cars were light, and almost frugal. Today? Not so much, although many are refinding these advantages today, making vehicles lighter, and more efficient.

    However, they aren't fun. In any measurable way. They are utilitarian, but not fun.
     
    jay runner likes this.
  21. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Curry is on record as saying C02 is not the primary factor in climate so I don't know what point you are trying to make here. Fact is climate is changing much slower than the AGW crowd so confidently predicted and it's obvious that the correlation between man's C02 and warming doesn't exist.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2018
  22. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've though the same thing about these new so called fuel efficient cars. They don't get any better MPG than old cars like the original little beater Honda's and the VW bug that used to dominate our roads. Part of that is my generation was fine with little cars that got you where you were going but now people want luxury and big heavy cars with every gadget known to man as they bitch about pollution and global warming.
     
    Idahojunebug77 likes this.
  23. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then she's saying something different when communicating with the academic community.
     
  24. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only in your mind or is curry now an AGW true believer? Did I miss her conversion?
     
  25. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, to my knowledge she's always acknowledged that humans play a pivotal role in global warming. In fact, most of her research especially her early work is full on in support of AGW. It was only later that she developed a skeptical slant. But, even with that skeptical slant she's still always acknowledged that the Earth is going to continue to warm and that humans are playing a role. It's just that she thinks it will be at a slower rate than the IPCC estimates. And in recent years she's actually been increasing her warming estimates. In 2015 it was 1.5C and now in 2018 it is 1.8C. I'm just telling you what she has in writing. I even linked her most recent publication from a few days ago in post #42 for everyone on here to review.
     

Share This Page