kallend 2,150 #26 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotePerhaps they could resurrect the Iraqi Information Minister to make the announcement. I don't think the skeptics can beat the salary the alarmists are already paying him. Are Exxon-Mobil and the Kochs short of money now? They can't match the 70+ BILLION that the alarmists have raked in. 70 Billion is a pretty good salary for one person, Who received that?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #27 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuote Are Exxon-Mobil and the Kochs short of money now? They can't match the 70+ BILLION that the alarmists have raked in. Exxon's annual gross profit is 149 BILLION. Even using EBITDA puts it at 66B. And that is ANNUAL. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #28 October 17, 2011 Quote That CO2 change could make a big difference in UV ray absorption. More bullets from the article posted above: Quote It is estimated (such as here and here) that 96%-97% of carbon dioxide comes from natural sources, such as animals, plant decay, and volcanoes. Climate alarmists claim that the single-digit percentage human contribution to atmospheric CO2, a small percentage of a tiny percentage, is nevertheless destroying the world. • Although estimates vary widely, water vapor, which is essentially 100% naturally occurring, is responsible for the majority, somewhere between 50% and 90%, of the "greenhouse effect." So, man-made carbon dioxide is responsible for a small percentage of a tiny percentage of less than half of the greenhouse effect… but is destroying the world. Couple this with the CERES results showing the Earth is losing much more heat than predicted by AGW models, one can reasonably question what AGW alarmists are saying.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #29 October 17, 2011 QuoteOK, Genius, tell us how much the absorption coefficient across the solar spectrum increased on account of what you claim is a negligible increase in CO2 levels. It differs depending on the wavelength of light. The science questions are not the absorptions themselves but the weighing given to each forcing, effect, etc. That's all. CO2 does not exist in a vacuum in this discussion. And this is the problem: there exists disagreement that 2010 was the hottest year. NASA-GISS is saying it, but GISS keeps changing their minds. First 2005 was tied wiht 1998. Then in 2007 they made 2005 hotter. Now they say 2010 was hotter, even though the higher temperature is within the .03 degree margin of error. Meanwhile, NOAA has 2010 tied with 2005. METhadcrut, CRUHadcru and CRUTem have 1998, 2010 and 2007 as 1-2-3 for hottest. Those three have 1998 and it's not even close. Thus, there is disparity within the community. Meanwhile, CO2 emissions are much higher in 2011 than in 2005 or 1998. Yet the temperature is not increasing with respect to the absorption coefficients. Meaning there is other stuff going on. What it is? We don't know. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Are Exxon-Mobil and the Kochs short of money now? They can't match the 70+ BILLION that the alarmists have raked in. Exxon's annual gross profit is 149 BILLION. Even using EBITDA puts it at 66B. And that is ANNUAL. Which has NOTHING to do with the amount of money they have donated to climate research.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #31 October 17, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Are Exxon-Mobil and the Kochs short of money now? They can't match the 70+ BILLION that the alarmists have raked in. Exxon's annual gross profit is 149 BILLION. Even using EBITDA puts it at 66B. And that is ANNUAL. Which has NOTHING to do with the amount of money they have donated to climate research. So your keyboard sends posts of its own accord now? Or do you really think the attention span of your readers is less than 30 minutes?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #32 October 17, 2011 Sorry, you already exhausted your science credibility quota for the month.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #33 October 17, 2011 I'll note that Scooby is correct on the water vapor angle. Water vapor IS responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse effect. This does not vitiate the effect of CO2. However, it's an argument that other factors must be considered. And it will shock how many people do not know other greenhouse gases than CO2. Methane is up there (which billvon has often correctly cited. Yes, if a mass phase transition of carbonate were to occur, it could be a world of hurt). But H2O is still the biggie. And Methane - that is a greenhouse gas with significant forcings that we can do something about with more bang for the buck. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #34 October 17, 2011 Quote Sorry, you already exhausted your science credibility quota for the month. Who cares what you think? Your inability to contribute anything meaningful in a civilized discussion is well established here. The best you can do is resort to juvenile PAs. Feel free to ignore my posts, as I will yours going forward.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #35 October 17, 2011 QuoteI'll note that Scooby is correct on the water vapor angle. Water vapor IS responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse effect. This does not vitiate the effect of CO2. However, it's an argument that other factors must be considered. And it will shock how many people do not know other greenhouse gases than CO2. Methane is up there (which billvon has often correctly cited. Yes, if a mass phase transition of carbonate were to occur, it could be a world of hurt). But H2O is still the biggie. And Methane - that is a greenhouse gas with significant forcings that we can do something about with more bang for the buck. And temperature change is not the same as absolute temperature. Without the H2O vapor we'd all be dead of hypothermia. That is just a red herring argument.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #36 October 17, 2011 Quote This does not vitiate the effect of CO2. I understand that CO2 is a forcing factor in the environment, and that it's one of many. It's also well understood by real scientists that they don't understand all the interactions of the various forcing factors, much less have an ability to effectively model them (e.g., CERES results). To treat CO2 stand-alone in that dynamic system is wrong.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 October 17, 2011 Quote It is estimated (such as here and here) that 96%-97% of carbon dioxide comes from natural sources, such as animals, plant decay, and volcanoes. Climate alarmists claim that the single-digit percentage human contribution to atmospheric CO2, a small percentage of a tiny percentage, is nevertheless destroying the world. If this is the case, then why has there been a 22% gain in the past 50 years? Including animal/plant decay is a deliberate misdirection anyway - the carbon cycle comes into play. Volcanoes, otoh, are a net contributor just as burning long buried hydrocarbons. This calls into question the validity of the claims. Quote Couple this with the CERES results showing the Earth is losing much more heat than predicted by AGW models, one can reasonably question what AGW alarmists are saying. Yes, for all the modelling the AGW folks have done, it's not shown itself to do to well when it comes to the real show. And their various claims about massive increases in sea heights have been laughably diminished from tens of feet to mere centimenters. That said, the debunkers tends to throw up a lot more bullshit than the AGWers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #38 October 17, 2011 Quote That said, the debunkers tends to throw up a lot more bullshit than the AGWers. I'm not in the debunker camp, though I do see the AGW alarmists as being just that. There's simply no balance in this debate, anymore. Worse, we have an EPA that's hell bent on destroying our industry for no net effect on anything but our standard of living.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #39 October 17, 2011 >And it will shock how many people do not know other greenhouse gases than CO2. Very true. And I bet if you polled people and asked "greenhouse effect - good or bad?" most would say "bad" even though we'd all be dead without the combined effects of CO2, water vapor, methane and ozone. There is a remarkable amount of scientific ignorance on both sides of the fence. (Of course, that doesn't stop either the alarmists or deniers from making claims like "there's no such thing as AGW" or "it ended in 1998.") Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #40 October 17, 2011 Quote >And it will shock how many people do not know other greenhouse gases than CO2. Very true. And I bet if you polled people and asked "greenhouse effect - good or bad?" most would say "bad" even though we'd all be dead without the combined effects of CO2, water vapor, methane and ozone. There is a remarkable amount of scientific ignorance on both sides of the fence. (Of course, that doesn't stop either the alarmists or deniers from making claims like "there's no such thing as AGW" or "it ended in 1998.") Maybe the opinions of the vast majority of ACTUAL climatologists should be respected, then. Quote "it ended in 1998." I believe the actual word used was "stopped"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #41 October 17, 2011 QuoteAnd temperature change is not the same as absolute temperature. Of course. I'm not arguing that they are the same. QuoteWithout the H2O vapor we'd all be dead of hypothermia. Unless the hyperthermia killed us first. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #42 October 17, 2011 Quote Maybe the opinions of the vast majority of ACTUAL climatologists should be respected, then. I'd rather see them start actually following the scientific method instead of passing off their opinions as fact.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #43 October 17, 2011 QuoteIf this is the case, then why has there been a 22% gain in the past 50 years? Including animal/plant decay is a deliberate misdirection anyway - the carbon cycle comes into play. Volcanoes, otoh, are a net contributor just as burning long buried hydrocarbons. One thing that is becoming increasingly clear is that land use plays a significant role in local warming. The global effect is being postulated. Take a look at where weather sensors are. If you say, "Predominantly developed places" then you would be correct. And for more remote weather stations, if you said, "Airfields" and "Ports" then you would also be correct. Take a look at urbanization. It has a couple of effects: (1) Urban Heat Island; and (2) cuts down local flora. Trees. Grass. Moss. There are fewer trees in Richmond Virginia now than there were 300 years ago. And those trees rot. If they decay aerobically there is CO2. Anaerobically you get methane. Multiply that by all the places where flora are thinned and we can see reasons for large gains. Add to that increased burning of fossil fuels and we get more. It's all related. I think if you want to do your role to stop CO2 emissions, you'd do a better job by planting a tree rather than cutting them down to build windmills. (Billvon has written about using the air to transport CO2 to scrubbers. Trees, sunlight and water do a fine job of removing CO2 from the air. Quotehe debunkers tends to throw up a lot more bullshit than the AGWers In some sense, yes. I cannot say I disagree. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #44 October 17, 2011 Quote I'd rather see them start actually following the scientific method instead of passing off their opinions as fact. The climate folks have an equation that shows CO2 is a forcing factor, and it holds water (no pun intended). Climatologists don't have all the other equations that are needed to properly model the system, but yet that doesn't stop them from making dooms day predictions. The CERES results show their models as currently written are wrong in magnitude, by quite a bit. Worse, these doom day predictions are being used by politicians to advocate "fixes" that won't do anything but give them more money/power and decrease our standard of living without actually accomplishing anything with regards to the climate. That's my biggest complaint with this.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #45 October 17, 2011 Newton's laws miss quite a bit too. Doesn't mean we should ignore an artillery shell headed our way until we figure out its wave function and relativistic correction.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #46 October 17, 2011 QuoteNewton's laws miss quite a bit too. Doesn't mean we should ignore an artillery shell headed our way until we figure out its wave function and relativistic correction. First, you need to prove you're being shelled and not just hearing thunder.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #47 October 17, 2011 >Worse, these doom day predictions are being used by politicians to advocate "fixes" >that won't do anything but give them more money/power and decrease our standard >of living without actually accomplishing anything with regards to the climate. While I am sure there are some like that, there are just as many who see AGW as nothing more than a political issue, and see that issue purely as "fuck those Dems!" They want power, and denying the science behind climate change gets them that power. If they concede to any of the science, they "lose" - so they can't concede to any of it. That's unfortunate, because 1) it makes them anti-science, and that's a position that is damaging to the US as a whole, and 2) it makes it impossible to have a logical argument with them, since they have rejected the logical basis of the discussion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #48 October 17, 2011 Quote While I am sure there are some like that, Like the current EPA administration... Hell bent on destroying our industry, and in doing so will accomplish nothing other than a significant reduction in our quality of life. Quote and see that issue purely as "fuck those Dems!" My voter registration shows my party affiliation as None. Neither Democrats nor Republicans represent my values. The constant bickering between the two disgusts me. Quote They want power, and denying the science behind climate change gets them that power. I can see where those claiming "disaster is certainly coming" are seeking power over our way of life, and taxing us to boot. Think of all the money they'll have, yet you never hear how they'll spend it. It's not clear to me how denying AGW will give you power/money in that context? Quote it makes it impossible to have a logical argument with them, since they have rejected the logical basis of the discussion. It's basically impossible to do that today with anyone. Those that say the science is "settled" are wrong, IMO. Too many factors have yet to be determined, and the AGW model predictions aren't panning out. Yes, CO2 is a forcing factor, but there's lot of other ones, also. Having written many nonlinear models in my life, I understand what's involved with large scale systems of nonlinear equations. I'm not buying what their models are predicting. Not at this point in time. By claiming the science is settled, people aren't going to be inclined to produce hypothesis and test them. The last test that came in, CERES, isn't even being discussed by AGW alarmists, other than attacking the author. That does not inspire confidence.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #49 October 17, 2011 >Like the current EPA administration... Hell bent on destroying our industry OK. Honest question here - do you really think it is the goal of the EPA to "destroy our industry?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #50 October 18, 2011 Quote OK. Honest question here - do you really think it is the goal of the EPA to "destroy our industry?" Do I think they state it like that to themselves? No. Do I think they're properly considering the economics of their policies? No. Do I think they know that the economics of their policies are rightfully being called into question? Yes. Do I think they're adequately addressing those questions? No. Do I think they're knowingly not adequately addressing those questions? Yes. Long winded answer...We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
