Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Scam of the Century

#21

(04-25-2019, 07:02 AM)mikesez Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 04:16 AM)jj82284 Wrote: Someone apparently didn't read the article.  They accounted for differences in the power grids and also factored in the energy used to create the battery.  

Also, after that last paragraph given the empirical evidence associated with historical surface temps and the lagging affect of co2 concentration in going to need a picture of this so called engineering degree.

Power grids change over time and the energy to create the battery comes from the grid.

No dodging.  Jpeg image @ this point
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#22

(04-24-2019, 11:57 PM)TJBender Wrote:
(04-24-2019, 03:28 PM)The Drifter Wrote: Scam of the Century: Scientific Study Destroys Electric Car Debate

If you think you’re saving the environment by driving a Tesla, well, let me let you in on a bit of a secret: You could perhaps emit less carbon if you went with a diesel car.

1. Anyone who says that they're driving a Tesla to save the environment is full of it. They're driving a Tesla because they have more dollars than sense and they want to drive a Tesla.

(04-24-2019, 04:03 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: Not to mention that lithium batteries could be very dangerous, then there's the problem of disposing of them.  The so-called "green energy" is a myth.  Whether it's solar power or wind power the energy has to be stored somewhere (batteries) and both lithium and lead-acid batteries are worse for the environment than burning fossil fuels.

2. Well, no, that's pretty much totally wrong, but even if we pretend that batteries are the devil, hydrogen fuel cell technology would more than solve that problem. I'd say let's fund it, but when the EPA is totally made of fossil fuel lobbyists, I'll forgive you for having the Trump-level understanding of how energy works.

(04-24-2019, 04:53 PM)Jagwired Wrote: Fully electric transport will not be truly viable until such time that humans can create a substance that will super-conduct at normal temperatures. Once resistance is removed from electrical theory the possibilities are endless.

3. Not necessarily. It's a critical mass thing, and the reason it won't work in America anytime soon is that it relies heavily on public transit. This country hasn't done all that great a job of setting up public transit systems that can actually take a sizable number of cars off the road. If you can shift most of your commuters over to using public transit for all or part of their journey on a daily basis, you'll get closer and closer to the point where the economic and environmental savings are significant. "A Prius in every driveway" isn't going to do anything but make Toyota shareholders rich.

(04-24-2019, 07:08 PM)Ronster Wrote: Man Made climate change is a LIE perpetuated by leftist wanting to use it to garner power

4. ...aaaaaaaaaaaand we got there.

1. Yeppers! Government subsidized toys for rich people. What's not to like?

2. A hydrogen fuel cell is a pipe dream. Hydrogen is a [BLEEP] to contain. And even if someone could create a battery with the power density of gasoline, it would be a lot more dangerous than gasoline.


3. Public transit doesn't work in most of the US because people and jobs are just too spread out. Why take a bus/train that takes twice as long to get near your workplace but still dumps you out a mile or two away?

4. There is some warming from CO2. Not nearly as much as the media claim, and the warming is beneficial (90% or more of the warming is in cold climates, most of the rest is at night), as is the CO2 itself (low levels of CO2 during the last glaciation came close to killing off all C3 plant life). The big "LIE" is in the gross exaggeration of impending disaster. Scientists (other than a few activists) are not claiming a disaster, but they also won't refute press releases that claim disaster because the alarm is fueling their careers to the tune of billions of $$ per year in research funds (the entire NSF budget in the 1980's before the Global Warming religion was founded was about 1% of that). 

And yes, anything the US or Europe can do to cut down on CO2 is Marty's "bucket of water in the ocean" as far as affecting the global temperature.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#23
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2019, 01:13 PM by mikesez.)

(04-25-2019, 09:48 AM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(04-24-2019, 11:57 PM)TJBender Wrote: 1. Anyone who says that they're driving a Tesla to save the environment is full of it. They're driving a Tesla because they have more dollars than sense and they want to drive a Tesla.


2. Well, no, that's pretty much totally wrong, but even if we pretend that batteries are the devil, hydrogen fuel cell technology would more than solve that problem. I'd say let's fund it, but when the EPA is totally made of fossil fuel lobbyists, I'll forgive you for having the Trump-level understanding of how energy works.


3. Not necessarily. It's a critical mass thing, and the reason it won't work in America anytime soon is that it relies heavily on public transit. This country hasn't done all that great a job of setting up public transit systems that can actually take a sizable number of cars off the road. If you can shift most of your commuters over to using public transit for all or part of their journey on a daily basis, you'll get closer and closer to the point where the economic and environmental savings are significant. "A Prius in every driveway" isn't going to do anything but make Toyota shareholders rich.


4. ...aaaaaaaaaaaand we got there.

1. Yeppers! Government subsidized toys for rich people. What's not to like?

2. A hydrogen fuel cell is a pipe dream. Hydrogen is a [BLEEP] to contain. And even if someone could create a battery with the power density of gasoline, it would be a lot more dangerous than gasoline.


3. Public transit doesn't work in most of the US because people and jobs are just too spread out. Why take a bus/train that takes twice as long to get near your workplace but still dumps you out a mile or two away?

4. There is some warming from CO2. Not nearly as much as the media claim, and the warming is beneficial (90% or more of the warming is in cold climates, most of the rest is at night), as is the CO2 itself (low levels of CO2 during the last glaciation came close to killing off all C3 plant life). The big "LIE" is in the gross exaggeration of impending disaster. Scientists (other than a few activists) are not claiming a disaster, but they also won't refute press releases that claim disaster because the alarm is fueling their careers to the tune of billions of $$ per year in research funds (the entire NSF budget in the 1980's before the Global Warming religion was founded was about 1% of that). 

And yes, anything the US or Europe can do to cut down on CO2 is Marty's "bucket of water in the ocean" as far as affecting the global temperature.

You're correct that the warming or change up to this point has been beneficial and seems to correlate to more pleasant temperatures in high latitudes and higher crop yields.
However, it's also led to more frequent intense hurricanes. And more frequent intense, multi-year droughts.
But if the warming trend continues the ice caps will melt significantly and sea levels will rise significantly.
North America will lose Miami and maybe New Orleans and Houston too.
Half of Bangladesh will be underwater.
Other areas will be abandoned because their heat and humidity will literally kill. the west coast of India is likely to be first, but other areas will follow.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#24

(04-25-2019, 01:12 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 09:48 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: 1. Yeppers! Government subsidized toys for rich people. What's not to like?

2. A hydrogen fuel cell is a pipe dream. Hydrogen is a [BLEEP] to contain. And even if someone could create a battery with the power density of gasoline, it would be a lot more dangerous than gasoline.


3. Public transit doesn't work in most of the US because people and jobs are just too spread out. Why take a bus/train that takes twice as long to get near your workplace but still dumps you out a mile or two away?

4. There is some warming from CO2. Not nearly as much as the media claim, and the warming is beneficial (90% or more of the warming is in cold climates, most of the rest is at night), as is the CO2 itself (low levels of CO2 during the last glaciation came close to killing off all C3 plant life). The big "LIE" is in the gross exaggeration of impending disaster. Scientists (other than a few activists) are not claiming a disaster, but they also won't refute press releases that claim disaster because the alarm is fueling their careers to the tune of billions of $$ per year in research funds (the entire NSF budget in the 1980's before the Global Warming religion was founded was about 1% of that). 

And yes, anything the US or Europe can do to cut down on CO2 is Marty's "bucket of water in the ocean" as far as affecting the global temperature.

But if the warming trend continues the ice caps will melt significantly and sea levels will rise significantly.
North America will lose Miami and maybe New Orleans and Houston too.

The real tragedy here is that we lose two great cities yet Jacksonville is still a thing.
Reply

#25

(04-25-2019, 02:30 PM)TJBender Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 01:12 PM)mikesez Wrote: But if the warming trend continues the ice caps will melt significantly and sea levels will rise significantly.
North America will lose Miami and maybe New Orleans and Houston too.

The real tragedy here is that we lose two great cities yet Jacksonville is still a thing.


I probably shouldn't have put Houston.  I meant Gavelston.
Parts of the Jacksonville area are likely to be lost like Gavelston.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#26

Boy, that there is some high-quality Alarmism. Al Gore would be proud.
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

#27

(04-25-2019, 01:12 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 09:48 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: 1. Yeppers! Government subsidized toys for rich people. What's not to like?

2. A hydrogen fuel cell is a pipe dream. Hydrogen is a [BLEEP] to contain. And even if someone could create a battery with the power density of gasoline, it would be a lot more dangerous than gasoline.


3. Public transit doesn't work in most of the US because people and jobs are just too spread out. Why take a bus/train that takes twice as long to get near your workplace but still dumps you out a mile or two away?

4. There is some warming from CO2. Not nearly as much as the media claim, and the warming is beneficial (90% or more of the warming is in cold climates, most of the rest is at night), as is the CO2 itself (low levels of CO2 during the last glaciation came close to killing off all C3 plant life). The big "LIE" is in the gross exaggeration of impending disaster. Scientists (other than a few activists) are not claiming a disaster, but they also won't refute press releases that claim disaster because the alarm is fueling their careers to the tune of billions of $$ per year in research funds (the entire NSF budget in the 1980's before the Global Warming religion was founded was about 1% of that). 

And yes, anything the US or Europe can do to cut down on CO2 is Marty's "bucket of water in the ocean" as far as affecting the global temperature.

You're correct that the warming or change up to this point has been beneficial and seems to correlate to more pleasant temperatures in high latitudes and higher crop yields.
However, it's also led to more frequent intense hurricanes. And more frequent intense, multi-year droughts.
But if the warming trend continues the ice caps will melt significantly and sea levels will rise significantly.
North America will lose Miami and maybe New Orleans and Houston too.
Half of Bangladesh will be underwater.
Other areas will be abandoned because their heat and humidity will literally kill. the west coast of India is likely to be first, but other areas will follow.

Meh. Think of it as a do-over. Those places could use a reset.
[Image: Ben-Roethlisberger_Lerentee-McCary-Sack_...ayoffs.jpg]
Reply

#28

(04-25-2019, 02:49 PM)B2hibry Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 01:12 PM)mikesez Wrote: You're correct that the warming or change up to this point has been beneficial and seems to correlate to more pleasant temperatures in high latitudes and higher crop yields.
However, it's also led to more frequent intense hurricanes. And more frequent intense, multi-year droughts.
But if the warming trend continues the ice caps will melt significantly and sea levels will rise significantly.
North America will lose Miami and maybe New Orleans and Houston too.
Half of Bangladesh will be underwater.
Other areas will be abandoned because their heat and humidity will literally kill. the west coast of India is likely to be first, but other areas will follow.

Meh. Think of it as a do-over. Those places could use a reset.

Yeah, just 100 million displaced people in Asia. NBD.  Just 20 million displaced people in North America.  NBD.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#29

(04-25-2019, 02:59 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 02:49 PM)B2hibry Wrote: Meh. Think of it as a do-over. Those places could use a reset.

Yeah, just 100 million displaced people in Asia. NBD.  Just 20 million displaced people in North America.  NBD.

[Image: tenor.gif]
“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#30

2 pages in. Still no explanation from the alarmist wing why increase in surface temp usually happens prior to co2.
Reply

#31

(04-25-2019, 01:12 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 09:48 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: 1. Yeppers! Government subsidized toys for rich people. What's not to like?

2. A hydrogen fuel cell is a pipe dream. Hydrogen is a [BLEEP] to contain. And even if someone could create a battery with the power density of gasoline, it would be a lot more dangerous than gasoline.


3. Public transit doesn't work in most of the US because people and jobs are just too spread out. Why take a bus/train that takes twice as long to get near your workplace but still dumps you out a mile or two away?

4. There is some warming from CO2. Not nearly as much as the media claim, and the warming is beneficial (90% or more of the warming is in cold climates, most of the rest is at night), as is the CO2 itself (low levels of CO2 during the last glaciation came close to killing off all C3 plant life). The big "LIE" is in the gross exaggeration of impending disaster. Scientists (other than a few activists) are not claiming a disaster, but they also won't refute press releases that claim disaster because the alarm is fueling their careers to the tune of billions of $$ per year in research funds (the entire NSF budget in the 1980's before the Global Warming religion was founded was about 1% of that). 

And yes, anything the US or Europe can do to cut down on CO2 is Marty's "bucket of water in the ocean" as far as affecting the global temperature.

You're correct that the warming or change up to this point has been beneficial and seems to correlate to more pleasant temperatures in high latitudes and higher crop yields.
However, it's also led to more frequent intense hurricanes. And more frequent intense, multi-year droughts.
But if the warming trend continues the ice caps will melt significantly and sea levels will rise significantly.
North America will lose Miami and maybe New Orleans and Houston too.
Half of Bangladesh will be underwater.
Other areas will be abandoned because their heat and humidity will literally kill. the west coast of India is likely to be first, but other areas will follow.

Hurricanes are not more frequent, nor stronger. The ACE Index is flat vs. time. Multi-year droughts are no more frequent either, and tornadoes are down.


It would take millennia to make a dent in Greenland or Antarctica. We will be in another ice age long before there's a significant sea level rise. The tide gauges show the same rate of sea level change that they have since they were first recorded, some with more than 100 years of data (different from site to site because of land movement, but all show a constant rate). Catastrophic sea level rise, and especially an acceleration in the rate, are flat out lies. Don't believe me? Go look at the tide gauges on NOAA.gov.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#32

(04-25-2019, 06:05 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 01:12 PM)mikesez Wrote: You're correct that the warming or change up to this point has been beneficial and seems to correlate to more pleasant temperatures in high latitudes and higher crop yields.
However, it's also led to more frequent intense hurricanes. And more frequent intense, multi-year droughts.
But if the warming trend continues the ice caps will melt significantly and sea levels will rise significantly.
North America will lose Miami and maybe New Orleans and Houston too.
Half of Bangladesh will be underwater.
Other areas will be abandoned because their heat and humidity will literally kill. the west coast of India is likely to be first, but other areas will follow.

Hurricanes are not more frequent, nor stronger. The ACE Index is flat vs. time. Multi-year droughts are no more frequent either, and tornadoes are down.


It would take millennia to make a dent in Greenland or Antarctica. We will be in another ice age long before there's a significant sea level rise. The tide gauges show the same rate of sea level change that they have since they were first recorded, some with more than 100 years of data (different from site to site because of land movement, but all show a constant rate). Catastrophic sea level rise, and especially an acceleration in the rate, are flat out lies. Don't believe me? Go look at the tide gauges on NOAA.gov.

Actually, we've seen a very active stretch of hurricane seasons, and with more intense hurricanes than usual. Take Michael for a wild, near to my heart example. Hurricanes in the Gulf in October have a consistent pattern. They strengthen fairly quickly up to around 100-110mph, then they stop strengthening and fan out. Michael went nuts despite intense wind shear that should have torn it apart. The only reason it stopped strengthening at 160mph is because a beach got in the way of its party. It did this because the sea surface temperatures on the Gulf were anywhere from 2-5C higher than they've historically been in October. You can look at Irma, Maria, Matthew, take your pick of storms that greatly beat their intensity forecasts. And you can say, "Well, the forecasting was bad." Well, yeah, it was at the longer intervals, because lots of tropical forecasting relies on previous trends and averages until the 48-72h window. If storms are getting significantly bigger and more powerful, that's going to mess with forecasting of them, and it's also going to tell you that these things are bigger and more powerful than they used to be.
Reply

#33
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2019, 07:24 PM by mikesez.)

(04-25-2019, 05:35 PM)jj82284 Wrote: 2 pages in.  Still no explanation from the alarmist wing why increase in surface temp usually happens prior to co2.

I strongly doubt that we have ways to measure past surface temperatures and past CO2 levels with enough precision to conclusively say that the one happened a few years before the other, when both events were tens or hundreds of thousands of years in the past.

And even if we did have that data, we would have no way to know if there had been variations in solar output during those years.

When you store atmospheric gas in a clear bottle that's left out in the sun, and add more CO2 to the mixture, the mixture has a higher equilibrium temperature than it did before the co2 was added.

Of course the minerals on the Earth's surface, the oceans, the clouds, and all the different forms of plant and algae life that can emerge all play a role in what actually happens when CO2 is increased. 

but the experiment we can do with a bottle clearly teaches us that an increase in temperature is what we should expect.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#34
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2019, 08:04 PM by MalabarJag.)

(04-25-2019, 07:22 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 05:35 PM)jj82284 Wrote: 2 pages in.  Still no explanation from the alarmist wing why increase in surface temp usually happens prior to co2.

I strongly doubt that we have ways to measure past surface temperatures and past CO2 levels with enough precision to conclusively say that the one happened a few years before the other, when both events were tens or hundreds of thousands of years in the past.

And even if we did have that data, we would have no way to know if there had been variations in solar output during those years.

When you store atmospheric gas in a clear bottle that's left out in the sun, and add more CO2 to the mixture, the mixture has a higher equilibrium temperature than it did before the co2 was added.

Of course the minerals on the Earth's surface, the oceans, the clouds, and all the different forms of plant and algae life that can emerge all play a role in what actually happens when CO2 is increased. 

but the experiment we can do with a bottle clearly teaches us that an increase in temperature is what we should expect.

Are you referring to the Experiment Bill Nye faked LINK? That was done indoors. 

Adding CO2 to a clear glass bottle will, in theory, increase the temperature a microscopic fraction of a degree, but we don't have an accurate way to measure that small of a temperature change. Just getting close enough to look at it will result in a temperature difference much greater than anything CO2 could do. And CO2 absorption is in the mid IR, it's insignificant to visible sunlight.


EDIT: The measurements that show temperature leads CO2 are from ice cores. There is a clear correspondence between CO2 levels and O18 levels (O18 is considered a proxy for temperature), with a time lag for CO2 after the temperature. If you wish to question the validity of the proxy I can't argue with that.


[Image: stacks-image-5f8ffb5-798x546.png]




                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#35

(04-25-2019, 07:22 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 05:35 PM)jj82284 Wrote: 2 pages in.  Still no explanation from the alarmist wing why increase in surface temp usually happens prior to co2.

I strongly doubt that we have ways to measure past surface temperatures and past CO2 levels with enough precision to conclusively say that the one happened a few years before the other, when both events were tens or hundreds of thousands of years in the past.

And even if we did have that data, we would have no way to know if there had been variations in solar output during those years.

When you store atmospheric gas in a clear bottle that's left out in the sun, and add more CO2 to the mixture, the mixture has a higher equilibrium temperature than it did before the co2 was added.

Of course the minerals on the Earth's surface, the oceans, the clouds, and all the different forms of plant and algae life that can emerge all play a role in what actually happens when CO2 is increased. 

but the experiment we can do with a bottle clearly teaches us that an increase in temperature is what we should expect.

Dodge duck dip dive & DODGE!!!!
Reply

#36

(04-25-2019, 09:26 PM)jj82284 Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 07:22 PM)mikesez Wrote: I strongly doubt that we have ways to measure past surface temperatures and past CO2 levels with enough precision to conclusively say that the one happened a few years before the other, when both events were tens or hundreds of thousands of years in the past.

And even if we did have that data, we would have no way to know if there had been variations in solar output during those years.

When you store atmospheric gas in a clear bottle that's left out in the sun, and add more CO2 to the mixture, the mixture has a higher equilibrium temperature than it did before the co2 was added.

Of course the minerals on the Earth's surface, the oceans, the clouds, and all the different forms of plant and algae life that can emerge all play a role in what actually happens when CO2 is increased. 

but the experiment we can do with a bottle clearly teaches us that an increase in temperature is what we should expect.

Dodge duck dip dive & DODGE!!!!

You asked a question, he gave an answer. I don't see any evasiveness, just known science fact about how chemicals interact with sunlight and each other. Where's your empirical evidence?
Reply

#37

(04-25-2019, 10:58 PM)TJBender Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 09:26 PM)jj82284 Wrote: Dodge duck dip dive & DODGE!!!!

You asked a question, he gave an answer. I don't see any evasiveness, just known science fact about how chemicals interact with sunlight and each other. Where's your empirical evidence?

Malabar already posted it!  

As for his response, it wasn't an answer it was pure equivocation.  

1.) Some of The best Data we have for the past surface temps comes from the ice Core samples.  The Alarmists don't like to talk about them because they don't paint the empirical narrative that you would expect.  There are also many recorded instances where the Earth had ZERO or negligible ice caps and life went on and in most cases thrived under the more tropical climates.  

2.) If he's actually comparing a clear bottle and sunlight to the most complex and diverse eco-system in the known universe then I don't know what to tell you.  Within the planet there is an almost limitless amount of feedback loops and variables that contribute to the relative stasis of surface temps going back to the earliest samples we have to the present day.  Trying to isolate that in one clear plastic bottle is pretty silly. 

3.) I'm glad to see that someone actually acknowledges that the giant fusion engine that is responsible for 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (I could keep going)% of all energy on the planet might have a say in surface temperatures, it just completely destroys the alarmist narrative.  

4.) I am also glad to see him acknowledge that in reality a deviation of 1* C over the course of 150 years (or even the idea of an AVERAGE surface temperature given the diversity of the globe.) is potentially within the margin of error.  Again, it just destroys his argument.  

So basically I confronted him with an objective analysis of the data and he went on to contradict his own point to try and worm his way out of it.  Life doesn't work that way.  

I have said it before, and I will say it again.  co2 isn't the most potent greenhouse gas, its not even close.  95% of the greenhouse affect is water vapor.  of that 5% left less than half is co2.  of that less than half all human activity including our collective exhaling is less than 10% of global emissions.  Of that human activity america is only about 25% ish.  When you actually look at the math you realize that the NEW GREEN DEAL can only come from the AOC's of the world.  

Getting back to the topic at hand, general rule of thumb is that price is a general reflection of the resources required to bring a product to market.  The statist idea of government subsidizing or financing less efficient means of energy production as a means of conservation doesn't make any economic sense.  We are going to consumer more resources to feel like we are using less?
Reply

We show less advertisements to registered users. Accounts are free; join today!


#38

(04-25-2019, 07:08 PM)TJBender Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 06:05 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
Hurricanes are not more frequent, nor stronger. The ACE Index is flat vs. time. Multi-year droughts are no more frequent either, and tornadoes are down.


It would take millennia to make a dent in Greenland or Antarctica. We will be in another ice age long before there's a significant sea level rise. The tide gauges show the same rate of sea level change that they have since they were first recorded, some with more than 100 years of data (different from site to site because of land movement, but all show a constant rate). Catastrophic sea level rise, and especially an acceleration in the rate, are flat out lies. Don't believe me? Go look at the tide gauges on NOAA.gov.

Actually, we've seen a very active stretch of hurricane seasons, and with more intense hurricanes than usual. Take Michael for a wild, near to my heart example. Hurricanes in the Gulf in October have a consistent pattern. They strengthen fairly quickly up to around 100-110mph, then they stop strengthening and fan out. Michael went nuts despite intense wind shear that should have torn it apart. The only reason it stopped strengthening at 160mph is because a beach got in the way of its party. It did this because the sea surface temperatures on the Gulf were anywhere from 2-5C higher than they've historically been in October. You can look at Irma, Maria, Matthew, take your pick of storms that greatly beat their intensity forecasts. And you can say, "Well, the forecasting was bad." Well, yeah, it was at the longer intervals, because lots of tropical forecasting relies on previous trends and averages until the 48-72h window. If storms are getting significantly bigger and more powerful, that's going to mess with forecasting of them, and it's also going to tell you that these things are bigger and more powerful than they used to be.

We just went through the longest stretch in history (by far!) of no major (cat 3 or higher) hurricanes hitting the US mainland. But that's not evidence of global weather moderation any more than a few hurricanes are evidence of global weather worsening. Like I posted before, the ACE index, which covers the whole globe, has been flat over time. 

When one side tries to use a specific event to prove a scientific theory then they don't understand science. One can disprove a theory with one observation, but no number of observations will definitively prove a theory. In the case of Global Warming the prediction of a tropical upper troposphere hot spot has failed. That alone should end the theory, but there is way too much political advantage and funding advantage to admit the theory is wrong.



                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"
Reply

#39
(This post was last modified: 04-26-2019, 12:58 PM by mikesez.)

(04-25-2019, 11:44 PM)jj82284 Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 10:58 PM)TJBender Wrote: You asked a question, he gave an answer. I don't see any evasiveness, just known science fact about how chemicals interact with sunlight and each other. Where's your empirical evidence?

Malabar already posted it!  

As for his response, it wasn't an answer it was pure equivocation.  

1.) Some of The best Data we have for the past surface temps comes from the ice Core samples.  The Alarmists don't like to talk about them because they don't paint the empirical narrative that you would expect.  There are also many recorded instances where the Earth had ZERO or negligible ice caps and life went on and in most cases thrived under the more tropical climates.  

2.) If he's actually comparing a clear bottle and sunlight to the most complex and diverse eco-system in the known universe then I don't know what to tell you.  Within the planet there is an almost limitless amount of feedback loops and variables that contribute to the relative stasis of surface temps going back to the earliest samples we have to the present day.  Trying to isolate that in one clear plastic bottle is pretty silly. 

3.) I'm glad to see that someone actually acknowledges that the giant fusion engine that is responsible for 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (I could keep going)% of all energy on the planet might have a say in surface temperatures, it just completely destroys the alarmist narrative.  

4.) I am also glad to see him acknowledge that in reality a deviation of 1* C over the course of 150 years (or even the idea of an AVERAGE surface temperature given the diversity of the globe.) is potentially within the margin of error.  Again, it just destroys his argument.  

So basically I confronted him with an objective analysis of the data and he went on to contradict his own point to try and worm his way out of it.  Life doesn't work that way.  

I have said it before, and I will say it again.  co2 isn't the most potent greenhouse gas, its not even close.  95% of the greenhouse affect is water vapor.  of that 5% left less than half is co2.  of that less than half all human activity including our collective exhaling is less than 10% of global emissions.  Of that human activity america is only about 25% ish.  When you actually look at the math you realize that the NEW GREEN DEAL can only come from the AOC's of the world.  

Getting back to the topic at hand, general rule of thumb is that price is a general reflection of the resources required to bring a product to market.  The statist idea of government subsidizing or financing less efficient means of energy production as a means of conservation doesn't make any economic sense.  We are going to consumer more resources to feel like we are using less?

I'm just not seeing the alleged lead-lag behavior in the graph.  Maybe it can turn up if you massage the data but I see some peaks lead with temperate while others lead with CO2.
Temperature and CO2 obviously correlate.
So if you saw just this graph and nothing else, and someone told you that CO2 is increasing, then  asked you to bet if temperature would go up down or stay the same in response, any sane person would bet on "up".
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply

#40

(04-26-2019, 12:57 PM)mikesez Wrote:
(04-25-2019, 11:44 PM)jj82284 Wrote: Malabar already posted it!  

As for his response, it wasn't an answer it was pure equivocation.  

1.) Some of The best Data we have for the past surface temps comes from the ice Core samples.  The Alarmists don't like to talk about them because they don't paint the empirical narrative that you would expect.  There are also many recorded instances where the Earth had ZERO or negligible ice caps and life went on and in most cases thrived under the more tropical climates.  

2.) If he's actually comparing a clear bottle and sunlight to the most complex and diverse eco-system in the known universe then I don't know what to tell you.  Within the planet there is an almost limitless amount of feedback loops and variables that contribute to the relative stasis of surface temps going back to the earliest samples we have to the present day.  Trying to isolate that in one clear plastic bottle is pretty silly. 

3.) I'm glad to see that someone actually acknowledges that the giant fusion engine that is responsible for 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (I could keep going)% of all energy on the planet might have a say in surface temperatures, it just completely destroys the alarmist narrative.  

4.) I am also glad to see him acknowledge that in reality a deviation of 1* C over the course of 150 years (or even the idea of an AVERAGE surface temperature given the diversity of the globe.) is potentially within the margin of error.  Again, it just destroys his argument.  

So basically I confronted him with an objective analysis of the data and he went on to contradict his own point to try and worm his way out of it.  Life doesn't work that way.  

I have said it before, and I will say it again.  co2 isn't the most potent greenhouse gas, its not even close.  95% of the greenhouse affect is water vapor.  of that 5% left less than half is co2.  of that less than half all human activity including our collective exhaling is less than 10% of global emissions.  Of that human activity america is only about 25% ish.  When you actually look at the math you realize that the NEW GREEN DEAL can only come from the AOC's of the world.  

Getting back to the topic at hand, general rule of thumb is that price is a general reflection of the resources required to bring a product to market.  The statist idea of government subsidizing or financing less efficient means of energy production as a means of conservation doesn't make any economic sense.  We are going to consumer more resources to feel like we are using less?

I'm just not seeing the alleged lead-lag behavior in the graph.  Maybe it can turn up if you massage the data but I see some peaks lead with temperate while others lead with CO2.
Temperature and CO2 obviously correlate.
So if you saw just this graph and nothing else, and someone told you that CO2 is increasing, then  asked you to bet if temperature would go up down or stay the same in response, any sane person would bet on "up".

In other news, concerns about the emerging solar minimum have some experts concerned about a mini ice age...  News @ 11.
Reply




Users browsing this thread:
2 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!