get ready for high electric bills Indiana!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr Evilwrench]

I know I got some green coffee beans for storage, even though I don't drink it myself, now the freeze dry people are coming out with cans of them, touting them as barter goods. I feel so far ahead of the curve!

 

[jamil]

So, you got nothing? Figures.

Oh, I don't pretend to be a climatologist.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I know I got some green coffee beans for storage, even though I don't drink it myself, now the freeze dry people are coming out with cans of them, touting them as barter goods. I feel so far ahead of the curve!

Dang, all I have is a few plastic jars of freeze-dried Folgers.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Oh, I don't pretend to be a climatologist.

We know, you pretend to be an outlaw biker; way cooler.

 

[88GT]

The evidence that they have is the amount of CO2 in the last century has spiked. And based on what C or CO2 contributes in reflecting solar heat back to earth, it definitely raises some concern.

So? 100+ years of increasing CO2 concentrations and what do we have to show for it? Remember it wasn't all that long ago that a global cooling scare was the talk of the town. If the trend is so strong and the relationship is so clear, not a single person should have entertained the idea that the earth could be cooling.

My mistake on the CO2 in water, I meant to say water helps in getting rid of CO2. With the rising temp, water also absorbs heat, which in turn raises temp of the water. It might be minute but enough to show changes on polar caps.

No worries. Though, and we've had this discussion here before, the melting of some polar ice is irrelevant. We've also discussed the amounts of the water trapped in non-floating ice relative to the total volume of oceanic water. The difference is staggering and it strains credulity to think that any one can seriously argue a global increase in ocean levels on the order of "feet" when I seriously doubt it will amount to inches. There is a metric crap-ton surface area of water to spread out the piddly volume of ice that could potentially melt. Topography will largely determine whether a 3-6" rise in sea levels (and I feel I'm being generous) will actually translate to much in terms of loss of coastal land. I have my doubts about that as well. Not all places will feel the rise, if any, the same.

What if there's rise in temp? If it's extreme enough, it can destabilize crops and the eco system. Just look at places where it's constantly hot. Hydration will be a problem.

I'd bet money we aren't not going have an extreme temp increase in a time frame that can't be handled by the mammal with a well developed cerebellum.

And make no mistake. The ecosystem does not get destroyed. It is altered. That's the problem with the greenies and tree huggers. They see the world as it is now and think that's the way it always was and always should be. I guess they forgot about the SEA in the middle of continental US back in the day. Change isn't an inherent problem. And the rate of change we're seeing is hardly earth-shattering, pun intended.

For what its worth, these people are making these finding for the good of the planet, not taking over it. Our planet is taken for granted everyday. If it makes the future habitable for the next generation, why not find ways to do it, right?

The whole global warming farce is about control and control.

The Next Climate Scandal? | Power Line
Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud

Fact: We have over 100 years of global temperature data that shows rising temperatures. The data just doesn't lie.

We have over 100 years of global temperature data that show decreasing temperatures as well.

Fact: We have 100's of years worth of data of the rise in global CO2 levels (through atmospheric sampling and ice cores). They show a sharp rise in CO2 over the last century.

We have historical data of 100's of years' worth of decreasing global CO2 levels.

Fact: We have decades of data showing a rise in CO2 and temperatures in the worlds oceans (as well as rising acidification, which is another related issue).

We have decades of data showing a decrease in CO2 and temperature.

Fact: We have solar data going back decades and there has been no increase in solar output.

This may be. But the argument then requires a premise to be set that influence is immediate. (Incidentally, I'd like to point out that solar output was lower in earth's earlier history. And CO2 levels were as high or higher than current levels.)

What we "have" is a snap shot in time. Nobody pushing the global warming hoax is ever honest enough to go back hundreds of thousands of years and see the CYCLICAL CO2 and temperature levels.

I know that you're going to jump right on that part of the graph that shows the atypical levels post-Industrial Revolution. Okay. I'll concede those are not levels indicative of a natural equilibrium.

But let's go back just a little bit farther. 400,000 years is such a pathetically short time when we're talking about the history of the earth.

Would you look at that? C02 levels way above current levels. How's that possible? Lots of theories. Some argue the C02 levels are so high when they predate terrestrial plants. A logical argument then would be that the advent of terrestrial plants lowered the C02 levels. Ironically enough, there are hypotheses that state the opposite: plants were only able to flourish upon the reduction of C02 concentrations. Who knows? It's not really relevant, it's just one of those things proves the best we have is one big-ass GUESS.

What it does show though, is that earth had life at higher CO2 levels. Different life to be sure, but I go back to the arrogance part. Either we were put on this earth for a reason, in which case the divine creator clearly has plans for us. Or we are mere happenstances of biological anomalies, in which our time here is limited by definition since our existence is dependent solely on the same randomness that created us. If we are going to take the argument that we are random acts of life and nothing more than pieces in this system we call earth, then we have to accept that we are destined for extinction at some point. Either way, it's an arrogant person who claims to be able to control the destiny of humans on earth.

But I'm not done. We have a goodly "long" time of increasing CO2 levels, levels that some people think are significant for their magnitude (even though we now know it's not all that odd). But for the sake of argument, we'll accept that premise. The argument as we know it is that increasing CO2 concentrations have and will continue to result in higher average global temperatures. (Let me digress here with the observation that "average global temperature" is a colossal joke in terms of defining earth's climate. As if earth had a single climate. The idea that the earth will universally heat up evenly across its entire surface is laughable. But that's another part of the discussion. I just wanted to plant that seed and see if it germinates.) Okay. Where were we? Yeah, increasing C02 concentrations = increasing temps. Do we see that?

Well, if you want to call a whopping 1.4F difference and sporadic at that (see Annual Average Temperature History for Earth - Current Results), temperature change. I'm not even sure it's statistically significant, but we'll leave open the possibility that it is. What we don't see is what is being proposed: namely a time correlation between CO2 and temperature. Temps are stable for the first 30-40 years of the culpable Industrial Revolution. Then there's a noticeable increase in the second and third decades of the 20th C. Then it's another 7 decades of relatively stability. Then another increase, the magnitude and duration of which remains to be seen as we are in the middle of it. The salient point is that a relative consistent increase in CO2 levels did not produce the correspondingly consistent increase in temperature. Rather, the earth sat happily for 30-40 years while humans pumped the atmosphere with CO2. Then another 70 years period of constancy, all the while the CO2 levels are ever-increasing.

If we were comparing crime rates (temperatures) to restrictive firearms laws (CO2 concentrations), we'd all rightfully come to the conclusion that there is no basis for assuming a correlation between the two. I won't go so far as to say there isn't correlation. But I feel safe in saying that any correlation that make exist is not a causal one.

In the end, the argument is futile. We will never reduce emissions to levels that take us to pre-IR because humans are too selfish to return to that level of subsistence. And AAAAALLLLLLLL the arguments presuppose that ALLLLLLL of the earth's people's will hop on board the emissions-reduction train and stoke that firebox until it redlines. One need only consider China to know that it won't happen. Global warming is a luxury emergency. THe only people who care about it are the ones who have all of life's needs met one way or the other. Those who must eke out their daily lives don't have time to worry about it. And when faced with the choice of their factory closing down to reduce CO2 levels to pre-2000 levels and losing the only income that puts the single meal on the table or keeping the factory opening and worrying about a future that may never happen, which one do you think the world's poor are going to choose?

 

[level.eleven]

I've said it before. Most of you have gotten the bulk of your climate science knowledge from political sources.

And getting your science information from political sources is like ordering a pizza at a Chinese restaurant. Sure, you might get one, just don't be surprised if it has a little squid on it.

And yet, there it is.

A hyperlink to the Birchers and Powerline.

Amazing.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

And yet, there it is.

A hyperlink to the Birchers and Powerline.

Amazing.

Somewhere, the ghost of P. T. Barnum is shedding a sentimental tear.

 

[KG1]

The bottom line is that aggressive greenhouse gas control policies through a major shift in resource utilization are not justifiably economical at this stage in the economy.

 

[actaeon277]

Why not take a look at the facts?

Fact: We have over 100 years of global temperature data that shows rising temperatures. The data just doesn't lie.
Fact: We have 100's of years worth of data of the rise in global CO2 levels (through atmospheric sampling and ice cores). They show a sharp rise in CO2 over the last century.
Fact: We have decades of data showing a rise in CO2 and temperatures in the worlds oceans (as well as rising acidification, which is another related issue).
Fact: We have solar data going back decades and there has been no increase in solar output.

The facts are there for anyone willing to look at the data. What has most folks upset over the issue is its politicisation. The politicians have muddied the water and the talking heads that too many people are willing to listen to have, as usual, gone into opposition mode. It's the politics that are diverting people from the facts. The permafrost in Alaska is melting, releasing even more greenhouse gas (methane) into the atmosphere. Eventually, if we do not take the decision to actually tackle the problem it will enter a loop and we may well find ourselves at a point of no return. Our children and grandchildren will be the ones suffering for our refusal to accept the facts. We need to look beyond the politicians and their rhetoric and get with the people who are actively fighting this problem. If not we are going to be screwed. We need to change to cleaner power. We have lots of options at our disposal. Wind, water, solar, nuclear, geothermal....all are at our disposal and are carbon neutral. Coal does have to take the hit, sorry to say. But as someone who's lived downwind of coal generating plants of the type China uses, I won't be sad to see it go. My local plant (about 2 miles up the road) made the switch to NG and it's been a blessing for the air quality. Can't say my bills went up any more either. We can do it. We just have to have the will.

And, one last thing. Don't confuse climate with weather. All too many people in this thread are doing it. They are not the same.

Ok. No change. Or change.


And, wasn't there a study that said it was hotter in Roman Times????


Didn't we have several fluctuations in temperature called Ice Ages.
And I don't remember, but were there people there with significant industry to cause the Ice Age to halt????



So we measure temperature different than we did even 30 years ago.
The areas we measure are vastly different.
Cause and Effect are being determined in a few hundred year period when Ice Ages lasted for what, thousands or tens of thousands of years?


Sounds legit.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

Much more decorum than I have left.

 

[actaeon277]

But I thought we were talking about electricity generation....

 

[Tanfodude]

But I thought we were talking about electricity generation....

LOL. You crack me up man.

 

[jamil]

But I thought we were talking about electricity generation....

[video=youtube_share;H_iGaQglnKg]http://youtu.be/H_iGaQglnKg[/video]

 

[Tsigos]

Somewhere, the ghost of P. T. Barnum is shedding a sentimental tear.

But they sound so confident in their denial, don't they? Never an ounce of doubt when discussing one of the most complex subjects known to man.

 

[steveh_131]

But they sound so confident in their denial, don't they? Never an ounce of doubt when discussing one of the most complex subjects known to man.

Interesting point.

I've expressed plenty of doubt. I have no idea what factors have affected global climate for the past few centuries. CO2 seems to be a factor. The significance of this factor will never be quantified. The significance of the human contribution to this factor will never be quantified.

The only folks simplifying one of the most complex subjects known to man are the ones claiming that it must have all been caused by man-made CO2.

This kind of argument right here:

Yes, it's enough to convince me in the absence of any other contrary evidence based on data. We know what CO2 does in an atmosphere. Do you have any other variables that influence it that might account for the rise in temperature? The current evidence is really incontrovertible. You have any other suspects that would account for the rise?

I've seen several interesting statistics showing a society where gun control legislation was enacted and crime rates dropped simultaneously.

Should I assume that gun control caused the crime rates to drop, and wait to provide an alternate cause? Of course not.

This is no less absurd. We will never understand all of the variables of human behavior enough to make this sort of assumption. Predicting or explaining global climate trends is not really any less complicated.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Interesting point.

I've expressed plenty of doubt. I have no idea what factors have affected global climate for the past few centuries. CO2 seems to be a factor. The significance of this factor will never be quantified. The significance of the human contribution to this factor will never be quantified.

The only folks simplifying one of the most complex subjects known to man are the ones claiming that it must have all been caused by man-made CO2.

This kind of argument right here:



I've seen several interesting statistics showing a society where gun control legislation was enacted and crime rates dropped simultaneously.

Should I assume that gun control caused the crime rates to drop, and wait to provide an alternate cause? Of course not.

This is no less absurd. We will never understand all of the variables of human behavior enough to make this sort of assumption. Predicting or explaining global climate trends is not really any less complicated.

Yep...and at the end of the day, it's still all coming down to controlling people and economies. We may not be able to stop global warming but we certainly can use the specious claims to stop our economy. I would like something more than the smug knowledge I *might* be saving the world from climate catastrophe for my kids to keep me warm next winter.

 

[Tanfodude]

FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, in fact they ARE at the service of people who are trying to take over the economy, and the good of the planet has nothing to do with it. What they say is wrong, it is false, it is in error, it consists of lies. Doing this crap just in case it's the right thing is almost as bleeding stupid as doing it knowing full well it's based on lies. The temperature of our atmosphere hasn't risen in the last 15 years despite the horrific predictions of the climate cultists, because the high priests of the climate cult have been LYING. And you've been believing them, which makes you a fool. The reason is a different debate entirely, one I won't address here. Since the atmosphere isn't getting hotter, it's almost entertaining to watch the cultists chase around trying to find where the supposed heat is hiding, get stuck in the ice that's presumed to be melting, get eaten by the polar bears that aren't dying. Did you know the polar bear population projections were ENTIRELY MADE UP and they're in fact thriving? It was a LIE. It was one small lie of many that you have been told, and upon which you've based an entirely invalid opinion. I don't care what you think of me, because I have no respect for your opinion. I've totally had it with the stupidity of the climate cultists, and I'm not gonna pull any punches anymore. Think the climate is in crisis? You are effin STUPID. Think it's humanity's fault? HOW DO YOU EVEN REMEMBER TO BREATHE? I need to go soak in my hot tub. This stupidity tasks me.

Oh really? Need a drink or somethin'? Maybe you do need to breathe, you might have too much CO2 in your system.

And speaking of being stupid, this is not my opinion as I'm not the one doing the research and findings. I'm basically saying what their findings are. It just so happens that I agree with them.

You on the other hand, are providing claims without anything to back it up.

We're just having plain discussions here and here you are, throwing tantrums as if the MAIG or MDA are in your yard.

 

[jkaetz]

Why not take a look at the facts?

Fact: We have over 100 years of global temperature data that shows rising temperatures. The data just doesn't lie.
Fact: We have 100's of years worth of data of the rise in global CO2 levels (through atmospheric sampling and ice cores). They show a sharp rise in CO2 over the last century.
Fact: We have decades of data showing a rise in CO2 and temperatures in the worlds oceans (as well as rising acidification, which is another related issue).
Fact: We have solar data going back decades and there has been no increase in solar output.

Correlation does not equal causation. Nevermind that you're only using data from a minuscule section of the planet's life.

Those who think we can have an effect on something with the size and complexity of our planet are delusional. We may have a localized effect that makes the place uninhabitable for ourselves, but that just means something else will take our place. We MAY be able to have clean up a localized area, think big city air quality, but I think that's about it. When a single volcanic eruption can eclipse all the CO2 produced by humans in several years you have to be a bit loony to believe that our CO2 emissions are going to equal the death knell for the planet.

I'm all for using solar/wind/hydro energy when it makes sense. Right now it does not make sense. Enacting legislation that will "necessarily" increase energy costs for more than half the country doesn't seem like something that a representative of the people should be doing.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

The sad thing is, there is literally nothing to back up the claims of those that are (supposedly) doing the research. They refuse to reveal their raw data, there is plenty of evidence they've cooked it, and they've been demonstrated to be liars in general. Their models are bogus, extremely so. Do you realize they are using a model of the planet which is square, flat, has an atmosphere with no change in density with altitude, and 24 hour sunlight? How can this even be made accurate? And they call us flat-earthers. The peer review process has been perverted to uselessness, and dissent is treated more in the fashion of the Spanish Inquisition than with healthy skepticism and curiosity. Science IS NOT BASED ON CONSENSUS. Go to the website "Watt's Up with That?" and get a start. I'm tired of confronting the faith of cultists. Look it up for yourself. And yes, you're damn right I'm having a tantrum about it; this thing stands to do us all, including me, a great deal of harm based on fraud, and I resent the hell out of that.

 

[Tanfodude]

When Global Warming Kills Your God