Assuming you meant slowdown rather than "pause," I don't have to accept that. In the adult world, there is no rule that says that if you accept one thing that a person says, you're required to accept everything they say.As long as you are going to quote those researchers you also have to accept that they have all said the evidence supports the fact that we are experiencing AGW and there never was a 'pause'.
Tell us, Fuji: Does water vapour feedback lead to warming or cooling?It's hilarious that you don't even know what climate is. I think it's literally the case that you don't know what you are talking about: you are debating climate change without any fucking clue what "climate" means.
So now your argument is to disparage the most respected scientific journal on the planet because you don't like the facts.For me Nature lost all credibility when in 2008 they endorsed Barack Obama for US President. A scientific journal has no business making such an endorsement. As for Science we know that it is published by the AAAS which has been taken over by Liberal academics and politicians.
You fail to recognize that science (at least climate science anyway) has been hijacked by politics and government grants. It's not really that difficult to put the pieces together.
The fact of the matter there is overwhelming evidence that there are other factors influencing climate which are completely being marginalized or outright ignored by the pseudo scientists. And contrary to your belief the debate hasn't ended, it's only just begun.
Pause = no warmingAssuming you meant slowdown rather than "pause," I don't have to accept that. In the adult world, there is no rule that says that if you accept one thing that a person says, you're required to accept everything they say.
Furthermore, Jones -- who was one of the people I cited -- has publicly acknowledged there was a slowdown.
Typical denier type post.You are either a con artist or a simpleton , which is it?
Only crackpots dismiss a hypothesis out of hand without having examined it carefully and found a reasonable scientific rational argument to support the null hypothesis
Crackpots or Zealots
Do you have a unique insight into the behaviour of a flaming ball of gas and its impacts on our planet?
I did not think so
You know nothing about what may be causing climate change if you dismiss the impacts of the Sun and the planets orbit out of hand like that
You are such a despicable person
You have an agenda and will never ever objectively listen to a view opposing that agenda
Intelligent people will recognise you for the uncompromising zealot with an agenda
Insurance companies do not make policy decisions based upon science, they make them based upon profit and risk management
Their actions certainty do not validate a scientific hypothesis
You still miss the point
The earth maybe changing getting colder, getting warmer, getting a little older etc and it may have zero to do with our activities
The amount you know is miniscule relative to what you do not know & you have a completely closed mind
As opposed to you who thinks he can fool all of the people all of the time?
As I told multiple times I think you did not, still do not and never will understand that chart
Besides Dr. Carters issue was the time reference
So all your BS about temp in different layers is just a feeble and irrelevant attempt to discredit someone who happens to question your agenda driven propaganda
a feeble and irrelevant attempt to discredit someone a whole lot smarter than you, despite the obvious handicap of being deceased
He was not peddling anything, just questioning the time reference
You lack the ability & intellect to disprove his conclusions so you attack the character of a dead man
Do you need to be a horses ass in addition to being a damn fool?
I tell you I am undecided on this issue and you say I am not????
Yah that will win people over
You are your own worst enemy
The study showed that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere lead to an increase in global temperature, confirming that the Greenhouse theory of global warming is real.10 years !!the planet has a history of climate change which has a frequency closer to 400,000 years
a 10 year study is not going to cut it as proof
You do not have clue what you talking about, yet you have an agenda
Hey Douglas, what 'other factors' aren't included in this chart, which shows the comparable influences on the climate.The fact of the matter there is overwhelming evidence that there are other factors influencing climate which are completely being marginalized or outright ignored by the pseudo scientists. And contrary to your belief the debate hasn't ended, it's only just begun.
I don't really give a damn whether you refer to the stagnant temperatures in the 21st century as a slowdown or a pause. The key point is temperatures have been stagnant, and "15 years" Phil Jones is among those who have acknowledged that reality.Pause = no warming
Slowdown = warming continues, just not quite as fast as previously.
30 year rolling average = warmingI don't really give a damn whether you refer to the stagnant temperatures in the 21st century as a slowdown or a pause. The key point is temperatures have been stagnant, and "15 years" Phil Jones is among those who have acknowledged that reality.
I googled it, went through 5 links on the first google result page, then read the summaries for the next 5 pages (did not visit the site, just read the title and small paragraph that google results gives you), there is no negativity related to the deal. Everyone seems to report it as a matter of fact and there is no hint that something might be rotten about the deal.Keep digging, @ 0.03/kw somebody is getting a subsidy somewhere. The Saudis are sometimes closed mouthed about deal details
No way this will replace 100 MM bbls/ day of crude
It is also unlikely to completely replace our coal consumption, however reducing coal consumption by percentages is perhaps a worthwhile objective
you may wish to ponder how much lithium is available before deciding battery storage is the way to go
I believe there is not that amount of lithium on the planet
A slowdown means that warming is continuing, just not at the incredible rate its been occurring.I don't really give a damn whether you refer to the stagnant temperatures in the 21st century as a slowdown or a pause. The key point is temperatures have been stagnant, and "15 years" Phil Jones is among those who have acknowledged that reality.
If there is any doubt, let me restate my position: The NOAA cooked the books to create its false claim that there was no slowdown.
Bishop, I'll have to nominate you as the biggest man on this thread, as someone who appears able to incorporate new knowledge and actually change his mind.I googled it, went through 5 links on the first google result page, then read the summaries for the next 5 pages (did not visit the site, just read the title and small paragraph that google results gives you), there is no negativity related to the deal. Everyone seems to report it as a matter of fact and there is no hint that something might be rotten about the deal.
If this 3 cents per kwhr is true, I would be as shocked as you would be. I am not trying to convince you that 3 cents per kwhr is true, but I am just telling you what I see when I did a google on the deal. Trust me, the last thing I want to do is to compliment Frank or owe him anything, you can do a search for my posts in AGW threads; you will see that I am not his friend, but this news is the biggest news to me this century if true and if because of Frank that i found out about this maybe a few weeks or months sooner, then I gotta thank him.
Solar does not need to make up 100MM barrels a day worth of energy, if we just had 20% of the energy that we use today; our life styles do not need to change dramatically. I just want to avoid a future where I am forced to suck cock for a gallon of gasoline, which is quite an inescapable future if we march down the AGW is true path and cheap solar is not available, made even worse if in the future we realized that it was false to begin with.
I am accutely aware of the energy storage issue as demonstrated in the post you quoted. Even if there was no way to store electricity, with cheap solar; you will have maybe 6-8 hours a day where you can be civilized, eat 2 hot meals, bathe in hot water, make some ice or a pot of coffee for when it gets dark and really hot or really cold, that is worth something to me.
Once again you prove that you can't read, and the links you continually spam are BULL SHIT.Hey Douglas, what 'other factors' aren't included in this chart, which shows the comparable influences on the climate.
(scroll down for influences)
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
In my post I am not saying there is no way to store energy. What I am saying is that even without storage, so long as solar is cheap, the worse case scenario is that we all have 6-8 hours of day to use electricity, which to me is not the end of the world. The worse case scenario without cheap solar is a Mad Max style future, this future is IMHO a realistic scenario regardless if global warming is real or not, and only depends on if we believe AGW to be real.There are lots of ways to store energy from things like wind and solar, as well as lots of applications for energy that can run on demand. Some of the storage solutions are very simple. Some very technical.
One simple method is to use gravitational potential energy. Have your wind system drive a pump to move large quantities of water in to an elevated reservoir. Release the water to drive a turbine to get power at peak.
That solution is lossy, but even so, a megawatt at peak is worth significantly more than one off peak so the economics afford losses in storage.
The Niagara Falls generating system includes a pump system to store water behind the dam for release at peak.
There are also opportunities for local energy storage, especially for HVAC applications. A building can use energy off peak to build up a thermal reservoir for use in heating/cooling applications at peak. Gas can be compressed off peak and used to drive an air conditioning system during peak hours. Alternately heat can be stored.
So there are both centralized ways like pumped storage for the grid to store power, and end user ways of storing thermal energy for specific applications. Storing thermal energy for thermal use is highly efficient and so has some advantages over grid storage. On the other hand, grid storage provides power for any application.
Ah, poor fast, it must be hard when you can't understand the science.Once again you prove that you can't read, and the links you continually spam are BULL SHIT.
One thing this link does confirm though,...if the 3 tax leaches, IPCC,NASA and NOAA preach this crap, they should be jailed.
Apparently burning and clear cutting forests does NOT contribute to the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere,...and therefor does NOT influence the climate.
I do realize this is some pretty complicated shit here, like how plants convert CO2 to O2,...and burning trees emits CO2
Plus,...and they have NO clue how much of the MOST IMPORTANT green house gas has been in the atmosphere over the last 100 years compared to now.
Well maybe they know for the last TEN years,...which seems to be a really long time for them.
Probably why their spokesman,...FAT AL figured he would get away with predicting that he would be swimming at the North Pole this year.
And 7 BILLION people do not exhale CO2 into the atmosphere,...although I do realize that the with subject clubs of Unemployable,...its mostly hot air.
FAST
https://www.skepticalscience.com/breathing-co2-carbon-dioxide-intermediate.htmEven breathing out creates carbon emissions!"
This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect: Through photosynthesis, they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to the one above. (They also perform some respiration, because they need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis.) The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues - roots, stems, leaves, and fruit.
These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently.
Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. By performing cellular respiration, we are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it's a carbon cycle, not a straight line - and a good thing, too!
Its incorrect to call the consensus a 'popularity vote'.Now that I know Mad max is not on table due to cheap solar, I still have the same position on AGW; it is probable but not defensible as a scientific theory WRT other accepted scientific theories. It still rubs me the wrong way that a pesudo science is magically turned into a science by a popularity vote but this is mostly an academic excercise to me now and I do not want to waste time on it. I am not going to argue against AGW with the same vigor as I argued before, this will probably be my last post in any AGW thread.
The source you posted clearly admits renewables can not replace fossil fuelsTypical denier type post.
No arguments, plenty of insults and no facts or credible sources.
How many years are on record ?CO2 hit 400 ppm.
15 of 16 warmest years on record have happened since 2001.
Exxon's research admits climate change is real and dangerous.
97% of scientists who actually study the matter think we are on a dangerous path.
Your opinion.AGW is real,
If it is the natural cycle of the planet then, what you demand will not make a difference & the effort and resources you demand will need to be applied differentlyand its been shown that doing nothing about it is the most stupid and expensive path we could possibly take.
Barely at all, in fact. Try looking up the meaning of the word "stagnant."A slowdown means that warming is continuing, just not at the incredible rate its been occurring.
We're not talking about whether the Earth has gotten a tad warmer over the past 135 years or the meaning of the word "climate." We're talking about the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change.30 year rolling average = warming
Anything less than 30 years is by definition weather, not climate.
