The new official climate change thread

[Frankfooter]

No it can not be done
100 MM bbls / day & growing???

prove that can be replaced with renewables or admit your demands are non-achievable
You will be very fortunate to replace 10-15% of that amount with renewables and by the time you accomplish that 100 MM bbls will have grown to 115 MM bbl.

I already did:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-decline-renewables-policy-horizons-1.3601400

The planet may well be warming simply because the sun is getting warmer. (apparently mars is thawing out of a really long cold spell).
How long do you expect a flaming ball of gas to remain stable????

Only crackpots believe that changes in solar output have anything to do with the present climate change.

The planets climate may be changing due it its orbit.

Or it could be warming up because there are aliens drilling in the earth's core.
About as likely.

And Insurance has a history of maybe 500 years relative to the changes on the planet which occur on a frequency closer to 400,000 years

The insurance industry is an incredibly conservative industry based on realistic cost/benefit analysis.
As opposed to the crap you keep outputting.
Lets just say when they make statements I'll listen to them, but you and your 'earth's orbit' claim?
No thanks.

No you did not understand Dr Carters message.

You mean the guy who fooled you by printing a chart that switched from surface to stratosphere temps because the real evidence doesn't support his nonsense?

I said he may be correct or may not be, either way he raise some very serious issues which really question you absolute position.

I already showed you, he's using stupidly easy tricks to fool you.
You're a total sucker to still be buying what he's peddling.

As said earlier I am undecided on this issue, yet you are absolute in your position, how can you possibly be able to objectively judge anything??

No, it looks like you are totally set in your denier beliefs, but since you can't find any legit reason, you remain undecided on why you think all of legit science is wrong.
You just think you know better then all of the IPCC, NASA, AAS and NOAA, but can't tell us why.

 

[Frankfooter]

Just how the hell did you get your conspiracy theory from my post that you quoted,...???

That has NOTHING to do with your conspiracy theory,...it is about your false claim of a consensus of man being solely the cause of the so called global warming,... based on your complete lack of understanding of percentages and logic.

FAST

This happens every time, you post some conspiracy theory nonsense and then when confronted pretend you didn't say it.
You argue like a 4 year old with bad punctuation.

Oh, and by the way, why is that you think that your knowledge of percentages and logic are better then the folks who shot a rocket out to Pluto within 45 minutes of when they said it would get there?
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[fuji]

No it can not be done
100 MM bbls / day & growing???

prove that can be replaced with renewables or admit your demands are non-achievable
You will be very fortunate to replace 10-15% of that amount with renewables and by the time you accomplish that 100 MM bbls will have grown to 115 MM bbl.



There are few facts actually
You have a number of theories which may or may not be true.

The planet may well be warming simply because the sun is getting warmer. (apparently mars is thawing out of a really long cold spell).
How long do you expect a flaming ball of gas to remain stable????

The planets climate may be changing due it its orbit. After all we have only really known the earth was spinning around the sun for maybe 700 years.
The variations in climate may just be the normal cycle of the planet & Man's impact may be irrelevant.


And Insurance has a history of maybe 500 years relative to the changes on the planet which occur on a frequency closer to 400,000 years
Again it may be the nature cycle of a planet 5 B years old

Leeson for you, do not get your scientific conclusions from an Insurance salesman


No you did not understand Dr Carters message.


A grade 5 answer
I said he may be correct or may not be, either way he raise some very serious issues which really question you absolute position.

Where as your Zealot act is expected to fool all of the people all of the time? ??


Let me know when you find someone who is smarter than me , because you certainly are not

As said earlier I am undecided on this issue, yet you are absolute in your position, how can you possibly be able to objectively judge anything??

Again it is time for you to wake up and understand a Zealot convinces no one, as you just come across as very untrustworthy Groggy/ Frankfooter.
How is one expected to trust the word of a person who masquerades as new person when it is convenient?

Undecided = ignorant. You are undecided because you don't want to accept the proven facts.

We have three real choices:

1. Ignore AGW and be surprised by the result

2. Forecast the effects and prepare for it

3. Cut emissions to avert the effect

It's fair to say don't know whether 2 or 3 is more efficient, provided that we don't wind up with a runaway greenhouse effect like on Venus that boils the ocean off maybe we could just adapt to the changes. It's going to require massive economic restructuring, including moving major cities, but cutting oil use is also hard. Maybe we can plan for the change cheaper then avoiding it.

But 1, while logically an option, will be far more expensive than the alternatives. Being unprepared is far worse.

 

[FAST]

This happens every time, you post some conspiracy theory nonsense and then when confronted pretend you didn't say it.
You argue like a 4 year old with bad punctuation.

Oh, and by the way, why is that you think that your knowledge of percentages and logic are better then the folks who shot a rocket out to Pluto within 45 minutes of when they said it would get there?
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

At least you'r consistent,...have to give you that,...a lie in every post.

Its very obvious that I understand percentages and logic better than you,...but of coarse you don't have any,...so that's not saying much.

So a bunch of climatologists at NASA "shot a rocket out to Pluto",...

Can anybody get any dumber,...???

And again about the punctuation,...I keep telling you that I have to put pauses in replies to you,...because you consistently display that you have trouble reading.

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

Its very obvious that I understand percentages and logic better than you,...but of coarse you don't have any,...so that's not saying much.

FAST

No, you are claiming you understand percentages and logic better then NASA, by claiming that the studies they back and publish on their site are wrong and you know better then they do.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[FAST]

No, you are claiming you understand percentages and logic better then NASA, by claiming that the studies they back and publish on their site are wrong and you know better then they do.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Keep it up footer,...lie all you want,...doesn't change the fact you can't comprehend percentages,...
The point in my posts has ALWAYS been about the claim that the 9% of those INDEPENDENT scientists who disagree with the big 3 tax leaches,...IPCC, NOAA and NASA,... carries more weight than THREE clubs staffed with unemployable redundant "scientists".

What is truly hilarious,...is you linking NASA as proof of a consensus,...do you realize how dumb that makes you look ?

My offer of help still stands,...

FAST

 

[fuji]

What carries actual weight are peer reviewed journals like Nature and Science. Nature recently published a study which contained direct scientific observation of global warming, measuring the heat contributed by human produced CO2 directly over a ten year period.

That pretty much ended the debate, but the deniers aren't really interested in scientific debate--what you see in this thread is an attempt by the deniers to create the illusion of debate.

 

[Frankfooter]

Keep it up footer,...lie all you want,...doesn't change the fact you can't comprehend percentages,...
The point in my posts has ALWAYS been about the claim that the 9% of those INDEPENDENT scientists who disagree with the big 3 tax leaches,...IPCC, NOAA and NASA,... carries more weight than THREE clubs staffed with unemployable redundant "scientists".

What is truly hilarious,...is you linking NASA as proof of a consensus,...do you realize how dumb that makes you look ?

My offer of help still stands,...

FAST

Its really quite funny that you, with your poor grammar/spelling laden, incomprehensible posts think linking to NASA makes someone look stupid.
Really, really funny.

By the way, who pays the salaries of these 'independent' scientists you keep talking about?
Why is it that only 9% of these, the ones who couldn't get hired by for real jobs that pay well, why is it that you think they are smarter then all the others?
Or is this back to your conspiracy theory that all government researchers, like those at the IPCC, NASA or NOAA, are all subject to the all powerful will of the UN, and all falsify their results to keep their jobs?

Please give us more details, and take it easy on the punctuation. I know its all part of your goal to sound like William Shatner, but try using complete sentences for a change.

 

[FAST]

What carries actual weight are peer reviewed journals like Nature and Science. Nature recently published a study which contained direct scientific observation of global warming, measuring the heat contributed by human produced CO2 directly over a ten year period.

That pretty much ended the debate, but the deniers aren't really interested in scientific debate--what you see in this thread is an attempt by the deniers to create the illusion of debate.

WOW,...a ten year period,...now THAT'S significant.

Care to find anything truthful from the Unemployables that depicts what levels the most important green house gas has been in the atmosphere for much more than 10 years?

FAST

 

[Frankfooter]

WOW,...a ten year period,...now THAT'S significant.

Care to find anything truthful from the Unemployables that depicts what levels the most important green house gas has been in the atmosphere for much more than 10 years?

FAST

Why should anyone bother with you?
Its not like you can understand the reports or the science when its given to you.
Otherwise you wouldn't make such a stupid statement about the findings of fuji's study.

 

[FAST]

Why should anyone bother with you?
Its not like you can understand the reports or the science when its given to you.
Otherwise you wouldn't make such a stupid statement about the findings of fuji's study.

So in other words,...you don't know,...but was else is new?

FAST

 

[fuji]

WOW,...a ten year period,...now THAT'S significant.

Absolutely. It's definitive proof that human produced greenhouse gas warms the planet. Definitive. Proof.

Not a model. Not a hypothesis. Hard evidence.

Deal with it.

 

[bishop]

Its not a fact. It will be hard, but it can be done.
The facts are we know that doing nothing about climate change will be more costly then doing nothing, as you propose.
Check the insurance industry as a start, they are already paying out billions in damages from extreme climate events caused by climate change.





I indicated that he pulled a fast one on you, and you weren't smart enough to pick up on it.
And here you are still defending his work.
Switching from surface temp to satellite temps in the same chart fools only idiots like you.

The fact that you still defend claims built on cheap trickery just show that you are entirely unable to judge the science.
You should leave it to people smarter then you.


edited to add this report:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-decline-renewables-policy-horizons-1.3601400

Frank, I need to thank you for this post. I checked into the news story regarding Saudi Arabia signing contracts for solar at 3 cent per khr, it is on bloomberg and there seems to be no negative press about the numbers being false. Assuming this is the price of current solar, AGW is strictly an academic excercise, that price is below even coal so it would make sense for all new power plants to be solar if the 3 cents per kwh is even in the ballpark of being realistic. It is great that there is less CO2 emmissions, but it is even better that it makes economic sense.

If that price figure is correct, that means the free market solved potentially the biggest challenge that humanity has ever faced. Now the next target for the free market to sleigh would be one of energy storage, Solar will be a fact of life in the future, the sun only shines for so long before you need to run off batteries. We will need a high energy density, low cost, non toxic, safe battery tech to store energy.

 

[Frankfooter]

So in other words,...you don't know,...but was else is new?

FAST

It was a study that confirmed that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increased the temperature of the planet.
10 years was long enough, with enough increase in CO2, to prove the claim with direct evidence.

I know that's too much for you to understand, which is why I ask why should anyone bother explaining things to you when you never can understand them?

 

[Frankfooter]

Frank, I need to thank you for this post. I checked into the news story regarding Saudi Arabia signing contracts for solar at 3 cent per khr, it is on bloomberg and there seems to be no negative press about the numbers being false. Assuming this is the price of current solar, AGW is strictly an academic excercise, that price is below even coal so it would make sense for all new power plants to be solar if the 3 cents per kwh is even in the ballpark of being realistic. It is great that there is less CO2 emmissions, but it is even better that it makes economic sense.

If that price figure is correct, that means the free market solved potentially the biggest challenge that humanity has ever faced. Now the next target for the free market to sleigh would be one of energy storage, Solar will be a fact of life in the future, the sun only shines for so long before you need to run off batteries. We will need a high energy density, low cost, non toxic, safe battery tech to store energy.

It is good news.
In Canada I don't think we'd ever see quite as high outputs from solar, with our more northern location, but its good news.
Solar and wind will be the cheapest options all around soon enough.

 

[JohnLarue]

I already did:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...-decline-renewables-policy-horizons-1.3601400

No where in that article does it indicate that 100 mm bbls / day can be replaced
In fact they did say this

All of this doesn't add up to the end of fossil fuels, according to the report,

You are either a con artist or a simpleton , which is it?

Only crackpots believe that changes in solar output have anything to do with the present climate change.

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

Or it could be warming up because there are aliens drilling in the earth's core.
About as likely.

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

The insurance industry is an incredibly conservative industry based on realistic cost/benefit analysis.
As opposed to the crap you keep outputting.
Lets just say when they make statements I'll listen to them, but you and your 'earth's orbit' claim?
No thanks.

That's too funny
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

You mean the guy who fooled you by printing a chart that switched from surface to stratosphere temps because the real evidence doesn't support his nonsense?

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

I already showed you, he's using stupidly easy tricks to fool you.
You're a total sucker to still be buying what he's peddling.

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

No, it looks like you are totally set in your denier beliefs, but since you can't find any legit reason, you remain undecided on why you think all of legit science is wrong.
You just think you know better then all of the IPCC, NASA, AAS and NOAA, but can't tell us why.

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

 

[JohnLarue]

It was a study that confirmed that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increased the temperature of the planet.
10 years was long enough, with enough increase in CO2, to prove the claim with direct evidence.

I know that's too much for you to understand, which is why I ask why should anyone bother explaining things to you when you never can understand them?

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

 

[K Douglas]

What carries actual weight are peer reviewed journals like Nature and Science. Nature recently published a study which contained direct scientific observation of global warming, measuring the heat contributed by human produced CO2 directly over a ten year period.

That pretty much ended the debate, but the deniers aren't really interested in scientific debate--what you see in this thread is an attempt by the deniers to create the illusion of debate.

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.

 

[FAST]

It was a study that confirmed that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increased the temperature of the planet.
10 years was long enough, with enough increase in CO2, to prove the claim with direct evidence.

I know that's too much for you to understand, which is why I ask why should anyone bother explaining things to you when you never can understand them?

So another "study", big fricken deal, the Unemployable can't PROVE shit in 10 years.

And just who the hell are you to state,..."10 years was long enough",...are you now a scientist,...that does explain why there are over 4000 climate scientists,...looks like anybody can be one.

They don't even know what the green house gas, that has by far the biggest effect on the so called "global warming", content in the atmosphere has been for at least 200 years, which is a blink of the eye in the big picture.
But seems to be a really long time for the climatologists that "shot a space ship to Pluto".

So much for proving anything,...when they don't even know the basics,...but lets not bring that up,...they might lose even more credibility.

FAST

PS: Are you going to join Fat Al for a swim at the North Pole this summer?

 

[JohnLarue]

Frank, I need to thank you for this post. I checked into the news story regarding Saudi Arabia signing contracts for solar at 3 cent per khr, it is on bloomberg and there seems to be no negative press about the numbers being false. Assuming this is the price of current solar, AGW is strictly an academic excercise, that price is below even coal so it would make sense for all new power plants to be solar if the 3 cents per kwh is even in the ballpark of being realistic. It is great that there is less CO2 emmissions, but it is even better that it makes economic sense.

If that price figure is correct, that means the free market solved potentially the biggest challenge that humanity has ever faced. Now the next target for the free market to sleigh would be one of energy storage, Solar will be a fact of life in the future, the sun only shines for so long before you need to run off batteries. We will need a high energy density, low cost, non toxic, safe battery tech to store energy.

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