patrick.net

rocketjoe79 says

Evan F. says

Onvacation says

Prepare for colder years to come as the sun's activity cycles down.

The notion that a solar minimum or even grand minimum will do anything to stem the current warming trend has already been largely debunked.

By the same scientists that created AGW in the first place....the funds to "publish or perish" must continue....

To all of you alarmists: make a prediction.

"The temperature will go up multiple degrees by 2010"

"The arctic will be ice free by 2013."

"Expect mass wetbulb death by 2022."

"All life on earth will end by 2025 due to runaway global warming ".

Or the latest, "we only have 12 years if we don't do anything. "

So... If you are a true believer make your prediction. Put a disaster and a date.

Onvacation says

So... If you are a true believer make your prediction. Put a disaster and a date.

Preachers and mystics have been doing exactly this for millennia. The world still hasn’t ended although it’s end has been “nigh” more times than could be counted.
This too, shall pass.

Quigley says

Even in socialist France, those aren’t going over well. There’s a little movement you may have heard of which got the environmental gas tax rolled back: Gillets Jaunes?

French taxes on diesel were not environmental taxes. These were plug the deficit, tax everything that moves taxes.
I'm fairly certain all "gilets jaunes" are in favor of fighting global warming.

Quigley says

That’s a logical fallacy.
Even if a person doesn’t believe in someone else’s problem, they might agree to a compromised “solution” if that solution seemed reasonable.

The real fallacy is the opposite: "We can't afford to change what we are doing, therefore there is no problem."
Or in its least contentious version: "We can't afford to change what we are doing, therefore the problem is really not that bad at all, even an advantage."

This is what I have heard over and over and over coming from the right.

And the solution is obvious and cheap: solar panels costs have shrunk 99% since 1975.
They will be the cheaper than coal by 2021.

We have already paid for this development.

Batteries will follow.

Heraclitusstudent says

MisterLearnToCode says

Sure isn't.

We're still in in the end of a local maximum irradiance phase, a maunder minimum would certainly bring a new ice age with it. If you use these relatively small deviations to prove or disprove cause then the whole globull warming theory is trash because we have had decades and centuries of much much higher CO2 concentration with much lower temperatures. Can't have it both ways. Surely irradiance is not the only factor but I assert it's a much bigger (if not the defining) factor of global temperatures of all factors we currently know. CO2 is insignificant in comparison.

Heraclitusstudent says

And the solution is obvious and cheap: solar panels costs have shrunk 99% since 1975.
They will be the cheaper than coal by 2021.

Yes, and we did it without cap and trade or participation in a global scheme to pay developing nations to spew coal smoke. The solution was technology, more of it, not a return to some fabled agrarian lifestyle where nobody flies or has a personal vehicle.

The USA leads the entire world in carbon emission REDUCTIONS, reducing it 25% in only the past five years. That didn’t happen because of environmentalists harassing us to sit in a corner and quietly mold. It happened because technology offered solutions that were better than what we were using and people understood the benefit to using more energy efficient devices.

Quigley says

Heraclitusstudent says

And the solution is obvious and cheap: solar panels costs have shrunk 99% since 1975.
They will be the cheaper than coal by 2021.

Yes, and we did it without cap and trade or participation in a global scheme to pay developing nations to spew coal smoke. The solution was technology, more of it, not a return to some fabled agrarian lifestyle where nobody flies or has a personal vehicle.

The USA leads the entire world in carbon emission REDUCTIONS, reducing it 25% in only the past five years. That didn’t happen because of environmentalists harassing us to sit in a corner and quietly mold. It happened because technology offered solutions that were better than what we were using and people understood the benefit to using more energy efficient devices.

Yes and there are plenty of reasons to switch to new technologies (whereever and whenever it makes sense) - the red herring CO2 (and least problematic of all pollutants, some say it's not a pollutant at all) should not be on the list of reasons.

mell says

We're still in in the end of a local maximum irradiance phase, a maunder minimum would certainly bring a new ice age with it. If you use these relatively small deviations to prove or disprove cause then the whole globull warming theory is trash because we have had decades and centuries of much much higher CO2 concentration with much lower temperatures. Can't have it both ways. Surely irradiance is not the only factor but I assert it's a much bigger (if not the defining) factor of global temperatures of all factors we currently know. CO2 is insignificant in comparison.

The fact that the current warming is not due to the sun is absolutely incontrovertible.

For example: if it was due to the sun, why would temperature increase faster in the polar regions (like we are seeing now) rather than the opposite? You know... these regions that don't see the sun for 6 months/year. Still get warmer than they used to be.

You can't explain that, and more generally your "GW is trash" statement is pure arrogance and puts people in the idiots box way too fast.

Heraclitusstudent says

mell says

We're still in in the end of a local maximum irradiance phase, a maunder minimum would certainly bring a new ice age with it. If you use these relatively small deviations to prove or disprove cause then the whole globull warming theory is trash because we have had decades and centuries of much much higher CO2 concentration with much lower temperatures. Can't have it both ways. Surely irradiance is not the only factor but I assert it's a much bigger (if not the defining) factor of global temperatures of all factors we currently know. CO2 is insignificant in comparison.

The fact that the current warming is not due to the sun is absolutely incontrovertible.

For example: if it was due to the sun, why would temperature increase faster in the polar regions (like we are seeing now) rather than the opposite?

There are many factors but maunder minimums and ice ages are correlated that is accepted science. If it were CO2 then it should have been much warmer during those periods with much higher CO2 concentration than today. This has nothing to do with arrogance and there are plenty of scientists that are highly critical of GW yet they are derided as being bought by the fossil fuel industry although the majority of the money these days is clearly on the pro GW side.

Heraclitusstudent says

Heraclitusstudent says

You can't explain that, and more generally your "GW is trash" statement is pure arrogance and puts people in the idiots box way too fast.

This is the most ridiculous argument made by the GW alarmists. Take a CLOSE look at that chart again.

Some how, the fucked in the head "alarmists" want everyone to believe that a 1 degree C change over 138 YEARS is catastrophic... Just what drugs are they taking?

Yet, right in their own backyard, the temperature swings close to 50 degrees EVERY year, and they still haven't been "wet bulbed" to death yet. Just how do they survive such drastic temperature changes annually?



The delusions... they're real!

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm fairly certain all "gilets jaunes" are in favor of fighting global warming.

Fairly certain. More or less certain than the arctic ice is going to all melt?

Heraclitusstudent says

The fact that the current warming is not due to the sun is absolutely incontrovertible.

But it has been cooling since 2016!

Oh, I guess you're right.

Heraclitusstudent says

And the solution is obvious and cheap: solar panels costs have shrunk 99% since 1975.
They will be the cheaper than coal by 2021.

Interesting...

How much power will those solar panels generate at 9 PM? How about Midnight? How about 3 AM?

Heraclitusstudent says

The fact that the current warming is not due to the sun is absolutely incontrovertible.

Wow... OK, if warming doesn't come from the sun, why is it normally warmer at noon time versus midnight? Please explain.

Heraclitusstudent says

For example: if it was due to the sun, why would temperature increase faster in the polar regions (like we are seeing now) rather than the opposite? You know... these regions that don't see the sun for 6 months/year. Still get warmer than they used to be.

Oh boy... Ever hear of ocean currents? Any idea which way ocean currents are flowing now? What warms the ocean, CO2 or the sun? What does the Arctic ice sit on? Ever hear of underwater volcanoes?

These really aren't difficult concepts to understand. Why do Liberals struggle so much with them?

Heraclitusstudent says

For example: if it was due to the sun, why would temperature increase faster in the polar regions (like we are seeing now) rather than the opposite? You know... these regions that don't see the sun for 6 months/year. Still get warmer than they used to be.

You can't explain that, and more generally your "GW is trash" statement is pure arrogance and puts people in the idiots box way too fast.

Source? There are VERY few data points of polar temperature sampling. The global temperature calculations are deeply flawed, largely because of our lack of data at the poles (as well as everywhere else people dont live).

The pure arrogance is in pretending we know enough to model climate changes into future decades, despite the lack of empirical support of the deeply flawed models.

Quants made the same mistake w the housing crises. Scientists/mathematicians/programmers are quite bad at being humble.

CBOEtrader says

Quants made the same mistake w the housing crises. Scientists/mathematicians/programmers are quite bad at being humble.

Same with Black-Shoales producing bizarre results during the 1996 Asian Crisis.

If the models were perfect, then profits would be minimal to non existent, because everybody would be using the perfect model/formula, and there would be no excess. A perfect tollbooth with no delays; builders would build precisely the correct number of homes; landlords would charge exactly the correct rent; etc.

Heraclitusstudent says

And the solution is obvious and cheap: solar panels costs have shrunk 99% since 1975.

How do you store the power?

Batteries are insufficient and extremely polluting to produce, and non-renewable.

MisterLearnToCode says

Same with Black-Shoales producing bizarre results during the 1996 Asian Crisis.

Yup, exactly.

Now, imagine we are no longer modeling market volatility over the next 6 months, and instead modeling worldwide 'climate' over the next 50 years.

In finance we have finite variables and easily accessible historical data representing 100x as long a period as the modeled future expectations....

In climate modeling we have unlimited variables and deeply flawed and/or limited historical data, w no process for improving the models from empirical evidence.

We didn't even measure worldwide temps before 1850. When do you think the process became decent? 1950? Climate changes are multi hundred and thousand year processes. Do you honestly think we can model climate change out 10/20/50/100 years w maybe 100 years of legit data?

We dont even agree on the variables, yet.

Heraclitusstudent says

The fact that the current warming

Can we have some more of that current warming? Because I’ve been freezing in LA all year.

Quigley says

Heraclitusstudent says

The fact that the current warming

Can we have some more of that current warming? Because I’ve been freezing in LA all year.

Ha Ha

Send some here too... we're approaching Spring, and the temps are still in the teens.... Global Warming?? Not here!

MisterLearnToCode says

Heraclitusstudent says

And the solution is obvious and cheap: solar panels costs have shrunk 99% since 1975.

How do you store the power?

Batteries are insufficient and extremely polluting to produce, and non-renewable.

Please stop asking those difficult technical questions. The Alarmists heads will explode.

The alarmist need to explain how all these solar panels will provide power at night for air conditioners, electric ranges, electric water heaters, heat pumps, electric vehicle charging, blow dryers, pool pumps, etc. Batteries certainly can't do it.

Heraclitusstudent says

This is what I have heard over and over and over coming from the right.

For some reason they delight in lies and especially if they serve to offend.

CBOEtrader says

Source? There are VERY few data points of polar temperature sampling.

Really?
https://nsidc.org/data/search/#keywords=sea+ice/sortKeys=score,,desc/facetFilters=%257B%257D/pageNumber=1/itemsPerPage=25
https://nsidc.org/data/search/#keywords=ice+sheets/sortKeys=score,,desc/facetFilters=%257B%257D/pageNumber=1/itemsPerPage=25

MisterLearnToCode says

How do you store the power?

Batteries are insufficient and extremely polluting to produce, and non-renewable.

Batteries will see huge price drops and more innovations will happen.

Heraclitusstudent says

MisterLearnToCode says

How do you store the power?

Batteries are insufficient and extremely polluting to produce, and non-renewable.

Batteries will see huge price drops and more innovations will happen.

Will that eliminate the pollution caused during their manufacture?

How long are you planning on sitting in the dark at night, waiting for the prices to drop, since you don't want to use coal produced electricity at night?

Heraclitusstudent says

CBOEtrader says

Source? There are VERY few data points of polar temperature sampling.

Really?
https://nsidc.org/data/search/#keywords=sea+ice/sortKeys=score,,desc/facetFilters=%257B%257D/pageNumber=1/itemsPerPage=25
https://nsidc.org/data/search/#keywords=ice+sheets/sortKeys=score,,desc/facetFilters=%257B%257D/pageNumber=1/itemsPerPage=25

Much respect for the actual data sources, I'll check them out when I can! This seems to corroborate what I'm hearing though. 236 data sets covering regional data across 40 years? Doesnt seem like enough to be precise when discussing 20% of the globe.

For laymans' terms explanation, check out this article:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature

"HadCRUT4 and challenges in the Arctic
How do the datasets deal with missing data?

Nasa’s GISTEMP uses statistical methods to fill in gaps using surrounding measurements. How much each measurement influences the final value depends on how close it is geographically to the missing point. NOAA follows a similar process for the MLOST dataset.

HadCRUT4 is the only dataset to leave regions with missing data blank, rather than try to fill them in. This effectively assumes temperatures there are in line with the global average."

CBOEtrader says

For laymans' terms explanation, check out this article:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature

A quote from article:

..."The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period. The differences are called an ‘anomalies’ and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time."

Many of these land stations have been measuring temperatures over decades, and reporting the results. The claim that is being made is that temps are rising based on these measurements.

One big reason for the rise is the growth of the population. Many of these measurement stations are in urban areas. What has happened to urban areas over the last 30 years? They have become more built up, more paved roads, driveways and parking lots, more asphalt. More buildings, less trees. What happens in that situation?

All those buildings and asphalt absorb heat from the sun much more than trees. This makes the surrounding areas retain heat, which these measurement stations record. Many recording stations are at airports. Has airline traffic increased in the last 30 years and have airports been increased in size, parking, etc?

So, is it any surprise temps have been rising at these recording stations?

NASA announced that global warming continues as 2018 was the 4th hottest year ever, EVER!

Yeah, I can cherry pick data as well. Last August it was well over 35 degrees C here. Last month (February) it was consistently under 10 degrees C. Global warming is a lie! it's the Commies who want to destroy the world. It's Hillary burning her emails, but now that is done so the earth is cooling. It's Muslims running around and getting hot. It's liberals running their heaters in the summer just to prove the data right.

2016 was a record hot year.

Climate and all things geological/climatologcial are long term. But don't let science get in the way of screaming about stuff you know nothing about. After all, if science were so useful, then scientists would be rich or have their own tv shows...or be President. So fuck off with science. What has science ever done for you!!!

Expat01 says

So fuck off with science.

Hey, we are totally cool with science. Just not the junk science that goes along with climate change conspiracies. How many times does NOAA or NASA atmospheric scientists need to shut their dicks in the door until their “data” is forever called into serious question? And that’s not even getting into the perennially wrong computer models of the global atmosphere which forecast The End (TM) more often than a tv evangelist.

Science is a method, not a politically useful set of alternative facts.

Expat01 says

Global warming is a lie! it's the Commies who want to destroy the world.

I don't think the Commies want to destroy the world, just control it.

Expat01 says

2016 was a record hot year.

4/100ths of one degree warmer than 2015, the second warmest yearever. EVER!

I love ignorant fuckwits who try to comment on stuff they nothing about. Nitpicking as if that matters. Claiming that science is a leftist conspiracy. Claiming from their heights of their high school diploma that climate change is bullshit.
Well, I will say this to you all. Fuck you. Science doesn't care about your ignorance or stupidity. It's not a religious debate. It's beyond your limited mental capacity. I suggest you go back to Walmart and buy more lube and leave the real decisions to the intelligent, informed adults.

Expat01 says

I love ignorant fuckwits who try to comment on stuff they nothing about.

Agreed!
We must educate the ignorant!

It's snowing in the High Sierra RIGHT NOW!
Powder on April fools day?

The climate is definitely changing.

Expat01 says

Claiming that science is a leftist conspiracy.

Well, I'm a scientist and I find climate science to be dubious and greatly affected by Leftists. It's more political science these days.

Glad you left the fucking country.

Expat01 says

ignorance or stupidity. It's not a religious debate.

Yep.
Are you a believer or a denier?

CBOEtrader says

The pure arrogance is in pretending we know enough to model climate changes into future decades, despite the lack of empirical support of the deeply flawed models.

To all of you alarmists: make a prediction.

"The temperature will go up multiple degrees by 2010"

"The arctic will be ice free by 2013."

"Expect mass wetbulb death by 2022."

"All life on earth will end by 2025 due to runaway global warming ".

Or the latest, "we only have 12 years if we don't do anything. "

So... If you are a true believer make your prediction. Put a disaster and a date.

I won't hold my breath because co2 is GOOD for life on planet earth.

*Greenland glaciers are growing.
*Arctic sea ice peaked out to the 7th lowest in recorded satellite history. (not first or second, seventh)
*Record cold and snowfall in USA
*Manhattan is still above water

How cold must it get for alarmists to admit they are wrong about global warming?

Here’s a great NOAA chart to really make alarmists uneasy. Note almost all record high temperatures were set before 1960, and almost all record lows were set after 1960. This, at face value, disproves ANY USA warming, associated human activity, since 1960; the date used by alarmists as the beginning of AGW.

If you click the source links, you can even disprove higher rain fall records, correlating even more to a model of cooling climate and normall rainfall.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes