patrick.net

That's like 20 degrees in Liberal Dog Years. Adjusted for inflation of course, White people need not apply.

Evan F. says

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

Tell that to the snow.
Climate is the history of weather and is always changing. Unfortunately the world is getting colder not warmer.

Anyone willing to do a little research would see this. Instead they double down and say " death in a decade if we don't stop using petroleum! "

And California has been wetter than ever, with some counties like San Diego setting rainfall records and others coming close to historical records. Historical trends show that cooler years bring far more rain to this area, making this one of the coolest winters we’ve had in the last few decades.
All I know is that I’m tired of all this rain. I didn’t move to SoCal for constant gloom and rain! It’s also wrecking little league season!
More AGW now!

jazz_music says

BUT, like cigarettes, the fault lies in the end consumers, and not the producers/promoters who shape national energy policy

If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem. Hold your breath. You're emitting co2.

It’s still raining and cold, with more rain due tomorrow!
I just got AC for my house, and the kids want to use the pool. We demand global warming now!

Quigley says

It’s still raining and cold, with more rain due tomorrow!
I just got AC for my house, and the kids want to use the pool. We demand global warming now!

Fck yeah skiing / boarding in Tahoe is great this year haven't seen that much snow in 15 years. But man the bay area is ready for some Globull Warming. The shacks here are so poorly insulated that the damp cold is getting under the skin. We want global warming now - Fck you al gore where's your manbearpig now?!

Zero sunspots in February. It's gonna be a long cold slow death for many going into the potentially lurking maunder minimum. But muh nu green deel!!

HeadSet says

Always keep the discussion confined to how AGW is real - never talk about solutions.

That's cause it only makes sense to talk about solutions with people who believe there is a problem to start with.

OccasionalCortex says

Yup, It's a cult.

Let's throw away all empirical evidence and call it a cult.

MisterLearnToCode says

Don't talk about Solar Microwaved Power

Why make it complicated when solar power will soon be as cheap or cheaper than fossil fuel electricity?

MisterLearnToCode says

Sure isn't.

mell says

Zero sunspots in February. It's gonna be a long cold slow death for many going into the potentially lurking maunder minimum. But muh nu green deel!!

That's actually pretty amazing, I check the sun periodically, it's been virtually free of sunspots for a long time. Got long underwear?

Heraclitusstudent says

Nice unsourced chart.

Those Excel lessons are really paying off.

Heraclitusstudent says

That's cause it only makes sense to talk about solutions with people who believe there is a problem to start with.

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.
Instead of doing that, Global Warmists are loudly demanding that everyone convert to their idea and submit to costly, invasive, and unpopular “treatments.”

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?

Like my wife always says, " it's not the disaster you see coming that will kill you".

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?