patrick.net

HeadSet says

FuckCCP89 says

HunterTits says

Canadians Are FUCKED...by Global COOLING

So we'll have caravans of illegals storming our Northern border too?

Good joke, but FEMINIST countries do not breed like rabbits so they can better manage the situation.

Fixed it for you.

PeopleUnited says

HeadSet says

FuckCCP89 says

HunterTits says

Canadians Are FUCKED...by Global COOLING

So we'll have caravans of illegals storming our Northern border too?

Good joke, but FEMINIST countries do not breed like rabbits so they can better manage the situation.

Fixed it for you.

Have to be fair. Both are good jokes. Use the strikethrough or del tag if you edit a quote though, in my opinion. You did all caps so it was obvious, but one word can change the meaning of what someone says and they may not agree with the change. It has been happening recently...

HunterTits says

Canadians won't be able to handle this. Already 90% of their population lives within 100 miles of the southern border with the US. Where are they going to go?

Snow will cover houses and not melt much in the 'summer'. Roofs will collapse. Agriculture will collapse.

They have will have like 40 million ppl to relocate. Where?

Nah, there’s no way it gets as bad as Alaska, and even that place is livable. And arable! For some crops. Potatoes and cabbages do best, because of all the nonstop daylight in the summer. Forget your corn, not gonna get much yield. Barley might work. Wheat is going to be a hard pass. Vegetables can be grown with good yields provided you don’t miss the planting window.

And animals can be raised in places that are even harsher!

But you’ll want insulation in your house.

Shaman says

Wheat is going to be a hard pass.

You can grow soft wheat way north, as in Ireland, which has a latitude about mid-Canada.

Then you get crumbly bread, like Irish soda bread, but it's just as nutritious.

PLANT! YAMS!

If they start up with the global warming thing again, remind them that "China accounts for 28 percent of all global CO2 emissions. And China continues to build coal-fired power plants at a rate that outpaces the rest of the world combined."

https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissions-china-goes-on-a-coal-spree

jazz_music says

Ohhhh, the weather!

Hahahaha hoo boy!

Incredible!

It might take you several decades, and you may never learn, but to follow the science is to fit a model to observation - not the other way around.

I fully believed in the "global warming hysteria" that started in 1985 and I believed it up until 2005. That's 20 years. I still held on to a bit for another 10 years, until I fully abandoned it as bullshit.

There is no model that makes anything close to accurate predictions. I'm not joking when I say I really can run a simulation of a Cray Supercomputer at my desk. Many people can't and don't realize it - what I can't do is run a fucking climate model because none is available.

All the shit I was taught about with SF flooding and NYC being underwater by 2000 I fully believed and dreaded as a young engineering student in the late 1980s. It turned out to be a complete lie.

It's been 35 years of bullshit, and I thought I was slow to realize it was bullshit. Took me 20 years to find out they were full of crap, and 30 to realize with certainty they are.

I remember thinking "scientists couldn't get away with lying" - and they can't - but our "news" media gets away with lying about what scientists claim.

Now there's a new crop of poor gullible kids believing the world is going to end in 10 more years. They'll figure it out quicker than I did because they have more data. The question is - will people like you ever figure it out?

There are many reasons why the global warming hoax is fake bullshit.

The first and easiest to understand is the assumption that the output of energy from the sun is constant, like the wattage of a lightbulb. So, if the earth temperature varies from the “normal”, “something caused it, WE caused it!”

Except, the assumption is wrong; the energy output of the sun varies, particularly cosmic rays.
At CERN in Switzerland, they created clouds with cosmic rays.
This experiment proved that cosmic rays can vastly influence the weather.

After this and the revelations on wikileaks about fraud hockey sticks and Al Gore making money from the issue, I’m convinced it’s all bullshit.

Last year, many states along the east coast set a record during late spring frost. For some states, it came a full month later than their previous record in May! This isn't the type of thing that supposed to happen in a "rapidly warming" planet. Temperature, on average is increasing approximately a degree per 100 years. It's been doing this for a long long time prior to fossil fuels. For the life of me, I can't understand how they convinced all this bitches that are the biggest pussies in the world who complain about how cold it is during the winter that living conditions somehow fall apart with an average temp of 2 degrees higher in the year 2200.

That’s a near impossible leap. Literally the author provides no evidence of the connection.

-no statement of the contents of the executive order.
-zero evidence of a link between a contract started by his bank in 2017 when Trump was President.

Just pure speculation. Basically as bad as a Jean Raphio Sapperstein free word association.

So why is my bank tracking and categorizing my purchases?

NuttBoxer says

So why is my bank tracking and categorizing my purchases?

They sell that info to advertizers.

PS. The whole ad thing is explained pretty good in the "Chaos Monkeys" by Antonio Garcia Martinez (of the "fired from Apple one day after hire because mysoginy in his book" fame).

You guys do realize if they want us all on blockchain(see comments by Yellen and others), and want a global health db(needed to verify the health passport info is legit), it's not a big step to say they also want to start a social credit system to reward/punish us? I mean look at fucking global warming/carbon offset bullshit/virtue signaling that already goes on. This isn't a big step.

Or maybe it's ALL just for advertising, and face masks really are just for safety, along with experimental shots, destroying small business's and putting everyone on welfare was an unforeseen causality, and Mcafee really killed himself...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/15/the-deadly-heat-wave-of-july-1936-in-the-middle-of-arguably-the-hottest-decade-on-record-for-the-us/

Rb6d says

Germany with its "renewable" and "green" electricity production emits tons more CO2 than France, which uses nucular. Green energy is bad for environment....

Just wait until all the CO2 emissions from having to dredge those 30M deep Wind Turbine Foundations up out of the ground... and dispose of the Carbon Fiber/High Tech materials that make up the Turbine - can't be incinerated at all.

I started taking my styrofoam cup with me everywhere just to dare somebody to start shit with me, and get a lecture.

http://www.williamengdahl.com/englishNEO18June2021.php

There is More to BlackRock Than You Might Imagine

Tenpoundbass says

Great Barrier Reef experiencing ‘record high’ levels of coral coverage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znOidiyUnq8

It's anecdotal, but you're probably right.

They vaccinated all the coral, and it will all be dead by this time next year. Back to the Global Warming agenda.

richwicks says

It's anecdotal, but you're probably right.

IT's not anecdotal, it was the biggest talking point in 2007 that Global Warming was real because the Great Barrier Reef was bleaching. I also love how they were full of shit about how long it takes for reefs to rebound and recover. We were told it takes centuries. It seems growth spread like weeds growing in a field saturated with 1000 gallons of spilt Miracle Grow.

But they were also full of shit about how many years it takes for Plastic breakdown, with the sun it happens in months not years, and they were also full of shit about how long it takes for Nuclear contamination to neutralize and be safe for life.

It should be illegal punishable by 20 years in prison for Liberals to even think about Science. It's the human thing to do!

Remember the Coral was dying because of Sea Level rise, and the coral not being killed by colder deeper depths, were bleaching because the Ocean temperature increased 1/3 of a 1/3 degree. They said this shit with a straight fucking face, like we are all as stupid as they are.
We should call them all back here and make them explain themselves for having such a high level of stupidity.
I wonder if Dog the Bounty hunter would round them up?

Are the coral reefs due for their boosters yet?

Not familiar with Aussie media, but this comes off as an equivalent to Fox News, which is reporting to support a pre-determined conclusion. The ONE data set they showed was a graph with a long downward trend with two outlier spikes at its end in 2020. This does not prove the long term coral issues were not serious, or that they are cured long term. It's the equivalent to an American dipshit posting some January morning "8 inches of global warming fell in my yard overnight, stoopid libs global warming is BS!"

Your title shows that you know nothing of science. You're not someone I can take seriously on matters of world importance. Heck, you're not even pleasant to hang around with to joke and banter about non-serious stuff for everyone who doesn't share your exact same suite of misunderstandings and delusions about the way things work.

Automan Empire says

Not familiar with Aussie media, but this comes off as an equivalent to Fox News, which is reporting to support a pre-determined conclusion. The ONE data set they showed was a graph with a long downward trend with two outlier spikes at its end in 2020. This does not prove the long term coral issues were not serious, or that they are cured long term. It's the equivalent to an American dipshit posting some January morning "8 inches of global warming fell in my yard overnight, stoopid libs global warming is BS!"

Look, if there's a warm day in the middle of the winter, or a storm hits the coast, we likewise have people screaming it's the end of the world and we're all DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED in 10 years.

There is no fundamental data to make an analysis. Climate models aren't available (and yes, I CAN run them, IF they were), original temperature data isn't available, the SUPPOSED "models" don't conform to past observations, and their future predictions are worthless.

People have good reason to distrust the whole concept of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" at this point. Government hasn't done anything real about it, it appears to be nothing more than a scam. And just how much better does infra-red radiation get reflected by CO2 versus Nitrogen anyhow? You can't even get fundamental answers like that and supposedly CO2 is a greenhouse gas. On top of it are the constantly lies, that the fires on the West Coast are caused by "global warming" or that the Arctic is "ice free", that polar bears are being driven to extinction, that the glaciers are going to disappear, etc. etc. etc.

It's all just BS.

Automan Empire says

"8 inches of global warming fell in my yard overnight, stoopid libs global warming is BS!"

When do your sources say the arctic will be ice free?

Not expecting a cogent answer.

Onvacation says

Automan Empire says

"8 inches of global warming fell in my yard overnight, stoopid libs global warming is BS!"

When do your sources say the arctic will be ice free?

ANY MOMENT NOW!!!!

richwicks says

People have good reason to distrust the whole concept of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" at this point. Government hasn't done anything real about it, it appears to be nothing more than a scam. And just how much better does infra-red radiation get reflected by CO2 versus Nitrogen anyhow? You can't even get fundamental answers like that and supposedly CO2 is a greenhouse gas. On top of it are the constantly lies, that the fires on the West Coast are caused by "global warming" or that the Arctic is "ice free", that polar bears are being driven to extinction, that the glaciers are going to disappear, etc. etc. etc.

This is a Gish Gallop of ignorant maundering. Let's address the issue of warming potential of nitrogen V CO2. You did not even conceptualize the issue correctly. The greenhouse effect isn't an effect of any atmospheric gas REFLECTING. The fundamental behavior of atmospheric gases is very well understood, is measurable, and the claims about measurements are repeatable and independently verifiable. See if you can respond to these two specific points in a scientific manner.

Onvacation says

When do your sources say the arctic will be ice free?

The question presupposes a number of things in a manner counter to my understanding of climate science and global warming effects claims. I don't think "Arctic ice free by (date certain) is a legitimate question or a prediction that can be made with certainty. That people vomit out answers left and right all the time does not invalidate or disprove the concept of AGW.

Looking forward to addressing any sensible good faith questions you may furnish.

Automan Empire says

Looking forward to addressing any sensible good faith questions you may furnish.

Where the model? If there's no model, how are predictions being made?

I spent a good deal of time being all excited that I had a computer that could LITERALLY simulate a Cray supercomputer from the 1980's. I'm not kidding when I say I can do nuclear bomb simulation on my machine. Why are no climate models available, to anybody, to verify the supposed models?

Automan Empire says

This is a Gish Gallop of ignorant maundering. Let's address the issue of warming potential of nitrogen V CO2. You did not even conceptualize the issue correctly. The greenhouse effect isn't an effect of any atmospheric gas REFLECTING. The fundamental behavior of atmospheric gases is very well understood, is measurable, and the claims about measurements are repeatable and independently verifiable.

Well, re-emission of the infra-red photon then.

If CO2 is indeed more likely to retain heat than N2 - if it's a better insulator, how much better is CO2?

The "claims" as far as I'm aware of is "CO2 is a greenhouse gas". I've never seen a quantifiable number tied to that. Can you show me any other claim that is made? What measurements have been made? Who has verified the claims?

Automan Empire says

See if you can respond to these two specific points in a scientific manner.

What, specifically, do you think I don't understand?

I'm tired of this "debate". Not a single useful prediction has been made in my entire lifetime. People who thought they were scientists have wasted their ENTIRE CAREERS on what is obviously a political ploy.

richwicks says

I'm tired of this "debate".

Tired of it? You never ENGAGED it beyond superficial talking points in the first place.



richwicks says

Well, re-emission of the infra-red photon then.

Good save. From there you went back to argument from incredulity. There's plenty of good information available to anyone wanting to make a good faith effort to understand the topic.

HunterTits says

That's rich coming from AE.

You have a specific beef about something I didn't respond to? Or just bringing memes to a discussion of science?

HunterTits says

That's rich coming from AE.

Your contribution to the thread meanwhile: One post with a cartoon, an unattributed chart, a meme, and an 11 year old cover from an openly anti-AGW biased publication.

That's rich indeed.

Automan Empire says

richwicks says

I'm tired of this "debate".

Tired of it? You never ENGAGED it beyond superficial talking points in the first place.

But I have, many many many times, on BOTH sides of the issue, until I realized I was wrong. I don't know a single prediction that has been correct, and the lies, which I once believed, all belong to the side claiming there's impending doom. There were claims back in the "naughts", I guess is the word, the arctic had been ice free one summer. This was complete BS of course, but I now recognize our "news" will lie about easily verified facts all the time. It's always been this way.

Automan Empire says

richwicks says

Well, re-emission of the infra-red photon then.

Good save. From there you went back to argument from incredulity.

There's no evidence that CO2 retains heat more than N2. None that I've seen anyhow, and it's easy to check.

A mile long straight pipe filled with each gas should block an infra-red laser (or scatter it) more or less in a quantifiable way. No experiment such as that has been done.

This whole idea of a runaway greenhouse effect is based on Venus from the 1970's, but the atmosphere is 93 bar, it's 95% CO2, and about 1 bar. Attributing it's much hotter atmosphere to just the atmosphere is silly, given that the sun dumps 2x the amount of energy on that planet than ours.

I spent a considerable amount of time trying to find a model. Then raw data (you can find that at NOAA, but it had to be sued to be obtained, and they adulterated the data), so you can't trust it. Ocean levels have no risen, and we've had far FAR higher concentrations of CO2 in this atmosphere before. It, paradoxically, appears to be greening the planet, not killing life. It's gone up from 280 ppm to around 410 since 1800.

Al Gore hasn't helped, go watch an Inconvenient Truth and try to find a prediction he made that was right.

This has been 35 years of hysteria, in which I believed it from 1985 to around 2010. Now they are pulling out Greta Thunberg. I don't see why a 16 year old high school dropout with a family that has been involved with acting and entertainment is more credible than a model, which they will NOT provide.

It's pointless to argue about this from my point of view. It's become a religion, one based on faith. The mysterious, unobtainable models are wrong so wrong, this can't even be considered a science. But anybody that questions it, points out the history of ridiculously wrong predictions, is always called stupid, or ignorant, or whatever. They aren't, they are just a lot more skeptical than I was, and good for them. They had less reason to be skeptical, it took me 25 years of being stymied in doing ANY verification before I realized, you can't verify it at all. I wanted to model it back in 2005 and 15 years later go "HA! SEEE! This was predicted!" but you can't do it.

richwicks says

This whole idea of a runaway greenhouse effect is based on Venus from the 1970's

Conditions on Venus have nothing to do with the way Earth warming models were developed and refined. This sounds like as crude a rejection as OP. "They modeled it after Venus so obvs false on Earth."

richwicks says

A mile long straight pipe filled with each gas should block an infra-red laser (or scatter it) more or less in a quantifiable way. No experiment such as that has been done.

A cartoonishly absurd test setup, of COURSE nobody has done THAT. For scale, the gas bench used to measure car exhaust for smog checks is smaller than a loaf of bread. Crude experiments can be done at the elementary school science fair level showing heat retention effect in mason jar size samples. Actually quantifying the heat retention effect by CO2 concentration is a college freshman or HS AP level task.

richwicks says

Al Gore hasn't helped

You assume everyone not skeptical of AGW must be "following" him or something? I've been hearing him since the dawn of the Clinton presidency, and never liked the guy, and never uncritically "bought in" to his predictions. At this point, his overselling wrecked his own credibility and reputation AND that of the very concept of AGW among skeptics, and won few long term fans among those of us not skeptical.

Al Gore is beside the point. I see plenty of evidence the earth is warming rapidly, and that human activity is a big driver.

Automan Empire says

richwicks says

This whole idea of a runaway greenhouse effect is based on Venus from the 1970's

Conditions on Venus have nothing to do with the way Earth warming models were developed and refined. This sounds like as crude a rejection as OP. "They modeled it after Venus so obvs false on Earth."

No. Stupid model. Why would they ascribe the heat of Venus to CO2? I don't know why, but they did. What basis did they make THAT decision??

Automan Empire says

richwicks says

A mile long straight pipe filled with each gas should block an infra-red laser (or scatter it) more or less in a quantifiable way. No experiment such as that has been done.

A cartoonishly absurd test setup, of COURSE nobody has done THAT. For scale, the gas bench used to measure car exhaust for smog checks is smaller than a loaf of bread. Crude experiments can be done at the elementary school science fair level showing heat retention effect in mason jar size samples. Actually quantifying the heat retention effect by CO2 concentration is a college freshman or HS AP level task.

I have NEVER seen this done. Been to plenty of science fairs. And yes, it's cartoonishly simple, but it's not done. I've never seen a comparison of heat retention of N2 versus CO2. You'd think they'd do this since they are claiming CO2 is the PRIMARY DRIVER of Climate Change.

Automan Empire says

richwicks says

Al Gore hasn't helped

You assume everyone not skeptical of AGW must be "following" him or something?

What the fuck is "AGW"? I guess that's Al-Gore? I'm pointing out he made a film that was filled with bad predictions. I assume he had SOME competent people involved with making that film, and if he did, well, they were all fucking way off on their predictions.

Automan Empire says

Al Gore is beside the point. I see plenty of evidence the earth is warming rapidly, and that human activity is a big driver.

Well demonstrate it.

That's never done. Just fucking lie after lie after lie about what has happened.

richwicks says

It's pointless to argue about this from my point of view. It's become a religion, one based on faith. The mysterious, unobtainable models are wrong so wrong, this can't even be considered a science. But anybody that questions it, points out the history of ridiculously wrong predictions, is always called stupid, or ignorant, or whatever. They aren't, they are just a lot more skeptical than I was, and good for them. They had less reason to be skeptical, it took me 25 years of being stymied in doing ANY verification before I realized, you can't verify it at all. I wanted to model it back in 2005 and 15 years later go "HA! SEEE! This was predicted!" but you can't do it.

I agree it would be nice to play with models ourselves. Once you start thinking in those terms REALLY seriously, it becomes obvious the problem of combinatorial explosion. I think it's less a problem of "The models are fake and calibrated to "prove" AGW" and more one of needing to practically build a scale model of the Earth in order for it to attain decent predictive power.`Even the best state of the art computing power brought to bear on the problem of WEATHER prediction goes exponentially fuzzy just 12-24-48 hours out. Even the best weather modeling algorithms, from any start point in recent history with terabytes of real world actuarial data to plug in, can't predict what ACTUALLY HAPPENS NEXT very far into the future. It's not because the model makers have ulterior motives... it's because what they're trying to model is complex beyond our memory and processor power. (Ninja edit, as if modelling chaotic systems is even possible.)

It's pretty ambitious to want to run climate models on par with the state of the art on your own computer. I think participating in a distributed solution akin to SETI@home is the closest we'll personally get even with a virtual CRAY in our home office.

richwicks says

What the fuck is "AGW"

Let's call it a shibboleth then. Kind of like hearing someone say nuke-you-lurr energy. It's a marker that the person's depth of knowledge of the topic doesn't correspond to their heights of passion for discussing it.

richwicks says

Crude experiments can be done at the elementary school science fair level showing heat retention effect in mason jar size samples. Actually quantifying the heat retention effect by CO2 concentration is a college freshman or HS AP level task.

I have NEVER seen this done. Been to plenty of science fairs.

Cool, so you just used your personal experience at science fairs to model what actually happened at every science fair at every school in the country every year for decades?

How does that set up the gravitas of your opinions on climate modeling?

HunterTits says

the next doubling of PPM WILL NOT mean a corresponding doubling of temperatures anyway.

Congratulations, you just debunked an argument that makes no mathematical sense, and that nobody but enthusiastic but uneducated groupie-level AGW enthusiasts, nor myself, ever made.

Automan Empire says

Cool, so you just used your personal experience at science fairs to model what actually happened at every science fair at every school in the country every year for decades?

No, I'm pointing out even the SIMPLEST experiments haven't been done. Even the most OBVIOUS tests haven't been done. CO2 does not appear to be a greenhouse gas and I have seen no evidence it is other than assertions which aren't backed up with anything.

Automan Empire says

How does that set up the gravitas of your opinions on climate modeling?

I am not doing climate modelling.

I'm pointing out, it doesn't appear anybody actually is.

The claims of climate change being catastrophic, or really even noticeable, are vastly overstated. They don't even do simple tests, I doubt they do complicated ones.

NOAA's real work is keeping track of weather for shipping and travel. Anything beyond that is just BS.

There's been 35 years of hysteria. It's destroyed trust in our scientific community. I listen to Neil Degrass Tyson or Bill Nye about this garbage, and just have to laugh at this point. Not a SINGLE CORRECT PREDICTION in 35 years.

The whole climate change crap is another grab for power, and I'm sick of people falling for it. That's what this stupid pandemic is about, another grab for power. It's fucking obvious, you have 300 people at a party, only people masked are the servants. It's disgusting people can't see it for what it is. They don't believe in this shit, and they think you're stupid if YOU believe in this shit.

Do you think AOC really thinks the world ends in 10 years? The Green New Deal is nothing more than a way to take a bunch of money, build a bunch of worthless infrastructure, and have a bunch of people skim off the top to make bank.