Global Warming Total Fraud

[Guest]

Hello!? The second part of my comment *IS* based on the trend. That was the point. Thank you for agreeing with Carter that trend is what is important in climate science.

OK:

http://commons.wikim...y_1880-2012.svg

Carter would probably call it stasis.

Yes it is. It's the cleanest form of fossil fuel we have. And it takes less to generate more energy.

You should try reading the caption on the graph you posted - it doesn't support your position. whats critical is that you understands the meaning of the error bar

A climate trend is statistically meaningful over a period of 30 years, so your statement regarding the trend is statistically meaningless.

Br Cornelius

Edited September 13, 2013 by Guest

[CyberKen]

No over unit fusion plant has ever been demonstrated. Fusion is still that magical 30years in the future which never arrives.

Br Cornelius

Lockheed Martin would be a good bet!

I predict they will build a successful prototype by 2017.

It will work.

[+DieChecker]

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change

http://online.wsj.co...2485712464.html

The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

[Frank Merton]

Repeating yourself. WSJ again.

[+DieChecker]

Repeating yourself. WSJ again.

What is wrong with WSJ? The data is from an advanced reading of the IPCCs document.

[MonkeyLove]

Not really. Focus on the -predictions- on many hurricanes will hit the USA in 2013.

So far, we have -zero-. OOPS!

Geoengineering is real.

No, you should look at it on a global scale. Hence, "global" warming.

Trendwise........??? I prefer to look at real photographs. Arctic Ice Levels August 2012......August 2013......i wonder what the August 2014

photo will look like?

Photographs are inaccurate for painfully obvious reasons. Stick to temp. measurements.

[MonkeyLove]

Lets just wait until August 2014. Then we will know.

It should make for a great photo album. August 2012 --- August 2013 --- August 2014

I predict another 25% will be added to the current amount of Arctic Ice. Time will tell.

The polar bears will have plenty of room to run and play.

I think that's the point. You can wait for what happens each year, but if the trend is downward, then you are wasting your time.

We won't have to wait long to find out. It's just 11 months away. Then we know.

Computer Models are cool but it's very hard to argue with a real photograph.

We have the August 2012 Photo in our hands.

We have the August 2013 Photo in our hands.

In only 11 months we will have the August 2014 Photo in our hands.

I think my predictions will be a lot closer than IPCC daydreams. Time will tell.

My prediction: there will be 25% Arctic Ice added to the 60% increase that we can already see with our own eyes.

Go read the article again at the Daily Mail. It's full of incredible truths: Yachts and Cruise Ships.

Hint: The cloud cover is being increased : Solar Radiation Management

Those aren't computer models.

[MonkeyLove]

I take the last line of your simplistic statement. Oil prices tripled and the world adjusted -- in many ways -- not just increasing crude output. Living standards dropped, substitutions were used, use became more efficient. You also ignore the time lag between prices and technology.

Crude output did not increase that much even as oil prices tripled, which is why unconventional oil was used. To make matters worse, demand was supposed to drop significantly because of high prices, but that didn't happen, either:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/06/oil-production-and-consumption

What "time lag between prices and technology"? As you admitted below, we are now resorting to unconventional oil. That's not an improvement on technology that led to an increase in crude oil production.

It now looks as though the States, because of the high prices of imports stimulating technology, will soon become energy independent, and the technology they develop will be transferable to others.

That's unconventional oil, and the U.S. is resorting to that because crude oil is now as expensive to produce as the former. That's not "stimulating technology" or anything like it. More details here:

http://theconversation.com/peak-oil-is-alive-and-well-and-costing-the-earth-17542

As for being energy independent, that's ignores decline curves for unconventional oil:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_abundance.html

There remains all that coal. We agree we would rather leave it alone, but if all else fails ways to use it cleanly will be found.

Coal has low energy returns, together with the rest of unconventional oil. The IEA argues that with maximum production for all oil and gas reserves worldwide production will increase only by 9 pct during the next two decades. And that's assuming that producers will go for maximum depletion rates even if it means lower profits. Meanwhile, the world, including the U.S., needs oil demand to increase by 2 pct a year to maintain economic growth.

What makes matters worse is that emission from unconventional sources will add to global warming problems.

[MonkeyLove]

The natural gas turbine power plants produce more power at a lower cost.

We have a glut of natural gas. Also, the Gas Turbine Power Plants have a small footprint and lower maintenance costs.

That translates into higher profit margins for the shareholders.

The problem isn't a glut in resources or cost in dollars but energy returns in light of production rates. The global economy thrived on cheap energy thanks to high energy returns from crude oil. But those returns are now as low as those of unconventional oil.

The IEA argues that all oil and gas production worldwide has to be maximized, oil demand increase cut by more than half, and remaining demand met by renewable energy for the next two decades. This will require incredible levels of coordination and cooperation between governments worldwide, something that has not happened except for the Green Revolution decades ago. And from what has happened during the last decade, governments seem intent on doing nothing about peak oil or global warming, and instead are using military forces to threaten each other.

[MonkeyLove]

Yes there seems to be an awful lot of natural gas. I don't see the pertinence except that natural gas is to be preferred over both oil and coal when possible.

The issue isn't abundance, as even Saudi Arabia explains that we've used only 25 pct of crude oil reserves worldwide. It's rate of flow:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-04-28/the-only-true-metric-of-energy-abundance-the-rate-of-flow

[MonkeyLove]

This is what scares all Socialists. That Capitalism can save the planet and make a profit on it at the same time. A true win-win scenario.

Actually, that's what happened: capitalism did "save the planet and make a profit on it at the same time," as seen in the Green Revolution, where technology and resources like oil were used to increase food production and manufacture medicine, etc., leading to a major drop in infant mortality rates and increased life expectancy rates, leading the way to a growing middle class.

The catch is that these benefits also led to the global population doubling and causing incredible strain on resources. That's why oil production per capita ultimately peaked back in 1979. Meanwhile, capitalists continued making money by creating more money, leading to over a quadrillion dollars in unregulated derivatives:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/top-derivatives-expert-finally-gives-a-credible-estimate-of-the-size-of-the-global-derivatives-market.html

That's why crude oil production peaked in 2005, just as Hubbert predicted. Oil companies resorted to unconventional oil to meet increasing demand even as pundits predicted years earlier that by 2010 crude oil production would rise to more than 100 Mb/d and oil prices plummet to less than $30 a barrel thanks to "technology." None of these things happened.

And with incredible levels of credit, it wasn't surprising that the U.S. economy crashed in 2008, and then "recovered" through more money-making, with the 1 pct earning readily while the rest continued to face more woes.

[MonkeyLove]

I perceive natural gas as a "bridge fuel" while renewable non-Co2 emitting sources of electricity are developed and transportation becomes electric.

However, that is not because I think natural gas supplies are particularly limited but because prices of renewable energy are steadily coming down and will in maybe half a century become cheaper than anything else.

That will be the real win-win, and I think we have at least half a century to achieve it so long as oil goes out of use in a major way more quickly. Right now I would concentrate on the most serious sources of CO2 and not take such a purist position that if it contributes any CO2 it must be banned.

Multiple sources of energy will have to be used, and you are right that it will take several decades:

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

The catch is that we don't have several decades. That's why the top energy agency worldwide is concerned:

not only with peak oil but with global warming:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/09/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-climate-change

In addition, various unconventional sources may make matters worse:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/06/natural-gas-climate-change-no-panacea

That is why they argue that the only way out is to cut back on oil and gas use, which will happen in any even given peak oil, and then use resources for renewable energy:

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,27324,en.html

But this will require incredible levels of cooperation between governments, something that has not been taking place.

[MonkeyLove]

It would be nice to power the entire nation on hydroelectric power but our demands are too great.

We need the GE and Siemens Gas Turbine Power Plants.

Lockheed Martin introduced an entirely new power plant solution.

100 MW !

[media=]

[/media]

Given lag time, an energy trap, and even shortages for other resources, one has to see this in a realistic rather than in a "nice" light. More details can be seen in the IEA Outlook 2010 report.

[Raptor Witness]

The conservative right view the Earth as their personal toilet, without bothering to suspect that she might have a few royal flushes up her sleeve.

They should ask the U.S. military about the probability of this, because gambling the lives of seven billion is no small matter.

[CyberKen]

I think that's the point. You can wait for what happens each year, but if the trend is downward, then you are wasting your time.

Those aren't computer models.

Which is better?

A bogus and manipulated computer model or a real photo in your hands?

Everybody with good eyesight can clearly see that the Arctic Ice has increased 60%.

The predictions from the Global Warming Loons were.........wrong!

Now is a bad time for you to hide behind manipulated computer models.

[CyberKen]

The problem isn't a glut in resources or cost in dollars but energy returns in light of production rates. The global economy thrived on cheap energy thanks to high energy returns from crude oil. But those returns are now as low as those of unconventional oil.

The IEA argues that all oil and gas production worldwide has to be maximized, oil demand increase cut by more than half, and remaining demand met by renewable energy for the next two decades. This will require incredible levels of coordination and cooperation between governments worldwide, something that has not happened except for the Green Revolution decades ago. And from what has happened during the last decade, governments seem intent on doing nothing about peak oil or global warming, and instead are using military forces to threaten each other.

Instead of a global view, i prefer to focus on the USA.

We are almost energy independent. Soon the USA will export natural gas.

Happy days are here again in North Dakota. Fracking is leading our way to prosperity.

The Keystone Pipeline will be approved eventually. We just need to get rid of the socialist in the White House.

[CyberKen]

Crude output did not increase that much even as oil prices tripled, which is why unconventional oil was used. To make matters worse, demand was supposed to drop significantly because of high prices, but that didn't happen, either:

http://www.economist...and-consumption

What "time lag between prices and technology"? As you admitted below, we are now resorting to unconventional oil. That's not an improvement on technology that led to an increase in crude oil production.

That's unconventional oil, and the U.S. is resorting to that because crude oil is now as expensive to produce as the former. That's not "stimulating technology" or anything like it. More details here:

http://theconversati...the-earth-17542

As for being energy independent, that's ignores decline curves for unconventional oil:

http://www.slate.com..._abundance.html

Coal has low energy returns, together with the rest of unconventional oil. The IEA argues that with maximum production for all oil and gas reserves worldwide production will increase only by 9 pct during the next two decades. And that's assuming that producers will go for maximum depletion rates even if it means lower profits. Meanwhile, the world, including the U.S., needs oil demand to increase by 2 pct a year to maintain economic growth.

What makes matters worse is that emission from unconventional sources will add to global warming problems.

Global Warming problems? Look at the data. The Earth is cooling.

Open your eyes.

[Guest]

Which is better?

A bogus and manipulated computer model or a real photo in your hands?

Everybody with good eyesight can clearly see that the Arctic Ice has increased 60%.

The predictions from the Global Warming Loons were.........wrong!

Now is a bad time for you to hide behind manipulated computer models.

The naked eye is a very poor judge of area in complex outlines - only an accurate computer based measurement is accurate. There are no models here, simply real measurements of real ice cover taken from satellite images.

You seem to be confused.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Instead of a global view, i prefer to focus on the USA.

We are almost energy independent. Soon the USA will export natural gas.

Happy days are here again in North Dakota. Fracking is leading our way to prosperity.

The Keystone Pipeline will be approved eventually. We just need to get rid of the socialist in the White House.

Then you are an idiot since what happens on the global scale will impact you directly. Global warming can only be viewed as a global issue. However it is already impacting America in the form of increasing frequency of heatwaves and flash floods - which is costing your economy billions every year.

America is not an island.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Global Warming problems? Look at the data. The Earth is cooling.

Open your eyes.

If you had bothered to look at the data you wouldn't be making that statement. The average global surface temperature, as measured in the most complete dataset, has continued to rise over the last decade and has had 4 of the warmest years in the instrumental record.

Where is the cooling you think is happening ?

Br Cornelius

[CyberKen]

The naked eye is a very poor judge of area in complex outlines - only an accurate computer based measurement is accurate. There are no models here, simply real measurements of real ice cover taken from satellite images.

You seem to be confused.

Br Cornelius

You should tell that to the yacht captains who traveled all the way up there only to run into....................reality. LOL

The 60% increase in Arctic ice is there. I am embarrassed for you.

You have been deceived. Wake up!

[MonkeyLove]

Which is better?

A bogus and manipulated computer model or a real photo in your hands?

Everybody with good eyesight can clearly see that the Arctic Ice has increased 60%.

The predictions from the Global Warming Loons were.........wrong!

Now is a bad time for you to hide behind manipulated computer models.

How do you use a "real photo" for predictions?

[MonkeyLove]

Instead of a global view, i prefer to focus on the USA.

That's wrong for obvious reasons. Otherwise, this thread should be about warming in the U.S.

We are almost energy independent. Soon the USA will export natural gas.

Happy days are here again in North Dakota. Fracking is leading our way to prosperity.

The Keystone Pipeline will be approved eventually. We just need to get rid of the socialist in the White House.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_abundance.html

http://shalebubble.org/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/21/shale-gas-peak-oil-economic-crisis

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/507446/shale-oil-will-boost-us-production-but-it-wont-bring-energy-independence/

According to the IEA, at best global oil and gas production will increase by 9 pct during the next two decades, but for the economy to grow demand has to go up by 2 pct a year, just as it did the last three decades. Also, the 9-pct increase can take place only at maximum depletion rates, which will require oil companies to produce at lower profits, which is something that does not normally take place.

Global Warming problems? Look at the data. The Earth is cooling.

Open your eyes.

According to the data, it's not:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html

[MonkeyLove]

You should tell that to the yacht captains who traveled all the way up there only to run into....................reality. LOL

The 60% increase in Arctic ice is there. I am embarrassed for you.

You have been deceived. Wake up!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/neverending-daily-mail-nonsense.html

[CyberKen]

How do you use a "real photo" for predictions?

August 2012 Photo in our hands: Arctic Ice pack is small

August 2013 Photo in our hands: Wow! Forget the faulty computer models. Look what ....really.....happened! 60% increase!

I predict my 25% increase on top of the 60% increase will be a lot closer than an IPCC daydream. We will find out in 11 months.