Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
FurriesRock

Climate Change is a Hoax

3,781 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Doug1o29
4 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

That is simply a "What if" Paper.  Nice try though Doug.

It ain't there yet.  They're all "what if" papers.

Last I knew, the IPCC said warming was about 1.5C.  My own work says 1.6C since 1826.

Here's another one:

Jones, P. and T. Wigley.  1990.  Global warming trends.  Scientific American. 263(2) 84-91.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24996902.pdf

This is somewhat dated, but it discusses many of the problems we've been talking about.  This doesn't use NOAA's dataset and besides, it's from before that particular controversy started.  And you still haven't learned how to use a search engine.  Or are you just lazy?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
30 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Last I knew, the IPCC said warming was about 1.5C.

 

Global temps have not been 1.5C above the current range base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior

image.png.af76b5a167a1efb305ea64ae2d4fe9ef.png

 

(Allen, M.R., O.P. Dube, W. Solecki, F. Aragón-Durand, W. Cramer, S. Humphreys, M. Kainuma, J. Kala, N. Mahowald, Y. Mulugetta, R. Perez, M.Wairiu, and K. Zickfeld, 2018: Framing and Context. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

 

Global temps have not been 1.5C above the current range base.

That's above 1850.  The baseline is the average from 1951 to 1980.  The 2016 temp was 1.01C above the baseline.

Do you say these things just to get my goat, or do you really not know?

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
10 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

That's above 1850.

Well then you are baking in natural  warming that doesn't have anything to do with AGW. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Well then you are baking in natural  warming that doesn't have anything to do with AGW. 

Nearly all the warming ascribed to "global warming" has occurred since 1907.  1850 was chosen because it was far enough back that its temps could be considered "natural."  Also, because 1850 is considered the last year of the Little Ice Age.

I think I've said that about 20 times by now.  Are you reading anything I post?

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

What's your source for 1907?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

What's your source for 1907?

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Actually, 1904 was colder at -0.50.  So were 1909 and 1911 at -0.46.  Various sources give the year as anywhere from 1907 to 1910.  I guess it depends on whose dataset you're looking at.

Doug

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
7 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Actually, 1904 was colder at -0.50.  So were 1909 and 1911 at -0.46.  Various sources give the year as anywhere from 1907 to 1910.  I guess it depends on whose dataset you're looking at.

 

Again based on what? You are looking at Temp anomalies and saying "Oh looks like AGW kicked in here to me." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
Just now, lost_shaman said:

Again based on what? You are looking at Temp anomalies and saying "Oh looks like AGW kicked in here to me." 

See Post 3076.  And this time, READ it.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman

I read your POST dude. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1o29
2 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I read your POST dude. 

Now readthe article.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
2 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Now readthe article.

Doug

You cite your source! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
26 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

You cite your source! 

You know, when the text is all blue after a citation, you generally can click on the blue text.  Who knows.  Maybe it'll lead to a source.

Incredible, I know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
1 minute ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

You know, when the text is all blue after a citation, you generally can click on the blue text.  Who knows.  Maybe it'll lead to a source.

Incredible, I know. 

Then you can quote the part of the Paper that answers my question? Please do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
18 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Then you can quote the part of the Paper that answers my question? Please do so.

I don't know what your question is. And anyway, all I can expect from you is a bad faith argument from ignorance.

If your question is why 1907...I'd advise you to look at the inflection point on the graphs. If you can read graphs. Evidence suggests not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
18 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

If your question is why 1907...I'd advise you to look at the inflection point on the graphs.

That is the same flawed logic Doug used. As I told him you can not look at temperatures and say where AGW started. AND, 1907 is NOT when the Climate community at large tends to think this began. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

That is the same flawed logic Doug used. As I told him you can not look at temperatures and say where AGW started. AND, 1907 is NOT when the Climate community at large tends to think this began. 

So it was a bad faith question. You should check what doug actually said again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
14 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

So it was a bad faith question. You should check what doug actually said again.

I think you should make it clear what you are trying to say Sir.

I saw/read exactly what Doug said here. 

Also I have no "bad faith" in anything. I know that is some liberal code now but to the rest of us it doesn't mean anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tmcom
10 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

Settle down a bit.  Where is YOUR common sense here?  You respond to  "unicorn world" with "monster under the bed world".   

There is a path to follow using  technology and science that does not result in  pie in the sky or  hand wringing 

It is about cost and development and alternatives.  Do you really think natural gas and coal fired turbines require no maintenance?  The company I work for has one whole casting plant that makes thousands of replacement blades for land based power generating turbines every year..  They have to be shut down and overhauled because the hot exhaust gases are corrosive.  In a coal plant they also carry abrasive  ash particles.

The things that you say can go wrong indeed might go wrong.  There is a probability and a cost one can assign to each of those events.  There are also pipeline leaks and coal train wrecks and dams silting up, and nuclear accidents.  There is no trouble free life for us.   It is just a matter of comparing costs and risks.

True, but l would rather have a gas electrical plant covering a relatively small area, catch on fire, than 20 km's of wind turbines, on fire, falling apart, slaghtering eagles and other birds, (the bird catches the worm, lol) p****ing off local's and throwing the natural beauty idea.

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

That's just plain BS.  I have several wind farms within 40 miles of me.  All I have to do is drive along the roads and count them.  One wind turbine per 40 acres - exactly the same as oil and has wells.  Each one generating 225 kv.  Each one generating 1.5 to 3 Megawatts. 800 turbines in just one wind farm.  31 wind farms in the state.  At least 1500 turbines in Oklahoma alone.  At $3 million per turbine.  The big power companies don't believe it either.

You may not be aware of the American public land survey system.  The whole state is surveyed into sections, ome mile on a side.  Roads are usually run right down the section line.  There are 16 "forties" in a section.  You can drive completely around the section, see every windmill on it and count them:  one windmill to forty acres.

While I'n thinking of it:  a gas well in Oklahoma costs about $3 million to drill - the same as one wind turbine.  The wind turbine has a life expectancy of 25 to 30 years with power production pretty-much steady during that time.

The gas well produces most of its gas in the first few months, then production drops off, following a decay curve.  At twenty years most wells are capped because they can't produce commercial quantities of either oil or gas any more.  How do I know this:  I used to own a producing gas well.

Doug

That's BS you mean,....never mind.

4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

That is the same flawed logic Doug used. As I told him you can not look at temperatures and say where AGW started. AND, 1907 is NOT when the Climate community at large tends to think this began. 

You will have to give the CCC crowd a break, l threw them a curve ball with the wind turbine one, and the insults are flying.

I don't see why considering that AU and the US have hundreds of years of gas, and Australia could shut down all of their coal fired power stations and replace them with up to 400 years worth of natural gas, supplying all of our country.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
15 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

I think you should make it clear what you are trying to say Sir.

I saw/read exactly what Doug said here.

Also I have no "bad faith" in anything. I know that is some liberal code now but to the rest of us it doesn't mean anything. 

Heh.  A liberal code.  Say what now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
1 minute ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Heh.  A liberal code.  Say what now?

You said it, what did you mean?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

You said it, what did you mean?

 

I didn't say it was a liberal code.  You did. 

Bad faith is actually more of a legal term of art. Functionally, it means that you aren't interested in a discussion of facts, and ignore whatever people say that you can't twist into some fantastical version of reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lost_shaman
Just now, Doc Socks Junior said:

I didn't say it was a liberal code.  You did. 

Yes.

1 minute ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Bad faith is actually more of a legal term of art. Functionally, it means that you aren't interested in a discussion of facts, and ignore whatever people say that you can't twist into some fantastical version of reality.

I rest my case!

Also, I've done no such thing Sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
3 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Yes.

I rest my case!

Also, I've done no such thing Sir.

Eh. Incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.