Scientists may have figured out why a potent greenhouse gas is rising. The answer is scary.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, robosmith said:

Are you really so IGNORANT that you don't know there many viable sources of energy? I am reading about more on a monthly basis, though who knows how many of the innovative new approaches will actually come to market.

Have you ever heard about the new hydrogen sources? Then there is natural gas, full electric, gasoline, nuclear, coal, etc

I see Japan has developed a truck container sized nuclear generation plant that can power a whole town for years and it's in trials NOW.

Gasoline?

Coal?

Now you're ok with them?

Pfft...

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The main things going against a reasonable man's belief in AGW:

1. the litany of predictions which all failed to come to pass: depending on which "scientifically proven" prediction you want to believe, we're already dead several times over
2. the litany of lies supporting the alleged scientific conclusions: the "hockey stick" lie, the "97% consensus" lie, the polar bear BS, etc
3. the insistence on taking laymen's words for it over those of esteemed climatologists with differing views on AGW, eg our media treats hypocrites like Leo DiCaprio, John Kerry, Greta like experts while calling esteemed climatologists kooks if they are outspoken against climate change hysteria
4. lies about the frequency and strength of hurricanes and other storms in recent years vs over the past centuries
5. massive exaggerations claiming that every weather event of the past ten years is "the result of global warming - we've never seen anything like this before"
6. fake news teams covering meteorological events and lying about the extent of flooding (eg AC Cooper standing in a ditch, by some reeds, and pretending to be standing at grade)
7. the fact that the biggest liars on the planet are the biggest pushers of climate change. Basically the people who said "mostly peaceful protests" or "young people should be forced to take the jab" or "215 bodies and a genocide" or "the religion of peace" are the ones who scream "kill the energy sector" the loudest. The most vocal advocates of climate change are always the ones who can't spell it. 

Thirty years ago if it was 25° out the weatherman's chart would still be green and it would say "25°", now the map is bright red and says "HEAT WAVE!!!!!!!!"

I guess you don't know what I meant by one-on-one. 

But all of your points are only supported by a conspiracy theory that science is colluding for some reason. 

It's not Fact-Based, or rational. That's all I'm going to say.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I guess you don't know what I meant by one-on-one. 

But all of your points are only supported by a conspiracy theory that science is colluding for some reason. 

It's not Fact-Based, or rational. That's all I'm going to say.

And what do you expect? There are "scientists" producing way over the top climate models and predictions that have been exposed as such by reputable scientists. 

We've had this discussion Mike. When they get caught lying, over and over, they lose all credibility. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

And what do you expect? There are "scientists" producing way over the top climate models and predictions that have been exposed as such by reputable scientists. 

We've had this discussion Mike. When they get caught lying, over and over, they lose all credibility. 

Except none of this scenario is real.

Temperature is increasing, the models are accurate and we know the cause.

Click the link in my signature then come back and debunk it 

 

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Except none of this scenario is real.

Temperature is increasing, the models are accurate and we know the cause.

Click the link in my signature then come back and debunk it 

 

Mike...

https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/

And that's a "nice" refutation of your climate "crisis" model. Most other articles are more critical. 

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I guess you don't know what I meant by one-on-one. 

But all of your points are only supported by a conspiracy theory that science is colluding for some reason. 

It's not Fact-Based, or rational. That's all I'm going to say.

It's fact-based and rational to listen to actual climatologists instead of Greta Thunberg and Leo DiCaprio. 

It's fact-based and rational to look at their laundry list of predictions that all fell by the wayside.

It's fact-based and rational to take note of all the times their alarmist charts and stats turned out to be lies. 

Do you think that there are no actual climatologists who don't believe in AGW?

Do you still believe in the hockey stick chart?

Do you still believe that "97% of scientists believe...."

Don't blame me for any of that, MH, blame yourself, because the facts are out there, you just have your confirmation bias cranked up to "iron dome of ignorance".

[User]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Except none of this scenario is real.

Temperature is increasing, the models are accurate and we know the cause.

Click the link in my signature then come back and debunk it 

 

"The models are accurate"

Um... which models for what scenario or what range?

The "models" are all fed varying information based on presumptions and assumptions about conditions, and they all have varying results and degrees of accuracy that leave a wide range of possibilities, all depending upon which presumptions or assumptions are given to them.

Basically, they are accurate in that there was a warming trend and *gasp* that warming trend continued to trend up, warming. 

A kid with a ruler could have drawn a line up and been like, there you go, I accurately predicted things would continue to warm this direction!



 

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Gasoline?

Coal?

Now you're ok with them?

Pfft...

They are NOT the best, but they are among the examples which prove your "one viable source" WRONG.

And hydro dams, wind turbines, ocean current turbines, tide turbines, wave machines, and solar (pvc and steam) are OTHERS. IOW you're just spouting BULLSHIT as USUAL.

[Nationalist]

Just now, robosmith said:

They are NOT the best, but they are among the examples which prove your "one viable source" WRONG.

And hydro dams, wind turbines, ocean current turbines, tide turbines, wave machines, and solar (pvc and steam) are OTHERS. IOW you're just spouting BULLSHIT as USUAL.

Who do you think you're fooling here?

Note the term "viable source". Aside from gas, oil, coal, nuclear and hydro, none of the "alternatives" you've named, are viable...reasonable...reliable.

Thus the conclusion is, we still need fossil fuels.

Just now, robosmith said:

They are NOT the best, but they are among the examples which prove your "one viable source" WRONG.

And hydro dams, wind turbines, ocean current turbines, tide turbines, wave machines, and solar (pvc and steam) are OTHERS. IOW you're just spouting BULLSHIT as USUAL.

Who do you think you're fooling here?

Note the term "viable source". Aside from gas, oil, coal, nuclear and hydro, none of the "alternatives" you've named, are viable...reasonable...reliable.

Thus the conclusion is, we still need fossil fuels.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

And what do you expect? There are "scientists" producing way over the top climate models and predictions that have been exposed as such by reputable scientists. 

We've had this discussion Mike. When they get caught lying, over and over, they lose all credibility. 

YOU lose all credibility when you pretend ^YOUR OPINIONS are FACTS.

Predictions have been wrong and models have been inaccurate, but that DOES NOT CHANGE the basic science that PROVES FOSSIL FUEL GHG are warming the Earth. Slower or faster, WE'RE ALL GOING TO PAY FOR THAT.

Esp YOUR CHILDREN.

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Who do you think you're fooling here?

Note the term "viable source". Aside from gas, oil, coal, nuclear and hydro, none of the "alternatives" you've named, are viable...reasonable...reliable.

Thus the conclusion is, we still need fossil fuels.

They ONLY have to be reliable in BULK. The wind is blowing SOME WHERE ALL THE TIME.

The tides are CONSTANT. Waves OCCUR SOMEWHERE ALL THE TIME. OCEAN CURRENTS are CONSTANT.

Some of these are NEW but that doesn't make them NON-VIABLE just because you never heard of them. Duh 

[CdnFox]

Just now, robosmith said:

YOU lose all credibility when you pretend ^YOUR OPINIONS are FACTS.

Predictions have been wrong and models have been inaccurate, but that DOES NOT CHANGE the basic science that PROVES FOSSIL FUEL GHG are warming the Earth. Slower or faster, WE'RE ALL GOING TO PAY FOR THAT.

Esp YOUR CHILDREN.

Well the problem is the evidence is not clear at all that we're going to pay for anything. Any weather change whether it be heating or cooling brings changes to the environment that humans have to adapt to. It's been that way throughout history and not just the history of humans

It is generally accepted that there's a cap. It's not like the earth is just going to keep warming until it's a big molten ball. There's only so much warming you can get with the changes that are happening.

Many of the models on the low end suggest that nothing much is going to change radically, and everything that changes will be well within our ability to adapt

And that's where you run into a problem.

Your side presents the argument 'the climate is changing ergo crisis and disaster!! Therefore we must take action to stop climate change"

And if anyone questions it you say "ARE YOU CLAIMING THE CLIMATE ISN"T CHANGING!?!!?!? REEEEEEE!!!"

No. Everyone knows climates change.  THey're questioning the 'crisis and disaster' part and despite being asked dozens of times not a single climate change proponent here has EVER produced a SINGLE scientific document to demonstrate it's a crisis or that we wouldn't be better off adapting. Nor have they produced a single document showing that anything we could reasonably do would change anything. 

 

Which kinda leads reasonable people to think its a bit faked up and a manufactured crisis. 

[Nationalist]

28 minutes ago, robosmith said:

YOU lose all credibility when you pretend ^YOUR OPINIONS are FACTS.

Predictions have been wrong and models have been inaccurate, but that DOES NOT CHANGE the basic science that PROVES FOSSIL FUEL GHG are warming the Earth. Slower or faster, WE'RE ALL GOING TO PAY FOR THAT.

Esp YOUR CHILDREN.

It changes credibility. 

Something you lack.

26 minutes ago, robosmith said:

They ONLY have to be reliable in BULK. The wind is blowing SOME WHERE ALL THE TIME.

The tides are CONSTANT. Waves OCCUR SOMEWHERE ALL THE TIME. OCEAN CURRENTS are CONSTANT.

Some of these are NEW but that doesn't make them NON-VIABLE just because you never heard of them. Duh 

The wind is blowing somewhere?

OMG...🙄

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Mike...

https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/

And that's a "nice" refutation of your climate "crisis" model. Most other articles are more critical. 

Except it doesn't "refute" anything. It points out some inadequacies of models, and work that's being done to fix them.

IN NO WAY does it prove the Earth is not being warmed by fossil fuel combustion.

There's a REASON you ONLY post NAKED LINKS: it's because you have BUPKIS or can't understand what the article says.

[robosmith]

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

It changes credibility. 

Something you lack.

You're the one who lacks credibility because you have ZERO technical expertise wrt climate and energy generation, DROPOUT.

6 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

The wind is blowing somewhere?

OMG...🙄

^See what I mean. You don't understand what I wrote, and all you can do is ridicule.

㊙️ Wind in one region BACKS UP calm in another region THROUGH THE GRID.

Do you UNDERSTAND NOW? Or need FURTHER SPOON FEEDING. LMAO

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Except it doesn't "refute" anything. It points out some inadequacies of models, and work that's being done to fix them.

IN NO WAY does it prove the Earth is not being warmed by fossil fuel combustion.

There's a REASON you ONLY post NAKED LINKS: it's because you have BUPKIS or can't understand what the article says.

It says that all the panic and costly regulations are unnecessary. 

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

It says that all the panic and costly regulations are unnecessary. 

QUOTE IT HERE, Dumbass.

There is NOTHING in the article about "panic" nor "costly regulations" period, LIAR

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Mike...

https://thebulletin.org/2022/12/whats-wrong-with-these-climate-models/

And that's a "nice" refutation of your climate "crisis" model. Most other articles are more critical. 

I told you that I have an explanation for you to debunk.  That's the next step in this discussion.  

[Nationalist]

22 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I told you that I have an explanation for you to debunk.  That's the next step in this discussion.  

The next step...is to understand the truth of the matter...give it the importance it deserves and stop freaking out. The freaking out is too expensive for no results.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

The next step...is to understand the truth of the matter...give it the importance it deserves and stop freaking out. The freaking out is too expensive for no results.

If you want to try to debunk my thinking, go ahead.  Otherwise, nothing much to discuss.

[User]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you want to try to debunk my thinking, go ahead.  Otherwise, nothing much to discuss.

Are you freaking out?

[Nationalist]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you want to try to debunk my thinking, go ahead.  Otherwise, nothing much to discuss.

What thinking? We see the predictions are based on faulty models and assumptions that produce over the top results. Knowing this, there is no justification for any restrictions on fossil fuels at this time. There is no crisis.

[robosmith]

29 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

What thinking? We see the predictions are based on faulty models and assumptions that produce over the top results. Knowing this, there is no justification for any restrictions on fossil fuels at this time. There is no crisis.

You have NOT posted anything that says "faulty models and assumptions that produce over the top results" today.

Your SA article is 10 years old and models have improved GREATLY since then.

NASA Study Reveals Compounding Climate Risks at Two Degrees of Warming

Quote

If global temperatures keep rising and reach 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, people worldwide could face multiple impacts of climate change simultaneously. This is according to a NASA-led study that analyzed the projected impacts of such warming to understand how different climate effects might combine. A 2-degree rise in global temperatures is considered a critical threshold above which dangerous and cascading effects of human-generated climate change will occur.

The researchers found that more than a quarter of the world’s population could experience an additional month of severe heat stress each year compared to the middle of the 20th century (1950-1979). High temperatures and drought could combine dangerously in places like the Amazon, increasing the risk of wildfire. In the American West, extreme fire weather will likely be more intense and last longer.To investigate potentially compounding effects of rising temperatures, the study’s authors worked with a specially processed set of climate predictions. The predictions were originally generated by 35 of the world’s leading climate models – specifically, contributors to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), which includes models developed by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. CMIP provides climate projections that help the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other international and national climate groups understand historical, current, and future climate changes.

Researchers at the NASA Earth Exchange (NEX) then took the output from CMIP6 models and used advanced statistical techniques to “downscale” them, improving the resolution significantly. NEX uses supercomputers at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California’s Silicon Valley to analyze vast amounts of data collected by aircraft and satellites or, in this case, projections produced by climate models. The resulting NEX dataset supporting this research is available to the public and can be found online.

Combining Climate Impacts

With the new dataset in hand, NEX researchers at Ames analyzed the downscaled projections to assess the changes predicted for six key climate variables. They examined changes in air temperature, precipitation, relative humidity, short- and longwave solar radiation, and wind speed at a point when warming passes 2°C.

“We wanted to study how these aspects of the environment are projected to change and what their combined impacts could mean for people around the world,” said Taejin Park, first author on the paper and a researcher at Ames with the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute (BAERI).

The researchers paid special attention to two climate indicators: heat stress – or the combined effects of temperature and humidity on the human body – and fire weather – which considers temperature, rainfall, humidity, and wind. Most regions of the world will experience higher heat stress, they found, while countries closer to the equator will suffer from a greater number of days considered extreme.

“The escalating impacts of all the climate extremes studied could cause significant damage to communities and economies, from fires, floods, landslides, and crop failures that may result,” said Ramakrishna Nemani, senior scientist at BAERI and co-author of the study.

Have you even noticed that extreme storms have set records here for the last year at least? Almost every week we see severe weather detailed in the Midwest and East.

[Michael Hardner]

28 minutes ago, robosmith said:

 

Your SA article is 10 years old and models have improved GREATLY since then.

 

Really? I think the original IP CC models were probably pretty good. 

You shouldn't let yourself get drawn into arguments that start with bad data, bad assumptions. Surely you're more busy than that.. If not, come on over. I've got some yard work for you.

[robosmith]

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Really? I think the original IP CC models were probably pretty good. 

I don't believe the 10 yo models did a very good job with water vapor and cloud cover.

Here is a paper from 2020 that outlines some of the improvements in today's models.

New Generation of Climate Models Track Recent Unprecedented Changes in Earth's Radiation Budget Observed by CERES