Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#6,476
#6,476
tumscalcium said:
Hahaha Bart, this is just too good. Is this you? Hahahahaha

An unspoken option if climate talks fail: Geoengineering - Yahoo News
Click to expand...
What, have you never heard of geoengineering? It’s been discussed (even ITT) and researched for years. Many fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, have been working on carbon capture & sequestration technology forever with little to show for it. Other types of proposed climate engineering would be incredibly risky and definitely a last resort.

Fortunately, it seems the climate summit is going well. In fact, the U.S., China, Canada, and the E.U. joined over 100 nations in calling for the stronger target (1.5 C vs. 2C) suggested by low-lying countries. Of course it’s still possible that there’s a Copenhagen-like collapse, but things are going much better now that China is on board. Even WSJ is noting China’s about-face in climate talks. The biggest laggard at this point seems to be Saudi Arabia. Them and the U.S. GOP (interesting bedfellows)…

And one more good read for good measure:
Politico - Climate skeptics feel the chill in Paris
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,477
#6,477
BartW said:
Yet every year since 2000, the start of your imagined pause, has been hotter than the year 2000.
Click to expand...

Completely misleading statement which is routine for you. The start of the pause has been identified as 1997-1998. But, the years1987,1988,1990,1991,1995,1996,1997 and 1998 were also warmer than 2000.

Still a pause.
 
Last edited:
#6,478
#6,478
BartW said:
What, have you never heard of geoengineering? It’s been discussed (even ITT) and researched for years. Many fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, have been working on carbon capture & sequestration technology forever with little to show for it. Other types of proposed climate engineering would be incredibly risky and definitely a last resort.

Fortunately, it seems the climate summit is going well. In fact, the U.S., China, Canada, and the E.U. joined over 100 nations in calling for the stronger target (1.5 C vs. 2C) suggested by low-lying countries. Of course it’s still possible that there’s a Copenhagen-like collapse, but things are going much better now that China is on board. Even WSJ is noting China’s about-face in climate talks. The biggest laggard at this point seems to be Saudi Arabia. Them and the U.S. GOP (interesting bedfellows)…

And one more good read for good measure:
Politico - Climate skeptics feel the chill in Paris
Click to expand...

You Marxists must think those wanted posters are a nice touch.
 
#6,480
#6,480
BartW said:
What, have you never heard of geoengineering? It’s been discussed (even ITT) and researched for years. Many fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, have been working on carbon capture & sequestration technology forever with little to show for it. Other types of proposed climate engineering would be incredibly risky and definitely a last resort.

Fortunately, it seems the climate summit is going well. In fact, the U.S., China, Canada, and the E.U. joined over 100 nations in calling for the stronger target (1.5 C vs. 2C) suggested by low-lying countries. Of course it’s still possible that there’s a Copenhagen-like collapse, but things are going much better now that China is on board. Even WSJ is noting China’s about-face in climate talks. The biggest laggard at this point seems to be Saudi Arabia. Them and the U.S. GOP (interesting bedfellows)…

And one more good read for good measure:
Politico - Climate skeptics feel the chill in Paris
Click to expand...

Lol, this is you! Let's take what we consider man-made global cooling/warming/change/whatever/we can't decide and fight it with real, deliberate man-made climate change!!! Woo hoo! What can go wrong??!! You alarmist wackos are so naive it's hilarious. This gets better and better.
 
#6,483
#6,483
Sandvol said:
Completely misleading statement which is routine for you. The start of the pause has been identified as 1997-1998. But, the years1987,1988,1990,1991,1995,1996,1997 and 1998 were also warmer than 2000.

Still a pause.
Click to expand...
You picked 2000 buddy
Sandvol said:
Yes, I can honestly say looking at the data that there is a pause in the warming since 2000 even without the El Nino. You, nor I nor UAH can predict what the El Nino will look like or if there will be one in 2016.
Click to expand...
Sandvol said:
No I don't agree UAH has warmed since 2000. Maybe we can email Dr. Spencer and ask him. He could change my mind. It isn't hypocrisy in my opinion because UAH scientists Spencer and Christy are real scientists with integrity.
Click to expand...
but yes a better cherrypicker would pick 1998, the El Nino of the century, as the start of the “pause”. Of course that "pause" disappears if you use 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, .... or any other temperature record (even starting with '98). But at least you know to cherrypick UAH’s data over other temperature records.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,484
#6,484
tumscalcium said:
Lol, this is you! Let's take what we consider man-made global cooling/warming/change/whatever/we can't decide and fight it with real, deliberate man-made climate change!!! Woo hoo! What can go wrong??!! You alarmist wackos are so naive it's hilarious. This gets better and better.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it was a good idea. Even the most ardent supporters of geoengineering would agree that it’s a bad idea overall (maybe with the exception of CCS). It’s a last resort, if anything.

I’m really surprised that you’ve never heard of this idea. I always thought you were one of the more knowledgeable trolls...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6,485
#6,485
BartW said:
I didn’t say it was a good idea. Even the most ardent supporters of geoengineering would agree that it’s a bad idea overall (maybe with the exception of CCS). It’s a last resort, if anything.

I’m really surprised that you’ve never heard of this idea. I always thought were one of the more knowledgeable trolls...
Click to expand...

Oh I've heard of it before, I just had completely forgotten to drag you into it personally until I was reminded after seeing it in the current news.
 
#6,486
#6,486
BigOrangeTrain said:
Nobel Winner to Obama on Global Warming: 'Mr. President, You're Wrong'
Click to expand...
Old

Your article is a solid collection of hilarious Giaever quotes, but it left out my favorite.

“I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned”

:lolabove:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#6,489
#6,489
tumscalcium said:
What are you excited for the most? Specifics.
Click to expand...
First and foremost, any deal would send a strong message to the private sector that it's time to transform the world's energy economy. Investors won't want to be on the wrong side of the carbon bubble when it bursts.

In terms of this specific deal I like that it's flexible. Countries came to the table with their own propositions. It's not like Kyoto where there are rigidly defined responsibilities for "developing" vs. "developed" countries. I like the current format of "common but differentiated responsibilities" for everyone. I also like the idea of reassessing our progress every 5 years. If they overdo it and cause an economic apocalypse we can scale our efforts back. If advances in technology make alternative energy much more affordable we can scale our efforts up. So to answer your question in one word, "flexibility"

Of course, we'll have to wait til the ink is dried to see what the specifics really look like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#6,490
#6,490
BartW said:
You picked 2000 buddy


but yes a better cherrypicker would pick 1998, the El Nino of the century, as the start of the “pause”. Of course that "pause" disappears if you use 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, .... or any other temperature record (even starting with '98). But at least you know to cherrypick UAH’s data over other temperature records.
Click to expand...

Cherry pick? Because everyone knows the starting point was 1997 or 1998 and I'm cherry picking? Grasping at straws.
 
#6,491
#6,491
BartW said:
First and foremost, any deal would send a strong message to the private sector that it's time to transform the world's energy economy. Investors won't want to be on the wrong side of the carbon bubble when it bursts.

In terms of this specific deal I like that it's flexible. Countries came to the table with their own propositions. It's not like Kyoto where there are rigidly defined responsibilities for "developing" vs. "developed" countries. I like the current format of "common but differentiated responsibilities" for everyone. I also like the idea of reassessing our progress every 5 years. If they overdo it and cause an economic apocalypse we can scale our efforts back. If advances in technology make alternative energy much more affordable we can scale our efforts up. So to answer your question in one word, "flexibility"

Of course, we'll have to wait til the ink is dried to see what the specifics really look like.
Click to expand...

Our senate won't ratify this treaty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,492
#6,492
BartW said:
Old

Your article is a solid collection of hilarious Giaever quotes, but it left out my favorite.

“I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned”

:lolabove:
Click to expand...

He's horrified at this thing called Climate Science. It is a joke. Dogma.
 
#6,496
#6,496
Nope it's not from Nat Geo. Its from the NSIDC

CV8-pICW4AQX5o7


Also Nat Gas is the future but the left hates fracking.
 
Last edited:
#6,497
#6,497
justvollowing said:
I assume this is the study you are referencing.

A key finding from NASA's study..."The new paper never says the planet isn’t warming. The best science available on the long-term trends still makes a strong case for that, with significant implications for the planet. Exactly how global warming will play out on every corner of the globe is largely unknown."

This is an issue that, if both sides could reach a consensus, could revolutionize our nations economic and scientific capacities and help lead us into the next century. Innovation focused on energy efficiency and clean energy could have major impact on nearly every sector of our economy, including national defense.
Click to expand...


First, you don't reach a consensus with Marxist propagandists. Second, the free market will revolutionize our economic and scientific capacity. The free market innovates all the time, not government. Finally, our global warming (and cooling which will be our real problem) will play out as nature directs. When, in our 4 billion years has temperature been constant and why do you liberals insist it must stay constant now? Do you know better than nature?
 
#6,498
#6,498
Obama's Climate Change Hypocrisy | Paul Alexander

"If the situation is as dire as Obama says it is, you wouldn't know it from his actions. On the day he delivered his speech in Paris, back in Washington the Environmental Protection Agency, in a move that received subdued coverage in the mainstream press, announced new rules that gutted the Renewable Fuel Standard, the one piece of legislation from the past decade that has reduced greenhouse gas emissions."

Our glorious President. Obama is a tool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6,499
#6,499
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top