Jump to content

Temperature records smashed for the 7th month in a row


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Statick said:

Not particularly my POV, but I can see that you're one of those overly-defensive persons. One who gets p*ss on your head and say that it's raining.

I can tell you are one of those persons who drinks the global warming kool aid by pointing to a record heat temperature while ignoring record cold temperatures while accusing anyone who isn't processing the data the same way you are as having their heads in the sand and concluding the world is going to end because of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 295
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just now, gazoo said:

I can tell you are one of those persons who drinks the global warming kool aid by pointing to a record heat temperature while ignoring record cold temperatures while accusing anyone who isn't processing the data the same way you are as having their heads in the sand.

No, I just walk outside.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Statick said:

No, I just walk outside.

....... and we wonder how some are prone to believe the lies and deception coming out of the progressive movement surrounding this topic despite all the lies they've already been caught in.

hey, India is hot, and when I go outside its hot. Proves man is warming the planet and world wide calamity and catastrophic consequences are coming  and you have you head in sand if you disagree.

 

ok

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gazoo said:

....... and we wonder how some are prone to believe the lies and deception coming out of the progressive movement surrounding this topic despite all the lies they've already been caught in.

hey, India is hot, and when I go outside its hot. Proves man is warming the planet and world wide calamity and catastrophic consequences are coming  and you have you head in sand if you disagree.

 

ok

Aren't you also ignoring the research performed by Exxon scientist?  Are they apart of the "progressive movement"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, mfaulk57158 said:

Aren't you also ignoring the research performed by Exxon scientist?  Are they apart of the "progressive movement"?

I already commented on that. I said in the 1970s there were some scientists who honestly believed in the theory that CO2 could cause warming, there were also scientists at the time who honestly believed a new ice age was coming upon us.

Both positions were honest scientific theories from the 1970s. There were countless more. 

It's not hard to see the progressives grab ahold of the one theory that they realized could advance their agenda  in the 1970s and as the theory started being questioned by other climate scientists, and as holes were poked in the theory, as time passed and shot many of the apocalyptic predictions that were supposedly already to happen down in flames, the progressive movement with its foot soldiers in the colleges, government funded scientists and progressive media had the start lying and deceiving us all with cooked data to keep advancing the theory as the world did not heat up as they claimed it would.  The leftist tactics infected real science and started claiming the science was settled and anyone who questioned it was ostracized or called names.

Fact is, there IS NO SUCH THING AS SETTLED SCIENCE. THIS MYTH WAS A CREATION OF THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT. The raw data shows virtually no warming over the last 20 years, they had to manipulate the data in order to claim it did not cool.

its funny I keep bringing up all the lies, deception  and shattered predictions surrounding this and that piece is ignored by those wanting to believe it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, pzummo said:

The only reference I've seen that claims light duty as 63% of emissions shows it as any vehicle under 8500lbs. The number of vehicles for personal vs commercial is actually irrelevant. It's the number of miles driven for those applications. People in sales can drive 30k+ miles per year for their job. Pickup trucks and vans are included as light duty when under 8500lbs.

In other words, you made assumptions that are false. Your assumption was so much of the light duty is personal that you attributed ALL light duty emissions to the public. My original estimate of 800 million tons was much more accurate, as it was a published figure that considered transportation in the commercial sector in order to calculate average consumption per household, which I multiplied by the number of households in the country. Commercial driving is tracked for tax deductions, so it was very easy and far more accurate for them to calculate commercial vs personal consumption.

You made several invalid assumptions attributing more to the public than reality, which is a pretty common tactic in politics. You assumed 0% of residential electricity use is commercial. False. You assumed 0% of light duty use is commercial. Extremely wrong. You assumed 0% of residential electricity use is commercial. False. That is why your number is inflated, even though your inflated number is still the minority of overall emissions.

I have or can link to any number I provided here, you on the other hand tell us to go google it without showing any evidence for the strange numbers you claim. So before you go on calling my numbers false you may want to provide some evidence for yours.

I didn't make an assumption for residential electricity use, commercial and industrial electricity use are recorded separately from this Lawrence Berkeley National Lab energy flow chart. 63% light duty number comes from department of transport. You are correct that I made the assumption that all LDVs are personal, which is overestimation, but I also didn't include personal shares of air transport (9% of total GHGs), medium and heavy duty (21%) and other (7%), as well as how industrial and commercial emissions (quantified here) can be linked to individual demands. Furthermore, what difference does it make if the use of LDVs is personal or commercial? If you introduce a new technology that would increase fuel efficiency it has to cover the entire fleet, so what percent is commercial is a moot point because you don't have a different standard for commercial use vs. personal use.

So I provided justification of my numbers, or at least tried to. Could you provide a reference for the claim that agriculture is 50% of GHG emissions in the US, because official numbers say they account for about 9%?

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Free Radical said:

Or the whole mini ice age in the 70s thing is a lie you people keep parroting over and over again because your narrative relies on it. 

Ah, Radical. Could you please share a link where anyone said there was a mini ice age in the 70's. I will wait right here.....Oh rad. rad, rad.....Hmm, I guess you've gone down for your noon time nap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 19, 2016 at 0:51 PM, gazoo said:

Why do you keep distorting my argument from CO2 to "climate change" and " GHG playing a role"?

Everyone knows and  believes the climate changes, stop throwing that straw man nonsense out there. The term GHG refers to several things, I'm talking specifically about CO2.

i said Curry is skeptical (as in not 100% certain)  as to whether or not CO2 is causing any *statistically significant* warming. That is an entirely different statement than saying she is skeptical ( or not 100% certain) about "climate change" or "GHG playing a role"

What's the difference between CO2 and GHGs? CO2 is a GHG, so if you accept that GHGs warm the climate, then you also accept that CO2 warms the climate. 

Curry is skeptical about the magnitude of warming caused by CO2, but she acknowledges that the mechanism through which CO2 causes the planet is well established. She is not 100% certain, and no scientist would every tell you they are 100% certain. It is stupid to say you are certain in your model predictions. 

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

Ah, Radical. Could you please share a link where anyone said there was a mini ice age in the 70's. I will wait right here.....Oh rad. rad, rad.....Hmm, I guess you've gone down for your noon time nap.

 

On May 17, 2016 at 3:22 PM, WhenFalconsWin said:

Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif?resi

  • In the 1970s the scientists were all predicting global cooling and a future ice age.
  • The media served as the scientists’ lapdog parroting the alarming news.
  • The ice age never came—the scientists were dead wrong.
  • Now those same scientists are predicting global warming (or is it “climate change” now?)

The entire purpose of this myth is to suggest that scientists can’t be trusted, that they will say/claim/predict whatever to get their names in the newspapers, and that the media falls for it all the time. They were wrong about ice ages in the 1970s, they are wrong now about global warming.

What's fake, what isn't?  

Oh WFW and Gazoo even provided irrefutable proof of the ice age claims in the 70s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, gazoo said:

 

Scientists predicted we'd all starve to death by now not more than 40 years ago, yet we are still alive.

Obama told us all in 2008  we couldn't drill our way out of the $4 per gallon gas costs and that we didn't have enough reserves to last. This was a falsehood almost as big as you getting to keep your health plan and Doctor if you liked them. His staff was caught on a hot mic ridiculing the general public stating they only passed Oabamacare becuase the voters were stupid. Why do you believe anything your government tells you?

Scientists predicted 15 years ago there would be way more hurricanes over the last 10 years due to global warming, yet it's been one of the quietist decade for hurricanes in some time .

 

 

None of this is true. Or if it is, could you please show proof that (and I'm talking about science-based proof, not a single lunatic from one corner of the world type of claim)

- there was scientific consensus we would starve to death 40 years ago?

- that scientists predicted 15 years ago, by reasonable consensus, that there will be way more hurricanes? 

- that the last 10 years have been the quietest?

It's a good habit to try to be factual, which means supporting your claims with evidence. Or you just like to make baseless claims?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Statick said:

Not particularly my POV, but I can see that you're one of those overly-defensive persons. One who gets p*ss on your head and say that it's raining.

LOL at the analogy. He keeps saying that there has been no warming in the last 20 years, while 15 of the warmest 16 years on record have been in 21st century. Even the skeptics accept that at least 10 of the last warmest years on record have all happened since 1998, but gazoo thinks if he repeats his claim enough times it becomes true. I kind of admire his dedication :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, dmo_dlo said:

What's the difference between CO2 and GHGs? CO2 is a GHG, so if you accept that GHGs warm the climate, then you also accept that CO2 warms the climate. 

Curry is skeptical about the magnitude of warming caused by CO2, but she acknowledges that the mechanism through which CO2 causes the planet is well established. She is not 100% certain, and no scientist would every tell you they are 100% certain. It is stupid to say you are certain in your model predictions. 

Are you aware that the term GHG includes water vapor and SEVERAL  other things?

Are you suggesting water vapor is a poison or contaminant? Is the water in the world's oceans pollution to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, dmo_dlo said:

None of this is true. Or if it is, could you please show proof that (and I'm talking about science-based proof, not a single lunatic from one corner of the world type of claim)

- there was scientific consensus we would starve to death 40 years ago?

- that scientists predicted 15 years ago, by reasonable consensus, that there will be way more hurricanes? 

- that the last 10 years have been the quietest?

It's a good habit to try to be factual, which means supporting your claims with evidence. Or you just like to make baseless claims?

 

You just totally distorted what I said. I suggested there WAS NO CONSENSUS in the 70's by stating there were all kinds of theories.

There was a scientific concensus the earth was flat at one time. There was a scientific consensus the earth was the center of the solar system and they almost hung Galileo for suggesting  the sun was. There was a scientific consensus that man could could not build a flying machine, we landed on the moon only a few decades later.

you guys are incredible blind becuase you parrot what you read on left wing or progressive media and government sources and don't think for yourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gazoo said:

Are you aware that the term GHG includes water vapor and SEVERAL  other things?

Are you suggesting water vapor is a poison or contaminant? Is the water in the world's oceans pollution to you?

Yes, water vapor is also a GHG, so if its levels increase too far above current levels, the planet will be in trouble. However the concern about water vapor is not as much as CO2, because of its atmospheric lifetime, and because anthropogenic additions to it are negligible compared to natural sources/sinks. each water vapor molecule lives, on average, about couple of weeks in the planet whereas each CO2 molecule lives, depending on how you estimate this, a few decades.

As to whether or not they are poisons or pollutants, they are definitely not poisons, but depending on the definition they can be considered pollutants. If you subscribe to a broad and all-encompassing definition of pollution as something that beyond certain levels would adversely affect health or well being of humans or ecosystems, then yes CO2 can be considered a pollutant at it current levels or beyond.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gazoo said:

You just totally distorted what I said. I suggested there WAS NO CONSENSUS in the 70's by stating there were all kinds of theories.

There was a scientific concensus the earth was flat at one time. There was a scientific consensus the earth was the center of the solar system and they almost hung Galileo for suggesting  the sun was. There was a scientific consensus that man could could not build a flying machine, we landed on the moon only a few decades later.

you guys are incredible blind becuase you parrot what you read on left wing or progressive media and government sources and don't think for yourselves.

Only a fool would argue that science can never be wrong, and I certainly never said so. Science can, has been, and will be wrong on many things, including climate change. But this is the state of science at this point in time, and if you are to make decisions, it is wise to do so based on the best science available to you. 

I gave this example before. The science of economic projection is far more uncertain than climate science. But the government and the Fed still use those projections for trillion-dollar decisions. How come we don't object to that hanging to uncertainties in those economic models? We go along because we recognize that many decision ought to be made within the context of uncertainty, and we have come to peace with that. Those economic models are the best science we have at our disposal, and it is foolish not to use them because of their uncertainties. The same applies to climate change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dmo_dlo said:

Only a fool would argue that science can never be wrong, and I certainly never said so. Science can, has been, and will be wrong on many things, including climate change. But this is the state of science at this point in time, and if you are to make decisions, it is wise to do so based on the best science available to you. 

I gave this example before. The science of economic projection is far more uncertain than climate science. But the government and the Fed still use those projections for trillion-dollar decisions. How come we don't object to that hanging to uncertainties in those economic models? We go along because we recognize that many decision ought to be made within the context of uncertainty, and we have come to peace with that. Those economic models are the best science we have at our disposal, and it is foolish not to use them because of their uncertainties. The same applies to climate change.

????? The climate scientists can't even predict most days with any certainty what the weather is going to be the following week, yet you are suggesting it's almost an exact science!!! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, gazoo said:

????? The climate scientists can't even predict most days with any certainty what the weather is going to be the following week, yet you are suggesting it's almost an exact science!!! 

First, climate and weather are different. Second, when did I say it was an almost exact science? Who's distorting the other's words now? What I said was that economic projection is even more inexact than climate predictions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dmo_dlo said:

First, climate and weather are different. Second, when did I say it was an almost exact science? Who's distorting the other's words now? What I said was that economic projection is even more inexact than climate predictions.

So GHGs  and CO2 are the same, but predicting heatwaves is not predicting weather.

Ok

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gazoo said:

So GHGs  and CO2 are the same, but a  climate scientist can predict more hurricanes but  wind is not weather.

Ok

OK, I can see how all this in one day can be confusing for you, so I'll try to simplify it :) 

- GHGs include CO2, so CO2 is a GHG but GHGs are not the same as CO2. Kind of goes like if your dad (CO2) has a moustache (GHG), then anything said about men with moustache(GHGs) applies to your dad (CO2), but anyone with a moustache is not necessarily your daddy :lol:

- On a more serious side of the lesson, both climate and weather are chaotic systems, meaning they are infinitely sensitive to the characterization of their initial states. Climate is kind of the average weather. Weather, is therefore, a single realization of climate. Because both are chaotic, there is a theoretical limit to the certainty with which you can predict them, no matter how detailed your knowledge is, and how powerful of a computer you have. That is why you cannot accurately predict weather beyond 15-20 days; that is the theoretical limit. So you can never predict what the weather is going to be on a certain day next month, let alone next decade. What you can predict, still within uncertainty limit, are the patterns and trends, which make the climate (remember, average weather). But because climate is also a chaotic system, no two models would predict the same result, and that is expected, and part of the nature of the system. A climate scientist can predict a warmer climate, but can never tell you that the May of 2050 will have an average of 82 degrees in Atlanta. That's not how climate prediction works. 

I think that's enough for a Friday ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, dmo_dlo said:

OK, I can see how all this in one day can be confusing for you, so I'll try to simplify it :) 

- GHGs include CO2, so CO2 is a GHG but GHGs are not the same as CO2. Kind of goes like if your dad (CO2) has a moustache (GHG), then anything said about men with moustache(GHGs) applies to your dad (CO2), but anyone with a moustache is not necessarily your daddy :lol:

- On a more serious side of the lesson, both climate and weather are chaotic systems, meaning they are infinitely sensitive to the characterization of their initial states. Climate is kind of the average weather. Weather, is therefore, a single realization of climate. Because both are chaotic, there is a theoretical limit to the certainty with which you can predict them, no matter how detailed your knowledge is, and how powerful of a computer you have. That is why you cannot accurately predict weather beyond 15-20 days; that is the theoretical limit. So you can never predict what the weather is going to be on a certain day next month, let alone next decade. What you can predict, still within uncertainty limit, are the patterns and trends, which make the climate (remember, average weather). But because climate is also a chaotic system, no two models would predict the same result, and that is expected, and part of the nature of the system. A climate scientist can predict a warmer climate, but can never tell you that the May of 2050 will have an average of 82 degrees in Atlanta. That's not how climate prediction works. 

I think that's enough for a Friday ...

Please see bold text in which we are in complete agreement ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, dmo_dlo said:

I have or can link to any number I provided here, you on the other hand tell us to go google it without showing any evidence for the strange numbers you claim. So before you go on calling my numbers false you may want to provide some evidence for yours.

I didn't make an assumption for residential electricity use, commercial and industrial electricity use are recorded separately from this Lawrence Berkeley National Lab energy flow chart. 63% light duty number comes from department of transport. You are correct that I made the assumption that all LDVs are personal, which is overestimation, but I also didn't include personal shares of air transport (9% of total GHGs), medium and heavy duty (21%) and other (7%), as well as how industrial and commercial emissions (quantified here) can be linked to individual demands. Furthermore, what difference does it make if the use of LDVs is personal or commercial? If you introduce a new technology that would increase fuel efficiency it has to cover the entire fleet, so what percent is commercial is a moot point because you don't have a different standard for commercial use vs. personal use.

So I provided justification of my numbers, or at least tried to. Could you provide a reference for the claim that agriculture is 50% of GHG emissions in the US, because official numbers say they account for about 9%?

I'm on my phone and starting family night, so I can't find the link for the recent household statistics. Every link you post is blended results, without consideration for breakdowns between actual residential consumption. It is very easy to skew the data if you do not look at studies that actually break it down by residential vs other sectors.

When I did a quick Google search, this is the one I found demonstrating 21% is residential. There are others, but I don't have the time to look them up right now. There's a nonprofit that had a very good breakdown for the agriculture factor, and they presented it in Paris. I can't remember their name, but I will find it again when I have down time. For now, here's this study that shows 21% for residential, which equates to about 1.4B tons per year.

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/32347/intech-the_role_of_us_households_in_global_carbon_emissions.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dmo_dlo said:

 

Oh WFW and Gazoo even provided irrefutable proof of the ice age claims in the 70s.

Ok, I saw that and Yes, there were many scientist in the 70's predicting the Coming of a new mini ice age as it was a colder part of our history. Obviously the science was wrong and the scientist claiming MMGW now are wrong. We cannot control our environment. As I asked before. With this planet being 4 billion years old, all the carbon from fire and volcanic action, where did it all go and how do you think man's last 100 years can even be compared to what' already come before now?

There's also this: 

The Chaos Theory and unexpected catastrophic consequences...

In Chaos Theory, the butterfly effect is the name given to the sensitive connection between initial conditions in which an insignificant event in one state in non-linear systems, can result in sometimes catastrophic events in the universal state. In other words, although unlikely, it is possible for a butterfly flapping its wings in Texas to cause a typhoon in the Japanese Sea.

Case in point, in mid-20th Century America, an 18 year old hippie freshman in a Honolulu college had sex with an older alcoholic Kenyan on a student visa, who had a wife and child back in Africa.  And this less than significant event started the collapse and dissolution of the United States of America.

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

Ok, I saw that and Yes, there were many scientist in the 70's predicting the Coming of a new mini ice age as it was a colder part of our history. Obviously the science was wrong and the scientist claiming MMGW now are wrong. We cannot control our environment. As I asked before. With this planet being 4 billion years old, all the carbon from fire and volcanic action, where did it all go and how do you think man's last 100 years can even be compared to what' already come before now?

There's also this: 

The Chaos Theory and unexpected catastrophic consequences...

In Chaos Theory, the butterfly effect is the name given to the sensitive connection between initial conditions in which an insignificant event in one state in non-linear systems, can result in sometimes catastrophic events in the universal state. In other words, although unlikely, it is possible for a butterfly flapping its wings in Texas to cause a typhoon in the Japanese Sea.

Case in point, in mid-20th Century America, an 18 year old hippie freshman in a Honolulu college had sex with an older alcoholic Kenyan on a student visa, who had a wife and child back in Africa.  And this less than significant event started the collapse and dissolution of the United States of America.

It allowed the man to save the earth and stop the rise of the oceans...:lol:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

It allowed the man to save the earth and stop the rise of the oceans...:lol:

 

After he was nominated as the democratic winner in the primaries, it took me no longer than 15 minutes of background research on this guy to know he was a pure phony with bad intentions. 15 minutes. The media salivated over him, refused to vet him, protected him against anyone bringing up his history and it was the media that got him elected. The guy is driven by anger, resentment, envy, vindictiveness and bitterness, very bad motivators for any human being. He's been the great divider, splitting us all up into small groups spreading greivance, resentment and getting us all at each other's throats with his victim politics. His lack of leadership has severely harmed our country.

I am so glad this bitter, petty, con man is about to be out of office. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...