Recommended Posts

On 5/9/2021 at 8:12 AM, Wombat said:

Nope, this is the best summary of the science...

The Carbon Cycle (nasa.gov)

I have a New Scientist from about 15 years ago and the main headline on the front cover is "Saved by the Sun"? The hope was that the Maunder Minimum would prevent climate change until we decarbonised our economies. Has not happened. The Earth continues to warm exponentially. Believe me, we have f****** up badly, and net zero by 2050 is no guarantee that the planet will be saved from a runaway greenhouse effect. Especially given what I said earlier about deforestation. The world should have gone nuclear 2 decades ago but the Greens would not allow it and still believe we can save the planet with renewables alone. Fact is, things are gonna start gettin really ugly in 20 years time no matter how quickly we act now.

Check out the new science on solar factors, which has completely discredited the CO2 theory. I can give you the new research, or you can check on this thread earlier. 

The solar theories predict that we have now just entered a long term cooling phase. We will soon see which theory is right.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Check out the new science on solar factors, which has completely discredited the CO2 theory. I can give you the new research, or you can check on this thread earlier. 

The solar theories predict that we have now just entered a long term cooling phase. We will soon see which theory is right.

The satellites don't lie dopey. They all show that the warming is increasing exponentially. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wombat said:

The satellites don't lie dopey. They all show that the warming is increasing exponentially. 

I dont think +2° in 170 years can be referred to as "increasing exponentially". 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

I dont think +2° in 170 years can be referred to as "increasing exponentially". 

Three examples of exponential growth compared with one example of linear growth, can you figure out which one is linear? 

 

exponential growth

Global Warming

 

sure looks like y=2 exp x/2

or are you exponentially challenged?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

Three examples of exponential growth compared with one example of linear growth, can you figure out which one is linear? 

 

exponential growth

Global Warming

 

sure looks like y=2 exp x/2

or are you exponentially challenged?

 

 

 

Not one of those match an exponential increase. A slope doesn't have decreases in an exponential increase. 

The peaks of each minor increase match an almost linear expression, which tends to lend itself to something other than CO2, since the concentration added has increased exponentially. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Not one of those match an exponential increase. A slope doesn't have decreases in an exponential increase. 

The peaks of each minor increase match an almost linear expression, which tends to lend itself to something other than CO2, since the concentration added has increased exponentially. 

 

you blew it. Math not your strong point? Please go back to school and try to get your GED. Canada does not have schools? Loonies are all you have?

love  the chart? once again which one does it match? were you the class tard in grade school? 

image.png.7831f2fce549026108cbce44f07a6af3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

49 minutes ago, notsonice said:

you blew it. You are an idiot. Math not your strong point? Please go back to school and try to get your GED. Canada does not have schools? Loonies are all you have?

love  the chart? once again which one does it match? were you the class tard in grade school? Moron. Later loser, I have better things to do than to school tards such as yourself.

image.png.7831f2fce549026108cbce44f07a6af3.png

Keep going further back. Your whining is hilarious. 

I graduated in 1997, before a 0.8°C increase was considered an existential, world ending, cry-bully, climate catastrophe. It isn't. It won't be. 

image.png.e01d35a26645be4fd909b7c2f76e59b8.png

image.png.68472c45cce6bfc7bccd26e066814933.png

Edited by Selva
inappropriate language

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Not one of those match an exponential increase. A slope doesn't have decreases in an exponential increase. 

The peaks of each minor increase match an almost linear expression, which tends to lend itself to something other than CO2, since the concentration added has increased exponentially. 

 

got the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, notsonice said:

you blew it. Math not your strong point? Please go back to school and try to get your GED. Canada does not have schools? Loonies are all you have?

love  the chart? once again which one does it match? were you the class tard in grade school? 

image.png.7831f2fce549026108cbce44f07a6af3.png

QuarterCenturyVet........Exponential or not? guess you are unable to answer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Not one of those match an exponential increase. A slope doesn't have decreases in an exponential increase. 

 

 

Rubbish. Exponential curves commonly have short term increases and decreases. It is the long term average that defines the curve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2021 at 8:30 AM, Wombat said:

The satellites don't lie dopey. They all show that the warming is increasing exponentially. 

Nope, no dopey here....the solar climate models have predicted a global cooling phase beginning this past year.  Did I notice some ice in Texas this past few months? Or are you claiming that this was an optical illusion, like the walk on the moon?

You are not a climate skeptic, I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2021 at 6:36 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Rubbish. Exponential curves commonly have short term increases and decreases. It is the long term average that defines the curve.

I guess you and Not-so-smart have no comment on the graph showing changes in temperature over long-term intervals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

I guess you and Not-so-smart have no comment on the graph showing changes in temperature over long-term intervals.

The top one, GISP2, is a widely debunked fraud. https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=337

The second one shows our current temp at about the same peak high as we have seen over the past 10,000 years. However temp is increasing rapidly right now so we are going to go shooting past the highs of the past 10,000 years.

Here are some better graphs:

image.thumb.png.ee06e436dc0c954abd70472e2f53c02f.png

The temperature spike of the past 200 years is the largest deviation in the past 10K years. The long term decreasing exponential curve looks to be in great jeopardy of reversing.

image.thumb.png.647dcc39f71d9e8091cfd4515ea47b7c.png

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the graphs on those comprehensive articles I linked for you, those tell a different story.

But why should we worry any further...the new technology of EV has now made another breathtaking step into a future world of human mastery over the elements of nature, a blockbuster announcement of gigantic proportions.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Tesla-Admits-It-Wont-Have-A-Fully-Self-Driving-Car-In-2021.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Check out the graphs on those comprehensive articles I linked for you, those tell a different story.

But why should we worry any further...the new technology of EV has now made another breathtaking step into a future world of human mastery over the elements of nature, a blockbuster announcement of gigantic proportions.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Tesla-Admits-It-Wont-Have-A-Fully-Self-Driving-Car-In-2021.html

If you want me to look at something then you need to post it here. I am not looking all over the forum for whatever it is you are on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

If you want me to look at something then you need to post it here. I am not looking all over the forum for whatever it is you are on about.

I already gave it to you, and you were silent. What is the point of giving you something beyond your ability to reply to?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

I already gave it to you, and you were silent. What is the point of giving you something beyond your ability to reply to?

I provided you with high quality data from Greenland ice cores. If you want to prove them wrong then it is up to you to make your case. 

Edited by Jay McKinsey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I provided you with high quality data from Greenland ice cores. If you want to prove them wrong then it is up to you to make your case. 

The 2nd graph shows 12K years and around 9K years ago was much warmer than today. All this proves is temps go up, temps go down. It doesn't stay static. I personally am not worried about a spike. Gives me more work days 🙂

  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

13 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I provided you with high quality data from Greenland ice cores. If you want to prove them wrong then it is up to you to make your case. 

I made the case already...you were not able to comprehend it.

Check out the material I linked you to above.

Edited by Ecocharger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

I made the case already...you were not able to comprehend it.

Check out the material I linked you to above.

And you wonder why your side has lost the debate about transitioning to renewables.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And you wonder why your side has lost the debate about transitioning to renewables.

We won the debate. You slept right through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

We won the debate. You slept right through it.

Funny, reality says your side lost the debate:

planned U.S. utility-scale electricity generating capacity additions

Of that NG addition only 3.9 GW is combined cycle the rest are peakers.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416

Furthermore that 6.6 GW NG addition is offset by 3.5 GW of fossil retirement

planned U.S. electric generating capacity retirements

 

Edited by Jay McKinsey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/13/2021 at 11:06 PM, QuarterCenturyVet said:

I dont think +2° in 170 years can be referred to as "increasing exponentially". 

That is because you are not very smart and do not understand planetary physics. Try 15 degrees at the poles already. And going from 2 degrees in 170 years to 5 degrees in the next 50 years is indeed exponential. Anyway, I think the point is moot now. 60% of global emissions come from China and they do not intend to slow down.  Many eco-systems are already on the verge of collapse. Species are going extinct at a very rapid rate. It is called the "Anthropocene event". I am usually an optimist, but when govt's around the world start talking about taxing vehicles on how far they travel, I see big problems ahead. In Australia, we have long complained about "the tyranny of distance" and I suppose the rest of the world will know what we mean in a few decades time. I doubt I will be around to see it but this planet is already becoming too authoritarian for me anyway. The "thought police" are everywhere these days, and none of them have much grey matter between their ears. It is as though the whole world has lost it's sense of humour since we allowed the Chinese to take it over. I am just glad that I am old enough to remember what it was like to be able to smoke a cigarette on an aircraft. Without freedom, we may as well just cook the planet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wombat said:

That is because you are not very smart and do not understand planetary physics. Try 15 degrees at the poles already. And going from 2 degrees in 170 years to 5 degrees in the next 50 years is indeed exponential. Anyway, I think the point is moot now. 60% of global emissions come from China and they do not intend to slow down.  Many eco-systems are already on the verge of collapse. Species are going extinct at a very rapid rate. It is called the "Anthropocene event". I am usually an optimist, but when govt's around the world start talking about taxing vehicles on how far they travel, I see big problems ahead. In Australia, we have long complained about "the tyranny of distance" and I suppose the rest of the world will know what we mean in a few decades time. I doubt I will be around to see it but this planet is already becoming too authoritarian for me anyway. The "thought police" are everywhere these days, and none of them have much grey matter between their ears. It is as though the whole world has lost it's sense of humour since we allowed the Chinese to take it over. I am just glad that I am old enough to remember what it was like to be able to smoke a cigarette on an aircraft. Without freedom, we may as well just cook the planet?

With freedom, we will most certainly change the planet.

And changes to chaotic systems have unpredictable outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

With freedom, we will most certainly change the planet.

And changes to chaotic systems have unpredictable outcomes.

Yes unintended consequences are real but what would you suggest to better get us out of the possible predicament of the earth dripping Oreo ice cream drops to be caught by the nearest black hole.

Is the more likely solution to be freedom and profit motive or the Minister’s dropout son in law deciding the policy moving forward in identifying the problem and formulating a solution?  Remember the philosopher king does not exist no matter how convinced the far left seems to believe they are in fact his/her physical embodiment.

        waltz 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
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.