TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 18 28 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Look at the data, friend. Pollution is down. Your study should show a decline in pollution related deaths. Feel free to present some data - I see no data from your end. When you look for air urban air pollution data you will find that it primarily comes from fossil fuels. Do not confuse global emissions with local emissions. You can run a gas generator in the middle of a desert and nobody will suffer much harm. Run that same generator in your dinning room and you will see harm; just accept that some part of you knows exhaust is toxic. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 18 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Did Darwin get his PhD degree? No? As I recall, you made a big issue out of this. Did you just LOSE interest? Or were you just blowing smoke? You recall incorrectly. I made the point that Darwin didn't have to worry about financial pressures to publish his book. I then made fun of your favourite code monkey Coe - who still has yet to earn his PhD. https://daviology38.github.io/ You took those two concepts and mashed them together. If you bothered to look up Darwin you would know he was made a member of the Fellowship of the Royal Society and granted a doctorate. Edited March 18 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 18 (edited) Hahah Look at Coe's website! https://daviology38.github.io/autumnfrost/ Connection to Climate Change Many studies have been done looking at changes in the timing of seasons, *Cooter and Leduc 1995 and *Easterling 2002 both found that the average first frost date was coming later in the year(0.5 days per decade), while the last frost date is coming earlier in the year (1.3 days per decade). This suggests that summer is getting longer on both ends, moreso in the spring season. Our recent study on the *Autumn Season in the Northeast U.S. found that weather patterns related to summer are occurring later into the autumn season, while weather patterns related to winter aren’t occurring as often early in the season. This is to say that due to summer lengthening, the typical onset of weather we associate with autumn is delayed, and cooler weather is less likely to occur in September and October than before. The above map shows the past 5 years of temperatures for September and October plotted for some of the climate sites around Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. We see that over the past 5-years, these sites have been seeing their first frost date (first day with a minimum temperature at or below 32°) towards the middle of October for sites further north, and towards early November for sites further south. This is a change of almost 2 weeks compared to the expected median timing of first frost for these regions! Expect these changes to be the new climate normal as we keep going forward. Edited March 18 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 18 (edited) @Ecocharger Coe himself doesn't even support that old crap paper! Look! Feel the burn! https://daviology38.github.io/autumnfrost/ Edited March 18 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 18 https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/34/18/JCLI-D-20-0243.1.xml 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190 March 18 Temp Trend is directly linear for going on 100 years... Before CO2 increase went assymptotic and nowhere close to linear, and in fact did not really start to get going until late 20th century in 1980's... and yet, temp trend is linear ALL the models show otherwise and are clearly blatantly wrong and nowhere close to reality. Trend was linear BEFORE CO2 giant increase, and during giant CO2 increase ANYONE with a brain can figure out --> Its not CO2 genius. Unless you are political whore of course Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 18 12 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: Temp Trend is directly linear for going on 100 years... Before CO2 increase went assymptotic and nowhere close to linear, and in fact did not really start to get going until late 20th century in 1980's... and yet, temp trend is linear ALL the models show otherwise and are clearly blatantly wrong and nowhere close to reality. Trend was linear BEFORE CO2 giant increase, and during giant CO2 increase ANYONE with a brain can figure out --> Its not CO2 genius. Unless you are political whore of course Dude, I'm just posting new things Coe wrote. None of that were my ideas. Can we at least agree his earlier paper is not some holy grail against anthropogenic climate change? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 18 (edited) 1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said: ALL the models show otherwise and are clearly blatantly wrong and nowhere close to reality. Really? All the models? What model do you use? Some model must be closest to the truth. I really am curious where you find this knowledge of reality. Edited March 18 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 18 18 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Pollution from what? Say it. You were the one who brought up pollution. You say it, and I will knock it down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 18 18 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Feel free to present some data - I see no data from your end. When you look for air urban air pollution data you will find that it primarily comes from fossil fuels. Do not confuse global emissions with local emissions. You can run a gas generator in the middle of a desert and nobody will suffer much harm. Run that same generator in your dinning room and you will see harm; just accept that some part of you knows exhaust is toxic. You have to look at regions, not lump everything together. North America and Europe are down in terms of air pollution of all types, particulates are down, in spite of vastly increased consumption of fossil fuels. That tells you everything you need to know about that so-called "study". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 18 (edited) 19 hours ago, TailingsPond said: You recall incorrectly. I made the point that Darwin didn't have to worry about financial pressures to publish his book. I then made fun of your favourite code monkey Coe - who still has yet to earn his PhD. https://daviology38.github.io/ You took those two concepts and mashed them together. If you bothered to look up Darwin you would know he was made a member of the Fellowship of the Royal Society and granted a doctorate. No, I challenged you to tell me if Darwin earned a PhD from Cambridge, An honorary doctorate is not even remotely the same thing. You were fooled by that? By the way, you might be interested to know that Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Simon Peyton Jones, Robin Milner, among others, never earned PhD's. Milner never got his PhD, but he had many famous doctoral students. So Darwin and Coe are in good company. Edited March 18 by Ecocharger 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 18 (edited) 18 hours ago, TailingsPond said: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/34/18/JCLI-D-20-0243.1.xml That is all very interesting but also very off topic. In other words, you cannot find any challenge to the Coe et al. paper on the relative strengths of greenhouse gases or to the calculations made there. The longer his calculations stand without challenge, the more credible they become. That is how science works. You can borrow my handkerchief again to dry your tears. Edited March 18 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM March 18 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ecocharger said: That is all very interesting but also very off topic. In other words, you cannot find any challenge to the Coe et al. paper on the relative strengths of greenhouse gases or to the calculations made there. The longer his calculations stand without challenge, the more credible they become. That is how science works. You can borrow my handkerchief again to dry your tears. The longer his calculations stand without challenge, the more credible they become.???? only to low IQ people credibility is gained through Peer reviews and when your work is used as a basis of others work where they prove up your work and add to it you have neither ....so you have nothing but your own BS Edited March 19 by notsonice Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 18 54 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: So Darwin and Coe are in good company. You have lost it man. I'm done. Use that to bloat your ego? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 19 3 hours ago, TailingsPond said: You have lost it man. I'm done. Use that to bloat your ego? You just got schooled on how the academic world functions. Many researchers in the sciences do not have PhD degrees, you are just learning that now. I am pleased to see you learn something. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM March 19 4 hours ago, Ecocharger said: No, I challenged you to tell me if Darwin earned a PhD from Cambridge, An honorary doctorate is not even remotely the same thing. You were fooled by that? By the way, you might be interested to know that Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Simon Peyton Jones, Robin Milner, among others, never earned PhD's. Milner never got his PhD, but he had many famous doctoral students. So Darwin and Coe are in good company. The longer his calculations stand without challenge, the more credible they become.???? only to low IQ people credibility is gained through Peer reviews and when your work is used as a basis of others work where they prove up your work and add to it you have neither ....so you have nothing but your own BS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 19 (edited) 7 hours ago, Ecocharger said: That is all very interesting but also very off topic. In other words, you cannot find any challenge to the Coe et al. paper on the relative strengths of greenhouse gases or to the calculations made there. The link was to a new Coe paper. Did you not notice that? That last junk paper went from received to published in a month. His newer paper is much better quality. Look at the review time, over a year to publication. Edited March 19 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 19 (edited) 53 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: The link was to a new Coe paper. Did you not notice that? That last junk paper went from received to published in a month. His newer paper is much better quality. Look at the review time. Again you failed to find any challenges to his work on the components of greenhouse gases...I have to give you another fail for that effort. The fact that you have to run away from the greenhouse gas paper to find something else to complain about is clear evidence of the strength of the greenhouse gas paper. Thanks for your demonstration, I like it. I guess the CO2 ideologues were unable to find a science challenge to his work. You seem to confirm that. Good. Edited March 19 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 19 50 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: Again you failed to find any challenges to his work on the components of greenhouse gases...I have to give you another fail for that effort. The fact that you have to run away from the greenhouse gas paper to find something else to complain about is clear evidence of the strength of the greenhouse gas paper. Thanks for your demonstration, I like it. I guess the CO2 ideologues were unable to find a science challenge to his work. You seem to confirm that. Good. You found a challenge of his work right here! How would you feel if Coe retracted that paper? I showed you his more recent - and higher quality - work. Why don't you focus on that? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 1,008 GE March 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: The fact that you have to run away from the greenhouse gas paper to find something else to complain about is clear evidence of the strength of the greenhouse gas paper. How is citing a newer paper from the same author running away? Coe has the ability to learn and progress, you think all climate science stopped at his early work; he certainly doesn't. Look at Coe's website I linked, he clearly is a programmer who is interested in weather. He would never claim to be some clairvoyant who ended the climate change debate. His PhD advisor is also focused on weather, not climate. https://github.com/mathewbarlow You still lack the gonads to e-mail Coe directly and ask for yourself? Edited March 19 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeroen Goudswaard + 61 March 19 On 12/27/2023 at 2:06 PM, Old-Ruffneck said: You seem to miss this part!!! You're take was 3% out of the whole barrel. Duhhhhh One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make things like: Solvents Diesel fuel Motor Oil Bearing Grease Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats Upholstery Sweaters Boats Insecticides Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes Cassettes Dishwasher parts Tool Boxes Shoe Polish Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape CD Player Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Shoelace Aglets Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician’s Tape Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs Combs CD’s & DVD’s Paint Brushes Detergents Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers Cold cream Movie film Contact lenses Drinking Cups Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste Gasoline The three key ingredients for the pharmaceutical industry are cumene, phenol and benzene. Phenol and cumene can be created from benzene quite easily, so the question is: can we make benzene without oil? Turns out we can: Heating lime and carbon (in the form of coke) together produces calcium carbide. When exposed to water, calcium carbide releases acetylene (ethyne). Acetylene can be cyclotrimerized to benzene, for example using a cobalt catalyst. Story is: we can replace oil pretty much everywhere. At the moment it is just cost that stops us. At some point in the future, it will be cheaper to not use oil. But that point in the future is defined by governments; O&G without government intervention will manage to undercut this for decades to come. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 19 The end of the failed transition is now in sight. The oil majors are abandoning the artificial and foolishly designed "targets" for CO2 reduction, apparently aware that those targets are without any meaning and not related to meaningful climate effects. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Big-Oil-Chases-High-Fossil-Fuel-Returns-amid-Poor-Renewable-Showing.html "The oil and gas industry has stressed that affordability and energy security are at least as equally important as helping the world reduce carbon emissions. Big Oil relies on windfall profits to raise returns to shareholders in an attempt to lure them back after years of ESG-driven reluctance to invest in fossil fuel companies. After their U.S. peers, now European majors such as BP and Shell have been hitting the brakes on throwing their cash on clean energy." "ExxonMobil’s chairman and CEO, Darren Woods, said in November that “The solutions to climate change have been too focused on reducing supply. That’s a recipe for human hardship and a poorer world.” In remarks at the APEC CEO Summit, Woods noted that the final element critical to long-term success is market-based mechanisms, as “No government can afford to subsidize the energy transition forever.”" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 19 6 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said: The three key ingredients for the pharmaceutical industry are cumene, phenol and benzene. Phenol and cumene can be created from benzene quite easily, so the question is: can we make benzene without oil? Turns out we can: Heating lime and carbon (in the form of coke) together produces calcium carbide. When exposed to water, calcium carbide releases acetylene (ethyne). Acetylene can be cyclotrimerized to benzene, for example using a cobalt catalyst. Story is: we can replace oil pretty much everywhere. At the moment it is just cost that stops us. At some point in the future, it will be cheaper to not use oil. But that point in the future is defined by governments; O&G without government intervention will manage to undercut this for decades to come. There needs to be a better case for climate change related to CO2. In order to make the enormous sacrifices in human well-being which are being asked of the general populations, especially of the middle class and poorer classes, there must be a more robust climate science supporting the CO2 hypothesis of climate change. So far, the models constructed claiming to support this view have been shown to be inadequate and incomplete, and have not included relevant variables in their specification. Until then, there is no sense of public urgency to make any transition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 19 10 hours ago, TailingsPond said: You found a challenge of his work right here! How would you feel if Coe retracted that paper? I showed you his more recent - and higher quality - work. Why don't you focus on that? You obviously missed the point, we were discussing the measurements of greenhouse gases found in the other paper, the one you are running away from. You were apparently unable to find any challenge to that paper, so that is a big fail for your claims. Get to work. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,474 DL March 19 10 hours ago, TailingsPond said: How is citing a newer paper from the same author running away? Coe has the ability to learn and progress, you think all climate science stopped at his early work; he certainly doesn't. Look at Coe's website I linked, he clearly is a programmer who is interested in weather. He would never claim to be some clairvoyant who ended the climate change debate. His PhD advisor is also focused on weather, not climate. https://github.com/mathewbarlow You still lack the gonads to e-mail Coe directly and ask for yourself? The Coe paper had three authors, you are navel-gazing on an unrelated paper with different authors. If you simply cannot find any challenge to the greenhouse gas paper, then just admit defeat and I will accept your admission as a step forward in your enlightenment. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members
