Jump to content

APF

Members
  • Posts

    517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    my children, RC, (push-)bike, kayak, electronics

APF's Achievements

Crew

Crew (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. ...and triple tap. You know, it's really annoing if you try to send a post and the system seemingly ignores you. Addendum: ..must be among the most BSty things I've read here. You might want to check where his data came from.
  2. The only people that deny that climate can change are from the Church of Climatscientology. It is they that are completely and emotionally invested in the idea that climate change can only occur due to human interference. Help us out, Stuart. Help us to understand our original sins. Help us to understand how the ancient city of Ur, which currently lies 200 miles from the nearest ocean and 77 feet above sea level, used to be a bustling port city. What did we humans do to force sea levels down to such an extent? What can we humans do to raise those sea levels so that Ur can again become a bustling port city? And then there was Pangaea — until it broke up. Because 175 million years = 5000 years and it is duly noted that you purposely deflected from the issue at hand. 5000 years ago the sea level of the Persian Gulf was 250 centimeters higher than it is now. If sea levels were to rise at a pace of 10 cm each century going forward, it would take 2500 years before Ur could again be that bustling metropolis it once was. All of which raises an interesting question, how did humanity manage to not only live, but to prosper and flourish with with such high sea levels? The second interesting question is what was it the Assyrians did that sea levels dropped so dramatically? In the last century the sea level has risen 22 centimeters. This might be alarming except in the previous 3 centuries the sea has also risen on average 22 centimeters per century. I see Source: https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sea-level-rise.png Where's your data from? http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Sea-level-data-since-1855.jpgIt's not 'adjusted' or in other words fake. From 1900 to 2000 a total of 184mm increase. or 1.84mm a year. https://www.hydro-international.com/content/article/satellite-observations-to-retrieve-tidal-sea-level-and-tidal-currents?output=pdf Hm. I wonder why Dr. Roy Spencer started his graph at 1860'ish when the database he referres to starts at 1806: I guess his program didn't manage to calculate any more lines of data. Yes, must be like this. Because, well, the linear rise of the sea level is still pretty obvious once you included all the data points there are, isn't it? Otherwise you might even be inclined to see a kind of hockey stick which we all know is simply fake news. But maybe I'm just missing something. Do you have a link to the article the graph belongs to? Thanks OTOH I mailed the guy who both compiled the data Dr. Spencer referres to and who wrote a paper about it. Maybe he'll send me a copy and we can continue the discussion afterwards.
  3. The only people that deny that climate can change are from the Church of Climatscientology. It is they that are completely and emotionally invested in the idea that climate change can only occur due to human interference. Help us out, Stuart. Help us to understand our original sins. Help us to understand how the ancient city of Ur, which currently lies 200 miles from the nearest ocean and 77 feet above sea level, used to be a bustling port city. What did we humans do to force sea levels down to such an extent? What can we humans do to raise those sea levels so that Ur can again become a bustling port city? And then there was Pangaea — until it broke up. Because 175 million years = 5000 years and it is duly noted that you purposely deflected from the issue at hand. 5000 years ago the sea level of the Persian Gulf was 250 centimeters higher than it is now. If sea levels were to rise at a pace of 10 cm each century going forward, it would take 2500 years before Ur could again be that bustling metropolis it once was. All of which raises an interesting question, how did humanity manage to not only live, but to prosper and flourish with with such high sea levels? The second interesting question is what was it the Assyrians did that sea levels dropped so dramatically? In the last century the sea level has risen 22 centimeters. This might be alarming except in the previous 3 centuries the sea has also risen on average 22 centimeters per century. I see Source: https://climatefeedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sea-level-rise.png Where's your data from?
  4. Actually I scanned every single post between your first and your second statement at least twice and obviously my reading comprehension is too bad to find the at least one where the part you nicely marked in bold was stated. Please point me to it. Okay we will make this easy, Josh - yes or no - would scientist conspire and commit fraud in the name of climate change? Ah, there goes my reading comprehension again: I read "Okay we will make this easy.." but somehow depp inside my mind (see, just like deep state) it sounds like "dammit - someone called me out on this. Sooo, let's just sidestep a bit and hope nobody notices". Really strange, eh? But never mind, I'll just ask again: who said that " global warming could never be a conspiracy because science is pure and scientists would never conspire with oil companies, big business, big government, and special interests groups". Actually I don't even mind the exact wording, I'd just like to where this line of reasoning was made. Yes here is how that would go down, I would post what Josh already wrote, which you already read, which you already claim does not support my claim, and I would say look see this here, and you would say it doesn't, and I would say it does, and you would say it doesn't, then eventually I would get tired of us jerking each other off and call you a big poo poo head and the moderator would not be happy. So I asked Josh point blank, but he doesn't want to play anymore and has taken his toys and gone home. As for Deep State Paul, don't blame me for Paul being stupid enough to state he was part of the deep state. So just more sidestepping. You claimed the citation. So don't try kidding me by pointing to someone else "t'was hin! T'was him!" Your theorie, your job to prove it. Science, you know. The real one. But never mind, your repeated twists told me enough. The Walts of old at least had the decency to tell me they won't tell because they'd have to kill me if they were to "prove" their achievements. You know, the Alex Jones avatar suits you pretty well.
  5. Actually I scanned every single post between your first and your second statement at least twice and obviously my reading comprehension is too bad to find the at least one where the part you nicely marked in bold was stated. Please point me to it. Okay we will make this easy, Josh - yes or no - would scientist conspire and commit fraud in the name of climate change? Ah, there goes my reading comprehension again: I read "Okay we will make this easy.." but somehow depp inside my mind (see, just like deep state) it sounds like "dammit - someone called me out on this. Sooo, let's just sidestep a bit and hope nobody notices". Really strange, eh? But never mind, I'll just ask again: who said that " global warming could never be a conspiracy because science is pure and scientists would never conspire with oil companies, big business, big government, and special interests groups". Actually I don't even mind the exact wording, I'd just like to where this line of reasoning was made.
  6. Even with the assumption of 100% efficiency, imagine the impact of complete semiconductor PV replacement of fossil/nuclear power on the planet's albedo effect. They might not be so bad as it seems - though I haven't looked really into it to see a possible mistake in the logic. Well, let's put it like that: we needed some 9000 kWh electricity for our 250 qm home in 2018. Thats for about everything imaginable, from the lowly status LED via hot water right up to heating. But YMMV, of course - to mee it looks as if the priorities in the US are somewhat along 3rd bathroom, triple garage, swimming pool, veranda, BBQ grill, 2nd veranda, yet another bedroom, aand another bedroom. If the house comes with a halfway decent thermal isolation as well that's ok but nothing to really bother about. Feel free to disprove my prejudice - I'd be happy to hear so.
  7. Ask your average hemophiliac whether they prefer the managing symptoms or dealing head on with the reality of the untreated underlying disease? [snip]Sadly it's not so much your hemophiliac but rather your chain smoker who wants to get a prescription for an asthma spray to feel better.
  8. Actually I scanned every single post between your first and your second statement at least twice and obviously my reading comprehension is too bad to find the at least one where the part you nicely marked in bold was stated. Please point me to it.
  9. An active volcano in antarctica?! You got a source for this? Or, better still, for those "exponentially more chemicals" as well? Not shep, but some googling produced this: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231015304246 Ah, I see. Thanks for the info.
  10. The link is also about how utterly nonsense the project would be from a technological and financial point of view. But that's only discussed further down in the article so ... Do you even read the references you use? "“Studies show that, overall, the warming effect is stronger so aviation-induced clouds are helping to warm the planet,” he [Mr Haywood] said. Huh. Take II - https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/sun-dimming-aerosols-global-warming-intl-scli/index.html The research by scientists at Harvard and Yale universities, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, proposes using a technique known as stratospheric aerosol injection, which they say could cut the rate of global warming in half. The technique would involve spraying large amounts of sulfate particles into the Earth's lower stratosphere at altitudes as high as 12 miles. The scientists propose delivering the sulfates with specially designed high-altitude aircraft, balloons or large naval-style guns. And the negative reaction, "From the point of view of climate economics, solar radiation management is still a much worse solution than greenhouse gas emissions: more costly and much more risky over the long run, Yes, SO2 would actually work. Fun fact: SO2 is the reason why there was a debate in the 70s / 80s (when the carbom power plants still poured enormous amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere) whether there'll be an overall cooling (SO2) or warming (CO2) effect (another small irrelevant bit of information the climate denier allways seem to "forget" when they gaspingly inform you that climate science is bogus). But, as the developers already caution, "coordination between multiple countries in both hemispheres would be required, and stratospheric aerosol injection techniques could jeopardize crop yields, lead to droughts or cause extreme weather.". So basically it's a cure for the symptoms, not for the cause, and it isn't even clear whether it would lessen or worsen the symptoms. Sort of an all-new fatburner pill but without the witch doctor who guarantees you that it will work (this time foa sura!) without changing your eating habits. But then fatbruners and their ilk are a billion $$ industrie in the US, so who am I talking to.
  11. Yep. And it got a nice neighbor which saves it's ass every time a cold streak sucks its grid dry due to to electric heating or a heat wave forces its reactors to throttle production. So, yeah, you're probably right: what could possibly go wrong.
  12. I was just reading that the years 2016-2018 gave back about half of the temperature increase from the last 70 years. The first instance is called global warming because of the increase of industrial CO2, in the second instance...crickets. Where did you read that?
  13. So here's the problem, Climatscientologists that predict all manner of catastrophe and impending doom because of anthropomorphic global warming must have already accounted for future "little ice ages". Yet they haven't. Moreover, we are now reaching year twenty of the 100 year event horizon that Climatscientologists were telling us would have the Earth three degrees C warmer than in the year 2000. Since the global temperatures haven't change appreciably in the last 18 years, that three degrees of warming has to occur in the next 80 years, not 100. Of course the Priests and Acolytes of Climatscientology will long be dead by then and thus won't have to atone for their previous dire predictions. I see... It probably all depends on someones personal definition of "appreciably". EDIT: source: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/#(tab Global annual mean surface air temperature change) This is not raw data but normalized data. NASA adds a fudge factor to more recent data to produce the upward curve. If this was removed a more gradual slope would emerge. In fact some studies have shown that is some releases of the data actual temperatures for the same year have gotten warmer based on edition of data release. Ah, but there goes my reading comprehension skill again: I read "NASA adds a fudge factor ..." but somehow inside me it gets translated into "I want to believe that NASA added a fudge factor (I might even have read it in some weird alternate facts blog) and i like the idea just sooo much that this graph simply has to be fake news." Do you have some real argument, I mean beside the "it has to be because I say so", to back up your "fudge factor"? As to your "normalized" data: what exactly do you mean by "normalized"?
  14. The only people that don't believe that global climate can change are the true believers of Climatscientology who believe all extreme weather events and climatic changes are anthropomorphic. You will never be able to find a single instance where I have said that I don't believe climate can change. Never, not once. On the contrary, I am a true believer in climate change, but I'm also a true believer in actual science, not political agenda driven theology. Edit to add: As for that chart, that chart was generated by the same people at NASA that want to criminalize public skepticism and criticism of Climatscientology. So, you got some true data, then? What does it show? Or do you just claim NASA to whatever whatever fancies you in the moment so you might persuade yourself to blissfully ignore just about everything which doesn't fit your agenda?
×
×
  • Create New...