0:00 - 0:10 .... Wow, just that small clip gave me a headache...
Yes, the word exists because people do conspire to do things, but I'm inclined to think that the crazy lady is emphasizing the word in an attempt to prove that all of the crazy conspiracies are real...
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Forget about your beliefs, just for a moment, and answer the questions i posted below, privately to yourself. If you answer these questions honestly then the truth is obvious.
Then, the only question is if you value reason and evidence more then beliefs.
The only thing a carbon tax will achieve is a wealth transfer from everyone to the ultra rich.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Are you suggesting Big Oil is the only industry itemizing Foreign Tax Credit. Certainly not an oil specific tax code subsidies.
As to your second "subsidy"...DOE incentivizes the research of alternative oil souses....part of which goes for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The remainder is a staggering $399 million. Lets assume EOM gets all $399 million...such a windfall reduces their tax liability from $21.96 billion to $21.561 billion.
@tomthefunky Conspiracy theories are best kept private. Many conservative economists like Greg Mankiw and Martin Freidman advocate a carbon tax. You'll find that serious thinkers in the real world don't fall neatly into your predetermined categories.
Google: Delay in climate decisions will cost more, as we head to 3.5 degrees C of warming say scientists
“Delaying any decisions on future climate action until 2015 or 2020 will bring a rapidly increasing risk in costs and threatens the likelihood of the world being able to keep global warming…”
Do you know where the idea of carbon trading came from? Look it up. It came about AFTER strong evidence of human-caused climate change was established. Yes, the cart goes BEFORE the cart.
@ReduceGHGs Once people see that wall St carbon gangsters are behind the global warming charade, than the game is over. So you can help it along as you just did. Thank you, but you never were the sharpest knife in the Massa drawer of selves.
Again, some the first studies came out in the 70s well before the potential remedies like carbon trading were conceived. Game over for your lack of reasoning. Thanks!
But since you clearly haven't done your homework, here's a link to an early NAS study.
@ReduceGHGs Hilarious to hear Clara Massa and her horde of global warmists rail against Wall St Corporations when the Wall St Corporations are the carbon gangsters looking to cash in on carbon taxes on the working people. the OWS should be coming for the warmist heads. LOL
Great expose of Wall St & Global Warming. Enjoy your cognitive dissonance
The science even goes back much further than that. It was known that CO2 had the potential to increase global temperatures as far back as Joseph Fourier, and that effect was quantified by Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s. The science was relatively solidified by the time some of the more notable work by Guy Callendar was published, and that was in the 1940s and 1950s.
The problem with ChristopherMonckton5's argument is that he's using a class red herring.
Rather than discussing the actual science, he attacks carbon trading, hoping that if he convince people that carbon trading is bad, that he can then use that as a basis to claim all of the science behind global warming is bad. Even if his arguments on carbon trading were true, this doesn't logically follow.
Well said! None of the denier arguments hold water.
The first comprehensive study I knew about was The Charney Report compiled by NAS in 1979.
Unfortunately, it may not make any difference how much evidence or long-term consequences accumulate. Short term interests, political influence, and propaganda may trump all except resource depletion. All we can and must do is try.
@ChristopherMonckton5 - scumfuck, you're the upper-class business wall st fag twit and you fucking know it.
i'm the one who is poor and has to pay giant fuel bills, that doesn't mean i'm a fukcing liar that industry doesn't cause climate-change & all eco problems.
you are not The People, i am. that's the point of why and how your totalitarian conspiracy operates and forced fossil fuels etc to be used to begin with.
@potholer54 consider yourself lucky, I have monthly scientology ads with bi-yearly visit of a salesman you almost have to push out of your door and now show that DVD...
eli org Program_Areas innovation_governance_energy dot cfm
The largest subsidies to fossil fuels were written into the U.S. Tax Code as permanent provisions. By comparison, many subsidies for renewables are time-limited initiatives implemented through energy bills, with expiration dates that limit their usefulness to the renewables industry.
eli org Program_Areas innovation_governance_energy dot cfm
Subsidies for renewable fuels, a relatively young and developing industry, totaled $29 billion over the same period.
•Subsidies to fossil fuels generally increased over the study period (though they decreased in 2008), while funding for renewables increased but saw a precipitous drop in 2006-07 (though they increased in 2008).
eli org Program_Areas innovation_governance_energy dot cfm
The federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels—a mature, developed industry that has enjoyed government support for many years—totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers.
Name the subsidies please. Many of the so called "oil subsidies" the left decries, are in fact business deductions all corporations are afforded. "Green energy" sector receives true subsidies. That is, loan guarantees, specific tax legislation and grants. Not to mention tax legislation to incentives demand.
Over the study period, how much did EOM pay in taxes? Same period, the entire "Green energy" sector payed how much in taxes?
1)DOE...part not for Strategic Petroleum Reserve , $399 million.
2)Enhanced Oil Recovery Tax Credit..$0
3)Marginal Well Production Credit...$0
If you know of others name them. Simply pointing to ELI as confirmation of your supposition is a bit vapid. I'm sure the Environmental Law Institute is completely objective but if you wouldn't mind quoting the specific tax code.
And, of course, none of the subsidies to either fossil fuel nor to sustainables take into account the external costs - damage to environment, Superfund cleanup sites, global warming, etc - created by the fossil fuels but not by sustainables like wind and solar.
@Catamount1412 This is his quote: "Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary". But they are not really communicating the "uncertainty". Perhaps Thorne is. But the IPCC certainly are not. They have ignored the evidence.
I assume you've watched all of Potholer54s videos, and if you have, then I think you can agree, as I do, that the IPCC is not the issue in determining the science.
They're a public body, and yes it's of grave concern when they get things wrong, as they've had a history of doing (and they should be chided for that), but ultimately, it's important to remember, at the same time, that they do not write the science.
Accuracy of IPCC reports is an issue, but it's a separate issue from the state of the science. I'm sure you know this, but you post somewhat makes it sound like you're conflating the two. I'm sure neither of us wants that.
@CHIPSTERO7 "But they are not really communicating the "uncertainty". Perhaps Thorne is. But the IPCC certainly are not"
I did a little experiment once related to this. I went through the entire WG1 section of AR4 and counted the occurrences of the words uncertain, uncertainty and uncertainties. The count came to about 10 times per page. Don't believe me? Go try it.
@CHIPSTERO7 Hm. You make the statement that the IPCC doesn't address uncertainties. I point out to you that they use the word uncertainties probably about 3000 times in the WG1 report alone, and if you don't believe me check it yourself. Your response is, "No thanks. Unlike you. I have a life."
I would say you have no bleeding idea what you are talking about.
The term conspiracy theorist is one of my pet-hates; it's used as disparagement. Anyway Potholer appears to have very conveniently omitted the post important emails, such as the email from Thorne admitting that the preponderance of evidence unequivocally shows no rising tropospheric temperatures (i.e. the fabled hotspot) and that only one study (presumably referring to the study from Sherwood) is in agreement with the models. There's also Phil Jones' quote saying that "all the models are wrong".
Actually Thorn said nothing of the sort. He never used the word "unequivocal", and if you understood science, you'd know that science is never unequivocal in anything it does.
In fact, if you had read the email, the entire email, or even accurately read the snippet, you'd see that what Thorne was discussing was, in fact, the UNCERTAINTIES in the data.
And what of it? Do you realize Thorne PUBLICLY said the same thing in his last paper on the subject with Ben Santer?
@Catamount1412 Perhaps so. But notwithstanding Sherwood's study the evidence is unequivocal. The fact is, the models contradict the wealth of evidence showing that there is no hotspot. The hotspot indicates positive feedback amplification from WV and without the hotspot CO2's radiative forcing drops from 1.9W/sq.m (from 390ppmv-560ppmv) to 16.5W/sq.m. This is no small-issue. In the models the vast majority of warming comes from unproven feedback of WV. No hotspot = no disaster.
I think you've failed to understand the point the studies were making, and the significance of the hotspot in the first place.
First, if you read Santer et al 2008 you'd see that the whole point is that radiosonde data doesn't presently have the resolution to show the hotspot regardless of whether it's there.
Secondly, if it was missing, it would only mean that models needed to be re-examined, at which points all bets are off on how much warming there would be.
@Catamount1412 Nice try. Santer simply widened the error-bars and then claimed that the hotspot was hidden in the "noise". His statistical re-analyze was a sham as far as I can see. Besides, the observations from radiosondes are in general agreement with the satellite data. The satellite data does not support the models either which shows the tropospheric temperatures increasing twice as fast as the surface. The IPCC admit this in AR4 2007. I'm happy to quote them for you.
I'm familiar with what the IPCC has said, thank you, and I think you're being a little unfair to Santer. It's not as if his statistical analysis was completely arbitrary, or maybe it was, and it goes beyond my knowledge of the subject to see it.
But if the latter is the case, then I invite you to write a paper on it, rather than discuss it on youtube since you're clearly smarter than the authors in question.
I'm not saying it's not an issue to be resolved, it is, and there are many uncertainties in the science, but this is neither something one needs to hack an email to see, as it's discussed publicly in the literature (something every expert who still endorses AGW theory is fully aware of), nor given undue importance. Your own numbers (I assume you misplaced an order of magnitude there and meant to say 1.65?) show that the drop would still leave cause for some concern.
@Catamount1412 No. I haven't misplaced anything in fact. The IPCC tell us that the temperature increase by 2080-2100 will be about 3C and that relates to a radiative forcing of 16.5W/sq.m. However the IPCC's logarithmic equation for relating CO2-incerment into radiative-forcing increments tells us that the increase of CO2 from 390ppmv (its current baseline) to 560ppmv is enough to produce 1.9W/sq.m corresponding to 0.34C. Hence the feedbacks amplify CO2's warming by a factor of 9.
@CHIPSTERO7 It's just short for the more accurate "paranoid conspiracy theorist" which is a disparagement especially in relation to scientific subjects, and is very apt for describing AGW denialists. Now I won't pretend to understand all the data as I'm not a climate scientist myself but I am a skeptic and critical thinker who is familiar with logic and logical fallacies. All the arguments used by AGW denialists I've read have been guilty of employing intellectual dishonest tricks.
Not, of course, that your latest "wonderful and well constructed and researched video is not commendable, let me add. And I agree, its about time you did it. One day, after I'm reincarnated as a human once again, I'd like to grow up to be just like you!
Thankyou PotHoler54. There are now 6.5billion & rising people to sell conspiracies to. I had a HIV fiend who went mad, an still is, who dedicated himself to the cinspiracy theorist MOVEMEMENT which needs to be "explained" more than faulting heir conspiracies aka Stock in Trade. A good vauum cleaner salseman can sell a cleaner to a single mum living in poverty via a hire purchase agreement! He just needs a gymick=miraculous V-CLEANER aka CONSPIRACY. As if known shit isn't enough to worry about!
robonecutt you have clearly not read any of the research on trees outside of dendo. The consensus amongst those who actually study trees is that trees have an optimum growing temperature. Which is why we have to hide the decline. If the dendroclimatolgists were forced to admit that trees have a parabolic relationship to temperature they would be admitting that their entire field of study is a dead end. Of course they hide the decline. To do otherwise is career suicide.
Ok...first "subsidy" (DOE) has spent taxpayer dollars on oil research and development, including funding for unconventional oil, gas, and coal. Part of which goes for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, cut the rest and bam!: $399 mil.
Second "subsidy" Enhanced Oil Recovery Tax Credit for old technology no longer used $0.
Third "subsidy" Marginal Well Production Credit. Low volume well 15-25 barrels a day $0.
As to the video its disgusting that alarmists still play a strawman about hide the decline. Yeah a few people who aren't part of the skeptic community said that but one one who follows say climateauidt has ever thought that we know what the decline is. Others misinterpreting the e-mail doesn't make what man and jones did any less dishonest.They are hiding the fact that tree rings aren't viable temperature proxies. They are charlatans.
@IskurBlast You have clearly not read any of the published research on this issue. "Hide the decline" has nothing to do with Mann or Jones papers. It has to do with the cover of a WMO annual report. The "decline" is discussed openly in the literature and has to do with the divergence of tree ring data post-1960 with the instrumental record for some NH series in Keith Briffa's work.
Try doing a little research before pointing your finger.
Actually its rarely discussed in the literature and when it is rather obscurely and it is totally unreconciled. The lie is to act like its nothing. Its a major flaw in all of dendroclimatology which is why they dont talk about it outside of the group think circles. The have no way to prove that tree rings are an accurate proxy. Remember when they first started doing this it was on 1980 data. Its 31 years later and still diverging. That is a huge problem.
Wow are you saying that an expert in spectroscopy cant comment on climate science. AGW theory is entirely spectroscopy. Oh ignorance must be bliss! It reminds me of dendroclimatologists who claim that statisticians cant comment on dendroclimatology because they don't know the science behind the statistics while saying that tree experts cant comment because they don't know the math but for the most part dendroclimatologists know little of statistics or trees.
The question, as posed by iceman541, was "So, if I take a GHG-free planet and suddenly release GHGs into its atmosphere, it won't warm up?"
So not specific to CO2 nor Earth's atmosphere. If you model the atmosphere of iceman's planet to Earth...agreed CO2 make little difference to planetary temperature. Moreover, if you include all GHG, all 0.4% again you'll find little delta T.
Climate change is scary, there's no two ways about that. So its kind of natural that people would prefer to just assume it was a massive hoax than a reality. But that's a terrible, frighteningly cavalier attitude to take.
Of course a climate hoax being perpetrated by, among others, huge car and oil companie seems just a little too far beyond the bounds of reality to make it easy to believe.
@paulbottomley42 Interestingly enough, the car companies are the ones who are starting to "get it." Nearly every car company out there has an electric vehicle in the works right now. Nissan has already launched the LEAF. Dodge is now working on an all electric. Volvo, BMW, basically they're all on board with the future of electrics.
Now, imagine how scared that makes the oil companies.
@robhoneycutt "Now, imagine how scared that makes the oil companies."
Now suppose your fantasy becomes reality robhoneycutt, how do you suppose all those battery cars will charge their batteries. Ummm...COAL! I can already hear the grennies chant: Screw Big Oil!...Yes to Big Coal!
@SkepticalRealist Let's see... how will those cars be charged when the price of solar falls below the cost of coal in about 5 years? And 5 years after that the cost of solar will be WELL below coal. Then what?
@robhoneycutt "Oh, and BTW, that's all WITHOUT subsidies."
I know it's Friday, but 12:15 is bit early to be pie eyed. Big Green has lobbied for and received billions.
You said: "Solyndra was a victim of the incredible successes of the solar industry." You have to be drunk. Solyndra was Obama paying back bundlers nothing more complicated. What about all the other green energy "investments"...billion gone with nothing to show except higher unemployment and vacant factories.
@SkepticalRealist Re: Solyndra. If you're talking about Kaiser, their foundation's investments in Solyndra did not benefit Kaiser financially, nor could they have. If you did a little research you'd find that Kaiser can only put money into that foundation. He can not take money out.
So corruption is ok so long as the participants did not benefit directly?...which they did by the way.
According to the WaPo the beneficiaries not the foundation: "The e-mails show discussion between Kaiser and Steve Mitchell, the manager of his family investment fund, who also served on Solyndra’s board, about how to appeal to the White House for assistance in winning federal contracts."
@SkepticalRealist "Big Green" gets a tiny fraction of what "Big Oil" gets in subsidies even though they happen to be the largest and most profitable companies on the planet.
FYI... Solyndra was a victim of the incredible successes of the solar industry. They couldn't keep up with the fall price of solar energy. It's a clear sign that the solar industry is extremely competitive and making incredible strides in bringing down the costs.
And how's the ever-increasing price of food going for you, due to an anti-vegetarian world that wastes over half the crops feeding livestock rather than people directly, while also causing global warming? How's that going for you?
Coal is unrealistic. Clean coal is a lie and a scam.
Obviously, you conservaturds live in a fantasy world. You never heard of Entropy and how it limits what useful technology we can get out of our labor.
So food pricing is going up because of Big Meat? And here I thought the trillions poured into the monetary system is perhaps, maybe...devaluing the dollar. Never mind End the Fed...End the Department of Agriculture...not to catchy...how about Ax the Ag.
How does Entropy limit the useful technology we can get out of our labor?
= here I thought the trillions poured into the monetary system is perhaps,=
Yeah. That too. And the free-market religion. RT News had an excellent report about how when India had price controls, everybody ate. But when the IMF and free-market extremists got in and speculated on food, the poor in India starved.
Big Meat's contribution to GW has been well known for decades. Google it. Go to any of hundres of YT channels.
Well if it's on RT news, it's a sure thing. You can take it to the bank...or better yet bet your financial future on it, take to MF Global. Those guy always bet on sure things.
@SkepticalRealist Your concept is not original. Tomorrow I will find the website that discusses this ridiculous idea. In the meantime look up Dunning-Krugger.
Yet you can not explain why I'm wrong. So you can only pray I'm wrong... hope some AGW champion can put me in my place. But alas, only the hollow rantings of your fellow disciples. Not one of you can tell me were I'm wrong.
Ok iceman, since you are unable to articulate a specific fault with my reasoning let's start with yours. Tell me iceman, what is your favorite idealized greenhouse model?
@SkepticalRealist Tell me how the discussions with Spencer and Lindzen went.
Reasoning? So far you've told us that all that matters is that PV=NRT, which has nothing to to with radiative properties of different gases. Until you can move on past high school, you're a waste of time.
So you've figured out his tactic, and why many of us were through arguing with him long ago. He takes some basic science principle, and uses hairbrained reasoning to cobble together some non-sequitur conclusion where he insists he MUST be right if said principle is true, that way he can make it out like you're arguing with a basic science principle, rather than the conclusion that it makes his case.
The argument differed slightly last I saw him, but the tactic is the same
@541iceman "nothing to to with radiative properties of different gases."
As I've been asking over and over again, point me to your favorite idealized GH model so we can get to the radiative transfer equations. This of course assumes you understand the model which you choose. At this point I'm dubious you have any idea what it is so vehemently defend.
"The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what's included and what's left out."
Lol when I heard that I immediately thought, what's the big deal? That doesn't even sound bad out of context, I said almost exactly those words to a classmate I was helping prepare a presentation at a conference recently when he kept running too long. (He gets a bit excited and forgets he doesn't have to explain to a room full of microbiologists what a GC does lol)
The temperature will increase, due to the additional pressure. The pressure from the mass of the suddenly release GHGs. Mind you however, any suddenly release gas will yield similar results. And this pressurized higher temperature atmosphere will add to the thermal energy output of the planet.
Very easy to understand, no lower energy exciting higher energy. And unlike AGW demonstrable.
@541iceman Name calling already. Boy you are so far over your head. But chin up iceman541, you did your very best considering...well you tried really hard.
@SkepticalRealist OK, so I tried your ideal gas law calculation. Mass of atmosphere ~5x10^18kg. Mass of CO2 added over pre-industrial levels ~1x10^15kg. Resulting temperature rise ~0.06K. Even if your mechanism were valid it would account for less than 10% of the recent temperature rise.
Of course, your method is invalid because it is not an adiabatic change. The extra heat would have radiated away long ago.
The game is up. A bunch of lying cheats and propagandists and they are still too stupid to realise that the public are on to them. Meanwhile the Planet is still cooling as is every level of the Atmosphere. Another boring rambling video from mr sarcasm.
@robhoneycutt Find your own data you baby fed lazy sod. You prefer the fraudulent easy access stuff, pal reviewed no doubt. Get up off your arse and go look at satellite data, or are you too lazy? Hmmmmm. Crimeatologists will have a lot to answer for as cooling starts to accelerate.
I've looked at a considerable amount of satellite data when occasions have called for it, and I've never seen anything that suggests a cooling trend in the Earth's temperature, let alone evidence that such a trend will grow in strength. I guess I'm just not as astute as you are.
Would you mind helping the slower among us and telling me which data set shows this?
Thanks for going to all the trouble of reading [many of] those emails and informing us of the deception going on!! About these climate-change deniers - what? Have they been living in a cave for the last 40+ years? And even though the climate variatons observable within a human lifetime may not be ultimate proof, the rapid retreat and disappearance of many glaciers of ancient existence - hundreds, thousands of years old - is a significant indicator - as well as data from sea floor sediments.
The people who hacked these e-mail accounts are criminals. It's completely hypocritical for the same people to try to sentence Julian Assange to jail for what he's done, yet celebrate these hackers and say what they've done is fine.
@wozza59 YT is funny about posting links. You can tiny the link at Tiny URL and then post the link removing the dot. Replace with a space or type [dot] in the dot's place.
And it can thus be appreciated that 20th-century global warming was only to be expected to occur when it did, and that it could reasonably be expected that the region may warm even more before cooling again, for it still has a ways to go to equal the warmth of the Roman Warm Period or even the Medieval Warm Period, which in many locations was also warmer than it is currently.
@wozza59 You might want to double check that. I believe it is a quote from the NIPCC, not the IPCC. The NIPCC is an oil industry backed response to the IPCC reports. In other words, not a credible source.
If you take the time to read any of the hundreds of papers on the MWP you find that the exact opposite is true.
yep, typical style of information leaders of the far right use. Cherry pick information that they want to hear and they will fill in the blanks to suport and defend thier prejudice.
If the DOD is investing Billions of dollars for alternative fuel and energy, you can bet that global warming is real. It makes economic sense to get away from fossil fuels too. Those denying global warming are just morons who don't understand any of the science or economic issues.
Seventy percent of the world's population lives within 100 miles of an ocean coastline, so rising sea levels caused by global warming will create international security hazards that the Navy and its personnel will have to counter. The Navy has set a goal of making half of its bases net-zero energy facilities in about 10 years. It has also invested in hybrid ships and biofuels.
Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, has also been a strong proponent of renewables. In speeches, he's noted that one of the larger jobs for the Navy at the moment is protecting convoys for oil and gas into Afghanistan. Lives are being put at risk to protect fuel lines.
@potholer54 G'day... By Jove, y've harvested a right royal crop of Dingbats, & Frootluips, here ! Personally, I DO like the way Gaia's-Revenge manages to tailor the Savage Weather Events, to hammer where the Global Warming Denialists cluster the Closest. There's a Coal Mine at Dalby that's Bin-Flooded 3 times, in a year. As them Broadacre Agro-Culturists vacillate betwixt too Dry, & too Wet ; and the West OzTourist Traps are destroying houses, in Hazard Reduction Burns.
I can't figure out why anyone would be so vehemently opposed to making small alterations in their lifestyle to help the environment. Fucking conspiracy retards have got to be the absolute stupidest people on earth, right after muslims.
Thank you. It sad that there are so many gullible fools that buy into this "climate-gate" nonsense. Just the full letter at 3:10 demonstrates with absolute clarity that these people have no intellectual integrity at all. None.
Isn't it amazing that the lazy people who do no research are the most eager to get out there and start spouting all kinds of opinions? It's the most basic common sense. Don't talk about what you don't know. What the hell is their agenda even as idiots? None of these things impact them. Climate change sure as fuck doesn't either way. I guess being stupid n lazy gives them a strong desire to disagree with everything without research so that they can get attention and not feel like such a buffoon?
"Well known problem called the 'divergence problem' "
- if you read the climategate2 emails, you'll find that a lot of insiders were concerned about this, and didn't think it was justifiable to 'hide the decline'
- rather that it tended to undermine the theory that trees can act as thermometers.
- since, obviously, if trees fail to track temps in modern times (for reasons unknown), then it doesn't take an Einstein to work out that they probably didn't track temperatures 1000 years ago either.
You do realize for a majority of the record they agreed to a very high degree, secondly it's only some trees that diverge and other proxies which agreed with the same length of time also still agree today indicating that they are reliable proxies but something affected trees being reliable proxies over the last few decades and didn't cause other proxies to diverge.
Besides, the biggest reason why AGW is accepted is the physics not reconstructions.
So your response to using processes to avoid getting false results which are known to occur by other scientific studies so they can use the tools properly is "it must be a dishonest scam" even when there are cases where they're open about disagreements with measured temperatures. Not to mention you're also ignoring non tree proxies in your attempt at an explanation.
By the way, using your poor reasoning, we can't trust thermometers because they had to go through a calibration processes and anything that goes through a calibration processes is only a result of "wishful thinking" rather than well reasoned and understood processes and measurements.
An example of a good proxy would be Carbon Dating - where the decay of one isotope of Carbon to another is used as method of dating when the carbon in an object was fixed from the atmosphere.
- again it's based on a known, consistent, predicable, verifiable physical principle.
- and very little effects the decay of the carbon in the material
Compare that with trees, where the list of things that effect tree growth is both long and not fully characterised.
Carbon dating also goes through calibration processes and efforts also need to be made to take into account known problems when applying it just like tree ring growth. For example, how many times have you heard about seals dating to thousands of years old that died recently, this is because of the reservoir effect.
"where the list of things that effect tree growth is both long and not fully characterised."
yet you can compensate because different types leave different fingerprints
@garith21 You're right, Carbon dating (even when your seal hasn't eaten food that has been part of the food chain for thousands of years) needs calibrating to take into account variations in the C14 concentration over the millennia.
You're going to have to help me on this, but what are the things that effect tree ring growth, and how are they compensated for?
1) Actually the reservoir effect is when organisms consume primarily aquatic life or get their carbon based materials from underwater sources because the carbon under water is "older" than that in the atmosphere resulting in an artificially aged organism which is why it's not used on underwater organisms.
2) Primarily temperature and rainfall, in fact one of the major reasons the SB03 paper was considered bad is because they claimed that it was only one factor when making claims.
@garith21 I was hoping you would come out with a longer list, but, ok, I'll help you:
temperature induced drought stress, non-linear thresholds, time-dependent delayed snow melt and related changes in seasonality, global dimming, ozone depletion
(ok, these are just some possible explanations for the divergence problem, but hey, this is a science, right?).
Again, other proxies still agree and there's error bars for a reason. If you're simply going to argue we can't know anything about past climate based on proxies that's fine, but it doesn't eliminate the basic physics and observations that indicate AGW. The only thing that knowledge of previous climate can do is offer potential context.
Lastly, let me get this right, you don't know anything about the process but claim it's flawed? Do you realize the amount of rigorous work that goes into selecting proper sites as to reduce the effects of other stressors that can affect tree ring width. You do also realize that there are other temperature proxies that still agree with thermometers in regards to temperatures and reconstructions right?
0:00 - 0:10 .... Wow, just that small clip gave me a headache...
Yes, the word exists because people do conspire to do things, but I'm inclined to think that the crazy lady is emphasizing the word in an attempt to prove that all of the crazy conspiracies are real...
Zoobeezoo 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil”
ChristopherMonckton5 3 weeks ago
god, i'm so hot right now.
RexisAZero 1 month ago
Forget about beliefs for a minute and ask, how can paying bankers and the financial system a % of national GDP help with the climate?
And then ask, would it be more efficient to use all those billions to instead plant trees everywhere to absorb the 'nasty' co2?
Then ask, if a guy in a pub asked you to pay him money to 'fix' the climate, would you hand over money?
Case closed.
Its a scam.
sidvidkid 1 month ago
@sidvidkid What evidence would you need before you accept human caused global warming is happening?
thesparitan 1 month ago in playlist More videos from potholer54
@thesparitan
Forget about your beliefs, just for a moment, and answer the questions i posted below, privately to yourself. If you answer these questions honestly then the truth is obvious.
Then, the only question is if you value reason and evidence more then beliefs.
The only thing a carbon tax will achieve is a wealth transfer from everyone to the ultra rich.
sidvidkid 1 month ago
@sidvidkid I would love to anssiusuw but I am super hugg hugh i mean hiugh on shrooms man. I took a bunch and I am tripping balls..
I get back to you.
thesparitan 1 month ago
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil”
ChristopherMonckton5 2 months ago
@mphello "IRC 901 Foreign Tax Credit $15.3 billion"
Are you suggesting Big Oil is the only industry itemizing Foreign Tax Credit. Certainly not an oil specific tax code subsidies.
As to your second "subsidy"...DOE incentivizes the research of alternative oil souses....part of which goes for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The remainder is a staggering $399 million. Lets assume EOM gets all $399 million...such a windfall reduces their tax liability from $21.96 billion to $21.561 billion.
SkepticalRealist 2 months ago
Cheers. Spot on.
Astrostevo 2 months ago
@tomthefunky Conspiracy theories are best kept private. Many conservative economists like Greg Mankiw and Martin Freidman advocate a carbon tax. You'll find that serious thinkers in the real world don't fall neatly into your predetermined categories.
MoncktonBunkum 2 months ago
Comment removed
tracermav 2 months ago
Google "Green Jobs Fail" what a bunch of bs this whole Wall St carbon tax fraud is. Hang the carbon gangsters from Wall St
ChristopherMonckton5 2 months ago
@ChristopherMonckton5
.
Google: Delay in climate decisions will cost more, as we head to 3.5 degrees C of warming say scientists
“Delaying any decisions on future climate action until 2015 or 2020 will bring a rapidly increasing risk in costs and threatens the likelihood of the world being able to keep global warming…”
ReduceGHGs 2 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Here's a better google "Carbon trading: A multi-billion dollar Mafia subsidy?"
ChristopherMonckton5 2 months ago
@ChristopherMonckton5
Do you know where the idea of carbon trading came from? Look it up. It came about AFTER strong evidence of human-caused climate change was established. Yes, the cart goes BEFORE the cart.
ReduceGHGs 2 months ago
@ReduceGHGs Once people see that wall St carbon gangsters are behind the global warming charade, than the game is over. So you can help it along as you just did. Thank you, but you never were the sharpest knife in the Massa drawer of selves.
ChristopherMonckton5 2 months ago
@ChristopherMonckton5 .
carbon gangsters?? lol!
Again, some the first studies came out in the 70s well before the potential remedies like carbon trading were conceived. Game over for your lack of reasoning. Thanks!
But since you clearly haven't done your homework, here's a link to an early NAS study.
Google: NAS The Charney Report 1979
Enjoy learning.
ReduceGHGs 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReduceGHGs Hilarious to hear Clara Massa and her horde of global warmists rail against Wall St Corporations when the Wall St Corporations are the carbon gangsters looking to cash in on carbon taxes on the working people. the OWS should be coming for the warmist heads. LOL
Great expose of Wall St & Global Warming. Enjoy your cognitive dissonance
kirbymtn.blogspot.com
ChristopherMonckton5 2 months ago
@ReduceGHGs
The science even goes back much further than that. It was known that CO2 had the potential to increase global temperatures as far back as Joseph Fourier, and that effect was quantified by Svante Arrhenius in the 1890s. The science was relatively solidified by the time some of the more notable work by Guy Callendar was published, and that was in the 1940s and 1950s.
Catamount1412 2 months ago
@ReduceGHGs
The problem with ChristopherMonckton5's argument is that he's using a class red herring.
Rather than discussing the actual science, he attacks carbon trading, hoping that if he convince people that carbon trading is bad, that he can then use that as a basis to claim all of the science behind global warming is bad. Even if his arguments on carbon trading were true, this doesn't logically follow.
Catamount1412 2 months ago
@Catamount1412 .
Well said! None of the denier arguments hold water.
The first comprehensive study I knew about was The Charney Report compiled by NAS in 1979.
Unfortunately, it may not make any difference how much evidence or long-term consequences accumulate. Short term interests, political influence, and propaganda may trump all except resource depletion. All we can and must do is try.
Thanks for the good comments!
ReduceGHGs 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChristopherMonckton5 - scumfuck, you're the upper-class business wall st fag twit and you fucking know it.
i'm the one who is poor and has to pay giant fuel bills, that doesn't mean i'm a fukcing liar that industry doesn't cause climate-change & all eco problems.
you are not The People, i am. that's the point of why and how your totalitarian conspiracy operates and forced fossil fuels etc to be used to begin with.
kill yourself satanic masonic capitalist anti-eco scum.
JustSomePerson888 2 months ago
I am so going to show these videos to my mother-in-law; she reads and believes the Daily Fail (Mail).
TheMogulmonster 2 months ago
@potholer54 consider yourself lucky, I have monthly scientology ads with bi-yearly visit of a salesman you almost have to push out of your door and now show that DVD...
LueTm 2 months ago
Angry Aussie said it best about and to AGW deniers: STFU!
Shut the fuck up with your lies about renewable energy getting "rich".
I wish.
When solar and wind power companies silence and threaten small powerless coal companies,
then you'll have a right to complain, but I'll be cheering.
mphello 3 months ago
eli org Program_Areas innovation_governance_energy dot cfm
The largest subsidies to fossil fuels were written into the U.S. Tax Code as permanent provisions. By comparison, many subsidies for renewables are time-limited initiatives implemented through energy bills, with expiration dates that limit their usefulness to the renewables industry.
mphello 3 months ago
SkepticalIdealist
eli org Program_Areas innovation_governance_energy dot cfm
Subsidies for renewable fuels, a relatively young and developing industry, totaled $29 billion over the same period.
•Subsidies to fossil fuels generally increased over the study period (though they decreased in 2008), while funding for renewables increased but saw a precipitous drop in 2006-07 (though they increased in 2008).
mphello 3 months ago
SkepticalIdealist:
eli org Program_Areas innovation_governance_energy dot cfm
The federal government provided substantially larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables. Subsidies to fossil fuels—a mature, developed industry that has enjoyed government support for many years—totaled approximately $72 billion over the study period, representing a direct cost to taxpayers.
mphello 3 months ago
@mphello '$72 billion over the study period"
Name the subsidies please. Many of the so called "oil subsidies" the left decries, are in fact business deductions all corporations are afforded. "Green energy" sector receives true subsidies. That is, loan guarantees, specific tax legislation and grants. Not to mention tax legislation to incentives demand.
Over the study period, how much did EOM pay in taxes? Same period, the entire "Green energy" sector payed how much in taxes?
SkepticalRealist 2 months ago
@SkepticalRealist
I already gave you my source:
eli org Program_Areas innovation_governance_energy dot cfm
What do you not get? The formal title in the tax code?
mphello 2 months ago
@mphello "I already gave you my source:"
The three oil specific tax code subsidies are
1)DOE...part not for Strategic Petroleum Reserve , $399 million.
2)Enhanced Oil Recovery Tax Credit..$0
3)Marginal Well Production Credit...$0
If you know of others name them. Simply pointing to ELI as confirmation of your supposition is a bit vapid. I'm sure the Environmental Law Institute is completely objective but if you wouldn't mind quoting the specific tax code.
SkepticalRealist 2 months ago
@SkepticalRealist
IRC = Internal Revenue Code
FY2002-2008 For oil and gas:
IRC 901 Foreign Tax Credit $15.3 billion
IRC Sec 45K Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels: this means oil from shale, tar sands, biomass, gas from brine - all GHG emitters
mphello 2 months ago
@SkepticalRealist
And, of course, none of the subsidies to either fossil fuel nor to sustainables take into account the external costs - damage to environment, Superfund cleanup sites, global warming, etc - created by the fossil fuels but not by sustainables like wind and solar.
You want me to dig up THOSE statistics?
mphello 2 months ago
That should read "CO2-incerments".
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
@Catamount1412 This is his quote: "Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary". But they are not really communicating the "uncertainty". Perhaps Thorne is. But the IPCC certainly are not. They have ignored the evidence.
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7
I assume you've watched all of Potholer54s videos, and if you have, then I think you can agree, as I do, that the IPCC is not the issue in determining the science.
They're a public body, and yes it's of grave concern when they get things wrong, as they've had a history of doing (and they should be chided for that), but ultimately, it's important to remember, at the same time, that they do not write the science.
Catamount1412 3 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7
Accuracy of IPCC reports is an issue, but it's a separate issue from the state of the science. I'm sure you know this, but you post somewhat makes it sound like you're conflating the two. I'm sure neither of us wants that.
Catamount1412 3 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 "But they are not really communicating the "uncertainty". Perhaps Thorne is. But the IPCC certainly are not"
I did a little experiment once related to this. I went through the entire WG1 section of AR4 and counted the occurrences of the words uncertain, uncertainty and uncertainties. The count came to about 10 times per page. Don't believe me? Go try it.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt No thanks. Unlike you. I have a life.
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CHIPSTERO7 Hm. You make the statement that the IPCC doesn't address uncertainties. I point out to you that they use the word uncertainties probably about 3000 times in the WG1 report alone, and if you don't believe me check it yourself. Your response is, "No thanks. Unlike you. I have a life."
I would say you have no bleeding idea what you are talking about.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
The term conspiracy theorist is one of my pet-hates; it's used as disparagement. Anyway Potholer appears to have very conveniently omitted the post important emails, such as the email from Thorne admitting that the preponderance of evidence unequivocally shows no rising tropospheric temperatures (i.e. the fabled hotspot) and that only one study (presumably referring to the study from Sherwood) is in agreement with the models. There's also Phil Jones' quote saying that "all the models are wrong".
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7
Actually Thorn said nothing of the sort. He never used the word "unequivocal", and if you understood science, you'd know that science is never unequivocal in anything it does.
In fact, if you had read the email, the entire email, or even accurately read the snippet, you'd see that what Thorne was discussing was, in fact, the UNCERTAINTIES in the data.
And what of it? Do you realize Thorne PUBLICLY said the same thing in his last paper on the subject with Ben Santer?
Catamount1412 3 months ago
@Catamount1412 Perhaps so. But notwithstanding Sherwood's study the evidence is unequivocal. The fact is, the models contradict the wealth of evidence showing that there is no hotspot. The hotspot indicates positive feedback amplification from WV and without the hotspot CO2's radiative forcing drops from 1.9W/sq.m (from 390ppmv-560ppmv) to 16.5W/sq.m. This is no small-issue. In the models the vast majority of warming comes from unproven feedback of WV. No hotspot = no disaster.
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7
I think you've failed to understand the point the studies were making, and the significance of the hotspot in the first place.
First, if you read Santer et al 2008 you'd see that the whole point is that radiosonde data doesn't presently have the resolution to show the hotspot regardless of whether it's there.
Secondly, if it was missing, it would only mean that models needed to be re-examined, at which points all bets are off on how much warming there would be.
Catamount1412 3 months ago
@Catamount1412 Nice try. Santer simply widened the error-bars and then claimed that the hotspot was hidden in the "noise". His statistical re-analyze was a sham as far as I can see. Besides, the observations from radiosondes are in general agreement with the satellite data. The satellite data does not support the models either which shows the tropospheric temperatures increasing twice as fast as the surface. The IPCC admit this in AR4 2007. I'm happy to quote them for you.
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7
I'm familiar with what the IPCC has said, thank you, and I think you're being a little unfair to Santer. It's not as if his statistical analysis was completely arbitrary, or maybe it was, and it goes beyond my knowledge of the subject to see it.
But if the latter is the case, then I invite you to write a paper on it, rather than discuss it on youtube since you're clearly smarter than the authors in question.
I look forward to reading it!
Catamount1412 3 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7
I'm not saying it's not an issue to be resolved, it is, and there are many uncertainties in the science, but this is neither something one needs to hack an email to see, as it's discussed publicly in the literature (something every expert who still endorses AGW theory is fully aware of), nor given undue importance. Your own numbers (I assume you misplaced an order of magnitude there and meant to say 1.65?) show that the drop would still leave cause for some concern.
Catamount1412 3 months ago
@Catamount1412 No. I haven't misplaced anything in fact. The IPCC tell us that the temperature increase by 2080-2100 will be about 3C and that relates to a radiative forcing of 16.5W/sq.m. However the IPCC's logarithmic equation for relating CO2-incerment into radiative-forcing increments tells us that the increase of CO2 from 390ppmv (its current baseline) to 560ppmv is enough to produce 1.9W/sq.m corresponding to 0.34C. Hence the feedbacks amplify CO2's warming by a factor of 9.
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7
This is something worth discussing, but I'm afraid I'm due to go for now. Until later.
Catamount1412 3 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7
And check your phrasing, you said "drop from 1.9WM^2 TO 16.5" ;)
Catamount1412 3 months ago
@Catamount1412 Oh yes. That was typo.
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 It's just short for the more accurate "paranoid conspiracy theorist" which is a disparagement especially in relation to scientific subjects, and is very apt for describing AGW denialists. Now I won't pretend to understand all the data as I'm not a climate scientist myself but I am a skeptic and critical thinker who is familiar with logic and logical fallacies. All the arguments used by AGW denialists I've read have been guilty of employing intellectual dishonest tricks.
icemachine79 3 months ago
@icemachine79 All? Really? Take a look a my Global Warming Blog. I think I use science to back up by claims quite well.
CHIPSTERO7 3 months ago
"I'd rather be the last person to get it right, than the first one to get it wrong." That should be the skeptics creed.
captainpeabody 3 months ago
Not, of course, that your latest "wonderful and well constructed and researched video is not commendable, let me add. And I agree, its about time you did it. One day, after I'm reincarnated as a human once again, I'd like to grow up to be just like you!
listen2meokidoki 3 months ago
Thankyou PotHoler54. There are now 6.5billion & rising people to sell conspiracies to. I had a HIV fiend who went mad, an still is, who dedicated himself to the cinspiracy theorist MOVEMEMENT which needs to be "explained" more than faulting heir conspiracies aka Stock in Trade. A good vauum cleaner salseman can sell a cleaner to a single mum living in poverty via a hire purchase agreement! He just needs a gymick=miraculous V-CLEANER aka CONSPIRACY. As if known shit isn't enough to worry about!
listen2meokidoki 3 months ago
"I'd rather be the last person to get it right rather than the first person to get it wrong." Loved that line.
srikargottipati 3 months ago
robonecutt you have clearly not read any of the research on trees outside of dendo. The consensus amongst those who actually study trees is that trees have an optimum growing temperature. Which is why we have to hide the decline. If the dendroclimatolgists were forced to admit that trees have a parabolic relationship to temperature they would be admitting that their entire field of study is a dead end. Of course they hide the decline. To do otherwise is career suicide.
IskurBlast 3 months ago
@IskurBlast Perhaps you can refer me to published literature that supports your position.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Just google the term "oil industry subsidies."
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt "oil industry subsidies." part I
Ok...first "subsidy" (DOE) has spent taxpayer dollars on oil research and development, including funding for unconventional oil, gas, and coal. Part of which goes for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, cut the rest and bam!: $399 mil.
Second "subsidy" Enhanced Oil Recovery Tax Credit for old technology no longer used $0.
Third "subsidy" Marginal Well Production Credit. Low volume well 15-25 barrels a day $0.
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt "oil industry subsidies." part II
$399 million divided amongst all energy producers, including green fuel producers...no wonder XOM dose not have a line listing this windfall.
Try again robhoneycutt.
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Nice try. tiny cc/lahst
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt
The facts robhoneycutt, are the facts. Yours is reality devoid of meaning beyond religious commitment.
If I'm wrong prove it.
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Already did. Sorry.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt "Already did. Sorry."
Oh, I'm sorry. Would you mind repeating you conclusive statement so I might recall your "facts".
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Read away: tiny cc/6eq6u
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@robhoneycutt "Read away: tiny cc/6eq6u"
What?
Specifics please.
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
As to the video its disgusting that alarmists still play a strawman about hide the decline. Yeah a few people who aren't part of the skeptic community said that but one one who follows say climateauidt has ever thought that we know what the decline is. Others misinterpreting the e-mail doesn't make what man and jones did any less dishonest.They are hiding the fact that tree rings aren't viable temperature proxies. They are charlatans.
IskurBlast 3 months ago
@IskurBlast You have clearly not read any of the published research on this issue. "Hide the decline" has nothing to do with Mann or Jones papers. It has to do with the cover of a WMO annual report. The "decline" is discussed openly in the literature and has to do with the divergence of tree ring data post-1960 with the instrumental record for some NH series in Keith Briffa's work.
Try doing a little research before pointing your finger.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt
Actually its rarely discussed in the literature and when it is rather obscurely and it is totally unreconciled. The lie is to act like its nothing. Its a major flaw in all of dendroclimatology which is why they dont talk about it outside of the group think circles. The have no way to prove that tree rings are an accurate proxy. Remember when they first started doing this it was on 1980 data. Its 31 years later and still diverging. That is a huge problem.
IskurBlast 3 months ago
@IskurBlast Bzzzt! Wrong! But thanks for playing.
The "divergence problem" is widely and openly discussed in the published literature. Read it.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
Wow are you saying that an expert in spectroscopy cant comment on climate science. AGW theory is entirely spectroscopy. Oh ignorance must be bliss! It reminds me of dendroclimatologists who claim that statisticians cant comment on dendroclimatology because they don't know the science behind the statistics while saying that tree experts cant comment because they don't know the math but for the most part dendroclimatologists know little of statistics or trees.
IskurBlast 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Go to my channel to see my comments on Moncktongate.
mphello 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KevinC112358 "Resulting temperature rise ~0.06K"
The question, as posed by iceman541, was "So, if I take a GHG-free planet and suddenly release GHGs into its atmosphere, it won't warm up?"
So not specific to CO2 nor Earth's atmosphere. If you model the atmosphere of iceman's planet to Earth...agreed CO2 make little difference to planetary temperature. Moreover, if you include all GHG, all 0.4% again you'll find little delta T.
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
Climate change is scary, there's no two ways about that. So its kind of natural that people would prefer to just assume it was a massive hoax than a reality. But that's a terrible, frighteningly cavalier attitude to take.
Of course a climate hoax being perpetrated by, among others, huge car and oil companie seems just a little too far beyond the bounds of reality to make it easy to believe.
paulbottomley42 3 months ago
@paulbottomley42 Interestingly enough, the car companies are the ones who are starting to "get it." Nearly every car company out there has an electric vehicle in the works right now. Nissan has already launched the LEAF. Dodge is now working on an all electric. Volvo, BMW, basically they're all on board with the future of electrics.
Now, imagine how scared that makes the oil companies.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt "Now, imagine how scared that makes the oil companies."
Now suppose your fantasy becomes reality robhoneycutt, how do you suppose all those battery cars will charge their batteries. Ummm...COAL! I can already hear the grennies chant: Screw Big Oil!...Yes to Big Coal!
BTW...How's that ethanol scam working for you.
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Let's see... how will those cars be charged when the price of solar falls below the cost of coal in about 5 years? And 5 years after that the cost of solar will be WELL below coal. Then what?
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt "when the price of solar falls below the cost of coal in about 5 years"
Ha...cheaper the coal! ...oh boy that's a good one!
The only way for solar to get cheaper then coal is with the heavy hand of government. And we all know how well government picks winners.
BTW...How many share of Solyndra did you have?
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Solar is already cheaper than coal is sunnier markets. It will be cheaper than coal in MOST markets very soon: tiny cc/g9rk3
And, the cost of all fossil fuels is rising while the cost of renewables is steadily declining for wind and rapidly declining for solar.
Oh, and BTW, that's all WITHOUT subsidies.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt "Oh, and BTW, that's all WITHOUT subsidies."
I know it's Friday, but 12:15 is bit early to be pie eyed. Big Green has lobbied for and received billions.
You said: "Solyndra was a victim of the incredible successes of the solar industry." You have to be drunk. Solyndra was Obama paying back bundlers nothing more complicated. What about all the other green energy "investments"...billion gone with nothing to show except higher unemployment and vacant factories.
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Re: Solyndra. If you're talking about Kaiser, their foundation's investments in Solyndra did not benefit Kaiser financially, nor could they have. If you did a little research you'd find that Kaiser can only put money into that foundation. He can not take money out.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt "did not benefit Kaiser financially"
So corruption is ok so long as the participants did not benefit directly?...which they did by the way.
According to the WaPo the beneficiaries not the foundation: "The e-mails show discussion between Kaiser and Steve Mitchell, the manager of his family investment fund, who also served on Solyndra’s board, about how to appeal to the White House for assistance in winning federal contracts."
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist "Big Green" gets a tiny fraction of what "Big Oil" gets in subsidies even though they happen to be the largest and most profitable companies on the planet.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt "Big Oil subsidies"
Ok...looking at Exxon Mobile 2010 financial report....
gross revenue: $383,221 billion...
net expenses: $330,262 billion...
sales taxes collected passed to the government:...$28,547 billion
other taxes paid: $36,118 billion
income taxes: $21,561 billion
net income:$ 31,398 billion
Uhmmm...not one line regarding subsidies. Did I miss it...or are you fabricating "facts" again?
Meanwhile Big Green can not survive less the billions in subsidies.
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist You don't read financial reports much, do you.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist
You've been asking about those oil subsidies, so here's a fairly comprehensive list:
window(dot)state(dot)tx(dot)us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/
11111110 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SkepticalRealist
You've been asking about those oil subsidies, so here's a fairly comprehensive list:
window(dot)state(dot)tx(dot)us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/
11111110 3 months ago
FYI... Solyndra was a victim of the incredible successes of the solar industry. They couldn't keep up with the fall price of solar energy. It's a clear sign that the solar industry is extremely competitive and making incredible strides in bringing down the costs.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
SkepticalRealist
And how's the ever-increasing price of food going for you, due to an anti-vegetarian world that wastes over half the crops feeding livestock rather than people directly, while also causing global warming? How's that going for you?
Coal is unrealistic. Clean coal is a lie and a scam.
Obviously, you conservaturds live in a fantasy world. You never heard of Entropy and how it limits what useful technology we can get out of our labor.
mphello 3 months ago
@mphello "due to an anti-vegetarian world"
So food pricing is going up because of Big Meat? And here I thought the trillions poured into the monetary system is perhaps, maybe...devaluing the dollar. Never mind End the Fed...End the Department of Agriculture...not to catchy...how about Ax the Ag.
How does Entropy limit the useful technology we can get out of our labor?
Big Meat is causing global warming?
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist
= here I thought the trillions poured into the monetary system is perhaps,=
Yeah. That too. And the free-market religion. RT News had an excellent report about how when India had price controls, everybody ate. But when the IMF and free-market extremists got in and speculated on food, the poor in India starved.
Big Meat's contribution to GW has been well known for decades. Google it. Go to any of hundres of YT channels.
mphello 3 months ago
@mphello "RT News had an excellent report "
Well if it's on RT news, it's a sure thing. You can take it to the bank...or better yet bet your financial future on it, take to MF Global. Those guy always bet on sure things.
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist
= How does Entropy limit the useful technology we can get out of our labor?=
You're pretty stupid if you have to ask that question.
It means you'll spend more energy fixing cleanups of messes like Fukushima and Chernobyl than you'll get in electricity from them.
Look at France: massive riots against them dumping their nuclear waste onto Germany.
I thought they were so "successful" and "independent" with their nuclear program.
What a lie. Total BS.
mphello 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mphello "= How does Entropy limit the useful technology we can get out of our labor?="
So in your explanation useful technology is nuclear energy? Our labor is the money?
I'm sorry, have I been promoting nuclear energy? You must have me confused with the voice in your head?
This is me again mphello, (not the voice in your head) does useful technology and labor apply to solar panels as well.
Maybe I am the voice in your head....it's pretty empty up here...here....here.
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@paulbottomley42
Climate change is scary. So it is natural for those who believe that it is happening and cant prove it to lie about it so action will be taken.
IskurBlast 3 months ago
SkepticalMoron
The writers at SkepticalScience are awesome, aren't they? They are truly professional.
They can cite every single source, and it's a peer-reviewed source in the field of climatology,
not climastrology, like the wingnuts over at WUWT and the Kochbots.
Their attention to truth and detail is unsurpassed, except maybe for the IPCC.
mphello 3 months ago
Oh lord. This question again.
Will you eat the red pill or the blue pill?
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
potholer, your voice is like candy in my ear
MoralRapist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Your concept is not original. Tomorrow I will find the website that discusses this ridiculous idea. In the meantime look up Dunning-Krugger.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt Silly, Rob. D-K is all about people who can read the D-K paper and not recognize who its about.
541iceman 3 months ago
I just read SkepticalRealist's explanation of his theory. I have to say I agree with Iceman. He's plain stupid. A clear case of Dunning-Krugger.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt "He plain stupid"
Yet you can not explain why I'm wrong. So you can only pray I'm wrong... hope some AGW champion can put me in my place. But alas, only the hollow rantings of your fellow disciples. Not one of you can tell me were I'm wrong.
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Where you are wrong is stopping at Grade 10 with "PV=NRT". Should have gone to college.
541iceman 3 months ago
@541iceman
Ok iceman, since you are unable to articulate a specific fault with my reasoning let's start with yours. Tell me iceman, what is your favorite idealized greenhouse model?
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Tell me how the discussions with Spencer and Lindzen went.
Reasoning? So far you've told us that all that matters is that PV=NRT, which has nothing to to with radiative properties of different gases. Until you can move on past high school, you're a waste of time.
541iceman 3 months ago 2
@541iceman
So you've figured out his tactic, and why many of us were through arguing with him long ago. He takes some basic science principle, and uses hairbrained reasoning to cobble together some non-sequitur conclusion where he insists he MUST be right if said principle is true, that way he can make it out like you're arguing with a basic science principle, rather than the conclusion that it makes his case.
The argument differed slightly last I saw him, but the tactic is the same
Catamount1412 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@541iceman "nothing to to with radiative properties of different gases."
As I've been asking over and over again, point me to your favorite idealized GH model so we can get to the radiative transfer equations. This of course assumes you understand the model which you choose. At this point I'm dubious you have any idea what it is so vehemently defend.
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist "So you can only pray I'm wrong... hope some AGW champion can put me in my place."
You are in your place: struggling to understand the basics. Don't entertain the hope to get anywhere else, anytime soon.
Meurglys33 3 months ago 2
"The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what's included and what's left out."
Lol when I heard that I immediately thought, what's the big deal? That doesn't even sound bad out of context, I said almost exactly those words to a classmate I was helping prepare a presentation at a conference recently when he kept running too long. (He gets a bit excited and forgets he doesn't have to explain to a room full of microbiologists what a GC does lol)
Zeroethorder 3 months ago
@541iceman part II
The temperature will increase, due to the additional pressure. The pressure from the mass of the suddenly release GHGs. Mind you however, any suddenly release gas will yield similar results. And this pressurized higher temperature atmosphere will add to the thermal energy output of the planet.
Very easy to understand, no lower energy exciting higher energy. And unlike AGW demonstrable.
Citation: ideal gas law
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist Jeez, you're stupid. Have a nice life.
541iceman 3 months ago
@541iceman Name calling already. Boy you are so far over your head. But chin up iceman541, you did your very best considering...well you tried really hard.
SkepticalRealist 3 months ago
@SkepticalRealist OK, so I tried your ideal gas law calculation. Mass of atmosphere ~5x10^18kg. Mass of CO2 added over pre-industrial levels ~1x10^15kg. Resulting temperature rise ~0.06K. Even if your mechanism were valid it would account for less than 10% of the recent temperature rise.
Of course, your method is invalid because it is not an adiabatic change. The extra heat would have radiated away long ago.
KevinC112358 3 months ago
The game is up. A bunch of lying cheats and propagandists and they are still too stupid to realise that the public are on to them. Meanwhile the Planet is still cooling as is every level of the Atmosphere. Another boring rambling video from mr sarcasm.
david222444 3 months ago
@david222444 Care to show us where you find any data showing that the surface temp is showing any statistically significant cooling? Hmmm?
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt Find your own data you baby fed lazy sod. You prefer the fraudulent easy access stuff, pal reviewed no doubt. Get up off your arse and go look at satellite data, or are you too lazy? Hmmmmm. Crimeatologists will have a lot to answer for as cooling starts to accelerate.
david222444 3 months ago
@david222444 Trust me, I am far better informed on climate issues than you are.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt Trust you? We have a budding comedian. LOL
david222444 3 months ago
@david222444 I still know far more than you regarding climate issues.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt Yes and Santa will be coming soon. You believe that one too do you not?
david222444 3 months ago
@david222444
I've looked at a considerable amount of satellite data when occasions have called for it, and I've never seen anything that suggests a cooling trend in the Earth's temperature, let alone evidence that such a trend will grow in strength. I guess I'm just not as astute as you are.
Would you mind helping the slower among us and telling me which data set shows this?
Catamount1412 3 months ago
Thanks for going to all the trouble of reading [many of] those emails and informing us of the deception going on!! About these climate-change deniers - what? Have they been living in a cave for the last 40+ years? And even though the climate variatons observable within a human lifetime may not be ultimate proof, the rapid retreat and disappearance of many glaciers of ancient existence - hundreds, thousands of years old - is a significant indicator - as well as data from sea floor sediments.
WWZenaDo 3 months ago
Bam. potholer showing them who's boss.
Kelrash 3 months ago
The trick here is to take the word "trick" out of it's innocent context and blow it out of all proportion.
We all know where the REAL conspiracy lays.
jemborg 3 months ago
Climategate mark 2... Lol
Thumbs up if you think the Conspiracy Theorists will make this into a Trilogy!
Unicron4ever 3 months ago
The people who hacked these e-mail accounts are criminals. It's completely hypocritical for the same people to try to sentence Julian Assange to jail for what he's done, yet celebrate these hackers and say what they've done is fine.
Iceberg6606 3 months ago
Re the below text - I actually wanted to post the link to the IPCC website but for some reason this website wouldn't allow me to enter the link
wozza59 3 months ago
@wozza59 YT is funny about posting links. You can tiny the link at Tiny URL and then post the link removing the dot. Replace with a space or type [dot] in the dot's place.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt You're going to have to stop being so helpful...lol Thanks for your assistance.
wozza59 3 months ago
From the IPCC website
And it can thus be appreciated that 20th-century global warming was only to be expected to occur when it did, and that it could reasonably be expected that the region may warm even more before cooling again, for it still has a ways to go to equal the warmth of the Roman Warm Period or even the Medieval Warm Period, which in many locations was also warmer than it is currently.
wozza59 3 months ago
@wozza59 You might want to double check that. I believe it is a quote from the NIPCC, not the IPCC. The NIPCC is an oil industry backed response to the IPCC reports. In other words, not a credible source.
If you take the time to read any of the hundreds of papers on the MWP you find that the exact opposite is true.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
@robhoneycutt Yep thank you for that ... I apologise for my stupid error.
wozza59 3 months ago
@wozza59 Not a problem at all. That's exactly the mistake the NIPCC wants people to make.
robhoneycutt 3 months ago
yep, typical style of information leaders of the far right use. Cherry pick information that they want to hear and they will fill in the blanks to suport and defend thier prejudice.
masluxx 3 months ago
If the DOD is investing Billions of dollars for alternative fuel and energy, you can bet that global warming is real. It makes economic sense to get away from fossil fuels too. Those denying global warming are just morons who don't understand any of the science or economic issues.
shawn199500 3 months ago
Seventy percent of the world's population lives within 100 miles of an ocean coastline, so rising sea levels caused by global warming will create international security hazards that the Navy and its personnel will have to counter. The Navy has set a goal of making half of its bases net-zero energy facilities in about 10 years. It has also invested in hybrid ships and biofuels.
shawn199500 3 months ago
Ray Mabus, the Secretary of the Navy, has also been a strong proponent of renewables. In speeches, he's noted that one of the larger jobs for the Navy at the moment is protecting convoys for oil and gas into Afghanistan. Lives are being put at risk to protect fuel lines.
shawn199500 3 months ago
"La la la la la la la la la la la la la la I can't hear you!"
/Climate denial conspiracy nutter
flyingpigstuff 3 months ago
@potholer54 G'day... By Jove, y've harvested a right royal crop of Dingbats, & Frootluips, here ! Personally, I DO like the way Gaia's-Revenge manages to tailor the Savage Weather Events, to hammer where the Global Warming Denialists cluster the Closest. There's a Coal Mine at Dalby that's Bin-Flooded 3 times, in a year. As them Broadacre Agro-Culturists vacillate betwixt too Dry, & too Wet ; and the West OzTourist Traps are destroying houses, in Hazard Reduction Burns.
WarblesOnALot 3 months ago
@potholer54 thanks this made my day much better
flaredend 3 months ago
I can't figure out why anyone would be so vehemently opposed to making small alterations in their lifestyle to help the environment. Fucking conspiracy retards have got to be the absolute stupidest people on earth, right after muslims.
VanDammesCokeDealer 3 months ago
Thank you. It sad that there are so many gullible fools that buy into this "climate-gate" nonsense. Just the full letter at 3:10 demonstrates with absolute clarity that these people have no intellectual integrity at all. None.
codediporpal 3 months ago
Isn't it amazing that the lazy people who do no research are the most eager to get out there and start spouting all kinds of opinions? It's the most basic common sense. Don't talk about what you don't know. What the hell is their agenda even as idiots? None of these things impact them. Climate change sure as fuck doesn't either way. I guess being stupid n lazy gives them a strong desire to disagree with everything without research so that they can get attention and not feel like such a buffoon?
Reip187 3 months ago
"Well known problem called the 'divergence problem' "
- if you read the climategate2 emails, you'll find that a lot of insiders were concerned about this, and didn't think it was justifiable to 'hide the decline'
- rather that it tended to undermine the theory that trees can act as thermometers.
- since, obviously, if trees fail to track temps in modern times (for reasons unknown), then it doesn't take an Einstein to work out that they probably didn't track temperatures 1000 years ago either.
samurai1999 3 months ago
@samurai1999
You do realize for a majority of the record they agreed to a very high degree, secondly it's only some trees that diverge and other proxies which agreed with the same length of time also still agree today indicating that they are reliable proxies but something affected trees being reliable proxies over the last few decades and didn't cause other proxies to diverge.
Besides, the biggest reason why AGW is accepted is the physics not reconstructions.
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21
The tree-thermometers agree in the calibration period
- because that is what the selection & calibration processes are designed to do
- and outside the calibration period, they drift back to a sort of default base line.
- it's been shown by people both inside & outside the climate-team, that you get the same effect with red or white noise
- i.e. there's no actual information there
- the graphs you see are largely a product of the processing done on the data (and wishful thinking!)
samurai1999 3 months ago
@samurai1999
So your response to using processes to avoid getting false results which are known to occur by other scientific studies so they can use the tools properly is "it must be a dishonest scam" even when there are cases where they're open about disagreements with measured temperatures. Not to mention you're also ignoring non tree proxies in your attempt at an explanation.
garith21 3 months ago
@samurai1999
By the way, using your poor reasoning, we can't trust thermometers because they had to go through a calibration processes and anything that goes through a calibration processes is only a result of "wishful thinking" rather than well reasoned and understood processes and measurements.
garith21 3 months ago
Comment removed
samurai1999 3 months ago
I guess the short answer is that they are based on a simple physical principle that is consistent, repeatable and verifiable.
I agree that if tree-mometers were actually reliable as thermometers, then we would still need to calibrate in some way
- say, 0.1mm ring width = 0.1C or what ever.
- but the problem is that 1) samples are *selected*, then 2) calibrated against measured temps.
This process *will* produce a hockey-stick from random noise!
samurai1999 3 months ago
An example of a good proxy would be Carbon Dating - where the decay of one isotope of Carbon to another is used as method of dating when the carbon in an object was fixed from the atmosphere.
- again it's based on a known, consistent, predicable, verifiable physical principle.
- and very little effects the decay of the carbon in the material
Compare that with trees, where the list of things that effect tree growth is both long and not fully characterised.
samurai1999 3 months ago
@samurai1999
Carbon dating also goes through calibration processes and efforts also need to be made to take into account known problems when applying it just like tree ring growth. For example, how many times have you heard about seals dating to thousands of years old that died recently, this is because of the reservoir effect.
"where the list of things that effect tree growth is both long and not fully characterised."
yet you can compensate because different types leave different fingerprints
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21 You're right, Carbon dating (even when your seal hasn't eaten food that has been part of the food chain for thousands of years) needs calibrating to take into account variations in the C14 concentration over the millennia.
You're going to have to help me on this, but what are the things that effect tree ring growth, and how are they compensated for?
samurai1999 3 months ago
@samurai1999
1) Actually the reservoir effect is when organisms consume primarily aquatic life or get their carbon based materials from underwater sources because the carbon under water is "older" than that in the atmosphere resulting in an artificially aged organism which is why it's not used on underwater organisms.
2) Primarily temperature and rainfall, in fact one of the major reasons the SB03 paper was considered bad is because they claimed that it was only one factor when making claims.
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21 I was hoping you would come out with a longer list, but, ok, I'll help you:
temperature induced drought stress, non-linear thresholds, time-dependent delayed snow melt and related changes in seasonality, global dimming, ozone depletion
(ok, these are just some possible explanations for the divergence problem, but hey, this is a science, right?).
CO2 fertilization, nutrient availability, fires.
samurai1999 3 months ago
@samurai1999
Again, other proxies still agree and there's error bars for a reason. If you're simply going to argue we can't know anything about past climate based on proxies that's fine, but it doesn't eliminate the basic physics and observations that indicate AGW. The only thing that knowledge of previous climate can do is offer potential context.
garith21 3 months ago
@samurai1999
Lastly, let me get this right, you don't know anything about the process but claim it's flawed? Do you realize the amount of rigorous work that goes into selecting proper sites as to reduce the effects of other stressors that can affect tree ring width. You do also realize that there are other temperature proxies that still agree with thermometers in regards to temperatures and reconstructions right?
garith21 3 months ago
@garith21 LOL!
samurai1999 3 months ago