|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 10, 2010 23:20:40 GMT
AJ writes: "More vague cooling statements from the Bastard." You have outdone yourself in maladroit pidgin. Not to say that you won't beat your own record one of these days. When I lived and worked in France I never dared try a pun on a person's name that might be perceived as offensive. Jamais, jamais, jamais. As you're generally advocating AGW dogma, it would be wise of me to let you bring your side down with your disrespectful demeanor. So, on second thought, carry on. ;D I will carry on, thanks. I do want to state however that I do not dislike skeptics (the father of my girlfriend is one), but I do really dislike Bastardi, because of his overly arrogant attitude. That's just my personal opinion, so if you don't like it, I suggest not reading my posts. Anyway, I would be nice if he in is self proclaimed greatness would specify some of his claims so that they can be tested.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 10, 2010 23:59:02 GMT
AJ writes: "More vague cooling statements from the Bastard." You have outdone yourself in maladroit pidgin. Not to say that you won't beat your own record one of these days. When I lived and worked in France I never dared try a pun on a person's name that might be perceived as offensive. Jamais, jamais, jamais. As you're generally advocating AGW dogma, it would be wise of me to let you bring your side down with your disrespectful demeanor. So, on second thought, carry on. ;D I will carry on, thanks. I do want to state however that I do not dislike skeptics (the father of my girlfriend is one), but I do really dislike Bastardi, because of his overly arrogant attitude. That's just my personal opinion, so if you don't like it, I suggest not reading my posts. Anyway, I would be nice if he in is self proclaimed greatness would specify some of his claims so that they can be tested. NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, Bastardi lays it all out. You could do your own homework and compare his forecasts to NOAA, but why do that when ad hominem is soooo easy? Also, people actually pay for Bastardi's forecasts and expect a return on their investment. If he's wrong, can he force his clients to pay anyway? Unlike publicly funded multi-million dollar agenda driven behemoths like NOAA, NASA, Met O etc. which just stand there with their grubby hands out waiting for the next welfare check (if they tow the CAGW line), Bastardi is out on the street if he loses face. What is the consequence when NOAA loses face? A new bureaucracy is created loaded with the same propagandist that ran NOAA.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Mar 11, 2010 0:13:06 GMT
AJ writes: "More vague cooling statements from the Bastard." You have outdone yourself in maladroit pidgin. Not to say that you won't beat your own record one of these days. When I lived and worked in France I never dared try a pun on a person's name that might be perceived as offensive. Jamais, jamais, jamais. As you're generally advocating AGW dogma, it would be wise of me to let you bring your side down with your disrespectful demeanor. So, on second thought, carry on. ;D I will carry on, thanks. I do want to state however that I do not dislike skeptics (the father of my girlfriend is one), but I do really dislike Bastardi, because of his overly arrogant attitude. That's just my personal opinion, so if you don't like it, I suggest not reading my posts. Anyway, I would be nice if he in is self proclaimed greatness would specify some of his claims so that they can be tested. OK, good, your father's girlfriend is a skeptic, therefore you do not dislike skeptics. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 11, 2010 3:46:34 GMT
A while back I posted this graph with a bit of sarcasm: According to this paper, the stratosphere not only hasn't been cooling, it has been warming since 1996, so the graph wasn't far off. I'll be waiting for socold to provide a link to skepticalscience for his latest rewriting of AGW history. It will probably go something like this: Nobody ever said the stratosphere would cool just from GHG. Stratospheric warming is consistent with AGW theory Just for fun, I Googled tinyurl.com/yjm5s8g
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 11, 2010 13:22:25 GMT
A while back I posted this graph with a bit of sarcasm: According to this paper, the stratosphere not only hasn't been cooling, it has been warming since 1996, so the graph wasn't far off. I'll be waiting for socold to provide a link to skepticalscience for his latest rewriting of AGW history. It will probably go something like this: Nobody ever said the stratosphere would cool just from GHG. Stratospheric warming is consistent with AGW theory Just for fun, I Googled tinyurl.com/yjm5s8gOne of the more annoying-yet-entertaining aspects of the AGW community is how they do not admit to being even slightly bothered by the contradictory, non-falsifiable claims of the AGW promoters. In religion, amazing faith based claims are OK- but in science they are oxymoronic.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 11, 2010 14:06:44 GMT
I will carry on, thanks. I do want to state however that I do not dislike skeptics (the father of my girlfriend is one), but I do really dislike Bastardi, because of his overly arrogant attitude. That's just my personal opinion, so if you don't like it, I suggest not reading my posts. Anyway, I would be nice if he in is self proclaimed greatness would specify some of his claims so that they can be tested. NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, Bastardi lays it all out. You could do your own homework and compare his forecasts to NOAA, but why do that when ad hominem is soooo easy? Also, people actually pay for Bastardi's forecasts and expect a return on their investment. If he's wrong, can he force his clients to pay anyway? Unlike publicly funded multi-million dollar agenda driven behemoths like NOAA, NASA, Met O etc. which just stand there with their grubby hands out waiting for the next welfare check (if they tow the CAGW line), Bastardi is out on the street if he loses face. What is the consequence when NOAA loses face? A new bureaucracy is created loaded with the same propagandist that ran NOAA. Nonsense. I wasn't talking about his forecasts but I dislike his attitude. Am I allowed to do and express that or what? You guys almost respond like he's your holy prophet. And you should listen to yourself in the way you talk about climate scientists, the NOAA, IPCC etc. Come on, get a life. It seems like you are only allowed to insult people/institutions here which are AGW proponent. woodstove: Finally, you got it. -growl grrr growl growl- Anyway, y'all are right, you should not attack someone when he's not able to fight back, so I will -try- to keep it down, ok? Let's get back OT. ps: I've removed any offensive name-calling in my previous post. ps2: I have always thought the NOAA statement to be rather bold and arrogant too, as it is clear that we understand rather little of the earth's environment, and cannot produce any detailed forecasts of it.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Mar 11, 2010 14:30:07 GMT
A while back I posted this graph with a bit of sarcasm: According to this paper, the stratosphere not only hasn't been cooling, it has been warming since 1996, so the graph wasn't far off. I'll be waiting for socold to provide a link to skepticalscience for his latest rewriting of AGW history. It will probably go something like this: Nobody ever said the stratosphere would cool just from GHG. Stratospheric warming is consistent with AGW theory Just for fun, I Googled tinyurl.com/yjm5s8gMm, I'm not sure. I thought I read somewhere that a cooling stratosphere is to be expected from AGW, and that this might have an effect on the ozone concentrations here. However, there are MANY other factors influencing stratospheric temperatures, so I would not go as far as saying that a cooling stratosphere is due to AGW. If you've ever worked in natural sciences then it would not surprise you that often contradictory results are obtained. The field of lightning and cloud charging physics, in which I have some experience is a notable example.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Mar 11, 2010 15:56:10 GMT
..... If you've ever worked in natural sciences then it would not surprise you that often contradictory results are obtained. ..... unless it is about AGW.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 11, 2010 17:54:53 GMT
A while back I posted this graph with a bit of sarcasm: According to this paper, the stratosphere not only hasn't been cooling, it has been warming since 1996, so the graph wasn't far off. I'll be waiting for socold to provide a link to skepticalscience for his latest rewriting of AGW history. It will probably go something like this: Nobody ever said the stratosphere would cool just from GHG. Stratospheric warming is consistent with AGW theory Just for fun, I Googled tinyurl.com/yjm5s8gMm, I'm not sure. I thought I read somewhere that a cooling stratosphere is to be expected from AGW, and that this might have an effect on the ozone concentrations here. However, there are MANY other factors influencing stratospheric temperatures, so I would not go as far as saying that a cooling stratosphere is due to AGW. If you've ever worked in natural sciences then it would not surprise you that often contradictory results are obtained. The field of lightning and cloud charging physics, in which I have some experience is a notable example. I get very snarky about some topics because as in this case it is not arguable two of the main tenets of AGW is the tropical troposphere hot spot and stratospheric cooling. Look at the data. The "trend" (warmers love trends) is not a trend at all, but a result of step changes caused by two major volcano events. Is it any coincidence the cooling stopped during the last 16+ years when no large volcano has erupted? Rather than say you thought you read somewhere, wouldn't it be easy to just look it up? (sorry, tinyrul not available on this PC) www.google.com/search?hl=en&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=global+warming+causes+stratospheric+cooling&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Specifically: www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/2__Ozone/-_Cooling_nd.htmlNow compare to the link the latest data in the paper I linked to: www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdfOne can argue the analysis if faulty, but come on aj, you're sounding like a politician. P.S. Do not patronize others by suggesting they cannot use logical reasoning because they are not in the "natural sciences" field. If someone says A=B+C, it had better be so. I get pitches constantly from slick salesmen trying to convince me their product will save our company loads of money, but after running the numbers it usually ends up being a lot of fluff.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 12, 2010 3:31:57 GMT
Actually, the response to AGW will save someone loads of paychecks. IF in doubt, look at Spain, or even California.
Seems their "solution" has enabled their unemployment to exceed 20% in some areas. Just think of all the savings!!!!!
(please ignore the economic impact of not signing paychecks)
|
|
|
Post by karlox on Mar 12, 2010 7:20:29 GMT
Actually, the response to AGW will save someone loads of paychecks. IF in doubt, look at Spain, or even California. Seems their "solution" has enabled their unemployment to exceed 20% in some areas. Just think of all the savings!!!!! (please ignore the economic impact of not signing paychecks) Sigurdur, First time I´ve heard or read that Spain´s Pro Clean Energies policies were a major cause of our unbearable unemployment rate; even from our oposition´s parties -both to the right or left of the political spectrum- and being very critic with Zapatero´s Government´s economic policies such direct claim was never done to my knowledge Facts which may establish some key clues for a more accurate analysis on Spain´s economic crisis would be: - Changes in legislation regarding building requirements and land availability, letting free every city town or village in this country to decide were and how much to build; consequently farm-lands, natural protected territories and some of our scarce forest were devastaded by a building-madness lobby in close complicity with local politicians from all parties... Corruption and a big Housing bubble economie which we all knew one day would explode. -millions of people working and living from the outstanding building wave of mainly second-residence and touristic type apartments everywhere inland and -above all- shoreland properties. -Millions of people getting 30-40-50y mortgages covering up to 120% of propertíes market value. -Housing prices increases of 5,10,15 and up to 20% per year (good to invest in houses, everybody thought) -Little or no care about enviroment or the future for "our children" just greed and greed everywhere. And next you know: international finantial crisis shaking our countries basements, domino´s effect and the bubble exploded... -nowadays first House seller´s in Spain are the Banks which are desperately trying to sell out the properties unwillingly coming back to them due to increasing debtors due to jobs lost. I could go on telling you how much energetically dependant we are, how sensible to possible oil prices increases our economy is... Yes, we are getting inot a new type of economy which encourages clean energies investments and researches, windmills production peaked up to over 30% of our energy consumption some days... it´s not cheap but it´s getting cheaper and both wind and sun are free... It´s a long-term investments, doing things rights for one time and not just seeking a rapid enrichment. This is not the solution to our short-term probles indeed; but I can´t hardly see how could it be as bad to us as to explain our unbearable unemployment rate, affecting especially inmigrants from Africa and Sout America that came by millions under the irresistible glow of our unsustainable growth based in house building during these past 15 years.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 12, 2010 9:18:34 GMT
Yes, we are getting inot a new type of economy which encourages clean energies investments and researches, windmills production peaked up to over 30% of our energy consumption some days... it´s not cheap but it´s getting cheaper and both wind and sun are free... It´s a long-term investments, doing things rights for one time and not just seeking a rapid enrichment. Let me bottom line this for you as simply as I can. All sources of energy are free...we pay costs to harvest that energy. Sunlight, wind, coal, oil...nobody "manufactured" these products. You pay someone for using what's under their land just as you'd pay someone for using the sunlight/wind that you harvest above it...and you keep on paying them. As for it getting cheaper. Yes, it does get cheaper as the technology develops. Unfortunately most of the costs for alternative energy are up front. So you pay for a system that can generate power at 30cents per kw/hr. In 10 years it may be cheaper but TOO FREAKING BAD! Your costs are averaged out over the lifetime of the equipment you purchased. New systems may be able to make power at 15cents per kw/hr but you don't have those. You were an early adopter and are locked into 30cents. While you're at it of course you have destroyed your local economy by forcing them to pay for it. This is hidden many times with subsidies...but the bottom line is the bottom line. SOMEONE is going to pay that 30cents per kw/hr and that means someone will have higher costs and won't be competitive. So...what will it be? Early adoption of a crappy, immature technology that provides intermittent power at incredibly high prices...or just waiting a decade or so (because it really isn't a problem at all) and then letting people rush on their own to adopt the new technology...not because of some moronic hysteria about a degree or two of warming...but because its cheaper?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 12, 2010 13:21:36 GMT
karlox, Getting energy from expensive, undependable sources like wind will never work unless supported by large amounts of public money. And large amounts of public money will never last, over time. Additionally, highly inefficient energy sources, like wind, cost jobs because more work goes into getting the energy than into doing things with it. And those jobs are supported by taxes, not sales. So the money leaves the productive sector, goes to the subsidized sector, and results in hegher prices and less energy.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 13, 2010 1:37:43 GMT
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 13, 2010 2:17:01 GMT
Karlox: The Economist magazine had a very good article recently about Spain and the cost of manufacturing etc there. The rise in energy prices has effectively driven Spain out of the world of manufacturing. And then the tax's to pay the subsidies have made it such an expensive country to do business in that the business and capital are fleeing at a very alarming rate.
The Green Economy of Spain is thought to have increased unemployment by over 10%. That is huge.
|
|