|
Post by socold on Sept 18, 2009 20:59:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 18, 2009 21:36:10 GMT
I seriously doubt that the replacement of oil and coal will be further along in 50 years. More likely the world will have shifted more of the flow of these power sources to the rest of the world and places like the UK and USA will be struggling with ever increasing costs of acquisition as well as increasing cost of government taxation. Great, if you speak Mandarin, and unfortunate otherwise. No, the only reason we wouldn't slowly transition away from fossil fuels within the next 50 years is if they were abundant enough that the costs DIDN'T go above the cost of renewables or nuclear. For similar reasons...we SHOULDN'T switch to renewables right now because the cost per unit of energy is substantially higher THEN the highly intermittent nature of those renewable sources means they require we spend an ADDITIONAL 30+% to build enough backup capacity to buffer out the horrible swings in output.
|
|
|
Post by richdo on Sept 19, 2009 0:05:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 19, 2009 1:28:15 GMT
Socold: The science is settled. The earth is cooling. There is no reason to deny it and to do so suggests that you are funded by groups with alternative agendas. Signed, Algore
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 19, 2009 13:04:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by william on Sept 19, 2009 13:12:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 19, 2009 13:30:23 GMT
You can dance around it, but the problem for your side is that it did not warm much, and now it is not cooling much. You made a great deal out of very little. Your guys claimed to see great trends from very small moves hard to distinguish from natural variability. Even now Hansen is selling out lecture halls selling his 'tipping points' and calling for trying skeptics. And in the big things, OHC, storms, ice and temperatures, you have just been plain wrong. So dodge weave and dance all you care to. You have lost the science, and you will lose the politics as well, with any luck.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 19, 2009 14:12:42 GMT
The problem for your side is you are basing your arguments on a short time period and you won't address the obvious flaws with doing this because you are hell bent on prematurely claiming AGW has "lost the science".
Why don't you explain how the 2002-present trend is inconsistent with global temperatures continuing a long term upward trend?
Could it not be the case that warming over the 2002-present period has been masked by declining ENSO and declining solar cycle over this period?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 19, 2009 14:20:29 GMT
The problem for your side is you are basing your arguments on a short time period and you won't address the obvious flaws with doing this because you are hell bent on prematurely claiming AGW has "lost the science". Why don't you explain how the 2002-present trend is inconsistent with global temperatures continuing a long term upward trend? Could it not be the case that warming over the 2002-present period has been masked by declining ENSO and declining solar cycle over this period? I notice you didn't include sea level rise on your list, that "it's stopped rising" horse has now bolted ( sealevel.colorado.edu/) but we were at once point reassured by skeptics that sea level rise had ended just as they continue to claim OHC and sea ice rises and declines have ended. Your side confabulated a dangerous trend in the first place. Nothing has happened over the last 10-20-30-50-100-200 year time frame that supports the AGW predictions of apocalypse. And you have not addressed the failure of of AGW predictions regarding specifics of OHC. AGW is created by GCMs that have failed. In real science, when a model does not work you go fix the model. IN AGW, your side pretends the data is bad, changes the argument, or lobbies to criminalize dissent. When Boeing designs a plane and its testing fails the models, they find out what went wrong with the model that made the bad prediction, fix the model, fix the plane, and move on. AGW completely rejects that. Why?
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 19, 2009 14:22:24 GMT
AGW promoters assert something that is not true constantly.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 19, 2009 16:17:59 GMT
Nothing has happened over the last 10-20-30-50-100-200 year time frame that supports the AGW predictions of apocalypse. There are no predictions of "apocalypse". Obviously the effects of climate change are proportional to climate change and so the most significant effects will be seen in the coming century not now. AGW predictions are that OHC will continue rising. The recent flat period was not a "failure" of this prediction. The prediction would only be a failure if OHC doesn't rise over coming decades. Beware of prematurely assuming a longterm trend has stopped: sealevel.colorado.edu/The models haven't failed. Your argument is once again based on a false premise.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 19, 2009 16:54:14 GMT
The problem for your side is you are basing your arguments on a short time period and you won't address the obvious flaws with doing this because you are hell bent on prematurely claiming AGW has "lost the science". Why don't you explain how the 2002-present trend is inconsistent with global temperatures continuing a long term upward trend? Could it not be the case that warming over the 2002-present period has been masked by declining ENSO and declining solar cycle over this period? LOL, it could be...or it could just be that they were originally to blame for most of the warming. The problem is if they're masking warming now then they were the cause of at least some warming earlier...and we're back to the total anomaly not hitting more than about 1C by 2100. This is the problem with the current AGW hypothesis...the ludicrous sensitivity/feedbacks. It wouldn't be so bad but the earth's climate hasn't actually shown the sensitivity suggested.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 19, 2009 17:42:32 GMT
The longterm contribution can be zero even if ENSO masks or enhances warming every few years.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 19, 2009 18:14:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 19, 2009 21:30:53 GMT
Just one of many published accounts noting that prominent climate researchers (leaders of AGW theory) are starting to acknowledge the 12-year drop in global temperatures, the drop in ocean temperatures and the inability of computer models to accurately predict those climatic events not-with-standing recent natural phenomena. If only AGW followers would understand that their religion is falling apart at the seams, the science generated thus far could possibly lead to some useful purposes. But those people are far too vested in AGW religion to admit that their are many problems with their doctrine. Thus, they argue minor points and see things in the data that are not there.
|
|