Global Cooling

[rwh11385]

Not as ridiculous as you trying to advocate graphs and models that are failing and will keep failing because they are based on nothing but someone's need for a certain outcome.

Hmmm, you once again ignored all the scientific fundamentals it is based upon. I guess you show that ignorance is bliss and also freedom to claim anything.

[Fusion]

The study of gravity does not need a panel to advocate for its research because there aren't groups that deny it exists, because that would be ridiculous.

Not as ridiculous as you trying to advocate graphs and models that are failing and will keep failing because they are based on nothing but someone's need for a certain outcome.

[rwh11385]

so I'll ask again. why should anyone believe the IPCC, Alfred Gorebasm, you and any other pro global warming extremist when your continuing predictions are proven wrong, time and time again??

"the heat is somewhere" is laughable. and when you and your friends "find" it please let us all know.

back to netflix....

You don't have to listen to Gore or IPCC (political voices) but you ought to learn the most basic facts about the fundamentals of science before saying that the science is made up or lies, especially since your sources are the Heartland Institute and a college dropout. But you don't care about truth and think that what you want to hear is the only thing you'll accept (confirmation bias). To you anyone who doesn't buy the BS you do is a proGW "extremist" rather than someone who doesn't like science attacked by someone illogical and poorly informed.

[gwb72tii]

Energy doesn't disappear nor is it created or destroyed. Heat that has not demonstrated itself as predicted on the surface is somewhere.

so I'll ask again. why should anyone believe the IPCC, Alfred Gorebasm, you and any other pro global warming extremist when your continuing predictions are proven wrong, time and time again??

"the heat is somewhere" is laughable. and when you and your friends "find" it please let us all know.

back to netflix....

[rwh11385]

aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaaaaa

its fucking hiding. aaaaahahahahHahahahahahahahahahah

and for those that don't follow this too closely, we don't have global warming because............drumroll............all the missing energy (heat) is in the deep ocean, below 700 meters. CO2 has entered the realm where it has magical powers, causing heat to go down, not up, and hide. the new AGW excuse for why the planet has not warmed in 17 years.

Not accounting for it based on an assumption does change the amount of heat at the surface (duh), but does not negate physics or the scientific fundamentals as a whole.

CO2 hasn't caused heat to go down, as mentioned a reduction in solar activity has reduced the input but greenhouse effect has kept our planet's near the highest in recorded history.

Energy doesn't disappear nor is it created or destroyed. Heat that has not demonstrated itself as predicted on the surface is somewhere.

Of course, if you don't give a shit about science or reality, you George are free to make ignorant claims and be happy with your false conclusions instead of dealing in truth. You believe what you want to without concern for facts and have been brainwashed by those who profit from your ignorance.

[rwh11385]

from the Paul Krugman school of "Winning debate by being the biggest jerk"
glad you paid attention in class rwh and can emulate your idol

Better than the gwb school of arguing from a position of ignorance and fallacies. You can claim anything if you don't care about facts or the truth.

[gwb72tii]

The additional heat found in deep ocean water

aaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaaaaa

its fucking hiding. aaaaahahahahHahahahahahahahahahah

and for those that don't follow this too closely, we don't have global warming because............drumroll............all the missing energy (heat) is in the deep ocean, below 700 meters. CO2 has entered the realm where it has magical powers, causing heat to go down, not up, and hide. the new AGW excuse for why the planet has not warmed in 17 years.

[gwb72tii]

based solely on your complete lack of understanding of them, and lack of comprehension

arguments from ignorance? Are you just pointlessly rambling while avoiding to answer anything meaningful because you are scared to confirm that you are a fool?

unless you are completely ignorant and don't care about reality.

you just have to be capable of reading, at all.

people who profit from dino fuel don't care about that or their grandchildren, just maintaining status quo by attacking science and protecting their current business.


I'm not sure if he and Fusion are scientifically illiterate, or just simply illiterate.

from the Paul Krugman school of "Winning debate by being the biggest jerk"
glad you paid attention in class rwh and can emulate your idol

[rwh11385]

Your first sentance doesn't make sense in regards to what I wrote.

I'm sorry you are not capable of understanding it, that's on you.

The study of gravity does not need a panel to advocate for its research because there aren't groups that deny it exists, because that would be ridiculous. However, when people profit from the burning of fossils and do not like the consequences of studying the implications of such on the Earth and mankind, then it somehow becomes alright to attack science?

Attacking the politics associated with it does not negate the scientific fundamentals - true, the IPCC's actions negate them.

So your statement is that the IPCC's actions negate the scientific fundamentals of the greenhouse effect and the conservation of energy????



Congrats for the most ignorant post in the entire thread.

btw,

1638 - Galileo investigated conservation of potential energy and kinetic energy back and forth
1842 - Julius Robert von Mayer mechanical equivalence principle
1843 - James Prescott Joule also independently discovered mechanical equivalent between thermal and potential energy
1844 - William Robert Grove related mechanics, heat, light, electricity, and magnetism and then in 1874 published theories in The Correlation of Physical Forces, which built upon Joule's and Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnott's work [the latter provides us a framework to understand maximum efficiency of a heat engine, unless this is to be ignored in the argument that hybrids are stupid and pointless]


1824 - Joseph Fourier argues for the existence of greenhouse effect (his name should be familiar for his series in math and also his law in regards to conduction heat transfer)
1859 - Experimental observations in regards to greenhouse effect by John Tyndall
1896 - Greenhouse effect more quantified by Svante Arrhenius (as in Arrhenius' equation)
1917 - Alexander Graham Bell wrote about the depletion of natural resources and how the unchecked burning of fossil fuels would lead to a greenhouse effect.


1988 - IPCC formed


And for some reason, you seem to believe that the existence of a political panel to advise people on the impact of climate change or its actions can in any way change the fundamentals of science or negate long-understood physics?

Yet again, you prove that instead of be able to provide an explanation of how you have decided that the science is debunked, you base your objection purely on hatred for the politics while ignoring science.

[Fusion]

Your first sentance doesn't make sense in regards to what I wrote.
Attacking the politics associated with it does not negate the scientific fundamentals - true, the IPCC's actions negate them.

[rwh11385]

The study of gravitational acceleration does not have its own political panel that advises polititians what to do and that needs prefabricated results in order to keep the panel funded.

Nor are there people who profit from denying gravity exists.

Again, attacking the politics associated with it does not negate the scientific fundamentals. The science in which climate change is rooted predates any panel to advise about the implications of it.

[Fusion]

The study of gravitational acceleration does not have its own political panel that advises polititians what to do and that needs prefabricated results in order to keep the panel funded.

[rwh11385]

The science is failing. Either that or your buddies over at the IPCC have gone batshit.

I would think someone like you would understanding what failing at science actually is, but re-calibration of factors does not mean the fundamentals have been debunked. As the Earth is studied more with more data and research, there will be better understanding. The additional heat found in deep ocean water would have an influence on reduced surface temperature increases, as well as predictions would be changed with changing solar input.

It's like saying a preliminary estimate of gravitational acceleration of 10.8 m/s^2 means the science of gravity is fundamentally wrong. But even including a slightly off value would be more accurate than assuming absolutely no gravity and further data and research have helped to dial in the precise value.

[Fusion]

The science is failing. Either that or your buddies over at the IPCC have gone batshit.

As a result of the hiatus, explained Marotzke, the IPCC report’s chapter 11 revised the assessment of near-term warming downwards from the “raw” CMIP5 model range. It also included an additional 10% reduction because some models have a climate sensitivity that’s slightly too high.

[rwh11385]

I'm not denying science and technology are great things. But those great things they produce for the most part have contributed to the destruction of our environment. Environmental destruction created by man's intelligence is as old as civilization itself. One can say it is an unfortunate evolutionary byproduct of our intelligence. Petroleum has essentially allowed the 20th century to be as innovated as it was. We would not have 7 billion people on this planet without it. Before petroleum it was coal, before that it was wood. We seem to find the next great energy source just in time to progress civilization. The energy has been progressively more energy dense and cleaner, therefore allowing the population to grow with it. But we reached a tipping point of being too large for our planet's resources, about 100 years ago when our population reached around 2 billion people. So we either need to reduce the population to closer to 2 billion people, which nature may do for us, or find a new energy source that will allow us to live with our current comforts at the current population. So far I haven't seen any that will accomplish that. And considering the climate will be drastically different in the next 100 years, with about 50% loss in animal species and ocean life, I'm not sure the 2 billion people will be a sustainable amount in the future anyway.
It reminds me of the title of an album I bought when I was 11 from the Dead Kennedy's, "Give me Convenience or Give me Death". ...so true.

Okay Malthus... :roll:

http://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_Capacity.pdf