Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience.

[Yonivore]

I'm sorry since when do the scientists work for Reuters and write bylines? If you and others were smart enough to tell the difference between a scientific study and a news article it might do you some good.

Tell you what. Show me the place in the referenced study either of those 2 things are declared.

Thanks in advance!!!!

You should be so lucky that people would quit reporting on the global warming fraud.

"This study suggests the missing energy has indeed been buried in the ocean," NCAR's Kevin Trenberth, a co-author of the study, said in a statement. "The heat has not disappeared and so it cannot be ignored. It must have consequences."

I'm guessing the Reuters reporter based the story on this NCAR study by Kevin Trenberth.

And, seeing as how the study relies on data through 2010, I can't imagine this was something that was figured into the early models.

If they've known this for some time, why wasn't it figured into the models earlier?

[MannyIsGod]

I've got a question for you, Yoni. Why do you think Trenberth decided to study the possibility of heat being stored deep in the oceans? Perhaps because he suspected that was the case? Just maybe?

You should look for older quotes from Trenberth. Let me know what you find.


You continue to display a fundamentally flawed idea of how science is carried out. Its a little more thorough than your chosen method of analysis. I know that you love to run off and invade countries based on bad evidence, but science prefers to confirm su ions before leaping. I pretty much just answered the above question for you - maybe this way you'll figure it out.

Notice, I didn't say that it was "known". I said the belief has been around for quite some time and this is part of the process of finding out whether that su ion is right or if there are other or scenarios. The ocean has ALWAYS been at the center of understanding global warming and anyone who understands mass, volume, and specific heat will be able to explain why quite easily.

[Wild Cobra]

I've got a question for you, Yoni. Why do you think Trenberth decided to study the possibility of heat being stored deep in the oceans? Perhaps because he suspected that was the case? Just maybe?

You should look for older quotes from Trenberth. Let me know what you find.


You continue to display a fundamentally flawed idea of how science is carried out. Its a little more thorough than your chosen method of analysis. I know that you love to run off and invade countries based on bad evidence, but science prefers to confirm su ions before leaping. I pretty much just answered the above question for you - maybe this way you'll figure it out.

Manny...

Aren't you one of the deniers that the ocean stores heat, and we see tha lag of that latent heat?

[Ignignokt]

It doesn't really matter if climate change is occuring. That's not the real issue. It's only an issue because somehow one side is alleging this can be fixed if we radically change the economic structure and ins ute command economies, keep third world countries from developing and decreasing our quality of life.

So can anyone tell me if we're just arguing for symbolic gestures to make ourselves feel good, or are we actually believing that any bull action we take now is gonna thwart a day of reckoning?

[MannyIsGod]

Manny...

Aren't you one of the deniers that the ocean stores heat, and we see tha lag of that latent heat?

Deny that it stores heat? Of course the ocean stores heat and it stores far more heat than the atmosphere. Where have I ever denied this?

What I deny is your assertion that the heat is somehow been there for extended periods of time and that it is now the cause of atmospheric heating. For that to be the case the ocean would need to be cooling and the obvious thermal expansion combined with actual temp measurements confirm that is not the case.

This is fundamental chemistry/physics and is not very hard to understand. Were the ocean cooling we would not be seeing what we are seeing.

[Wild Cobra]

What I deny is your assertion that the heat is somehow been there for extended periods of time and that it is now the cause of atmospheric heating. For that to be the case the ocean would need to be cooling and the obvious thermal expansion combined with actual temp measurements confirm that is not the case.

Yep...

You are the denier.

[MannyIsGod]

It doesn't really matter if climate change is occuring. That's not the real issue. It's only an issue because somehow one side is alleging this can be fixed if we radically change the economic structure and ins ute command economies, keep third world countries from developing and decreasing our quality of life.

So can anyone tell me if we're just arguing for symbolic gestures to make ourselves feel good, or are we actually believing that any bull action we take now is gonna thwart a day of reckoning?

Well, the political boat has sailed. Personally, I study the situation because I've got a deep curiosity as to how these systems function and what the results are. I think that we could have made some not too difficult changes and I think that in the next 100 years climate change will impact us and hurt more than any small measures we could undertake now would have. You don't have to send the economy into a tailspin to change some fundamentals and have a huge impact but with the denial of the science being at the level its at it simply isn't realistic at all.

I don't really concern myself with the situation politically and worst case scenario it will provide me employment opportunities well into the future.

I don't by any means think the survival of the human race is at stake. I do think it will have serious impacts that will cost a lot of money in the coming century.

[Ignignokt]

Deny that it stores heat? Of course the ocean stores heat and it stores far more heat than the atmosphere. Where have I ever denied this?

What I deny is your assertion that the heat is somehow been there for extended periods of time and that it is now the cause of atmospheric heating. For that to be the case the ocean would need to be cooling and the obvious thermal expansion combined with actual temp measurements confirm that is not the case.

This is fundamental chemistry/physics and is not very hard to understand. Were the ocean cooling we would not be seeing what we are seeing.

Bro, you're just a weatherman. Lick my balls.

[MannyIsGod]

Do I need to cook and wear a pencil skirt?

[Ignignokt]

Well, the political boat has sailed. Personally, I study the situation because I've got a deep curiosity as to how these systems function and what the results are. I think that we could have made some not too difficult changes and I think that in the next 100 years climate change will impact us and hurt more than any small measures we could undertake now would have. You don't have to send the economy into a tailspin to change some fundamentals and have a huge impact but with the denial of the science being at the level its at it simply isn't realistic at all.

I don't really concern myself with the situation politically and worst case scenario it will provide me employment opportunities well into the future.

I don't by any means think the survival of the human race is at stake. I do think it will have serious impacts that will cost a lot of money in the coming century.

Ok, that's an honest assesment of the issue there.

The point is tho, we're gonna need more carbon fuels not less to combat the side effects/causes of climate change for which we really have no control.

Look at the death rate of the third world compared to civilized societies who are able to provide rescue items faster..

[Ignignokt]

Do I need to cook and wear a pencil skirt?

[MannyIsGod]

That is assuming that the third world wouldn't assimilate any renewable energy gains that we make in the first world (were we to actually make a stronger effort to achieve them). Carbon fuels were cheap for the United States' industrial revolution but they certainly won't be cheap for the modern day third world. The exponentially increasing efficiency of solar combined with decreasing reserves and increasing price of fossil fuels don't bode well for any 3rd world country expecting to build up on the cheap WITH fossil fuels.

The countries that invest heavily in those technologies and reap the rewards are going to have a of a cash cow going forward but it will benefit the entire world to a large degree.

[Wild Cobra]

[RandomGuy]

It doesn't really matter if climate change is occuring. That's not the real issue. It's only an issue because somehow one side is alleging this can be fixed if we radically change the economic structure and ins ute command economies, keep third world countries from developing and decreasing our quality of life.

So can anyone tell me if we're just arguing for symbolic gestures to make ourselves feel good, or are we actually believing that any bull action we take now is gonna thwart a day of reckoning?

Yet another flawed assumption:

Moving to a less CO2 intensive energy mix will decrease our way of life. It won't. Transitioning to renewables and non-fossil fuel sources will help the economy and increase standards of living. Neither does doing so require a full transition to a "command economy".

From what I understand it is quite possible to make fairly substantive and meaningful changes to our energy mix to achieve some real mitigation of the worst outcomes of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.

[RandomGuy]

"Missing" global heat may hide in deep oceans

What the article basically says is this; we cannot explain why the earth isn't warming like we said it would so, we're going to make up a new hypothesis, hard (if not impossible) to disprove, start plugging new assumptions into our faulty models based on this hypothesis, and tell you that's why it isn't warming as fast as we said it would.

Is it possible to measure deep ocean temperatures in a systematic way to test the thesis that the researcher presented?

[RandomGuy]

"the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. "

"This becomes relevant because the link you provided was that of a semi-conductor engineer's blog post."


Dr. Rajenda Pachauri, head of the IPCC.
Railroad engineer
PhD in Industrial Engineering and Economics"He is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment." LOL


You should research the bios of some of the IPCC lead authors. You might be surprised.

Mr. Pachauri is an expert in economics.

Did the report include a section on potential economic impacts of climate change?

[Ignignokt]

That is assuming that the third world wouldn't assimilate any renewable energy gains that we make in the first world (were we to actually make a stronger effort to achieve them). Carbon fuels were cheap for the United States' industrial revolution but they certainly won't be cheap for the modern day third world. The exponentially increasing efficiency of solar combined with decreasing reserves and increasing price of fossil fuels don't bode well for any 3rd world country expecting to build up on the cheap WITH fossil fuels.

The countries that invest heavily in those technologies and reap the rewards are going to have a of a cash cow going forward but it will benefit the entire world to a large degree.

Why not? Carbon fuels are cheaper than solar and wind.

Even if you were to win the climate science battle vs Wild Cobra, you lose to him in convincing fashion to him in physics and economics.

Gasoline is energy dense, wind and solar is not, it's only a small fraction of what oil is. Nucleur on the other hand is immensely dense.

Carbon fuels are way cheaper than green technology.

If you were to push forward a society to any real meaningful green technology, you'd have a decrease in a standard of living, you'd be more prone to black outs, you'd have less energy for which enriches our lives.

[RandomGuy]

Pretty generic RG. Which one is relevant to "rate of change"?

I would imagine the last, most comprehensive IPCC report.

[RandomGuy]

Why not? Carbon fuels are cheaper than solar and wind.

Even if you were to win the climate science battle vs Wild Cobra, you lose to him in convincing fashion to him in physics and economics.

Gasoline is energy dense, wind and solar is not, it's only a small fraction of what oil is. Nucleur on the other hand is immensely dense.

Carbon fuels are way cheaper than green technology.

If you were to push forward a society to any real meaningful green technology, you'd have a decrease in a standard of living, you'd be more prone to black outs, you'd have less energy for which enriches our lives.

Incompete analysis.

Oil is energy dense. That is relavant but only half the equation.

The other half is how much energy it takes to get that barrel of oil.

If you use the better part of 9/10ths of a barrel of oil to get it out of the ground, then you have not netted a very large chunk of energy, relative to your investment.

Studies of peak oil, and admissions by the oil giants themselves in their annual reports accede that the "easy" oil is gone.

What is left is increasingly hard to get to.

It is a bit like confusing revenue and net profit. A company might have a hundred billion dollars in revenue, but if it is running a massive loss, it will go out of business.

Same with energy. If you are only considering total energy of a given amount of any source, you are missing the very relevant aspect of efficiency, which is directly associated with monetary cost.

Even then you still need to compare relative efficiencies.

Up until now oil has been, relative to the alternatives, more efficient, by a large factor.

That is changing, and the reduction in Energy Returned On Energy Invested ratio for oil/coal/gas will accelerate.

That is a physical and mathmatical certainty.

(edit)



The last year that humanity in general discovered more oil than it consumed/produced was 1984.

[RandomGuy]

And, speaking of unanswered questions. Exactly what is the the optimal temperature for earth?

The answer is:

There is no optimal temperature.

Are you trying for a red herring fallacy? I can add that to your score, if you wish.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html

Fallacy: Red Herring

Also Known as: Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase.

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


Topic A is under discussion.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
Topic A is abandoned.

[RandomGuy]

FWIW,

Here is a good place to start developing ones understanding of energy sources and their relative efficiencies:
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/rep...ssil_fuels.php

energy return on energy invested, or EROEI:
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/ene...mics.asp#eroei

That site also interlinks energy with economic topics needed to consider the issue rationally.

[Ignignokt]

Incompete analysis.

Oil is energy dense. That is relavant but only half the equation.

The other half is how much energy it takes to get that barrel of oil.

If you use the better part of 9/10ths of a barrel of oil to get it out of the ground, then you have not netted a very large chunk of energy, relative to your investment.

Studies of peak oil, and admissions by the oil giants themselves in their annual reports accede that the "easy" oil is gone.

What is left is increasingly hard to get to.

It is a bit like confusing revenue and net profit. A company might have a hundred billion dollars in revenue, but if it is running a massive loss, it will go out of business.

Same with energy. If you are only considering total energy of a given amount of any source, you are missing the very relevant aspect of efficiency, which is directly associated with monetary cost.

Even then you still need to compare relative efficiencies.

Up until now oil has been, relative to the alternatives, more efficient, by a large factor.

That is changing, and the reduction in Energy Returned On Energy Invested ratio for oil/coal/gas will accelerate.

That is a physical and mathmatical certainty.

(edit)



The last year that humanity in general discovered more oil than it consumed/produced was 1984.

can you show me how much wind and solar are to oil compared to density and cost?

[RandomGuy]

can you show me how much wind and solar are to oil compared to density and cost?

You can start by reading the post immediately before that.

Let me know when you have at least looked at the EROIE table.

Once you get the underlying physics, the underlying economics usually follow.

[Ignignokt]

You can start by reading the post immediately before that.

Let me know when you have at least looked at the EROIE table.

Once you get the underlying physics, the underlying economics usually follow.

I'm not good at physics. My understanding is that Oil is way more energy dense than wind and solar.

Am i wrong?

[RandomGuy]

I'm not good at physics. My understanding is that Oil is way more energy dense than wind and solar.

Am i wrong?

Oil is much more energy dense than wind or solar, as noted above.

Energy density is also next to irrelevant when considering energy sources and where to invest efforts/money, without other concepts.

If I told you I had stock in a company with $146Bn US annual revenue, would you be able to determine the price or value of the stock?