Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 601 to 700 of 1057

Thread: The TRUTH about climate change

  1. #601

    Default

    You do dispute that the warming is caused by humans though... right?

    How is it that you only respond to the easy points, and actively ignore anything else?

    Quite telling. Any just about any of your rebuttals involve name calling... interesting!

  2. #602
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Marcel and his liar blog with another fake, fraudulent, aspect of "climate change". Pretending skeptics deny global warming, then posting a graph to prove, A POSITION THEY DON'T TAKE, wrong.

    Marcel doesn't care about the TRUTH, and neither does his liar blog.

    Ladies and gentelemen of Edmonton and Alberta, read ALL of my posts. None of them dispute "warming". This is just another misrepresention of "global warming" and the position skeptics take when discussing it.

    The lies never stop.

    ....
    sooo...

    other than your insisting stridently that we are experiencing “global warming” and not “climate change” (???), there is no substantive difference between Marcel’s position and yours.

    sooo...

    given that to be the case, by insisting that “the lies never stop” would make who the liar?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  3. #603

    Default The TRUTH. Who should we believe?

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  4. #604
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    soooo...

    the temperature in your house is 18 celsius while your neighbor’s house on one side is 17 celsius and your neighbor’s house on the other side is 21 celsius.

    other than the fact they are all houses, there’s probably other factors and corelations involved and some of them might not even be direct. other than demonstrating that, what else do you think you’re illustrating here?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  5. #605

    Default The TRUTH. UAH temperature trend update

    This is the latest UAH temperature data from satellites. CO2 has been steadily rising thru ought this period. Does it look like there's a clear CO2 signal in the graph? Yes, advocates argue there is a warming trend, but that's not the point. If you know that the earth's temperature has a natural variation, as you see it clearly in this graph, can you isolate the CO2 trend from the natural variation? Would you bet the farm the trend in this graph is going to continue to rise? Because that is what the global warming advocates say. That the trend is "settled science" and we should bet the farm on it. In fact we are already beginning to bet the farm as the federal government is demanding a carbon tax.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  6. #606

    Default The TRUTH about the carbon tax

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    http://torontosun.com/opinion/editor...anada#commentsInteresting read about the carbon cash grab!
    Truthworthy post discussing the absurd carbon tax. The cost of EVERYTHING will go up as all vendors must now pay a carbon tax. It is impossible to isolate the carbon tax cost in the pricing of goods.

    Who thinks this tax will affect the global temperature?

    The devil played a trick on man and convinced him he didn't exist.

    Climate change advocates tell poor people in Edmonton they have to pay a tax to stop our city from getting warmer.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 17-05-2018 at 12:23 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  7. #607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    http://torontosun.com/opinion/editor...anada#commentsInteresting read about the carbon cash grab!
    Truthworthy post discussing the absurd carbon tax. The cost of EVERYTHING will go up as all vendors must now pay a carbon tax. It is impossible to isolate the carbon tax cost in the pricing of goods. Who thinks this tax will affect the global temperature?The devil played a trick on man and convinced him he didn't exist. Climate change advocates tell poor people in Edmonton they have to pay a tax to stop our city from getting warmer.
    Increasing the price on a commodity is one of the most effective ways to reduce its consumption.

  8. #608
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    Does it look like there's a clear CO2 signal in the graph?


    Yes, there is a clear warming of something like 0.3-0.4C in that graph. Thanks for asking. Also, it's worth noting that your graph is for the "lower atmosphere", and not surface temperature. I'm not a climatologist, but I'd imagine that's also pertinent. Please provide a source for your graph.

    See here:
    https://www.skepticalscience.com/james-taylor-Forbes-UAH-rebuttal.html
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 17-05-2018 at 10:56 AM.

  9. #609

    Default The TRUTH skepticalscience, out of date, liar blog.

    Fellow Edmontonians, and Albertans, anytime, anybody references skepticalscience know that you're probably being lied to. Satellite data is referenced by thousands of peer reviewed articles and the IPCC. UAH satellite data matches well with RSS satellite data. Both are well referenced data sets. Both satellite data sets are verified by radiosonde (weather balloons). Satellites also verify each other when they cross over the same area. Marcel, the source for my graph is www.Drroyspencer.com. Unlike skepticalscience, you will see UAH and/or RSS satellite data referenced ubiquitously in peer reviewed literature, books, reports, and scientific articles.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Does it look like there's a clear CO2 signal in the graph?
    Yes, there is a clear warming of something like 0.3-0.4C in that graph. Thanks for asking. Also, it's worth noting that your graph is for the "lower atmosphere", and not surface temperature. I'm not a climatologist, but I'd imagine that's also pertinent. Please provide a source for your graph.See here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/james-taylor-Forbes-UAH-rebuttal.html
    Last edited by MrCombust; 17-05-2018 at 01:17 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  10. #610

    Default The TRUTH. A few things the CBC won't report on.........

    This year’s winter could be the longest, snowiest and coldest in 40 years. In the last six years, Canada has witnessed four winters significantly colder and snowier than average: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and the present stubborn winter. Europe has witnessed five significantly colder and snowier winters since the new millennium: 2002-03, 2005-06, 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2017-18. Eastern Europe experienced one of the coldest spells in early February 2012, with low temperatures in parts of Czech Republic falling to -40C and leading to several dozen deaths. In January 2017, a killer cold snap gripped eastern Europe and in particular parts of Romania, where 73 deaths were blamed on the brutal cold snap. This past winter, the “Beast from the East” in late February brought -62C conditions to parts of Siberia, one of the heaviest snowfalls in Moscow (45 cm) with low temperature at -17C, and an unusual cold spell in France on Feb. 26 and 27, 2018. The Beast was an outbreak of extreme cold air over Europe from Siberia. A similar cold outbreak produced -40C conditions in parts of Czech Republic in early February 2012. Over North America, the winter of 2013-14 was one of the longest, coldest and snowiest on record. There were several thousand cancellations of airline flights across U.S. and Canada, and major delays in road transportation and in the construction industry. https://troymedia.com/2018/04/27/glo...limate-carbon/
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  11. #611
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    This year’s winter could be the longest, snowiest and coldest in 40 years. In the last six years, Canada has witnessed four winters significantly colder and snowier than average: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and the present stubborn winter. Europe has witnessed five significantly colder and snowier winters since the new millennium: 2002-03, 2005-06, 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2017-18. Eastern Europe experienced one of the coldest spells in early February 2012, with low temperatures in parts of Czech Republic falling to -40C and leading to several dozen deaths. In January 2017, a killer cold snap gripped eastern Europe and in particular parts of Romania, where 73 deaths were blamed on the brutal cold snap. This past winter, the “Beast from the East” in late February brought -62C conditions to parts of Siberia, one of the heaviest snowfalls in Moscow (45 cm) with low temperature at -17C, and an unusual cold spell in France on Feb. 26 and 27, 2018. The Beast was an outbreak of extreme cold air over Europe from Siberia. A similar cold outbreak produced -40C conditions in parts of Czech Republic in early February 2012. Over North America, the winter of 2013-14 was one of the longest, coldest and snowiest on record. There were several thousand cancellations of airline flights across U.S. and Canada, and major delays in road transportation and in the construction industry. https://troymedia.com/2018/04/27/glo...limate-carbon/
    Last month marked the planet's 400th consecutive month with above-average temperatures, federal scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday.

    NOAA's analysis found last month was the 3rd-warmest April on record globally. The unusual heat was most noteworthy in Europe, which had its warmest April on record, and Australia, which had its second-warmest.

    North America was the one part of the world that didn't get in on the heat parade. Last month, the average U.S. temperature was 48.9 degrees, 2.2 degrees below average, "making it the 13th-coldest April on record and the coldest since 1997,"

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...csp=chromepush

  12. #612

    Default The TRUTH. NOAA puts on a display of fraud "science"

    In the instrument record the earth has been warming for about 150 years. The temperature in modern times is "higher than average". If the temperature remained flat for 1,000 years, we would have "higher than average" temperatures for a 1,000 years. This isn't science. The torture, and misrepresentation of data like this is banned by the Geneva convention. Crimes against data like this should be punished.
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Last month marked the planet's 400th consecutive month with above-average temperatures, federal scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday. NOAA's analysis found last month was the 3rd-warmest April on record globally. The unusual heat was most noteworthy in Europe, which had its warmest April on record, and Australia, which had its second-warmest.North America was the one part of the world that didn't get in on the heat parade. Last month, the average U.S. temperature was 48.9 degrees, 2.2 degrees below average, "making it the 13th-coldest April on record and the coldest since 1997,"https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...csp=chromepush
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  13. #613
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust
    Marcel, the source for my graph is www.Drroyspencer.com. Unlike skepticalscience, you will see UAH and/or RSS satellite data referenced ubiquitously in peer reviewed literature, books, reports, and scientific articles.
    Ah yes, Roy Spencer. One of the few denialists with some actual credentials. But he's a denialist just the same. One whose errors are repeatedly pointed out, requiring him to almost continually revise his results.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/ske...oy_Spencer.htm

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ture-estimates

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming

    The author compared the Christy/Spencer data (UAH data) with another group (the RSS group) and found that the results diverged during the 1986-1988 time period. This shift “could arise from a step change or bias in either series.” When the author compared UAH with the third group (NOAA), the difference was still evident. However, when he compared RSS to NOAA, there was hardly a difference. The author also noted that the timing of this divergence coincided with the merging of a new satellite NOAA-9, and this satellite has previously been identified as a source of error in the UAH results. But the author continued the analysis to more recent times and found another anomaly in 2005 which has since been corrected in NOAA.
    Look, measuring temperatures from satellites flying high above Earth is hard. No one doubts that. But let’s not be deluded into thinking these satellites are more accurate than thermometers (as some people suggest). Let’s also not blindly accept low-ball warming information from research teams that have long histories of revising their data. I created the image below a few years ago to show the upward revisions made by the Christy/Spencer team over time in their global troposphere temperatures.


    It is relevant to be reminded of these revisions; had we believed the results from the 1990s, we’d still think the world was cooling, and we’d still be wrong.
    So no, UAH data does not "match well" with the RSS or NOAA data.
    It's funny that you on the one hand will claim "oh yeah, the world is warming, I never denied that" but then cite a guy who does in fact deny that. And further, just a few posts up, you posted a graph that shows warming, but seem to think it doesn't. You need to get your talking points straight.

  14. #614

    Default

    Marcel. Feel free to go to google scholar and see how many peer reviewed scientific articles reference satellite data instead of relying on your liar blog.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust
    Marcel, the source for my graph is www.Drroyspencer.com. Unlike skepticalscience, you will see UAH and/or RSS satellite data referenced ubiquitously in peer reviewed literature, books, reports, and scientific articles.
    Ah yes, Roy Spencer. One of the few denialists with some actual credentials. But he's a denialist just the same. One whose errors are repeatedly pointed out, requiring him to almost continually revise his results.https://www.skepticalscience.com/ske...oy_Spencer.htmhttps://www.theguardian.com/environm...ture-estimateshttps://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming
    The author compared the Christy/Spencer data (UAH data) with another group (the RSS group) and found that the results diverged during the 1986-1988 time period. This shift “could arise from a step change or bias in either series.” When the author compared UAH with the third group (NOAA), the difference was still evident. However, when he compared RSS to NOAA, there was hardly a difference. The author also noted that the timing of this divergence coincided with the merging of a new satellite NOAA-9, and this satellite has previously been identified as a source of error in the UAH results. But the author continued the analysis to more recent times and found another anomaly in 2005 which has since been corrected in NOAA.Look, measuring temperatures from satellites flying high above Earth is hard. No one doubts that. But let’s not be deluded into thinking these satellites are more accurate than thermometers (as some people suggest). Let’s also not blindly accept low-ball warming information from research teams that have long histories of revising their data. I created the image below a few years ago to show the upward revisions made by the Christy/Spencer team over time in their global troposphere temperatures.It is relevant to be reminded of these revisions; had we believed the results from the 1990s, we’d still think the world was cooling, and we’d still be wrong.
    So no, UAH data does not "match well" with the RSS or NOAA data.It's funny that you on the one hand will claim "oh yeah, the world is warming, I never denied that" but then cite a guy who does in fact deny that. And further, just a few posts up, you posted a graph that shows warming, but seem to think it doesn't. You need to get your talking points straight.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 17-05-2018 at 02:25 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  15. #615

    Default

    MrCombust probably argues with his doctor too. “I have symptoms x,y,z” doctor “you have this” mrcombust “your wrong, my 2 minute search on google disagrees with your 7+ year medical degree and years of real experience”

  16. #616
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust
    Marcel. Feel free to go to google scholar and see how many peer reviewed scientific articles reference satellite data instead of relying on your liar blog.


    Nice strawman. I never said that all satellite data is irrelevant. I said that you did not clearly indicate that the graph you were using was not for surface temperature, which is what is mostly discussed in news articles and is the most relevant, that Spencer's data has been considered an outlier compared with other satellite data, and that his temperature data has been continuously revised upwards as mistakes and errors have been pointed out. One of his past publications was so bad that the editor of the mediocre journal that it was published in resigned in shame for having published it:
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/02/journal-editor-resigns-climate-sceptic-paper

    But Wagner says he now accepts the subsequent criticism from other climate scientists that the peer-review process used to test the paper's findings was flawed. "As the case presents itself now, the [peer review] editorial team unintentionally selected three reviewers who probably share some climate sceptic notions of the authors … The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted in open discussions and to some extend also in the literature, a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers. In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."

    *snip*

    He continued: "Spencer and his colleagues have a long history of minimising the effects of human-caused climate change; they also have a long history of making serious technical errors. This latest paper is only one in a decade-long track record of errors that have forced Spencer to revise his work as the errors are brought to light. Spencer is well known in the scientific community for publishing high-profile papers that initially dispute global warming and only later are found to be faulty.


    "This latest article reportedly showed that the climate is not as sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases. It also called into question the cause-and-effect relationship between clouds and climate change. Wolfgang's resignation was based on the quality of the review the paper received and the obvious technical errors which the paper contained."
    So like I said, the guy has credentials. But his work is terrible. He's actually a proponent of Intelligent Design over evolution through natural selection, as well. Which isn't even science. I know it's totally unrelated, but that says a lot about him.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 17-05-2018 at 03:09 PM.

  17. #617
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    Here's an excellent, easily readable article about satellite temperature records and why they're so difficult to make accurate: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017...rface-records/

    To be fair, RSS has also needed to be revised several times, and the revisions have tended to be upwards. The upshot is that the latest version, from last year, pretty accurately matches surface records now. If not exceeds them. And a bonus mention of UAH and Spencer:

    Taken over the entire time period, that increases the warming trend from 0.134 degrees Celsius per decade to 0.174 degrees Celsius per decade. (Yes, we are diving into decimals here.) That change actually makes the satellite record’s warming a tiny bit greater than the warming trend in NASA’s surface-temperature record.
    Previously, the RSS satellite record has been a favorite of politicians who reject the conclusions of climate science because it showed less warming—particularly if you ignore everything before the warm El Niño in 1998, which looks even stronger in the upper air records.

    Those politicians will probably switch to the competing University of Alabama at Huntsville satellite dataset run by Roy Spencer and John Christy—two of the most prominent scientists who still reject the evidence that humans are responsible for climate change. Their dataset was also recently updated, and while the previous version had shown slightly more warming than the old RSS dataset, it now shows even less. With RSS now falling in line with the major surface temperature records, the new Alabama dataset stands apart as a bit of an outlier.

    Then again, even that new Alabama dataset shows that the world continues to warm.
    But criticism of Spencer aside, even his latest records do indeed show an increase. Which again leads me back to wondering what the point of the supposedly rhetorical question in post #605 even was? Yes, it shows warming! It's extremely obvious even without showing a 5 year moving average. Why they picked a 13 month moving average instead is obvious: to try to make it look like it just bounces up and down. But even at that, you can clearly see the trend is upward. Here's one from UAH's own website:



    Seems pretty clear to me. Sure there's natural variability that can swamp out the slow increase over time, but there's clearly an upward trend.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 17-05-2018 at 03:25 PM.

  18. #618

    Default

    MrCombust must be a shill for BigOil.

    He's admitted that he's not arguing against global warming, and concedes warming is happening, but seems to allude that CO2 isn't the cause, and his real agenda is that Carbon tax is a sham... which he's lightly hinted at in several recently.

  19. #619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Here's an excellent, easily readable article.............................. But criticism of Spencer aside, even his latest records do indeed show an increase. Which again leads me back to wondering what the point of the supposedly rhetorical question in post #605 even was?
    If you really want to learn something, why not read my posts, and try to understand them? I have addressed this very issue on many of my posts. Providing me with more articles is just repeating yourself and betraying your lack of knowledge.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  20. #620
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    There's only one person not understanding things here.

    Get back to me on how several dozen independent temperature records dating back millenia that clearly show the warming over the past 150+ years to be totally unprecedented don't indicate significant, man made warming that is largely correlated with CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. You've repeatedly said the "hockey stick graph" is false, but the fact is, there are dozens of hockey stick graphs. And every time I've brought it up, you've just skated past it.

    Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 17-05-2018 at 09:50 PM.

  21. #621

    Default The TRUTH. The transfer of industrial economy from the first world via 'climate change'

    Carbon tax, high energy prices, unreliable energy, regulation, attack on coal, attack on pipelines, lawsuits...........Smart corporations avoid these pitfalls. Smart corporations will move their industrial base to nations like China. The same products will be made in China. No CO2 mitigation will occur. It is simply a transfer of economy from nations that attack industry, to nations that don't. That is what the carbon tax, and other attacks on industry, does.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  22. #622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    There's only one person not understanding things here.Get back to me on how several dozen independent temperature records dating back millenia that clearly show the warming over the past 150+ years to be totally unprecedented don't indicate significant, man made warming that is largely correlated with CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. You've repeatedly said the "hockey stick graph" is false, but the fact is, there are dozens of hockey stick graphs. And every time I've brought it up, you've just skated past it.Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record
    There are many hundreds of papers that don't agree with the hockey stick graph. Your liar blog says they're all wrong and you believe your liar blogs. That's not me skating past anything. That's you taking the word of your liar blogs over scientists and their peer reviewed articles.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  23. #623

    Default

    We are finally getting to what mrcombusts agenda is... carbon tax.

  24. #624

    Default

    The complete guide to the world’s largest carbon market that just launched in China – Quartz

    https://qz.com/1159667/china-is-laun...carbon-market/

  25. #625

    Default The TRUTH. Sending our industry and money to China

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    The complete guide to the world’s largest carbon market that just launched in China – Quartzhttps://qz.com/1159667/china-is-laun...carbon-market/
    Fellow Edmontonians and Albertans. Just look at what the advocates want. Now China has a place we can send all our carbon taxes to. The complete destruction of the western economy via "climate change".Please pay attention and stop this movement.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  26. #626

    Default

    the actual TRUTH is finally coming out of MrCombust... this is about protecting Canadian industries that might be subjected to Carbon tax......

    It's only take 7 pages, and 625 posts for MrCombust to finally start TALKING about the TRUTH... It's not that he doesn't believe in Climate Change or Global warming. He's not even disputing human caused Carbon emissions are contributing to that either. It's that he's afraid China is going to take all our industries running from Carbon Tax


    Which lobby group/industry do you represent MrCombust?

  27. #627

    Default The TRUTH. The advocates will rejoice in the loss of our industry

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    the actual TRUTH is finally coming out of MrCombust... this is about protecting Canadian industries that might be subjected to Carbon tax...... It's only take 7 pages, and 625 posts for MrCombust to finally start TALKING about the TRUTH... It's not that he doesn't believe in Climate Change or Global warming. He's not even disputing human caused Carbon emissions are contributing to that either. It's that he's afraid China is going to take all our industries running from Carbon TaxWhich lobby group/industry do you represent MrCombust?
    Pay attention Edmontonians and Albertans. These advocates will rejoice as we lose our industry. They even provide links to China where we can send our money to as well. Notice how they attack when I oppose the policy. They have no understanding of what this means. They are children playing with a loaded gun. Take it seriously. This is what they WANT, and with the new carbon tax they are achieving it.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 18-05-2018 at 08:20 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  28. #628

    Default

    Pay attention Edmontonians and Albertans. MrCombust will attempt to put words in others mouths. Notice how I didn't attack any policy, and here he is saying I'm attacking him and the policy. Now that MrCombust's real TRUTH has been exposed, he's making up stuff and trying to tar everyone into bullshipt.

    Pay attention MrCombust - we see right through you. your lies and misrepresentations hasn't gone unnoticed.

  29. #629

    Default The TRUTH. 300,000 Germans disconnected from the grid

    Germany is the leader is switching to "renewables". I say renewables in quotes, because renewables only work when the sun shines.300,000 Germans celebrating Christmas by candlelight because they can't afford skyrocketing electricity prices. Guess what Alberta........ we're on our way too. http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/03/g....ccGj9IVg.dpbs
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  30. #630

    Default

    What about when the wind blows, or the tide comes in and goes out? Your understanding of renewable is quite lacking. They've also development storage for renewable energy.

  31. #631

  32. #632

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Germany is the leader is switching to "renewables". I say renewables in quotes, because renewables only work when the sun shines.300,000 Germans celebrating Christmas by candlelight because they can't afford skyrocketing electricity prices. Guess what Alberta........ we're on our way too. http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/03/g....ccGj9IVg.dpbs
    what's with you posting liar blogs with no real research??? does the TRUTH hurt you/your lobby group so much in the pocket book that your continuing to post such bullshi11t

  33. #633
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    There are many hundreds of papers that don't agree with the hockey stick graph. Your liar blog says they're all wrong and you believe your liar blogs. That's not me skating past anything. That's you taking the word of your liar blogs over scientists and their peer reviewed articles.
    Looks like you forgot to provide any actual citation for your claim. And again, there isn't one hockey stick graph. There are dozens of independent ones. You haven't shown a damn thing, and are once again skating past. Provide some actual scientific literature, or credible news articles referencing such literature.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    What about when the wind blows, or the tide comes in and goes out? Your understanding of renewable is quite lacking. They've also development storage for renewable energy.


    While renewables are the future, there are legitimate concerns currently both about their negative impacts on energy markets and how in some cases, they can actually result in increased emissions. There's a lot of unintended consequences with something as complicated as energy infrastructure. A lot of news reporting on renewables doesn't address these problems, because they're quite difficult to explain in short articles, and it's easier to just trumpet a big headline about how X country just went a full day only on renewables, or how Y solar/wind installation's costs are supposedly cheaper than fossil fuels. Even if that's not really the case when you take the market impact in to account.

    https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/4/27/17283830/batteries-energy-storage-carbon-emissions

    That being said, that simply means that R&D needs to continue, grids need to be upgraded and improved, policies and regulations have to be updated to address those concerns. Not that we have to go back to burning as much coal as possible.

  34. #634

    Default The TRUTH. What's the ideal temperature of the earth?

    Is it just an incredible coincidence that the ideal temperature of the earth was the temperature it was at when man made CO2 started rising?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  35. #635

    Default

    what is the ideal temperature of the earth? There is no ideal temperature. I think you are trying to point out that it is normal/natural for the temperature of earth to go through cycles of increases and decreases. If so, you are correct. However, the increases we are seeing now are not normal. The temperature is increasing at rates many many times faster than earth has ever seen. The increases we are seeing now are directly related to CO2 and other greenhouses. There's no way you can really dispute that without a tinfoil hat on.

  36. #636
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    No one is claiming that there is any particular temperature that is ideal, whether for mankind in particular or natural ecosystems in general. The problem is when temperature changes that would normally happen over thousands of years are happening at rates several orders of magnitude faster than they have previously, with the exception of things like asteroid strikes, massive volcanic eruptions, etc.

    Still waiting on this supposed peer-reviewed literature that says that all of the dozens of independent temperature records are false...

  37. #637

    Default The TRUTH. Temperature "rate of change"

    Edmontonians and Albertans, advocates say the "rate of change" is abnormal, unprecedented, and could only be caused by CO2.

    It's just another fabrication. There is no benchmark "rate of change" parameter that defines whether warming is caused by CO2, or not.

    The earth has warmed about 1.5 degrees over 150 years. There is nothing unprecedented about this rate of change. One degree per century.

    Ignore the fabrications of the advocates.

    The PREDICTIONS are a different story. But the predictions by all the climate models have failed. So that's still a no go as well.

    In this graph you see 11,000 years of changing temperature. Michael Mann erased the most recent 1,000 years of variability and made it flat, followed by the sudden rise at the end. This he published in the 2001 assessment report. Soon after it was discovered for the fraud that it was. Liar blogs and duped advocates still think this is proof CO2 is causing unprecedented warming. But it's just a cherry picked, fabricated, fraud.

    Last edited by MrCombust; 20-05-2018 at 05:45 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  38. #638
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    Still waiting on this supposed peer-reviewed literature that says that all of the dozens of independent temperature records are false...

  39. #639
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,717

    Default

    Oh, and this is relevant regarding the renewable sub-discussion: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/...energy-debate/

  40. #640

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Still waiting on this supposed peer-reviewed literature that says that all of the dozens of independent temperature records are false...
    Already posted them. Please refer to our previous discussion. Pick any of the 400 papers I linked to and show me it agrees with your hockey sticks.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 19-05-2018 at 08:07 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  41. #641
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Still waiting on this supposed peer-reviewed literature that says that all of the dozens of independent temperature records are false...
    All ready posted them. Please refer to our previous discussion. Pick any of the 400 papers I linked to and show me it agrees with your hockey sticks.
    We already have. Please read our posts.

  42. #642

    Default The TRUTH. An example of a peer reviewed hockey stick debunk

    In this graph you see long term variability of temperature you won't see in the hockey stick graphs. You also see short term variability in the 100 year range. You see the Medieval warm period. You see the Little Ice age. A correlation with Chinese dynasties showing extensive attribution. No sudden rise in modern times. A correlation with the ice core record from Greenland. None of these things are in the hockey stick graphs.

    Hockey stick graphs are nothing but fraud. Michael Mann's software would create a hockey stick graph from random data. Other scientists that created hockey stick graphs refused to release thier data or methodology when asked. Scientists working with the IPCC even refused to release data under Britain's Freedom of Information act.

    Hockey stick graphs pretend the temperature of the earth never changes, except when forced by CO2. 1,000 years up to modern times the temperature is always dead flat. Something the Earth never does. And in order to create this flat zone they erase the Medieval warm period and Little Ice age. Literally creating a 1,000 year zone of no natural variability. The more you look at temperature records of the past, the more you see a neverending variance. Pretending there's no such thing defies credibility. It is for this reason Michael Mann has been called a fraud by other scientists. The IPCC stopped defending the hockey stick graph soon after it was published. The IPCC never published another hockey stick graph after the fourth assesment report in 2001.

    See here for 900 more papers that don't support the dogma of climate change. http://notrickszone.com/2017/01/02/c....Nhy1UBZS.dpbs

    "Quantifying climatic variability in monsoonal northern China over the last 2200 years and its role in driving Chinese dynastic changes"

    "Abstract: Our understanding on the spatial-temporal patterns of climatic variability over the last few millennia in the East Asian monsoon-dominated northern China (NC), and its role at a macro-scale in affecting the prosperity and depression of Chinese dynasties is limited. Quantitative high-resolution, regionally-synthesized palaeoclimatic reconstructions as well as simulations, and numerical analyses of their relationships with various fine-scale, numerical agro-ecological, social-economic, and geo-political historical records during the period of China's history, are presented here for NC. We utilize pollen data together with climate modeling to reconstruct and simulate decadal- to centennial-scale variations in precipitation or temperature for NC during the last 2200 years (-200–2000 AD). We find an overall cyclic-pattern (wet/warm or dry/cold) in the precipitation and temperature anomalies on centennial- to millennial-scale that can be likely considered as a representative for the entire NC by comparison with other related climatic records. We suggest that solar activity may play a key role in driving the climatic fluctuations in NC during the last 22 centuries, with its quasi ∼100, 50, 23, or 22-year periodicity clearly identified in our climatic reconstructions. We employ variation partitioning and redundancy analysis to quantify the independent effects of climatic factors on accounting for the total variation of 17 fine-grained numerical Chinese historical records. We quantitatively illustrate that precipitation (67.4%) may have been more important than temperature (32.5%) in causing the overall agro-ecological and macro-geopolitical shifts in imperial China with NC as the central ruling region and an agricultural heartland over the last 2200 years"

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...7737911630381X

    Last edited by MrCombust; 19-05-2018 at 08:04 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  43. #643

    Default

    Apparently the greatest global cooling event in the last 100 years just happened between February 2016 to February 2018. The world cooled by more than half a degree celcius.

    Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ ). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.

    https://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...ce_103243.html
    What's the explanation for this?

  44. #644
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Take a look at the data (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/t...LB.Ts+dSST.txt) and you'll see the explanation.

    February 2016 was an outlier. 1.34 degrees above the base period temperature (from 1951-1980).

    February 2018 was only 0.8 degrees above.

    February 2015 was 0.86 degrees above.

    Because seasonal things like el-nino and la-nina affect temperature,

    But the trend is still up, even if Feb 2018 wasn't the hottest February ever.

    Go here for the graphs that show the trend: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

  45. #645

    Default The TRUTH. Just another insane prediction from the IPCC

    From the IPCC Synthesis report..................

    "3.3.2 Impacts on regions
    Africa

    By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%"

    As increasing CO2 in the atmosphere enhances plant growth and crop yields around the world, the IPCC predicts a 50% reduction in agriculture.

    Who thinks these guys are top scientists doing science?

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...yr/ar4_syr.pdf
    Last edited by MrCombust; 20-05-2018 at 05:25 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  46. #646

    Default The TRUTH. Hockey stick graph FOI requests

    Scientists at the IPCC draw a hockey stick graph and tell you that proves CO2 is causing warming.....

    "Can I see the data?", you ask......

    "No", is the answer you get.

    People ask me if I think global warming is a big conspiracy by all the scientists. If it isn't, why are they hiding the data? Is it even science if they won't give you the data to reproduce and confirm thier results?

    "Climate scientists shut out sceptics by turning down data requests. Hacked emails reveal systematic attempts to block FoI requests from sceptics — and deep frustration at anti-warming agenda"

    "The emails reveal repeated and systematic attempts by him and his colleagues to block FoI requests"

    "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

    "Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FoIA requests"

    "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise. Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann also from NCAR] to do the same."

    "You can delete this attachment [probably Holland's FOI request] if you want. Keep this quiet also but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this."

    "All our FoI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond"

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nformation-act
    Last edited by MrCombust; 20-05-2018 at 05:24 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  47. #647

    Default The TRUTH. Climate change is alive because journalistic integrity is dead

    In our current political environment even the journalists take sides. The left leaning CBC inundates us with climate change anecdotes every day. When has the CBC ever interviewed a skeptic? When did they tell us the climate models failed? Did they report there's been two years of global cooling? Every time something bad happens it's because of climate change. When they interviewed James Hansen instead of saying all his predictions came true, why not ask him about the pause, and why all his predictions have failed?Journalistic integrity is dead.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  48. #648
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Take a look at the data (https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/t...LB.Ts+dSST.txt) and you'll see the explanation.

    February 2016 was an outlier. 1.34 degrees above the base period temperature (from 1951-1980).

    February 2018 was only 0.8 degrees above.

    February 2015 was 0.86 degrees above.

    Because seasonal things like el-nino and la-nina affect temperature,

    But the trend is still up, even if Feb 2018 wasn't the hottest February ever.

    Go here for the graphs that show the trend: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
    Lol yeah what a sad attempt at debunking climate change. You can't just cherry pick two random months and call it cooling. I'm sure you could find two random month's within those two years and claim the exact opposite with it.

    You're literally trying to determine a trend from two data points. You'd probably fail grade 6 Science for trying to pull that.

  49. #649

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Scientists at the IPCC draw a hockey stick graph and tell you that proves CO2 is causing warming.....

    "Can I see the data?", you ask......

    "No", is the answer you get.

    People ask me if I think global warming is a big conspiracy by all the scientists. If it isn't, why are they hiding the data? Is it even science if they won't give you the data to reproduce and confirm thier results?

    "Climate scientists shut out sceptics by turning down data requests. Hacked emails reveal systematic attempts to block FoI requests from sceptics — and deep frustration at anti-warming agenda"

    "The emails reveal repeated and systematic attempts by him and his colleagues to block FoI requests"

    "have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

    "Think I've managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FoIA requests"

    "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise. Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann also from NCAR] to do the same."

    "You can delete this attachment [probably Holland's FOI request] if you want. Keep this quiet also but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this."

    "All our FoI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond"

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nformation-act

    Freedom of information laws are used to harass scientists, says Nobel laureate | Politics | The Guardian

    "There's no other walk of life where every conversation you have ought to be made public," he said. "There's a massive double standards because a lot of the people submitting these requests are themselves not transparent at all. They don't reveal their sources of funding or the details of what they're doing behind the scenes."

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...***-scientists

  50. #650

    Default

    Blaming more methane!

    World May Hit 2 Degrees of Warming in 10-15 Years Thanks to Fracking, Says Cornell Scientist | DeSmogBlog
    https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/1...rush-ingraffea

  51. #651

    Default The TRUTH. 25 years of threats, fake science, and fake predictions.

    After a while it just gets comical.
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Blaming more methane!World May Hit 2 Degrees of Warming in 10-15 Years Thanks to Fracking, Says Cornell Scientist | DeSmogBloghttps://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/1...rush-ingraffea
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  52. #652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    After a while it just gets comical.
    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Blaming more methane!World May Hit 2 Degrees of Warming in 10-15 Years Thanks to Fracking, Says Cornell Scientist | DeSmogBloghttps://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/1...rush-ingraffea
    So, you’re against all greenhouse gas theory? I thought your issue was with CO2.

  53. #653

    Default The TRUTH. You buy a house on a flood plain.......

    There's a flood on the flood plain.

    The CBC says it's because of "climate change".

    In today's world journalism is dead. The CBC is an echo chamber of "climate change".

    Where are the men? Men who will tell the truth? When did we all become little kids?

    "B.C. and N.B. floods a warning of what's to come, climate change researchers say"
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/cl...ding-1.4676032


    But the insurance companies aren't little kids................

    ""For instance, a large portion of Grand Forks is right in the floodplain, meaning it would have been difficult for many homeowners to get coverage at all."
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...nges-1.4674236

    What's wrong with the CBC?
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  54. #654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post

    What's wrong with the CBC?
    What's wrong with you? Oh wait, I think we already know.

    As for the CBC, there is nothing wrong. They are covering the story. Just because you believe climate change to be some sort of hoax, doesn't mean its a hoax. In fact, most of the accredited climate scientists with years of education and research agree with each other, and finding agreement and consensus in the scientific community on this scale is not normally found.
    Sorry if the TRUTH hurts your agenda.

  55. #655
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,650

    Default

    ^Though linking every fire, flood, or natural disaster to climate change is not only intellectually lazy, but breeds public cynicism and indifference about the true impacts of a warming climate.

    Not to discount the impact of climate change entirely, but the major reason people keep getting flooded or burned out is because they insist on building on flood plains or in wildfire prone areas.

  56. #656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^Though linking every fire, flood, or natural disaster to climate change is not only intellectually lazy, but breeds public cynicism and indifference about the true impacts of a warming climate.

    Not to discount the impact of climate change entirely, but the major reason people keep getting flooded or burned out is because they insist on building on flood plains or in wildfire prone areas.
    In the case of the CBC it's not intellectual laziness, its willful misrepresentation. Everybody should know that. Especially Albertans and Edmontonians. I've heard too much crap from the CBC. Even on our local "Alberta at noon" program.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  57. #657

    Default The TRUTH. Too hard to believe, and yet, there it is.

    Under "FACTS", "VITAL SIGNS", "SEA LEVEL RISE", NASA keeps an updated sea level rise indicator to the 1/10ths of a mm...............
    Right now it's at 3.2mm/yr.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level

    The most recent satellite launched by NASA, GRACE, doesn't have a device on board for measuring sea level.

    The last, and most advanced satellite for measuring sea level, is the JASON 3......

    "The altimeter will measure sea-level variations over the global ocean with very high accuracy (as 1.3 inches or 3.3 centimeters........."

    https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/jason3/

    So NASA says sea level rise is at 3.2mm/yr and accelerating, but the accuracy of their satellite is 33.0mm.

    Meanwhile here's a tide gauge reading from Boston...........

    Last edited by MrCombust; 25-05-2018 at 12:42 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  58. #658

    Default

    how does the tide gauge reading at Boston compare to the tens of thousands of other tidal data points around the world, or are you just cherry picking Boston?

  59. #659

    Default

    As the science matures they’ll better understand the causes.





    Global groundwater depletion leads to sea level rise | IGRAC

    “Because most of the groundwater released from the aquifers ultimately ends up in the world's oceans, it is possible to calculate the contribution of groundwater depletion to sea level rise. This turned out to be 0.8 mm per year, which is a surprisingly large amount when compared to the current sea level rise of 3.3 mm per years as estimated by the IPCC. It thus turns out that almost half of the current sea level rise can be explained by expansion of warming sea water, just over one quarter by the melting of glaciers and ice caps and slightly less than one quarter by groundwater depletion. Previous studies have identified groundwater depletion as a possible contribution to sea level rise. However, due to the high uncertainty about the size of its contribution, groundwater depletion is not included in the latest IPCC report. This study confirms with higher certainty that groundwater depletion is indeed a significant factor.”

    https://www.un-igrac.org/news/global...sea-level-rise

    Groundwater resources around the world could be depleted by 2050s

    December 15, 2016
    American Geophysical Union

    Knowing the limits of groundwater resources is imperative, as billions of gallons of groundwater are used daily for agriculture and drinking water worldwide, said de Graaf.

    Previous studies used satellite data to show that several of the world's largest aquifers were nearing depletion. But this method can't be used to measure aquifer depletion on a smaller, regional scale, according to de Graaf.

    In the new research, de Graaf and colleagues from Utrecht University in the Netherlands used new data on aquifer structure, water withdrawals, and interactions between groundwater and surrounding water to simulate groundwater depletion and recovery on a regional scale.

    The research team used their model to forecast ...”


    https://m.phys.org/news/2016-12-grou...ted-2050s.html
    Bolding mine
    Last edited by KC; 25-05-2018 at 01:21 PM.

  60. #660

    Default The TRUTH.......? Pipeline, no pipeline........

    Does it really matter if we build a pipeline NOW?

    Oil is a limited resource that will increase in value as time progresses. Why are we rushing to sell it at firesale prices?

    It's better to keep the oil for the future of Canada. Thinking about our future. Would that be so bad?

    We should process the oil and make an industry out of it.

    The short term thinking of this monumental resource is shameful.

    Oil could be a massive Canadian industry. But the eco-advocates won't let it happen. So we'll flush our oil to the market, let others roll in the profit. No carbon mitigation will happen. And when it runs out it will be Canada's loss.

    Political winds change, and our current thinking is awful. Will we get it straight before we squander this resource?
    Last edited by MrCombust; 31-05-2018 at 01:15 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  61. #661

    Default The TRUTH. Want more TRUTH? Follow Kirye Net's twitter feed.............

    "@KiryeNet

    I'm a denier of #AGW.【#GlobalWarming is the biggest fraud in science history"

    https://twitter.com/KiryeNet

    The current #Arctic sea ice volume is the second highest in 11 years, and Just below the 2004-2013 mean.

    (2009-2013)http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/anim/plots_uk/CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20130527.png …
    (2004-200http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/anim/plots_uk/CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20080527.png …



    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  62. #662
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

  63. #663

    Default The TRUTH...... about sea level rise

    Fact is, sea level was higher in the past, maybe even 5m higher. Sea level rise isn't anything new, why pretend?
    Again, you won't find this data on fraudulent hockey stick graphs.

    "OSL dating of late Holocene coastal sediments and its implication for sea-level eustacy in Hainan Island, Southern China

    Abstract:
    ".........The results show: (1) coastal sands in Hainan Island were well bleached before deposition, and the quartz OSL can date coastal sediments younger than 200 years, which could be one of good indicators for paleo relative sea-level highstand records; (2) three coastal sediments with 4 m, 3.7 m, and 2 m higher than present........"

    Last edited by MrCombust; 03-06-2018 at 10:40 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  64. #664

    Default The TRUTH. More fake "science" from the CBC.......

    The CBC's latest report on "climate change" is pure speculation and nonsense...............
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfou...ador-1.4687735

    "First, a disclaimer: overall, climate change has a negative impact on global ecosystems, biodiversity, and economy."
    Nope. Faster plant growth means better crop yields, better ecosystems, and a better economy.

    "Many species are going extinct, and many humans are being displaced with more to follow"

    Nope, You can't even prove man made "climate change" is happening, let alone prove it caused a species to go extinct.

    "From a human perspective, it's a slow, long-term change in global climate patterns; this is partly why some people have trouble recognizing it as a real phenomenon."

    Nope, the reason I have trouble "recognizing it as a real phenomenon", is because the earth stopped warming, all the climate models failed, and there's no proof at all CO2 is the cause.

    "I've never had a conversation with any Arctic communities that say that there isn't change occurring," said Sipler"

    That's because you're misdefining "climate change". This is a distinction a 5 year old could understand. Just because the earth warmed, doesn't mean it's because of man made CO2.

    [Picture of a truck tipped over]
    "One of the predicated effects of climate change in Newfoundland is increased winds"

    Nope, wind in Newfoundland is legendary and not being caused by CO2.

    "About the Author
    Evgeni Matveev
    Evgeni Matveev is a graduate student at Memorial University who has been working with CBC Radio's The Broadcast."

    I guess we can all look forward to more silly stuff a 5 year old could figure out.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 04-06-2018 at 07:26 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  65. #665

  66. #666
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    ^It's the same playbook employed by the Tobacco industry.

    Carbon dioxide is not toxic, just a naturally occurring gas, blah blah blah blah.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  67. #667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by norwoodguy View Post
    ^It's the same playbook employed by the Tobacco industry.

    Carbon dioxide is not toxic, just a naturally occurring gas, blah blah blah blah.
    Carbon dioxide is not toxic, and it's not "just" a naturally occurring gas.. It's the opposite of toxic. It's the foundation of all life on earth.

    Plants separate CO2 and release O2, oxygen, the air we breathe.

    Oxygen combines with hydrogen, H2O, the water we drink.

    Plants create sugar molecules, the food we eat.

    That wasn't the tobacco industry playbook. I don't remember the tobacco industry saying all life on earth needs tobacco for survival.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  68. #668

    Default

    Actually, carbon dioxide in higher volumes is toxic... You may want to research that a bit more.... And please, if you do decide to actually fact check for once, use a real accredited source, and not just some random blog you find and agree with on the internet.

  69. #669
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Where ever the pilot takes me
    Posts
    2,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Carbon dioxide is not toxic, and it's not "just" a naturally occurring gas.. It's the opposite of toxic. It's the foundation of all life on earth.

    Plants separate CO2 and release O2, oxygen, the air we breathe.

    Oxygen combines with hydrogen, H2O, the water we drink.

    Plants create sugar molecules, the food we eat.

    That wasn't the tobacco industry playbook. I don't remember the tobacco industry saying all life on earth needs tobacco for survival.
    Classic misdirection nonsense. The issue was never whether carbon dioxide is toxic. Cloud the discussion, confuse, deny, blah blah blah blah.

    Enjoy talking to yourself.
    Did my dog just fall into a pothole???

  70. #670
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,650

    Default

    ^^Yes, but at levels one hundred times higher than CO2 is currently present in the earth's atmosphere. Moderately higher levels of CO2 increase the rate of photosynthesis which spurs plant growth. Which can also be confirmed through a quick google search.

    More surprising to me is that Mr. Combust used the CBC article to once again wrongly attack the basic science behind global warming. Talk about a single track mind.

    The article makes the point that some parts of the world (e.g. Newfoundland) could end being net winners rather than net losers in a warming climate (fewer snowstorms and killing frosts in June, warmer oceans to support more diverse aquatic life).

    The Canadian prairies might be another net winner. But there are a lot of unknowns. Climate models suggest that a warmer temperature should increase rainfall, all other things being equal which of course they never are. But this will only be beneficial to Prairie dry land agriculture and forestry if increased rainfull fully offsets higher evaporation rates caused by warmer temperatures.

  71. #671

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^Yes, but at levels one hundred times higher than CO2 is currently present in the earth's atmosphere. Moderately higher levels of CO2 increase the rate of photosynthesis which spurs plant growth. Which can also be confirmed through a quick google search.

    More surprising to me is that Mr. Combust used the CBC article to once again wrongly attack the basic science behind global warming. Talk about a single track mind.

    The article makes the point that some parts of the world (e.g. Newfoundland) could end being net winners rather than net losers in a warming climate (fewer snowstorms and killing frosts in June, warmer oceans to support more diverse aquatic life).

    The Canadian prairies might be another net winner. But there are a lot of unknowns. Climate models suggest that a warmer temperature should increase rainfall, all other things being equal which of course they never are. But this will only be beneficial to Prairie dry land agriculture and forestry if increased rainfull fully offsets higher evaporation rates caused by warmer temperatures.
    Plus changes can be quite uneven. More periodic rainfall combined with periodic but extensive droughts may make for disastrous agricultural conditions.

    On the semantical debating:

    toxic

    Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

    very unpleasant or unacceptable:

    The atmosphere at work had become positively toxic.”

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic.../english/toxic
    Bolding mine


    By the way, water is toxic when you can’t swim. Or if you drink too much of it.


    Now let’s debate: “too much”
    Last edited by KC; 04-06-2018 at 09:41 AM.

  72. #672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^Yes, but at levels one hundred times higher than CO2 is currently present in the earth's atmosphere. Moderately higher levels of CO2 increase the rate of photosynthesis which spurs plant growth. Which can also be confirmed through a quick google search.

    More surprising to me is that Mr. Combust used the CBC article to once again wrongly attack the basic science behind global warming. Talk about a single track mind.

    The article makes the point that some parts of the world (e.g. Newfoundland) could end being net winners rather than net losers in a warming climate (fewer snowstorms and killing frosts in June, warmer oceans to support more diverse aquatic life).

    The Canadian prairies might be another net winner. But there are a lot of unknowns. Climate models suggest that a warmer temperature should increase rainfall, all other things being equal which of course they never are. But this will only be beneficial to Prairie dry land agriculture and forestry if increased rainfull fully offsets higher evaporation rates caused by warmer temperatures.
    You're calling failed software simulations "basic science"?

    A software simulation that doesn't work isn't science.

    The climate liars repeat their crap so many times people come to believe it. Software simulations of the earth's climate are laughable. And they don't even work. Calling their "predictions", "basic science", is nonsense.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 04-06-2018 at 11:02 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  73. #673

    Default

    Scientific theories, models projections being tested, compared, criticized, differences explained... All the stuff of conspirators of course.


    Scientists have beaten down the best climate denial argument
    Clouds don’t act as a climate thermostat, and they’re not going to save us from global warming

    Dana Nuccitelli
    Mon 18 Dec 2017

    Excerpts:

    “Climate deniers have come up with a lot of arguments about why we shouldn’t worry about global warming – about 200 of them – but most are quite poor, contradictory, and easily debunked by consulting the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The cleverest climate contrarians settle on the least implausible argument – that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS – how much a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase Earth’s surface temperature) is low, meaning that the planet will warm relatively slowly in response to human carbon pollution.
    ...

    The study found that the biggest contributor to the difference between the accurate and inaccurate models was in how well they simulated cloud changes. And while it’s just one study, several prior papers arrived at similar conclusions. “
    ...
    Contrarian arguments have not withstood scientific scrutiny

    Former MIT scientist Richard Lindzen (one of the most often cited,...”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...enial-argument
    Last edited by KC; 04-06-2018 at 09:55 AM.

  74. #674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Scientific theories, models projections being tested, compared, criticized, differences explained... All the stuff of conspirators of course.


    Scientists have beaten down the best climate denial argument
    Clouds don’t act as a climate thermostat, and they’re not going to save us from global warming

    Dana Nuccitelli
    Mon 18 Dec 2017

    Excerpts:

    “Climate deniers have come up with a lot of arguments about why we shouldn’t worry about global warming – about 200 of them – but most are quite poor, contradictory, and easily debunked by consulting the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The cleverest climate contrarians settle on the least implausible argument – that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS – how much a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase Earth’s surface temperature) is low, meaning that the planet will warm relatively slowly in response to human carbon pollution.
    ...

    The study found that the biggest contributor to the difference between the accurate and inaccurate models was in how well they simulated cloud changes. And while it’s just one study, several prior papers arrived at similar conclusions. “
    ...
    Contrarian arguments have not withstood scientific scrutiny

    Former MIT scientist Richard Lindzen (one of the most often cited,...”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...enial-argument
    More lies. Dana Nuccitteli is just making stuff up here. Mr. Nuccittelli doesn't have access to all the code of all the climate models, so how could he verify that? Even if he did have access, clouds are difficult to measure so there's no way to verify the simulations are accurately mimicking cloud formations. And there are no "accurate" climate models. They ALL predicted the same thing. They ALL agreed with the IPCC. That alone is a clear indication of fraud. And they ALL failed to predict the pause. This information is quite trivial and available on the internet. The climate liars live in a parallel world of insanity. The public is not yet fully aware of the extent of the fraud, but they're getting there...........
    Last edited by MrCombust; 04-06-2018 at 10:38 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  75. #675

    Default

    There was no pause. You're the one making stuff up.

  76. #676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    There was no pause. You're the one making stuff up.
    If there's no pause, what happened here, and where are Dana Nuccitelli's "accurate" climate models?

    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  77. #677
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Except I have a graph that shows something different:



    See here: https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/c...-observations/

    and read here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...o-observations

    edit: PS your straight line graph looks really silly.

  78. #678
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,764

    Default

    ^

    but... but... but... there are simply no words when truth and accuracy hit TRUTH in the face.

    thanks for being prepared to spend more time and having more information or access to more information to share than most of us do.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  79. #679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Except I have a graph that shows something different:



    See here: https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/c...-observations/

    and read here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...o-observations

    edit: PS your straight line graph looks really silly.
    NASA's fudged GISS makes everything look real. Too bad nobody takes it seriously anymore, not even the IPCC. Only liar blogs. My post 602 shows a comparison of GISS vs satellite and radiosonde, and....

    Once again, here's the peer reviewed paper from the IPCC that realizes all the models failed, and reduced the climate model predictions overnight.............

    "Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C"
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3031

    Here's a youtube video explaining the paper.........(climate change just changed)

    Last edited by MrCombust; 04-06-2018 at 11:32 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  80. #680
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,650

    Default

    ^^^Mr. Combust's straight line graph (which strangely stops in 2012) does not measure temperatures on the earth's surface. It purports to measure temperatures in the tropical mid-troposphere which is 6,000 metres to 12,000 metres above sea level.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere

  81. #681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^^Mr. Combust's straight line graph (which strangely stops in 2012) does not measure temperatures on the earth's surface. It purports to measure temperatures in the tropical mid-troposphere which is 6,000 metres to 12,000 metres above sea level.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere
    You know what's really good about satellite data?

    1) It's not affected by the heat island effect.
    2) It's not affected by 40 years of NASA's data fudging.
    3) It actually covers the whole earth, (not like GISS which uses imaginary stations that don't exist).
    4) It measures the Troposphere where CO2 is supposed to have the largest warming effect. (Google "troposphere hot spot", it's another climate model fail).
    5) There are two independent satellite datasets, RSS and UAH, which closely agree with each other.
    6) Satellites can verify other satellites for verification.
    7) Weather balloons (radiosonde) can verify satellite data.

    GISS fails on all these parameters. Satellites are amazing.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  82. #682

  83. #683
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    I mean, my second link shows the satellite data too. I just only posted one graph.

    But if you look a the satellite data and go to the link here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lite-datasets/

    It literally rebuts everything you say very nicely.

  84. #684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I mean, my second link shows the satellite data too. I just only posted one graph.

    But if you look a the satellite data and go to the link here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lite-datasets/

    It literally rebuts everything you say very nicely.
    Yes it does. But liar blogs are worthless sewers of misinformation.

    Maybe others will find it convincing. Good luck.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  85. #685
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I mean, my second link shows the satellite data too. I just only posted one graph.

    But if you look a the satellite data and go to the link here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lite-datasets/

    It literally rebuts everything you say very nicely.
    Yes it does. But liar blogs are worthless sewers of misinformation.

    Maybe others will find it convincing. Good luck.
    No one here seeming to believe your point of views on any of this (Except maybe the other Mr). Pretty sure you're convincing no one, especially with a rebuttal like "no that place is just full of lies".

  86. #686

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I mean, my second link shows the satellite data too. I just only posted one graph.

    But if you look a the satellite data and go to the link here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...lite-datasets/

    It literally rebuts everything you say very nicely.
    Yes it does. But liar blogs are worthless sewers of misinformation.

    Maybe others will find it convincing. Good luck.
    No one here seeming to believe your point of views on any of this (Except maybe the other Mr). Pretty sure you're convincing no one, especially with a rebuttal like "no that place is just full of lies".
    Michael Mann is a major contributor to realclimate. I think he might have even created it.

    Michael Mann is the guy in this video lying during a congressional science hearing on climate change........

    Last edited by MrCombust; 04-06-2018 at 01:40 PM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  87. #687
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by East McCauley View Post
    ^^^Mr. Combust's straight line graph (which strangely stops in 2012) does not measure temperatures on the earth's surface. It purports to measure temperatures in the tropical mid-troposphere which is 6,000 metres to 12,000 metres above sea level.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere
    You know what's really good about satellite data?

    1) It's not affected by the heat island effect.
    2) It's not affected by 40 years of NASA's data fudging.
    3) It actually covers the whole earth, (not like GISS which uses imaginary stations that don't exist).
    4) It measures the Troposphere where CO2 is supposed to have the largest warming effect. (Google "troposphere hot spot", it's another climate model fail).
    5) There are two independent satellite datasets, RSS and UAH, which closely agree with each other.
    6) Satellites can verify other satellites for verification.
    7) Weather balloons (radiosonde) can verify satellite data.

    GISS fails on all these parameters. Satellites are amazing.
    Most satellite data is measured at altitude and not at the earth's surface. Satellite data is useful especially in measuring how temperature changes higher up in the atmosphere compare to temperature changes in the earth's land and oceans where people live and on which we depend. The higher the elevation above the earth's surface the less pronounced warming has been with even some cooling observed in the lower stratosphere. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strato...ture_Trend.jpg

    GISS is only one of dozens of earth surface temperature time series and not even the most cited one. GISS makes a handy foil for the climate change deniers because of its association with James Hansen.

    Why don't all the "skeptics" get together and develop their own surface temperature time series? Oh right, former skeptic Richard Muller already did this with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project.

    BEST's time series found slightly more warming than most of the other temperature time series because BEST did not make adjustments in station data to remove urban heat islands for instance. Of course, no sooner did Muller report BEST's findings than he was disowned and attacked by the deniers.
    Last edited by East McCauley; 04-06-2018 at 04:42 PM. Reason: correct typo

  88. #688

    Default The TRUTH.... about fake "climate change" advocacy.........

    The world is warming because of CO2 and we're all gonna die....................

    That's what they've been telling us for 30 years.

    Nuclear power would reduce the emission of CO2 on a monumental scale.

    Nuclear power has been rejected by almost every nation in the world. The "green" advocates who are most concerned about climate change, also reject nuclear power.

    If the advocates actually cared about "climate change" we'd be building nuclear reactors, not switching to natural gas.

    Nobody is really serious about "climate change". it's a fake agenda. Even by the advocates.
    Last edited by MrCombust; 05-06-2018 at 09:24 AM.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  89. #689

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    The world is warming because of CO2 and we're all gonna die....................

    That's what they've been telling us for 30 years.

    Nuclear power would reduce the emission of CO2 on a monumental scale.

    Nuclear power has been rejected by almost every nation in the world. The "green" advocates who are most concerned about climate change, also reject nuclear power.

    Nobody is really serious about "climate change". it's a fake agenda. Even by the advocates.
    I mostly agree with you here except on the fake agenda and seriousness thing. Look at how serious you are.

    The people’s of the world are largely behaving according to past behaviour and changes being made to alter behaviour to minimize global warming has emissions (as I’ve argued) are very, very minor. Closing some coal plants, some new carbon taxes... all just cases of tinkering.

    And yes, glad you believe that we are all going to die. Though... we could start a thread to talk about the TRUTH of eternal life. If would it be “The TRUTH about everyone eventually dues”
    Last edited by KC; 05-06-2018 at 09:33 AM.

  90. #690
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Nuclear power isn't being built because it can't be built cost effectively compared to many other options, when you factor in regulatory and waste disposal costs.

  91. #691

    Default The TRUTH.. Something we should all be happy about.......

    Under the Paris accord concerns about indigenous rights are respected, as well as migrants, and people with disabilities. The empowerment of women is also a factor.

    Glad we're addressing these issues along with the great threat to mankind as a whole........

    "Parties should when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity".

    https://unfccc.int/topics/gender/the...mental-process
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  92. #692

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Nuclear power isn't being built because it can't be built cost effectively compared to many other options, when you factor in regulatory and waste disposal costs.
    What are the disposal costs for solar panels per kWh? Please include the costs associated with disposing of heavy metals used in solar panels.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  93. #693
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Nuclear power isn't being built because it can't be built cost effectively compared to many other options, when you factor in regulatory and waste disposal costs.
    What are the disposal costs for solar panels per kWh? Please include the costs associated with disposing of heavy metals used in solar panels.
    Solar Panels can be recycled, including the heavy metals. This recycling industry will ramp up as the amount of solar panels that are at end of life increases.

    The simple answer to this is to look at what kind of power generation is being built world wide. It's not Nuclear, and it's not because those that believe in Climate Change think we shouldn't have Nuclear. It's all about economics.

  94. #694
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,183

    Default

    Apparently Albertans don't want to hear the TRUTH.

    Thanks everyone who takes the time to correct or dispute the crap that he posts.

  95. #695
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Nuclear power isn't being built because it can't be built cost effectively compared to many other options, when you factor in regulatory and waste disposal costs.
    What are the disposal costs for solar panels per kWh? Please include the costs associated with disposing of heavy metals used in solar panels.
    while we wait for Channing to do that, could you please post the disposal costs for nuclear power per kWh including the costs associated with the disposing of and/or millennium long storage of radioactive material and heavy water and recycling of the concrete intensive facilities themselves? it you could, it would certainly help the rest of us discern the TRUTH behind your financial assertions by having something to compare.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  96. #696

    Default The TRUTH Fairy tales vs reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Apparently Albertans don't want to hear the TRUTH.

    Thanks everyone who takes the time to correct or dispute the crap that he posts.
    Sorry but........ making stuff up from the fairy tale world of advocacy isn't a refutation.

    There's a real world the advocates don't know about where real people are harmed by nonsensical political policies.

    In Ontario where they shut the coal plants down 60,000 people were disconnected from the grid because they can't afford electricity.

    300,000 Germans too. The "leaders" in solar power.

    Grownups in the real world need to educate themselves and make tough decisions. Decisions based on the reality that there's a cost to everything. There's a cost to shutting down coal plants, and that cost is also in human lives. Not everybody will die of global warming 100 years from now. Many will die of pneumonia, shivering in thier unheated condos........ in Alberta.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  97. #697
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,764

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Apparently Albertans don't want to hear the TRUTH.

    Thanks everyone who takes the time to correct or dispute the crap that he posts.
    Sorry but........ making stuff up from the fairy tale world of advocacy isn't a refutation.

    There's a real world the advocates don't know about where real people are harmed by nonsensical political policies.

    In Ontario where they shut the coal plants down 60,000 people were disconnected from the grid because they can't afford electricity.

    300,000 Germans too. The "leaders" in solar power.

    Grownups in the real world need to educate themselves and make tough decisions. Decisions based on the reality that there's a cost to everything. There's a cost to shutting down coal plants, and that cost is also in human lives. Not everybody will die of global warming 100 years from now. Many will die of pneumonia, shivering in thier unheated condos........ in Alberta.
    emphasis added.

    no making stuff up from the fairy tale world of advocacy in that conclusion eh?

    oh, wait... i see what you're doing there.

    you're actually providing us real world examples of making stuff up from the fairy tale world of advocacy so we'll recognize it when we see it in our search for the TRUTH and be able to discount it!

    that makes much more sense of most of your posts than trying to take them at face value.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  98. #698

    Default

    After reviewing this thread again, I only have one TRUTH yet to figure out, is mrcombust a shill for bigoil or bigcoal?

  99. #699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MrCombust View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    Apparently Albertans don't want to hear the TRUTH.

    Thanks everyone who takes the time to correct or dispute the crap that he posts.
    Sorry but........ making stuff up from the fairy tale world of advocacy isn't a refutation.

    There's a real world the advocates don't know about where real people are harmed by nonsensical political policies.

    In Ontario where they shut the coal plants down 60,000 people were disconnected from the grid because they can't afford electricity.

    300,000 Germans too. The "leaders" in solar power.

    Grownups in the real world need to educate themselves and make tough decisions. Decisions based on the reality that there's a cost to everything. There's a cost to shutting down coal plants, and that cost is also in human lives. Not everybody will die of global warming 100 years from now. Many will die of pneumonia, shivering in thier unheated condos........ in Alberta.
    emphasis added.

    no making stuff up from the fairy tale world of advocacy in that conclusion eh?

    oh, wait... i see what you're doing there.

    you're actually providing us real world examples of making stuff up from the fairy tale world of advocacy so we'll recognize it when we see it in our search for the TRUTH and be able to discount it!

    that makes much more sense of most of your posts than trying to take them at face value.
    In your fairy tale world, what is happening to the 60,000 Ontarians, and 300,000 Germans who have been disconnected from the grid?

    This is exactly the problem with climate change advocates. They just wish away bad thoughts. And when 60,000 tons of aged broken solar panels are brought to the dump a magical company will step in and make a profit separating the heavy metals from the broken glass.
    "Without feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would result in 1 °C global warming, which is undisputed." Climate sensitivity, Wikipedia

  100. #700

    Default

    MrCombust continues to avoid the real questions being asked of him... telling.

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •