[F1VENOM]

The biggest problem isn't solving the energy problem. The problem is Congress not wanting to enact legislation that costs money now but will garner votes for the next guy. Short sighted governance leads to a pretty ****ed up existence.

Have you read up on ITER and Thorium yet?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

The biggest problem isn't solving the energy problem. The problem is Congress not wanting to enact legislation that costs money now but will garner votes for the next guy. Short sighted governance leads to a pretty ****ed up existence.

Have you read up on ITER and Thorium yet?

Its the weekend buddy. My primary concerns are good ales, my woman, and shenanigans. Somewhat in that order.

[FreeEnterprise]

Oh look... global warming information was "quietly" released, and the major media in our country ignored it...

Wow. I'm shocked. Typical liberal media.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-prove-it.html

"The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years."

[Rampager2000]

Typical liberal media. Such chumps.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by FreeEnterprise

Oh look... global warming information was "quietly" released, and the major media in our country ignored it...

Wow. I'm shocked. Typical liberal media.

"The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years."

Two key things.

The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

It uses the same model you called flawed for pages. Now you support the other mounds of global warming data or is that going to change, again?

What you should have taken from the article.

A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’

You're just a cherry-picking political hack who calls himself scientifically literate when you make the most basic of interpretive mistakes.

[FreeEnterprise]

actually, I have always said we should use satellite data... It isn't placed next to a heater, or any other heat source.

Oh wait, satellite data doesn't show "warming" either...

[F1VENOM]

You never identified that you could correctly interpret satellite data as I asked you to do pages back.

Are the 3,000 sites valid now?

[$h@key J0nEZ]

This thread smells like carbon tax.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

It's good to see you've moved away from satellites but even from your posted graph the oceans are warming.

If you can tell me why the top is warmer than the bottom I'll convert to your side.

For reference, FE.

[TheSilentAssassin]

I actually would be interested in how one should interpret the satellite data. Climate change is not one of my strong suites.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

I actually would be interested in how one should interpret the satellite data. Climate change is not one of my strong suites.

I'll let him get a stab at it before I go discussing it.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

I actually would be interested in how one should interpret the satellite data. Climate change is not one of my strong suites.

I don't think he's coming back.

[Tuff]

I believe Free Enterprise asked twice what the purpose of that graph is, and the image keeps getting posted over and over. I think people are ignoring it simply because it's being spammed, but I'll let him speak for himself. I don't think the planet stopped getting warmer 16 years ago if the arctic circle has shrunk in that time. I'd like to see a few more credible studies showing warming stopped that long ago.

[FreeEnterprise]

Clearly scientists are manipulating data to fit their "grant" needs.

Which is my point. If you want to debate your graph that you keep spamming over and over, go to a site where people care... I ignore trolls.

May I suggest

http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference...c-oscillation/

You can "debate" your heart out on there with actual climate scientists, who will eat your lunch... But, "debate" is usually a fresh influx of ideas, and all you do is spout that graph and talk about how brilliant you are, while talking down to me...


When the fact is. The media and fake climate scientists have been selling a global warming fear doctrine only to manipulate our energy production and push us towards other "green" energies that don't work.

By using fear tactics.

For example This.

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/hom.../08/01291.html

"Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

Hydrate hypothesis illuminates growing climate change alarm

Compiled by John Stokes

A recent scientific theory called the "hydrate hypothesis" says that historical global warming cycles have been caused by a feedback loop, where melting permafrost methane clathrates (also known as "hydrates") spur local global warming, leading to further melting of clathrates and bacterial growth.

In other words, like western Siberia, the 400 billion tons of methane in permafrost hydrate will gradually melt, and the released methane will speed the melting. The effect of even a couple of billion tons of methane being emitted into the atmosphere each year would be catastrophic.

The "hydrate hypothesis" (if validated) spells the rapid onset of runaway catastrophic global warming. In fact, you should remember this moment when you learned about this feedback loop-it is an existencial turning point in your life."


So essentially, the media/global warming scientists are out there saying that in 2012 4.5 billion people could die from global warming. (they wrote that in 2007).

And yet, we have seen NO warming for the past 16 years...

which you can see in this nifty graph.



Weird, that shows NO warming... Must be faulty numbers or something, AMIRITE?!?

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by FreeEnterprise

Clearly scientists are manipulating data to fit their "grant" needs.

Why do you believe that the other side is skewing data but your is not? Do you accept that it's possible that you are the one reading manipulated data?

[Subterfuge]

Well I did notice the last time I went surfing, the ocean was unusually high. The rocks on the shoreline were actually almost under water and the waves were exploding on them. We surfed during high tide many times, so it wasn't just that it was high tide. It could be just beach erosion. Usually it only gets that high when there is a hurricane coming. There is a hurricane on the west coast, but I don't think that would effect the ocean levels.

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Why do you believe that the other side is skewing data but your is not? Do you accept that it's possible that you are the one reading manipulated data?

He's just a partisan hack who's trolling. He spent pages calling the studies flawed because of the methodology but the minute it supports his stance he's posting the gotcha. He's failed to explain why the lastest study is wrong and why his recommended method of satellites is valid. He simply doesn't understand any of this well enough to discuss it in his own words but won't admit it. He just keeps linking the same tired website about **** we're not discussing and it's time to ignore him. As much as I like seeing him flounder, it's a bit cruel and he won't learn a lesson.

[情けない]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

He's just a partisan hack who's trolling. He spent pages calling the studies flawed because of the methodology but the minute it supports his stance he's posting the gotcha.

You're the one who's trying to make the case that it is happening. Shouldn't you be the one worried that the studies and methodologies you've spent pages and pages defending now show no warming for 16 years?

FE is citing that as additional evidence that weakens your case. You're trying to ignore it by pointing out that he didn't always support those studies, yet it's your case that is being weakened by it, not his.

[F1VENOM]

Not at all, that concern is addressed in the article..75*C since the 1800's and you expect to see an appreciable change in 15 years.

[Swerve22]

Originally Posted by F1VENOM

Not at all, that concern is addressed in the article..75*C since the 1800's and you expect to see an appreciable change in 15 years.

We have more carbon now, why isn't the earth warming faster?

Isnt' the urgency behind the need to act to prevent global warming based on the theory that feedback loops will become self perpetuating and critically speed up the process? If that's true why has it slowed to a stop?

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by Swerve22

We have more carbon now, why isn't the earth warming faster?

Isnt' the urgency behind the need to act to prevent global warming based on the theory that feedback loops will become self perpetuating and critically speed up the process? If that's true why has it slowed to a stop?

Are you familiar with growth models and stability points?