Har Har Har Global warming crap

[rainbow]

The most obvious problem with global warming theory is how unqualified most of it's proponents are. Modeling the climate is a 10+ on the math / physics difficulty scale, and that level of difficulty is far beyond the education level of any climate theorist.

Interesting. What are the limits of your 'math / physics difficulty scale'?

I'd put climate modeling at the top of the difficulty scale. Other things that are up there are modeling nuclear chain reactions, those gravity sling shot tricks with space probes, whatever those particle physicists at CERN do. Stuff that takes really, really smart math and physics PhDs to even have a chance to figure out. Qualifications lacking in most if not all so called climate scientists.

No doubt, you out-qualify climate scientists by a significant margin.

Where did you get your PhD?

[Tero]

(To mister m, last post for me today)
From statistics. One year alone isn't even climate. It's weather. It is fully explained in the wikipedia article for global warming. It's just noise in the graph. None of the points fall on the curve that employs some simple averaging, which is apparently beyond your high school math.

[mistermack]

Who's talking about one year alone?

If you want to be strictly dogmatic, a thirty year period can be described as long enough to give an accurate description of climate. So this year, you would look back to approx 1983. Last year, you would look back to 1982.The year before, 1981. And so on.
So each new year affects the values for the latest description of climate. You would get a changing figure each year, for the average temperature for the previous 30 years. That's if you want to be completely dogmatic about the definition of climate.

So to try to argue that nearly 20 years of steady global temperatures means nothing in climate terms is nonsense.
Each year's figure has an affect on the record of climate.

You can choose a previous five-years average, a ten-year average, twenty, or thirty. It doesn't matter. Each new year will give you a new value.

[Tero]

Go right ahead. Let's see your plot.

Or

[Tero]

Here is the data. I don't have Excel, Im in the back seat of a car.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... GLB.Ts.txt

[Tero]

Did you plot it? Most data comes out like this.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/ ... lrg[1].jpg

Sorry, cut and paste, I'm on iPhone.

Sure proves it's going to be flat from now on. Right?

[mistermack]

It just says not found. Anyway, manually plotting data is not my thing. All this stuff is available online, without me doing any work whatsoever.
There's tons of it.
Many sources have one line for yearly figures, and one for five year averages, both on the same graph. It just smooths the curve out.

[Tero]

And you mistrust the nasa data?
The tables, with the formula in degrees C at the bottom give the Nasa graphs
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The 7th graph in
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Gives the false "flat" 1996 and later graph widely shown in tabloid papers.

I gotta go to dinner after helping my son move.

[macdoc]

I took this photo today



It shows the largest single emitter of C02 in North America - now mothballed ( you can see the coal still mounded ).
Framed by the size large windmills that now feed the grid instead.

Ontario is one of the larger economies in the world and went from 25% coal to ZERO in 10 years.

While a vanishing few deniers still have their heads stuck in the unmentionable odiferous darkness. ....the rest are getting on with change.

[Seth]

I took this photo today



It shows the largest single emitter of C02 in North America - now mothballed ( you can see the coal still mounded ).
Framed by the size large windmills that now feed the grid instead.

...with one one thousandth of the KWH of the plant, at a hundred times the cost.

Ontario is one of the larger economies in the world and went from 25% coal to ZERO in 10 years.

Say what? Not with fucking windmills and solar panels it didn't. Probably natural gas, which the zealots don't like much more than coal, or hydroelectric, which is the best of all but pisses off the bunny huggers.

While a vanishing few deniers still have their heads stuck in the unmentionable odiferous darkness. ....the rest are getting on with change.

At what cost and who benefits economically.

All that coal was once carboniferous vegetation and any carbon released from it came from the same closed-loop system it originated in.

[mistermack]

And you mistrust the nasa data?
The tables, with the formula in degrees C at the bottom give the Nasa graphs
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

The 7th graph in
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Gives the false "flat" 1996 and later graph widely shown in tabloid papers.

I gotta go to dinner after helping my son move.

Actually, the giss figures are the least trustworthy, out of the official sets. They consistently make choices designed to maximise the appearance of warming. I might trust their figures, but I'd look very hard at the context, and at what they choose not to mention. They have an agenda.

Anyway, I believe I originally quoted the British Met office, who quietly and sneakily announced the halt in warming, hoping nobody would notice. They also drastically reduced their forecast of future temperatures.
If people like the Met Office are acknowledging the seventeen plus year plateau, in spite of wanting to promote the AGW message, then I conclude that it's real, and it's official. If you think otherwise, could you explain to me what the Met Office are up to?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ve-it.html

[Woodbutcher]

I took this photo today



It shows the largest single emitter of C02 in North America - now mothballed ( you can see the coal still mounded ).
Framed by the size large windmills that now feed the grid instead.

...with one one thousandth of the KWH of the plant, at a hundred times the cost.

Ontario is one of the larger economies in the world and went from 25% coal to ZERO in 10 years.

Say what? Not with fucking windmills and solar panels it didn't. Probably natural gas, which the zealots don't like much more than coal, or hydroelectric, which is the best of all but pisses off the bunny huggers.

While a vanishing few deniers still have their heads stuck in the unmentionable odiferous darkness. ....the rest are getting on with change.

At what cost and who benefits economically.

All that coal was once carboniferous vegetation and any carbon released from it came from the same closed-loop system it originated in.

That is about as stupid a fucking statement as I've ever heard. That carbon was deposited out of the air millions of years ago, lowering the CO2 and decreasing the greenhouse effect. When you release that much CO2 into the atmosphere that cannot deposit it back fast enough, you increase the greenhouse effect. This causes warming.
What cost to the economy if we do not deal with warming now? There is an initial cost into converting energy acquisition into green sources, but sun and wind are free sources. Deserts could give us enough energy to last forever if we just made the effort. But as long as the government is dictated to by big business, nothing will change until, suddenly, we are asked to make huge sacrifices to accommodate the same businesses as they retool with OUR money while making money hand over fist. Seth, it's up to you to start the revolution. We'll be right behind you....

[mistermack]

I took this photo today



It shows the largest single emitter of C02 in North America - now mothballed ( you can see the coal still mounded ).
Framed by the size large windmills that now feed the grid instead.

Seth's right. That's your most ludicrous post yet. And that's saying something.

Care to tell us exactly HOW MANY windmills it would take to really replace that plant?

[Seth]

I took this photo today



It shows the largest single emitter of C02 in North America - now mothballed ( you can see the coal still mounded ).
Framed by the size large windmills that now feed the grid instead.

Seth's right. That's your most ludicrous post yet. And that's saying something.

Care to tell us exactly HOW MANY windmills it would take to really replace that plant?

And how much it would cost, both initially and with ongoing maintenance, which is quite high for EACH generator, and how high the electricity rates will go for consumers, and how much land must be dedicated to wind farms and how many birds, including endangered and protected species each windmill kills each year along with where the backup power source is to power the grid when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine.

And how much taxpayer money is required to subsidize both solar and wind systems in order to even get them built.

Solar and wind are simply not viable large-scale replacements for coal and gas-fired or nuclear power plants. Even with wind farms with thousands of turbines that stretch over mile after mile of terrain and solar panels being installed all the time "renewable energy" sources don't make up much over 2 percent of the demand. Where the hell is the other 98 percent going to come from? I don't know about you, but I'm already sick of seeing the blinking red lights of enormous wind farms and whooshing blades covering square miles of land just so ecoweenies can feel better about their hypocritical consumption of energy as they post myopic opinions using computers that are overwhelmingly powered by coal and gas.

If they want to be eco-Luddites, let them wear hair shirts and live on nuts and berries in the wilderness. Then maybe I'll give a damn about their complaints. I quit being "green" decades ago when I discovered that the entire eco-movement has been concocting high-sounding lies and half-truths to hornswoggle the public into screwing themselves for the financial benefit of the eco-thieves who just make shit up.

[piscator]

Flood insurance is socialized in America. Private sector insurers do not write flood policies, and they exclude flood damage in homeowner and commercial P&C policies. FEMA manages the National Flood Insurance Program, which is underwritten by US Federal tax dollars. Lenders often require Flood Insurance on new and existing property loans and mortgages.

Every so often, FEMA takes a regularly scheduled look at the historic hydrology they use to define flood plains and recomputes flood insurance rates for homeowners and businesses. The new Flood Insurance Rate Maps [FIRMs 2013] were unofficially released this spring.
Well, due to the sea level increase and increased severity of storms and increased Flood Insurance claim payments in the last 36 years, America now has a lot of new flood plains and a lot of higher Base Flood Elevations and storm surge zones. Keep in mind that Sandy and Katrina are statistical pixels over a 30+ year cycle, and have little to do with flood insurance rates. Welcome to climate change...

When Catherine Porthouse bought a home in 2010 in the bayous of Louisiana, she didn’t worry much about the possibility of flood damage. Her house, in the town of Des Allemands, is shielded by marshlands and a levee and had no history of problems. Flood insurance wasn’t required, but she purchased a policy just in case.

In March, Porthouse got a rude surprise. The Federal Emergency Management Agency announced at a town meeting that it had rewritten the state’s flood maps and added her house and hundreds of others to Louisiana’s flood zone. She was told she’ll have to raise her house 8 feet into the air and fill in the space beneath it. If she doesn’t, her yearly flood insurance bill will jump from $388 to $18,000. “I left in tears,” Porthouse says.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/20 ... eir-houses