75 replies to this topic

[The Average Joe]

Nope, but for every hyped up story the media overplays, their relevance and trustworthiness takes a hit. When we do actually have the most epic storm ever, many will look back at this and ignore the warnings (boy who cried wolf and all).  Then again, to your point. Ummm, don't build on swamps at sea level in a hurricane zone and then be surprised at flooding and damage.  Same for building on earthquake faults (SF, LA) and blame nature. Or on unstable, eroding hills, barrier islands, swampland, sand, cliffs, etc and then be surprised when nature does what it does.

[Who_Do_You_Trust]

Latest news on what other countries are doing in response to climate change - China just announced a plan to ban the manufacture and sale of all fossil fueled vehicles from the country by 2040.  They join France and UK who both have a similar goal.  The Chinese move is significant because they are currently the largest automotive manufacturer and market in the world selling just over 28 million vehicles last year.  This substantially surpasses US auto sales in 2016 which was 17.5 million units.  China has a double incentive to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels.  First, to reduce the level of pollution in many of their large metropolitan areas, and second to address climate change concerns. In addition, China is in the process of replacing coal fired generating plants with alternative energy sources, primarily wind and solar. 

 

What is more interesting is that these countries have arrived at their conclusions independent of American influence. They have developed their own data sets, built their own modeling capabilities, and are all arriving at the same conclusion - climate change is clearly man caused.  It's unlikely that Al Gore and any other American global warming alarmists (as the deniers like to call them) have any influence over the decisions made in France, UK, and especially China.   

 

The difference between America and these countries is they are taking action, dedicating resources, and going after new technologies to mitigate global warming.  While here in America, we're (officially) trying to bring back coal mines.  We are the laughing stock of the world.

[2 Aces]

If it's such an urgent matter, why would China wait until the year 2040? You climate change dorks have been so brainwashed.

[Chris]

If it's such an urgent matter, why would China wait until the year 2040? You climate change dorks have been so brainwashed.

Boom....!   So there you go.........   And nobody but you, me, and Joe will notice here.......    The rest of the sheep will do what they are told.............     Chris

[The Average Joe]

lol, Yeah, the Chinese are on board with AGW....

 

China's energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.

These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, a Berlin-based environmental group. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, about a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

Overall, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, said Urgewald, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world's coal-fired power capacity by 43 per cent.

[Who_Do_You_Trust]

lol, Yeah, the Chinese are on board with AGW....

 

China's energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.

These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, a Berlin-based environmental group. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, about a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

Overall, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, said Urgewald, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world's coal-fired power capacity by 43 per cent.

 

Here's some cherry-picked information that counters your cherry-picked information:

 

China Cancels 103 Coal Plants, Mindful of Smog and Wasted Capacity - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/world/asia/china-coal-power-plants-pollution.html?mcubz=3 

 

China to Halt Construction on Coal-Fired Power Plants in 15 Regions ... - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/china-to-halt-construction-on-coal-fired-power-plants-in-15-regions/ 

 

Coal in 'freefall' as new power plants dive by two-thirds | Environment ... - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/22/coal-power-plants-green-energy-china-india 

 

Plans for coal-fired power plants drop by almost half in 2016 - BBC News - http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39342818 

 

The only difference between your information and my information is that I freely admit mine's cherry-picked.  Will you do the same?

[2 Aces]

The man-made climate change (MMCC) cult is a *religious cult*. They don't care about actual science. The *proof* they have of MMCC is all manufactured. They don't use actual data... they use climate "models" manufactured by people with an ideological agenda. Yes, they use *guesses* that support their MMCC religion. Our side uses real science and data. THAT is why claims of MMCC should be dismissed and ignored. It's a religion... a sham... a hoax, not a science.

 

[The Average Joe]

They aren't cherry picked. Both of our information is factually correct.  You interpreted China's heading towards electric vehicles as the embracing green energy. I pointed out that they are still building a s load of coal plants. You then switched to saying, yes, but not in CHina. If they truly embraced a green agenda, they would not be building MASSIVE amounts of new coal plants at all. It reeks of the carbon credits scam. You know, "we're a green company, we pay for the right to emit co2" What a scam.

The reason China has halted building power in China is that they have overcapacity.  That does not mean they have embraced the green agenda.  When they attempt to go electric with automobiles, they will have the capacity to charge all those cars.   Side note: CA, oddly enough, is paying MORE for using less energy.  We have built all these plants  (due to the panic and rolling brownouts in 2001), and the government has allowed energy companies to charge more to recoup their investment. However, many of the plants (like Sutter natural gas) are closing or running below capacity. Still, I guess we'll have backup energy for all the foolish reliance on wind and solar.

[Who_Do_You_Trust]

It's interesting how people never look outside the box.  When they hear about electric vehicles, they always say power plants will be required to charge all those cars.  Apparently they don't think solar panels and wind turbines can recharge a Tesla.  BREAKING NEWS - they can!

 

And why are most other countries arriving at the conclusion that global warming is caused by human activity?  They are developing their own data, doing their own analyses, and everyone is arriving at the same conclusion.  Coincidence?

 

When the vast majority of people add 2 + 2 and come up with 4, there's an excellent chance that it's factual and true.  And there are no Al Gores in China, UK, or France.

[The Average Joe]

So...when do most people use their cars? During the day.  When do cars sit unused? That would be at night. How are you going to use solar power to recharge a fleet of cars at night? You're not. You are going to rely on constant, available energy suppliers like hydro, gas and coal.

 

Why are most countries following along? Now you need to get out of the box. Most countries do NOT have their own climate data sets, but rather, rely on data and models from GISS, RSS, UAH, or HadCRUT. That's it. Three of those are located in America and one in Britain. Australia has their own climate office that has been getting into trouble lately for cooking the books and misrepresenting data. GISS and HadCRUT have tortured the raw data to such a degree that it is unrecognizable.  Recently, RSS has started doing the same thing. (They recently "adjusted" the raw data of .078 degrees per decade warming to .125 degrees warming per decade. Pretty common for other datasets, but a shock from RSS. AND the "adjusted" datasets no longer track with other measurements).

"Scientists at UAH, including Dr. Roy Spencer, former senior climate scientist at NASA, compared the new RSS results with the data collected by UAH satellites. In comments on his own website and at climate-focused outlets, Spencer said there had been “spurious warming” added into the new RSS data — a problem that UAH data does not have. He blamed the spurious warming in the adjusted RSS data set on the RSS scientists failing to correct for discrepancies between more accurate temperature data-gathering instruments and data gathered by older, poorly calibrated instruments that have drifted from their original orbit. “I suspect Carl Mears [with RSS] grew tired of global warming ‘denialists’ using the RSS satellite data to demonstrate an 18-year ‘pause,’” Spencer was quoted as saying by the Daily Caller. “So, now that problem is solved.”  

 

Even UAH is on dataset version 6.0. I'm sure you can agree that the farther you get from the raw data, the more it is likely that you are introducing biases. From all the manipulations I have seen, it seems many modern climate scientists fit the data to the model rather than adjust the model to fit the data. 

When the vast majority of people take parroted news as gospel and don't dig to the original data, then they are just as likely to come up with a wrong answer as a right one.

[Chris]

Joe, arguing with the liberal Climate Clowns always goes round and round.....   They don't listen to facts and ignore any data you put forth to counter their argument.   

 

 

[Who_Do_You_Trust]

So...when do most people use their cars? During the day.  When do cars sit unused? That would be at night. How are you going to use solar power to recharge a fleet of cars at night? You're not. You are going to rely on constant, available energy suppliers like hydro, gas and coal.

 

 

Sorry to use this word, but your ignorance of how electric vehicle battery charging works is evident.  Quick explanation - the Tesla battery charger is in itself a rechargeable battery.  It gets trickle charged during the day (when the sun is out), and then can be used to flash charge the vehicle over a 60 minute time period any time it's needed.  This is how all Tesla charging stations work, whether in your garage, or at the parking lot at the airport.  Keep in mind that a Tesla is charged at a rate of about 380 amps and 1000 volts.  This capacity of service isn't available from your home circuit breaker box.  It's only available from another battery, the one in the charger.  The one that gets trickle charged at a much lower amperage from your house over a much longer period of time.  

 

You need to catch up with technology and you gotta think outside the box.   Sorry to be blunt.

[Chris]

 

Sorry to use this word, but your ignorance of how electric vehicle battery charging works is evident.  Quick explanation - the Tesla battery charger is in itself a rechargeable battery.  It gets trickle charged during the day (when the sun is out), and then can be used to flash charge the vehicle over a 60 minute time period any time it's needed.  This is how all Tesla charging stations work, whether in your garage, or at the parking lot at the airport.  Keep in mind that a Tesla is charged at a rate of about 380 amps and 1000 volts.  This capacity of service isn't available from your home circuit breaker box.  It's only available from another battery, the one in the charger.  The one that gets trickle charged at a much lower amperage from your house over a much longer period of time.  

 

You need to catch up with technology.  But you gotta think outside the box.   Sorry to be blunt.

Yep, and in all this explain to me this chart, this graph below....  Hey smarty pants, Mr. journalist, with no degree in a scientific field, explain the CO2 levels, the average global temps over time...   And note, Man did not exist for all of this, except maybe the last 3 million years, 200 years of that, production with machines, using, burning fossil fuels. Explain to me, me, trained in science, have that degree in science, works in it every day for the last 30 years why you are correct.   I will listen if you can explain it to me.  Teach me.  And please note that the average global temps are very low in our time and CO2 is very low historically.   And why are you worried, what is the problem...?   Other than our CO2 is way low historically....    And you guys think we are at too high a level at 400 ppm....?   Please explain.   Chris

 

[Who_Do_You_Trust]

 

 

 Most countries do NOT have their own climate data sets, but rather, rely on data and models from GISS, RSS, UAH, or HadCRUT. That's it 

 

It doesn't appear that you are correct.  With a quick search, I was able to find references to eight national data sets and four regional data sets for global warming numbers - 

 

Canada national climate and weather data archive

Australia high-quality climate change data set

United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data set

Korean exchange data set

Vietnam exchange data set

CMA

Russian Meteorological Agency

Japan Meteorological Agency

South American regional data set

Africa regional data set

European regional data set

Antarctic climate data set

 

Add those to the ones you mentioned and the total = 16.

 

Let the cherry-picking continue

[2 Aces]

...and the jibberish continues from the brainwashed AGW clowns... How do grown adults fall for such nonsense? Stupidity?