Isn't claiming a "100% failure rate" for climate models kind of a tip-off that the person has no idea what they're talking about?
So what happened, did they predict the Earth's temperature and the Earth didn't have one? It's about as silly as giving an RMSE in predicting whether a team won or lost a game.
Anonymous, thanks for the grammar tip, even if it is incorrect. "They're" is perfectly acceptable usage when the gender is unknown, as it is in this case.
So, you don’t really understand either, do you Davie Bwoi?
New Anonymous, you have a number of mistakes with your physics. Carbon dioxide is not "saturated" or anywhere close to that--the more CO2, the warmer it gets. Also the forcing from CO2 is 24 hours per day, unlike sunlight, which averages closer to one-quarter of your noon value. Furthermore, the water vapor feedback is well-established--we see that all the time. It's also primarily the surface which is heated, not the entire column of air. Finally, it's clearly warming rapidly.
- skeptikLv 74 months agoFavourite answer
Pretty much, yeah.
Particularly since it's trivially easy to show the claim is BS.
- ElizabethLv 74 months ago
The problem is many skeptics are now just contrarians ...
The planet is warming.
No it's not.
But the data shows it is.
The data is wrong.
But people all over the world have measured it.
No, they're lying to you.
The models show our CO2 emissions are having a warming effect.
The models are wrong.
But the models from the 80s are pretty accurate in predicting the temperatures now.
No they're not.
Experiments show CO2 is having a warming effect.
But CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
No, it's not.
But the greenhouse effect is well understood.
No it isn't.
Ok, but sea levels are rising.
No the land is falling.
But it's measured by satellites, and isn't referenced to the land.
Satellites are wrong.
Glaciers are melting.
Arctic ice is melting.
No it's not.
It's definitely not the sun causing this warming.
Yes it is.
... and so on. It's like arguing with a 6 year old throwing a strop.
- JimZLv 74 months ago
A broken clock is right sometimes, but rarely. It seems alarmists always manage to find the wrong side of an issue. If they were broken clocks, they would have a better success record. Models are like sphincters, everyone has one and some just don't work very well. Alarmists will take a model and massage it and beat it without mercy until it gives them what they want.
Anon is worried that oil wells are leaking....Did I read that right? That is a pretty silly worry but not surprising. As a geologist, I have to admit that the earth leaks, and it isn't due to a faulty sphincter. Petroleum moves vertically up and to a lesser degree, laterally. That is how it encounters "traps" but not all is trapped. It just keeps going up until it is oxidized or consumed. Oil, coal, and gas are natural hydrocarbons that are constantly leaking or being eroded. They are being gobbled up by bacteria etc. but I'm sure to Anon, if it is oil or gas it is unspeakably toxic and bad.
- Anonymous4 months ago
I don't get why AGW types fixate on something that does not exist. Not one knowledgeable person argues that climate doesn't change. Not one knowledgeable person argues that CO2 has no effect. It's just a matter of how much. The physics, as I understand them, very much work against the "catastrophic" scenario. CO2 is a very mild greenhouse gas that reaches saturation pretty quickly. Theoretically 450 ppm adds 1.2-ish Watts per square meter of additionally energy at the surface under optimal conditions, compared to 1400 Watts added to a sunlit surface at noon. That's way less than a flashlight bulb. Disperse that energy throughout the air column of 100,000 cubic meters (1 m2 X 100km) and the effect is negligible. The positive feedbacks that would "amplify" this minor effect are theoretical and have not been actually observed anywhere. FTR, positive feedbacks are almost nonexistent in nature anyway. It's going uphill, thermodynamically speaking.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Anonymous4 months ago
When you consider the way they talk you would think that the only acceptable test for them would be an exact replica of this world with the same sun or an exact replica of the sun. The sad reality is that even then they would still deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that thousands of scientists all over the world are manipulating the data in order to push their left wing agenda on the world (Don't know what that agenda is, but whatever it is, it is evil and you should be alarmed lol)
In the real world they (the deniers) are irrelevant, thanks to government action (before Trump), prices of renewable energy have fallen dramatically. According to BNEF, the cost of generating power from solar photovoltaic (PV) modules has fallen by 90% since 2010, and the price of wind power has been cut in half. In fact, the prices of onshore wind and solar are now even with gas and cheaper than coal and nuclear.
Renewable energy employs about 850,000 people in the U.S. (not including some 2.3 million jobs in energy efficiency), as compared to a little more than 1 million in traditional oil, gas and coal. And most of the future job growth is projected to come from clean energy sources.
A poll released this week by Climate Nexus, conducted by Yale and George Mason University, finds that a large majority of registered voters in the U.S. believe combating climate change would be good for the economy. About 7 in 10 people surveyed expressed the view that government action on climate change would bolster renewable energy, create jobs and help the economy. Only about one-third thought government action on climate would impose burdensome regulations, weakening the economy and job creation.
Their denial is as relevant as flat earthers denying the earth is round (or more correctly, an irregularly shaped ellipsoid) The irony is that the typically red state of Texas is the clear leader in wind energy, The state is generating three times as much as its nearest competitor. Republican-leaning states have the most to gain from the surge in renewables. They could be the leaders in building the new green economy.
Of course, they will go on and on about subsidies, but when you push them about ending the (worldwide 5 trillion) fossil fuel subsidies, they start defending them. A skeptic might think they are paid by the fossil fuel industry to spread disinformation.
My biggest concern right now is not if we will switch to renewables soon enough, but what will happen to all the abandoned oil and gas wells, some are already beginning to leak and who will pay for the cleanup?