Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It boils down to energy storage costs (Score 1) 437

by Curunir_wolf (#48461385) Attached to: Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

CO2 is a proven heat trapper

Actually, it turns out that in the atmosphere, CO2 is a coolant.

That article is quite interesting, but it is not relevant to CO2 warming of the lower atmosphere and climate change.

It's talking about radiative cooling of the thermosphere which is a near vacuum and gas temperatures reach up to 4,500 degrees F (or 2,500C), and how the solar cycle influences the variability in radiative cooling.

Well how relevant CO2 concentrations are to climate change is still up to debate. But this indicates it is more relevant to the cooling of the thermosphere than previously though. It's not like the thermosphere is irrelevant to earth's temperature.

Comment: Re:It boils down to energy storage costs (Score 1) 437

by Curunir_wolf (#48461323) Attached to: Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

Actually, that was debunked last year...from someone not exactly an AGW proponent either...

That was NOT the article or the study I sited - my link is from a paper just published last April, and it's about the coolant effect of CO2 in the middle and lower atmosphere, not the troposphere. Since you couldn't even bother to click on the link when I posted it, here is a quote from the abstract:

Infrared radiative cooling of the thermosphere by carbon dioxide (CO2, 15m) and by nitric oxide (NO, 5.3m) has been observed for 12years by the Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER) instrument on the Thermosphere-Ionosphere-Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics satellite. For the first time we present a record of the two most important thermospheric infrared cooling agents over a complete solar cycle. SABER has documented dramatic variability in the radiative cooling on time scales ranging from days to the 11 year solar cycle. Deep minima in global mean vertical profiles of radiative cooling are observed in 2008–2009. Current solar maximum conditions, evidenced in the rates of radiative cooling, are substantially weaker than prior maximum conditions in 2002–2003. The observed changes in thermospheric cooling correlate well with changes in solar ultraviolet irradiance and geomagnetic activity during the prior maximum conditions. NO and CO2 combine to emit 7×1018 more Joules annually at solar maximum than at solar minimum.

Comment: Re:Problem? (Score 1) 177

by Curunir_wolf (#48459449) Attached to: How the World's Agricultural Boom Has Changed CO2 Cycles

Back to the propaganda again? You don't have any other records to play? Critical thinking failure. You obviously didn't read the paper. It establishes a much better correlation between certain types of radiation that reaches the earth than has been shown in recent observations than CO2 can show.

Very interesting indeed - and all without mentioning the word "radiation" anywhere in its text.

I'm trying to keep up with too many threads. You're right - that paper simply points out how badly the climate change models have tracked to observations. I was thinking of a paper I linked in another thread that shows CERN experiments confirming Henrik Svensmark’s regarding cosmic rays and global warming. Read it here.

Comment: Re:Problem? (Score 1) 177

by Curunir_wolf (#48458839) Attached to: How the World's Agricultural Boom Has Changed CO2 Cycles

Back to the propaganda again? You don't have any other records to play? Critical thinking failure. You obviously didn't read the paper. It establishes a much better correlation between certain types of radiation that reaches the earth than has been shown in recent observations than CO2 can show. All you've got is "LaLaLa I can't hear you", and rehashing a bunch of propaganda. It's carefully written to only talk about certain observation of solar OUTPUT, and ignores studies such as this one that use real measurements of radiation at the earth's surface.

But you don't want to hear anything that might challenge your ideology. Go back to preaching the faith, man.

Comment: Re:Problem? (Score 1) 177

by Curunir_wolf (#48457677) Attached to: How the World's Agricultural Boom Has Changed CO2 Cycles

Why do people keep referencing a propaganda site? Rather than point out all the fallacies present in their arguments, I'll just point you to some more current research showing how poorly climate models have been doing: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.

And even that paper acknowledges that there was warming in that period. Why don't you?

WTF are you going on about? "There was warming in that period." Happy? Am I on the list now?

The warming does not fit the models, nor is there a correlation with the increase in CO2. Can you acknowledge that??

Comment: Re:Too weak because humans are not the cause (Score 1) 145

by Curunir_wolf (#48454419) Attached to: Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak

First, you're looking at a propaganda site. I don't know where that graph is from, but the "forcings" don't work, and most of the assumptions made in the forcing models have been invalidated by observations. For instance, many used a parameter for forcings based feedbacks from increasing humidity that assumed net increase in temperatures, but it turns out, from long-term observations, that net temperatures decrease with increased humidity (due to cloud cover, which can insulate at night, but the total cover over time shows that the filtering effect of clouds during the day produces more than enough cooling to make up for it.

Many of the other forcing mechanisms that were used in climate models have been invalidated as well. I don't know which models have incorporated which of these tweaks, I don't follow it that deeply. But it looks like C/(W/m2) is either worthless or 1.

Comment: Re:Temperature? (Score 1) 145

by Curunir_wolf (#48454349) Attached to: Prospects Rise For a 2015 UN Climate Deal, But Likely To Be Weak

as that page shows that calling CO2 is accurate in the English language, and also under EPA guidelines.

Clearly your English needs some work, I can't tell WTF you're trying to say, here.

I see you've gone from quoting a propaganda site to a tyrannical armed bureaucracy that directly funds that propaganda, and many others. I don't think that's better.

The only thing about the Federal government worse than the IRS is the EPA.

As for EPA's determination of CO2 as a pollutant, the Office of Inspector General review their finding, and concluded that not only did they not follow basic scientific method in coming to their conclusions, but they didn't even follow their own guidelines (this from the report):

EPA’s TSD Peer Review Methodology Did Not Meet OMB Requirements for Highly Influential Scientific Assessments

EPA fulfilled the statutory requirements for notice and comment rulemakings mandated in the Administrative Procedur e Act and in Section 307 of the CAA, and employed several of its processes de signed to ensure data quality.

EPA did not maintain a record of its respon se and disposition of comments for the two TSDs that accompanied the proposed and final rules. Additionally, the panel’s results and EPA’s response to the panel’s results were not made available to the public as is required for a peer review of a highly influential sc ientific assessment. We also noted that this panel did not fully meet the independence requirements for reviews of highly influential scien tific assessments because one of the panelists was an EPA employee. The OMB bulletin for peer review states that “scientists employed by the sponsoring ag ency are not permitted to serve as reviewers for highly influential scien tific assessments.” See appendix A, question 5, for a more detailed discus sion of the expert panel process.

no supporting analytical inform ation was available to show how EPA made its determination prior to dissem inating the information. EPA’s guidance for assessing the quality of externally generated information does not provide procedures or steps for assessing outs ide data or requirements for documenting such analysis.

Comment: Re:The solution is infill. . . (Score 1) 453

by Curunir_wolf (#48454263) Attached to: In a Self-Driving Future, We May Not Even Want To Own Cars

Decry it as creeping socialism (or whatever) all you want, but you're looking at a symptom, not the underlying problem.

You have misidentified the problem. It's not any lack of resources, just the opposite, in fact. The real problem is certain elites that want to tell everyone else what to do with their property, because paying taxes on it, and everything it produces, is just not good enough - it's all about control.

Comment: Re:Corn Subsidies (Score 1) 177

by Curunir_wolf (#48451123) Attached to: How the World's Agricultural Boom Has Changed CO2 Cycles

You've convinced Europe.

Which is why they keep importing so many 3rd world immigrants to shore up the tax base, which has to grow continuously to maintain the central banking system.

The US is facing the same issue, and why they need to accelerate immigration - it's the only thing keeping the population growth from going negative.

Comment: Re:Problem? (Score 1) 177

by Curunir_wolf (#48450899) Attached to: How the World's Agricultural Boom Has Changed CO2 Cycles

Why do people keep referencing a propaganda site? Rather than point out all the fallacies present in their arguments, I'll just point you to some more current research showing how poorly climate models have been doing: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.

The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years. This interpretation is supported by statistical tests of the null hypothesis that the observed and model mean trends are equal, assuming that either: (1) the models are exchangeable with each other (that is, the 'truth plus error' view); or (2) the models are exchangeable with each other and with the observations (seeSupplementary Information). Differences between observed and simulated 20-year trends have p values (Supplementary Information) that drop to close to zero by 1993–2012 under assumption (1) and to 0.04 under assumption (2) (Fig. 2c). Here we note that the smaller the p value is, the stronger the evidence against the null hypothesis. On this basis, the rarity of the 1993–2012 trend difference under assumption (1) is obvious. Under assumption (2), this implies that such an inconsistency is only expected to occur by chance once in 500 years, if 20-year periods are considered statistically independent. Similar results apply to trends for 1998–2012 (Fig. 2d). In conclusion, we reject the null hypothesis that the observed and model mean trends are equal at the 10% level.

What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.

Working...