interesting read on climate change...

[Headholio]

I'm just thankful that government invested those hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to develop hydraulic fracturing and create one of the best opportunities we've ever had to gain energy independence.

I'm a pro fracing guy, so I'm glad we agree that we should be thankful that US government starting fracing research in 1975 and has invested over 100 million in research and an additional billions in tax cuts to oil companies for fracing. So good point Plunkey.

Another fine example of how government can work.

 

[-SD-]

Government is shit for the most part

 

[Headholio]

Government is shit for the most part

Friggin Texans

 

[machine23]

They are helio... They might do a handful of so called good things but they have a million wrongs behind them.. You love government.. You're like the majority of immigrants who think they can't prosper without government. If that's the case, they should have gone to china. Or north korea

 

[mrplunkey]

I'm a pro fracing guy, so I'm glad we agree that we should be thankful that US government starting fracing research in 1975 and has invested over 100 million in research and an additional billions in tax cuts to oil companies for fracing. So good point Plunkey.

Another fine example of how government can work.

Only in your world can government get credit for developing fracking. They steal billions of dollars out of the fossil fuels industry every year -- and not just in income taxes. They impose excise taxes on their sole raw material (crude) and then they place excise taxes on their products as well.

Government was too busy wasting time on hairbrained pet projects from the green lobby to even notice the rapid advances in fracking as of late. My only hope is that the government idiots will stay out of their way and let them actually collect the gas.

 

[binö]

I'll get to the bottom line. I can provide tons of real scientific (not Fox News) articles later but I don't have time right now.

There is no debate on climate change. It is real, and it is man made, and there is not a controversy about it. The fake controversy is a political invention not a scientific one.

The first 12 years of this century have all been in the top 14 hottest years in recorded history. 2012 was the hottest year in the united States ever, and 9th hottest ever for the earth.

As for the OP article, it is obviously anti-AGW, but all it is talking about is variations in the slope of a ever increasing sloped line. It's misleading the same way Sean Hannity scoffs at AGW every frickin time it snows. Bino's article if you read it, says nothing to disprove climate change theory. And don't misread it. Heating more slowly is not the same as cooling.

The upward slope of the earths temperatures is a jagged line, but the trend is clear. Anyone with any knowledge of trend analysis knows that you can't cherry pick a couple of data points out of thousands to disprove the conclusions of the whole set of data.

The models are pretty good right now, but not good enough to predict every variation. The anti AGW phonies will continue to point to every effort at improving the models as evidence that AGW must be wrong.

CO2 has increased 35% in our atmosphere in this industrial age, and there has never been anyone who could come up with a model that accounts for a 35% increase in CO2 without a rise in temperature. There is no contradictory model. The only science is AGW science, the deniers have no science.

you and nj99 (wtf the dude who dated a tranny) obviously are science and engineering wise...but what i took from that article and others is exactly the opposite of the bolded, the debate is far from over and their is a lot of unknowns...

 

[Headholio]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

 

[kx250rider]

I'll get to the bottom line. I can provide tons of real scientific (not Fox News) articles later but I don't have time right now.

There is no debate on climate change. It is real, and it is man made, and there is not a controversy about it. The fake controversy is a political invention not a scientific one.

The first 12 years of this century have all been in the top 14 hottest years in recorded history. 2012 was the hottest year in the united States ever, and 9th hottest ever for the earth.

As for the OP article, it is obviously anti-AGW, but all it is talking about is variations in the slope of a ever increasing sloped line. It's misleading the same way Sean Hannity scoffs at AGW every frickin time it snows. Bino's article if you read it, says nothing to disprove climate change theory. And don't misread it. Heating more slowly is not the same as cooling.

The upward slope of the earths temperatures is a jagged line, but the trend is clear. Anyone with any knowledge of trend analysis knows that you can't cherry pick a couple of data points out of thousands to disprove the conclusions of the whole set of data.

The models are pretty good right now, but not good enough to predict every variation. The anti AGW phonies will continue to point to every effort at improving the models as evidence that AGW must be wrong.

CO2 has increased 35% in our atmosphere in this industrial age, and there has never been anyone who could come up with a model that accounts for a 35% increase in CO2 without a rise in temperature. There is no contradictory model. The only science is AGW science, the deniers have no science.

You're 100% correct... Indeed we're on a warming cycle; just like many before our time. And the co2 is indeed up (35% if that's the figure), but I believe that's an effect of the warming cycle; not the reverse. It could be argued all day, but the fact remains that 1 cow farting for one day, produces more fluorocarbons than 100 car air conditioners ruptured and releasing Freon R12; totalling 300 lbs of R12. (UCLA chemistry ieee paper c. 1985). And by one calculation; one volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gasses than all industry of all mankind in the entire 20th century (another Left calculation disputes that, so it may or may not be one way or the other).

The bottom line is that we're in a warming cycle, and whatever will be will be, and I'm not going to give up my life & livelihood to try to fight Mother Nature, and anyone who does, has my blessings... I just don't want their views to stop me from moving ahead.

Charles

 

[Headholio]

Look at the link to the graph above (I can't get it to display). You can see how much temperatures have risen over the last century. The trend is undeniable. From year to year, the black line is a zig zag as annual averages go up and down. Taking 5 year averages makes the red line smoother but still there are natural ups and downs over time. You can see a downward zig in the mid seventies before it zags back up and zigs back down in the 80's etc, and again in 2000 the zig is turning to a zag. To see the overall trend you need to see the big picture.
If 2013 is cooler than 2012 was, it would make no sense to say the earth is now cooling. It would just be part of the natural variability, and would say nothing about the overall trend.

The article you posted Bino is just talking about trying to understand the cause of those zigs and zags. Fine tuning the model to be able to predict smaller changes over shorter periods of time. So in that sense, yes there are many things unknown. But the fact that climate change is real is not disputed, and the fact that is man made is not disputed. That is not said or implied in the article.

 

[Headholio]

You're 100% correct... Indeed we're on a warming cycle; just like many before our time. And the co2 is indeed up (35% if that's the figure), but I believe that's an effect of the warming cycle; not the reverse. It could be argued all day, but the fact remains that 1 cow farting for one day, produces more fluorocarbons than 100 car air conditioners ruptured and releasing Freon R12; totalling 300 lbs of R12. (UCLA chemistry ieee paper c. 1985). And by one calculation; one volcanic eruption releases more greenhouse gasses than all industry of all mankind in the entire 20th century (another Left calculation disputes that, so it may or may not be one way or the other).

The bottom line is that we're in a warming cycle, and whatever will be will be, and I'm not going to give up my life & livelihood to try to fight Mother Nature, and anyone who does, has my blessings... I just don't want their views to stop me from moving ahead.

Charles

There is no flourocarbon in cow farts. Cow farts produce methane. So it seems pretty ridiculous to compare cows to air conditioners. But if there is a real UCLA article about it, lets see it.
And yes, methane is a greenhouse gas and cow and human farts give off methane. Cow farts contribute to global warming. It is part of the problem, and as the population grows, industrial emmissions grow, burning of fossil fuels increases, livestock farming increases and deforestation increases. It's all part of the problem.
I will address your misunderstanding of "warming cycles" in a separate post.