New Scientific Study Demolishes Liberal Climate Change Arguments

[WTF]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

it.

the solar market is really not sustainable without the help of subsidies.

its likely the speed of the solar market penetration would be slower without govt. subsidies.
!

you can say that about corn, the defense industry, home loans... do you understand that we traveled by train mostly before Ike and the interstate highway.... which benefited the oil and car industry. The internet was kicked started by government ...

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I remember reading an article where somebody built a solar farm, and these mirrors were aimed at a specific spot that generated something like 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

you can create way more energy with a boiler with that.

I think it has another use, a smelting plant to melt metals.

There is a solar plant out west somewhere that concentrates mirrors on a tall tower to heat a boiler to generate steam to spin a turbine generator for power production. But now the very same " global warming " " climate change " swishy-walkers are having to deal with the environmentalists over the number of protected species of bird that are killed flying through the concentrated beam of sunlight. Roast buzzard, anyone ?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rey Lengua

There is a solar plant out west somewhere that concentrates mirrors on a tall tower to heat a boiler to generate steam to spin a turbine generator for power production. But now the very same " global warming " " climate change " swishy-walkers are having to deal with the environmentalists over the number of protected species of bird that are killed flying through the concentrated beam of sunlight. Roast buzzard, anyone ?

Please link that bs, you gay ass retard....

[WTF]

Ice Cores

Antarctica has ice that is up to 4700m thick. This ice preserves a record of the conditions at the time it was frozen, of the amounts of gases in the atmosphere and an indication of the temperature. The deeper you drill, the further back in time you go.
Research into ice cores show that current atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane gas levels (both greenhouse gases) are higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. The rate of increase of these gases is faster than any likely to have happened in the recent geological past. This 800,000 year record came from a 3km long ice core

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by WTF

Please link that bs, you gay ass retard....

Look it up yourself, ya lazy hovel builder.

[tonyvicksa]

Sorry wtf. Rey is 100% accurate. You need to apologize immediately.

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by tonyvicksa

Sorry wtf. Rey is 100% accurate. You need to apologize immediately.

Tony, wtf would rather choke on a SECOND helping of HIS hero seArgent shitburner's dingleberries than admit that he fucked up ! That's the way of the reach-around crew members.
And HIS hero, seArgent shitburner, will probably be calling you out for a MEATing at a HEB parking lot. He'll wait until you are offline, then DEMAND that you show up by a certain time or else YOU are " A-skeered " of him. That's the way that the stolen valor POS operates. It gives his obese ass a way of " declaring victory " and making himself look good for his WKs in the reach-around crew.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by WTF

Please link that bs, you gay ass retard....

rey lengua is correct.

there have been of reports of birds that flew in the wrong area can and do get cooked by the mirrors.

lawsuit by the environmental weenies is the first I've heard of it.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by WTF

Ice Cores

Antarctica has ice that is up to 4700m thick. This ice preserves a record of the conditions at the time it was frozen, of the amounts of gases in the atmosphere and an indication of the temperature. The deeper you drill, the further back in time you go.
Research into ice cores show that current atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane gas levels (both greenhouse gases) are higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. The rate of increase of these gases is faster than any likely to have happened in the recent geological past. This 800,000 year record came from a 3km long ice core

That ice core record is useless if any melting ever occurred. Prove it didn't, you biased hatemonger.

[IIFFOFRDB]

FUCKIN 0zombies... https://cei.org/content/govt-funded-...l-climate-data

Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data

Christine Hall • October 5, 2009

Govt-Funded Research Unit Destroyed Original Climate Data

CEI Petitions EPA to Reopen Global Warming Rulemaking

Washington, D.C., October 6, 2009―In the wake of a revelation by a key research institution that it destroyed its original climate data, the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned EPA to reopen a major global warming proceeding.

In mid-August the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) disclosed that it had destroyed the raw data for its global surface temperature data set because of an alleged lack of storage space. The CRU data have been the basis for several of the major international studies that claim we face a global warming crisis. CRU’s destruction of data, however, severely undercuts the credibility of those studies.

In a declaration filed with CEI’s petition, Cato Institute scholar and climate scientist Patrick Michaels calls CRU’s revelation “a totally new element” that “violates basic scientific principles, and “throws even more doubt” on the claims of global warming alarmists.

CEI’s petition, filed late Monday with EPA, argues that CRU’s disclosure casts a new cloud of doubt on the science behind EPA’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide. EPA stopped accepting public comments in late June but has not yet issued its final decision. As CEI’s petition argues, court rulings make it clear that agencies must consider new facts when those facts change the underlying issues.

CEI general counsel Sam Kazman stated, “EPA is resting its case on international studies that in turn relied on CRU data. But CRU’s suspicious destruction of its original data, disclosed at this late date, makes that information totally unreliable. If EPA doesn’t reexamine the implications of this, it’s stumbling blindly into the most important regulatory issue we face.”

Among CRU’s funders are the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy – U.S. taxpayers.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by WTF

Did you read þhis part?



Ice Cores

Antarctica has ice that is up to 4700m thick. This ice preserves a record of the conditions at the time it was frozen, of the amounts of gases in the atmosphere and an indication of the temperature. The deeper you drill, the further back in time you go.
Research into ice cores show that current atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane gas levels (both greenhouse gases) are higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. The rate of increase of these gases is faster than any likely to have happened in the recent geological past. This 800,000 year record came from a 3km long ice core

16 months ago, a very close friend of mine was on board the National Geographic Explorer for a 2-week expedition, not cruise, to Antarctica. If you ever want to hear about the negative changes in the Antarctica region due to warming, this trip would be for you.

[IIFFOFRDB]

GL0zombies lie! https://www.cato.org/publications/co...global-warming

The Dog Ate Global Warming

By Patrick J. Michaels

This article appeared on National Review (Online) on September 23, 2009.

Interpreting climate data can be hard enough. What if some key data have been fiddled?

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December.

Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.

In the early 1980s, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, scientists at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia established the Climate Research Unit (CRU) to produce the world’s first comprehensive history of surface temperature. It’s known in the trade as the “Jones and Wigley” record for its authors, Phil Jones and Tom Wigley, and it served as the primary reference standard for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until 2007. It was this record that prompted the IPCC to claim a “discernible human influence on global climate.”

Putting together such a record isn’t at all easy. Weather stations weren’t really designed to monitor global climate. Long-standing ones were usually established at points of commerce, which tend to grow into cities that induce spurious warming trends in their records. Trees grow up around thermometers and lower the afternoon temperature. Further, as documented by the University of Colorado’s Roger Pielke Sr., many of the stations themselves are placed in locations, such as in parking lots or near heat vents, where artificially high temperatures are bound to be recorded.

So the weather data that go into the historical climate records that are required to verify models of global warming aren’t the original records at all. Jones and Wigley, however, weren’t specific about what was done to which station in order to produce their record, which, according to the IPCC, showed a warming of 0.6° +/- 0.2°C in the 20th century.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that “+/-” came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones’s response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, “We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to “try and find something wrong.” The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech’s Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn’t have the data because he wasn’t an “academic.” So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were “confidentiality” agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre’s blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

It’s worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise).

Enter the dog that ate global warming.

Roger Pielke Jr., an esteemed professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, then requested the raw data from Jones. Jones responded:

Since the 1980s, we have merged the data we have received into existing series or begun new ones, so it is impossible to say if all stations within a particular country or if all of an individual record should be freely available. Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites, only the station series after adjustment for homogeneity issues. We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e., quality controlled and homogenized) data.
The statement about “data storage” is balderdash. They got the records from somewhere. The files went onto a computer. All of the original data could easily fit on the 9-track tape drives common in the mid-1980s. I had all of the world’s surface barometric pressure data on one such tape in 1979.

If we are to believe Jones’s note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?

All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

16 months ago, a very close friend of mine was on board the National Geographic Explorer for a 2-week expedition, not cruise, to Antarctica. If you ever want to hear about the negative changes in the Antarctica region due to warming, this trip would be for you.

Let me guess, your friend wears tight lycra shorts, kind of like Lance?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by DSK

That ice core record is useless if any melting ever occurred. Prove it didn't, you biased hatemonger.

You stupid sob, be hard to melt where the temp never get above zero!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

GL0zombies lie! https://www.cato.org/publications/co...global-warming

Ice Cores

Antarctica has ice that is up to 4700m thick. This ice preserves a record of the conditions at the time it was frozen, of the amounts of gases in the atmosphere and an indication of the temperature. The deeper you drill, the further back in time you go.
Research into ice cores show that current atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane gas levels (both greenhouse gases) are higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years. The rate of increase of these gases is faster than any likely to have happened in the recent geological past. This 800,000 year record came from a 3km long ice core