Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14001 - 14020 of total 27223 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 30, 2013 - 12:31pm PT
Well heck fire. It almost sounds like them IPCC folks are saying man caused ALL of the recent warming. Without all our anthropogenic contributions, we'd be enjoying global temperatures last seen in the 1950s.

Is that the consensus?


Except for your 1950s part, that is the "best estimate" in the IPCC AR5 consensus.

Most of the world's main scientist organizations (in the US the NAS, AAAS, AMS, ACS, AGU and so forth) have endorsed the conclusions of AR4, which was less a bit less confident and detailed; the difference reflects new research over the past 6 years. The AR4 summary:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

Contrast with the AR5 summary:

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.
Gary

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Oct 30, 2013 - 12:32pm PT
Rick Poedtke wrote:
WTF does DAM building have to do with the fact that MOST of the US power grids are PRIVATELY/PUBLICLY Investor Owned and operated.

One excellent example is Shasta Lake Dam, built by the Federal Bureau of Reclamation.
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/ncao/

The dam's other major purpose is to generate hydroelectricity. With a hydraulic head of 330 feet (100 m), the dam is capable of generating 676 megawatts (MW) from five turbines a pair of 125 MW units and three 142 MW units. Each of the turbines is driven by a high-pressure jet of water fed by a steel penstock 15 feet (4.6 m) in diameter. Two smaller turbines generate power for operations at the dam itself. The plant serves to generate peaking power for the northern Sacramento Valley.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shasta_Dam

I hope that answers your question.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 30, 2013 - 12:46pm PT

It's too bad you need to be an as#@&%e with such consistency.

And it is bad that you are such an idiot with such consistency.


I read the entire article. Dana Nuccitelli demonstrates the same kind of intellectual dishonesty that is seen in the Cook et al paper.

Intellectual dishonesty when he is using information from the IPCC report? The same information that chiloe gave above.

All you did in the past was to call him a liar. I really doubt that you have read the article.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 30, 2013 - 12:49pm PT
I hope that answers your question.

Nope.

It is just a deflection regarding the issue that both the Power Utility (most of which are currently Coal Fired and CNG driven) and Petroleum providers in the US are in fact, privately owned/operated.

Dam's are not an issue in regards to the CAGW camps Carbon Emission issue that is supposedly going to be the demise of our species and the planet in general.

Deny and Deflect!

Nice Gary.



CHILOE
It is extremely likely ....

Famous last words of Alan Greenspan and the Global Financial Markets Analysts up to their collapse and Greenspan's ensuing "Apology" which Brewasky posted, for believing in such statistical modelling forecasting philosophy.

Amazingly, that too was all considered a "CONSENSUS" by the lot of PhD Economists globally.

Perfect example of all this "Consensus" BS. Greenspan being in the lead.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 30, 2013 - 12:56pm PT
And if you weren't such a myopic dumbass, you'd easily see Nuccitelli's lies.

Sketch seems to know only two tricks: sh#t-stained insults, and calling people liars.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Oct 30, 2013 - 12:58pm PT
Private enterprise?

The host of federal and state tax credits to power buyers and power generators suggests that public funding of so-called private enterprise, PG&E is an excellent example, continues as strong as ever.

No we're not building dams anymore. We are funding the development of solar power to the tune of 30% tax credit, for example. There are many other examples of tax dollars flowing into the hands of power company investors.

Sorta like the military or any other public commodity... we can all pretend private enterprise, till the sonsaboitches go out of business that is.

That's how Solano County ended up owning the top ten feet of Clear Lake in Lake County... abomination of private enterprise.

DMT

The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 30, 2013 - 01:07pm PT
There are many other examples of tax dollars flowing into the hands of power company investors.

Regardless DMT, the utility power providers are STILL privately/investor run entities. No matter how you put it.

You nor I nor the FEDS have any say on when they can shut your power off if you do not pay your bill.


It is NOT mandatory that every households nor commercial operators/companies in this nation have electricity nor Federally regulated how they get that electricity.


No matter how you twist it, it is a Free Market based function.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 30, 2013 - 01:08pm PT

And if you weren't such a myopic dumbass, you'd easily see Nuccitelli's lies.

I am sure that the chief, rick and ron agrees with you but very few thinking people.

I just found it ironic when the first hit in google when I googled the IPCC quote were an article that you have claimed that you have read (but of course didn't like).

"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

"The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period ... The observed warming since 1951 can be attributed to the different natural and anthropogenic drivers and their contributions can now be quantified. Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5C to 1.3 C over the period 1951−2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6C to 0.1C."

"The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1C to 0.1C, and from internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1C to 0.1C."

Is actually quote strongly suggest the conclusion that he made in the title.

But how would you know, you would need to have read the article... understand the article... putting your biases to the side and considered what he wrote... Neither of which is very likely to ever happen.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 30, 2013 - 01:12pm PT
It's likely that more than half... no... um... I'm mean ALL of the warming was caused by man.
More than half? All?
Such latitude.
It's all so confusing.
I need a nap.


When I posted my note about the AR5 summary I included a parenthetical remark about innumerates,

Here's how the IPCC AR5 (in a statement that befuddles some innumerates) summarizes the state of the art:

then I thought, that's too snarky, I should take it out. But then I thought naw, Sketch will express befuddlement and prove the point true. As he did.

For the numerate, or anyone open to learning: the AR5 statement below incorporates both an interval and a point estimate, like a confidence interval and a mean.

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 30, 2013 - 01:14pm PT
Hey PHOOOLE



For well over 1000 years the Roman Catholic Church dictated that JC was God and that any manner of salvation in the after life was through believing in him and the RC Church. Anyone that said or did differently was considered a heretic and for several hundred years were put to death for doing so.

That was the 100% CONSENSUS of the rule amongst 100's of millions of humans for a long ass time.

WE today know a little better. Don't we PHOOOLE.


This CAGW issue is no different. Not one bit. To say that it is complete ego based BS!
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Oct 30, 2013 - 01:15pm PT
Not... one... bit.

Zackly the SAME!!!

Chiloe is going to put hot iron into your scrot, the chief!

You will be reconciled!

DMT
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 30, 2013 - 01:17pm PT
Don't think so Dingus.... you know better.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 30, 2013 - 01:18pm PT

This is no different. Not one bit.

Just because you don't any science don't mean that science don't give any information.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Oct 30, 2013 - 01:41pm PT
I grew up a TVA customer. Tennessee was THE most backwards state until the TVA brought power from the flood zones, courtesy of the New Deal.

DMT
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 30, 2013 - 01:42pm PT
Dingus,, tell me more about Clear lake!
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 30, 2013 - 01:57pm PT
The electricity sector of the United States includes a large array of stakeholders that provide services through electricity generation, transmission, distribution and marketing for industrial, commercial, public and residential customers.

There were also 65 power marketers. Of all utilities, 2,020 were publicly owned (including 10 Federal utilities), 932 were rural electric cooperatives, and 243 were investor-owned utilities. The electricity transmission network is not owned by individual utilities, but by Independent System Operators or Regional Transmission Organizations, which are not-for-profit organizations that are obliged to provide indiscriminate access to various suppliers in order to promote competition. They are associated in the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and are typically jointly owned by the utilities in their service area.

The electricity transmission network is not owned by individual utilities, but by Independent System Operators or Regional Transmission Organizations, which are not-for-profit organizations that are obliged to provide indiscriminate access to various suppliers in order to promote competition. They are associated in the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and are typically jointly owned by the utilities in their service area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States

10 out of 3195 Utility Co's in the US are Federal Op'd Utilities. The rest of the 3185 are Public/Privately owned and operated.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Oct 30, 2013 - 02:05pm PT
The fact that all Electrical Power/Energy in the U.S. comes from Privately owned Power Sources and Grids. As well as all the fuel stations that the American people pump petrol into their vehicles.

Not one of the above is owned, managed by or directly regulated in any way by.... The U.S. Gov't.

I've highlighted the section you should study further, Chief.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 30, 2013 - 02:09pm PT
Show me where they are DIRECTLY REGULATED by the Federal Gov't, Mono.



If that were the case, then the EPA would not have had to back door their latest mandate on future Coal Fired PP construction which is currently being reviewed the US Supreme Court as to it' constitutionality.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Oct 30, 2013 - 02:13pm PT
LOL, Chief. Give me your definition of Directly Regulated.

These industries are among the most regulated.

Do ya think your corner gas station can store the gas in any container they like, for example?

Do ya think power companies can just put up power lines anywhere without government approval?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 30, 2013 - 02:16pm PT
If so MONO, then why is the EPA's latest back door mandate being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/us/politics/supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-to-epa-emissions-rules.html?_r=0
Messages 14001 - 14020 of total 27223 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews