Climate change legit after all! Who woulda thunk it?

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Scientists can't predict the weather 3 days from now but I'm supposed to think the sky is falling over climate change?

Lol Let me sell all of my crap.

We actually can. It's just people like you pull this crap if it so much as sprinkles on your fishing trip. "Oh well, there was only a 40% chance of rain, so the weather guy was clearly wrong."

Never mind that we've successfully forecasted tornado outbreaks literally a week in advance.

PS: My credentials are a degree in Meteorology/Climateology, so I look forward to going back through this thread at a later time.

 

[jamil]

We actually can. It's just people like you pull this crap if it so much as sprinkles on your fishing trip. "Oh well, there was only a 40% chance of rain, so the weather guy was clearly wrong."

Never mind that we've successfully forecasted tornado outbreaks literally a week in advance.

PS: My credentials are a degree in Meteorology/Climateology, so I look forward to going back through this thread at a later time.

I'm looking forward to your comments.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Ok, this thread has gone exactly how I thought it would. I'm only going to be replying to the comments that I see are the most "out there." Before I do though, here are my thoughts.

1) Climate change is very, very real. HOWEVER, climate change is NOT global warming. Climate change is actually a naturally occurring process, that takes place on earth over certain periods of time. Climate change can be dangerous, but only in the sense of when it's mentioned with global warming. There is nothing that can be done about natural climate change. Just like the seasons change, so does the climate. It's not scary, it's not doom and gloom, but it it's real, happens, and has happened.

2) I tend to lean more conservative when it comes to global warming. Personally, I think the data supports it, and that global warming is a real thing, but I'm still not sure the extent man is helping it along. The give away for me are the islands disappearing in the pacific ocean. These are small islands that have had many generations of people on them that are suddenly disappearing due to rising ocean levels. What would the people on these islands have to gain by saying such a thing? The reality is not much. If multiple generations of these native islanders are saying something isn't right, I tend to agree with them. Although, my thing with global warming is investing in clean energy. It doesn't have to be political. If you had sources of clean energy that could power your home, why not do it? Solar and wind power are insanely great assets, that in my mind we're ridiculous for not trying to harness more.

 

[LPMan59]

We actually can. It's just people like you pull this crap if it so much as sprinkles on your fishing trip. "Oh well, there was only a 40% chance of rain, so the weather guy was clearly wrong."

Never mind that we've successfully forecasted tornado outbreaks literally a week in advance.

PS: My credentials are a degree in Meteorology/Climateology, so I look forward to going back through this thread at a later time.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

1 out of 3 of what you posted is correct.

Actually, he was three for three

Even NASA admits no warming for 17 years.

I'll start here. Where did you hear this? Infowars? Because NASA is actually saying quite the opposite. 2014 was the hottest year on record, then 2015, and now 2016 looks be the hottest on record. This article is a little older, but the results may shock you. Surprise! 2016 actually is the hottest on record
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201611

Facts arent political of course, so the left will use lies to promote their agenda.

I will agree here. There are some people trying to push an agenda, but most of us are just worried about our funding getting cut to study a serious phenomena by people like you.

When your thermometers are in parking lots and airport runways, you dont have "facts", you have a statistic used for an agenda.

Again, partially correct. You have skewed data, since concrete radiated heat naturally. That's why climate data is taken from stations that are properly placed and calibrated.

When the principal agency says their computer models are wrong and must rework their CO2 models, then you have a complete meltdown of the entire notion of global "whatever you want to call it this decade" and can either admit you actually dont know and are wrong, and continue your garbage to get your funding.

Thanks Alex Jones

The FACTS are that global cooling, global warming, and climate change are based on computer models from political "scientists" who tolerate zero criticism or anyone coming in and proving them wrong.

Uhhh no. It's based on real time observations of global temperature, sea ice level, and ocean depth. Sure, models are used to map out the long term, but our instruments are good enough to measure the now as well.

LITERALLY EVERY PREDICTION over the past 20 years is wrong......yet magically climate change is still real??? Seal levels, sea ice, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, the list goes on forever on how wrong every single on of these climate scientists have been.

Sea ice level are lower than they were twenty years ago, and the ocean level is higher than it was 20 years ago. It took ONE GOOGLE, and is in the very first paragraph. Guess what? It's not model based either, it's actual observations.
Is sea level rising?

Yet its gospel to the left and the uneducated.

I'm on INGO, and I solved math equations you couldn't even dream of solving in order to get my degree. So yeah, I'm part of the "left and uneducated"

My final point is the greatest(at least to me). What is the solution to climate change?? INCREASE TAXES. That alone is the single greatest red flag to the hoax that global warming, sorry climate change, is. If the solution is to tax americans more, and let every other country(who pollutes far more than we do) do whatever they want, then you KNOW its a hoax. Sorry, but driving an electric car is a disaster. They tell you zero emissions right??? NOPE, and the batteries cant be recycled, they sit in landfills and contaminate them.

Or just invest in cleaner energy. Wind and solar power are INSANELY clean, and they'd be cheap to boot. I don't understand why we haven't started investing more in it yet.

Another FACT that screws the entire premise of man made global warming. When you actually look at the facts, you cant actually believe in it.

Really? Because I've only linked three articles on the subject, and the evidence is pretty damning. That's not a FACT sir, that's your misguided opinion

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

I agree.Monday it was -10 below and today it was + 32 above....And next week it may be in the 50's.

This is weather, the now. Climate is the weather over a 30 year average.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Greenpeace founder and Weather Channel both said man made climate change is "nothing but a lie"

The weather channel isn't a authority on the subject. In fact, they're hardly an authority on the weather anymore

 

[BugI02]

...

Or just invest in cleaner energy. Wind and solar power are INSANELY clean, and they'd be cheap to boot. I don't understand why we haven't started investing more in it yet.

Don't really want in on this dust-up but would like to speak to this point. I think the mistake they're making vis a vis adoption of cleaner energy is trying to wholesale remake the grid

Someone ideally should be making an integrated home energy supply, utilizing solar with improved storage able to withstand high rates of drawdown (for peaking) and perhaps a fuel cell using my natural gas feed for days when solar is less/not available.

Research needs to be done to make it as affordable as possible, have as small a footprint as possible and be as simple to operate as possible

Research is still needed to increase solar cell efficiency to make such a system practical in more and varied locations

Research is still necessary in storage to better meet the needs of a whole house system

And I think as heating and cooling are by far the steepest draws on home power, some research needs to be done on ways to improve the efficiency of electric heat/cooling

If peeps could sell a $10000 to $15000 integrated power system that would be practical and free people from the grid forever, you would have a move to clean power without a need to mandate. Not everybody would be able to afford it at first, but the early adopters would allow the manufacturing efficiencies to bring the price down and the market would be worldwide

For industrial strength power, you should include nuclear (preferably Thorium cycle) in the equation of clean power (clean in respect to CO2) as it is far cleaner than any fossil fuel alternative and in the right regulatory environment could be scaled up quickly. You'll need some serious power to run all those electric vehicles if you really want to get a handle on +400ppm

 

[ghitch75]

you can't make electric heat any more efficient......you put in a kilowatt of electric you get out a kilowatt of heat.....the rates are to high for it not to be cheap.......solar is out of the question around here in the winter as there is only 13% sunshine here.....

need a very small nuclear reactor with a life of 30 years with out radiation........

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

you can't make electric heat any more efficient......you put in a kilowatt of electric you get out a kilowatt of heat.....the rates are to high for it not to be cheap.......solar is out of the question around here in the winter as there is only 13% sunshine here.....

I should clarify. I'm not saying we should do away with fossil fuels. We don't have a perfect alternative yet. I think we should increase our green energy output. Fun read below.
Solar was the cheapest source of electricity in 2016, and it will further undercut fossil fuels in 2017 ? Quartz

 

[Woobie]

Wow, I just learned wind and solar are insanely cheap.








When people say things like this, it makes it very difficult to take anything else they say seriously.

 

[ghitch75]

i want some of that $29 a meg power!!!!.......we pay $110 to $140 a meg depending on the time of the year.....

 

[BugI02]

Not if you want to get it delivered by the grid. But if you want to make your own, the only cost is the initial system and maintenance. No fuel is consumed (except by the sun) and cost going forward is only the cost of upkeep (assuming you don't lease/finance the system). Hard to get much cheaper than that

 

[ghitch75]

panels won't make it for the life of them as what you spend on them to get a pay back from being on the grid........the panels degrade to fast......

i stand corrected 1% per year......they used to be 10 % per year........still would take over 20 years to pay the system off....

 

[Woobie]

Not if you want to get it delivered by the grid. But if you want to make your own, the only cost is the initial system and maintenance. No fuel is consumed (except by the sun) and cost going forward is only the cost of upkeep (assuming you don't lease/finance the system). Hard to get much cheaper than that

On a decent size wind unit, if you amortize the start up cost over 25-30 years (which is insanity) you get cheaper electricity than what you can buy off the grid. That is if you have no maintenance. But the units don't last that long. I looked into buying one. My in laws did as well from a different company. Same story.

The big ones they are putting up around here burn out in less than 10 years. They don't produce enough electricity to pay for themselves on the face, but it's even worse when you look at the cost of shutting down and firing back up a coal plant so you can put wind energy on the grid.

Solar on the micro scale is pretty much the same story. It's ok for small supplemental units, but achieving enough power for a household requires an investment in equipment and maintenance that isn't touched by the savings you get.

I used to like the idea, and wanted to use it personally. But it is barely economically viable in some limited instances with government incentives. But guess who is paying for those.

 

[HubertGummer]

I'd like to know the actual cost per KWH of those big windmills up on N65 factoring in all the maintenance and cost of the unit. I suspect if it weren't for government subsidies, those wouldn't be financially viable.

 

[tetter]

You got a little off the path here, Mr. Meteorology.

 

[Woobie]

I'd like to know the actual cost per KWH of those big windmills up on N65 factoring in all the maintenance and cost of the unit. I suspect if it weren't for government subsidies, those wouldn't be financially viable.

Well the ones over in our neck of the woods are newer and better. And they already know they aren't viable without the subsidies.

 

[rhino]

I'm on INGO, and I solved math equations you couldn't even dream of solving in order to get my degree. So yeah, I'm part of the "left and uneducated"

That's kind of cute.

 

[Woobie]

That's kind of cute.

I don't math real good. Especially that trigga....trigga....Awww heck, that one with the triangles n such.