But if we cut emmisions the Chinese won't..... but...

[Steeltime]

2. Hadcrut data is instrument data it has nothing to do with modeling.

Look, you've proven that you lack basic reasoning skills, so no need to provide further evidence. The actual temperature data are crucial in evaluating the accuracy of the climate models. Climate scientists use temperature records to "gauge" their models by comparing past temperature data with what their models project. They use temperature data from 1880 on, for the most part.

The goal is to have the model and the actual data match. A model is useless if it does not accurately replicate past events, and fails to model future events. The whole point of the models is to show what the temperature change will be with increased CO2 emissions. In fact, computer models predicting future climate based on CO2 emissions interacting with numerous other factors (solar activity, ocean currents, etc.) is the field known as "climate science."

Therefore, comparing the models to actual temperature data is something that climate scientists do, all the time. And the simple fact is that their climate models have not done a good job in modeling (predicting) temperatures stemming from increase CO2 emissions.

Confidence in a model is further based on the careful evaluation of its performance, in which model output is compared against actual observations. A large portion of this chapter, therefore, is devoted to the evaluation of climate models against real-world climate and other biospheric data. That evaluation, summarized in the findings of numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers described in the different subsections of this chapter, reveals the IPCC is overestimating the ability of current state-of-the-art GCMs to accurately simulate both past and future climate. The IPCC’s stated confidence in the models,
as presented at the beginning of this chapter, is likely exaggerated.

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-1-Models.pdf

3. No one is intimidated by your claim of being educated, or your claim to be a lawyer.

You are apparently intimidated by my education, elfiePolo, to the point that you suggest that I am lying about my career.

Don't be sad, elfiePolo, your mom is proud of your GED.

It would also seem to me that if you are what you claim, you wouldn't spend so much time arguing on a subject that obviously you are clueless about.

What you did there is called an "ad hominem" fallacy. It is further evidence that as you lose the factual debate, you engage in the irrelevant.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

All the solutions? I dunno, you can get tax credit for buying an electric car from the same company that will sell you a gas hog SUV. There's no taxes involved in using the bike lanes around Pittsburgh.

Problem is that bikes are basically unusable as regular transportation here six months a year because the weather sucks.

 

[Elfiero]

[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the support, but I am not trying to convince them. I know how people who believe in unfathomable (to rational minds) conspiracies think. I've been accused by posters here of trolling for the NSA and of being a communist.... Both at the same time apparently!

The Sam Harris quote does describe the CONservative mind perfectly though.

There are intelligent posters here like steeltime., confluence, the guy who is the ravens fan, etc. I wonder how it is that they cope with the cognitive dissonance as I can't believe they believe the nonsense they spew when it comes to AGW.

You could have your average, greedy ,next quarter, thinking CEO type start to panic about it and it won't phase them one bit. I had a video on here months ago where the CEO of Exxon admitted agw is happening, no comments, no reaction from anyone here. They just bury their heads in the sand.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Problem is that bikes are basically unusable as regular transportation here six months a year because the weather sucks.

What the hell, RB, put some snow tires on the bike and quit ya bitchin'

 

[Superman]

Problem is that bikes are basically unusable as regular transportation here six months a year because the weather sucks.

I live in Florida and have a bike. Well, a Suzuki, but still... it's not a regular mode of transportation due to the monsoon rains every ******* day.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

What the hell, RB, put some snow tires on the bike and quit ya bitchin'

It's not so much that as getting rained on and being cold. And the hills. Funny that my son was raised by my ex out in the country and now he lives and works in the city and is all about public transportation and city life.

 

[oneforthebus]

My afternoons are spent driving 2-5 kids around on a tight schedule...I couldn't get it done on a bike. At least I drive a slightly less gas guzzling minivan. My husband is in planes trains and automobiles every week.

 

[Vis]

My afternoons are spent driving 2-5 kids around on a tight schedule...I couldn't get it done on a bike. At least I drive a slightly less gas guzzling minivan. My husband is in planes trains and automobiles every week.

 

[Spike]

Is that the Tesla X?

oh yeah, everyone has $144,000 laying around for a new car

 

[Vis]

Is that the Tesla X?

oh yeah, everyone has $144,000 laying around for a new car

You can save big on a VW diesel

 

[oneforthebus]

Doesn't look like enough cargo space for me, but my girls are turning 16 next year so maybe I'll pick one up for them

 

[Vis]

Doesn't look like enough cargo space for me, but my girls are turning 16 next year so maybe I'll pick one up for them

No engine in the front. Extra trunk.

 

[Elfiero]

Nope.

The 97% figure has been roundly disputed by the way, but you keep trotting it out like it's a fact.

I don't deny global warming exists. My skepticism is about the causes, how much each of many varying factors contributes, the impact, and the effectiveness of the proposed solutions. There is no 97% consensus on any of that. If you don't think there's any interest beyond altruism in cooking up national and global carbon trading schemes you just really don't understand what they are about. If this was such an urgent crisis, we would be fighting for emissions to be sharply curbed globally...we wouldn't be trying to come up with ways that government can use this crisis to collect revenue and/or pick economic winners and losers.

Your argument is the equivalent of being on a train where everyone knows there is a sinkhole 2 miles ahead and the tracks are out. Yet your question is " How deep is the hole? Five feet, twenty feet"

That doesn't matter either way the train is going to fly off the tracks with everyone onboard. The question should be "Can we slow down or maybe even stop to repair the tracks"

 

[oneforthebus]

It's so cute how Elfie always says "I'm not here to debate you" but then keeps on doing it.

Your argument is the equivalent of being on a train where everyone knows there is a sinkhole 2 miles ahead and the tracks are out. Yet your question is " How deep is the hole? Five feet, twenty feet"

That doesn't matter either way the train is going to fly off the tracks with everyone onboard. The question should be "Can we slow down or maybe even stop to repair the tracks"

No, your argument is more like "There's a sinkhole ahead. We should probably set the train on fire. Oh, that won't help? Who cares? We must DO SOMETHING. No matter if it's painful, expensive and ineffective, SOMETHING must be done."

 

[oneforthebus]

"Oh, by the way we're only going to set the first class car on fire. That way we can even out the fact that they have it so much nicer than the other folks. Won't solve the sinkhole problem, but again, SOMETHING must be done. Might as well kill two birds with one stone."

 

[Elfiero]

The IPCC models suggested a range of temperature changes over a span of 30 years (which constitutes enough time to be qualified as "climate" and not weather), but agreed that the temperatures over that long a span would INCREASE, not stabilize, with the continued increase in CO2 emissions. In fact, the IPCC models, when averaged out, projected a temperature increase of 0.25 degrees C per decade, or warnings of a temperature increase of 2.5 degrees C over the next century.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html

Note that these projections run from a low of 1.8 degrees to a high of 4.0 degrees C over the next 100 years, presuming continued increase in CO2 emissions.

Well, the CO2 emissions have continued to increase as China and India industrialize and rely significantly on coal and petroleum powered generators. Further, a span of 30 years is statistically significant for the warmers. They take pains to note that their models cannot predict temperatures over the next 2, 5, or 10 years. However, their models SHOULD be able to predict temperatures over a 30-year span.

“Our analysis confirmed what we expected from last IPCC report in 2007,” said Sakaguchi. “Those climate models are believed to be of good skill on large scales, for example predicting temperature trends over several decades, and we confirmed that by showing that the models work well for time spans longer than 30 years and across geographical scales spanning 30 degrees or more.”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/18/climate-models-shown-to-be-inaccurate-less-than-30-years-out/

Climate models are approaching that 30-year mark. Numerous such models were developed in the 1990's, and are now 20 to 25 years old. Only a fool would not realize that the models are clearly failing over that time span.

Has the temperature warmed on a global scale over the past 25 years? Yes. Do the models do a good job of plotting that temperature change? No. Are the models accurately forecasting the amount of temperature change over 25 years? No.

Is that a big issue? Damn right it is. The field of climate science warns that temperature increases of 2.5 to 3.0 degrees C over the next century would be devastating. However, the same scientists agree that a temperature increase of 0.6 degrees C over that span would be almost negligible. The amount of temperature increase, the relationship between the numerous climate factors interacting with increased CO2 emissions, and the accuracy of the models is the debate here.

And in that debate, the climate models lose.

Models provide projections not predictions, do you know the difference?

The models when implemented properly do quite well....not so much when manipulated by Heartland funded clowns.

Again I'm not going to take you by the hand and explain things to you as I followed that path months ago and your obstinance and relentless devotion to ignorance led us to a dead end.

I will digress after this as I have been called out by another poster(properly so) for engaging in debate when I said I wouldn't so......sue me.

Again hadcrut data can't be used on it's own. When you combine it with Giss and especially with mlost as most does the best job of merging land and sea temps( important because the ocean absorbs 90% of solar heat) we find the models do quite well.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature14117.html
Most present-generation climate models simulate an increase in global-mean surface temperature (GMST) since 1998, whereas observations suggest a warming hiatus. It is unclear to what extent this mismatch is caused by incorrect model forcing, by incorrect model response to forcing or by random factors. Here we analyse simulations and observations of GMST from 1900 to 2012, and show that the distribution of simulated 15-year trends shows no systematic bias against the observations.Using a multiple regression approach that is physically motivated by surface energy balance, we isolate the impact of radiative forcing, climate feedback and ocean heat uptake on GMST—with the regression residual interpreted as internal variability—and assess all possible 15- and 62-year trends. The differences between simulated and observed trends are dominated by random internal variability over the shorter timescale and by variations in the radiative forcings used to drive models over the longer timescale. For either trend length, spread in simulated climate feedback leaves no traceable imprint on GMST trends or, consequently, on the difference between simulations and observations. The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded.

 

[Elfiero]

It's so cute how Elfie always says "I'm not here to debate you" but then keeps on doing it.



No, your argument is more like "There's a sinkhole ahead. We should probably set the train on fire. Oh, that won't help? Who cares? We must DO SOMETHING. No matter if it's painful, expensive and ineffective, SOMETHING must be done."

No........ah.....just no.

The CONservative mind is something to behold, everything in the extreme, all the time.

 

[Elfiero]

Problem is that bikes are basically unusable as regular transportation here six months a year because the weather sucks.

Let me help in the hijacking of my thread. We'll chock it up to Stockholm syndrome.

The free market responds. This is transition technology till Apple builds its electric car, which will make electric cars cool of course.

http://www.eliomotors.com/?mkwid=s&...elio&mp_mt=b&gclid=CJae--TqocgCFQwzaQoditcHVA

90% American parts and built in the USA...,.sexy as hell too huh?

 

[IndySteel]

http://www.eliomotors.com/?mkwid=s&...elio&mp_mt=b&gclid=CJae--TqocgCFQwzaQoditcHVA

I hope those take off. We'll be able to squash you pansy libtards like bugs with our SUVs.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Let me help in the hijacking of my thread. We'll chock it up to Stockholm syndrome.

The free market responds. This is transition technology till Apple builds its electric car, which will make electric cars cool of course.

http://www.eliomotors.com/?mkwid=s&...elio&mp_mt=b&gclid=CJae--TqocgCFQwzaQoditcHVA

90% American parts and built in the USA...,.sexy as hell too huh?

Government subsidizing electric cars isn't the free market responding.

http://gas2.org/2014/10/25/elio-passes-first-phase-doe-loan-approval/

 

[Superman]

so, eflie, what are you driving now? let me guess... a Lexus SUV?

 

[Superman]

oh, btw, a Chevy Volt costs $30k.
same as a Camaro

one can get up over the Sunshine Skyway in a matter of minutes. the other would take days, if ever, to get over.

 

[Vis]

oh, btw, a Chevy Volt costs $30k.
same as a Camaro

one can get up over the Sunshine Skyway in a matter of minutes. the other would take days, if ever, to get over.

 

[hamster]

Government subsidizing electric cars isn't the free market responding.

http://gas2.org/2014/10/25/elio-passes-first-phase-doe-loan-approval/

Hey Ron. I wonder how those Elios would fair on Pittsburgh's snow covered hills? My suspicion, not so well. If it will only be a 3 season transport, I think I'll stick with my Fatboy....and I bet my Fattie is louder.

 

[Superman]

ah ha
even then... a Tesla costs $57,500 after incentives
http://my.teslamotors.com/models/design
which is only available in certain states:
State incentives available in
CA DE CO LA MA MD PA TN UT

so, you're looking at $75k for a Tesla

or you can buy a Vette and have money left over


aside from allllllllllllllllllllllllllllll that, do you really think the average household can afford TWO $75k cars?