Ipcc Says Global Warming

I tried to explain this using refrigeration as an example..
Open your freezer and leave it open, watch how cold your evaporator gets, and watch how hot your condenser gets.
Refrigerators follows simple rules much like the atmosphere of Earth. Unless there is a balance, the machine will work harder to maintain ....creating excessive heat and cold.

An evaporator freezing over is super cold. That cold is a low pressure, the high pressure "Heat" is whats is causing it to get colder.

The cold low pressure if forced further south by the high pressure over it. .. These degree differences can be small.. A high pressure can be @ 24F -4C and a Low pressure is 20F -6C only a 4degree difference. Might not seem like a lot, but thats how temperatures work..

Global Warming is in relation to Global Cooling like yin and yang. When there is more yin than yang. Its out of balance ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_refrigerants
CO2 isnt the only gas out there effecting global warming. Someone already mentioned Methane. However there are huge blocks of methane in frozen permafrost that are being released via thaw.
This list of gases mostly used in refrigeration (even Oxygen and Nitrogen ) given the ODP, and GWP of each chemical/element..

Some of if not most of those chemical combined out weight CO2 a hundred fold, as well their GWP is potentially higher.

The tax on CO2 is a joke, when it comes down to the real planet killing chemicals, deforestation and dependency on OIL .. Oil makes up 100s of those planet killing chemicals. Most of all come from Saudi Arabia and Fracking. Poisoning out minds and our planet to keep our frozen processed chicken nuggets cold..

 

Fascinating! That nature.com site says we can't rely on global temperatures anymore. We should focus on gas emissions.

So don't worry if the earth starts to cool or stays the same temperature. We're going to need to initiate carbon taxes anyway. lololol

This is fucking hilarious I just started reading it but had to point this out. How exciting.

 

lol

I am certainly condescending and demanding compared to your average bear. Most people don't have the slightest grasp of formal logic or evidence based pattern seeking. I don't know what to tell you. If I were to slow down and explain every logical fallacy along the way, and explain the process of aristotelian reasoning, I think it would feel even more condescending. I've done some of that here. Even if people didn't know the reasoning process, they're not going to feel good about being told about the reasoning process unless it's done verrrry delicately and skillfully. Frankly, ain't nobody got time fo dat.

I'm going to depend on people who really prioritize logic, reason, and evidence, and they'll be on a rocketship to planet truth.

 

There was no mention of a tax anywhere in the article.
But you should know that they implemented a carbon tax in British Columbia Canada, and households actually paid LESS in taxes than they did before.

This is because the government took the money from the carbon tax and used it to offset other taxes.

 

Instead, if you must use a selfie as your avatar, could you at least make it one where you are not shirtless and squatting? I don't mind if you have shots like that in your private albums, just not as your avatar please.

 

Kind of like how stores have opening day sales to make sure people get a good first taste in their mouths. Open wide! lol

Do you play chess? Some people play a short game, some play a long game. The good players play a long game, the people who stand to profit from carbon taxes play a verrrrrrrrrry long game. They're laying groundwork, setting the stage.

Some posts ago I asked what would be the next step after the warming scare ceases to be. It's coming already. People are catching on to the fact that winters are cold as fuck all and global surface temperatures aren't moving. All I ask is that you keep your eye on the goal posts as they are moved. If you have one giant goal post, global surface temperature, everyone sees the post moving. If you read the article you can see how they are setting up many, disparate goal posts so that they might emphasize the confirming trends and discard the indicting ones. Who the fuck has time to monitor all that science and make sure they're not getting shafted? Not the public.

INCREDIBLY DAMNING TESTIMONY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFyH-b3FRvE#t=1h11m52s

Don Easterbrook has been studying climate change for decades, and he's testified that he's not associated with or funded by any business group. All his reasearch has been funded by governmental agencies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFyH-b3FRvE#t=1m42s

 

He did say he was black awhile back with no trace of irony or evidence of humor...

 

Nice conspiracy theory.
They always tend to pop up in these threads... mostly because it's the first key aspect of denialism, which you can read about here:

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full?ijkey=d3addb6f9b7f1b98c8221bf9b46bd1c3faad0ac6&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

And Don Easterbrook's theories have been rejected by the mainstream science community. He speaks at the Heartland Conferences on a regular basis because of course the right wing oil industry PR machine loves to hear how the planet is cooling, and their pals in the GOP (which receives 10s of millions from big oil during elections) bring him in as an 'expert'.

Now change the subject to something completely different so this can go on and on forever until I decide it's pointless and give up.

 

The lols he has in this typical reply is the sole reason he is asking people to post their sincere thoughts on these matters. Some people just happen to thrive on this stuff. OP is one of them.

 

Did you hear him say papers criticizing global warming are not even read? Did you hear anything about the climate gate scandal? If you label everything as conspiracy you can just dismiss it huh. You can dismiss Roy Spencer and Don Easterbrook and the dozens of other scientists ringing alarm bells. You can dismiss the dishonest actions of the IPCC and "climate gate"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2J8zEJHIg8

We can leave it here, with an easy litmus test for your powers of reason. If the planet isn't warmer in 2020, if it isn't warmer in 2030, start reevaluating your opinion of these people who blatantly manipulate the data as described by Richard Muller of Berkely. If warming stops, and new excuses for carbon taxes are generated, keep your eye on the moving goalposts. We're dealing with an unfalsifiable system here, and they will keep developing pretexts for draining you of money. You think the government would never do that. The 'government' doesn't really do it, the colossal banks and corporations do. They're worth many trillions of dollars and they do it. You're probably still asleep as to what extent governments are bought. Obama was shipped into office on an aircraft carrier made of money. He was financed by Goldman Sachs, and proceeded to fill his cabinet with wall street executives. What hope or change have we seen and was there ever even a shred of a chance for any of it to actually come to fruition?

Before that we had the choice of two Skull and Bones members, John Kerry and George Bush. We got the worse of the two, but it was a giant douche vs. a crap sandwich anyway. These people and those who finance them control the IPCC, they control the funding that goes to most researchers, they control the Federal Reserve, which is the group that gets all our tax money. The government issues $10 billion bonds to be cashed by the privately owned Federal Reserve. The bonds are cashed, after which the $10 billion is due back PLUS INTEREST. This is the source of our national debt. This is the method by which those at the top of the pyramid further secure their position, and institute more stringent methods of control of the populace. Carbon taxes would be an excellent addition.

In the interest of making falsifiable predictions, here are mine. I could potentially be proven wrong, in which case I will readily admit defeat. IF I'm proven right, and carbon taxes are continuously pursued despite stagnant temperature, do consider the motivations for such a quest.

As CO2 levels surpass 500ppm we will not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2015 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 600ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2015 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 700ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2015 mean global temperature.
As CO2 levels surpass 800ppm we will still not see mean global temperature rise more than 1 degree centigrade compared to 2015 mean global temperature.

 

You are gullible if you still believe in "Climategate". It has been thoroughly debunked.

I have a lot of confidence in the Union of Concerned Scientists. I have followed them over the years. Here is what they say about it

 

Sunfighter, humor me for a moment.

If temperatures stay stagnant going forward, if they're approximately the same in 2020, and 2030. If there's no increase after 500ppm and 600ppm, what should happen then?

 

As if he could do nothing better. Typical.

If you can't properly debate without being condescending you really can not properly debate at all.

 

"stay stagnant"? Why should I humor such a ridiculous statement?

From the IPCC report:

 

How much have we warmed since 2000? What have the past 15 years looked like?

If temperatures stay stagnant going forward, if they're approximately the same in 2020, and 2030. If there's no increase after 500ppm and 600ppm, what should happen then?

 

Actually!!!.... if you cannot address the argument, but continually seek to address the writer, YOU sir, can not properly debate at all. If you want to debate properly, aim for the top of this pyramid. http://www.thewildbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Grahams_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg_.png

 

Both counts. Remember: it is not a secret I am avoiding your arguments. I clearly stated I won't play

If you want to debate properly, lose the condescending attitude. Other people would join in, I promise.

 

My intent is not to hurt feelings, but to expose truth. If you're a competitive person, seek debate. If you're not, seek conversation. You've been describing conversation.

In my personal experience, I've always excelled thanks to competition. It's absolutely the fastest way forward assuming one buys into the project. It fuels me. It's the reason for my physical and mental fitness.

Conversation does not declare winners. It leaves wiggle room for people holding onto bad ideas to cling to them. Conversation respects bad ideas. It entitles people to their bad ideas. Debate declares winners. You'll quickly find out which of your ideas hold water when you debate a competent opponent. A competent opponent seeks to destroy bad ideas, with little regard for feelings.

Make your foundation reason, logic, evidence. Ditch playing the hurt feelings card. Let nothing interfere with reason, logic, evidence. If you're really interested in truth, those need to be the pillars of your foundation. You're asking me to restructure my foundation into

reason, feelings, logic, evidence. That's a weak ass foundation. It's a platform which is not amenable to destroying bad ideas.

I won't come down to the feelings level when I'm trying to destroy dogma. I can only ask you to ditch the feelings when we're discussing ideas at war with each other and rely solely on objective analysis.

 

Well, what your intent is is arguable imo. And one of the main reasons I (and others) think so is because of your condescending way of handling other peoples efforts. It is also arguable that someone who gets the 'competition' in a debate bored with you (because of your approach for instance) is a real winner. I can see how you like to portray that differently.

But the main reason I quoted you here: I was talking about debate, you say conversation. Do you think proper debate actually has to include condescending comments on other people's efforts?

 

Article today on the internet exposing where the money comes from to the science deniers. Heritage Foundation and others, most prominently the Kochs, of course. Mr Soon was outed.