There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[SkyDekker 1,130]

3 hours ago, DJL said:

Are we really having trouble with the phrase "relative to"?

It is the same crowd who cheer for Impeach Pelosi, with little understanding. So, I am going to go with....yes.

[airdvr 198]

Since you don't seem to be able to answer a simple question I'll just go with it being another example of data being massaged to suit the message.  Thanks.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Since you don't seem to be able to answer a simple question I'll just go with it being another example of data being massaged to suit the message.  Thanks.

You are correct, someone has massaged the data.  They formulated an average and stated a difference between a current set of data and that average.  That's what sneaky liberals do to pull the wool over your eyes.

Here's a liberal explaining math.  Note how she smiles and is a woman.  That's how you know she's a lying liberal.  Also, she's showing her shoulders so she's probably trying to seduce you so you vote for her husband the Kenyan.

 

Here's another liberal, note the funny accent, that means she's a socialist. Notice how she uses lots of words and numbers, that's also known as "massaging the data".

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by DJL

[airdvr 198]

I asked a legit question and was made to feel like an idiot. This level of arrogance is why you are unable to understand why the conservative base won't go away.

[billvon 2,407]

23 hours ago, airdvr said:

So you only need look back 30 years to say it's a new record?

No.  If you are still talking about the "relative to 1981-2010" that is not correct; it has nothing to do with the record.  That chart shows red where temperatures are higher than the reference; it shows blue where temperatures are lower than the reference.  The reference is the average between the years 1981-2010.

[DJL 232]

13 hours ago, airdvr said:

I asked a legit question and was made to feel like an idiot. This level of arrogance is why you are unable to understand why the conservative base won't go away.

I actually had a serious response written out but decided to be an asshole instead.  The 1981-2000 set of temps is used as a benchmark and it doesn't matter why, it's just a point to use for comparison.  Some publications use the 20th century average.  That doesn't have anything to do with an overall record, the graphic says nothing of the sort, it's just showing the difference between Sept 2019 data compared to that average.  Kallend states "September 2019 tied the record for the hottest September ever globally, and broke the record for the hottest in a non El Niño year."  I don't know where he got that info from, I always use NOAA data but they publish in land and sea temps and that has shown slightly lower temps because sea temperatures lag a bit more and are affected by ice melting.  Land air temps is kind of like recordings in your oven as you turn the heat up and down, sea temps is what you see inside the turkey.  Today at 11AM NOAA publishes its updated state of the climate info for the last month:

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/

See the NOAA article regarding comparisons since 1900, they use the 1981-2000 data point in the graph about halfway down the page.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

[JoeWeber 2,316]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

I actually had a serious response written out but decided to be an asshole instead.

You have no reason to make apologies. It's this ability that sets apart the keen intellect from the blunt one. Sadly, it's also why we have moderators.

[SkyDekker 1,130]

16 hours ago, airdvr said:

I asked a legit question and was made to feel like an idiot. This level of arrogance is why you are unable to understand why the conservative base won't go away.

When Republicans keep telling educators they are lieberal shills that brainwash children, should you really be surprised one gets snide remarks back?

[timski 80]

On 9/18/2019 at 7:19 PM, brenthutch said:

Oh yeah, and Conservatives, Republicans and  Libertarians 

Brother Brent, help me to understand you better. Do you have children?  I'm guessing we are around the same age(50)?  You clearly have left the state of PA and seen other parts of the world, yes? 

The question regarding offspring is in reference to your vision for the future.  The term "global warming" is dead, so are you denying "CLIMATE CHANGE"?  Answer that question purely from your own life experience from childhood, have you not seen a CHANGE in weather? 

I feel the same frustrations as the masses, no matter what, our hands are tied and no courses of action will help at this point. 

[brenthutch 388]

Yep, I have two kids (10 and 6), 55 years old, lived in Europe 5+ years, been to 19 countries and have lived in, (not visited but lived in) 9 states, and have a post graduate education.  With regard to changes in weather, YES I have seen the weather change, it is what weather does.  Floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados, wildfires, blizzards etc., we have seen it all in the past we are seeing it now and we will continue to see it in the future.  In the past, bad weather was attributed to an angry god/gods or a witches curse, now we chalk it up to SUVs.  With regard to climate, of course I believe in climate change, if not for climate change NY would be under a mile of ice, without climate change Great Brittan would still be a wine producing country, without climate change the Sahara would be a lush savanna.  The only course of action proven to be effective against natural disasters and climate change, is economic development.  Because fossil fuels have proven to be a critical component of economic development,  they are a force for good. 

[DJL 232]

13 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The only course of action proven to be effective against natural disasters and climate change, is economic development.  Because fossil fuels have proven to be a critical component of economic development,  they are a force for good. 

Yet you consistently ignore any concept of our products improving so that they are cheaper to make, cheaper to use and produce fewer issues in the long run.  You are willfully ignorant.

[brenthutch 388]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

Yet you consistently ignore any concept of our products improving so that they are cheaper to make, cheaper to use and produce fewer issues in the long run.  You are willfully ignorant.

What!?!?!  My support of fracking would suggest otherwise. Technological advancements in fracking have lead to, lower costs of recovery, higher production and having natural gas replace coal is something we can all agree is a good thing. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 232]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

What!?!?!  My support of fracking would suggest otherwise.

You speak as if there's not other way to economically support ourselves through the costs associated with closing the fossil fuel market besides burning fossil fuels.  That's simply not how national and global economics work because fossil fuels are not the only market out there supporting the national global economy.  AND renewables stand on their own profitability.

Edited October 10, 2019 by DJL

[brenthutch 388]

9 minutes ago, DJL said:

You speak as if there's not other way to economically support ourselves through the costs associated with closing the fossil fuel market besides burning fossil fuels.  That's simply not how national and global economics work because fossil fuels are not the only market out there.

That is fine, and when the market dictates (not some pointy headed bureaucrat) the shift to alternatives will happen on its own. You remember, Adam Smith and that invisible hand stuff.

Edited October 10, 2019 by brenthutch

[DJL 232]

11 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That is fine, and when the market dictates (not some pointy headed bureaucrat) the shift to alternatives will happen on its own. You remember, Adam Smith and that invisible hand stuff.

Unfortunately, that's also an understatement of how well an unrestricted economy works and Adam Smith can go fuck Ayn Rand in the ass.  To provide you with your own arguement, I (and most of the global population) needs a gas fueled car to get work (that's your fossil fuel bridge).  The gross majority of the planet cannot and will not move to EVs without a combination of incentives and regulation.  We KNOW that those people will pay less for fuel once the transition is made but people will always use the cheapest or most profitable thing in front of them until the well is dry.  That's why we with brains on our shoulders plan ahead and make the move before using the cheapest thing paints us into a corner.  If we went with what Adam Smith said we'd still have $10 sneakers and jeans made by child labor, we'd still have rivers that caught on fire, we'd have cities full of smog, slavery... all of those things were OK in the world of Adam Smith, John Locke and their mantras of economic liberalism.

[billvon 2,407]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

That is fine, and when the market dictates (not some pointy headed bureaucrat) the shift to alternatives will happen on its own. You remember, Adam Smith and that invisible hand stuff.

Nope.  We've proven time and time again that cheap, effective and important technological change does not happen without incentives, due to the very high barriers to entry and political objections to new technologies.  Fuel injection - airbags - catalytic converters - almost no one today would argue that they are unnecessary wastes of money and materials, but none of them would have come about without government intervention.  And today cars are safer, faster and more efficient than they have ever been - and even with all that new technology, they don't cost more in real dollars.  That's because "pointy headed bureaucrats" mandated new emissions and safety requirements.  And when they did that, we heard all the same lines - they would cause Ford to go bankrupt, cause GM to make only sub-sub compact cars, and cause mass carnage on the road from people driving around in tissue paper cars.  None of that happened.

[kallend 1,635]

12 hours ago, brenthutch said:

That is fine, and when the market dictates (not some pointy headed bureaucrat) the shift to alternatives will happen on its own. You remember, Adam Smith and that invisible hand stuff.

I’m ok with that, just as soon as the cost of cleaning up the sickness, mess and pollution caused by the fossil fuel industries is factored in to the equation. 

[JoeWeber 2,316]

4 hours ago, kallend said:

I’m ok with that, just as soon as the cost of cleaning up the sickness, mess and pollution caused by the fossil fuel industries is factored in to the equation. 

Brent, this when you need to say, O.K, there is more to this than I thought. 

[brenthutch 388]

11 hours ago, kallend said:

I’m ok with that, just as soon as the cost of cleaning up the sickness, mess and pollution caused by the fossil fuel industries is factored in to the equation. 

Yes those are costs associated with fossil fuels, to be intellectually consistent one must also consider the benefits of fossil fuels.  Once that is accounted for, the costs pale in comparison, its not even close. 

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Yes those are costs associated with fossil fuels, to be intellectually consistent one must also consider the benefits of fossil fuels.  Once that is accounted for, the costs pale in comparison, its not even close. 

If you're unwilling to bear the cost of combating global warming then you're lying by making that statement as you're admitting that the cost is greater than the benefit.

[brenthutch 388]

What????

[mbohu 77]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yes those are costs associated with fossil fuels, to be intellectually consistent one must also consider the benefits of fossil fuels.  Once that is accounted for, the costs pale in comparison, its not even close. 

Of course. But these costs are not factored into the price of fossil fuels--they are "externalized". The benefits, on the other hand, are clearly apparent, as people are still buying and using fossil fuels.
However, this undercuts your entire argument that renewables are not on an equal footing in the market, because of subsidies. What your "opponents" here are arguing is, that if all costs were factored into both technologies, fossil fuels would be more expensive by a considerable margin, and would loose out in the "free market". Subsidies are therefore an attempt to balance this out a bit, and aren't even coming close to doing so completely.

And yes, of course EVERY single company worth their salt uses cost externalization to the maximum extent the law allows them (and lobby to change the law so it allows for more), so renewables will have this as well, but the argument is that it is MUCH smaller than for fossil fuels. 
It would be interesting if there are any good attempts to calculate the total REAL costs of each of the possible energy technologies, but since some costs are passed down many generations and may not even be visible yet, this may be very hard to do, and leave a tremendous amount of space for disagreement on what the real numbers may be.

[billvon 2,407]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Yes those are costs associated with fossil fuels, to be intellectually consistent one must also consider the benefits of fossil fuels.  Once that is accounted for, the costs pale in comparison, its not even close. 

Nope.  Since it's sold directly to end users, and since we have a mostly capitalist market, the direct benefits are captured in its costs.  (Again, Econ 101.)  Now, if you want to capture ALL the benefits/costs, internal and external, then you have to include benefits to society as well as harm to society (deaths, warming, acid rain etc.)

Let's take a purely economic approach to everything, and end subsidies for everything.  Cancel Price-Anderson.  No more cheap mineral leases; you buy and sell the land you need (or no longer need) like capitalists.  No more military defense of oil trade routes.  No more overunity depletion allowances.   No more subsidies for anything, and no more tricky tax loopholes like the intangible drilling tax deduction.  Companies pay directly for the damage they cause, whether it's environmental damage or deaths.

Then let the market decide.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

What????

You said the costs pale in comparison.  The cost is what we need to do in order to reverse the effect that using fossil fuels has on the environment.  This is a price that you've stated time and time again that you're unwilling to pay.

[rushmc 18]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/03/big-news-verified-by-noaa-poor-weather-station-siting-leads-to-artificial-long-term-warming/