aonsquared

Wow...it can google word definitions No, you still don't know what it means in scientific terms. Try again. Go back to school for a few years, then maybe we can talk.

Skydekker criticizes your dependence on newspaper articles instead of data and study, and you respond with another newspaper article? You are a special kind of ... and you wonder why I don't waste my time arguing.

Oh, I would LOVE to be wrong. Really, seriously I wish I was wrong. But you don't even know what "stability" means. You don't know statistics, probability, or logic. I've proven your points contradictory and hypocritical again and again. So far you've admitted only the most glaring one when you had no other escape. Go and respond to DJL, because you're wrong there as well.

He misunderstood every single one of his links, and they're just abstracts.

Not going to waste my time. Since you don't even understand the TITLES of papers you reference to, have extremely sloppy and contradictory arguments, exhibit no understanding of statistics, mathematics, or basic science, why should I do your work for you? Even if I did provide an example, you wouldn't understand its implications. Stop your lazy googling and go back to school.

you are the last person who can disprove a theory you don't understand You did a quick lazy google search is exactly that - lazy. You're not interested in the truth, you only want snippets that agree with your pre-formed views. Unless you work MUCH harder, it will remain easy for me to pick your arguments apart. "Lazy google search" is a lame excuse for being wildly wrong.

edited, no habla latín!

It wasn't even an entire paper, it was an abstract. And the word "Model" was in the title. Try harder.

In addition to attributing claims to me that I never made, you said: Right after you link to a MODEL to support your point? You think you have common sense, but common sense isn't supposed to be contradictory.

First: why are you putting claims in my mouth then demanding proof of it? Second: I want to explain how you misunderstood your own references. In your first link you said: Let's start with the TITLE of the paper: "Response of vegetation cover to CO2 and climate changes between Last Glacial Maximum and pre-industrial period in a dynamic global vegetation model" This model is one of the many computer models that you are so critical of, why use one now?

I really appreciate you trying to read proper scientific papers. Really, I do. We need more people doing that. But you misunderstood them badly, and this is because you need a more solid foundation in analysing these papers and methods. It will take a lot more hard work and years of study - not just an afternoon googling. Hopefully if you do this you'll appreciate more the hard work people put into these studies.

Exactly. He's posting links to articles that contain none of his points...completely misunderstanding the abstracts. It's sad to watch his brain try to over-exert itself trying to do "research" when he's so condescending towards actual scientists.

Nope, from your link: It seems YOU don't know the difference between observation and simulation. You haven't answered my question, what is your scientific and educational background?

Again, post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The abstract itself contradicts your argument that CO2 is the cause of this decline.

You pretend to understand scientific writing, but you don't. You trust models now? This paper is about a SIMULATION. But then inconsistency is your thing. You didn't understand the abstract. Read it again. You also didn't understand this abstract. Read it again, ESPECIALLY the last sentence. Do you even have any scientific training or background? Or is it all just Fox news?

The "generator" is actually used now for regenerative braking in electric cars. (disc brakes are now just a backup on electrics, so instead of having to change pads every 10-20,000 miles they last 100,000 or more, and there is much less brake dust in the air) IF things were 100% efficient, yes you would never have to recharge an electric car. But you have friction losses, air resistance and efficiency losses. But tech is getting better quickly - Tesla is actually buying the entire world's supply of SiC mosfets, a new type of transistor that's a lot more efficient than plain silicon. There's an electric aircraft thread in General Skydiving Discussions which is probably better for this topic :)

That actually just popped into my news feed - it's a good start! Renewables actually make better financial sense now. Like how various revolutions have been won without a proper military, the flexible free market approach may eventually overcome the lack of government support on this issue. For example, electric cars actually have a lot of other benefits over traditional ones - less brake wear, MUCH higher reliability, lower fuel cost. As an aerospace engineer, I was sceptical at first about electric aircraft - but now I'm quite excited by the cost savings that could be achievable (see the NASA X-57 Maxwell:https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-109.html) BUT...really, governments should still chip in more. Or, at the very least, help remove legal obstacles and enable a level playing field (meaning no fossil fuel subsidies). In any case, I had to speak up as the inconsistencies in the anti-AGW propaganda were just too glaring to ignore. Hopefully now it's back to work in helping get better technology out.

"difficult to predict" is all you understood from that? Well...small steps I guess.

whoops, thanks for the correction! It turns out, Latin is not my first language either

CO2 emissions from human activity are causing the climate to change due to increased absorption of solar energy. now while the exact effect is difficult to predict, this will make more energy available to drive weather systems such as hurricanes. following the laws of thermodynamics the long term effect will be higher average temperatures. there may also be feedback mechanisms that may either dampen this large input of extra energy, or feedback mechanisms that could amplify this input. The fluid dynamics of the earth's oceans and atmosphere appears to be an unstable system. This can be reasonably deduced from the Navier-Stokes equations. kicking a large unstable system with a large extra amount of energy (from CO2) has the potential to put the earth into extremes of hot OR cold as seen in the past fossil record. Following from 1.5, due to the large uncertainties and large changes that could result from this CO2 forcing, the safest strategy is to reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible to provide civilisation with a stable climate. If we don't, it means that changes to precipitation, weather systems and temperatures will be hard to predict and might not follow past cycles. Predictability is good for us. Farmers like it so they can create farms where it won't suddenly stop raining, etc. Predictability is good for business. For example, skiing businesses sometimes have no snow one winter, then too much snow the next. In both cases, they can't earn money. Much better to have a constant predictable snowfall. Stability is good for saving money. If sea levels rose for whatever reason, cities like New York, London will suddenly have to move, and it will be very expensive. Not to mention how hissy people get with mass immigration. Got it?

Basically, it should be: 1) You see no evidence of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). (You only mention the Four Horsemen/apocalypse to bait people) 2) The increase of CO2 and WARMING we had is....blah blah blah (now see how it's incompatible with 1?) Have fun!

1) Is again a strawman argument - again, quote me directly and address my arguments directly. If these are hallucinations, I would highly recommend seeing a neurologist. 2) Again, this is not consistent with your position in 1). 3) This is a fallacy called ad hoc, ergo prompter hoc. You also seem to like declaring yourself the winner, and declaring that you're right. You seem very insecure...

no reply then! I must have used excessively big words.

Facts are self-consistent no matter the frame of reference, since brenthutch has taken two simultaneous contradictory positions at the same time, whatever he is basing his belief in therefore cannot be facts.

Unfortunately, as I pointed out, brenthutch has the position that this is NOT happening and there is NO EVIDENCE, and at the same time, he has the position that this IS HAPPENING AND IT DOESN'T MATTER.