aonsquared

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    166

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Posts posted by aonsquared

  1. 4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

    Wrong that AGW hasn't caused more floods, droughts, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, desertification, a Midwest dust bowl, mass population evacuations, polar bear extinction, and an ice free Arctic by 2013?  It would appear from actual observation that my skepticism has been vindicated.  Disaster is always right around the corner yet never seems to quite manifest 

    I get it, facts won't change any minds, y'all pray to your prophet Saint Greta on the alter of the IPCC, Climatism is your religion.

    Oh I should add to that, basic understanding of logic (it's a branch of mathematics, in case you don't know) and logical fallacies.

    Your posts are full of that. Here, again, a setting up of a strawman argument, sprinkle in an ad-hominem attack, and no real argument (as this contradicts your earlier positions).

  2. 11 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

    Oh, can I answer? The argument is simple. You and the other deniers are wrong and science is right!

    Reading comprehension isn't his strong suit...there's only so much simplification you can do! (well he did post a youtube video claiming people are over-simplifying the description of AGW :rofl: )

    Brenthutch, if you really are serious about discussing this issue please gain the proper technical background and not just propaganda websites and Youtube videos. You will need:

    1. basic knowledge of differential equations (most freshman university mathematics courses will have this)
    2. basic Newtonian physics (mostly covered in high school level)
    3. university freshman-level thermodynamics (gas equation, blackbody spectrum)

    There are lots of free online courses that teach this, and you should have covered 2) in high school. You really don't need to be an expert, but at least know the language as it's hard to "dumb it down" all the time, and then you criticise people for oversimplifying.

  3. · Edited by aonsquared

    2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

    Oh don’t worry. I don’t remember any claims that climate models are infallibly accurate. That so far they’ve been good, yes. And maybe even an implication that the science and data suggest they might be worth continuing to pay attention to. 

    Playing with trolls is like playing “rock” with a petty manager  

    Wendy P. 

    Oh don't worry, he'll cherry-pick something out of the internet. Which is why I pointed out that he's running out of arguments if he has to bring other people's/imaginary arguments into the discussion.

  4. Just now, brenthutch said:

     the warmists on this forum claim the latter

    You can't really address my arguments, so you bring other people's arguments and argue as if you're arguing against me?

    That's what's called a strawman argument. Argue against what I said.

     

    This is how you say so much in this topic - your arguments keep shifting, you'll put two contradictory arguments in quick succession, slide around and slip away from arguments you can't win. Then you'll do it again. You've been called a troll, but I can think of other animals that make a better analogy...

  5. 18 hours ago, brenthutch said:

    From your link

    "A growing number of citizens and communities are bringing lawsuits seeking relief from the detrimental effects of increased carbon dioxide emissions"

    If the damage is so clear and widespread, and the cause so easily attributable why can't I find a single example of a successful litigant?

    You are contradicting yourself again. Your silly video kept saying how complex climate models were (and true, they ARE complex and it is a difficult subject) and now you're setting up a strawman saying it should be simple?

    Nice try.

    Litigation takes time and is ongoing. Given how BADLY you've predicted how Tesla stock will fare, will you put your money on this?

  6. · Edited by aonsquared

    25 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

    "While all these policies and programs can help reduce emissions and drive technological change, economists across the political spectrum agree that a flexible, market-based approach is the most cost-effective way to reduce emissions, and should be a centerpiece of a comprehensive climate strategy."

    Source: https://www.c2es.org/content/federal-action-on-climate/ 

    Sorry, I should have used the word "effective" instead of "efficient".

    When the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, "cost-effective" was not a metric that people measured success on. Why does fighting climate change have to be "cost-effective", and fighting the Taliban or ISIS *not* have to be "cost-effective"?

    Market-based approaches do work somewhat but even the US administration is not doing the things exactly quoted from your source:

    Quote
    • Traditional regulations, such as fuel efficiency and emissions standards for cars and trucks, require companies to increase energy efficiency or reduce emissions in their own operations or in the goods they produce.
    • Market-based programs that put a price on carbon emissions, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade program, require emission reductions but let the private sector determine the most cost-effective way to achieve them.

    BOTH points which have been vehemently opposed by climate change deniers. The Trump administration has tried (or is trying) to roll back fuel efficiency regulations, and refused to implement market-based programs like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs, or a bigger scheme like the Paris Agreement.

  7. 6 minutes ago, Coreece said:

    Then just market it as such.  Personally I think the whole "green tech" marketing scheme has hurt "green" tech.  If you're gonna go it that way, then just market them as gluten free EV's. XD. . .

    It is happening.

    However it would be more efficient with government support and policy.

    Strange how some people are so "free market" when it comes to green technology, but when it comes to warfare, become very socialist.

    Next time there's a war, the government shouldn't waste money on the military - just tell people to buy their own guns at Wal-mart and make their own way to the front. After all if fighting (insert war here) is good for the security and economy, the free market will take care of it. Blackwater made good money haven't they?

  8. · Edited by aonsquared

    7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

    Simple physics? Kallend what do you have to say about one of your peers, where is he wrong?

    :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

    so back to attacking the credibility and integrity of climate scientists "because they over-simplify and their climate models are wrong" via Youtube link.

    Climate models are complicated, but brenthutch models are easy to predict :tongue: (and I DID predict it btw)

  10. · Edited by aonsquared
    spelling

    20 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

    The simple fact is that atmospheric CO2 levels will continue to rise for the foreseeable future and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.  To riff off of Dr. Strangelove, you guys need to stop worrying and learn to love CO2. 

    mic drop 

    So you're saying, bend over and take it? No wonder you dropped the mic :rofl:

    No, this is a technological problem with a technological solution. We can accelerate these technological improvements even faster by giving it proper funding and attention. There's lots of exciting tech on the way.

    Thanks for conceding.

  11. 6 hours ago, gowlerk said:

    Brent understands perfectly well that the temperature is rising, the oceans are warming, and that the glaciers are melting. He just is of the opinion that all those things are minor, or even good. And the convenience and profits of continuing and even increasing the rate of fossil fuel consumption far out weigh the risks to society. And then he gets to come here and have some fun making points that he knows full well are easily refuted, but will often get a rise out of people. It's okay to poke holes in his nonsense, but don't be fooled. He is playing you.

    He's not that consistent.

    Looking at a lot of his posts, they started with cherry-picked data on how it's not actually hotter, ice in Antarctica is growing, AGW is a myth peddled by people with an agenda.

    Then he refutes his own point by accepting that it's actually a degree or two hotter, but "who cares it's good for us and plants".

    Maybe it's not just the climate that's changing, his excuses are too. But he has such a LARGE amount of posts with the first argument, so if he changes his argument now those posts go to waste...

  12. · Edited by aonsquared

    7 hours ago, brenthutch said:

    I don't get it, BillV said it was rain that caused wildfires (California with 120% rainfall than normal) and now it is drought that causes wildfires.  Can you guys please get your act together.  

    Setting up a strawman argument about a different topic that I never made, then attacking it for being inconsistent? Impressive :rofl:

  13. 5 minutes ago, billvon said:

    Right now?  The Australians care a LOT.  I expect them to take a dim view of deniers going forward.

    As a skydiver from Australia told me recently:

    Quote

    Season starts or has partly started as we have big problems with fires here. 4 out of 5 Dropzones are closed at the moment

    Hoping the situation will improve.

    WE NEED RAIN

    When was the last time a skydiver WANTED rain?

  15. 2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

    there are people who have moderated their views (and admitted it) based on interactions; yes, even SC. 

    Brent is unlikely to be one of them. 

    Wendy P. 

    Well I guess I'm done here then...maybe leave a script for future SC readers to follow to save time :rofl:

    The script goes:

    1. He will attack the credibility and integrity of the person/scientist/institution concerned about AGW
    2. He will cherry-pick data that says fires are not getting worse, floods are not getting worse, it's actually getting colder
      • incredibly, he will cherry-pick a sentence even when the NEXT SENTENCE is completely opposite of his argument
    3. then he'll completely refute his own argument in 2) and say a degree or two of warming is actually good. Plants thrive in CO2, and things are actually a lot better right now (it's not because of CO2, but he'll ignore that).
    4. But press him on it and he will probably deny warming is caused by human activity. Then, he will refute the argument he JUST made in 3) by cherry-picking data again to show the world isn't warming/it was warmer millions of years ago/etc.
    5. Don't try the thermodynamics argument with him - he doesn't know it very well and will ignore your arguments there
    6. He'll then circle back to credibility/integrity attacks, cherry-picked data, then back to how much plants like CO2 and the cycle begins again!

     

  17. Your responses are perfectly predictable:

    • CO2 causes AGW
      1. you attack the messenger - questioning people's credibility, attacking their person not the message
      2. then you say "it's not getting hotter and here I have DATA that it's not, it's getting colder or just the same!"
      3. THEN you say "yes it's getting hotter so what, it's good for plants"
      4. you do not realise that your statement in 3) is not consistent with your statement in 2)

     

  18. 1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

    What would that be?  Global temperature has risen by a degree or two?  Who cares?  It has been beneficial.  No increase in hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, wildfires or acne.  The only effect has been shrinking deserts, greater food production, longer lifespan, greater global standard of living and greatly reduced poverty.  The larger ones carbon footprint the better ones standard of living.  Those are just stubborn facts. 

    So I'll say: but there HAS been an increase. Australia for example

    You'll say: But the fires are BECAUSE OF REASON X (NOT AGW!)

     

    If you listen to yourself...do you not realise how stupid you sound?

  20. 16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

    Yes I did.  Here is some more good news from the same link

    "A 1993 review of scientific greenhouse studies found that a doubling of CO
    2     concentration would stimulate the growth of 156 different plant species by an average of 37%. Response varied significantly by species, with some showing much greater gains and a few showing a loss. For example, a 1979 greenhouse study found that with doubled CO
    2     concentration the dry weight of 40-day-old cotton plants doubled, but the dry weight of 30-day-old maize plants increased by only 20%"

    Also I've never mentioned plants, so you're deflecting the topic again. We were discussing temperatures.

    Let's remove the millions of uncertain variables affecting an entire planet, and simplify. Simplify the argument to high school level.

    Let's take 2 identical, adiabatically sealed containers. Fill one with oxygen and water vapour, the second one EXACTLY the same, but replace some oxygen with CO2 (let's say 400ppm).

    Now let's expose both containers to the SAME amount of sunlight, for the SAME amount of time. Carefully measure the temperatures. Now, if the container with CO2 warms up more, brenthutch pays up, if not, I pay up. Basic thermodynamics.

    Now will you put your money where your mouth is? How much?

  21. Just now, brenthutch said:

    Yes I did.  Here is some more good news from the same link

    "A 1993 review of scientific greenhouse studies found that a doubling of CO
    2     concentration would stimulate the growth of 156 different plant species by an average of 37%. Response varied significantly by species, with some showing much greater gains and a few showing a loss. For example, a 1979 greenhouse study found that with doubled CO
    2     concentration the dry weight of 40-day-old cotton plants doubled, but the dry weight of 30-day-old maize plants increased by only 20%"

    Last time I checked US farmers were having trouble selling their crops, yield was not a problem. And we're talking about temperatures here, nice deflection.

  22. · Edited by aonsquared

    16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

    Uh, newsflash!  PREHISTORIC CO2 CONCENTRATION WAS GREATER THAN IT IS TODAY!!!!

    "About 34 million years ago, when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO2 was about 760 ppm,"

    Did you catch that? CO2 at 760 and ice was GROWING

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

     

    If you only read ONE more sentence after your quotation...geez.

    Quote

    About 34 million years ago, the time of the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO
    2     was about 760 ppm,[34] and there is geochemical evidence that concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about 20 million years ago. Decreasing CO
    2     concentration, with a tipping point of 600 ppm, was the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation.[35]

    In simpler english: When the ice started growing 34 million years ago, it was at 760 ppm and dropping. By the time it was finished growing, CO2 was at 300ppm. This was 20 million years ago. Reducing CO2 levels was the primary cause of the ice forming.

    By the way, English is not my first language.

  23. 4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

    Uh, newsflash!  PREHISTORIC CO2 CONCENTRATION WAS GREATER THAN IT IS TODAY!!!!

    "About 34 million years ago, when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO2 was about 760 ppm,"

    Did you catch that? CO2 at 760 and ice was GROWING

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

     

    Wow, you did not read the entire article you linked to...

    Let's do a wager then. How much money are you willing to put up?

     

  25. 12 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

    1) Oxygen itself does not cut anything. However, if the retransmision of energy through CO2 is correct, (I have no reason to doubt it) then it does when focused.  Oxygen, focused or not, does not cut anything.  It may oxidize things - and a catalyst may increase the speed, but Oxygen ( to the best of my knowledge does not.)

    2) The planet releasing more water vapor - so more energy is trapped and released as heat, as opposed to not being trapped at all.

    3) I want tickets

    Actually, the CO2 retransmission of energy happens even when it's not focused - in the 70s, astronomers discovered naturally-occurring CO2 lasers in the atmospheres of Mars and Venus ("Nonthermal 10 micron CO2 emission lines in the atmospheres of Mars and Venus", Johnson et al., 1976)

    Venus, of course, is that nice planet with a balmy surface temperature of 864 Fahrenheit (462 degrees C) mostly thanks to CO2.