Register to Comment
Page 1112 of 6579 FirstFirst ... 1126121012106211021110111111121113111411221162121216122112 ... LastLast
Results 11,111 to 11,120 of 65786
Like Tree13928Likes
  1. #11111
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,837

    Good news. The dirtiest and most dangerous form of energy generation may be on the way out, at least in the US. Hopefully, China and India will not be far behind.



    Due to a combination of cheap natural gas, higher coal prices, increasingly cost-competitive renewable energy, and an aggressive community of activists working to prevent the build of new coal plants, the coal sector is facing an unprecedented decline in generation. At least, that’s what leaders of Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal campaign are saying.
    http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/0...or-coal-again/

    As a tribute to Peabody Coal:

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #11112
    Cassandra Syndrome Cassandra Syndrome is offline
    Cassandra Syndrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    24,808

    Thanks for that excellent paper. Hey owed, why don't you read this rather than recycling worn out fallacies to refute the truth?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #11113
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome View Post
    Good, you can actual assimilate the truth after all.



    Through the eyes of scamming taxpayers money, probably not, as its impossible to tax the sun. Through the eyes of the cognitive unbiased, the above statement is an oxymoron of the first. Why would solar variance stop being a causal factor in the 20th century after 4.5 Billion years?



    Its not my theory. Maybe if you knew anything about solar science, you might know something about the theory.



    No, to you its a pain in the ass, as weak solar activity has exposed the lie and swindle. Rude? You remind me of Newt Gingrich giving out about the rudeness of the personal questions about his sleazy life. If being a self serving, misogynist, eco-fascist neo Malthusian with utter contempt for humans is not rude today, then I hope 2012 is the end afterall.



    70% of this "debate" is dominated with blinding posts of you tube videos with little or no academic journal research papers from you and the other spambot.

    Indeed I have on several occasions linked research papers that were denied without even downloading. So that is a reflection on the calibre of the spambots.




    More spam from some other representative of pond life.
    It's so easy to make you posting that yaddah yaddah. One only needs to post facts and science. You're not able to respond rationally when challenged on your claims.

    No more to say to your smeary comment.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #11114
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome View Post
    Thanks for that excellent paper. Hey owed, why don't you read this rather than recycling worn out fallacies to refute the truth?
    "Excellent paper"? Did YOU read it?

    Tell us some conclusions please (of the study, not your own fantasy).

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #11115
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,837

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome View Post
    Thanks for that excellent paper. Hey owed, why don't you read this rather than recycling worn out fallacies to refute the truth?
    Dodging the hard questions again, I see. Like this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Cassandra Syndrome View Post
    Sea Levels correlate with solar activity. The Sun is the primary driver behind climate change. Deal with it Spambots.
    Note the bright yellow incoming energy flux in this diagram. The sun supplies the earth with energy. Truism. Uncontested fact, except in the feverish brain of climate science deniers.



    In a single second the Earth absorbs 1.22 x 10^17 Joules of energy from the sun - over a thousand times more energy than was released by the Hiroshima fission bomb. Now the sun's energy is spread fairly uniformly over the earth's surface, but it is clear the planet would soon be burned to a crisp if that energy did not go somewhere.

    And of course, it does go somewhere - right back into space (which is at a temperature of 0C). Which is were the atmosphere comes in - enough heat is trapped by GHG's to keep us comofrtably warm, as we have become accustomed for the last few ten thousands of years.

    Otherwise, we would have a "climate" just like the moon, which had a mean temperature of -23C, but varies between -147C and +100C. Thank god for the atmosphere and greenhouse gases - but don't let's have too much of them.

    And for deniers - is that really so hard to understand?
    You also make an obvious howler in equating a good (but speculative) paper with "the truth" because it remotely supports your crackpot ideology. Science depends on replication, and just because a paper gets published, that does not mean it is instantaneously "the truth". Deniers make that same stupid mistake all the time.

    Once more, you cannot even meet extremely low expectations.
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 26th January 2012 at 08:57 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #11116
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,837

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCharles View Post
    "Excellent paper"? Did YOU read it?

    Tell us some conclusions please (of the study, not your own fantasy).
    The hilarious part is that once again deniers are elevating a paper that does not contradict anthropogenic climate change, only proposes a mechanism that may form part of the natural variability part of the changing climate. From the abstract:

    ... global warming may be at least partly controlled by deep Earth processes ....
    It also supports that there is global warming, which Cassandra Syndrome and kront999 claim is not happening at all!!! Yet CS also claims this paper is "the truth", while supporting "global cooling". Orwellian doublethink, or what?

    Is this another "We always knew the planet is warming" moments? It's Thursday, so that is possible - on Fridays global warming is not happening at all, and is only a greenie, warmie invention.

    What an incoherent bunch of twits.
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 26th January 2012 at 08:32 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #11117
    Cassandra Syndrome Cassandra Syndrome is offline
    Cassandra Syndrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    24,808

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCharles View Post
    It's so easy to make you posting that yaddah yaddah. One only needs to post facts and science. You're not able to respond rationally when challenged on your claims.

    No more to say to your smeary comment.
    P1ss poor retort. Face it, you really know nothing about climate change.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #11118
    Cassandra Syndrome Cassandra Syndrome is offline
    Cassandra Syndrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    24,808

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCharles View Post
    "Excellent paper"? Did YOU read it?

    Tell us some conclusions please (of the study, not your own fantasy).

    Yes. Did you read it? I have the full text of it open now. Why don't you download it yourself and I can illustrate its relevance to solar variance as opposed to AGW?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #11119
    Cassandra Syndrome Cassandra Syndrome is offline
    Cassandra Syndrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    24,808

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Dodging the hard questions again, I see. Like this:
    No. You never answered this post, because it exposed you as a crank and a downright liar.

    The Climate Change Debate Thread

    Run away when some hard evidence is presented to you. You expect me to look at a crappy youtube video in return?


    You also make an obvious howler in equating a good (but speculative) paper with "the truth" because it remotely supports your crackpot ideology. Science depends on replication, and just because a paper gets published, that does not mean it is instantaneously "the truth". Deniers make that same stupid mistake all the time.

    Once more, you cannot even meet extremely low expectations.
    More abuse. As I said before call me a denier, I call you a fascist.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #11120
    Cassandra Syndrome Cassandra Syndrome is offline
    Cassandra Syndrome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    24,808

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    The hilarious part is that once again deniers are elevating a paper that does not contradict anthropogenic climate change, only proposes a mechanism that may form part of the natural variability part of the changing climate. From the abstract:



    It also supports that there is global warming, which Cassandra Syndrome and kront999 claim is not happening at all!!! Yet CS also claims this paper is "the truth", while supporting "global cooling". Orwellian doublethink, or what?

    Is this another "We always knew the planet is warming" moments? It's Thursday, so that is possible - on Fridays global warming is not happening at all, and is only a greenie, warmie invention.

    What an incoherent bunch of twits.
    Twits? You never read the paper did you? Why didn't you? Here's something from the introduction

    Asfarasweknow,thefirstquantitativeevidenceofarelat ionship
    betweenthegeomagneticfield,externalfieldactivities andweather
    orclimatechangewasgivenby Wollinetal.(1971), whodemon-
    stratedthatalowgeomagneticintensityisassociatedwit hawarm
    climate(asitisoccurringinthepresentdays)andby Bucha(1976)
    whosuggestedthatdriftsofgeomagneticpolescouldhaveb een
    responsiblefordisplacementsofalargelow-pressureregionofthe
    Earth’satmosphereassociatedwithanincreaseofcycloni cactivity
    and suddenclimatechanges(Bucha,1978). Morerecently,various
    studies havesuggestedinteractionsbetweenclimateandthe
    geomagneticfieldoverdecadestohundredsofthousandsof years,
    sometimesalsoproposingpossiblephysical mechanisms.Alongthese
    lines,ithasbeensuggested(SvensmarkandFriis-Christensen,1997)
    that theEarth’smagneticfieldandsolarwindmodulatetheinco ming
    cosmicrays,thusaffectingdecadeclimatevariability.A minimumin
    thesolaractivitywouldimplyanincreaseinthecosmicrad iationon
    Earththat,inturn,wouldraisethenumberofcondensation nuclei
    andultimatelyincreasecloudiness.Thisidea,laterchal lenged(Laut,
    2003), buildsupontheobservedpositivecorrelationbetweenclo udi-
    ness andintensityofcosmicradiationmodulatedbytheSunover the
    periodof1984–1991
    Otherstudies(Solanki, 2002; Le
    Moušel etal.,2005) haveshownacorrelationbetweenexternal
    magnetic fieldvariability,solarirradianceandglobaltemperatu re
    from thelate19thcenturytothemid-1980s.
    A weakbutpersistentcorrelationbetweengeomagneticfiel d
    intensity andtemperatureintheNorthernHemispherehasbeen
    noticed duringthelastmillennium,implyingthatcosmicrays
    may playanimportantroleinclimatevariations(Usoskin etal.,
    2005) andsuggestingthatcentennialclimaticchangescouldbe
    triggered byenhancedsecularvariationofthegeomagneticfield.
    In your own time of course. Ta.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment