Obama Wants To Raise Your Electric Bill

Right. That's what I'm saying. :dis:

 

How about everyone that thinks spending money on reducing global warming ponies up and pays for whatever it takes to fix whatever someone else says is broken. People that think it is either pointless to throw money at it or a stupid topic for politicians to get involved in period (guilty on both counts) can keep their money and spend it on buying a house or food or LSU stuff or anything else...since that will help the economy...you know, something that matters.

When the atmosphere is lined with money and it keeps the sun from making us sweat a little bit, you guys can take all the credit. I won't mind at all.

 

Nooo. I'm not! I'm just dumb Cajun with a rudimentary working knowledge of thermodynamics, heat transfer, and fininte element methods. Basic stuff. I can do a heat balance. There are lots of folks like me. Many with more indepth knowlege. We tend to be educated, but nerdy folks. Introverted. We don't seek the limelight and aren't -as a group- politically active. But I'm convinced we're going to have to become so. Otherwise we will be subservient to a bunch of folks parroting politicians possesing nefarious agendas. That doesn't seem like a good future to me.

I usually stay quiet on these things. As red55 correctly points out there's no persuading some folks. Quite frankly, it's draining. I put a lot of thought into it. But every now and then I pipe up; because... I could actually be wrong. I'm interested in what others have to offer. But "global warmists" always want to agure using consensus, flawed methods, distorted charts, and slurs like "flat-earthers". Never thermodynamics. That doesn't mean they are wrong. It just means they don't know what they're talking about.

If anyone's interested in doing some research, this Congressional testimony is a good primer (though not final answer): [Link to PDF File]

 

One *can* use a hammer to drive a screw into a wall. Or a M1 Abrams to kill a fly. That doesn’t make it the proper tool.

Linearizing an equilibrium system is akin with pulling a guitar string, letting it go, and expecting it to keep moving in the same direction. A dynamic system will have a response and return to it’s equilibrium point.

The graph is useless. It only depicts a small portion of KNOWN global warming that started 10-15,000 years ago. The fact that the earth is warmer now than at the end of the last ice age is inarguable. Assuming CO2 and temperature are correlated (not causal); you'd need to start your "normal" temperature from the same time the CO2 anomaly started. Look at this chart.



The “mean” temperature should be set at -10,000 years ago. Not 1961. A 29-year “mean” isn’t statistically significant in a system with a cyclic period of 70,000 years. A “anomalous” 0.4-deg rise since 1961 could simply the continuation of a longer “anomalous” cycle that’s on the order of 10’s of degrees. It’s well within the noise of the signal.



The entire “anomaly” depicted in the IPCC chart has been experienced before, long before man was producing anthropomorphic CO2. I don’t think the Vikings had cars or coal powered electric plants. I could be wrong though. IOW your posted chart doesn't show an anomaly in neither magnitude nor rate.

Do I really need a source to back up that man was not producing significant amounts CO2 before the use of fossil fuels were put to use widely in the early 20th century? The current warming period started abruptly about 10-15,000 years ago. No cars, coal plants, or energy generation back then.

IOW it doesn’t really say *anything* about the future. If you want to say it’s stochastic; quantify the odds.

I don’t consider the fruits of MY labor anyone else’s property other than mine. It has nothing to do with climate modeling… until someone uses that flawed modeling to take my money. I don’t let someone on the street put their hand in my wallet just because it’s a hot day.

If the politicians want to tax energy companies because they have a vendetta, that’s fine with me. But call it what it is. Get it done *honestly*. Don’t use a ruse to hoodwink the uneducated to get it done. Why is it so important to politicians that global warming be caused by man?

My “dogma” is based on elementary easily verifiable laws of classical thermodynamics. Try a simple experiment to get a feel for how much heat air with an elevated concentration of CO2 holds. Put your fingertips about 8 inches away from your lips. Blow slowly. Then slowly move your fingers closer to your mouth. As you do can easily feel the temperature go up. It can’t even hold heat from your lungs long enough for the air to reach your fingertips. And that temperature differential is 5x larger than the “anomaly” figures quoted in the IPCC.

If you want more detailed calculations of how much (or little) heat CO2 holds based on observed data see here…

[See Here]

 

It's gonna take Red about a week to google up a response to that one.

 

Oh my.

 

You didn't respond other than to say you disagree. jibboo 2 Red 0.