On the subject of global warming being a hoax and a conspiracy, here in California the government is making out like a bandit charging fees on cars and trucks purportedly to reduce driving and therefore CO-2 emissions.

This is the latest and not so greatest:

http://www.californiadriversalliance.org/

 

Yeah, California's a nice place to live provided that you don't mind any of the following:

Millions of people and open-ended population growth.
A landscape dominated by streets, cars and buildings.
Round-the-clock traffic congestion.
A chronic drought and water shortage.
An emerging garbage and solid waste crisis.
High taxes and bloated government.
Plate tectonics and earthquakes.
Politicians and rampant government fraud.

Yea, I know, but I loved it.
Alas, can't afford to live there now.
Where do you live?

 

Ron, that "consensus" only exist in a bought and paid for media. A lot of real climate scientists, including the guy who founded "Weather Channel" say it's a total hogwash.

Could be, but the guy who runs it now doesn't share the same opinion.
http://www.weather.com/science/envi...g-weather-channel-position-statement-20141029
The internet is a wonderful thing.

 

I'm still in California ......... but just until I move back to Kansas sometime in the next 2 months.

Yeah, I know everyone out here is thinking "Don't let the door hit you in the behind on your way out".

 

I'm still in California ......... but just until I move back to Kansas sometime in the next 2 months.

Yeah, I know everyone out here is thinking "Don't let the door hit you in the behind on your way out".

I lived mostly in Southern California. Rented in Newport Beach where the unmarked police cars were black Mercedes so they wouldn't stick out. And then in Laguna Nigel. Always about 76 degrees and work about 20 minutes away. So it was all good.

 

weren't we talking about LED lighting?

Here:
http://www.ledtransformations.com/Lightfair_5-28-08.pdf

Slide 48 and on. And generally a good read on LED lighting.

 

Actually, LEDs dramatically outlast incandescents, by a rather large number, if the basic design is sound.

They also use a lot less power. As to price, that will come down, already has to a large extent.

 

Here:
http://www.ledtransformations.com/Lightfair_5-28-08.pdf

Slide 48 and on. And generally a good read on LED lighting.

2008? Outdated!

 

A lot of real climate scientists, including the guy who founded "Weather Channel" say it's a total hogwash.

He isn't a climate scientist.

that "consensus" only exist in a bought and paid for media.

The study that proved the consensus was done by volenteers.

 

He isn't a climate scientist.

Well neither are you and neither are any of us. So what's your point?

If his opinion based on whatever data he has seen leads him to his view and the rest of us have done the same where and how exactly does that make those who believe qualified and those who are skeptical not qualified?

Statistically the planet warmed up a tiny bit. I know it and have never claimed it didn't. What I have said and stand by is that I have serious reasons to doubt that us humans are the sole reason for it being statistically we just don't break the give and take thresholds of nature's own variations.

Does that make me a denier because I admit the climate changed just as it always has been?
Does that make me a denier because I admit that some statistical analysis of the temperature data it can be shown the the average temperature of the planet went up a tiny bit while others disagree on the how and why of it?
Does that make me a denier because I admit that there are many places and people who have seen improvements in their local weather and climate from the most recent changes?
Does that make me a denier because I for one do not have a seething hatred of all other humans who are not like me or believe like me?

If I was a climate scientist and came out with a 100% accurate full on report and supporting data set that showed that use humans have anything to do with the climate over all and that nearly everything being said is being blown grossly out of proportion purely for greed and political gains as have countless other natural events bot real and proven to have been made up then what?

The study that proved the consensus was done by volenteers.

And that is significant in what way?

 

So what's your point?

He was being grouped with climate scientists, but he's not one. Guess you have to read my comments in the context they are made in to grasp the point.

And that is significant in what way?

Once again, it's a matter of context.

 

...Does that make me a denier[?]...

Actually, it makes you a heretic. One deserving of punishment or death.

Individuals like Brownout, who would happily deprive us of our liberty or our life -- in the name of 'saving the earth' -- frighten me.

 

I always thought that huge ball of gas bathing us in the glow of nuclear fusion generated energy we all orbit. You know, the one 93 million miles away, was the primary provider of heat and light for our little blue green rock called home.
How amazing to discover that a trace gas measured in a few hundred parts per million is going to boil me or freeze me if it changes its miniscule atmospheric proportions even slightly.
It couldn't possibly be the sun having ANYTHING to do with how warm or cold the earth gets. No, it must be that CO2 increased from 310 ppm to 350 ppm or whatever it is. And those conflicting ice core records showing levels of 800 ppm in the past. Why did the ocean not just boil away? Why was there so much more ice around at that time?
Maybe it's because CO2 is plant food and not a true green house gas when it makes up less than 1/100 of 1% of the atmosphere.
Maybe it's because Genius has an upper limit but stupidity knows no bounds.
Maybe some people just like to bitch about the WEATHER.

 

I always thought that huge ball of gas bathing us in the glow of nuclear fusion generated energy we all orbit. You know, the one 93 million miles away, was the primary provider of heat and light for our little blue green rock called home.
How amazing to discover that a trace gas measured in a few hundred parts per million is going to boil me or freeze me if it changes its miniscule atmospheric proportions even slightly.
It couldn't possibly be the sun having ANYTHING to do with how warm or cold the earth gets. No, it must be that CO2 increased from 310 ppm to 350 ppm or whatever it is. And those conflicting ice core records showing levels of 800 ppm in the past. Why did the ocean not just boil away? Why was there so much more ice around at that time?
Maybe it's because CO2 is plant food and not a true green house gas when it makes up less than 1/100 of 1% of the atmosphere.
Maybe it's because Genius has an upper limit but stupidity knows no bounds.
Maybe some people just like to bitch about the WEATHER.

[SARC] I am not a climate researcher, so my opinion holds no weight on this topic [/SARC], but...

I have had quite bit of involvement in gas detection via NDIR (non-dispersive infrared) absorption.

Here is what I know about CO2: It has a primary absorption peak at about 4.3 microns (IIRC). At this wavelength, 100% of IR radiation is absorbed by atmospheric CO2 within about a 6 inch optical path length. Any additional atmospheric CO2 will not absorb additional IR at this wavelength, because there is no more energy to be absorbed. There are other peaks, as well, and these are fully absorbed within a 10 meter optical path length at current conditions.

For those who don't know, Beer's Law dictates that absorption increases exponentially with linear increase in optical path length.

We live under 60 miles[!] of atmosphere. All wavelengths affected by CO2 are completely absorbed -- at the gas concentrations present today. Additional CO2 cannot cause additional capture of IR energy.

 

Guys, this thread has lasted because it has been a debate about facts and science. Lets keep it that way.

 

Personally, I believe someone is making big $$$ off the issue of purported climate change and that's why it's being promoted like a religion.

Climate change is real. It follows the weather. It follows the sun. It follows mankind's activities. If you want to stop it, stop everything, kill off mankind, then there will be no complaints about global climate change, as no one would be alive to express an opine. That would eliminate mankind's influence at the root level. Let the apes worry about it. If that doesn't arrest climate change, stop the earth from orbiting the sun. Move the earth to geosynchronous orbit about the sun so the climate never changes. Moving to geosynchronous orbit might solve all the problems.

Ol' Al Gore, inventor of the internet, is making a fortune selling carbon credits while jetting around the world.

Koyota treaty made exceptions for developing countries, like China, a nuclear weapon state.

There is big bucks being made, and it's not from the oil companies. 1.2 million over a decade is only 120k per year. I would figure most research could cost that much on a consulting basis.

 

...If you want to stop it, stop everything, kill off mankind...

This, for some, is the goal.

 

Everything costs more in California but its' a nice place to live.
Could be in Europe and pay twice as much or Saudi Arabia and pay $.50.

In 1977-1979, the fuel prices for my Vespa was 500 lira per liter. The exchange rate was 880 lire per dollar. That was about 2.16 per gallon. I don't know how much of that was taxes.

I know a fuel distributor that sold three types of fuel. They were located in an area that covered multiple cities, counties, and states. To account for all the required taxes, they had something like 36 products. Some states have fuel subject to sales tax as well. You know well that no state would reduce their tax portion to keep fuel prices down.

 

I think that is kind of the climate model, but you need to factor in temperature

[SARC] I am not a climate researcher, so my opinion holds no weight on this topic [/SARC], but...

I have had quite bit of involvement in gas detection via NDIR (non-dispersive infrared) absorption.

Here is what I know about CO2: It has a primary absorption peak at about 4.3 microns (IIRC). At this wavelength, 100% of IR radiation is absorbed by atmospheric CO2 within about a 6 inch optical path length. Any additional atmospheric CO2 will not absorb additional IR at this wavelength, because there is no more energy to be absorbed. There are other peaks, as well, and these are fully absorbed within a 10 meter optical path length at current conditions.

For those who don't know, Beer's Law dictates that absorption increases exponentially with linear increase in optical path length.

We live under 60 miles[!] of atmosphere. All wavelengths affected by CO2 are completely absorbed -- at the gas concentrations present today. Additional CO2 cannot cause additional capture of IR energy.

Doesn't quite work that way with the atmospher, although the scale is logarithmic.

 

Climate change is real. There is big bucks being made, and it's not from the oil companies. 1.2 million over a decade is only 120k per year.

That's pretty good money. Heck, I'd take it.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nge-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/