- Bishop Hill blog - New consensus: IPCC is dumb
Lots of interest on Twitter re the Greenpeace's involvement in the IPCC renewables report. Both sides appear united in their disbelief that the IPCC could be so foolish after everything that has gone before...Uncertain Future: Volcanoes Could Alter Climate | Pinatubo Anniversary & Climate Change | Our Amazing Planet
During the eruption of Pinatubo on June 15, 1991, a cloud 684 miles wide (1,100 kilometers) and 22 miles high (35 kilometers) formed over the volcano, carrying about 17 megatons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, according to researchers led by Stephen Self of the University of Hawaii at Manoa writing in the USGS publication "Fire and Mud."Solar jobs cost the Earth « The Daily Bayonet
...
As a result, from 1992 to 1993, large parts of the planet cooled as much as 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.4 degrees Celsius), they wrote.
...
"Pinatubo is a fantastic case study, and there are still developing hypotheses [If the science is settled, why is anyone "developing hypotheses"?]based on observations of Pinatubo," Pyle said.
...
Volcanoes also have the potential to warm the planet's surface by the carbon dioxide they emit.
Only a hippie could celebrate the monstrous inefficiencies in employing nearly 100,000 people to produce only 1% of the nation’s power. Instead of comparing solar power to steel, let’s compare it with coal, which has the same end output, energy.
...
100,000 solar jobs = 1% total energy produced.
134,000 coal jobs = 21% total energy produced.
Posts
3 comments:
Apologies for being off-topic here.
If your position is scientific, there must be a testable hypothesis underlying that position. What precisely is your hypothesis, and what set of observations would be effective in refuting your hypothesis, and thereby confirm scientific status for your statements?
If there are no facts that could refute your contention that human emissions do not have a significant effect on global warming, your contention cannot be considered scientific, and would therefore fall into the realm of ideology.
Looking forward to your response,
Richard Lawson
I'm not trying to force anyone to spend $45 trillion on a hoax.
The burden of proof is on the warmists.
What precisely is *your* hypothesis, and what set of observations would be effective in refuting *your* hypothesis, and thereby confirm scientific status for *your* statements?
I am prepared with a set of refutable statements of our case, and will exchange them with your set. I posed the initial question, and the ball is in your court. If I set out ours first, the discussion here would shift away from the key point: is your case scientific or ideological?
If your case is scientific, you will be able to put forward testable statements. For example, you could say that the climate sensitivity for CO2 is below 1.5*C.
If you cannot advance any such testable statements, your case is not scientific.
Post a Comment