Slashdot Mirror
Study: Man-Made Global Warming First Became Evident In the Mid 20th Century
TapeCutter writes: In 1958 the US National Academies of Science (NAS) warned the US government that they had detected a robust Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) signal, they have not changed their mind on that claim for 57 years. Like the modern day Al Gore, Frank Capra publicized the possible effects in a popular documentary (video). Today we have news of a study from Melbourne University claiming the effects of AGW first became evident in the mid 20th century. In other words, the NAS could not have picked up the signal much earlier than they actually did. The fact that the last serious scientific objection to AGW (as a theory) was overcome in the mid 20th century by improving spectrometers in heat seeking missile was a remarkable coincidence, NAS took full advantage of that opportunity.
...they have not changed their mind...
On top of which, Slashdot automatically added a fucking space before the letter "d" when I tried to put the emphasis (bold and italic) on that letter only. You guys can't even write properly, you can't code properly either (the "options" window has been broken for months now), so stop trying to correct what we write on top of that.
I can't wait to see headlines in major newspapers and websites in a few decades:
"Youtoobz geealty of copirite infridgiment"
While saying there is no agw is presumptuous you make a very good point.
One of THE key tests of a scientific theorem is that it can predict.. And yet these 'state of the art' models have so far had a dismal record of prediction.
And yet their 'findings' are treated as science.
Global climate change is obvious, inevitable, and continuous as it always has been of course. There is no static climate.
However AGW is a very different proposition.. And there is a wide continuum of possibilities within in from minor self adjusting changes to serious positive feedback.
However so far no model has shown any actual predictive capability.. Therefore all we can say is no model is useful yet.
That's the problem with complex iterative models.. They need to be close to perfect or their output is complete junk as the errors compound.
THIS is the big issue always swept under the carpet.. If we are going to believe the models they need to demonstrate predictions.. Not in daily weather but in ongoing climate. As yet they cannot.
Until they can anything based on them is politics. In either direction.
If and when they can let's hope people can turn their energy to a true solution.. The obvious ones of course being nuclear power in its more modern versions.. And cut through the red tape and bs that a generation scared stiff by iron curtain nuclear Armageddon propaganda hammered in to their children.
Oh course most are all far to addicted to rampant consumerism to actually change.. So that is pretty much the only solution if there really is a problem.
One man's Pollution is the life breath for plants.
What's next? Too much Oxygen?
Here is how to end all arguments. It does not matter the details. Pollution sucks. That is it.
That's a stupid argument. In the wrong situation, water is pollution. Too much oxygen is bad for you.
The fundamental discussion about AGW is how much CO2 is too much. We certainly don't want to get rid of it all, for many reasons.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
People like you are why the world is doomed.
The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere causes an effect immediately.
The only question remaining is how sensitive your tools are.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands.
At this point, it is not a theorem. It is a fact since the scientists have voted. It is a law.
It's also a law that Rush Limbaugh fans must be easy to spot even when they post anonymously.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
The human capacity for self-delusion never fails to amaze....
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
If the "externalized costs" were incorporated into the prices you use to make your decisions, then you would decide more wisely.
The cost of a pack of cigarettes isn't just the cost to grow, process and deliver the tobacco to you, it is also the cost of treating lung cancer - not to mention the social cost of pissing off everyone who doesn't want to die prematurely.
The cost of continuing to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere isn't just the cost of extracting the fossil fuels and using them, it's the cost of relocating our cities to higher ground, and other very expensive consequences. We may pass this cost off to future generations and get away (dead) without paying for it, but it is a price that will be paid.
Nearly 20 years with no statistical warming despite CO2 sky rocketing.
Hasn't the ocean temperature been rising this entire time?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
...but explanations are based on accepted consensus of experts. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.. etc.
One of THE key tests of a scientific theorem is that it can predict.. And yet these 'state of the art' models have so far had a dismal record of prediction. And yet their 'findings' are treated as science.
If you believe that, then it might make you feel good to know that this study was based entirely on computer climate models.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Interesting that you cite history when arguing your point, but when it comes to information to the contrary, "collected data doesn't go back far enough" to provide a conclusive pattern.
If the "externalized costs" were incorporated into the prices you use to make your decisions, then you would decide more wisely.
You might be right... but the chances of that happening any time soon are slim...
The chances of it happening to the majority of the world any time soon are as close to it doesn't matter... zero...
The cost of continuing to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere isn't just the cost of extracting the fossil fuels and using them, it's the cost of relocating our cities to higher ground, and other very expensive consequences. We may pass this cost off to future generations and get away (dead) without paying for it, but it is a price that will be paid.
That may all be true, but there is a difference between understanding a problem and having any way to do anything about it.
This is where this all falls apart, because while this might be priority one to you or to some people, it is priority number 47 to the average person.
Is it important? Sure... So is saving the polar bears, but the average person isn't going to give up their way of life to save them. Thinking they will holds back the real solutions.
So you are saying you will feed you ego prior to ensuring your own existence, the ability to express that self serving selfish ego. There is an illusion going on here and it is one created by the manipulations of modern marketing. Have a problem with something deal with it and don't pretend you are dealing with it by wishing for other people to create a solution that very well might occur far too late or never.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I love how the AGW stories always bring the lunatics typing from their mom's basements out of the woodwork.
You know nothing about science. Really, nothing.
> One of THE key tests of a scientific theorem is that it can predict
What is a 'scientific theorem'? Oh maybe you mean a scientific theory? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... And yet these 'state of the art' models have so far had a dismal record of prediction.
Wrong. The reputable models from the 80's and 90's (those that had a good level of peer-review and were based on sound assumptions) quite accurately predicted our current warming rate. The reason you don't know this is because you probably derive most of your 'information' from sources that actually don't deal in science.
> The obvious ones of course being nuclear power in its more modern versions
I knew you'd segue into nuclear power at the end, and you didn't disappoint! Somehow anti-AGW lunacy seems to be highly correlated with nuclear lunacy.
Nuclear energy is not going to solve our problems. It is obscenely expensive - far more expensive than wind or solar. This is true both for construction costs, maintenance costs, total lifetime costs, and also costs per final delivered kWh. Nuclear is only feasible for a very specific set of scenarios - scenarios where you have a large population or industry center located in an area that is poor in renewable energy sources. And even then, only as an augmentative power source to renewable energy, not as a sole source of power.
Nuclear is also non-renewable and reprocessing (to make it renewable) adds even more expense to the point that it could never hope to be commercially competitive. You guys believe in the free market right? That the market always knows best? Well the market decided on nuclear, and it decided that nuclear sucks. It also decided that nuclear reprocessing sucks even harder.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
...but explanations are based on accepted consensus of experts. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.. etc.
That's a really lousy example to choose.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The fact that the last serious scientific objection to AGW (as a theory) was overcome in the mid 20th century by improving spectrometers in heat seeking missile was a remarkable coincidence, NAS took full advantage of that opportunity.
Nobody mentioned it to me.
And I was working from the mid '60s through the early '70s in the "Infrared and Optics" lab that did the guidance systems for the BOMARK and Sidewinder, processed multispectral (including several infrared bands) aircraft and spacecraft data (from the ERTS - later renamed LandSat - and Skylab scanners), and much of the industrial-scale processing as well as the development of the equipment. The missile stuff was classified and before I joined, but the multispectral stuff was not, and was contemporary (as was the synthetic aperture radar in the other lab I worked for at the start of that period).
I did some of the software that processed that data, some of the running of the mainframes in question, maintained and augmented its OS and libraries on one of them, and, though a lowly undergrad techie at the time, talked with the researchers a lot. Some of them loved to tell me what they were up to and bounce ideas off me for my comments and opinions on them.
So I find it strange that, if they (or anybody in their field) had found a "strong" or "definitive" signal for AGW, using equipment derived from their work, they wouldn't, at least, have been talking about it a bunch, including with me, while celebrating and/or trying to get another grant out of it (and seeing if I could come up with a way to process the data to detect or falsify the signal).
As I recall, the dominant paradigm at the time was that the interglacial was ending and we were about to crash into the next ice age (or the next piece of the current one). But while that was discussed on campus it wasn't mentioned at this remote-sensing lab, either.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You're being obtuse. Probability theory doesn't predict individual coin flips. It does say given enough samples you would expect the heads/tail distribution to be roughly 50/50.
Climate theory doesn't tell you the weather in Tuscon Arizona on August 12th 2018. But it does state that it is getting warmer on average across the world.
It seems like plants did ok during the height of the last ice age when CO2 levels were 180 ppm and the certainly did ok with a level of 208 ppm. I doubt CO2 is nearly as much a constraint on plant growth globally as water and soil are.
Silly old science requires new predictions, which is why we had to invent "science", where a "prediction" about the past becomes new evidence.
In case you don't get the subtlety, team circlejerk just added a new technique. Old members of the team have been busy editing the "raw" temperature data to make the past cooler and the present warmer. New members of the team are now saying that the trends in this fictional data (which was only recently concocted) could not have been seen until recently.
Ta da! "Science"!
See that "Preview" button?
"Pollution sucks. [...] Someone who argues for it is arguing that pollution is OK. It is not."
I wish things were so simple.
Yes: pollution sucks. But shutting down my AC in the middle of summer or my heater in the middle of winter also sucks and both my AC and my heating pollute. So the point is how much it sucks one versus the other. And, of course, there probably won't be an easy agreement about the sweet spot. Moreso, the sweetspot probably will change as costs prices and technologies change.
So, sorry, things are not so simple.
I wonder what it means to have "detected the AGW signal." Was there a repeated electromagnetic pulse in some high frequency band that, properly decoded, represented pi to ten thousand decimal places? Was it engraved on two tablets taken down from the mountain? Or sung by a chorus of angels floating on cumulus clouds? Remember, this was pre Al Gore, so it couldn't have come from the Oracle himself.
Come on, really. Provide some detail and make this credible. It's offhand stuff like this--- "the science is settled" --- "the signal was detected" --- "the scientists have voted" --- that doesn't help anything and just gives ammunition to those who want to ignore the issue.
The real question is will our modern complex civilization collapse to the point where a well furnished wallet doesn't do you any good?
It matches the paper. Here are some sentences from the paper I had to read several times before understanding:
* Nevertheless, according to model evidence, both hot and cold extremes have already emerged across many areas.
* Hegerl et al (2004) found a detectable wettening signal in modelled heavy precipitation events at Northern high latitudes associated with anthropogenic influences on the climate.
* However, in North Asia (figure 2(c)), the TAE values are more similar across the temperature and precipitation indices.
* However, these studies did not take into account that the climate has changed over recent decades or implicitly assumed that society is fully adapted to the present-day climate.
Good thing that writing skill isn't necessary to do correct science.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You mean like the IPCC? Perhaps you could explain why the objective, full-coverage satellite data shows no warming for nearly 20 years while the CO2 level has continued to rise exponentially. This suggests that the CO2 sensitivity used by the alarmists in their failed predictions is way too high, at the least. Also, the issue is not "AGW"; it's Catastrophic AGW caused specifically and exclusively by CO2 concentrations. (As doomed-to-fail plans to limit CO2 emissions is the only thing the alarmists are even talking about, rather than feasible, cheap plans like geo-engineering.) Every time someone takes a step, they cause a small earthquake. Does that mean they should sit very still and starve to death? Similarly, if a small amount of AGW isn't seriously dangerous, does that mean we should kill hundreds of millions of people through energy poverty to fail to solve something that really isn't that much of a problem? What will you do if the global temperature starts falling in the next five years while CO2 concentrations continue to rise exponentially? Will you admit you were wrong?
graph
This graph shows all the predicted models versus observations. If you look you will see not a SINGLE model is even close. Beck_Nerd tells you they have been quite accurate, he hopes you believe him and don't look for yourself. The actual reality is they are 100% wrong, every single time.
Its so completely true and unarguable, yet they can't seem to show it with facts. Funny how that is and how many times they have "manipulated data" to match their conclusions instead of modifying their theories to match actual observations. If AGW is real, it will be sad because people who look into the claims can only see the pack of lies and have to assume it is a hoax because that is the only conclusion you can make if you honestly look at what both sides present.
"I'm all for clean power, to a point..."
If you are "all for clean power" except if it's more expensive, you are not for clean power, at all.
The ocean has continued to rise in the meantime at the same rate it has since 1650, about 3mm per year. It obviously wasn't caused by anthropogenic CO2 before 1950, so why would a continuation of the same effect be attributed to it after?
NoScript says there is a potential XSS attack there. That's really unusual. Usually all it does it block JS, so I'm not dropping anything to look at that. I don't think yimg is sketchy; but maybe they need to fix their shit, or maybe *you* are trying to pull something. I don't have this problem with any other major image hosting site. Your URL looks weird, with some junk and another URL in it. Figuring those thigns out is not my specific area of expertise, so I don't care to analyze it any further.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I love how the AGW stories always bring the lunatics typing from their mom's basements out of the woodwork.
Glad you could come up for some fresh air! Join us that have seen the sunlight instead of living in their own dark minds of make-believe.
Somehow anti-AGW lunacy seems to be highly correlated with nuclear lunacy.
And that's all we need to know folks. Someone who believes in the AGW fantasy but consider nuclear energy harmful is delusional and a hypocrite to boot. Just remember when a real answer to lowering CO2 emissions was presenting he stomped on it.
I shall not reply further; you are deranged and reading further mouth-frothing from you would do my sanity little good.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How did they measure that?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Scientists never predicted the Earth is flat. Anyone with a decent knowledge of geometry can show the Earth is round. Erastothenes calculated the diameter of the Earth 2300 years ago. Pythagorus is generally bel,ieved to be the first Greek to state the Earth is round. That was well before anything we recognize as science.
Idiot Anyone with basic geometry can show the Earth is round. Science has never claimed it was flat.
I love how he used the word 'theorem' incorrectly, and you repeat his incorrect use without batting an eye! I'm really enjoying this thread from people who have absolutely no idea what science is.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Pick another topic then, Crime, Disease.
We know a lot about both topic, we can definitely say both exist, and I am sure you have been the victim of one or both.
Now like temperature, we can't predict who will be the next victim.
And neither can we with any certainty predict their future patterns, will crime increase/decrease, how much by, will this be by state/country/globally.Flu season, they estimate possibly which strains may be prevalent next flu season and make vaccines, and yet they get that wrong a lot too.
Climate is significantly more complex.
each square mile of land impacts the climate of the one surrounding it, as do the clouds, dust, water vapour, pollution, solar output, position of the moon, tides, etc etc etc, there are billions of variables. However we KNOW CO2 and other pollutants trap heat, thats a simple experiment to perform and prove, we know water vapour traps heat, again simple provable , we know the polar caps reflect light back out into space, we know a LOT of things that impact how much heat our atmosphere holds and in general how this impacts the climate. Based on this, we are making models, crude models but testing them and improving them.
Generally what it shows is that we ARE having an impact.
However we are where the cigarette industry was 50-60 years ago, their industry had a strong vested interest in science denial, people had smoked them for years, hell there were people in their 90's who had smoked them for 70 plus years and they weren't dead. However as we now know smoking is bad for your health.
In another 50-60 years, we will look back and wonder how people could be so ignorant about climate change.
We it will come back to the same problem , people judge it based on how much it impacts their lives. If its going to increase the cost of petrol, it does not exist, if it means they may have to use public transport and loose their car, it will not exist, same with being forced to pay for recycling, global warming will not exist because without it there is no need for higher costs.
On the flip side an increase in extreme weather, well their house being blown away or burned to the ground will be "gods will".
The way I see it is
If we acts as though global warming is real, and we take steps, guess what we will have more efficient cars, computers, lighting, etc etc and a cleaner environment , there is no down side where at all..
If we do nothing and we are wrong , the problem is global and will be too big for us to just stop.
Think of it as putting your breakables high enough up so the grandkids can't reach them, prevention, versus trying to glue back that vase that belonged to your great grandmother, once it becomes obvious it is destined to break, there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Equally interesting is the two websites hosting your charts... what did you do, pull them straight from your PR department?
Really? It doesn't seem to be the case, at least according to this source : http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/. Are you saying NASA is part of a conspiracy?
That isn't true at all, nor is it a reasonable or fair thing to say...
All you're doing is shutting down any meaningful communication...
Example... I recently spent over $400 buying LED bulbs for my house... My existing bulbs "worked just fine", so why do it? Because I'll make back the cost of those bulbs in what I consider to be a reasonable time frame, while lowering my carbon footprint.
That is a win, win. There is no reason that most bulbs shouldn't be replaced with LED, even those that work fine today. There are perhaps the edge cases, a few exceptions, but most household bulbs should be replaced, they are much, much cheaper to run, even if more expensive up front.
---
I'm willing to pay a bit more up front if it saves me in the long run. The issue with a lot of clean tech today is "the long run" is just too long. Solar and EV cars are good examples of that. When the price becomes more reasonable, I'll be more interested.
Nuclear energy is not going to solve our problems. It is obscenely expensive - far more expensive than wind or solar. This is true both for construction costs, maintenance costs, total lifetime costs, and also costs per final delivered kWh. Nuclear is only feasible for a very specific set of scenarios - scenarios where you have a large population or industry center located in an area that is poor in renewable energy sources. And even then, only as an augmentative power source to renewable energy, not as a sole source of power.
It is worth noting that the various regulations and "oh my god the nuclear" fears, along with the "oh my god someone might reprocess into plutonium or nuclear weapons so we ban half of it", has caused the above...
It now take more than twice as long to build a new nuclear reactor as it did to invent the things in the first place, when we didn't know how to make them work. That is absurd, imagine if cars took a month to build, you'd be saying that they didn't make any sense either...
The current market conditions for nuclear power are not reflective of what they could be, in another environment.
No one has asked you to do that. If you were smart you would do the responsible thing and add solar panels to your roof to reduce your carbon footprint, but we both know you're not smart..
For $35,000? What planet do you live on?
Point me to a single reputable source that predicted that 'snow would be a distant memory'. Blog posts do not count as reputable sources.
You're making up facts to suit your narrative. What I'm not sure about is: why? I mean, you people have already convinced the world to not take action on climate change, and you've convinced most people that the science behind AGW is not settled, which is not true. You've already achieved your goals; what more do you want from us?
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
The majority of people, are like this guy. He makes a very good point. "The only real solution is going to be figuring out how to provide power cleanly for less money than doing it dirty." In the UK, the governments are slashing funding for students. Research into modern nuclear is almost non existence and we have to go to the french to get them to build us a nuke. The figuring out has been outsourced.... it is gutting. We need a manhattan like project to create clean nuclear power. And we need it now, and for the same reasons - the threat of being wiped out by a second party. Its not germany or russia, this time its mother earth who has the finger on the button, and has been warning us to stop fucking with her for the last 50 years.
It's kind of cool, actually. You drop a tube into the ocean moderately deep, so the water can only enter through the bottom of the tube. That smooths out all the wave motion, so the surface of the water in the tube is stationary, and easily measured.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
> It is worth noting that the various regulations and "oh my god the nuclear" fears, along with the "oh my god someone might reprocess into plutonium or nuclear weapons so we ban half of it", has caused the above...
Not really. Nuclear was already expensive in the 50's and 60's, way before these things were a huge issue. In fact most of the time the people insisting on safety were the nuclear scientists themselves, not the 'eco warrior bogeyman' you've constructed in your mind. The reason was because the scientists were responsible and acknowledged the actual real threats posed by radioactive contamination and the relative ease by which unprotected nuclear reactors could leach radioactive material into the environment.
Is there a lot of unwarranted, irrational fear about nuclear power? Sure. I'm with you 100% on that. But that doesn't mean that nuclear reactors shouldn't be made safe! It's not just accidents either. What if someone crashes a jet into a power plant with the goal of making a large area radioactive and uninhabitable? US regulations require containment buildings to be resistant to bombs and plane impacts, for good reason.
Now as to what makes nuclear power expensive. There are three major issues. One is that the economics of nuclear power favors large, multi-gigawatt, one-off designs that have huge up-front costs that simple can't be made smaller by mass production methods (attempts at small modular reactors have failed and will always fail as the economics of those are even worse). Another issue is decommissioning. Nuclear decommissioning costs are MASSIVE, because you have to extremely carefully take the reactor apart over a period of years. The third major issue is the advanced level of technology required. Custom materials, custom manufacturing processes, labor-intensive fuel preparation, reactor maintenance, and inspection costs.
> It now take more than twice as long to build a new nuclear reactor as it did to invent the things in the first place, when we didn't know how to make them work. That is absurd, imagine if cars took a month to build, you'd be saying that they didn't make any sense either...
It actually makes perfect sense once you realize that the first generation of nuclear power plants were built recklessly and with insane design decisions that made them extremely unsafe and vulnerable to both accidents and terrorist attacks. Over time, we've realized the steps that need to be taken to build safe and secure nuclear sites and these add expense and time.
And as for proliferation fears, well you can blame that on the right wing politicians who insist on backwards arms control methods like total nuclear abstinence instead of rational procedures like international inspections regimes.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
For chrissake, step out of the basement and READ. I beg you. I deplore of you. Every single point you're making has been debunked to death for years. There is no such thing as 'global warming hiatus'. Only bad data, measurement inaccuracies over the oceans, and a regional pause in warming over North America and Europe, which has been more than compensated for by an incredible degree of warming at the poles. http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...
> Every time someone takes a step, they cause a small earthquake. Does that mean they should sit very still and starve to death? Similarly, if a small amount of AGW isn't seriously dangerous, does that mean we should kill hundreds of millions of people through energy poverty to fail to solve something that really isn't that much of a problem?
Actually climate change is a very serious problem and by far the cheapest way of dealing with it is to deal with it right now. It is projected - based on optimistic predictions! - that the economic damage caused by climate change would dwarf the expense of dealing with it. And if you do it in a smart way, it doesn't even need to be that expensive to deal with. Solar and wind are already pretty cheap and could create lots of jobs. The price of oil is going to continue to rise; the sooner we reduce our oil consumption the less we have to pay in the long run. Any way you look at it, it's beneficial economically and environmentally to deal with climate change as soon as possible. Except, of course, if you're a coal magnate, which anti-agw people either are or are useful idiots for. Sorry to say this but it's true.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
There are alternatives to fossil fuels that are frowned upon by various groups: nuclear, wind, solar with battery backup, and hydroelectric all work to supply electricity. These need to become the vast majority of what our power plants are based on, with gas generators for somewhat quick ramp up when additional power is needed. Another issue that I wish to make is that no one knows if long term climate warming is all bad. We won't know for sure until it happens and computer models are adjusted on an ongoing basis for better accuracy. Sure, agricultural will shift, ocean front property will move inland and unknowns will occur. I suspect that some venture capitalist groups will be eager to profit off of the new industries that pop up to help address the ongoing changes. I just hope they don't make matters worse..
I live on the side of a mountain. I have a diesel powered truck and some older cars that are rather bad for the environment. I should just start them all up and keep them idling - I'll flood 'em out. ;) (No, I'd not really do such a thing but they do get operated when the situation calls for it.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Nevertheless, according to model evidence,
Models are not evidence. Measurements are evidence, models are an attempt to draw conclusions from evidence.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The full-coverage satellite data show continued warming in the last 20 years. I don't know which data you are looking at, but of the 20 year period you are talking about, nine out of the ten warmest years are after 2005, and 2015 might set a new all time record. If it wasn't for the extreme outlier 1998, the warming in the last 20 years would have been nearly linear. Actually, one of the Anti-AGW propaganda tricks is to take an ok sounding period like 10 years, 15 years, 20 years, in which 1998 is close to the start. Until 2008, it was always "the last decade doesn't show warming", after that it was "the last 15 years", and now, since 2013 and thus more than 15 years since 1998 are over, it's obviously 20 years. But for some reason, 2013, 2014 and probably also 2015 were pretty hot years globally, and thus the graph, that looked so convincingly anti-warming in 2008 was mildly constant until 2013, but since then, even 1998 does no longer help the argument, as even the graphs that take 1998 as their starting point have a rising trend.
You should try and explain that to the people living in the Andes and have lost their source of water because the glaciers have melted away.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Models are not evidence. Measurements are evidence, models are an attempt to draw conclusions from evidence.
Well said.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"My own actions will make zero difference to the outcome. Only the actions of a majority of people on this planet are going to really matter." Saying it will make zero difference is incorrect. Your contribution might be almost unrecordable on a chart but it will contribute. To say "zero difference" just plays into those that find a reason not to do something
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
there is nothing to stop us from improving peoples lives before the impending doom. i'd rather walk around this planet where it air is cleaner than it is now.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
by far the cheapest way of dealing with it is to deal with it right now.
That's the thing though - it is being dealt with right now. Even if someone believes that mankind has had no significant influence on the climate in this really obviously warming interglacial period (many people are posting from locations that were buried under deep ice a few tens of thousands of years ago), most would agree that the move to renewables and cleaner emissions being mandated by a lot of governments is a good thing.
Where the major disagreement seems to arise is in how quickly we need to complete that move. As far as I can see by the end of this century fossil fuels will be largely a thing of the past in all of their forms - and that's perfectly acceptable. It's a trade off between the large amounts of economic damage - including to things like pension funds relied upon by grannies for their old age - that could be caused immediately versus a relatively minor change in a global climate that's seen gargantuan changes without any interference from humanity very recently in geological terms.
So basically everyone chill, no pun intended.
oh dear... your denial activism is showing
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The age old conflict of those with money and no clue versus those with a clue. Barbarian overlords who think every plot of land is like any other versus farmers who know the difference between arable land and swamp.
Eventually the rulers have to listen to the experts or risk a fuckup bad enough to endanger their rule.
want to cite your credentials in the is field before we take notice of you?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
" If the world is warmer, we will still eat." take that argument to places where water is scarce - look beyond your own local bubble
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Your contribution might be almost unrecordable on a chart but it will contribute.
That is a perfectly example of an academic argument that doesn't hold up when applied to real life.
My contribution doesn't move the needle by enough to make a difference in the outcome, but it DOES make a difference to my pocketbook. I'm harming myself while not helping everyone else by enough for it to count for anything.
I'm not worried about the earth which will carry on happily without us. I'm worried about the future of the human race. A minor change to the climate as you put it could have a devastating impact on our civilization.
rather than feasible, cheap plans like geo-engineering.
I don't know what's happening. My models don't quite predict what's going on. I thought it had something to do with some gas but I'm not sure. None the less I know how to fix it.
What could possibly go wrong.
>What if someone crashes a jet into a power plant with the goal of making a large area radioactive and uninhabitable? US regulations require containment buildings to be resistant to bombs and plane impacts, for good reason.
The World Trade Center buildings were built to withstand an airplane crash as well. Only the crash they were counting on was from an aircraft with the fuel capacity of a 707. The 757s that crashed carried far more fuel, which burned longer, weakening the structure to the point of collapse. Likewise the seawall at Fukushima was six feet too short, because its engineered height was based on historical data. tl;dr You only engineer for the current threat, not the future threat.
People like you are why the world is doomed.
He represents the social norm. It's not people like him. It's People Period. The number of people who would give up the things they take for granted in life in the name of some scientists saying it'll get 1degC hotter (and not understanding what that actually means) is an even smaller proportion than the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Perhaps you could explain why the objective, full-coverage satellite data shows no warming for nearly 20 years while the CO2 level has continued to rise exponentially.
Why do you still think there's been no warming? Are you still looking only at surface temperatures? Have you not seen the accelerating rates of rising ocean heat content, ice loss, and sea levels? Surface temperatures will climb faster when we move into an El Nino phase, if that's what you're looking for.
And why do you bring up the straw man of "energy poverty"? We don't have to slash our energy usage (though efficiencies of course help), we just have to produce it without burning carbon fuels. There's many ways to do that.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
If you want to see climate change that would have a devastating impact on our civilisation, look no further than the Dryas events which took place not only relatively recently but entirely without any influence from humanity. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports...
All of the models are wildly wrong in predicting climate, so the "evidence" is pointing against any of the alarmist models you are peddling being correct.
Well that there is just flat out a lie.
You can dig out the most recent IPCC report if you like. It contains the predictions from the previous IPCC report and compares them to what actually happened. And what happened is that the actual data lay comfortably within the error bars of the temperatures predicted by the models.
Since you're such a "skeptic", I assume you've actually looked at the IPCC report in order to read it rationally and with a clear head, so I don't need to point you to the specific graph.
So, carry on, I'd love to see you twist and turn in the face of indisputable evidence.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Which has nothing to do with my point. We can't control natural climate change but this isn't natural.
... but for the fact that, each and any and every time AGW is mentioned on Slashdot, we have a majority of comment posters either flat-out denying AGW or engaging into a shouting-and-flaming war. There seems to be no other subject polarizing the /. public as strongly as AGW. Why is that ?
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
CO2 has risen substantially in the last decade or two - with very little corresponding warming. ... so you are simply: wrong.
Last year was the hottest in recorded history
Also keep in mind: when you open the valve of your heating, it takes a few minutes until the radiator is hot, and it takes hours until your room is significantly warmer.
The same happens with CO2. The CO2 we produce today will show up on thermometers all over the world in a few years, not tomorrow.
the EVIDENCE is that CO2 rising does not lead to temperature rise, despite many previous predictions to the contrary.
There is no evidence like that. As a stone can not raise to earth orbit, but is firmly grasped by gravity, CO2 leads to increased temperatures. There is no doubt about that. No idea why you repeatedly write nonsense like this, are you payed by some american oil/denier lobby?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It always depends on how you compare. "All other things remaining equal" is one of the ways one can compare. It's valid but one has to be careful about conclusions because the other things are not remaining equal.
CO2 has a large impact on plants in arid regions because plants have to sacrifice a lot of water in order to get the CO2, and when there's more CO2 in the air the plants lose much less water. See for instance here
When water is not scarce most plants benefit from the extra CO2 but there are plants with an enhanced carbon metabolism that are more efficient at capturing CO2 and they don't benefit from rising concentrations: corn, sorghum, sugar cane , a range of tropical grasses.
Perhaps you could explain why the objective, full-coverage satellite data shows no warming for nearly 20 years while the CO2 level has continued to rise exponentially.
Why do you think there's been no warming? Are you still looking only at surface temperatures? Have you not seen the accelerating rates of rising ocean heat content, ice loss, and sea levels? Surface temperatures will climb faster when we move into an El Nino phase, if that's what you're looking for.
And why do you bring up the straw man of "energy poverty"? We don't have to slash our energy usage (though efficiencies of course help), we just have to produce it without burning carbon fuels. There's many ways to do that.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Perhaps you could explain why the objective, full-coverage satellite data shows no warming for nearly 20 years while the CO2 level has continued to rise exponentially. ... good luck, idiot.
That is wrong, an actually a lie. No one can be so disinformed or dumb to "believe" that the planet did not heat up considerably the last 20 years.
Never heard about such satellite images either.
Please provide a link
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Perhaps you could explain why the objective, full-coverage satellite data shows no warming for nearly 20 years while the CO2 level has continued to rise exponentially.
Why do you think there's been no warming? Are you still looking only at surface temperatures? Have you not seen the accelerating rates of rising ocean heat content, ice loss, and sea levels? Surface temperatures will climb faster when we move into an El Nino phase, if that's what you're looking for.
And why do you bring up the straw man of "energy poverty" (among many others)? We don't have to slash our energy usage (though efficiencies of course help), we just have to produce it without burning so much carbon fuel. There's many ways to do that, and much focus on improving them.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
> Historical temperature swings similarly show no correlation to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
This isn't correct. We know of some historical temperature swings which don't have higher levels of CO2 but we also have some that do. The majority of climate scientists explain that a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere cause a greenhouse effect which will raise the average temperature by a mere few degrees over hundreds of years. That sounds like nothing to us but means a lot for the overall ecosystem of Earth.
> But plants aren't harmed by CO2 - it's what they SUBSIST on.
What "AGW fuckers" which I presume you mean climate scientists are worried about is a global rise in temperatures, not plants receiving more CO2.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
It's the same sort of argument we saw recently when discussing broadband coverage where someone claimed to be comparing the US and Europe, but then pointed to a map that actually compared the US with the western third of Europe.
(Still waiting for that poster to respond after having been called out on it.)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I agree. Unfortunately people won't change until the Greenland ice caps melt and Florida ceases to exist. This won't happen in our lifetime (I think).
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
How would you solve the situation? It sounds like any problem that takes a lot of people could never be solved, by your reasoning. It sounds like... wait for it... you require a government to step in.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
The danger of excessive CO2 is not offset by plants. Yes, CO2 is used by plants, but having extreme amounts of it in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect. The effect that climate scientists are worried about is actually relatively minor by astronomical scales - a few degrees Celsius in hundreds of years - but will have devastating effects on the comfort, economy, and livability of humans in many areas of the earth.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
There is no such thing as 'global warming hiatus'. Only bad data, measurement inaccuracies over the oceans, and a regional pause in warming over North America and Europe, which has been more than compensated for by an incredible degree of warming at the poles, and lots and lots of misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies shouted by agents provacateurs* encouraged by the fossil fuels multinationals in an effort to derail rational discussion of the subject.
TFTFY.
*I'm looking at you, "scientists have voted" and "the Republicans hate us" trolls.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Where "natural" means "temperatures increased by 7C or more in a few decades ... Broad regions of the Earth experienced almost synchronous changes over periods of 0 to 30 years (Severinghaus et al., 1998), and changes were very abrupt in at least some regions (Bard et al., 1987), e.g. requiring as little as 10 years off Venezuela" we're in pretty good shape here.
You don't understand science. Scientific predictions can be wrong. Over time, the mass of accumulation of experimentation, facts, and results produces the body of knowledge of science. If there's a problem with our understanding of gravity, the Theory of Gravity is not thrown out the window; it is updated. After hundreds of years of studying gravity, with a massive amount of data points, experiments, etc., it's just not going to be wrong on most points - and even if it is, it doesn't make any of science's previous modelings of gravity to be unscientific.
The fact that it's hard to predict climate does not mean that the body of scientific evidence can be ruled out. We have evidence of dozens of years of Earth's average temperature not going up as much as some hypothesized. However, the data of the theories of AGW is only increasing and getting more accurate. There are now way more variables that are understood for the climate models. For example, and I promise this isn't an AGW crackpot theory, google the effect of airplane contrails after 9/11, when almost all airplane flight stopped, and it was found that airplanes probably provide a small "protective layer" in the atmosphere.
Science is not religion. I understand that you've probably come across people who treat it as such. But your post sounds very much like a religious and political argument, rather than a scientific debate.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Of course we will eventually have to learn to live without fossil fuels. The question is whether we do it willingly and peacefully or whether it is forced upon us through violence and political upheaval. At this rate, I don't see anything suggesting that we're really seriously taking the steps needed to get off of fossil fuels before it gets ugly. We will likely go through a disruptive and negative adjusting phase.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Surface temperatures will climb faster when we move into an El Nino phase, if that's what you're looking for.
And you don't have to look very far; it's happening right now: Current El Niño climate event 'among the strongest'.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
To continue the analogy, your prediction is that over time the result will converge on 0.75. Your model of the coin is wrong.
It's offhand stuff like this--- "the science is settled" --- "the signal was detected" --- "the scientists have voted" --- that doesn't help anything and just gives ammunition to those who want to ignore the issue.
I have come to the conclusion that a lot of it is not "offhand" but rather deliberate trolling in an effort to drown out meaningful discussion.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
At this rate, I don't see anything suggesting that we're really seriously taking the steps needed to get off of fossil fuels before it gets ugly.
Maybe you should try researching what's going on before posting then.
"The last serious ... objection was overcome"
It seems they forgot these objections were overcome in the 70s.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregla...
Darnit.. The link above was a mistake, mark me embarrassed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Anyhow, don't take me seriously, just kidding about it.
Which Is More Likely? (A conspiracy of millions, or oil companies doing what they do?)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
Ask, and ye shall receive.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
We need no sophistry. Simply go to a local beach an ask if the water line is advancing. Rising seas prove global warming. As to the degree which man adds to the problem it is irrelevant. We need to cut back on human generated heat whether it adds much to warming or not. The time spent avoiding the issue would be far better used planting trees and shutting down coal and oil fired industries.
It was no error. It was an attempt at misdirection.
I've not yet decided into which category your post falls, although given the references to Jews and Untermenschen, I'm inclined towards the latter.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
Ask, and ye shall receive.
Did you read from the link you posted? Where does it show that 'snow would be a distant memory'? Viner is talking about a very specific location. And he provided data to show the number of snowfall days there has gone down. In fact your link supports what Beck_Neard is arguing.
"That isn't true at all, nor is it a reasonable or fair thing to say..."
Well, you say so... The case is that your interaction with the grid system basically limits to two things: your billing and the system's reliability and you already confessed not going to take a hit in any of those two.
"Example... I recently spent over $400 buying LED bulbs for my house [...] they are much, much cheaper to run" ...and then you even have the guts of saying that, even if something is going to save you money in the long run, you won't do it if it "takes too long".
So you are all for clean power except for each and every thing about clean power the might hit you. No, man: you are not at all about clean power: you are all about saving your money, don't fool yourself.
The cost of a pack of cigarettes isn't just the cost to grow, process and deliver the tobacco to you, it is also the cost of treating lung cancer - not to mention the social cost of pissing off everyone who doesn't want to die prematurely.
In other words, even attempts to address externalities of cigarettes don't have much to do with the actual costs, including externalities, of smoking, but more with politicians able to throw on excise taxes and the like because smoking isn't popular any more.
The cost of continuing to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere isn't just the cost of extracting the fossil fuels and using them, it's the cost of relocating our cities to higher ground, and other very expensive consequences. We may pass this cost off to future generations and get away (dead) without paying for it, but it is a price that will be paid.
"Very expensive" being a relative term. And if you're going to count externalities, you need to count positive externalities as well as negative ones. The big positive externalities for fossil fuels is that cheap energy and transportation costs allow us to do many other things cheaply and to make our societies wealthier and more adaptable.
Sure, we pass most of these costs off to future generations, but we also pass off a lot of benefits to future generations too.
Oh course most are all far to addicted to rampant consumerism to actually change.. So that is pretty much the only solution if there really is a problem
The role of changing hearts and minds for something on this scale must fall to national governments, then. The average citizen isn't going to change anything until they're personally inconvenienced by it, and if we wait that long then it'll be far, far too late.
Here's my thing about this: Regardless of whether human activity is causing global climate change or not, we're still putting massive amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere, things like CO2 and methane. At the same time we're still cutting down massive tracts of jungle and forest land in order to farm, effectively reducing the ability to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere and return oxygen in exchange. We know these things we are doing are bad yet we stubbornly continue to do them. It's like if you're a smoker, and your doctor tells you every single time you go in that it's documentably bad for your health and will eventually kill you, to which you say "But doc, I'm not sick right now, so what's the problem? I LIKE smoking!". It's time for humanity to give up these childish ways of generating power and moving themselves around and start using more efficient, cleaner ways. There's literally no logical reason NOT to, and lame excuses relating to money are about as far from logical as you can get.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Saying it will make zero difference is incorrect. Your contribution might be almost unrecordable on a chart but it will contribute.
No, it won't. Because someone else will be able to burn more for longer.
And you're not going to get consensus anyway until global warming is a more serious problem than overpopulation and poverty. IMHO there's a strong negative correlation between the wealth of a society and whether that society chooses to do anything about long term problems like global warming.
As for Fukushima, the plant was not designed to get hit by a Tsunami and operate under water. It was placed in location that could get hit by a Tsunami. That was the flaw, the siting of the plant in an incompatible location.
And if that sea wall at Fukushima was a couple meters higher, suddenly the location would have become "compatible". Funny how that works.
Viner is talking about a very specific location.
I see no evidence that he is and you say nothing about what this "very specific location" is. Here's the quote:
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
All of the models are wildly wrong in predicting climate, so the "evidence" is pointing against any of the alarmist models you are peddling being correct.
CO2 has risen substantially in the last decade or two - with very little corresponding warming. There are a lot of theroes and hand-waving why, but in the end the EVIDENCE is that CO2 rising does not lead to temperature rise, despite many previous predictions to the contrary.
oh dear... your denial activism is showing
Here is your fallacy...loaded words which are of course designed to halt discussion. A perfect example of using loaded words is if I hand out a petition to ban water? Not gonna get anywhere,
You, sir, are a hypocrite of the first degree. The comment you are defending is not only insulting, but it is also literally a pack of lies. Everything he claims in it is false. But his loaded words have roped you right in and dragged you right along, because you are so very malleable.
but if I pass out a petition to ban Dihydrogen monoxide I have zero doubt I got get a pile of celebs and SJWs on board to have it banned immediately. Maybe next time if you don't call people names and actually state your positions logically it would be better...
Again, you, sir, are a hypocrite. When you complain about people calling people names and then call people names, you lose all credibility which you had. You didn't actually have any, but now you have even less.
I have noticed that everyone who actually uses the term "SJW" as an insult is defending some shit behavior. You are no exception. I think I'm gonna get a big fucking SJW tee shirt and see what kind of shitbags I can attract shitbag comments from in meatspace.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
if you're going to count externalities, you need to count positive externalities as well as negative ones. The big positive externalities for fossil fuels is that cheap energy and transportation costs allow us to do many other things cheaply
NO. NOT CHEAPLY. That's where you're going off your nut. That's where fossil fuels have an unfair advantage, in the minds of the deluded and greedy. That's the only place. In the real world, fossil fuels are massively more expensive than any other energy source because it would cost us, essentially, an infinite amount of money to clean up after them. It is literally impossible to clean up that pollution once it's out of the bottle. You can effectively eliminate the CO2 release, but the rest of it is just there and in the case of coal, it includes radioactives.
Sure, we pass most of these costs off to future generations, but we also pass off a lot of benefits to future generations too.
Really? Because from where I'm sitting, these transportation networks exist primarily to enable bad behavior. We don't need them to have societies, at least not on these scales. Instead, we built them for the benefit of auto companies, and they changed our societies — and in many cases and in many ways, not for the better. How many people die in automobile accidents every year? How many of those would be preventable with a PRT system? How long have we had the technology to do PRT? Don't delude yourself into thinking that we're doing anything vaguely close to what is best for our descendants. This is about greed, this is about convenience at the expense of others, most of whom haven't even been born yet.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Viner is talking about a very specific location.
I see no evidence that he is and you say nothing about what this "very specific location" is. Here's the quote:
It's right there in the third paragraph of the article linked. Specifics to the location are mentioned multiple times in later paragraphs as well. Did you think each paragraph was completely independent and unrelated?
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Likewise the seawall at Fukushima was six feet too short, because its engineered height was based on historical data.
Except it was not, historical data clearly indicates that tsunamis of that size happened often enough.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
One of THE key tests of a scientific theorem is that it can predict..
Ummm, you might want to go back and review the Scientific Method again. Science doesn't PREDICT anything, Science EXPLAINS OBSERVATIONS. You can use a well tested Theory to predict how you think something will work, but this is actually a test of the Theory at the time of testing, after which the Theory may need to be tweaked after further observations are made. This is basic Science 101.
If something in Science never changes there are two possibilities: 1 - We have a deep understanding of what we are observing, and haven't observed anything differing from past observations that needs to be explained. Or 2 - it is not really Science.
So tweaks and modifications to AGW Theory, OR any other Scientific Theory are a "Good Thing(TM)". Changes to a Theory shows that Science, and the Scientific Method are actually working.
And for those who say "it's only a Theory", so is the Germ Theory of Disease... since it is "only a Theory" they should have no problems sticking themselves with a needle contaminated with Ebola infected blood right?
To err is human; effective mayhem requires the root password!
The ocean has continued to rise in the meantime at the same rate it has since 1650
That is nonsense.
It obviously wasn't caused by anthropogenic CO2 before 1950
That is nonsense, too. Around 1950 it was first openly talked about man made global warming. That does not mean the CO2 caused warming since 1850 was not man made.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I have zero doubt I got get a pile of celebs and SJWs on board to have it banned immediately.
Sure: if you define "SJW" as "anyone who replied to my survey". Since you don't have a good definition of SJW otherwise other than a vague feeling about people who say things you don't like you can be as circular as you wish. ... don't call people names ... you are an SJW and therefore a douchebag ...
I award you today's ironic post award.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
No idea why you repeatedly write nonsense like this, are you payed by some american oil/denier lobby?
Almost certainly not. He's much more likely to be classified by the oil industry as a "useful idiot". He's the kind of person who attempts to prove his intelligence and independent free thinking credentials by intentionally adopting a contrarian position, simply because going with the consensus doesn't afford any opportunity to prove anything. I think the oil industry lobbying people are awfully pleased such people (a) exist and (b) are completely free.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
We live on a planet where a solar plant on the roof does not cost $35,000.
What strange planet do you live on?
And: the parent did not indicate you should build a solar plant, he indicated you might consider to reduce your "carbon foot print".
There a thousands if not millions of ways to do that.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Over time, we've realized the steps that need to be taken to build safe and secure nuclear sites and these add expense and time.
Actually most of the additional expense in that is overhead and insurance costs. The raw construction costs of additional safety are not really any higher than they were back in the 60s. Actually they've gotten quite a bit cheaper with top of the line safety systems and general industry equipment having plummeted in price.
Case in point was the safety logic solver at our local nuclear plant. 3 systems wired in triplicate. 3 of every input, 3 of every output. Actually quite a small scope that you'd trust a 1st year engineer to complete, 3 pressures, 9 temperatures, 6 flows, 4 manual shutdown switches (these were single, not triples), and a couple of outputs that essentially de-energise a shitload of systems. Total cost was just shy of $2.5million, total time to get through design/approval stage 1.5 years, total time to construct install and commission: 3 months, equipment cost was $500k
We installed the EXACT same hardware at a process plant. 2 brand new systems with some 50 instrumented inputs, 2 additional older systems upgraded to the same new logic solver. $800k total cost, 6 months from concept through to commissioning, equipment cost $650k
So tell me again where the money is being spent? It certainly isn't in engineering, construction, or licensing fees for equipment.
The entire industry has an incredible amount of overhead that is entirely self-inflicted which is one of the reasons why most of the west thinks it's the most expensive solution that could never be funded while most of the east can't build the damn things fast enough. That's without subsidies taken into account. So forgive me for not buying into the nuclear = bad argument. Mind you I'm not suggesting we build only nuclear. Renewables have a lot to offer especially when they are co-located such as solar and wind which can be built up in the city centre eliminating transmission costs. Combine that with local storage and you can smooth out the two daily dips in the power usage and keep base load doing baseloady things without wasteful overprovisioning of peaking plants.
There are 5 major sources of global temperature data which are most often referred to. Three of them are estimates of surface temperature, from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), HadCRU (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.), and NCDC (National Climate Data Center). The other two are estimates of lower-troposphere temperature, from RSS (Remote Sensing Systems) and UAH (Univ. of Alabama at Huntsville). All are anomaly data, i.e., the difference between temperature at a given time and that during a baseline period. They tend not to be on the same baseline; for GISS the baseline is 1951 to 1980, for HadCRU it’s 1961 to 1990, for NCDC it’s the 20th century, and for satellite data the baseline is 1979 to 1999. Since they use different baselines, they’re on a different scale, i.e., each has its own zero point for temperature. To compare them, we need to use the same zero point for all.
I didn't realize that Celsius is a flexible scale. Turns out that zero for temperature, changes based on the location on earth and who is producing the data. There are baselines and anomalies that must be manipulated, indexed and massaged before it can be released for general consumption. Note that all the data sets are comprised of estimates of surface and air data. A synonym for estimate is "guess". Berkeley has datasets but only release the ones that they have manipulated. Why can the public not have access to the raw data? Probably for the same reason that Hillary hides her email.
If you want people to accept AGW, make the data available, straight from the sensors and thermometers. Until then, it looks like a scam to extract more money from the masses. Fuel in CA is $1 a gallon more than the rest of the country, thanks to cap and trade. Cap and trade is merely a scheme to remove more money from the working man's wallet and put it in the coffers for big business and government. When traffic lights are synchronized, and the US gets serious about public transportation, then I will believe that we have a carbon problem and that the government is actively doing something to reduce it.
FYI, I drive electric cars and have solar panels. It makes good economic sense. It also helps insulate me from the idiots who keep raising the costs of living.
Is there a name for that particular mental illness?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Have you considered that a whole lot of people STILL won't change even if that does happen?
It is a mistake to think that the average person in India, Kansas, or Russia, cares about what happens to Florida, or is willing to make personal sacrifices to help anyone in Florida.
Yes, it does require the government to step in... Except, there is the thing... it would take ALL the governments stepping in.
Just the US or just the EU can't do anything about this, unless they can get China, India, Brazil, Russia, and a whole lot of other nations on board.
Oh sure, they are all playing lip service, and will make some efforts, but until you're able to make real cuts, that is all it is, lip service.
---
Keep in mind that most governments require at least some consent of the governed. If the people of the US for example elect leaders who don't do anything about this, then perhaps the people don't want anything done. Or at least aren't willing to pay for it.
Do not misunderstand me, I see that there is a risk and a challenge here. I just also understand that humans are... not likely to address this in the time-frame that it sounds like it will require.
You misunderstand... I'm willing to change if the change is reasonable...
Some people are NOT willing to change no matter what because they either don't care, don't understand, or think it is a trick...
You have more of an uphill battle than you even know because of that...
When my cost of install of solar gets down to about $25K, give or take, I'll put it on. Right now I have not been able to find anyone who will install a 10kw system for that price, $35K is about as close as I've gotten. It is marginal at $25K, but I'll do it there. $35K is just silly.
Some people wouldn't do it even if it was $15K, and THAT would be a good deal.
It does cost $35K when you need a 10kw system to make a noticeable difference to your power bill.
It shouldn't, but it does.
Oh sure, I could put 2kw up there, but that wouldn't offset my AC use, much less anything else.
---
But all that misses the point... Me putting up solar or not putting up solar won't change the outcome.
Too many people are fighting the battle without winning the war. All that really matters is the total CO2 put into the air. How it gets there and by whom matters not.
The rate of solar installs, wind installs, etc. are not remotely enough to change the end game. They are off by an order of magnitude or more...
You should definitely point to the specific graph, to prove that you're not just another flack who is tossing shit around that you barely understand.
We can't all just repeat the summaries that we read on the websites that favor our chosen 'position' on the matter.
Or, rather, we can do just that.
Ah, that makes it even more clear: One Big Government needs to step in. Otherwise We Are All Doomed.
Some of the places where 'water is scarce' are places where people want to live in traditional suburban tract housing with green lawns that they mow weekly, because television and modern culture tells them that is the way they have to live. These are also places where there are vast tracts of what was desert before but by piping all the water up and onto the land they have become major food producing areas.
The place where I live in the middle of the continent is very capable of growing things like tomatos and fruit, but because the scale-of-economy favors these places were deserts are turned into cropland, we're mostly growing corn to turn into alcohol for fuel because the government mandates that gas have alcohol in it.
It's a big fucked up mess and central to that is always 'big government' or 'big business' (am I being redundant?) redefining the rules and changing our practices.
You can't run a petroleum extraction and refinement operation without governments noticing. Governments have the power to levy taxes. It can be done, if enough governments have the political will to do so, and the ones that may not be eager to do so can be influenced to join in lots of ways. Political will comes from the people who put governments in power - in theory: the voters, in practice: the people who control the voters opinions via education, propaganda, and in some places extortion and bribery. There are also dictatorships and other forms of government - but, in the current global picture, democracies (including quasi-democratic oligarchies and representative republics) are the majority controlling force, if the "democracies" decide something, the dictators and others can be brought in line.
For a fun look at another angle of the problem, see "Cowspiracy" - but, just because kooky movies make the future sound all doom and gloom - doesn't mean the kooky movies aren't right.
Even if we get the political will to convert from fossil fuels to something cleaner, we're also going to need to fix other problems, ultimately including the population boom.
Sure... but that also isn't going to happen any time soon, and when it does it may well take another world war to make happen...
Not endorsing it, just reflecting on human nature...
It can be done, if enough governments have the political will to do so
Yes, and we can go to Mars in 10 years, if we have the political will to do so.
Neither is going to happen. :(
---
What I will say is that a lot of the people concerned over global warming are going after it all wrong. Taxing carbon and telling people to turn off their AC isn't the solution.
Coming up with clean power that honestly costs less than dirty power will fix the problem naturally.
That is where the effort should be focused, because the others are doomed to fail because we have 200+ nations in this world, but all share the same air.
You should definitely point to the specific graph, to prove that you're not just another flack who is tossing shit around that you barely understand.
Why? I'm arguing with someone who claims to know what he's talking about. Either he does, in which case he's read the IPCC report, or he hasn't in which case he's a fool since he's not bothered to do the basic fact checking on his argument. If it's the latter, pointing out the graph won't help because he's already made up his mind without evidence. As studies have shown, actually showing him more evidence he's wrong is likely to harden his opinion.
Or is this you asking for me to tell you which graph it is in the rudest way possible?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Oh, hi! How is the quest for materialized predictions coming along? Finding any?
If, as TFA implies, the wise scientists have been seeing AGW for over 50 years, how come it is so difficult to find actual predictions made by them since then, that have actually materialized already?
Some months ago you attempted to come up with a list of falsifiable statements published by Climate Science, that have not ended up falsified, but gave up... Care to try again?
Given the costs one has to pay in "karma" for posts of this nature (notice, how many posts are made by ACs), I will not be able to post in this thread again — not until I see the list of pairs of links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later...
(Attempts to sidestep the challenge by blaming my own "intellectual laziness" or other personal flaws shall be returned unopened.)
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"You misunderstand... I'm willing to change if the change is reasonable..."
No, *you* misunderstand. It requires no "willing" to change to the obviously financially better.
You argue that there will be people that wouldn't change even if it were better financially-wise for them. So be it: that still doesn't make you "all for clean power", not by far, not at all.
As I said, nuclear is expensive due to construction costs, maintenance costs, and decommissioning costs. These include both equipment costs and labor costs. Overhead and labor-related costs have gone up over the past few decades. That is true. But it's true of every type of power generation, not just nuclear! Ultimately, the question isn't how much a particular plant costs in absolute terms but how much energy it can produce per unit of cost. In this regard nuclear is not cost-competitive, precisely because it requires far too much labor and overhead to construct them properly and safely.
> while most of the east can't build the damn things fast enough.
Most nuclear power plant projects in 'the east' (by which I'm assuming you're referring to India, China, and other countries) tend to be projects oriented towards political goals and they lose money once you take into account total lifetime operation costs. Usually they lose a LOT of money. Developed countries have scaled back nuclear power because they have correctly concluded that it's not a cost-effective form of power generation.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
> show a clear long-term warming trend [remss.com], but almost all of the increase is in the first half of the epoch since measurements began in 1979
I'm not seeing that at all. All I see is a clear uniform warming trend up to the present day.
1998 was a particular hot year and that messes up the perception a bit but thankfully we have actual rigorous statistical analysis methods that aren't susceptible to human perception errors.
> which provide a more complete, but more biased, temperature record.
Yet all the bias seems to always point in one direction, doesn't it?
> A real climatologist would, I suspect, be somewhat embarrassed by the parent poster's confident declarations of certainty.
Any real scientist would be embarrassed by this thread. But not because of my comment. The foundation of science is evidence and observation, of which I have seen little in this thread. There are plenty of scientific issues where we are uncertain about the truth. There's no shortage of controversy in science! But climate change is, unfortunately, not one of these issues, and yes, it is quite rational and appropriate to have a high degree of certainty about it.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Well yes, some of the saner parts of the world have set moderately acceptable renewable energy targets. But the big picture is that we're still doing very little. The biggest polluters have not done anything meaningful. China seems to be gradually coming around to the importance of climate change, but all too slowly, I fear. And about the US, well, it still remains firmly entrenched in its own alternate reality.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Bullshit, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is unprecedented in the past 800,000 years and the current warming trend is a singularly unique event that hasn't happened in the past interglacial periods.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
which increases costs, and pushes out those on the lower end (or cause more taxes on the working class to pay for those who cant afford the new higher rates....along with paying said new higher rates themselves)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
the same way they measure everything. with models....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Limbaugh is a well known climate change denier. That makes him pro AGW.
any attempt to improve it makes it even more expensive.
Because standardization, mass manufacturing, simplified/fail safe designs will never, ever apply to nuclear technology.
Beneath that thin veneer of reasonableness lies a rabid anti-nuke zealot.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
How about the very basic one - the rising average global temperature?
It's not my fault if you're too stupid to understand the examples I gave you 6 month ago.
I'm semi serious about Cowspiracy - some numbers thrown around in the movie are clearly off the wall, but they're making a valid case about a valid point: the meat we eat has a bigger impact on the environment than we, and all our factories and cars and planes and ships, do.
If you think clean energy is a hard sell, try convincing the majority of people to eat tofu when they can afford steak.
Right... but how did they measure the temperature of the ocean so that we know it has been rising steadily since the 17th century?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder when you molten salt freaks will get off it. Molten salt and especially LFTR technology is nowhere near the maturity level for large-scale power production. I'd be surprised if a pilot plant could be built in 30 years. MSRE had numerous serious/fatal problems which LFTR advocates conveniently never mention. Even if LFTR does work, it would likely be INSANELY EXPENSIVE, in terms of final cost per delivered kWh. There are very good reasons why LFTR would be horrendously expensive, and I'll explain them if you want to know.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
The use of bold uppercase letters doesn't make something true.
Show your evidence or shut up.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
> Global warming has, unfortunately, become a political issue, with people - and media outlets - picking a side and promoting it to demonstrate their allegiance.
Yes, but by whom? By people who have a political agenda against any attempt to address climate change.
> That's a bad thing, even if their side is generally in the right: they refuse to concede on any nuance, because admitting to even the slightest uncertainty in their position means giving ground to the enemy.
If the anti-agw crowd ever made any arguments that were based even in the slightest bit on facts, then I'd be the first to hear them out. But they don't. It's ALWAYS bullshit. Very often it's actually conscious, deliberate lying.
> My impression, for what it's worth, as a scientist in a different field who's read a bit of the literature, is that there's a clear consensus that global warming is happening, but honest disagreement about its extent and consequences.
I'll agree with this, but this isn't what the anti-agw crowd says. They disagree that it's happening or they disagree that it's due to human activity, both of which are demonstrably true and, at this point, far beyond any reasonable doubt.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Give me a break. In the same time frame there were articles and scares about the coming ice age that were every bit as credible. If we had listened to them with the same attitude we would now we'd have government-required carbon dioxide emitters by the thousands across the entire country, and we'd have spent hundreds of billions to do it - and the evidence of warming would be touted as evidence that "government works." You know what the right thing to do most of the time is? NOTHING! The vast majority of the time the right solution to any problem you care to name is "ignore it" because it will either solve itself or prove it was never a problem in the first place. Not every damn activist venting his spleen is a legitimate call to mobilize the entire world to spend trillions. The money wasted is real, it has to be paid back and it will be sooner or later, one way or another. And nor is money the only cost to reacting like this all the time, it is also costing our freedom, huge chunks of it at a time now. Christ, will everyone just take a damn Prozac and shut up for a while?!
NO. NOT CHEAPLY.
Then where is this price tag?
That's the only place. In the real world, fossil fuels are massively more expensive than any other energy source because it would cost us, essentially, an infinite amount of money to clean up after them.
Of course, we don't actually have to clean up this. We can adapt instead at a considerably cheaper cost.
Because from where I'm sitting, these transportation networks exist primarily to enable bad behavior.
Can't rationally argue someone out of a position they didn't rationally argue themselves into. From where you're sitting, maybe use of the term, "hyperflux" has infinite negative cost. Nobody else has to agree.
How many of those would be preventable with a PRT system?
We already have a PRT system with the current system. It's just not recognized by you as such.
This is about greed, this is about convenience at the expense of others, most of whom haven't even been born yet.
This is about your worldview which I just don't care about.
I see a bunch of empty assertions and lightweight facts. What I don't see are reasons such as rational arguments, evidence, or similar things to sway my opinion.
Don't delude yourself into thinking that we're doing anything vaguely close to what is best for our descendants./quote> It's not a delusion. We don't magically know what is going to be "best" for our descendants. But I find it remarkable how terrible arguments like yours above are for justifying an action on the basis of being best for future generations. Doing nothing looks remarkably good both for us and our descendants compared to many of these schemes.
The post you asked about was talking about sea rise, not temperature.
Sea temperature is a lot less accurate than the terrestrial record, and often involved dropping a bucket in the sea, pulling out water, and sticking a thermometer in.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Ah. I didn't catch that detail. Thank you.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Global cooling wasn't an objection to the science of global warming, it was a human action of releasing aerosols which if continued at the rates of the time would've caused anthropogenic global cooling.
This space intentionally left blank
That paper was submitted to Nature and rejected. The reasons for rejection haven't been made public but I'd guess that they have to do with the extremely flawed assumptions and deductions in the paper. I can elaborate on this more if you want.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
> We can expect the effects of human-induced climate change on winter precipitation extremes in mid-to-high northerly latitudes to become clear soon, with an increase in the intensity of heavy precipitation days expected.
One prediction, as requested.
"Some studies and the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report suggest that the recent 15-year period (1998–2012) provides evidence that models are overestimating current temperature evolution."
It's not clear why the models are wrong, but it's clear they're having problems. Here's another example, quote:
"The slowdown in the rate of global warming in the early 2000s is not evident in the multi-model ensemble average of traditional climate change projection simulations"
TBH though, it was kind of silly to think the models would be particularly accurate to begin with, they've always been the weakest section of the IPCC report (WG1)
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Do you suffer from memory problems?
Well they do get funding to build and launch satellites to track global warming. So they do have a vested interest in global warming being something important that needs to be tracked. :-)
So your claims of no warming for 20 years is based on no data ?
Look, I believe that climate change is occurring more quickly than in previous eras
Let me stop you there. Nobody cares what you believe. All that matters is what you can prove. Can you prove that there has been no warming for 20 years?
"for instance..." is does not exclude anything.
Any rational person understands the article and the statement by the scientist was related to Great Britain. For fuck sake, it's only 853 miles from top to bottom of the British Isles.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Those papers have nothing to do with the von Storch paper. Von Storch's central argument that "we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level." is wrong and based on faulty statistical analysis.
We can talk about the global warming 'hiatus' separately, but the fact of the matter is that you really can't make a strong conclusion either way based on the data we have. The time period in question is just too short. These links put forth an alternate explanation based on faulty ocean temperature measurements that seems pretty plausible to me:
http://link.springer.com/artic...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
You ignored my comment, or you lacked the ability to understand it. My guess is you are mainly copy-pasting stuff you find on realclimate or something.
Your links actually support my point, read what I wrote again.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That's the most hilarious defence ever. Every single time I think you nuts are actually interested in science, you say some dumb ass thing that makes me realize what a gullible idiot I am.
You were almost doing well up to this last comment.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
FlyHelicopters: "Altruism is not a solution to the Tragedy of the Commons"
Mods: -1, Troll
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Wow are we REALLY gonna have to come up with a fucking ironic tag because the users here are too damned stupid to understand anything unless it has a fucking LOLCat connected to explain it to them?
Since you and everybody else here are unable to comprehend anything without it spelled out? Allow me to spell it out The name calling was to point out how worthless name calling is but I guess that's my bad, I forgot this generation doesn't understand a damned thing without a fricking meme pic connected. I thought it would have been fucking clear when I literally spelled it out "...see how that works"? But I guess this audience is so damned burnt out that unless somebody literally bitchslaps you with the answer? You ain't getting shit.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
All you managed with that post is to broadcast to the world that you get your scientific learning from the mainstream press. That's not a good idea.
Let me get this straight - you seem to think that pollution is defined as "what SuperKendall assumes most people on the street would assume to be bad for plants". Wow. Simply incredible. Your lack of fundamental understanding is staggering.
What is so sad is that my post was downvoted while being completely true and correct.
Sadly, people don't want to hear it and so they downvote things that are unpleasant, which is why progress isn't being made, because there is no meaningful conversation happening.
People simply ignore things that are not to their liking, so you end up with people talking past each other rather than with each other.
Or we could do things that work, like improve building processes to reduce the need for AC, eliminate older plants, reduce consumption, control environmental releases and not chase after unicorns.
Who is this "we"?
I honestly don't think I'm the one chasing after unicorns.
And you managed to show the world you have no sense of humor.
are you then denying you are a denier?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Did you think each paragraph was completely independent and unrelated?
Most likely, he actually thinks each sentence is independent and unrelated. I've been through this with others of his ilk. One guy literally chose to believe the only sentence in a paragraph that did not explicitly contradict his views. Even then the sentence he chose to believe did not say what he claimed it did. Even worse, the sentences immediately before and after the one he chose explicitly and exactly contradicted his claim. But that wasn't important, it was important that if you squinted and interpreted the sentence very loosely you could, maybe, imagine that it might support his claims. It was the most gloriously stupid example of confirmation bias that I have ever seen.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
While saying there is no agw is presumptuous you make a very good point.
One of THE key tests of a scientific theorem is that it can predict.. And yet these 'state of the art' models have so far had a dismal record of prediction.
And yet their 'findings' are treated as science.
Global climate change is obvious, inevitable, and continuous as it always has been of course. There is no static climate.
However AGW is a very different proposition.. And there is a wide continuum of possibilities within in from minor self adjusting changes to serious positive feedback.
However so far no model has shown any actual predictive capability.. Therefore all we can say is no model is useful yet.
That's the problem with complex iterative models.. They need to be close to perfect or their output is complete junk as the errors compound.
THIS is the big issue always swept under the carpet.. If we are going to believe the models they need to demonstrate predictions.. Not in daily weather but in ongoing climate. As yet they cannot.
Until they can anything based on them is politics. In either direction.
If and when they can let's hope people can turn their energy to a true solution.. The obvious ones of course being nuclear power in its more modern versions.. And cut through the red tape and bs that a generation scared stiff by iron curtain nuclear Armageddon propaganda hammered in to their children.
Oh course most are all far to addicted to rampant consumerism to actually change.. So that is pretty much the only solution if there really is a problem.
So, with natural global warming, the ice at the poles will melt, raising the sea/ocean levels. The plus side is that we will have a smaller land mass to polute, and possibly, with the higher water levels, new water tables will appear, allowing for food preparation in what we now call deserts. The American, Egyption, and mid-eastern deserts could begin to reflourish.
Or will that band of latitude across the earth be too hot for humans to live normally? I would like to see countries act pro-actively against AWG. But... its not gonna happen until it is too late.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
I think people just (correctly) assume that you're an asshole.
Plus you go the fallacy thing wrong, it was an ad hominem, not loaded wording. Except in this case it's not a fallacy either, because he failed to provide any evidence to back up his claims. So, when someone makes baseless and false claims, what is there to do but call them on their quackery?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
You were almost doing well up to this last comment.
I'll quote the relevant sections from the paper. Not that it will help you, you don't understand anything.
Look at the title of the post in the Science article, it by default accepts that the scientific consensus is there is some sort of hiatus and is trying to find an explanation. Here is a quote:
Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.
The reason much study has been devoted to it is that even the IPCC report accepts it. Let's look at your other article:
The reported “hiatus” in the warming of the global climate system during this century has been the subject of intense scientific and public debate.....A number of scientific hypotheses have been put forward to explain the hiatus, including both physical climate processes and data artifacts.
Why exactly do you think a number of scientific hypotheses have been put forward? Why exactly? And why do you think the two papers you linked to have the correct hypotheses, out of the many that exist?
Also fuck you, and don't bother replying unless you can show some indication that you understand what I just wrote. So far you've looked really dumb and ignorant this entire thread.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's hardly surprising to see the progressive paint all rural republicans as stupid and anti-science. The truth is, the GOP just wants to stop this from becoming a manhattan project-sized solyndra.
And, for the most part, they've done it. The global agreements are signed and in place, MIT has an emergency temperature reduction plan designed, and the NAS / IPCC have agreed that up to 50% of the projected temperature increases are completely natural in origin anyway. None of this would have happened without aggressive oversight.
It's worth mentioning that the goal of a 2 C limit is relative to the pre-industrial average, which starts at 1750, before the United States Constitution existed.
It's so important that people recognize the progressive democrat movement for what it is -- founded circa 1912, it's an emotion reasoned, elite over herd, control structure intended to compete with communism and christianity. It's really just another religion.
A lot of people would like to transition to a objective, issue tracked, reason and science based federal government that prioritizes critical issues and solves them, using modern management methods like oversight, verification and validation.
Admittedly, people like Ted Cruz, with his grandstanding and shutdown poison pills, make the GOP a controversial brand to support.
Simply hiding fraud, waste, and abuse on the revenue side, in the IRS Tax Code, isn't a valid solution. Better to run through all 17 executive cabinets and completely reform, mostly to oversight, standards, and V&V contracting.
But all evidence points towards AGW
Sigh. No, it does not, and has not for years.
All of the models are wildly wrong in predicting climate, so the "evidence" is pointing against any of the alarmist models you are peddling being correct.
CO2 has risen substantially in the last decade or two - with very little corresponding warming. There are a lot of theroes and hand-waving why, but in the end the EVIDENCE is that CO2 rising does not lead to temperature rise, despite many previous predictions to the contrary.
Previously we were all told Global Warming would bring more extreme storms, but the extremity of storms has remained slightly below average in recent years.
When will you zealots wake up to what real science (and real, vs. massaged, data) has been trying to tell you? You can go peddle e-meters or find some other gullible idiots to scam. At least then you wouldn't be screwing over the Earth with your crackpot religion.
"wildly wrong"; an odd piece of scientific terminology, but if "All of the models are wildly wrong in predicting climate, so the "evidence" is pointing against any of the alarmist models you are peddling being correct." is your quantification of the situation, then "any model WITHOUT an AGW term is so far beyond wildly wrong as to be completely useless in predicting climate since the mid twentieth century; despite being not that bad previous to that point, so the evidence is pointing very strongly that AGW is a real factor that kicked in 70 years ago, even though there are other modifiers of much smaller effect that we haven't yet quantified"
http://a.static.trunity.net/files/190901_191000/190966/figure-9-5-l.png
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
global warming and sea levels are rising -- I think we need to look at where we are constantly building concrete and pavement structures that does not allow rain water to be absorbed. Instead we are building surfaces that exceed 200+ degree and that divert water to run off faster to streams that run into the ocean. California is sinking ( http://www.livescience.com/519... ) because of less ground water. If we can build water collection areas we can reverse the rising sea levels and address the hotter water going into our oceans. Just think, if a building has been around for 50 years then the water that would normally be absorbed into the ground has had to be diverted for entire existence of the building (50 years at 20 inches of water per year comes up to 100 inches of water that has to go somewhere) now lets try to imaging over four million km of pavement in the US alone (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2085.html ).
How about the very basic one - the rising average global temperature?
They will just deny it.
There is no logic, no science that trumps simple denial.
It's modern day creationism tactics transplaneted to AGW denialism. Every time I ask for evidence, they trot out long discredited studies, altered studies, conspiracy theories or when cornered, simple denial.
When really backed into a corner, they look out the window and say "It's cold today, so much for global warming."
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Give a hoot dont pollute. It is simple and old and works.
Here's the problem with your brilliant "argument".
CO2 is not pollution by any means. For instance, if you asked most people "would pollution cause harm to plants", they would say "yes, of course".
But plants aren't harmed by CO2 - it's what they SUBSIST on.
.
Try breathing pure CO2 for an hour, then report back.
Any chemical any gas can be a pollutant. Oxygen is quite poisonous as well as very dangerous above a certain concentration level, yet we can't live without it. CO2 is critical to life, as a temperature moderator, because the greenhouse effect that you don't believe in makes the earth warm enough to sustain life. Without CO2, we ain't here. But too much and we might not be dead, but the world will alter a good bit. And the seats of power today might not be for long as weather patterns shift. That you would resort to such a simplistic statement like "CO2 is not a pollutant by any means" shows a comprehension of science unmatched by the normal person. Since you know all about how AGW is a cult, Give me the peer reviewd studies that disprove AGW. Then we'll discuss them. That should be really easy.
And no, "Michael Mann is a jerk" is not an argument.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Let me get this straight - you seem to think that pollution is defined as "what SuperKendall assumes most people on the street would assume to be bad for plants". Wow. Simply incredible. Your lack of fundamental understanding is staggering.
Hey - The denialists rely on people like SuperKendall and their intellect, you insensitive clod.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Moreover, the Tragedy of the Commons is in full effect here. If I drastically change my lifestyle to use less fossil fuels, it's not going to make a lick of difference to the harm global warming causes me and my descendents. The only way we'll get improvements that are actually detectable is by larger-scale action.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
He represents the social norm. It's not people like him. It's People Period. The number of people who would give up the things they take for granted in life in the name of some scientists saying it'll get 1degC hotter (and not understanding what that actually means) is an even smaller proportion than the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Believe it or not, many-most people actually do believe that AGW is real. That it has been taken up by certain groups in the US is more indicative of an odd shift that came about by deciding that anyone who doesn't agree in lockstep with what you have to believe is the enemy.
When 20 years ago, most of these people believed in science, as well as teh greenhouse effect, their present day radicalization has taken them to see science as just one of many enemies they have to topple. They are a very loud minority that have all too many convinced they are not a minority.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You suck at paraphrasing.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
isn't just the cost of extracting the fossil fuels and using them, it's the cost of relocating our cities to higher ground, and other very expensive consequences. We may pass this cost off to future generations and get away (dead) without paying for it, but it is a price that will be paid.
Well stated, but I would add that one more cost may very well be a large shift of global power. As new weather patterns emerge, some of the folks who are global powers might end up having large parts of their land turn into a desert. Africa was teh cradle of civilization. The Sahara was once upon a time, rather green. Now? not so much. Things change, the the mighty can topple. The irony might be that they topple themselves sooner than natural processes do.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If the "externalized costs" were incorporated into the prices you use to make your decisions, then you would decide more wisely.
You might be right... but the chances of that happening any time soon are slim...
The chances of it happening to the majority of the world any time soon are as close to it doesn't matter... zero...
As my one super-conservative friend said about Gasoline and petrofuels when asked about conservation:
"Fuck my grandchildren - Fuck conservation. I have that fuel available now, and I don't give a fuck if we use it all as long as I have it for me." Which is just a more profane version of your statement.
Some of us take a rather longer view than your "I got mine, so fuck you" outlook.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Or we could do things that work, like improve building processes to reduce the need for AC, eliminate older plants, reduce consumption, control environmental releases and not chase after unicorns.
Who is this "we"?
I honestly don't think I'm the one chasing after unicorns.
I dunno, Where I vacation, you see solar panels springing up all over the place. On schools, houses, all over.
These people have no idea that solar panel electricity doesn't work, and all the panelhaters memes are ignored by them. And they are lighting their houses, running their heating systems, and computers, and cooking, and somehow managing to do this without bankrupting themselves.
They simply aren't paying attention to the naysayers.
I think it's the difference between living in say, Oklahoma, where everyone has to toe the hardright Republican line or be marginalized, where petrofuel and coal and oil are part of the required belief system, so they tend to think the entire world is like they are.
We aren't.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
NO. NOT CHEAPLY.
Then where is this price tag?
Part in subsidization, and damage. Think those big fuel trucks don't damage roads? Think the Dakota sweet crude that blew up a Canadian Town never happened? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
It's just passed off elsewhere, and given teh results, people like you just refuse to see them.
Internalized profit, externalized losses.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Some of us take a rather longer view than your "I got mine, so fuck you" outlook.
It is a shame that is all you got out of what I wrote...
The reality is that many of us are not "with us or against us" type people, rather we're moderate and in the middle.
What I was trying to say, and I'll try it again, is that there aren't enough of "you" to counter "them" in the overall picture.
It is a statement of how things are, rather than how we wish them to be. Plenty of people talk about hopes and dreams and "what might be if everyone just came together as one".
Yes, that sounds great, but it isn't reality. The US Secretary General just gave a passionate speech imploring the fighters in Syria to stand down and put their weapons down. Sounds great, but it is a fantasy and isn't going to happen. They are fighting for a reason and neither side wants to give in to the other, so it turns to violence.
I dunno, Where I vacation, you see solar panels springing up all over the place. On schools, houses, all over.
Good for you, where I live I have never seen a solar panel on a house roof, ever. Not a single one.
In some places they will make more sense than others, and that is fine.
You seem to think this is an all-or-nothing solution, but it isn't. Solar will clearly continue to grow from its current level to something higher. This does not mean it will grow to enough to make a difference to the outcome that matters.
These people have no idea that solar panel electricity doesn't work, and all the panelhaters memes are ignored by them. And they are lighting their houses, running their heating systems, and computers, and cooking, and somehow managing to do this without bankrupting themselves.
I never said it doesn't work, but you go on being all drama about it if you like.
Those few solar panels installed won't change the game and they are massively outnumbered by the people who don't have such systems.
We aren't.
There are fewer of you in the world than you think there are.
re: nuclear.
It is absolutely everything you said.
It is, however, also absolutely essential for the next 50-100 years or so. There's just nothing else that doesn't release CO2 that can do the base-load job.
The free market will go nuclear in the short term, because a true market will price in the cost of releasing CO2 from fossil fuels and price it according to how much damage and/or cleanup costs would be - it will make nuclear look quite cheap...but only in the short term until other base-load options are available.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
There are fewer of you in the world than you think there are.
Interesting to see you cut out the part where I explained why you have a monoculture worldview
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
> There's just nothing else that doesn't release CO2 that can do the base-load job.
Maybe, maybe not. Battery storage is getting better all the time. 50 years is a long time. 'Base load' power is also a bit of an overblown issue; the real problem is matching supply curves with demand curves, and I think smart grids will do a really great job of that in the coming years.
> The free market will go nuclear in the short term
I'm afraid I disagree. Nuclear just isn't compatible with the free market. The market gravitates towards ideas that require as little investment as possible, pay off their debts as soon as possible, and have high profit margins. Nuclear is the exact opposite of this. As I said, the economics of nuclear dictate the construction of huge, multi-gigawatt power stations just to turn a profit. It is also common for companies to leave and shoulder the decommissioning costs onto the taxpayer.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Actually, nuclear generating stations end up being the second cheapest. Hydroelectric is cheapest.
Solar, at the current state of the art, never generates as much power as it takes to manufacture the solar cells.
Wind farms are only intermittent sources for the great majority of the country and have their own high maintenance cost compared to megawatts delivered to contend with.
What is criminal is that the U.S. doesn't recycle nuclear fuel. That was required by law under the Atomic Energy Act of 1972 but Uncle Sugar has yet to deliver on MOX fuel. And that is proven technology in use in Germany, France, and soon in China.
NRRPT/RCT
Even more interesting that you ignore all the other points and only reply to that one.
Even more interesting that you ignore all the other points and only reply to that one.
Because I already replied to that before. You apparently believe you have your finger on the pulse of almost everyone. You do not.
There is a whole spectrum of people out there, from people who drive Prius' and have homes powered by solar and/or wind.
There are also people out there who drive 70 thousand dollar 8 mile per gallon Pickup trucks who never shut the engines off because that's puttin' to the liberals Pickup truck patriots.
I see all of them. and when you wrote:
Good for you, where I live I have never seen a solar panel on a house roof, ever. Not a single one.
You are either woefully inexperienced, or calling me a liar. I get around all over the country, If you've never seen a roof mounted solar panel, you don't.
I see the whole spectrum - so we are left with either you don't get out much, or you cast doubts upon my veracity. Either of which dosen't incline me to be your bitch.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The Italians were trying to keep the Adriatic out of Venice way back in the 1300s. I suppose they had the very first indications of warming (as if, goes way back beyond that). So obviously it's not man. It's weather.
Still they overlook the villages they're finding as the ice retreats in Greenland and Iceland.
Sure you do... have fun in fantasy land...
Sure you do... have fun in fantasy land...
So it's a liar you are calling me.
Okay, awesome argument technique you have there,
asshole.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Sigh...you DO understand that the word fallacy does NOT always come with the word "logical" connected, yes? Loaded words are a form of POLITICAL fallacy as they are used by politicians to sway the populace. Same as you don't say "integration is bad" you use "forced busing", you don't say "we are against blacks" you say "welfare queens". It gives you the same effect thanks to the public "filling in the blanks" but gives the one using them a CYA.
And excuse me for not being willing to coddle the spoiled as fuck population, I suppose you want "trigger warnings" and all that bullshit? I call it as I see it and if you are an idiot? Well sorry but unless English is not your native tongue I really shouldn't have to write for fucking third graders or keep a pile of LOLCats so that the clueless masses can understand basic sentences, especially when I use something so fucking obvious like "see how that works" that Ray Charles would have caught it.
How about everybody stop smoking the blunts before posting, yes?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Sigh...you DO understand that the word fallacy does NOT always come with the word "logical" connected, yes?
Sigh... You DO understand that the title of the page you linked to was "Logical Fallacy: Loaded Words", yes?
And excuse me for not being willing to coddle the spoiled as fuck population, I suppose you want "trigger warnings" and all that bullshit?
I really couldn't care less about your arrogance and misanthropy, but it's probably part of the reason why people assume you're a jackass instead of thinking you're being clever. You might also want to keep Poe's Law in mind.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Yes, it is complicated.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Part in subsidization, and damage. Think those big fuel trucks don't damage roads? Think the Dakota sweet crude that blew up a Canadian Town never happened?
It'd help if you had mentioned a significant cost like pollution instead of an insignificant one like the risk from transporting certain crude oil by a moderately riskier approach than normal.
It's just passed off elsewhere, and given teh results, people like you just refuse to see them.
Easy to say when you are just talking trash.
That would be good, yes. Can you cite an actual prediction of such a rise — and a confirmation of the temperatures actually rising to a level within, say, 20% of the predicted value?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Except the burden of proof is on you — not on the sceptics. You want the rest of us to change our ways, so it is on you to prove, that such changes are necessary.
That the list I'm asking for is yet to materialize suggests, Climate Science is not really as "settled" as the alarmists would like us to believe.
Don't argue with me — just put the list together. Two or three pairs of links would do nicely...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You never did, honey. Putting them together in an unambiguous format I asked for proved too difficult for you. You claimed it was "too difficult" and made about 5 more posts explaining, how you are too busy to do it in the form requested...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Here is the paper I referenced again. It compares temperature predictions from the IPCC AR3 (2001) and AR4 (2007) reports to observations up to the end of 2011. It also compares sea level predictions from those reports to observations. It answers a couple of aspects of the question of how observations compare to predictions. If you reject that out of hand because it doesn't rigidly fit your required format that's your problem.
"You can't always get what you want; but if you try sometimes you can get what you need." (Jagger/Richards)
> Actually, nuclear generating stations end up being the second cheapest.
Citation needed; it's very easy to make nuclear power look cheap by ignoring waste handling costs, decommissioning costs, and other 'hidden' costs.
That said, I fully agree that nuclear compares favorably to, say, coal. Coal is bad news.
> Solar, at the current state of the art, never generates as much power as it takes to manufacture the solar cells.
A common myth. Today's solar panels can produce many times the power required to manufacture them over their lifetime.
> Wind farms are only intermittent sources for the great majority of the country and have their own high maintenance cost compared to megawatts delivered to contend with.
'Base load' power is an overblown issue; the real issue is matching supply curves with demand curves. In many places in the world wind supply curves are actually fairly well matched with demand. In other places, cheap storage (e.g. pumped hydro) is available. There are actually few places in the world where a combination of solar, wind, and some form of daily storage is not enough to meet demand economically.
> What is criminal is that the U.S. doesn't recycle nuclear fuel. That was required by law under the Atomic Energy Act of 1972 but Uncle Sugar has yet to deliver on MOX fuel. And that is proven technology in use in Germany, France, and soon in China.
Actually, what is criminal is France's insistence on fuel reprocessing and burdening the costs of this reprocessing on customers and taxpayers. Reprocessing is incredibly expensive and it doesn't even solve anything; it just turns a small amount of high-level waste into a very large amount of low-level waste. Once-through cycles are by far the most cost effective (and they also produce less waste overall).
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
No, I reject it for a different reason — the "predictions" cited weren't published ahead of time.
If I were a Climate Science professor with, say, 10 graduate students in my care, I could ask each of them to make a prediction about temperature 10 years from now covering the span from, say, -5F to +5F of the current average with 1 degree apart from each other. Then, 10 years later, I'd pull the "winning" one — whatever it is — and celebrate its success.
So, to be acceptable for my list, the prediction must have been published years before materializing. Strangely enough, no such predictions have been put forth here, despite repeated requests.
Newspapers and magazines publish such predictions daily, it seems — just today New York Times' front page cited anonymous scientists predicting a 6F rise of global temperatures within unspecified time, because the "climate talks" in Washington weren't good enough. How come it is so difficult for you to point at a successful prediction published 20, 15, 10, or 5 years ago?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
No, I reject it for a different reason — the "predictions" cited weren't published ahead of time.
What are you talking about? The predictions cited were published in 2001 and 2007. The observations they compared them to went to the end of 2011. That's 10 and 4 years ahead of the observations.
Easy. See here: https://www2.ucar.edu/news/how...
So now that the question of successful predictions is settled, are you going to start campaigning for clean energy? Since you're such a believer in science then surely a confirmed prediction is enough to convince you?
We have proof. It's settled. Read the IPCC report.
So now the burden is on you - I think you can certainly produce a prediction confirmed by observation, can't you?
You are hopelessly inept. The only reason there is, any "debate" on the subject of Global Warming and similar eco issues is because oligarch mega - control freaks like the Koch brothers don't respect anything but money and are maniacally obsessed with tacking on more zeroes at the end oof their net worth. Anything such as reducing pollution or crime, or making it easier for a kindergartner to get food in his belly every morning before school... anything at all that might get in the way of another dime in their coffers... is to be thrashed out of existence, even if it means spending even more money to defeat commonsense, compassionate efforts. So when the cast majority of scientists say there is global wsrming, they will, spend billions if they have to, to spread the disinformstion, confusion and outright lies to warp the entire landscape, drowning out any common sense, shouting so loudly and profanely and persistently that their own decrepit message is the only one, anyone hears. Thank Fox News, Drudge report et. al for that. So... even though hard science from every direction says one thing, jackass clowns such as Jeb! Bush can be so blatantly idiotic as to tell the Pope (who has a degree in, chemistry, which Jeb! does not-- that the Pope needs to stick to relidgin, and keep his nose out of science. And why?! Because Jeb! and his ilk decide what is most in the interest of the 1%, and anything such as the vast majority of scientists must be wrong if they disagree with those swine that want to swallow the entire planet. Tea Partiers and the most radical elements of the GOP become more rabid with every passing day, tearing thecflesh, from their own kind, such as Boehner, who they vilify just because he couldn't find a, way to trash the entire political process, and force the majority of, America to accept the warped, insane, demands of these cretins. I fully expect them to try to steal the election again as they did with their hanging chads, voter role manipulations and other perversions of the Democratic process, and whoever is caught in such an effort should be charged with treason and locked up for life.
list of pairs of links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If so, you'd have had no problem providing separate links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Laughable. The techniques, methods, and protocols as well as the areas covered have all changed vastly over the 100 years. The amount of "normalization", "tuning", "calibration" and "adjustment" gone into it was immense — all perfectly justifiable. Or almost all. For the 0.6F rise it would've been enough — for an overzealous individual (or group) — to skew the "calibration" just a tiny bit.
0.6F — what, I wonder, is the observational error of even today's measuring devices?
What? You are yet to provide the "list of pairs of links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later..." You've given me a chart claiming to show half-a-degree rise — did anyone predict it in 1880? What model did they use back then — and how does that model explain temperatures going down in the first half of the chart? Why have they stopped growing at the end of period covered?
One would not be enough — not to validate a scientific theory. Recall, how I am always asking for a list of prediction-confirmation pairs. Certainly, the list ought to have more than one element. Even more than 3... And we are yet to see even 1.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You suck at paraphrasing.
Paraphrase: I disagree.
Practice makes perfect, right?
No, I'm too lazy to hand you everything on a silver platter. The references are all at the bottom of the paper.
It's odd because you made these claims before and were similarly corrected by people who actually read the citation.
Do you suffer from memory problems?
You have to show it happened first. I notice that several times in this thread people have merely asserted stuff without even providing a little support for their argument. For example, the person I replied to, has yet to mention the name of the alleged "specific location".
And everyone who has posted for any length of time has been corrected before. What's relevant about that observation to me in particular?
It's just passed off elsewhere, and given teh results, people like you just refuse to see them.
Easy to say when you are just talking trash.
Well, I have to talk to the audience.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Did you think each paragraph was completely independent and unrelated?
Let me enlarge that quote again:
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6ÃÂC higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
The effects of snow-free winter in Britain are already becoming apparent. This year, for the first time ever, Hamleys, Britain's biggest toyshop, had no sledges on display in its Regent Street store. "It was a bit of a first," a spokesperson said.
Notice that the two paragraphs immediately before and immediately after that quote talk about Britain exclusively, not southern England, lowland England, etc that is discussed elsewhere in the story. Before you lecture me pointlessly about reading comprehension, perhaps you could do a little of it yourself?
Now, perhaps Dr. Viner was speaking of southern England or whatever, but that doesn't show from either the sparse, broad quoting or the context of the surrounding paragraphs.
Incidentally, since the Independent story has disappeared for the time being (I was unable to surf to it yesterday or today and the Independent's search engine doesn't turn up the story for some reason), one can find a copy of it on Wayback.
Except the burden of proof is on you — not on the sceptics. You want the rest of us to change our ways, so it is on you to prove, that such changes are necessary.
Bitch, please. The proof has been presented, and denialists just dion't accept it. You need to prove it doesn't exist, the same as I don't need to prove that the earth isn't flat because you believe it is, or that the universe is old because you believe it was created in 4004 b.c.e. , or that creatures evolve. because you read a passage in a desert dwellers guidebook that says about creatures and their own kind. I'm not saying you personally believe any of that, but many do.
Because you see, I've read the reports that you also have access to. Virtually all of them say essentially that the effects of greenhouse warming, an effect that is critical to life, scales up. We would not exist without the greenhouse effect, so you have to tell us why in the face of overwhelming evidence, it doesn't exist, or what mitigates it.
The fact is, if you actually had any good research to offer, you'd be brandishing it around like a sledgehammer. Instead, ya got nothing, so you want spoon fed the freely available data, which you'll refuse to acknowledge anyhow.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
list of pairs of links: one link in each pair leading to a prediction, the other — to its confirmation a 3 or 50 years later...
Looking at your tagline, can you produce pairs of links proving biblical prophecy, or the trickle-down effect, or job creation theory or the Austrian school of economics?
You're a political creature, one who believes winning an argument or debate makes you right. Physics doesn't work that way.
And can give the same links that prove that AGW doesn't exist?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I enlarged the quote before and after and guess what? It doesn't look good for the home team. Four paragraphs and the only region mentioned is Britain with the money quote sandwiched between the two paragraphs that actually mention Britain. Maybe Dr. Viner was referring to a "specific region", but it doesn't come through in the way the story is written.
Beck_Neard asked for a reference to the end of snow and received one. It doesn't mean that the prediction contained therein will never come true since there is some degree of global warming and it's not likely to stop any time soon, but one should wonder about the aggressiveness of the prediction.
On that note, I'll summarize my points of disagreement. First, it remains foolish to only consider negative externalities, much less, consider only some of the milder externalities (like a small number of railcar accidents over a vast amount of traffic). There are considerable positive externalities that come from fossil fuels making energy generation and transportation cheaper. Ignoring the benefit while only considering the costs you choose to recognize is a recipe for disaster.
Second, merely asserting that fossil fuels have unusually expensive externalities without even a vague cost argument is pointless. It's benefits are big too. So big versus big? *shrug*
Third, the argument that I "refuse to see" externalities is silly since I acknowledged most of the externalities you mention,
Fourth, the argument that we have to clean up the environment (presumably lowering greenhouse gases concentrations to around the 1850s level) or suffer tremendous harm is a typical false dilemma fallacy. As I noted and you ignored, there's always adaptable to changing conditions which is cheaper than a hardcore cleaning of the environment or refusing to move until you're breathing water. Here, it's worth noting that climate change happens on the time scale of decades and centuries. Humans can readily adapt to that without the extraordinary costs mentioned elsewhere.
Finally, it's silly to use arguments that only you can agree with. I simply can't find it relevant that you think something is really bad and good, until it is packaged in a context that is relevant to me. It's just not that hard to package things so that they are relevant to a lot of people at the same time.
Fuck you, asshole. How is that for a civilized discourse? Please, don't hate.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I've seen this movie before. Now you'll make 5-10 more posts explaining your "laziness" and/or "lack of time" — instead of simply furnishing the list as requested in one go.
Because you can not. And are too dishonest (or stubborn?) to admit it... But even I were to accept this one example — where are the others? Certainly, an established (and settled) scientific discipline should have more than one successful prediction to its name by now...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The "scientific method" has a glaring error in it!
The method taught is to think up a theory and then find evidence to support it. Then others look for evidence to refute it.
Way to encourage fake data!
Any Engineer (or Investigator) knows that you need to collect the evidence -first-. While trying you best to pretend that you have no theories yet, even to yourself.
Only after you have done your best to collect -all- of the evidence, as far as practical, do you begin making theories.
But that does not always make an exciting publication... or good grant money. 8-)
Calling the other person a "lunatic" is one way to give everyone the idea that you, yourself, are one of the lunatics.
Just sayin'... 8-)
Fuck you, asshole. How is that for a civilized discourse? Please, don't hate.
Who's hating? It is irrelevant whether I am an asshole or not, regardless. In a world where the overwheliming majority of professionals believe that the greenhouse effect scales, it isn't up to them to present the evidence again and again to every non-believer. If you want to disprove that the greenhouse effect scales, or that the earth is round, - it's your turn to produce the evidence.
By the way - "Bitch, please" simply means "come off it", or "face reality", - no comment on gender, or avocation, or personality.
But it allows you to express your rage pretty well. Swaer at me some more big boy - that's kinda hot.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Holy shit, I'm not talking about the 'hiatus', I'm talking about the suitability of climate models. Something that you still seem to be unable to understand, which leads me to conclude that you're either 1) trolling me, 2) being purposefully dense, or 3) just a moron. I'm going to go with the simplest explanation, which is 3.
In my initial comment, I was talking about climate models. You linked the von Storch paper, supposedly to show that the climate models were incorrect. I correctly pointed out that his statistical analysis was very flawed and that you couldn't simply dismiss the climate models so easily. But I also addressed your point about the hiatus, in that even if it does exist in the time-series data, it could (as a possibility, not a definitive one) simply be due to bad data. That SHOULD have ended the discussion... but no, morons like you always just continue to dribble and dribble (which is great actually because you nuts always wind up revealing yourselves).
Just stop talking and maybe you won't dig yourself any deeper.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Complaining about being called a lunatic is the fastest way to show everyone you have nothing substantive to say.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Nah, I think this will be my last reply in this thread. You argue like a lawyer, not a scientist.
I made a perfectly reasonable request, which you -- six months later -- are unable to fulfil. Were I a lawyer, I would've rested my case long ago confident, that a non-biased jury will side with me.
Instead I'm trying to convince you — and failing. Most likely because you aren't arguing in good faith here.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
CO2 has risen substantially in the last decade or two - with very little corresponding warming. ... so you are simply: wrong. ......
Last year was the hottest in recorded history
Also keep in mind: when you open the valve of your heating, it takes a few minutes until the radiator is hot, and it takes hours until your room is significantly warmer.
One also needs to look at a bucket of ice and water on a stove with a thermometer in it.
What is the initial temp and what is the temp at about the time the last bit of ice melts.
----- Nice sale at Thermapen BTW.----
The point too many miss is energy budget and balance.
The astounding thing about water is the enormous energy budget changes
as water changes phases. It takes 80 calories to melt 1 gram of ice and
the heat of vaporization of water is 540 calories/gram. What is the energy
of the monsoon rains in India? What is the energy budget of a Katrina?
Combine this with partitioned masses of water in the ocean and
the impact of local, regional, global climate changes is much more
complex than all but a rare few climate models work with.
Altitude and the big 540 cal/g transition is very important....
Climate models, especially the old ones are absolute examples of .. I got to look at the
dusty deck mad-scientist with gray hair baggage. I have seem some FORTRAN
code that might be F66 and contains PI=3.14
deck because the keeper and user of the code complained that
he was seeing instability in the 19th digit in parallel processing runs.
I mentioned that setting PI=3.14 and complaining about the 19th digit
was "anonymolous". He responded that the code was unstable when
a better value from math.h was used.
These researchers are not making strong enough demands on their
code foundations and are not making strong enough demands on
hardware vendors and perhaps more importantly not making demands
on IEEE hardware math standards and absolutely not making foundational
demands on math libraries. Rounding and overflow rules are a train
wreck in many of these programs. Almost none catch divide by zero.
Some researchers in France (IIRC) are working on an improved math
library. Since benchmarks are part of the procurement process
no vendor wants to play with better libraries for fear they might
not win the procurement. Code authors need to pay attention...
I quibble about 3.14 and PI at the same time that I know instrumentation
and historic records have their limits at about three significant digits. But
numerical methods can be applied. Modern instruments can be improved.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Nevertheless, according to model evidence,
Models are not evidence. Measurements are evidence, models are an attempt to draw conclusions from evidence.
-jcr
Obligatory addition that:
Correlation does not imply causation....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
.
This climate thing is important. No mater where I stand on the science it
is an issue worthy of great attention. Too many hair brained plans...
The cap and trade carbon tax gang stands to make too much money brokering
the exchange game to allow any discussion. The issue is real, their approach
at addressing it seems selfish.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
I've provided a link - there was a prediction that the increasing CO2 concentration will lead to rise in the global temperatures. It came true. What else do you want?
Your assumption is that non-carbon energy will be more expensive. That may be true in the short term, considering capital costs of replacing some of our infrastructure, but it is likely to be cheaper in the medium-longer term, as most renewable energy sources have zero ongoing fuel costs and often lower maintenance too. Consider that most cost comparisons of solar, wind, wave, geothermal etc vs existing coal, gas, nuclear etc compare amortised capital + ongoing costs of renewable energy plants vs ongoing costs only of the legacy plants (as capital costs are paid off already) - and they are still remarkably close. When you compare apples to apples (total lifetime costs for both, or ongoing costs only) then renewables already look much cheaper, in the majority of cases.
Consider also the projected (financial and human) costs of climate change, which will certainly impact poorer populations the most, as they can't afford to mitigate those costs. Drought, floods, famine, weather extremes, water shortages, rising sea levels, increased risk of tropical diseases - these are all discussed in the IPCC AR5 WGII Impacts section, and while the wealthier populations can move farmlands, irrigate, vaccinate, build levees, pay for disaster insurance etc, much of the world's poor will be SOL. Numerous studies (can cite if you like) have shown that the short-term costs of avoiding further climate change are far outweighed by the longer-term costs of adapting to the consequences instead.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
You have to show it happened first.
Why? Is it likely that I doubt my own memory?
I notice that several times in this thread people have merely asserted stuff without even providing a little support for their argument. F
I've noticed that several people here tend to repeatedly post the same assertions even when they've been rebutted in the past. That's you.
And everyone who has posted for any length of time has been corrected before. What's relevant about that observation to me in particular?
It's relevant because (a) generally when you make assertions on AGW in particular we recall how your assertions on this subject turned out to be bunk on previous occasions, thus we need more than a pinky swear to accept that the things you say are true now. And (b) When you've previously made a wrong assertion and then repeat that assertion having been corrected it sounds like you don't really believe it yourself.
I still see no supporting evidence for your assertions. This is baseless ad hominem, not legitimate argument.
Why would I need evidence to believe my own assertions? You are being absurd
Because you have aspirations to being rational?
What proof do you have that I'm not rational?
Your behavior in this thread. We have empty assertions which are repeatedly asserted. Repeating unproductive and silly behavior is irrational.
Your behavior in this thread. We have empty assertions which are repeatedly asserted.
Empty?
Why should I believe they are empty?
Repeating unproductive and silly behavior is irrational.
You have, on various occasions, repeated claims that have already been refuted. Doesn't that exactly fit you own definition of irrationality?
Why should I believe they are empty?
The same reason anyone else can see they are empty. You refuse to provide evidence or other support for your assertions.
You have, on various occasions, repeated claims that have already been refuted.
I believe you are in error here.