Global Temperature Set To Reach 1 Degree C Over Pre-Industrial Levels (metoffice.gov.uk)

Layzej writes: Based on data from January to September, the HadCRUT dataset shows 2015 global mean temperature at 1.02 degrees C (±0.11 degrees C) above pre-industrial levels for the first time. The Copenhagen Accord recognizes "the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius (PDF)." Physicist Ken Rice points out that the next degree Celsius may be closer than we think. "It's taken us about 160 years to warm by about 1 degree C. This is associated with emissions of about 550GtC (550 billion tonnes of carbon, or ~2000 billion tonnes of CO2). Current emissions are around 10GtC/year. If we continue emitting as we are, we will double our cumulative emissions in about 50 years. If we continue to increase our emissions, it will be even sooner.

Comments

So?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what?

Re:So?

[bigpat]

So what?

1) Global Climate change is disruptive and people will unnecessarily die or live worse-off because of the resulting displacement of peoples.
2) We can be carbon neutral in 30 years if we create large scale subsidies in existing state of the art in nuclear power. (oh and throw in a few renewable sources for up to about 30% of the total requirements)

And

3) If you think we can be carbon neutral and meet the energy needs of civilization with just subsidized renewables then you are the same as a "climate denier" because pretending to solve a problem (to get your extremely inadequate pet projects funded) is in effect no better than denying the problem and just waiting to run out of economically viable fossil fuels.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, up until now I understood this primarily as a problem that would really hit future generations, long after I die of old age. Now you are telling me that I might suffer from the consequences during my retirement???

I am officially angry, and will start demanding legislation to force other people to pay up to fix this.

Re:So?

[phantomfive]

We can be carbon neutral in 30 years if we create large scale subsidies in existing state of the art in nuclear power.

And start using electric cars.

Re:So?

[dywolf]

it is a false statement that only nuclear will meet those needs.
it is equally false that renewables are only pet projects and cannot meet those needs.

Re:So?

[bigpat]

it is a false statement that only nuclear will meet those needs.
it is equally false that renewables are only pet projects and cannot meet those needs.

Nuclear is the only proven technology. With nuclear power you have France having demonstrated for many decades that nuclear can provide nearly all the electrical power for a large modern country. Hydro is a proven technology, but it has already been largely tapped out in much of the world and hydro can disrupt river ecosystems. Solar and Wind just don't cut it without either some other large scale supplies of energy... which hydro can't provide... or a massive overbuilding of Solar and Wind to account for the variability. Solar and Wind just can't cut it alone by a long shot, so its either Natural Gas, then coal or Nuclear.

If you can't offer a realistic solution then you are part of the problem.

Re:So?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

2) We can be carbon neutral in 30 years if we create large scale subsidies in existing state of the art in nuclear power.

The reason nuclear power plants aren't successful or competitive is massive NIMBYism and a suppression of efficient and clean nuclear power technologies because they might be used to generate weapons-grade material. Neither of those can be solved with more subsidies.

Of course, that's still better than "renewables", which simply aren't cost effective at all.

Re: So?

[ememisya]

It's gettin' hot in here so hot, so take off all your clothes!

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Send us back to the pre-Industrial age please! No planes, trains, cars, trucks, computers, light-bulbs, and most importantly...porn.

Re: So?

[Sardaukar86]

It's gettin' hot in here so hot, so take off all your clothes!

..and amazingly, that was one of the more 'articulate' (c)rap songs. Now that's a culture worth celebrating, no really it is!

Re:So?

[dywolf]

nope, not flamebait

Re:So?

[dywolf]

'solar and wind cant cut it alone'

Again.
That statement is purely false.

We know that more solar energy lands on the Earth in one hour than all of humanity consumes in an entire year ( it actually only takes ~40 minutes ). We need only harness a small fraction of that. and you also conveniently ignore any and all potential storage solutions, or advancing grid technology.

We also already know that, using current mainstream solar technology (therefore excluding advanced panels under development that are even more efficient), it only takes ~25k square miles to power the entire planet with solar. If located in a single location, that's a square ~158 miles on a side, which isn't terribly large given the size of the planet. Some real world engineering proposals based off that call for multiple arrays located in the planets barren locations, distributed around the world. combined with emerging smart grid electrical systems, distribution between generation, storage, and consumer, while being one of the largest infrastructure projects ever proposed, becomes simple, and raises the standard of living across the entire world.

but, even that, a centralized and interlinked system, isn't required.
distributed generation, with every structure independent is also possible, if somewhat less efficient.

or a combination of the two, combining independent generation at individual structures, with a smart grid for distribution, which is actually the most realistic way forward.

analyses have already shown that if every residential structure in the United States alone were equipped with panels, we would generate roughly 140% of the entire worlds' electricity needs. Which translates into meeting America's needs, and thus energy independence, with only a small fraction of that. Similarly most any other country could also achieve total energy independence in similar fashion. This also excludes commercial (nonresidential structures), which while less numerous, tend to be larger, and even better suited to panel installation.

Therefore, I see little reason to proceed with nuclear, given all its drawbacks, when we already have the world's (nay, solar systems) greatest nuclear reactor shining on us every day. If we didn't have the sun, if we were further out, say at Mars' distance or further, yes, nuclear would be the way to go. But we aren't.

So again, I reiterate: while I get that you want to cheerlead for nuclear, what you said is patently false.

Re:So?

[bigpat]

None of what you are saying is doable. You can't rest the fate of hundreds of millions of people on a bunch of theoretical wishful thinking. Pick a city of 50,000 people and actually disconnect from the grid and go with 100% solar and wind. You need to disconnect from the non-renewable grid to demonstrate a viable proof of concept because once you force solar and wind to provide base load capacity you explode your costs because you need large scale storage. The cities that are going to "100%" are really just buying the equivalent power from renewable sources which gets dumped into the grid. Which is fine until the fossil fuel power plants start going offline and you can't actually get that electricity all the way from your solar power stations reliably.

With the smart grid where you plan to just somehow have enough solar and wind scattered around the planet to shift electricity around when regions don't have solar or wind.... How long is it going to take you to boot strap using fossil fuels? Probably a couple hundred years.... which is too late for carbon reduction.

  Like I've said before: Just prove me wrong. And prove me wrong without wrecking the environment with more pollution than nuclear would. And prove me wrong now not 30 years from now when it is probably too late to stop another few degrees of warming.

Re:So?

[bigpat]

2) We can be carbon neutral in 30 years if we create large scale subsidies in existing state of the art in nuclear power.

The reason nuclear power plants aren't successful or competitive is massive NIMBYism and a suppression of efficient and clean nuclear power technologies because they might be used to generate weapons-grade material. Neither of those can be solved with more subsidies.

Of course, that's still better than "renewables", which simply aren't cost effective at all.

The subsidies are needed because of the cost of delays caused by regulation and lawsuits and to make it competitive with coal and natural gas. Basically most of the private sector capital investment is going into natural gas power generation and natural gas pipelines now because there is a natural gas glut in the market and it doesn't face as much opposition because it isn't as much of a polluter as coal.

Natural gas is better than coal, but it won't get us to the carbon neutrality needed to mitigate Global Climate Change.

Re:So?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The subsidies are needed because of the cost of delays caused by regulation and lawsuits and to make it competitive with coal and natural gas.

Subsidies aren't an effective remedy to bad regulation. In fact, if you subsidize in response to bad regulation, you economically reward bad regulation and will encourage more of it.

In different words "impose a billion dollars of additional regulations on us and then subsidize us by a billion dollars" is a good deal for a regulated industry.

Natural gas is better than coal, but it won't get us to the carbon neutrality needed to mitigate Global Climate Change.

Well, I disagree with the premise that carbon neutrality is even a desirable goal.

Re:So?

[bigpat]

In different words "impose a billion dollars of additional regulations on us and then subsidize us by a billion dollars" is a good deal for a regulated industry.

At this point I'd rather just see it get done rather than worry about sifting through the regulatory process to see what is necessary and what is lining the pockets of regulators and lawyers. It would take years to sift through the red tape just to make what are probably going to be minor improvements.

I think Global Climate Change is either something that we have to deal with right now in an earnest way or we need to just stop all the BS flim flam selling and just hope our grand kids and great grand kids can just live with whatever end up being the consequences. Because causing major societal and environmental disruption with half cocked plans and then not achieving any meaningful result is actually worse than doing nothing.

We know what needs to be done to solve the CO2 problem, it is nuclear now, but most of the people who claim they are fighting Global Climate change also seem to be the same ones fighting to shut down nuclear power plants while new coal plants are being built.

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for a little thing called dust. Accumulation of dust severely attenuates the efficiency of solar panels. How do you plan to wash 25 thousand square miles of solar panels? Hint - rain isn't going to do it, notice how your car doesn't get cleaner after a rain shower

I'm not even going to bother with your comment about more solar energy striking the earth in one hour than the entire planet uses in a year - you clearly don't understand photoelectrics, and I don'the feel like explaining the concept of band gaps.

Re:So?

[TheRealLifeboy]

So what?

1) Global Climate change is disruptive and people will unnecessarily die or live worse-off because of the resulting displacement of peoples.

Total speculation, solely based on computer models that are wrong from the ground up. Ignoring the laws of physics is always foolish, but none as much as what the warmist brigade is doing.

2) We can be carbon neutral in 30 years if we create large scale subsidies in existing state of the art in nuclear power. (oh and throw in a few renewable sources for up to about 30% of the total requirements)

And

3) If you think we can be carbon neutral and meet the energy needs of civilization with just subsidized renewables then you are the same as a "climate denier" because pretending to solve a problem (to get your extremely inadequate pet projects funded) is in effect no better than denying the problem and just waiting to run out of economically viable fossil fuels.

Carbon Neutrality is not based on science. It's based on the fertile imagination of a few, which a whole horde of lemmings following after, of which very few have actually taken the trouble to verify that the premise that underlies all the projections is valid. It turns out CO2 is a coolant, the greenhouse effect does not apply to an open system like a planet's atmosphere and there is no relationship with the amount of so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and global temperature, except that eventually an increase in temperature is followed by 'n rise in CO2 level. The former is definitely not caused by an increase of the latter.

So in the end all this uproar about pre-industrial levels bla bla and climate bla bla and warming bla bla bla, is just a lot of hot air.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it cheerleading to promote a technology that has been proven to be able to run 24-7 without major hickups?

Clearly, the nuclear we are using today is 1950's tech, and needs to be replaced. We need to become CO2/Methane neutral, and nuclear offers that in spades.

However, I would propose that we instead switch to LFTR 4+ generation reactors and thorium fuel cycle to make it safer, cleaner, and also clean up the mess that the uranium cycle has left us with in the form of spent fuel rods.

Absolutely solar and wind can definitely be part of the solution, no question about that. But it would be far easier to use nuclear as the main source (along with hydro) of main power. Then, we can phase out nuclear fission once the LFTR's have processes all the spent fuel rods, and convert over to fusion (which is only a few decades away).

By that time, we'll have the smart systems in place that are needed for solar to work (we don't have them now, and it's going to take a decade or two to completely convert over).

What I would have said is that 'Solar and Wind can't cut it alone today, and we need solutions today'

Re:So?

[bigpat]

Either way, going with nuclear is a good hedge with multiple benefits. It is also less polluting of the atmosphere which we do know causes lung health issues. It takes up less land area (less arable and livable land area) than pretty much all the other energy sources. It is reliable... you load up with a relatively small amount of uranium fuel rods and you can run a plant for years. And fossil fuels will eventually become harder (and therefore more taxing on the economy) to extract after some number of decades. Yes, with current technology you do start running low on usable uranium fuel after a certain number of decades or centuries, but with new generations of reactors you could stretch out that fuel for millennia. You don't need Global Warming to justify nuclear becoming a larger part of the energy supply, but if you are trying to mitigate Global Climate Change or doing so just in case, then nuclear power becomes essential.

Re: So?

[Anonymous Coward]

You need a carbon neutral electricity generation infrastructure before electric cars would make a difference to global climate change, although there would be his benefits to air quality in cities before that.

Re:So?

[lsatenstein]

So what?

1) Global Climate change is disruptive and people will unnecessarily die or live worse-off because of the resulting displacement of peoples.
2) We can be carbon neutral in 30 years if we create large scale subsidies in existing state of the art in nuclear power. (oh and throw in a few renewable sources for up to about 30% of the total requirements)

And

3) If you think we can be carbon neutral and meet the energy needs of civilization with just subsidized renewables then you are the same as a "climate denier" because pretending to solve a problem (to get your extremely inadequate pet projects funded) is in effect no better than denying the problem and just waiting to run out of economically viable fossil fuels.

All of this won't bother me, I will be dead by then. It may however, bother my descendants. I don't pollute, so this global warning is for my grandchildren to handle.
I suppose that we will be building houses underground and living underground,

Re: So?

[jheath314]

Nope... even if you got 100% of your electricity from dirty, dirty coal, the efficiency of the electric car is still so much higher than that of a standard gasoline ICE that you'll still end up putting less CO2 in the atmosphere for the same distance driven. A big coal-fired generator is a lot more efficient than a lot of small car motors.

Re: So?

[ememisya]

If the beat is good, we're gonna jam.

Re:So?

[stoatwblr]

GCC may be more disruptive than you think, sooner than you think - and not because of temperature rises.

Rapidly increasing oceanic CO2 levels are likely to kick off a global Anoxic Oeanic Event. This would wipe out a large chunk of the planet's megafauna (including us) if past ones are anything to go by.

There are indications it may have already started.

Re:So?

[stoatwblr]

UK:

Hinkeley Point power station is currently guaranteed to sell its electrricty at double the current rate (it was the only way the investors could be persuaded to build and under normal circumstances it would double by the time it was built anyway)

Thanks to subsidies, Renewables generators are selling into the grid at 6 to 12 times the going rate _NOW_ and thanks to much higher than advertised maintenance costs(*) they're only barely making money.

(*) Windmills keep eating gearboxes (or having them catch fire). This is expensive. Solar PV installations are not putting out anywhere near as much electricity as claimed (the absolute peak power output has been sold as "the output", whilst long-term real world figures were claimed to be about 30% of this - they're actually 15-20% of average, less still if nights are taken into account.

Even if they could replace all the CO2 generating sources (they can't, see below), having electricity prices climb that much is not feasible.

Why can't windmills replace coal plants?

1: Density: Even if safety regulations were ignored, carpeting the UK in windmills would only produce enough power on average to replace 3-5 power stations. The UK has in excess of 60 conventional stations.

Carpeting the country in windmills won't happen, because:

2: Safety regulations. Windmills need a 2 _mile_ safety clearance between them and any inhabited buildings or areas. This is due to the slightly pesky fact that the blades have been observed to go almost that far when they break - and they've been breaking more frequently than planned, thanks to gearbox fires weakening them.

Solar PV has a similar density problem. Tidal simply doesn't work economically - all the schemes which have been started up worldwide have quietly closed down.

Solar Thermal is also of dubious economics and density plays into the picture.

Importing power from elsewhere is hard. Underwater interconnectors are extremely expensive and the UK only has 3GW connectiivty to the rest of Europe. That's already peaking out at times.

Generating power in the Sahara and importing it to Europe would require the largest engineering projects ever undertaken, merely to transport the electricity. The fact that African Generated electricty being sent out of the continent when there is more than enough demand south of the Sahara to absorb every bit of that power would be seen as yet more exploitative colonial theft should also be taken into account.

Which brings up the other factor: Reduction of 1st world electricity demands won't mean much when developing world demands would completely swamp that reduction simply to bring people up to a reasonably low standard of living.

If you want to produce that much electricity, that soon, the only way forward is nuclear and lots of it. Conventional technology now and MSRs when they're ready. Fusion won't be ready for another century.

"Nuclear waste" is a solved problem. The amount produced by a conventional station over 60 years will sit in an olympic-sized pool and be safe to approach unshielded after 300 years - NOT 300,000 as the extremists claim.

That "waste" is unlikely to sit in a pool for 300 years though - it's highly likely to be useful fuel for kickstarting MSRs - which produce 1% of the waste level of conventional nukes - less still when you realise they can take the "useless" U238 depleted uranium from enrichment processes that current makes up 60-65% of mined uranium (yup, less than 40% of uranium taken out of the ground and fed into the refining process comes out the other end as useful) and "just so happens" to be highly useful as H-bomb enhancers - in other words getting rid of that "non-radioactive" waste is a really good idea.

Even if no use for kickstarting a MSR, the MSR can quickly break down conventional "nuclear waste" to much safer elements.

Re:So?

[stoatwblr]

Actually the more efficient nuclear methods are much harder to make weapons-grade materials from.

In particular, the plutonium from LFTRs is so badly polluted with the fiercely hot isotopes that it would be cheaper to build a windscale-style reactor (the one that caught fire) to make bomb-suitable stuff than to try and refine what you can get from the LFTR. Likewise, the U233 is so badly mixed up with other fiercely hot uranium isotopes that it's hard to extract for bombs.

Current uranium enrichment processes produce around 2 pounds of "useless" U238 for every pound of reactor fuel they output. Except it's not useless - it makes a great H-bomb casing (enhances yield) and there are all those bullets you can make from it - bear in mind that environmental uranium is a worse chemical pollutant than lead, so you don't really want people making bullets out of the stuff.

That existing enrichment system can also produce highly enriched uranium for weapons and the reprocessing systems for fuel rods can pull out the plutonium (uranium reactors generally produce bomb-grade isotopes) for weapons making. It's so energy intensive that the actual costs of operating such facilities for civil reactors are regarded by the USA as a military state secret.

And of course, conventional nuclear plants can burn (hydrogen gas), leak radioactive steam, explode (steam) or leak radioactive water. Molten Salt plants won't do any of these and if they leak any radioactives won't go more than a couple of feet before the salt freezes and can be dropped back into the pool. Addtionally, MSRs run so hot that you don't need to cool your output with river/sea water (air cooling is sufficient), so you don't have siting constraints and you don't have to turn them down during heatwaves, plus there's the small matter of massively reduced waste output, most of which can be kept onsite for a dozen years and then onsold as useful gasses such as helium/xenon

The comparison which could be drawn is that conventional water-based plants (and all other plants using encapsulated fuel) are like a Neucomen Steam engine and Molten salt systems are Mr Watt's improved version.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with France is that they regularly need to import energy both in the winter (electric heating uses too much electricity) and in the summer (too hot to cool the reactors). Not exactly a working prototype for a (nearly) pure nuclear country.

Re:So?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Actually the more efficient nuclear methods are much harder to make weapons-grade materials from.

Oh, personally, I don't believe the weaponization argument is rational; I think it's politically and economically motivated. But it's the argument that has actually been used to justify banning efficient fission reactors in the past.

And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it possible that 160 years ago that we were in the midst of a cyclical cool down and now we're on a cyclical warm up?

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[_Sharp'r_]

Well, it's a good thing that Antarctic Sea Ice just reached the highest level ever seen, according to NASA.:

“There hasn’t been one explanation yet that I’d say has become a consensus, where people say, ‘We’ve nailed it, this is why it’s happening,’” Parkinson said. “Our models are improving, but they’re far from perfect. One by one, scientists are figuring out that particular variables are more important than we thought years ago, and one by one those variables are getting incorporated into the models.”

Don't try telling me about the Arctic, either. We wouldn't want to be skeptical of the scientists, right?

And don't get me started on Solar cycles...

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Layzej]

It looks like we've seen a slow cooling of temperatures over the last 6000 years - since the peak of the current interglacial. There was an abrupt reversal over the last century: http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-c...

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Flavianoep]

So are you implying that the release of carbon to atmosphere saved us of a global cooling? Perchance the best option would be putting aside the global warming and starting controlling the climate.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually the explanation is easy. It was refreezing molten ice. That is sweet water on top of salt water.
The only thing that is unusually big (actually it is just a little bit over the mean of the recent decades, there where bigger ice shelfs, so this is by far not a record), big in terams of area, not kn terms of actually ice.
And ... guess what season we have there? Yes! Spring time! Will be a nice spring break when the ice breaks and suddenly in a matter of weeks the whole area is ice free again... no one will notice. Won't make news, because it is just normal'

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[rickb928]

It is not spring in the Arctic. It's nearly winter, cooling quickly and darkening fast.

You're thinking of the Antarctic.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

It does seem a bit strange that the late 1800's are most definitely the ideal global temperature we should achieve for peace and love and whatever. Who's to say a slightly warmer planet won't have as many benefits as downsides?
BUT, we do know full well that crops will grow, oceans will harbor life, and weather phenomenon will be mostly survivable at those temperatures, so why mess with a good thing? I'm hardly on the doom and gloom side, but this just doesn't seem like something you mess with willy nilly because 'fuck it, why not.'

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Hardhead_7]

The paper you cite raises the idea that while West Antarctica is losing ice fast, East Antarctica is gaining mass. However, a couple caveats.

1. That result hasn't been reproduced, and there is some healthy skepticism that they're measuring right since they used satellites to estimate snowfall and then estimate how much of that turned to ice (a surprisingly complicated process). Plus, it used old data (8 years old, and we know that ice loss has increased dramatically since then). So, the short version is, the paper you linked may end up being right, but the consensus view among scientists is still that Antarctica is losing ice.

2. Even if it turns out to be true, the authors of the very paper you cite say that Antarctic ice loss is accelerating as the snowfall remains pretty confident, and their opinion is that within a few years, ice will loss will outpace gain.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Hardhead_7]

* Constant, not confident.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[halivar]

Actually the explanation is easy. It was refreezing molten ice. That is sweet water on top of salt water.

This is mostly conjecture; while we have abundant data for ice extent over the decades, we have little data of ice thickness. The abstract on this paper suggests that the extent and thickness of the antarctic is increasing year over year, albeit at a lower rate than the decrease in the arctic. This is the critical point, because arctic ice is an order of magnitude greater than antarctic ice.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[haruchai]

That "cyclical cool down" was a period of intense volcanism, lower insolation and significantly lower GHGs

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Possible, but let me ask you something. Does it matter? Whether we are the primary cause or not, we're still fucked. So lets do something about it.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[amicusNYCL]

What conclusion do you reach because the ice is at a high level right now? What information do you gather from that data point?

We wouldn't want to be skeptical of the scientists, right?

We should be skeptical of everything - the government and their subsidies, the record profits of fossil-fuel companies, the motivations of those companies, their marketing campaigns, their political contributions, and yes, even science in general. In fact, skepticism is pretty much at the core of the scientific method.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[kwiecmmm]

The freezing point of pure water is 0 degrees Celsius. The freezing point of salt water is -2 degrees Celsius.

Why is this important information? Because as the Antarctic Sea Ice melts it dumps water into the ocean, which lowers the salinity of that water and raises the temperature at which the water can freeze. Which creates a larger area of ice.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, it doesn't matter. The guy you're replying to hasn't got two neurons to rub together in his entire skull, he's just on a mission from God (well, a probably-pedophilic narcissist pulling his strings and throwing him crumbs that he THINKS is his god). Find quotes to undermine criticism of inconvenient corporate policies at energy companies and spam them loudly at anyone who might accidentally listen.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[danbert8]

No, the end goal is climate constant regardless of the cost. YOU ARE A DENIER!

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[angel'o'sphere]

So was the parent :)
And the Artic has again a record low ...
Right now north europe has a warms wave ... about 10 degrees warmer than it should be, but well, nonone is complaining. It is quite nice to sit outside without a jacket around 8 in the evening and eating in a Beergarden, which is supposed to be closed since a month and usually would have like 5 degrees centigrade.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[khallow]

So lets do something about it.

Unless doing something about it is worse than doing nothing about it - such as crippling your society in order to make a barely measurable change in CO2 emissions. There is a lot of profoundly bad policy aimed at mitigating global warming.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[KeensMustard]

Well, it's a good thing that Antarctic Sea Ice just reached the highest level ever seen, according to NASA.

... We wouldn't want to be skeptical of the scientists, right?

Why would increasing ice levels in the antarctic makes us skeptical of scientists?

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Coren22]

This is the critical point, because arctic ice is an order of magnitude greater than antarctic ice.

Did you get that backwards? Or were you maybe meaning that the effect of Arctic ice is greater (as it is floating ice)?

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Coren22]

Hey, at least you didn't put cosmonaut like the Golden Girls AC.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Coren22]

Whenever someone points to the fossil-fuel company profits, I wonder what they think of Hollywood accounting, and that all of the Hollywood companies pay no taxes at all. It seems that the majority of people who identify as democrats hate the oil company subsidies and the record profits they make, and how little taxes they pay, but are just fine with the same exact situation in Hollywood.
 

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[XXongo]

It does seem a bit strange that the late 1800's are most definitely the ideal global temperature we should achieve for peace and love and whatever. Who's to say a slightly warmer planet won't have as many benefits as downsides?

It's not per-se the "ideal" temperature. It is, however, the temperature to which we've adapted our current society and land use. Changing the temperature will entail massive disruptions, and that will be expensive.

If nothing else, 32 percent of the world's population lives within 37 miles of the coast-- having three billion people migrate due to rising sea levels is going to be pretty disruptive. Not to mention the trillions of dollars of real estate value submerged.

If you really are interested in the current thinking about what the effects of climate change will be, the best summary is in the IPCC Working Group II report, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. You can download it here: www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

BUT, we do know full well that crops will grow, oceans will harbor life, and weather phenomenon will be mostly survivable at those temperatures, so why mess with a good thing?

We have an agricultural system pretty well adapted to present climate. If, say, the desert zones of the planet moved even five degrees north, this would wipe out about half of the world's food supply. Yes, that could be compensated by new agricultural areas opening up, in Canada and Siberia and Scandanavia. But, again, it will entail massive disruption.

I'm hardly on the doom and gloom side, but this just doesn't seem like something you mess with willy nilly because 'fuck it, why not.'

Exactly. "Fuck it, why not change everything about our climate, because why not" is not a very good reasoning. We have things working pretty well now.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[halivar]

Nope. The mileage is similar: 15 million km of arctic ice vs 18 million km in Antarctica, but the ice is twice as thick in the arctic (2 m vs 1 m). I misstated when I said "order of magnitude" though. It's a solid multiple, IMHO.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dryeo]

Often warming temperatures equals increasing precipitation due to the warmer air holding more moisture. In the case of the Antarctic, a continent that is mostly desert, the expectation should be more snowfall which can lead to more ice. Kind of surprised that snowfall is considered consistent. And of course if snowfall is increasing due to warming (numbers pulled from my ass and exaggerated) from -40 to -10, then the expectation should be more ice buildup.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Coren22]

Just think of all the land in Canada and Russia that will be opened up to farming.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 you got it backward with your retarded by assburgers defective brain n' outism apk's curing you of by outing you.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

That might be because hollywood isn't drilling holes into the earth to suck the life out of it in the name of dollars, at the cost of a planet to inhabit for our great grandchildren. But no, that is a perfectly apt comparison..........dot dot dot dot dot cricket chirp dot dot dot tumbleweed dot dot dot

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Esteanil]

This isn't hard.

The ideal temperature is: the temperature that doesn't make seafront property underwater property.

The temperature that doesn't necessitate massive displacement of current agriculture.

The temperature where people don't start dying because they can't handle the heat.

The temperature that doesn't result in massive vegetation death and only much later the growth of species that can handle the new local situation.

This temperature is, by current scientific reasoning, less than 2c warmer than the pre-industrial average.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[_Sharp'r_]

That was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek. Of course we should be skeptical when it comes to science. My sarcasm was because I was quoting a NASA scientist who is also quick to point out that there isn't a consensus about the reasons and the climate models still need improvement.

I suppose I was picturing the heads of some folks exploding when they realized they'd have to be skeptical of NASA's science in order to prove there was a consensus no one is supposed to be skeptical about anymore...

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[LynnwoodRooster]

The only thing that is unusually big (actually it is just a little bit over the mean of the recent decades, there where bigger ice shelfs, so this is by far not a record), big in terams of area, not kn terms of actually ice.

Actually, the latest NASA paper says that the total Antarctic ice mass is increasing overall, not just the area or in a small location. The total ice locked up is at a new record.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[_Sharp'r_]

I was more referring to the NASA scientist's statement that there isn't a consensus about the reasons for the ice accumulation and that the climate models still need a lot of improvement.

There are some folks who say his skepticism of that science could lead to the end of the world, who would then be being skeptical of the NASA scientists... quite the dilemma, which may lead to more tribal versions of what to be skeptical about.

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[LynnwoodRooster]

And the Artic has again a record low ..

NASA says otherwise, 2007 and 2012 were both lower - significantly - than 2015. So the Arctic is rebounding, Antarctica has record ice mass. That seems to be the trends from measurements - increases in ice off of lows rather than decreases.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[viperidaenz]

Ice on land effects sea level.

Floating ice does not.

Arctic, not so much
Greenland, Antarctic, much.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[khallow]

Hollywood does their own exciting things - like glorifying violence. And we do other things with oil than merely be bad to Mother Earth.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[LynnwoodRooster]

The Antarctic ice sheet contains ~61% of all fresh water on the planet, and about 26 million cubic km of ice, which would be well above the rest of the ice held everywhere - including the Arctic. IF you were talking about just sea ice, you'd be correct - the Arctic is slightly above Antarctica. But include the full ice sheet of Antarctica, including that on land, and you find that the volume of ice in Antarctica greatly exceeds that of the Arctic, including all of Greenland (which itself is about 3.5 million cubic km of ice).

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[angel'o'sphere]

Two exceptios where the amount is lower than now, does mot make it a record.
According to zour logic 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 where higher tan the currnt amount.

Again: NASA confirmes the amount of area is quite big, nad if you google you will find me confirmed: it is about the mean of the last few decades, and bigger.
And if you think a biit: you will realize, a square mile of on yard thick ice is something different than a square mile of two yards thick ice.
Figuratively speaking, we have a big area of very thin ice, no record at all. And rest assured: in about 4 to 5 month, all that ice is gone, and we have a record minimum again!
How that works is left as an excersise to you to figure, facepalm.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[angel'o'sphere]

No it is not ...
We debunked this a week or two weeks ago already.
Ice masses are 'growing' again at 'some points' in Antarctica. By no means does that surpass older amounts of total mass of ice.
Current gains seem to surpass current losses. And? In a few years future losses will surpass future gains again.
Are you running your bank account like that?
You used to lose 100$ a month, and now you are at zero ... now you gain 101$ a month and are at 101$ plus? And in another month at 202$ plus? That says nothing anout the moment when you start losing 101$ a month again.
Only that the rate you gain seems higher than the rate you lose. .important is: how many month do you gain, how many months do you lose. How much does affect you that if you lose several months in a row or gain in a row ...

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[LynnwoodRooster]

From the NASA article:

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

So there are some losses, but the accumulation is still growing faster. That's straight from NASA. How you debunk that without completely ignoring their results is a mystery to me. But you seem determined to do so! No thanks, I'll take NASA's statement and study that say ice volume is actually accumulating. Slower, but still accumulating overall.

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[LynnwoodRooster]

You claimed record. I showed you are in error. Should be simple enough for you to modify your claim and now state "near record lows" rather than "record low". Unless you're pushing an agenda, and don't care about actual facts?

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[amicusNYCL]

Why do you think that oil company profits and Hollywood accounting have anything at all to do with each other? These issues are not related, and I would imagine that the majority of people think that both of them are pretty ridiculous.

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Also according to NASA these gains will probably disappear in 20 years, and are likely a sign of instability in the Antarctic ice shelf. The gains have been on one side, while losses continue on the other side. The net result has been a gain, but not a sustainable one.

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[I'm New Around Here]

Unless you're pushing an agenda, and don't care about actual facts?

DING-DING-DING-DING!!!

We have a winner.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[I'm New Around Here]

The freezing point of pure water is 0 degrees Celsius. The freezing point of salt water is -2 degrees Celsius.

You should change that to ocean water, or at least the salt water in the ocean. Salt water can be of greater salinity, which would lower the freezing point accordingly. Other than that nitpicking, your post is spot on.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[cbiltcliffe]

That graph is the result of two completely different methodologies plotted on the same graph.
Temperatures before 1870 are estimated based on ice core data and other proxies. Temperatures since 1870 are actual measured temperatures using thermometers.
Anybody at all who plots these on the same graph as if they were continuous data doesn't deserve to call themselves a scientist.

My Google-fu isn't working at the moment, but I've read some papers that say if you use the same proxies for the last 150 years of temperature, rather than switching to actual measurements, that spike doesn't show up. Of course, that means that such spikes could have been continuous through the last few thousand years, but we have no record accurate enough to show them.
I've worked in scientific data analysis before, and consistency was so important that if I upgraded a software version on a computer during the course of a large project, old data from that project had to be reanalysed to ensure the results didn't change.
Not only are the climate "scientists" not doing this, they are intentionally using data from completely disparate sources and methodologies in an attempt to prove their hypothesis. If this isn't acceptable in any other scientific field, why is it done in climate science?

Show me consistently obtained data

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

It does make sense. Coren's an arab like his troll friends fisted and dave420. Hollywood is run by jews their hatfield vs. mccoy enemy. The hilarious part is both tribes are related in antiquity and yet they will do this until they blow each other to bits to the very end taking us all with them.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[budgenator]

The weather in most of Antartica is dominated by very cold, dry air descending from high altitude; any additional moisture would have rained out much farther north.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[riverat1]

This is the critical point, because arctic ice is an order of magnitude greater than antarctic ice.

Did you get that backwards? Or were you maybe meaning that the effect of Arctic ice is greater (as it is floating ice)?

When talking about ice on the Earth it's always good to be specific about what kind of ice you're talking about.

The land based ice in the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica is one thing. The GRACE satellites show both of those are losing ice mass although it's faster on Greenland.

Sea ice is a separate thing from the land based ice and there is a substantial difference between the Arctic sea ice and the Antarctic sea ice. In the Arctic the sea ice extent is constrained by the fact that the surrounding land prevents the sea ice from expanding as much as it could and only in some limited areas like the Bering Sea and the Fram Strait does it have enough room to freely expand southward. A good example of this is you get sea ice in the Baltic sea but of course all of the Scandinavian land between it and the Arctic Ocean is not covered by sea ice.

The Antarctic on the other hand is a continent surrounded by sea so there is virtually no constraint on the sea ice extent expanding as much as it can limited only by temperatures as it expands northward and then during the southern summer nearly all of the Antarctic sea ice melts out so it has to start all over again the next year.

So the usefulness of comparing maximum extents or minimum extents between the opposite polar regions is limited. What gets people all excited is the annual Arctic sea ice minimum in September and the annual Antarctic sea ice maximum (also usually in September). But the trend since 1979 is -500,000 km^2 in the Arctic and +100,000 km^2 in the Antarctic. Link

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[riverat1]

Data from the GRACE satellites disagrees with this paper and I tend to believe them more than this study. What GRACE measures is changes in gravity (and therefore mass) and they have been showing much loss of ice in Western Antarctica and close to mass balance in Eastern Antarctica but the overall net is negative.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[riverat1]

So are you implying that the release of carbon to atmosphere saved us of a global cooling? Perchance the best option would be putting aside the global warming and starting controlling the climate.

Some increase in CO2 from 280 ppm was probably a good thing to slow down the long term cooling trend but the "good" part of it probably stopped somewhere before 350 ppm. We are now over 400 ppm.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[riverat1]

It does seem a bit strange that the late 1800's are most definitely the ideal global temperature we should achieve for peace and love and whatever. Who's to say a slightly warmer planet won't have as many benefits as downsides?

BUT, we do know full well that crops will grow, oceans will harbor life, and weather phenomenon will be mostly survivable at those temperatures, so why mess with a good thing? I'm hardly on the doom and gloom side, but this just doesn't seem like something you mess with willy nilly because 'fuck it, why not.'

The issue isn't so much that the temperature is changing but the rate of the change. If the temperature change we're likely to see up to 2100 were instead spread out over 2,000 years it wouldn't be that much of a problem. Everything would have a chance of adapting at more normal rates. The current rate makes adaption difficult for many organisms.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[tbannist]

I suppose I was picturing the heads of some folks exploding when they realized they'd have to be skeptical of NASA's science in order to prove there was a consensus no one is supposed to be skeptical about anymore...

No one's head exploded because that's the not the consensus people are talking about. You're referencing "a NASA scientist" who admitted that there isn't a consensus on the reasons for ice gain in the Antarctic and that Antarctic ice models still need improvement, but you seem to have confused that with the consensus that Global Warming is real, is happening, and is primarily caused by human activity and the general Models of the climate system (although there is plenty of room for improvement, there as well, those aren't the models he was talking about).

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[KeensMustard]

Strange, because your wording would imply that you thought that there was some reason to be skeptical of the science e.g:

Don't try telling me about the Arctic, either. We wouldn't want to be skeptical of the scientists, right? - but I take you at your word, that you are unable to think of any reason that we should be skeptical of the science.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Sardaukar86]

Translation: Oops, me, I think I'll just pretend to be someone totally unrelated, those FOOLS that frequent this silly site WON'T EVEN KNOW due to my INCREDIBLE GENIUS. APK forever, hoo-ah! Hoo-ah!

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dave420]

Those are not the trends, and what do you mean by "ice mass"? Sea ice or land ice? The two mean radically different things for global warming.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dave420]

Land which has been scraped clean by glaciers or which will turn into marshes when the ice melts, which has no infrastructure in place for farming, and the inhabitants no experience of farming.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dave420]

You seem to be rather confused... You can listen to NASA all you want, but if you don't understand what they're saying, you'll keep on trotting out nonsense for people to read, all the while hurting your reputation...

Plus relying on one study isn't the most rational thing for one to do. You really are not helping yourself with these statements.

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dywolf]

no, the arctic is not rebounding.

2013, 2014, and 2015 minimum ice extents were all higher than 2012...but that does not mean it is rebounding, especially when they are still part of a continuing downward trend as shown when graphed:

The 10 lowest minimums have all occurred in the last 11 years.
This year, 2015 is the 4th lowest minimum on record.
The lowest is 2012.
2015's MAXIMUM ice extent is also the lowest maximum on record.

In order the lowest minimums are:
1st: 2012
2nd: 2007
3rd: 2011
4th: 2015
5th: 2008

Relevant graphs to help you picture it:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i...
http://skepticalscience.com//p...

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dywolf]

Neither the Arctic ice extent (area), nor volume, is roughly equal to the mean of the last few decades.
I really don't get what either of you is arguing, you're both making false claims.

The infamous death spiral graph, showing monthly volume from 1979 to 2015:
http://skepticalscience.com//p...

Summer ice extent from July to September (the minimum period) from 1870 to 2014 (as mention above, 2015 is the 4th lowest extent, in between 2011 and 2008):
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i...

Average monthly extent from 1979 to 2015:
https://polarbearscience.files...

ice volume trend graph 1979-2014:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/...

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dywolf]

You're assuming that arctic ice is freshwater.
It is not. Sea ice is by definition sea (salt) water.

Besides, I don't see the relevance of the point you're trying to make.
but whether the ice is fresh or sea water hasn't a lot to do with the discussion.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dywolf]

this needs modded up

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dywolf]

nasa is not saying what you think they are saying.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[LynnwoodRooster]

Where in the NASA article does it say the total ice volume in Antarctica is decreasing? The rate of increase is slowing - but it's been adding ice for the last 10,000 years, and over the last 23 years is averaging nearly 100 billion tons of ice increase a year. So if I"m not understanding, how about explaining rather than just insulting?

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dywolf]

You're assuming that arctic ice is freshwater.
It is not. Sea ice, which is ice that has formed at sea and not calved off a land based ice sheet, is by definition sea (salt) water.

All of the Arctic sea ice, and the majority of Antarctic sea ice, is thus made of frozen sea water.

Besides, I don't see the relevance of the point you're trying to make.
but whether the ice is fresh or sea water hasn't a lot to do with the discussion.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dywolf]

even the author of the nasa paper is complaining that deniers are misstating what his study actually says:
http://mediamatters.org/resear...

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dywolf]

no the total locked up is not a at a new record.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[angel'o'sphere]

There was a brief period in the beginning of the summer 2015, where the area of ice in the antarctics was a little bit above the mean of the last decades.
And that spured the idea of new 'records' (which is wrong on all accounts, as a little bit more than the mean, can hardly be a record) ... I'm just to lazy to debunk an idiot by digging out a lot of links.

So thank you for your links ;)

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Coren22]

Thank you for the explanation. I was asking if they were reversed because it is counter intuitive, I had always thought that the land ice in Antarctica was so much more ice than contained in the arctic.

I am with dywolf here, this deserves a upmod.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Coren22]

The point is that there are particular corporations that the democrats love to rail at, while they protect other corporations that are not paying taxes. At least the energy companies are paying taxes while producing something that is in high demand.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Coren22]

It was meant as a joke, obviously the land that becomes available isn't equal to all the land being flooded like all of Florida being underwater in the near future.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[riverat1]

Thank you for the explanation. I was asking if they were reversed because it is counter intuitive, I had always thought that the land ice in Antarctica was so much more ice than contained in the arctic.

I am with dywolf here, this deserves a upmod.

Yes, the Antarctic ice sheet is around 26.5 million km^3 while the Greenland ice sheet is only 2.85 million km^3. But Greenland stretches from about 59N to 83N but Antarctica is mostly from 66S to 90S. Also Antarctica has ocean currents and winds that circle the continent that tend to cut it off more from the rest of the climate as compared to Greenland. So Greenland is currently losing more ice mass than Antarctica but there is nearly 10 times as much ice to lose in Antarctica.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[amicusNYCL]

OK, well, then that's a pretty stupid fucking point. I'm not one of "the democrats", so hopefully you'll give me a pass if I think everyone should be paying taxes and that we should stop giving subsidies to companies making record profits, regardless of their industry and their product.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[david_thornley]

It'll be warmer. Whether it'll be good for farming is another matter.

The day-night changes are more extreme as you go north. I don't know how the soil compares. I don't know what the rainfall is going to be. The ecology is going to be changing for a long time.

We'll almost certainly get more food out of Canada and Russia, but whether that makes up for what we lose is another very large question.

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[david_thornley]

Rebounding? It's still a lot lower than when I was a kid. You've found out that climate effects are not necessarily monotonic, nothing more than that.

Given randomness, which does exist and has to be accounted for, a record low is likely to be followed by a higher value.

If Arctic ice mostly increases over a couple of decades, you've got a point. Year-to-year variation does not constitute a point.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[david_thornley]

You can't be sure of anything useful from one scientific paper. What we know is that there's discrepancies in the measurements, and scientists will have to figure out why they're getting the discrepancies and what's actually happening.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[david_thornley]

Speaking as one who almost always votes Democrat, why would I approve of Hollywood accounting? I rarely complain about it because it's far down on my list of important issues, but please don't assume I approve of that sort of thing.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dywolf]

First off, one paper doesn't immediately invalidate everything that came before it.
Secondly, no, I don't think you actually understood the paper or its point, but rather are projecting from it what you want to hear.

NASA Scientist Warned Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study -- That's Exactly What They Did

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[KeensMustard]

"crippling our society?" Stop being so alarmist

Re: And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off APK.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[_Sharp'r_]

These are not the models he's talking about

Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me, old man... :)

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[gzuckier]

From the NASA article:

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

So there are some losses, but the accumulation is still growing faster. That's straight from NASA. How you debunk that without completely ignoring their results is a mystery to me. But you seem determined to do so! No thanks, I'll take NASA's statement and study that say ice volume is actually accumulating. Slower, but still accumulating overall.

Uh, no. In addition to the quote above from your site, there follows this "But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.” i.e. the longterm trend, since 10,000 years ago has been upward, but the slope of that upwards trend is growing smaller, and in the near future will become negative; according to the site you are apparently relying on to "debunk" AGW. that is not "growing faster", according to neither of those paragraphs; nor anything else in the article.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[gzuckier]

Often warming temperatures equals increasing precipitation due to the warmer air holding more moisture. In the case of the Antarctic, a continent that is mostly desert, the expectation should be more snowfall which can lead to more ice. Kind of surprised that snowfall is considered consistent. And of course if snowfall is increasing due to warming (numbers pulled from my ass and exaggerated) from -40 to -10, then the expectation should be more ice buildup.

Precisely. if the antarctic is colder than the arctic; and if both warm more or less equally; then ice will relocate from the arctic to the antarctic. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[gzuckier]

So lets do something about it.

Unless doing something about it is worse than doing nothing about it - such as crippling your society in order to make a barely measurable change in CO2 emissions. There is a lot of profoundly bad policy aimed at mitigating global warming.

That's the same argument that was made against abolishing slavery, the major source of both energy and wealth in the mid 1800s in the US. What would be the good of helping those people who were slaves, if they and the rest of the US were thereby plunged into poverty on an international scale? Well, somehow we managed to luck out, anyway.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[gzuckier]

It does seem a bit strange that the late 1800's are most definitely the ideal global temperature we should achieve for peace and love and whatever. Who's to say a slightly warmer planet won't have as many benefits as downsides? BUT, we do know full well that crops will grow, oceans will harbor life, and weather phenomenon will be mostly survivable at those temperatures, so why mess with a good thing? I'm hardly on the doom and gloom side, but this just doesn't seem like something you mess with willy nilly because 'fuck it, why not.'

It does seem a bit strange that the ideal global temperature we should achieve for peace and love and whatever should be, not that at which we and our society and civilization evolved; but rather, that which would occur as a byproduct of burning all the fossil fuel we can as fast as possible. Lucky!!

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[gzuckier]

Just think of all the land in Canada and Russia that will be opened up to farming.

Mushrooms, maybe. Green plants tend to be optimized for a particular latitude, which includes both temperature range and hours of daylight, correlated. While the thawing lands of Canada and Russia consist of frozen bogs, which when thawed will rot nicely and provide a new Golden Age, but for fungi.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[LynnwoodRooster]

So, we agree that Antarctica is still accumulating ice as of today. Tomorrow? That might be different. But today - as originally claimed - it's still accumulating ice.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[stoatwblr]

"Sea ice, which is ice that has formed at sea and not calved off a land based ice sheet, is by definition sea (salt) water."

Not necessarily true in the Antarctic.

There is so much freshwater (as in actual water, not glacial ice) flowing off the continent that in many areas it's forming a freshwater layer over the top of denser seawater and freezing at much higher temperatures than the underlaying saltwater does.

So in that case, it's sea ice, but it's not necessary saline.

It also means that antarctic winter sea ice cover can _simultaneously_ be warmer AND icier than it was - and don't forget that 1km^3 of land-based ice can be 1000km^2 of sea-ice @1m thickness.

This freshwater layer is showing up around western greenland too - too far south to form pack ice, but in such a location that it can seriously bugger up the labradour current plus the gulf stream. This could easily lead to a situation where northern europe ends cooling by 3-5C ("mini ice age") whilst global averages contnue to climb.

5 years ago the UK had a _lot_ of snow(*) because of various wind patterns(**). The usual suspects started raving on about how this is proof that global warming is a myth. The fact that at the same time England was 2-3C cooler than usual, Siberia and Northern Canada were experiencing temperatures 20-30C warmer than usual (over an area 100 times the size of the UK) was quite conveniently ignored.

(*) Relatively speaking. I had 14 inches which lasted for 12 days when the usual for the area is 1-2 inches gone within 48 hours once a year (twice if you're lucky).

(**) England normally only gets snow if the wind is coming from the northeast and "not too hot, not too cold", which means that the ideal temp for lots of snow is -4C up to 2C. Above/below that you get rain or simple frozen conditions respectively.

Re:And what if we were just colder 160 years ago

[dave420]

I do apologise! I don't know if it's a good or bad thing that jokes have been used as real arguments in this topic :) Apart from APK, of course ;)

Gassholes

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because of all you gas-guzzler driving pukes out there with your fucking lifted trucks and humvees and generators powering your cabins in the woods.
You know who climate changes hurts most? The marginalized, women and minorities.
*YOU DON'T NEED A CAR!* Get that through your thick skulls.

Re:Gassholes

[ickleberry]

Thought the cabins in the woods were powered mostly by solar panels and the odd wind turbine now?

Re:Gassholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I haven't ever been in the woods, but I imagine that's what cabin-dwellers do.
Burn gas in between sessions of shooting Bambi's mother.

Re:Gassholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if a total troll or not; but there are all kinds of people up there for all kinds of reasons. Some are good and some are bad, but IMHO some population in the woods is better than none. Why? Because if nobody legally populates it, somebody will illegally populate it. That's why this notion of "wilderness" is misguided in some cases, just as absolute prohibition of hunting can be misguided. Turning the resource from an asset into a liability can actually harm the resource you intend to protect.

Thus, properly controlled hunts can actually be beneficial for a species, and some dwelling in "wilderness" areas can be beneficial for the land. If nobody lives on the land, nobody cares about it... except poachers, growers, etc. The land becomes a liability because the government has to go out and "protect" it. Instead of collecting taxes from legal owners who usually care about the land and do interesting things, they spend taxes and build the occasional drab government building while fighting a losing battle against poachers.

So getting back on topic, there are legit reasons to be out there, government or not, and you need a serious vehicle with clearance and 4WD unless you want to build a good road, which radical greens don't want to do either.

Re:Gassholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Burn gas in between sessions of shooting Bambi's mother.

At least get it right, burn gas, sure, but you shoot Bambi's father

Re:Gassholes

[ickleberry]

Cabin-dwellers are evil now? I would have thought that they were the environmentally friendly types that we should all aspire to be. For one, their cabins are made from local materials, if they hunt and grow veg they aren't dependent on industrial and tractor-based food production. Even if they run an average size diesel generator for a few hours a day they probably still burn less fuel than your average stereotypical suburban 'mom' does with her SUV or people carrier going to and from Mal*Wart

Re:Gassholes

[Dr Caleb]

lol.

Gasoline is such a small part of emissions. You want a real target? Look at the meat farming industry!

A vegan driving a hummer makes far less emissions than a meat-eater driving a bicycle. ;)

Re:Gassholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you luck out and win a doe (Bambi's mother) tag or the even more coveted 'any deer' (Bambi) tag.

I know a guy who got the golden ticket, then took a fawn. Didn't have the head mounted. Fucking waste.

Re:Gassholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Thought the cabins in the woods were powered mostly by solar panels and the odd wind turbine now?

A wind turbine in the woods would be odd. I don't imagine there'd by much wind with all those trees in the way.

Re:Gassholes

[ajzimm3rman]

Yeah, like I'm going to drive a electric car with a 120 mile range.

Re:Gassholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Myth.

Re:Gassholes

[Coren22]

But I like my truck and use it for Boy Scout trips. Are you against Boys learning life skills? You monster!

Re:Gassholes

[I'm New Around Here]

I know a guy whose family will shoot a deer any time of the year. If they need more food, and don't have the funds to buy beef at the store, they go out into their property (large and heavily wooded) and get food the old fashioned way. They just don't advertise that fact. His neighbors all do the same as needed. They only do it when needed, so it's not enough to wipe out the local deer population.

Re:Gassholes

[I'm New Around Here]

Yeah, I hear those vegetable farms don't use a single drop of fuel for their tractors and harvesters. And their canning and packaging plants run on fairy dust and rainbows.

Re:Gassholes

[KGIII]

I now have two turbines, the second was put in during the late summer. I live in the woods. I'm also on the side of a mountain, when home. They're also in a clearing. But, it's still pretty woodsy. I have solar as well. I now create more power than I consume. I'm unlikely to really "break even" with upgrades and maintaining them but that's not why I did it.

The power company doesn't have to pay me for the power that I create but they do have to give me credit. I can then sell those credits or I can donate them to a local school (or charity) and write down the amount on my state tax bill. It's not that much of a clearing either but the trees will never get tall and there's an obscene amount of wind power on the side of the mountain. They're up above my place so they're at a higher elevation.

There's a solar and wind guy down in Starks, does a good job and took care of the whole process for me. A portion of my basement is now its own separate room and houses some racks full of batteries and all of the equipment is in there. I'm a bit tired or I'd go through my back posts. I've shared pics of the partial setup in the past.

My vehicles are, for the most part, efficient for what I do. I don't own a Prius or anything but I do plan on picking up the new model of Tesla that has a 500 mile range. That will be enough to get me to town and back as well as remain heated during a crisis involving snow or ice - should I get caught in a squall or blizzard and be taken by surprise. It happens up there.

It's not looking likely that I'll be home at all this winter. So I won't truly be able to say that I have enough power for winter consumption but I should based on prior history. Obviously, I've still got a mains connection. Yes, I do have diesel backup and a permitted underground storage tank. However, I'm not really some ecological disaster that is hell bent on destroying Mother Nature. I'm kind of fond of her, that's why I moved there.

I just figured some reality from someone who actually does live in the woods might be pertinent. I'm pretty sure that the OP, up the thread, was just trolling. Ah well, I didn't have anything better to do.

Re:Gassholes

[TheTurtlesMoves]

And they don't use Fertilizer. they don't use a drop. Or pesticides and herbicides.... Yep carbon neutral they are. It all the cows fault.

Re:Gassholes

[Dr Caleb]

Troll harder, you haven't mastered it yet.

Vegetables don't release 200 - 500 litres of methane a day. And why feed 20 calories of grains to a chicken to get 1 calorie of meat, when you can just eat the grain? Then you have 20 times more land to produce food for people, and we can stop clearcutting a major carbon sink like the rainforest and keep that carbon in place too.

Reality sucks, don't it? ;)

Re:Gassholes

[uninformedLuddite]

Does this mean we can now start talking about the evils of gay scoutmasters? The AGW stuff is getting a bit boring.

Re:Gassholes

[I'm New Around Here]

Why use 1 gallon of water for one itty bitty almond to make almond milk, when cows give much more milk for the same usage?

Typical liberal thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

Scare the proletariat into a mad froth and use it to grab more centralized government. You know what else emits greenhouse gases? Guns. Liberals want to take your guns because they emit greenhouse gases. Once they have your guns, you know what else produces greenhouse gases? Breathing. They will come for your children. They hate that you didn't abort your children. So much hate.

Re:Typical liberal thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh lordy. First, there were weeks of similar posts baiting republicans/conservatives, now you guys have flipped over to baiting democrats/liberals. Anyone who takes any of these posts seriously in an idiot. Thanks for the laugh, though.

Re: Typical liberal thinking

[rickb928]

Everything that doesn't bait Republicans and Conservatives does, by default, bait liberals, Democrats, and all others.

Re:Typical liberal thinking

[Speck'sBacon]

I don't take the specifics of the post seriously, but the idea that this fear-mongering in the press about global warming is really a power grab by statists at the national and international levels isn't new. By and large, who is paying for the studies that indicate mankind is largely responsible for changes in climate? Who stands to gain from the public policy changes (i.e. increased regulations, carbon taxes, etc) implied to be necessary to stem the tide of these changes? The answer to both questions is government. It increases their power over both commerce, and over ordinary people's lives. The more influence they have, the more influence they have to peddle. Corporations also pay for their own studies, and I should say their results should be looked at just as critically. My point in focusing on government in this case is because I too often see cognitive dissonance regarding "following the money," with people only doing so when private firms/individuals are involved, but never governments.

Re:Typical liberal thinking

[XXongo]

I don't take the specifics of the post seriously, but the idea that this fear-mongering in the press about global warming is really a power grab by statists at the national and international levels isn't new.

It isn't new, but "this is a conspiracy by statists to grab more power" is a conspiracy theory that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Saying "be afraid of terrorists! We need to put policemen armed with tanks and bazookas in every schoolroom, and strip search everybody who ever gets on an airplane"-- now that's a power grab. Saying "we need to make changes in the regulatory system that will, over the course of decades, change the distribution of new power systems and will encourage more efficient use of energy" really is not-- that's pretty much the most incompetent "power grab" ever.

The belief that there are "statists" out there who are trying to increase the power of government not for any particular reason, but just to increase the government, is really quite silly. There are many many people out there who want to use the power of government to accomplish specific goals-- both left and right-- and those can be frightening. But the idea that there are statists out there who simply want governments to have more power for no reason at all other than power: no, that's a boogeyman. Not real.

...My point in focusing on government in this case is because I too often see cognitive dissonance regarding "following the money," with people only doing so when private firms/individuals are involved, but never governments.

Because the "follow the money" trail is very clear when looking at climate change deniers: they are massively funded by fossil-fuel corporations or by lobbying organizations which are funded by fossil fuel corporations, and the fossil fuel industry is literally a multi-trillion dollar industry. It's easy to follow the money: you can see who's paying, you can see who they are paying, and you can see what they are asking for and why they want it. It's so not-secret an agenda that you can find the actual memos written by the American Petroleum Institute laying out their strategy.

But the "follow the money" trail just peters out when looking at climate scientists. They're funded by a range of government agencies, true, ranging from NASA to NOAA to the Max-Planck Institut für Aeronomie to the Japanese Meteorological agency, but now you're telling me that they all have the same secret agenda... to do what, exactly? Really, the Max-Planck Institut für Aeronomie does not have a secret desire to increase the amount of regulations in the world. Even if the German government somehow did have this goal... how do they it tell the Max-Planck Institut? Memos saying "make sure that the scientists you fund are instructed to only give results saying climate change is real?" Do you really think that dozens of scientific agencies in as many countries are all going to be getting this memo (why? From who?) and not a single person is going to leak it?

You can try to follow the money... but when you do, there just isn't anywhere it goes. And then, how exactly do the thousands of scientist get their instructions?

There are indeed a lot of people who want to influence government-- plenty of them. But they all do so to anticipate actual, tangible benefits.

Re:Typical liberal thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

The British Met Office has no stake in your stupid childish US politics. You go and vote for Ben Carson if you like. It's still going to get hotter.

Re:Typical liberal thinking

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

It isn't new, but "this is a conspiracy by statists to grab more power" is a conspiracy theory that doesn't make a lick of sense.

I don't see anybody alleging a "conspiracy"; "conspiracy" requires secrecy and deception. I'm sure scientists and politicians promoting action on AGW truly believe what they are saying, and they aren't secret about it. But that doesn't make them right.

You can try to follow the money... but when you do, there just isn't anywhere it goes. And then, how exactly do the thousands of scientist get their instructions?

Where did all the scientists and politicians who promoted scientific racism, eugenics, and segregation get their instructions from? Nowhere. These aren't "conspiracies", they are social and political malfunctions. Scientists and politicians want power and money. A simple way of getting power and money is to identify a crisis and offer a solution to it. Many potential crises don't make it, but some take off due to simple, self-organizing, positive feedback: the more scientists and politicians believe in some crises or problem, the more people get rewarded for adopting the same beliefs.

Re:Typical liberal thinking

[david_thornley]

The scientists aren't necessarily right, but that's the way to bet, and they're a whole lot likelier to be correct than you are. They've studied the issue a great deal.

The idea of creating a crisis to profit by it is political, not scientific. The idea of wanting power is political, not scientific. It isn't true in politics, but the more scientists believe in some phenomenon, the greater the reputation reward will be for disproving it.

If you want to know what's really going on, pay little attention to the politicians and try to avoid relying on the media. Look for what the real scientists are saying.

Re:Typical liberal thinking

[Agripa]

But the "follow the money" trail just peters out when looking at climate scientists. They're funded by a range of government agencies, true, ranging from NASA to NOAA to the Max-Planck Institut für Aeronomie to the Japanese Meteorological agency, but now you're telling me that they all have the same secret agenda... to do what, exactly? Really, the Max-Planck Institut für Aeronomie does not have a secret desire to increase the amount of regulations in the world. Even if the German government somehow did have this goal... how do they it tell the Max-Planck Institut? Memos saying "make sure that the scientists you fund are instructed to only give results saying climate change is real?" Do you really think that dozens of scientific agencies in as many countries are all going to be getting this memo (why? From who?) and not a single person is going to leak it?

Do you mean like why the Shuttle might be launched despite protests from the technical people? Real power is having people carry out your wishes without having to order them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Typical liberal thinking

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The scientists aren't necessarily right, but that's the way to bet, and they're a whole lot likelier to be correct than you are. They've studied the issue a great deal.

I am stipulating that the scientists are right on the science: the degree of sea level rise and temperature increase. They also furnish economic estimates of costs. And based on their estimates there is no justification for government action on climate change.

If you want to know what's really going on, pay little attention to the politicians and try to avoid relying on the media. Look for what the real scientists are saying.

That is exactly what I'm doing, which is why I concluded that the media and politicians are fabricating a crisis for which there is no scientific basis.

Re:Typical liberal thinking

[dave420]

None of that has anything to do with the findings. It's one massive ad hominem applied to the results.

It doesn't matter if the NWO published a PDF outlining their power grab through climate change - it doesn't change the science one iota.

The amount of money available for anyone who can poke holes in this thing is amazingly massive - the fact no-one has been able to do so yet speaks volumes.

Re:Typical liberal thinking

[dave420]

And your conclusions are patently false, which is fine.

Re:Typical liberal thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Typical liberal thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Typical liberal thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

And your conclusions are patently false, which is fine.

When you're make a coherent, rational, fact-based argument, I'll be happy to listen.

Right now, you're just babbling.

Why should we care about faked data?

[SuperKendall]

HadCRUT? You mean the data set that is full of glaring errors and manipulated data?

Climate alarmists, if you want to continue to frighten children and the mentally slow with your tales of woe, please at least to to source data people not so obviously desperate to craft a scary fairy-tale.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[gstoddart]

You do realize all of that climate gate conspiracy bullshit has been discredited and that you're linking to something from 2009, right? ALL of that drivel which claimed to show manipulation was pretty much bullshit.

So either you like to trot this out because you haven't kept up to date, or you know damned well you're posting links to stale information which has been discredited.

Because, really, a Telegraph article from 2009 about how the Russians have confirmed that climate data was manipulated? That's about the least quality source of information you could pick.

In which case I assume you know you're full of shit. If you don't, well, you should fix that.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[tmosley]

Just saying it's discredited doesn't make it discredited, however much you want to pretend like your faith is science.

Still waiting for low lying islands to go underwater. Let that happen, then I will give your ideas a second look. I don't think it will. You know, that or any of the other idiotic claims you people have made over the years (ice-free north pole, or a series of hurricane swarms somewhere/everywhere).

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[SuperKendall]

You do realize your own link has long been discredited, by the very presence of scores of high-level scientists who oppose your ill-informed alarmism?

I'm quite sure Freeman Dyson knows more about this than you do, or any of the others in your cult.

That's the last I'll say on the matter since you can only come up with a single pathetic link to make what you think is a point, but only shows how unreasonable and out of touch your cult has become.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[Anonymous Coward]

ROFLMAO the sad thing is his vote counts

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell, all the "investigations" of the ClimateGate situation were whitewashes. "The University investigated its own global warming researchers and concluded that they are doing a great job!"

And I keep reading articles like this one where it shows that NOAA has stealth-edited the temperature data, and all the old data got pushed down and all the new data got pushed up. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaancdcs-new-pause-buster-paper-a-laughable-attempt-to-create-warming-by-adjusting-past-data/

Can you find me anyone prominent in the global warming community who spoke out in 2004 against the prediction that sea level rise would start drowning island countries by 2010? It's hard for me to take this stuff seriously when the most outrageous claims are never challenged, and skeptical people are hounded the way the Inquisition hounded heretics, and the computer models are all outside their 95% confidence intervals and yet everyone is doubling down on the conclusions from the models.

If you want me to take global warming seriously, start having all the global warming conferences by teleconference over the Internet to save on CO2 emissions (instead of having everyone fly to Tahiti or wherever) and start having the top guys all endorse nuclear power.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[amicusNYCL]

Still waiting for low lying islands to go underwater. Let that happen, then I will give your ideas a second look.

That's the attitude that keeps any meaningful change from happening. Let the mass disasters start to happen, then we'll try to figure out a solution, because it definitely won't be too late by then and fuck all of the people living near sea level anyway. Once the refugees are knocking on your door, maybe you'll give a shit then, right? Why bother to improve the energy economy of the entire planet unless there is a specific need to do it immediately, right? God forbid the fossil fuel companies wouldn't be able to post record profits for another year, when there is no more coal or oil in the ground then we can start talking about deploying things like solar and wind power. Let's use up everything we possibly can, and then start figuring out what to do next. No fucking need to try and plan for the future here, because we're all a bunch of fucking idiots just out to consume everything we possibly can.

If an asteroid was going to hit the planet in 10 years I bet you would wait until you could see it in the sky before you start thinking about if we should do anything.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of reasoning is this?

Who taught you to throw in buzzwords like "discredited", "pathetic", and "cult"? Obviously someone good at manipulative rhetoric and terrible with actual argumentation.

Dyson questions the climate projections, which everyone should be doing.

Yes.

You have taken that small factoid and spun an entire delusional fantasy around it.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[tmosley]

You're talking about it as if there isn't any cost. Do you have ANY idea how many people will starve TO DEATH if fuel becomes more expensive? Is it really worth murdering 50 million Africans in the most horrible way possible to prevent a disaster that might only be real in your mind?

Another alarmist like you used the asteroid analogy. I came back with this: you predicted the path that would intersect with Earth. We observed the area where it should have been at a given time and found nothing was there. Does that modify your claim that we will be hit? If so, you are a scientist, if not, then you are a religion. Guess what climate alarmists do every time one of their predictions fail?

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[danbert8]

And I bet you'd complain if he asked to see the calculations proving said asteroid was going to hit earth.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[amicusNYCL]

You're talking about it as if there isn't any cost. Do you have ANY idea how many people will starve TO DEATH if fuel becomes more expensive? Is it really worth murdering 50 million Africans in the most horrible way possible to prevent a disaster that might only be real in your mind?

And people who believe that CO2 causes temperatures to rise are the alarmists. Right.

Citigroup released a report not long ago which showed that investing in renewable energy was the more profitable way forward. In other words, that it is actually more expensive to keep using fossil fuels. Also consider this: if much of the civilized world stops using fossil fuels to generate power, will you expect the price of fuel oil to go up or down?

And, how about this: if solar power becomes a cheap reality, what is that going to do for the quality of life of those 50 million Africans?

Here's another question for you: can we continue to use fossil fuels indefinitely? If not, what is the appropriate time to begin moving to alternatives? That time obviously isn't now, according to you, so what metrics do we need to hit before it would be a good idea to start heading in the direction of renewable energy?

I came back with this: you predicted the path that would intersect with Earth. We observed the area where it should have been at a given time and found nothing was there.

So your "come back" to the hypothetical that an asteroid would hit us is to state that hey, new data shows it's not going to hit us. OK. Fantastic come back.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[cbeaudry]

Are you seriously posting with a link to desmogblog.com ? A propaganda site founded by a PR firm and expert from Canada, who is on the board of directors of the Suzuki foundation?

An article writen by Kenvin Grandia and green activist and political expert manipulator in that area.

Really?

You need to vet your "debunking" much more carefully before you go spreading it all over the place.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[Sir_Eptishous]

Of course he knows its discredited.

When clowns like that post those FUD articles they know that your local libertarian will eat it up.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize your link has been discredited by the very link to Wikipedia? Where anyone can say anything.

Re: Why should we care about faked data?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Fake data isn't even an actual concern - the error bars in the Chinese emissions data are bigger than the amount of emissions necessary to trigger warming or not trigger of warming according to the current AGM models. The models suck, the data sucks - as usual the same advice applies: don't panic.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[Coren22]

http://www.bbc.com/news/scienc...

Now, are you willing to listen?

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty obvious that this is "scare-mongering" from the Met Office, in preparation for the upcoming climate talks in Paris, where a lot of pressure will be applied to the attending nations to share their wealth with the 3rd world, to foster develop (and pollution) of the 3rd world. Ostensibly to "save humanity" from various fiery or watery disasters. But the real purpose is just plain old socialist extortion.

Yes, 'global warming is real'. No denials here. It has been slowly warming since the last Ice Last and about 1C since 1880. But the 'global warming scare is a fraud'. Nothing to get excited about, even with "scary" predictions of doom that we won't be able to verify until 2100. (Then it will be "Oh, I guess we were wrong about all that climate nonsense. Anyway thanks for the fish and money").

As a matter of fact, though, all of the predictions for high temps by now, using previous climate "models" have failed. And lately warming has inexplicably 'paused' even while CO2 continually rises (not supposed to happen according to the "models" Even the Antarctic Ice is getting more massive and the Arctic ice is on a slow rebound.

So, again, "global warming is real", but these "global warming scares are fraud".

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[XXongo]

As far as I can tell, all the "investigations" of the ClimateGate situation were whitewashes.

Since your definition for "whitewash" is "detailed investigation found nothing wrong".

"The University investigated its own global warming researchers and concluded that they are doing a great job!"

There were eight independent investigations of the so-called "climategate", not including the investigation by the university itself. These ranged from the British House of Commons all the way across the ocean to the National Science Foundation. None of them found any wrongdoing other than failures to adequately explain their results.

There's nothing found, because there really was nothing there to be found. But eight investigations weren't enough, apparently.

And I keep reading articles like this one where it shows that NOAA has stealth-edited the temperature data, and all the old data got pushed down and all the new data got pushed up.

Getting progressively better models and more accurate data sets is what science does. That's how science works. You would worry if they didn't get better data set.

In this case, however, the updated NOAA data made minor changes in the shape of the curve but in no way changed the actual result: the average temperature was increasing in the old data, and it's still increasing in the revised data.

Can you find me anyone prominent in the global warming community who spoke out in 2004 against the prediction that sea level rise would start drowning island countries by 2010?

No one spoke out against this because it didn't exist. There was no prediction by scientists that island countries would drown by 2010. The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change made a prediction in 2007 that conservative estimates suggest that global sea level will reach increase "8 to 16 inches above 1990 levels" by 2090, is that what you're thinking of? Some of the news reports (such as the New York Times quoted that as "by the end of the century" which sometimes gets written as "by 2100". That kind of looks like "by 2010", if you squint at it.

It's hard for me to take this stuff seriously when the most outrageous claims are never challenged

Outrageous claims should be challenged... but far too many of these "outrageous" claims don't actually exist, except in the minds of self-proclaimed skeptics who never try to actually track them down to original sources.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[riverat1]

And I keep reading articles like this one where it shows that NOAA has stealth-edited the temperature data, ...

Nothing stealth about it. You just have to read the original papers about it. They're not that hard to find. For example "THE U.S. HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK MONTHLY TEMPERATURE DATA, VERSION 2" which gives an overview of adjustments that were made. You can find references at the end if you want to dig deeper.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[tmosley]

"And people who believe that CO2 causes temperatures to rise are the alarmists. Right." They are ignoramuses who believe what they are told, and have never done a physical chemistry calculation before. CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas relative to Earth's current atmosphere. It has slightly lower heat capacity than the average atmospheric component.

"In other words, that it is actually more expensive to keep using fossil fuels."

No, that means it is more profitable for big banks and other moochers to take government handouts based off of terrible theory and fake data than it is to provide goods and services that are actually desired by the people.

"And, how about this: if solar power becomes a cheap reality, what is that going to do for the quality of life of those 50 million Africans?"

You mean 100% of the Africans who survived the famine caused by the loss of fossil fuel enabled fertilizers? Because that is a few hundred million fewer Africans than exist today. Also quite a few fewer asians, and even a lot fewer white people, including your grandparents who starved to death when AGW "remediation" efforts bankrupted all western countries to the point they could no longer pay pensions and thus allowed all the elderly to die. Something we are disturbingly close to already without idiotic liberals destroying our economy by forbidding the use of carbon based fuels.

"Here's another question for you: can we continue to use fossil fuels indefinitely?"

When was the right time to stop using charcoal to smelt steel? Or to use whale oil to light lamps? When the market dictates we change. Don't pull peak oil out of your ass on me boy. I know economics and peak theory about 1000x better than you do, and will crush you if you try.

"new data shows it's not going to hit us"

This is why you are not a scientist, but a cult follower. Your leaders continuously proclaim impending doom, and when the dates come and go, you continue to believe. Fucking stupid.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[dave420]

I can't believe someone wrote that for people to see, expecting to make some sort of a point apart from "I am terrible at this whole science thing, but I don't like what scientists are saying, so I'll fart all over my keyboard and hope some sort of argument falls out".

Your argument isn't even internally consistent. Your descendants will laugh at you, and condemn your selfish, intentionally-uninformed laziness.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[dave420]

All you said is "I don't understand any of this". Thanks for playing.

Re: Why should we care about faked data?

[dave420]

Hint: If you are attempting to refute an entire field of science, at least try to cite a single peer-reviewed source which agrees with you. Otherwise you are indistinguishable from a scientific illiterate tilting at windmills.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re: Why should we care about faked data?

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[amicusNYCL]

You mean 100% of the Africans who survived the famine caused by the loss of fossil fuel enabled fertilizers?

Wait, now there's no fertilizer either? Why does that need to happen? Why do you think that moving our power production away from fossil fuels necessarily means that things like fertilizer have to go away? You're saying it's not possible to get rid of most of the coal and heavy oil CO2-producing power plants without also getting rid of fertilizer? What about cars? If half the vehicles on the road switch from gas to electric does that also mean that the fertilizer industry goes belly up? Why are you claiming that two things that are seemingly unrelated (power generation and fertilizer manufacture) are necessarily so intertwined that reduction in one of them necessarily leads to the elimination of the other? You're saying it's not at all possible to switch to a more renewable energy generation system without also completely destroying the fertilizer industry?

your grandparents who starved to death when AGW "remediation" efforts bankrupted all western countries to the point they could no longer pay pensions and thus allowed all the elderly to die.

And, again, you think I'M the alarmist. That is a fucking ridiculous scenario. Those efforts will not bankrupt a single country, let alone all of them. Get a grip on your fever dreams and come back to reality. See the Citigroup report for reasons why they will not bankrupt any country at all.

When was the right time to stop using charcoal to smelt steel? Or to use whale oil to light lamps? When the market dictates we change.

Ahh, the almighty free market, the one that made it so that we had to bail out the banks because they fucked up and everyone else had to pay for it rather than let them go bankrupt and let other companies who didn't make the same mistakes buy up their assets and continue forward. That free market? I've got news for you: the free market does not exist in a vacuum. It is not a sentient being, it is made of fallible and stupid people. It is composed of the kind of people who see their industry fading into oblivion and decide to spend millions or billions of dollars on politicians to artificially prop up their failing and fading empire. That's the free market you want to put so much faith in. I don't share your faith, I want to see action, not hoping that everything works out. Hope is not a strategy.

I know economics and peak theory about 1000x better than you do, and will crush you if you try.

Ooooh, you're going to "crush" me, are you? How about the reports that Exxon did their studies starting in the 70s, and that their own scientists concluded that the "greenhouse effect" (as it was called then) was caused by their own products, and then they did an about-face and put out a massive amount of marketing and PR (using those helpful fellows from the tobacco industry, no less) to spread the disinformation that their products are actually OK and not responsible for any bad things that might happen to your little planet? How about the assertion that we have so much oil currently in storage and in reserve here in the US that if we burned it all we would seriously damage the environment? You don't give a shit about that, because you believe in the "free economy (sponsored by ExxonMobile(tm))", and you think that we can go along pumping 35+ billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere year over year and it will have zero effect on anything worldwide just because you can write out a chemistry equation. Tell you what: if you can get 10% of published science papers to agree with your "theory", then maybe it deserves something other than a dismissive wave. Otherwise, at present, virtually every published and peer-reviewed paper disagrees with you. So you'll excuse me if I think you're full of shit and if I question your motives.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[Namarrgon]

Dyson himself has said that he doesn't know much about the technical details (he's a physicist, not a climatologist), only that he feels that the climate is very complicated, and that there's too much expert reliance on the models. That's fine as an opinion, but proves nothing.

Of your linked list, just looking through the names shows mostly qualifications in physics, geophysics, paleogeophysics, chemistry, botany, ecology, geology, biogeography - and the ex-Greenpeace guy. Compare that to the hundreds of actual, practicing climatologists who contributed their data to the IPCC reports, and the thousands more who have published studies explicitly or implicitly confirming climate change.

There's no alarmism there, only reams of scientific evidence showing that the earth IS warming, and will in all likelihood continue warming at even faster rates (as it has been doing for 150 years). There are also numerous studies demonstrating that, unchecked, this will be very expensive for us to adapt to (those that can).

What we DO about that is an entirely separate question. "Alarmism" could certainly apply to some proposed responses (mostly to the wilder, straw-man suggestions like "destroy the economy"), but there are also plenty of sane, well-reasoned proposals that will have a long-term net benefit to the economy, even without considering the avoided costs of climate change adaption. I leave it to the political debate as to which to choose - but that is entirely orthogonal to the science.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[tmosley]

" Why do you think that moving our power production away from fossil fuels necessarily means that things like fertilizer have to go away? " Uhh, perhaps because the vast majority of fertilizer comes from fossil fuel feedstock? Are you seriously this ignorant of the systems you seek to fundamentally change with massive firearm-backed force?

"Those efforts will not bankrupt a single country, let alone all of them"

Why? because you, in your living incarnation of ignorance says it is so? Do you think your opinons carry the weight of some sort of some sort of control language of the universe, such that the things you say simply BECOME true? Because they don't, and you are a fucking retard for thinking that.

"Ahh, the almighty free market, the one that made it so that we had to bail out the banks"

That wasn't the free market you god damn moron. That was George "We Had To Put a Bullet In The Brain Of The Free Market To Save It" "I'm A Communist Fascist Faggot Who Sucks Every Dick In The Universe" Bush. That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the free market, and it has doomed us all to starvation and death. Just like you will with your further anti-market GENOCIDE. Christ, do you even understand what the market is? Its human beings trading with each other. That is IT. When you intervene with guns and force, it is no longer a market, but a command economy. Stop being fucking stupid, if you can. If not, kill yourself.

"How about the reports that Exxon did their studies starting in the 70s, and that their own scientists concluded that the "greenhouse effect" (as it was called then) was caused by their own products"

Bad science then as now. CO2 was assumed to be a greenhouse gas, when in fact is is H2O that is the greeenhouse gas. H2O is a major contaminate in CO2 cylinders. Dry CO2 wasn't available when the groundwork was being laid for the CO2 as a greenhouse gas theory. AGW has become so politicized that even repeated failures of climate "scientists" predictions have failed to produce ANY change in their theory, or re-examination of their premises. It's shameful.

But in any event, I don't really care. You morons can all go kill yourselves. I'm going to upload the second the tech becomes available, and pray to fucking science that I never have to see another one of you god damned apes again for the rest of fucking eternity.

Re:Why should we care about faked data?

[amicusNYCL]

Uhh, perhaps because the vast majority of fertilizer comes from fossil fuel feedstock? Are you seriously this ignorant of the systems you seek to fundamentally change with massive firearm-backed force?

Don't be obtuse. You know perfectly well that ammonia feedstock produced from natural gas does not require the presence of a natural gas power plant. You're trying to imply that the fertilizer industry requires power plants that burn fossil fuels, and that's not true. Using fossil fuels in the manufacture of fertilizer and using them for power generation are completely different and, like I said, eliminating fossil fuels as the major fuel source for power generation does not require changes to the fertilizer industry. Hell, there is currently plenty of infrastructure in place right now to extract natural gas and send it to fertilizer plants for decades and decades (assuming that the fertilizer industry somehow stagnates completely and no new methods for manufacturing fertilizer or ammonia are conceived).

Why? because you, in your living incarnation of ignorance says it is so? Do you think your opinons carry the weight of some sort of some sort of control language of the universe, such that the things you say simply BECOME true? Because they don't, and you are a fucking retard for thinking that.

Nice strawman. Yeah, just attack me instead. There is no evidence that investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency, and in the process using them to replace or obsolete fossil fuel power generation, will result in any widespread economic harm. If existing energy companies don't want to go the way of the buggy whip then they should be the ones leading that push to make sure that they will remain viable companies. Otherwise, they're going to be passed by and nary a soul will shed a tear for the oil company executives who aren't making tens of millions of dollars a year any more. Other people will be making that money instead. The economy will still be there, it's just going to be investing in a different product.

That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of the free market

Holy fuck, an accurate thought. I'm proud of you. Yes, what we have here in the US is the exact opposite of a free market. When business leaders pour hundreds of millions of dollars into our politicians in order to pass laws that benefit their companies, what you are seeing is not the invisible hand of the market. You're seeing artificial manipulation. You're seeing that with fossil fuel companies right now. You're seeing that with the Koch brothers and people like them. The free market isn't running shit in this country, enormously wealthy corporations and individuals are the people pulling the strings. And, yes, bankers are still doing it also because no meaningful reforms have been enacted to dissuade them. Goldman Sachs is making hundreds of millions of dollars by manipulating the price of aluminum, that's the exact opposite of a free market. The same can (and does!) happen with any other commodity, especially the fossil fuels that you want the free market to control.

it has doomed us all to starvation and death. Just like you will with your further anti-market GENOCIDE.

Again, I'm the alarmist.

Christ, do you even understand what the market is? Its human beings trading with each other. That is IT.

Haha! No, that's not it. You left out the myriad of regulations imposed by politicians paid for by the corporations that benefit. THAT is the market.

CO2 was assumed to be a greenhouse gas, when in fact is is H2O that is the greeenhouse gas.

OK, I guess you're probably right about that. We have examples too, we can just look at Venus for example with its water vapor atmosphere. Wait, no, the atmosphere of Venus is 96% CO2, which supports the balmy 900 degree temperatures on the surface. But CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas

Even more ...

[PPH]

... if you let my wife fiddle with the thermostat.

Re:Even more ...

[avandesande]

... wake up in the middle of the night in a sweat because when she came home the house felt cold so she turns it up to 90.

Re:Even more ...

[PPH]

because when she came home

Implying that I let my wife out of the house.

Re:Even more ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So my wife isn't the only one who believes that setting a higher temp on the thermostat will result in the house warming up faster rather than warming at the same speed but not stopping until the higher (uncomfortably high) temperature is reached?

I've tried to explain it to her, but...

Re:Even more ...

[silentcoder]

She sneaks out to come visit me.

Re:Even more ...

[Anonymous Coward]

ZOMG! 1C! That will make it only 7-9C cooler than the last 300 million years' average!

Is 1 degree good since it didn't go down by 2 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The increase should be below 2 degrees Celsius -- so that's a good thing since it was only 1 degree Celsius?
WTF is this trying to say? Be glad it was only 1 degree C and not 3 degrees C.
Am I the only one not understanding just be reading this blurb on slashdot?
Annoying.

Re:Is 1 degree good since it didn't go down by 2 ?

[Layzej]

There is a target to keep warming below 2C as there is an expectation of large negative impacts at that level of warming. We're now 1C away from 2C. The next 1C will come much faster than the first at the current trajectory.

Re:Is 1 degree good since it didn't go down by 2 ?

[SuperKendall]

Since the current "trajectory" as measured by real satellites has been flat for over twenty years, it's pretty hard to see where you get an increase in the rate of increase from.

Or are you one of those warmist science deniers that denies actual measurements?

Re:Is 1 degree good since it didn't go down by 2 ?

[Cyberax]

Since the current "trajectory" as measured by real satellites has been flat for over twenty years

No, it hasn't.

Re:Is 1 degree good since it didn't go down by 2 ?

[amicusNYCL]

What a flat trajectory may look like.

This is nothing to worry about, though. As we know with 100% certainty, the rate of output of greenhouse gases has zero effect on the global climate. My gut tells me that we can double the amount of CO2 we release every year and see no meaningful change in any measured statistic.

Thermometer accuracy

[ickleberry]

How accurate were the thermometers they used in pre-indistrial times? Even now most temperature sensors are +/- 1 Degree C or worse. For a few quid you can get something that is accurate to +/- 0.2 degrees, provided you have it installed properly and it's only guaranteed that accuracy for the first few years after it's made (Sensirion sht75 for example)

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Cyberax]

We're talking about 1880-s - at that time they were able to measure hundredths of a degree. With regular mercury thermometers.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Another thing to consider -- many reading sites are in "concrete jungles" were it is noticeably hotter than much of the sites with native foliage.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Hardhead_7]

It doesn't matter, on average. Let's say we know thermometers are off +/- 1 degrees. Maybe because the thermometer, maybe because of human error eyeballing the mercury, whatever. However, assuming it's as likely to be over as under (and there's been extensive research on that as well), the bad readings will more or less cancel each other out.

If you only had one reading, for instance, you could really only say what the temperature was +/- 1 degrees. If you have a million, you could say you know almost for certain (just like the more times you flip a coin, the closer your distribution is likely to be 50/50). The reality is somewhere in between, so there are error bars, but they're known quantities. And as a previous poster mentioned, the thermometers of the time were surprisingly accurate anyway.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

A better question is: how did they arrive at a "Global Temperature" in pre-industrial times? Did they average all of the temperature readings all over the globe?

Even now: how do you arrive at a "Global Temperature" accurately?

Answer: you don't. You MODEL it. And these models are COMPLETE BUNK. This has been PROVEN. However, there is a big climate conference coming up and the Party is trying to rally their drones.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about 1880-s - at that time they were able to measure hundredths of a degree. With regular mercury thermometers.

If mercury itself can be made that accurate and we did it over 100 years ago, I tend to struggle why in the hell we would use anything else today.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[ClickOnThis]

The error of any single measurement is larger than the error of an average of them.

For a measurement with error sigma, the error of the mean, aka standard error,, is sigma/sqrt(n). It shrinks in proportion to the square root of the number of measurements.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about 1880-s - at that time they were able to measure hundredths of a degree. With regular mercury thermometers.

Apparently not, since that data needs to be "corrected", lest it be too warm...

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[ITRambo]

They may have been very accurate in past centuries if the individual thermometers were calibrated by comparing it to another thermometer that matched the freezing and boiling points of water precisely. Today scientific thermometers are calibrated to international standards or ASTM E2847.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Mercury is toxic (not really considered a problem back then -- see the mad hatters), and getting accuracy is dependent on the length of the thermometer.
I have a 1/4 degree accurate mercury thermometer. It's a 3 foot glass rod with about 1/2 lb of mercury in it. Fragile.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all a librul conspiracy to make our thermometers inaccurate while at the same time subsidizing Big Lightbulb CCFL makers.
Just like when they took the lead out of our gasoline to make our classic V8 Cameros knock and ping.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[kwiecmmm]

If mercury itself can be made that accurate and we did it over 100 years ago, I tend to struggle why in the hell we would use anything else today.

Mercury thermometers could break occasionally. Mercury_poisoning

And Mercury is not an abundant element to find especially because it is liquid at room temperature.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The question isn't just about the precision of individual thermometers of the time; it's about the quality of the data set from the period that's now being used to determine what the global average surface temperature was.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[phantomfive]

The problem with pre-industrial times (which I will define as "before 1900", even though by 1900 we had a lot of industry), wasn't the thermometers, it was the lack of thermometers scattered throughout the world. Now we have thousands of them all over the world, but before 1900 sometimes measuring temperature in the southern hemisphere involved scooping a bucket of water out of the ocean and sticking a thermometer in it. Measurements were scattered and questionable. It wasn't until 1950 that we really built up a good network of climate measuring stations around the world.

Of course, scientists use statistics to fill in the holes in the thermometer network, and answering the question of whether they've done a good job is beyond my ability.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[TVDinner]

It's not that the thermometers are in in concrete jungles, per se; it's that they may not have been in the past but are now which is making the rise in temperature seem higher than it might actually be.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[SillyHamster]

It doesn't matter, on average. Let's say we know thermometers are off +/- 1 degrees.

No, we don't know that the thermometer measurements have an equal distribution of bias around 0.

Tools and procedures all contribute error, and until the error is measured and controlled, measurement error exceeds what you think you know.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Cyberax]

The weather station at my university had been using a mercury thermometer made in 1930, up until 2001. It was replaced during a move, 1kg of mercury was deemed too dangerous to relocate. It was replaced by a boring digital sensor :(

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[khallow]

We're talking about 1880-s - at that time they were able to measure hundredths of a degree. With regular mercury thermometers.

Precision != accuracy.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Mercury is poisonous (and can send you mad - c/f origins of "mad hatter" regarding treatment of felt using mercury). It also accumulates in the food chain, particularly shellfish.
2. Most of the time you don't need super accuracy. For most purposes a thermometer accurate to within a few degrees is just fine.
3. Digital thermometers are easy to read both by people and (more importantly) for computers.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[WalksOnDirt]

The urban heat island effect is accounted for, as well as the change in some sites from rural to urban. The scientists compiling this data are not idiots.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Cyberax]

It's not necessary to have lots of precision for climate models. Even 1C precision is enough for analyses and anything past 0.1C in local measurements is effectively noise.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

so, basically you disregard the whole Industrial Revolution thing then?

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[phantomfive]

I don't understand how your question relates to my post.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

The error of any single measurement is larger than the error of an average of them.

For a measurement with error sigma, the error of the mean, aka standard error,, is sigma/sqrt(n). It shrinks in proportion to the square root of the number of measurements.

Does not apply to independent measurements, which temperature sampling in nature (not necessarily in a lab) is.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I am a scientist. I work with some of these scientists. That is a very bad assumption to make. There are plenty of idiots in science that are scientists.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[dave420]

It appears even understanding history and the methods used is beyond your ability, as you appear to have just made up your own versions of both.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

And the worse problem is you need to keep the glass quite thin itself, else you are not going to get a totally accurate reading.

One alternative could be to use that in calculating the actual temperature, similar to how tape measures also have a measurement value on the tape measure casing so you can use that to do inside measurements easily.
Just calculate the actual temperature as well a the thick-glass mercury thermometer temp, throw it on the case, boom.
Since it isn't going to be used to measure things quickly, it won't really matter all too much.

Of course, people suck ass, so some moron will get killed by it for sure.

Does Mercury combine with anything at room temps and make it non-toxic, just through simple exposure to it?
Mind you, trying to cover the whole container in a double glass-system that holds another liquid would be even worse for temperature accuracy and complexity. Complex things, as we know, break far easier.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[ILongForDarkness]

But it matters where you measure too. Did they measure at the same location? Did did those locations on average urbanize and pave their roads, divert their water etc? I'm very suspicious of any claims to have accuracy of a hundredth of a degree over that time period.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[ILongForDarkness]

Exactly. Also conflict of interest. If being pro-warming means 10M in funding this year and being anti means 1M you can magically forget things. There are so many variables that you can easily nudge things this way and that. For example are the measurement sites evenly distributed over the earth? if not how much weight do you assign to each point, where are the borders at geographical points, square grids etc?

I worked at a genetics lab and pretty much everything they did was to "cure cancer". I want to make a glow in the dark bug, er I mean make a tool to identify tumor cells. I want to figure out why people have a hair line, er I mean learn how to control stem cells to cure cancer etc. The "science" goes were the money is. (generally speaking where the money is is also where the good publication opportunities are too, as well as the graduates with the best creds to enter post grad positions).

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[ILongForDarkness]

For normally distributed errors.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[phantomfive]

Wow, you sure corrected me there, good job. I'm so impressed that you were able to use facts to correct my historical understanding and show how wrong I was. The power of your intellect and your use of rhetoric are godlike.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly don't understand how mercury is produced. Maybe you should look up cinnabar. The process is relatively simple, and a few youtubers have even produced mercury at home using this process. And although it is rare, it is not the rarest. It ranks 66th most rare element on earth, well ahead of both platinum (71) and gold (72). World production as of 2012 is about 1600 tonnes per year.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[dywolf]

also, it's rather hard to automate readings from a mercury thermometer. so if there's a remote sensing station in Bumfuq, Alaska, if it's a mercury thermometer, someone needs to be there to physically read it, as opposed to having it transmit it's data every 24 hours or so.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[dywolf]

know what happens when all data from sensors from urban heat islands are removed, in order to remove any possible heat island bias?

nothing.

which means that the idea that heat islands are biasing the data is a myth.

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

mercury doesn't have an USB interface.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

1) weve seen that even in the 1900s we read the thermostats so badly that we have to adjust temperatures down from the high reading crazed readers of the day by a degree! So, maybe hundreths of a degree but apparently wrongly read.

2) Since the 1700s we've been recovering from the little ice age. Nonetheless lets blame it all on CO2. Oh wait the LIA was regional, oh wait it wasn't. Jeesh, sounds like I don't know what I'm talking about.

3) Since 1945 we've poured 95% of all the CO2 we ever poured into the atmosphere but let's count the 1/2 degree before 1945 as manmade. Then we can say the temp gain is 1 degree and really scare people. That also means we don't have to explain how temps went up 1/2 degree without significant CO2 which we all know is impossible because the only thing that affects temperatures over more than 10 years is co2.

4) Let's blame all the temperature increase since 1978 on CO2 and ignore the fact that the oceans were in a +PDO phase disgorging massive heat into the atmosphere at the same time.

5) Let's predict the next 1 degree will happen really fast even though there has been no temperature increase for 20 years and co2 acts logarithmically making it harder and harder to raise temperatures.

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[dave420]

And if they proved that global warming is not happening, they'd be set for life. They'd have any lab they wanted, as many staff as they desired, and all the equipment they wished for. Not to mention a Nobel prize for good measure. Yet no one's bothered to do it...

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Thermometer accuracy

[ILongForDarkness]

There's an order of magnitude (at least) difference in funding for research on the pro-warming vs against. Hopefully you are right and however disproved man made climate change would win a Nobel prize and be rewarded as a great scientist etc. I'm more synical though. Al Gore got the nobel for a pro warming position. Would the Nobel committee be willing to give someone a prize for doing something they already rewarded on the other side? If so I don't think it could be a peace prize because presumably if nothing is happening then you aren't warning governments about impending doom/preventing resource wars.

The other thing is say the climate is changing but not due (or at least not largely do) to human activity. I could take A LOT more effort to get enough data to decouple things vs the pro side which (not exclusively for sure but often) just says "hey look the last 10 years where hotter than the 10 before it, ipso facto humans". I think it is more scary to them that it could possibly not be human activity and we could be doomed no matter what we do. Easier to blame it on SUVs and become vegan to lower your carbon foot print so you can feel like you are doing something.

Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[BoRegardless]

& who indeed measured broadly enough to be statistically good measurement?

& who determined that it was not one of many long term cyclical changes that have occurred for millions of years.

& who will pay the cost of all the government activity? Every reader of Slashdot along with everyone else.

& what if their efforts do not work?

All these stories seem to be part of the pattern to blame industrialized society, when in fact industrialized society is what has allowed worldwide societies to thrive in the last 150 years.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Cyberax]

& who indeed measured broadly enough to be statistically good measurement?

Scientists.

& who determined that it was not one of many long term cyclical changes that have occurred for millions of years.

Scientists.

& who will pay the cost of all the government activity? Every reader of Slashdot along with everyone else.

Yes, it's much better to pretend that nothing happens and then scream for the government help once your house is underwater or your tap runs dry in a drought.

& what if their efforts do not work?

And what if they do work?

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

All these stories seem to be part of the pattern to blame industrialized society, when in fact industrialized society is what has allowed worldwide societies to thrive in the last 150 years.

And this cocaine has given me a wicked rush for the past 15 minutes. I can't wait to see what the next few hours will bring!

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[angel'o'sphere]

No one is blaming 'industry' per se.
We point out, it is: CO2
Regarding to your questions, if you have not learned that stuff in school, I suggest google (I prefer it over bing, you likely either have to enter 'google.com' in your search bar and then do the 'real search' or get a friend help you to change the default search engine ;) ... )
Ok, I admit, I was in a mean mood.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists? Which Scientists? What equipment did they use. Where is their raw data collected from pre-industrial times?

Answer: there isn't any. You are lying. The claim isn't being made through measurements from the pre-industrial age. It is arrived at by MODELING. More misleading crap.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[es330td]

Yes, it's much better to pretend that nothing happens and then scream for the government help once your house is underwater or your tap runs dry in a drought.

Your Logical Fallacy Is: Strawman, Black & White

For those people that live close enough to the ocean for this to be an issue they will have decades of warning before their house can even see water, much less be "under" said water, unless you are talking about hurricanes which have been submerging dwelling since before industry existed.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[mSparks43]

actually, in pre industrial times, from the analytics I did on the data were somewhat better than now.

Back then there were thousands of stations all over the world (although missing in the poles)

now there is only a few hundred.

But since we are talking about the "global" temperature, which is highly varied, 1'C is insignificant - i.e. even back when we had 1000s of measurements a day, there still wasn't enough to get a measure of the "average" temperature of the earth with 1'C of accuracy.

For example
you still can't estimate the average temperature of mount Everest of the course of 1 year with that accuracy.

"The whole world" - No frickin chance.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

Score -1 you're going against the grain and being logical. I don't like it.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[ScentCone]

Scientists.

The same ones who, in pre-industrial society, were also quite sure that they could measure someone's criminality by feeling the lumps on their skulls? Those sorts of pre-industrial scientists?

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

All these stories seem to be part of the pattern to blame industrialized society, when in fact industrialized society is what has allowed worldwide societies to thrive in the last 150 years.

Okay okay okay. Turn off Disney, put down your bible and look at me. Look me, hey, over here. I'm about to let you in on a little secret: NO ONE is purely good. NO ONE is purely evil. I know it's convenient to think otherwise. Industrialized society is not some magic organization of billions of people that wins arguments just because everyone benefited from their work. Things can be good in one way and have bad side effects. Okay? I know it's a very difficult concept to wrap your mind around.

Those jobs dredging up tar sands that satiate some households right now via jobs? They have an effect on the future of the planet. The cause and effect relationship is well established too. It's hard to understand but you don't own the planet. You rent it. And we're shitting all over the only one we've got in the name of some cash.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[MyNameIsJohn]

Correction:

Industrialized society has thrived over the past 150 years, not all have benefited from it.

Why are you using the premise that 'industrialized societies thriving' means that they should not be blamed for the increase in pollution. Usually if one area of society thrives another area does not do so well. This does not always hold true, but in many instances it does. Then there are the arguments of what 'thriving' really is... You seem to be tossing out soundbites instead of establishing any real critiques, similar to politicians that come back to a reasonable argument with 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN' and then leave it at that...

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists.

The same ones who, in pre-industrial society, were also quite sure that they could measure someone's criminality by feeling the lumps on their skulls? Those sorts of pre-industrial scientists?

So you refuse modern medicine too, right? And you don't use the internet either right? I mean, you've just crossed disciplines to invalidate global warming with phrenology so nothing should be safe using your watertight logic, right?

OMG the blood brain barrier was broken! Too bad they belong to the human race and someone else in the human race used to believe in head lumps! Totally invalidates that, right?

You are the worst.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[IceAgeComing]

Scientists? Which Scientists? What equipment did they use. Where is their raw data collected from pre-industrial times?

Answer: there isn't any. You are lying. The claim isn't being made through measurements from the pre-industrial age. It is arrived at by MODELING. More misleading crap.

Really? Here is a graph you should really have a look at. Ice core samples show that CO2 levels have not been at current levels in the past 650,000 years.

http://climate.nasa.gov/eviden...

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Cyberax]

No, the ones that actually INVENTED the industrialized society.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[ScentCone]

So you refuse modern medicine too, right?

No, I prefer medicine as it's practiced now, not medicine as scientists from the pre-industrial period practiced it. Are you having some reading comprehension issues? I wonder how a scientist from the pre-industrial period would evaluate your intelligence, and on what they would blame your tendency to get what you read exactly backwards.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[amicusNYCL]

& what if their efforts do not work?

A better question is what happens if the models are correct and we do nothing.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Cyberax]

How about drought? Or hurricanes (that can affect cities well within a continent)? Or tropical diseases that are moving steadily north? Or skyrocketing food prices and hunger rebellions that might happen?

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

"All these stories seem to be part of the pattern to blame industrialized society, when in fact industrialized society is what has allowed worldwide societies to thrive in the last 150 years."

Obviously... Industrialized society might be the downside of societies in the coming 150 years, too, and morons like you are going to cheer it on. That's right. Moron. Climate change deniers are morons and a threat to civilization.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you refuse modern medicine too, right?

No, I prefer medicine as it's practiced now, not medicine as scientists from the pre-industrial period practiced it. Are you having some reading comprehension issues? I wonder how a scientist from the pre-industrial period would evaluate your intelligence, and on what they would blame your tendency to get what you read exactly backwards.

The scientists that recorded temperatures were not the same "scientists" that practiced phrenology you fucking moron! It's as equivalent as rejecting Newton's law of cooling because blood letting was going on in his same period or even because he thought alchemy was viable! Just because some areas were or are backwards at some time didn't make our ability to measure temperatures equally shitty! It's not a matter of reading comprehension, it's a matter of common fucking sense!

I wonder what the fucking Romans and Greeks would think of your basic logic skills and ad hominem attacks!

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[SirMasterboy]

Serious question.

I thought correlation doesn't imply causation?

How do we know for sure that the increased CO2 levels are entirely caused by humans or that the CO2 levels are the entire cause of the entire 1C increase?

How do we know that if humans didn’t exist that some other force wouldn't have or couldn't have caused climate change? I mean the climate has changed in the past just fine on it's own without human intervention.

Are we really 100% completely sure that the reason is humans and that it could have been avoided? Or is it just our best guess so far that it's the reason because we haven't found a better reason yet.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the TRILLIONS of TONS of CO2 being put into the atmosphere would have another source?

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL.

Climate scientists - temp has gone up 1C, next 1C is coming quicker.

mSparks43 - no way!

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[SirMasterboy]

Do we have the evidence that shows that the amount of CO2 increase should actually increase the temperatire by 1C?

Maybe the amount of CO2 we released only accounts for 0.5 degrees and there is some other yet undiscovered source for the other 0.5 degrees unrelated to humans and to CO2.

I'm just saying, do we have proof of this? Do we really know there is no alternative explanation for sure?

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[cbeaudry]

Droughts are natural and they havent been increasing in frequency or intensity, unless you can otherwise prove it.
Same goes for hurricanes.

Tropical disease spreading has not been linked to an increase of 0.8c, that would be rediculous.

Food prices have skyrocketed because of so called GREEN initiatives like wasting maze/corn for fuel production.

Look it up. The rise in world wide food prices is directly linked to the idiotic ethanol projects.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[cbeaudry]

Thats a logical fallacy, not a question.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[IceAgeComing]

There's an overwhelming amount of evidence. Look again at the NASA link in my original post. Many scientific observations are tied together into a coherent picture. It's spelled out there pretty clearly, in simple English, with references if you want to dig deeper. If you want to dispute what's presented there, please provide details in your reply.

Are we really 100% completely sure that the reason is humans and that it could have been avoided?

Do you have any training in science? Because it's not designed to offer indisputable proof. I can't prove indisputably that you are being serious. I don't expect to ever have 100% proof of that.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[ScentCone]

I can see you're still struggling with this. The point is that both understanding of larger concepts and specific tools and techniques in science change over time. Our ability to rely on the comparatively small number of working (and hobby) scientists from the pre-industrial period to establish a global temperature from that time, and making the absurd assertion that such a number is globally accurate to within a single degree is preposterous. Science, at the time, didn't have the global scope or systematic technical precision and record keeping to make such a simultaneously sweepingly world-wide and detailed minute conclusion, especially not to standards that we could use to make apples-to-apples comparisons to temperatures in the centuries before and since that point in time.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[IceAgeComing]

You waited 30 seconds to reply to my post. That suggests you're not being very open-minded, and I'm wasting my time. Look at what I wrote again. There will never be 100% proof. Just like I will never be 100% certain about why you're asking the question.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[SirMasterboy]

I'd like to think that I do. I went to school for Software Engineering, but I would say that I do like science. But science to me is usually about the hard, provable facts. I'm more inclined to trust the mathematics where things require indisputable logical proofs.

For example, do you have any reading on anything like the math behind how much CO2 we have released and any scientific experiments that show that that amount of CO2 should be expected to raise the temperature of the planet by 1C?

To me, science is about the experiments used to verify reality. All I ever hear is data like the globe is warmer, we have released all this CO2, but does it really add up correctly in practice? From what I have read, it seemed like we really don't know whether or not the increase in global temperature we see is really what we should have expected to see given our measurements. It seems like too much uncertainty yet for the topic of global warming because there is too much data that we don't know and too many variables that we can't accurately isolate the one we are testing.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[SirMasterboy]

My mind is open, but it needs to be filled with facts, and math. Not random numbers and uncorrelated information. "Trillions of tons" is meaningless out of context...

I just wanted to see for instance where the experiments and measurements and math are that show that trillions of tons accurately predict a 1C increase.

(It doesn't have to be 100% accurate obviously, but accurate enough for science which does have it's measurement of uncertainty that we use to determine how good of a conclusion it makes.)

Also, it was not 30 seconds... It was 9 minutes if you rad the timestamps. How is 9 minutes not an adequate enough time to respond to:
"So, the TRILLIONS of TONS of CO2 being put into the atmosphere would have another source?"

It's not exactly a difficult response to respond to since it didn’t actually address my previous question, so my response was mostly restating my question again. Which I have had to do somewhat a third time.

I never said the trillion tons had to come from another source. I am well aware that we know that the vast majority of the additional CO2 did in fact come from humans. I am asking how we know that the trillions of tons are actually enough to cause the entire increase alone or whether it’s possible there are other factors that also contributed that would have raised the temperature had we not released that much CO2.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[IceAgeComing]

I understand where you're coming from, I like the predictable nature of math and logic too. The problem with the physical world is that we can't measure everything to provide a precise answer; we might get a few significant digits at best. To get full mathematical precision, we would need to measure what's going on over the entire planet at a microscopic scale, which is not only unrealistic, but we'd probably interfere with the Earth's processes if we tried. Plus, CO2 is not the only, single factor; the atmosphere is composed of an incredible array of gases. Plus, the Earth's atmosphere is leaky in ways that we don't fully understand. Plus, cloud cover can change the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the ground and the atmosphere, and cloud cover is extraordinarily hard to predict or model.

The best analogy I can offer is that no matter how hard we try, the picture will always be slightly out-of-focus. This doesn't make the resulting picture useless. It's in focus enough to see important relationships. Here is a paper that goes a little deeper into the relationship between CO2 and global average temperature:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the same logic religious folk use? What if God is real and you're not saved!? Believe and don't take the chance! Not that climate change is a religion and requires faith or anything.

Re: Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[mSparks43]

That's not actually what I said.

What I actually said was.

We could be 5'C hotter than preindustrial times

We could be 5'C colder.

We just have no way of comparing, because the real climate scientists mostly gave up measuring the temperature.

Probably because the only people who really care about it is the politicos that want j6p to pay more tax... sorry I mean buy carbon credits.

A plan that was originally designed to attack Chinas economy.

A plan that backfired massively when china didn't fall for it and catapulted their economy to be the biggest in the world. (Soon if not already).

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be ashamed. Not one citation or even anecdote to discredit scientists from the past! You're like a DirectTV commercial! What you fail to understand is in preindustrial times they just took readings in log books at stations around the world. They weren't looking for global warming temperatures, they were just recording raw data as best they could. The global averages were computed today. You really know nothing about the procedures and methodologies we're discussing here.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[ScentCone]

You really know nothing about the procedures and methodologies we're discussing here.

Yes, I do. The procedures and methodologies that were recording temperatures in a handful of specific pre-industrial spots on the planet cannot be used to extrapolate a precise single "global temperature" within 1 degree C. There isn't enough data. There's no there there, there is only subjective modeling, at best. Suggesting that such a model is hostorically accurate to within a fraction of 1 degree is silly. You know it, I know it, and every scientist worth their salt knows it. The only people who hold that laughable position are those who need the hype. The situation could be WAY worse than a 1 degree change, or nowhere near that bad. It doesn't matter which position you embrace, the point is that talking about "a" global temperature is nonsense in that context.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, my comment is regarding TEMPERATURE, not CO2 levels. The point is that "scientists" are not measuring pre-industrial "temperature". They are arriving at their claim of temperature increase of 1C through modeling.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[amicusNYCL]

It's not a logical fallacy, it's a risk/reward equation. Break down the problem into the risk and reward of action versus inaction and decide what to do from there. The answer should be obvious. What is the risk of taking action on climate change? What are the possible things that can go wrong if we do that? What is the reward? What is the reward with inaction on climate change? What is the risk?

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

You really know nothing about the procedures and methodologies we're discussing here.

Yes, I do. The procedures and methodologies that were recording temperatures in a handful of specific pre-industrial spots on the planet cannot be used to extrapolate a precise single "global temperature" within 1 degree C. There isn't enough data. There's no there there, there is only subjective modeling, at best. Suggesting that such a model is hostorically accurate to within a fraction of 1 degree is silly. You know it, I know it, and every scientist worth their salt knows it. The only people who hold that laughable position are those who need the hype. The situation could be WAY worse than a 1 degree change, or nowhere near that bad. It doesn't matter which position you embrace, the point is that talking about "a" global temperature is nonsense in that context.

Zero hard numbers and not a single fucking citation. Whoever modded this up shouldn't have mod points.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[ScentCone]

Zero hard numbers and not a single fucking citation. Whoever modded this up shouldn't have mod points.

What? That's exactly what we're talking about: the lack of hard numbers. The HUGE lack of hard numbers, so much so that huge swaths of areas now being accurately measured are being pointlessly compared to pre-industrial circumstances completely lacking hard data from those same places. Why are you looking for a citation? OF COURSE THERE'S NO CITATION. This is all about the lack of such, which is why proclaiming down-to-the-degree comparisons is so ridiculous.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zero hard numbers and not a single fucking citation. Whoever modded this up shouldn't have mod points.

What? That's exactly what we're talking about: the lack of hard numbers. The HUGE lack of hard numbers, so much so that huge swaths of areas now being accurately measured are being pointlessly compared to pre-industrial circumstances completely lacking hard data from those same places. Why are you looking for a citation? OF COURSE THERE'S NO CITATION. This is all about the lack of such, which is why proclaiming down-to-the-degree comparisons is so ridiculous.

It's right here you stupid ignorant denialist shill! What is your motive here?

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[ScentCone]

you stupid ignorant denialist shill

Still having real trouble reading the actual words formed by the characters on the screen in front of you, aren't you. I allowed for the equal possibilities of the temperature delta (from pre-industrial days through today) to be either significantly greater (or lesser) than the exactly 1 degree claimed. I know, it's no fun when someone who's complaining doesn't fit your cartoon villain template, and instead focuses on the fact that you're latching onto inherently subjective modeling to fabricate information making up for data not in the record. I don't give a crap if the imaginary single "global temperature" claimed from a past mostly lacking in global samples is high or low. What I do care about is people like you glomming onto such dart-throwing output and pretending it's actually an apples/apples comparison with contemporary data. Never mind the means by which anyone would pretend to have a single (useful, actually representative) "global temperature" even with today's huge amount data.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Cyberax]

Droughts are natural and they havent been increasing in frequency or intensity, unless you can otherwise prove it.

EVERYTHING is natural, up to and including asteroids slamming into planets. And as for droughts - they are increasing as a direct result of climate change: http://phys.org/news/2011-10-h...

Tropical disease spreading has not been linked to an increase of 0.8c, that would be rediculous.

ORLY? http://www.scientificamerican....

Food prices have skyrocketed because of so called GREEN initiatives like wasting maze/corn for fuel production.

Oh, prices are low right now. Just wait until a significant part of farmland becomes desert or salt marsh.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Really? Here is a graph you should really have a look at. Ice core samples show that CO2 levels have not been at current levels in the past 650,000 years.

Yes, and now try to understand that graph. See how those CO2 levels keep spiking every 100000 years or so? That's a "warming period", just before temperatures decrease again and much of North America and Europe get covered in huge ice sheets, a glaciation event. We're currently at the end of one of those warming periods. Without AGW, we'd probably be heading for another glaciation event.

In fact, earth has been up to 10C warmer that it is right now, with much higher CO2 concentrations, and the climate was generally mild and wet across the entire globe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Cyberax]

Yes, I do. The procedures and methodologies that were recording temperatures in a handful of specific pre-industrial spots on the planet cannot be used to extrapolate a precise single "global temperature" within 1 degree C. There isn't enough data.

That's incorrect. We have plenty of proxy data (ice cores, tree rings, freshwater sediment, seashell and coral rings - to name a few) to augment direct measurements, more than enough to establish the global temperature 100-200 years ago with about 0.5C precision.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[riverat1]

How do we know for sure that the increased CO2 levels are entirely caused by humans ...

That's pretty easy. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from year to year is only about 45% of the total amount of human caused emissions.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[riverat1]

For example, do you have any reading on anything like the math behind how much CO2 we have released ...

A crude calculation can be made from the amount of fossil fuel we use. We have fairly good statistics on global fossil fuel use. A chemical formula can tell you how much CO2 is released by any particular type of fossil fuel. For instance consider coal. The average coal is somewhere around 70% carbon. So if you burn a ton of coal that's around 1400 lbs. of carbon. The chemical formula is C + O2 ==> CO2. The atomic weight of carbon is 12 and of oxygen is 16. So you end up with a CO2 molecule that has an atomic weigh of 44. 44/12 = 3.667 so you end up with that much more CO2 than the carbon you started with. 3.667 * 1400 = 5133 lbs or 2.567 tons. Therefore burning a ton of coal produces around 2.5 tons of CO2. The same kind of calculation can be done for gasoline, diesel, natural gas, etc.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[tbannist]

Do we have the evidence that shows that the amount of CO2 increase should actually increase the temperatire by 1C?

Yes.

Maybe the amount of CO2 we released only accounts for 0.5 degrees and there is some other yet undiscovered source for the other 0.5 degrees unrelated to humans and to CO2.

No, it's actually more than 100% human contribution, because the natural contribution is negative. That means without anthropogenic green house gases (and other sources such as land use change and albedo reductions) the earth would be cooling. So it's not just us, it's entirely us.

I'm just saying, do we have proof of this?

Yes, enough proof to convince 97% of the scientists who study this. The other 3% are mostly libertarians who refuse to accept the evidence because it's ideologically unpleasant for them.

Do we really know there is no alternative explanation for sure?

Yes

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[dave420]

Funnily enough, climatologists know all of that, yet they still have enough evidence to show you are entirely incorrect, or have missed the point entirely.

I have no idea why you think you can debunk an entire field of science using your poorly-constructed posts, and a very patchy understanding of the topic at hand. The hubris is strong with this one!

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[dave420]

You are the one who thinks that's all they use to figure out historical temperatures. Strangely enough, the scientists figured that out before you. That's why they use many different sources to figure this out.

With every post you are loudly proclaiming your ignorance. You might as well be saying "I don't know how this works, but I spent 30 seconds, and because I am clearly awesome, I will now explain how all these scientists are incorrect". You are clutching at straws, and it's sad. I feel sad for the society which created you, for the educators who failed you, and for the future you have no problem leaving for others who were not so intellectually lazy as you appear so desperate to be.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Funnily enough, climatologists know all of that, yet they still have enough evidence to show you are entirely incorrect

Really? What am I supposed to be "entirely incorrect" about?

I have no idea why you think you can debunk an entire field of science

I'm not trying to "debunk an entire field of science". I accept temperature and sea level rise as a given. The question is what, if anything, we should do about it. That's not science, it's policy and economics. Even the IPCC reports discuss this and say that action and inaction on climate change cost about the same amount under their economic assumptions, so even they don't believe utter disaster is looming. And their economic assumptions are, indeed, debatable, as are the tradeoffs and values they choose.

using your poorly-constructed posts, and a very patchy understanding of the topic at hand. The hubris is strong with this one!

You need to lay off the "420", Dave. And you need to start like an adult citizen of a democracy and think for yourself, rather than hoping that strong patriarchal leader will fix your problems for you.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[ILongForDarkness]

Well food prices also increase because developing nations are drastically increasing their meat use which requires a lot of crops to go into feeding pigs/chickens/cows. Which I'm okay with because everyone should get to enjoy barbecued animal carcass.

But I agree ethanol is one of the dumbest ideas out there. If you get ethanol as a biproduct of a process you already need to do and use that for fuel, okay. But to turn food land into gas land is crazy. Especially if Billy-Bob needs to drive his diesel all over the place to tend to the crop and spray fertilizer (often generated via fossil fuels). It further leads to a mono-culture which likely screws with things like bees (especially if the seed is Monsanto terminator crops where the pollen has been specifically engineered to be screwed up so you can't replant it) and moves prices so that pretty much everything you by in the store has corn or soy in it. No thanks.

Some global warming might be good for people. Our mean latitude seems to be around 30 degrees but it looks like to me there is a lot more land at higher latitudes which would then become more comfortable.: http://www.themarysue.com/worl.... Will populations need to move away from the current coasts and maybe further away from the tropics, maybe. But people migrate, always have always will.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[silentcoder]

>who determined that it was not one of many long term cyclical changes that have occurred for millions of years.

Well since every other one of those led to a mass extinction, we can probably rule that out.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[silentcoder]

>Some global warming might be good for people. Our mean latitude seems to be around 30 degrees but it looks like to me there is a lot more land at higher latitudes which would then become more comfortable.: http://www.themarysue.com/worl... [themarysue.com]. Will populations need to move away from the current coasts and maybe further away from the tropics, maybe. But people migrate, always have always will.

You make it sound so easy... only trouble is, we got all these borders and things now. Look at the political difficulties right now in Europe over a fairly small number of refugees.
You make it sound like a mass migration will be a simple process... dream on, the route for such a migration has always run over a lot of dead bodies, and this one - if it happens, will have more than any other. Most of them killed by other people.

You comfortable industrialized society sure as hell wouldn't survive it either - nothing like massive resource wars everywhere to disrupt industry.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[silentcoder]

>How do we know for sure that the increased CO2 levels are entirely caused by humans or that the CO2 levels are the entire cause of the entire 1C increase?

For one thing - the vast majority of human CO2 is from fossil fuels and their isotopes are pretty unique. No other natural source of CO2 has the same unique isotope. It excludes everything else we burn, everything nature burns, everything volcanoes do - the works.
We can count them. It's a conservative result since not all burning is fossil fuels (though nearly all other burning is actually carbon neutral so that cancels out nicely).

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[silentcoder]

>But science to me is usually about the hard, provable facts
Then you known nothing about it.

If there is one thing that science sure as fuck do not promise it's hard facts. On the contrary - science is what you get when you keep questioning and retesting everything for ever. No proof is final.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[ILongForDarkness]

Unless they have to pay companies aren't going to care how many tanks are needed to guard and/or kill the competition. Heck armies use resources too driving up the price/profit.

No I don't think it will be simple I just don't think we are special. We panic/fear because:

a) someone isn't nice to us
b) someone dies from a disease
c) some nutjob kills a few people in a theater
d) something happens causing refugees

While all aren't good things none of them are new. As they say in Iran Shite happens.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[david_thornley]

We all know that the planet will survive, and continue to support life, including human life. That's not in question.

Your mistake is in assuming that temperatures over five thousand years ago are relevant to what's going on now. Plant and animal life, and human civilization, has adapted to current conditions over that time, and major changes are going to cause disruption, which is expensive.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[david_thornley]

If you want some more ballpark figures, the Earth's atmosphere weighs about five quadrillion tons (probably a little more, but this is good enough for rough calculations). That means that one part-per-million by mass would be five billion tons. That's not usually what we want; we want PPM in number of molecules in the air. The atmosphere is mostly N2 (about 80%) and O2 (about 20%), with molecular weights of 28 and 32 respectively. CO2 has a molecular weight of 44, so it's about 50% heavier than the atmosphere in general, so a PPM is about 7.5 billion tons. Take the estimation above and we get the result that about 3 billion tons of carbon will increase CO2 by one PPM.

Hydrocarbons burn to H2O and CO2, but the molecular weight is usually the carbon (75% carbon at least, in methane), so you won't go too horribly wrong if you figure a little more for most hydrocarbons.

Now look up things like coal production and the like, and make your own estimates of how much they raise the CO2 content of the atmosphere when burned. I believe you'll find that not all of the CO2 winds up in the atmosphere, but human CO2 production is quite enough to explain the rise from 280ppm to 400ppm.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[dywolf]

a global average 10C warmer than now is NOT mild and wet across the entire globe.
you truly have no bloody clue about what you speak.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[dywolf]

Nope.
Wrong and moronic.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[khallow]

And as for droughts - they are increasing as a direct result of climate change: http://phys.org/news/2011-10-h...

Let's look at the actual paper and the actual claim:

Results are given in section 3, where we present evidence that a change in the regionâ(TM)s climate has been detected and that it is unlikely that the observed Novemberâ"April Mediterranean drying since 1902 occurred due to internal variability alone. Diagnosis of the CMIP3 coupled models reveals that this detected change toward drier conditions is attributable, in part, to the Mediterranean regionâ(TM)s sensitivity to time-evolving external radiative forcing. The amplitude of the externally forced, area-averaged drying signal is roughly one-half the magnitude of the observed drying during 1902â"2010, indicating that other processes likely also contributed.

They are speaking of really poor correlation here. There are other man-made effects that need to be considered, like water table depletion, vegetation removal, and agricultural practices.

ORLY? http://www.scientificamerican....

"Climate" is used several times, but aside from empty assertions that climate affects or impacts the potential range of a disease, no connection has been claimed between the incident of tropic diseases in the US and climate change. The actual connection is travel with people bringing back diseases from the tropics.

Oh, prices are low right now. Just wait until a significant part of farmland becomes desert or salt marsh.

No, they aren't. And the primary reason why farmland would become desert or salt marsh is mismanagement both of the land and water resources. This is quite relevant because climate change might negatively impact the productivity of farmland (or it might not), but poor land and water management will negatively impact the productivity of farmland frequently to the point of the land no longer being viable farmland.

My view is that management is far more important than climate when it comes to agriculture and growing the food we need to the point that it doesn't really matter what the climate does.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Well, actually it is:

One of the unique features of the Eocene’s climate as mentioned before was the equable and homogeneous climate that existed in the early parts of the Eocene. A multitude of proxies support the presence of a warmer equable climate being present during this period of time. A few of these proxies include the presence of fossils native to warm climates, such as crocodiles, located in the higher latitudes,[16][17] the presence in the high-latitudes of frost-intolerant flora such as palm trees which cannot survive during sustained freezes,[17][18] and fossils of snakes found in the tropics that would require much higher average temperatures to sustain them.[17]

At the beginning of the Eocene, the high temperatures and warm oceans created a moist, balmy environment, with forests spreading throughout the Earth from pole to pole. Apart from the driest deserts, Earth must have been entirely covered in forests.

Polar forests were quite extensive. Fossils and even preserved remains of trees such as swamp cypress and dawn redwood from the Eocene have been found on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic. Even at that time, Ellesmere Island was only a few degrees in latitude further south than it is today. Fossils of subtropical and even tropical trees and plants from the Eocene have also been found in Greenland and Alaska. Tropical rainforests grew as far north as northern North America and Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to read up on cognitive dissonance then. Of course there is released experiments that give an expected raise for the temperature. It's all the different computer models as well as the experiments on absorption rates of CO2 of infrared.

The problem is of course the range of possible outcomes given the variables we have. That's why these cool statisticians came up with confidence intervals etc. And all these models predict an increase in global average temperature. While we are not sure about the exact local consequences over long periods of time, we do have a good grasp on the average development.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[dave420]

If you don't want people picking apart your grasp of science, stop making up nonsensical sciency-sounding phrases.

As for your claims about the IPCC's findings, I have no idea. As you have been so tragically wrong on other aspects of this discussion, I dare say I won't take what you say on face value.

And you can keep your father issues to yourself. I'm simply listening to what the scientific community has to say on the issue.

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[dave420]

And all of that doesn't matter, as there is no way in hell our modern societies and agriculture can operate in a climate like that.

Re: Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[dave420]

Aaaah I understand. Your education was terrible and now you feel scared, so like a scared drowning person you lash out at whatever or whoever you can and try to drag it down to your level so you can escape your misery. Good jerb!

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I'm simply listening to what the scientific community has to say on the issue.

You are listening to political and economic ideologues that use science to justify their ideas. A century ago, people like you fervently defended eugenics and socialism with "what the scientific community" was saying.

As for your claims about the IPCC's findings, I have no idea

If you don't know the IPCC's findings, how can you claim that you are listening to the scientific community? How can you even begin to claim to have an informed argument about climate change if you don't even know in some detail what the IPCC report says?

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

And all of that doesn't matter, as there is no way in hell our modern societies and agriculture can operate in a climate like that.

Are you kidding? Warm temperatures and plenty of precipitation? Of course modern societies can operate in that; there are plenty of societies that do. It's pretty much ideal.

Re: Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re: Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Who measured in pre-industrial times?

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

A Good Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Also known as one degree warmer than the Little Ice Age.

Re:A Good Thing

[dywolf]

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

The Planet is not Recovering from the LIA

To sum up, with the exception of the human population, the factors which contributed to the LIA cannot account for the global warming of the past 50-100 years. Further, it is not physically accurate to claim that the planet is simply "recovering" from the LIA. This argument is akin to saying that when you drop a ball off a cliff, it falls because it used to be higher. There is a physical mechanism for these changes. In the case of the ball, it falls because of the gravitational pull at the Earth's surface. In the case of the global temperature, it is warming from the increased greenhouse effect due to human activities.

Re:A Good Thing

[dywolf]

nope. not flamebait or trolling but pointing the myth of the LIA excuse

Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial times?

[russotto]

So is this milestone due to an increase in current temperatures, or a decrease in temperatures in pre-industrial times?

Why The Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck do they think that turning to a massively higher temperature speeds up the heating?

It's going to reach the two degrees higher that you want at the same time, regardless of whether you bump it two degrees or 50 degrees! And, NO, ceiling fans don't cool the place while you are away. That's not how any of it works FFS.

Re:Why The Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck do they think that turning to a massively higher temperature speeds up the heating?

I've had a woman do the same thing when getting in my car upon seeing that there was a temp control for her side. She cranked it to 80F and I had to tell her that 1) it won't make the car heat up any faster and 2) it probably won't even reach the 74F setting on my side by the time we got to where we were going at the time.

Re:Why The Fuck

[rrohbeck]

It would if it was an analog control loop but of course it isn't. Most people think analog.

Re:Why The Fuck

[Anonymous Coward]

We should teach the women from these anecdotes to code because: fairness.

Is this based on "corrected" data?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, because scientists from more than about 10 years ago simply didn't know how to accurately take temperatures?

Let The Muslims Sort It Out

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll have taken over most of Europe by 2050. It's their problem to sort out. I'm sure Allah has their backs covered.

Re:Let The Muslims Sort It Out

[Anonymous Coward]

The anglo christian god seems to be fucking it right up. Why not let the brown skinned guy have a go?

Re:Let The Muslims Sort It Out

[Anonymous Coward]

Their religion won't help much either. We need to follow a God that had enough forethought to list "don't burn the oil from the ground all at once" as a commandment.

Might want to take your head out of the sand

[SuperKendall]

Global warming pause Is now such a widely understood concept that even the IPCC talks about it.

If you want to really understand things, you have to stop being a closed minded denier of data.

Re:Might want to take your head out of the sand

[serviscope_minor]

Global warming pause Is now such a widely understood concept that even the IPCC talks about it.

first link is entitled: A Pause In Global Warming? Not Really - Forbes

Second link to wikipedia which notes:

While hiatus periods have appeared in surface air temperature records, other components of the climate system associated with warming have continued. Sea level rise has not stopped in recent years,[14] and Arctic sea ice decline has continued. There have been repeated records set for extreme surface temperatures.

It also notes that the start of the "pause" was an exceptionally high preiod, higher than expected. This makes the "pause" substantially shorter than you think, since the beginning of the pause is actually the measurements being hoter than expected. What remains isn't remotely outside the bounds of general statistical variation.

If you want to realy understand things, you have to stop overinterpreting short segments of noisy data.

Re:Might want to take your head out of the sand

[Ramze]

If you really want to understand things, you have to understand what you're reading.

The IPCC never said that global warming had paused -- it was merely increasing at a slower rate than expected over about a decade. The general trend was still upwards, and the decade where it trended slightly less steeply was interesting and unexpected, but it still fits with the general overall trendline of the previous decades quite well given the variation in sampling. If you're reading that trend as flat, there is something wrong with your eyes.... or at the very least something wrong with the software you're using to plot a trendline -- even if you only plot the data during the period mentioned by the IPCC.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

"The Pause was an idea from a 2013 UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that concluded the upward global surface temperature trend from 1998 to 2012 was markedly lower than the trend from 1951 to 2012."

It is beyond ridiculous to imply the temperature change was flat for decades given any real data. It may even be premature to describe the temperature change as slowing without more data points to corroborate it wasn't merely an anomaly -- likely brought about through unusual El Nino, La Nina, and other weather patterns which have multiple year cycles.

NOAA investigated this pause/slowdown and used blind studies and multiple statistical methods to prove the cherry-picked period is well within statistical noise and the slowdown or pause is bunk:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Re:Might want to take your head out of the sand

[SuperKendall]

The IPCC never said that global warming had paused -- it was merely increasing at a slower rate than expected over about a decade.

Yes, even the IPCC admits warming has slowed (others say stopped).

So if the IPCC says warming is slower, how do you extrapolate a greater increase of temperatures over the coming years than we have seen, as does the original post I was responding to?

This brings to mind a funny joke I just made :

"Question: How to you tell if someone is a warming alarmist? Answer: you wait five minutes for them to offer up evidence that is contradictory to her original point."

Re:Might want to take your head out of the sand

[angel'o'sphere]

In my circles it is considered extremely dumb to google something, and then post the first two promising hits without reading the links.
Hint: if you had read the links you posted here, you had figured: they contradict your point of view (faxepalm).

Re:Might want to take your head out of the sand

[Cyberax]

Yes, even the IPCC admits warming has slowed (others say stopped).

And other claim it's already a new glaciation, since oceans are not boiling. Reality: global warming goes on, we're breaking temperature records pretty much every year now.

Re:Might want to take your head out of the sand

[Layzej]

So if the IPCC says warming is slower (over the last decade), how do you extrapolate a greater increase of temperatures over the coming years

What we have is annual and decadal variability superimposed on a secular anthropogenic warming trend. If you look at a very short interval, you will see primarily the variability. If you look at a longer interval, you will get a clearer picture of the secular anthropogenic trend. Neil deGrasse Tyson has a good illustration here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Might want to take your head out of the sand

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazing that lagging indicators of warming continue to indicate warming after the warming has paused. These lagging indicators being argued to mean the warming is still happening or will continue is quite foolish. That isn't to say that it isn't still happening or won't continue, just that lagging indicators of warming can't be used to tell us much anything about the present or future. Attempting to do so indicates either stupidity or dishonesty. Which is it?

Re:Might want to take your head out of the sand

[david_thornley]

No honest person who's paying attention says it's stopped, it's just that the measured surface temperature has increased slowly. That doesn't mean there's no global warming, since there are other places that might be absorbing the heat. Once those places stop absorbing heat (if that's what's going on), the thermometer's headed up fast.

What I really want to know:

[kheldan]

After we start investigating every single motor vehicle manufacturer out there and find out how many of them (all of them?) have been cheating emissions testing to meet mandates, how much CO2 and other 'greenhouse gasses' humans are actually responsible for.

Oh, and all you climate change-deniers out there? Get yourself a CPAP mask, hook it up to the tailpipe of your car, and see how healthy it is for you to breathe that. Regardless of 'global warming' being a thing or not, isn't it time we started moving away from internal combustion engines? And burning coal? Even natural gas isn't that great in the long run. Time to grow up, everyone, and stop using these baby technologies that are poisoning us regardless. Redesign fission power plants so they're safer, operate them safer, build lots of them. Continue to develop fusion technology until it's practical. Better electric storage technologies so plug-in electric vehicles are more practical. Keep researching and developing high temperature superconductor technology, to eventually improve the efficiency of electric vehicles (and everything else that uses lots of power). Solar and wind to fill in the gaps while we're working on all the above (and by the way how would high temp superconductors improve solar?). Don't know about you but I'd welcome a motorcycle with a 500 mile-on-a-charge range and a superconducting powertrain, that would out-perform the best superbikes currently available.

Re:What I really want to know:

[FlyHelicopters]

Regardless of 'global warming' being a thing or not, isn't it time we started moving away from internal combustion engines? And burning coal? Even natural gas isn't that great in the long run.

That sounds nice, but we don't have decent replacements for those things yet. We should of course keep working on them, and one day they'll arrive... but as it stands, we're going to be burning coal 50 years from now, regardless of all the hand waving.

Re:What I really want to know:

[Anonymous Coward]

In Beijing and Mexico City (and other places), the air coming out of the tailpipe of many American, European and Japaneses cars is cleaner than the air going in.

Re:What I really want to know:

[Anonymous Coward]

Motor vehicles are insignificant in comparison to concrete production, the single largest source of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

Re:What I really want to know:

[Anonymous Coward]

An anti-nuclear activist would retort against your CPAP mask comment with "All you nuke lovers out there? Get yourself a CPAP mask and connect it to a tritium generator and talk to me when you're done."

Re:What I really want to know:

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and all you climate change-deniers out there?

And there goes **some** your credibility. To me. Stop relying on meaningless buzz words that get applied to everything including legitimate skepticism (and not just outright denial), serving only as flamebait. >_

Re:What I really want to know:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Oh, and all you climate change-deniers out there? Get yourself a CPAP mask, hook it up to the tailpipe of your car, and see how healthy it is for you to breathe that. "

WTF does this have to do with climate change? The fact we can't breathe a mixture of CO2, H2O, pollutants and toxic by-products of incomplete combustion means what exactly? Damn people are stupid.

Re:What I really want to know:

[sanzibar]

Get yourself a CPAP mask, hook it up to the tailpipe of your car...

Here is a moron that does not understand the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Just fyi genius... you exhale Co2...

Re:What I really want to know:

[kheldan]

Here is a moron that does not understand the difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Just fyi genius... you exhale Co2...

..and hereis a 'moron' who doesn't understand all the other pollutants that come out of the tailpipe of a vehicle with an internal combustion engine. Also after reviewing the last few dozen of your other comments you're clearly just another one of those assholes who likes to argue for the sake of arguing, and to insult people, and as such you're really not worth anybody's time, so how about you just fuck off?

Re:What I really want to know:

[sanzibar]

You are welcome and now that you understand CO and CO2 are not the same, and its Co2 (Not CO) that underpins the Global Warming Movement, we can move on to more serious matters with your position.
At this moment, contributing the damning pollutants you rile against into my atmosphere. You are the guilty party and its time for you to take responsibility and stop pointing fingers at everyone else. You are currently in denial of your own willful actions.
So why not do the proper thing and reduce your Co2 foot print to zero? If more nut jobs like you did the same thing, you could save the world!

Re:What I really want to know:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey faggot, do you have to keep a towel near your computer to wipe all the spittle off the screen and keyboard from ranting and raging at the Internets all day long? What a sad and disgusting loser you are, must be terrible to not feel relevant unless you are 'right' and everyone else is 'wrong', or can't you get off sexually unless you're arguing with random people on the Internets? LOL you're hilarious, sad but hilarious, you should kill yourself.

Re:What I really want to know:

[fatwilbur]

moving away from internal combustion engines?

No! Go to hell!

Listen, you'll all think this is horribly selfish and that I'm worse than Hitler, but I enjoy hopping in my truck and driving out to the mountains whenever I feel like it. Or a roadtrip anywhere. Or just to the theater in my own comfortable vehicle whenever I feel like it.

Private, vehicular transportation and the system of roads we have built is the single largest freedom we have as regular citizens. What greater purpose do we have other than living our lives to the fullest?

Go suffer for yourself, enjoy the 3 city blocks you live in and never leave, pretend you somehow demand less hydrocarbons from society, and feel good about all the shameless preaching you'll do about it.

Re:What I really want to know:

[mvdwege]

I really enjoy Heavy Metal at concert levels. Yet I don't think there's a single Slashdotter who would disagree with my neighbours if they called in the police were I to play it that loud at home.

So in short, yes, you're selfish, you're harming your neighbours, and the world would be a better place were you wrap that truck around a tree.

Re:What I really want to know:

[kheldan]

Geez, dude, take it down a couple dozen notches, will you? You must get picked on a lot by people on the Internet. Hell, you must have been picked on by people IRL since you were a kid, being so reactive now. Honestly, dude, I'm not your enemy, and nobody wants to take anything away from you. Stop panicking, OK?

Now, then.. I drive a small pickup myself. I wouldn't want anyone taking it away from me, either, it would more or less ruin my life. I've also got a motorcycle, have been riding them since I was a teenager. Wouldn't want anyone taking either one away from me. But they both have internal combustion engines, and the exhaust is really nasty, environmentally speaking. When someone starts marketing full electric versions of them that are practical, I'll jump -- but not before. Not a big advocate of public transportation. I can't live my life taking buses and taxicabs everywhere, that would completely destroy my life, I'd be just existing rather than living. So consider this: If someone came up with a replacement for your pickup that was 100% electric, had all the power and range you have now, but didn't emit so much as a cubic foot of any sort of exhaust gasses, wouldn't you be OK with that? I would, in fact I'd be better than OK with it, because a 100% electric vehicle would require a fraction of the maintenance of a gas or diesel engine, and would be a hell of a lot cleaner to work on, too! That's all I'm saying. Last thing I want is to take away anyones' ability to transport themselves and cargo wherever they want whenever they want.

Re:What I really want to know:

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, dude, 400 ppm of CO2 is harmless, except for plants, for whom it's food, and an increased growing season in Canada and the Ukraine would be a good thing.

Take a look at a biome chart from the last glacial maximum--tundra damned near to Texas.

Talk about going full retard.

I agree we should be building nuke plants like crazy, but it's the "ZOMG! Technology!" Warmerbators who are fighting them.

Re:What I really want to know:

[rail2rail]

> What greater purpose do we have other than living our lives to the fullest? At the expense of everyone else? No, you don't have that right.

Re:What I really want to know:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll believe Neil deGrasse Tyson before I'll believe some anonymous shithead on the Internets. Stop being a lazy fuck and stop polluting my world.

Re:What I really want to know:

[kheldan]

Listen, buddy, tell you what: Tell us your real name, show us your PhD in a field related to climatology, and your published white paper on what you just said, and maybe I'll believe you know what you're talking about. Otherwise you're just another asshole on the Internets with an opinion, like the rest of us, and for attempting to push your point as being fact, you can go fuck yourself, OK?

Re:What I really want to know:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yo, weatherphobe moron, the exhaust workaround VW installed was for NOX, not CO2... You should chill out about the whole thing because you're 1) very stupid, 2) very offensive and 3) a candidate for a self-induced MI.

Warming over the last few decades

[Layzej]

Here's a comparison of the HADCRU data mentioned in the article to the satellite data (UAH) and to another surface station data set (GISS). They all show warming of about the same magnitude over the last few decades: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

Stubborn to the bitter hot end

[Anonymous Coward]

Until their brains melt out of their heads, "that party" will block any nation-wide solution. Wait, their brains already melted.

Why believe warming is linear ?

[redelm]

A greenhouse works by letting heat in (light) and not letting it out (glass traps convection). The atmosphere does so to some extent by letting energetic visible and shorter wavelengths through while trapping re-radiating longer (cooler) infra-red wavelengths. Fine.

Carbon dioxide traps infra-red only on three wavelenghts (wavenumbers) corresponding to its' vibratory modes. This absorbance is proportional to incidence, not linear -- see the Beer-Lambert Law.. (Linear approximation works only at very low absorances).

If you double the amount, you halve the transmittance. But even at 100 ppmv CO2, transmittance is only 10^-10 (what else would you expect from 1mm as solid?). The atmosphere is already opaque on CO2 wavelengths. The glass is already on this greenhouse -- another layer will do nothing measureable.

Re:Why believe warming is linear ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The atmosphere isn't fully opaque on the bands at which CO2 absorbs. It's close, but not completely opaque. There are other greenhouse gases like methane and water vapor with different absorption spectra. Both are quite a bit more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.

Re:Why believe warming is linear ?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

This is why you need the forcing term. A small increases in temperature increase the water content, which is a far better greenhouse gas. This small increases in water heats it up a little more, that increase water content even more. Etc.

there are of course negative feedbacks as well. But we don't mention those. And lets just pretend our cloud and precipitation models are all good.

Re:Why believe warming is linear ?

[redelm]

Force what? There's already so much water vapor that the atmosphere is already opaque on its wavenumbers. Again, more will do nothing.

Clouds are a good question -- I have not heard any definitive resolution on whether the increased albedo is overwhelmed by the re-radiation blanket effect. My rough calcs say no (incoming -70% outgoing -50%)

The real question is...

[AchilleTalon]

...can we continue emitting as we are for 50 years?

If we continue emitting as we are, we will double our cumulative emissions in about 50 years. If we continue to increase our emissions, it will be even sooner.

We all know the oil reserves will be severely depleted by 50 years from now if we just keep the current consumption rate. I doubt we can just keep the pace at which we are emitting greenhouse gases for 50 years. Before we reach the 50 years milestone, the oil price will skyrocket and consumption will collapse.

Re:The real question is...

[Tailhook]

We all know the oil reserves will be severely depleted by 50

Since the largest single source of anthropogenic CO2 is from coal, which is the most rapidly growing source of energy in the world and will remain abundant well beyond the next 50 years, running out of oil doesn't actually matter. Especially since our climate policy is about left-wing political prerogatives and not actual emissions, so we exempt all of the largest and fastest growing coal burners from limits, guaranteeing any CO2 emissions we might prevent ourselves will be matched and far exceeded by others.

Re:The real question is...

[JustNiz]

>> We all know the oil reserves will be severely depleted by 50 years from now

Whatever. I can quite distinctly remember back in the 1980's that they were predicting that oil would run out by about 5 years ago now.

Re:The real question is...

[Xyrus]

...can we continue emitting as we are for 50 years?

Yep.

We all know the oil reserves will be severely depleted by 50 years from now if we just keep the current consumption rate. I doubt we can just keep the pace at which we are emitting greenhouse gases for 50 years. Before we reach the 50 years milestone, the oil price will skyrocket and consumption will collapse.

Oh? Oil is the only fossil fuel?

Natural gas, coal liquification, tar sands, etc. are all things that will hit profitably long before oil becomes a serious issue. Worse, coal and natural gas are cheap and plentiful now and if estimates show anything there is plenty of supply left to keep us burning for quite some time.

Good - I hope it goes higher

[Anonymous Coward]

I want my Canadian waterfront to be like Los Angeles

Thank God for the metric system

[Anonymous Coward]

Preventing a 2 degrees F increase would be much harder.

Again, so what?

[kwbauer]

So warmer than the early 1800s which were colder than the early-to-mid 1400s?

The only reason for claiming that the early 1800s are the correct zero-point is to support a (false) claim that the only reason for the change can possibly be industrialization.

Re:Again, so what?

[rrohbeck]

https://tamino.files.wordpress...

Re:Again, so what?

[cbeaudry]

You have to be stupid to post such nonsense.

1. You cant merge datasets like that;
2. Your vertical line is speculation with no foundation

Re:Again, so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except we fell off that temperature projection a decade ago and are now below the error bars of the projections.

Re:Again, so what?

[rrohbeck]

That must be why Grant Foster (Tamino) wrote a textbook on statistics.

Re:Again, so what?

[dave420]

So you are saying that CO2 has no effect on warming? Really? Hint: If you are scientifically illiterate, it doesn't help for you to goatse your ignorance all over slashdot for people to point at and laugh.

CO2 is the main driver of warming. Without human activity, CO2 levels would be decreasing, as the natural sinks for CO2 are greater than the sources. We know it's industrial CO2 emissions which are driving warming. We know this. You simply stating that it's erroneous is pathetic, as you have no evidence to support your claim, yet you think your claim somehow trumps the actual scientific findings.

What is wrong in your head?

Re:Again, so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Again, so what?

[gzuckier]

So you are saying that CO2 has no effect on warming? Really? Hint: If you are scientifically illiterate, it doesn't help for you to goatse your ignorance all over slashdot for people to point at and laugh.

CO2 is the main driver of warming. Without human activity, CO2 levels would be decreasing, as the natural sinks for CO2 are greater than the sources. We know it's industrial CO2 emissions which are driving warming. We know this. You simply stating that it's erroneous is pathetic, as you have no evidence to support your claim, yet you think your claim somehow trumps the actual scientific findings.

What is wrong in your head?

Because... conspiracy.

Re:Again, so what?

[silentcoder]

>which were colder than the early-to-mid 1400s?

False. The Medieval warming period did exist - but it doesn't mean what you think it means. That warming was extremely localized over a tiny area and coupled by significant cooling in other areas - the average global temperatures were not altered by it, and were the same as they had been for ten thousand years - up to the end of the pre-industrial area.

Europe was warmer in the 1400's, the earth was not.

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[Layzej]

Here is a 10,000 year view of global mean surface temperature: http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-c...

There was a slow cooling for about 6000 years, followed by an abrupt change in trajectory over the last century. The warming over the last century has been attributed to fossil fuel emissions.

Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[bradley13]

...but what a load of hogwash. Today, we are one entire degree warmer than "pre-industrial temperatures", which they define as around 1850. Coincidental, I'm sure, that the "Little Ice Age" ended around 1850, meaning that they could hardly have picked a colder point in time. I should certainly hope that we are warmer than that! The Little Ice Age saw the largest glacier extents for thousands of years, devastating many communities as they were inexorably covered with ice.

Note, also, the temperature graph in that article - a lot more than one degree drop from temperatures a couple of centuries before, which brings us to the next point. They label today's temperature range as "uncharted territory", despite the fact that the planet was almost certainly warmer than this during the Medieval Warm Period, and before that during the Roman Climate Optimum.

The rest of the TFA is all about beating the panic-drum.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans in a large part of the world have adapted well to the climate of the present day. We depend on the resources that are available in the present climate to sustain our way of life. When the climate changes for any reason, the availability of resources will shift. We'll have to adapt to those shifts, which is expensive. Climate changes whether we participate in driving those changes or not, so we'll always have to adapt to some degree. However, isn't it in our interests to not unnecessarily exacerbate climate change through our behavior? This seems logical because in many cases it's more expensive to adapt to climate change than it is to mitigate our actions that contribute to it. Our impacts on climate will never be zero, but why make them larger than what they need to be? Because it's generally cheaper to change our behaviors now than it is to adapt to climate change later, shouldn't we try to reduce our impacts as much as reasonably possible?

While you dismiss the article as alarmist nonsense, I hope you'd also consider that a lot of the denials of manmade climate change are just as much nonsense. Those who stand to lose big money from the transition away from fossil fuels would rather spend lots of money to deny that we're causing climate change than adapt their antiquated business models. In that sense, big oil has quite a bit in common with the RIAA, MPAA, and cable companies.

Yes, it's true that climate changes with or without us. But isn't it still prudent to minimize our contributions to climate change?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[King_TJ]

No, I'm with you on this one. It's ALSO part of the media "machine" to try to frame everyone as either at one end of the spectrum or the other on a topic.

What happened to sensibly, cautiously looking at the data and finding that quite likely, the truth is someplace in the middle?

There are some cases where scientific research is simply done in error:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...

In other cases, all of the facts aren't really stated or taken into account. I see no compelling to reason to flat out deny the climate is undergoing some change? Apparently, a lot of scientists think it is and they know more than I do about the topic. But that being the case, there's WAY too much money and political agenda behind convincing people of one result or another to take any of these long-term predictive models without a large heap of salt.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you contradict the hivemind!

Guys quick! To the pitchforks and torches! And someone get a pyre going!

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[rrohbeck]

https://tamino.files.wordpress...

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

Interesting: So if the warming we are presently observing is NOT the warming we expected (as an inevitable consequence of increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gas) when would we expect to see that warming come into effect?

And doesn't your theory actually make the problem worse (since we have some sort of natural warming plus nobody has explained the mechanism whereby adding greenhouse gases causes zero warming (despite the obvious thermodynamic problems). So according to you that heat must be bunched up somewhere - the obvious conclusion is that (according to your scenario) it will be even warmer in the future than predicted by the consensus science.

Who is pressing the panic button again?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[cbeaudry]

You'r just repeating a load of propaganda fed to you by the media.

It isn't cheaper to change now than to adapt.

Changing will cost TRILLIONS of dollars to prevent "maybe" 0.003C rise in temperature.

How about you ASK the UN and IPCC for specific goals with how much it will cost.
They made calculations. And the numbers look like the above.

Adaptation will cost ORDERS of magnitude less than that.

Because:

1. Society will be richer as a whole;
2. Technology continues to advance.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

And doesn't your theory actually make the problem worse (since we have some sort of natural warming plus nobody has explained the mechanism whereby adding greenhouse gases causes zero warming (despite the obvious thermodynamic problems). So according to you that heat must be bunched up somewhere - the obvious conclusion is that (according to your scenario) it will be even warmer in the future than predicted by the consensus science.

Where do you think the heat of "greenhouse warming" comes from?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[Anonymous Coward]

Citing Judith LOL Curry.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[mfearby]

Today's temperature range is not exactly "uncharted territory". We have plenty of charts to say that the warming (such as it is/was) has been on hold for 18 years and 8 months so far: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

I'm an out and proud denier. There is nothing to believe in but the scaremongering of scientists who are addicted to an all-you-can-eat buffet of tax-payer funded studies to prove something that just isn't cooperating with their worthless computer models.

I wonder what the left will move onto next when the penny finally drops and they realise that their climate change emperor has no clothes and nobody believes them any more?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[lexman098]

The sun? Is this a legitimate question or are you making a point that I can't see.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

When the heat is coming from the sun, does it make sense that " heat must be bunched up somewhere" per the post I was responding to?

Re: Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignoring the fact Your admission of being probably a Denier means You're likely full of shit, if You have a better model which shows Human activity is not a substantial driver of the temperature rise, please present it to Us; put it in a scientific paper showing what temperatures Your model says We should have seen over the years and how well it matches with observations. Otherwise, why should Anyone listen to Your dissent?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[cbeaudry]

Citing souorcewatch.org is better?

Political hit page?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[Namarrgon]

the planet was almost certainly warmer than this during the Medieval Warm Period, and before that during the Roman Climate Optimum

Yeah, try looking the actual study next time, rather than conservative rags or biased blogs. Nowhere does it claim to offer data for the whole planet; rather, it looked only at tree fossil remains in a specific area in Sweden. Claims that this somehow demonstrates anything about the planet as a whole are the worst kind of cherry-picking.

Speaking of, remember your dark implication that picking 1850 as the reference point "just happened" to coincide with the end of the Little Ice Age, and this was chosen deliberately for effect, rather than also being the time when we started pumping out CO2 wholesale? I don't suppose it occurred to you that the reason the Little Ice Age finished then (and didn't re-occur a fourth time) might possibly be due to all that CO2? It is kind of a coincidence, isn't it?

Also, 1850 isn't even the chosen reference point. From FTA:

There is not a reliable indicator of global temperatures back to 1750, which is the era widely assumed to represent pre-industrial conditions. Therefore 1850-1900 is chosen here as the most reliable reference period, which also corresponds to the period chosen by IPCC to represent a suitable earlier reference period.

(emphasis mine)

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[Xyrus]

...garbage deleted...

You referenced the Daily Caller in a scientific argument. You have no credibility. At all.

BTW, I have a story about a rainbow pony with a human head that predicts the future and shits donuts. The Daily Caller told me they couldn't run it because it wasn't bat-shit insane enough to print.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[riverat1]

You can deny all you want but physics doesn't care.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

Don't you know?

See the works of Arrhenius et. al.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[dave420]

Who's the alarmist now? Hint: You. Your questions have been answered - that you assume they haven't shows us just how little you actually care, and how wonderful a Glenn Beck impersonation you are doing. You are asking questions and don't even care to hear the answers.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[dave420]

You are confusing "cherry-picked surface temperature data" with "all of the data". You seem hell-bent on not learning anything, as you have already made up your mind without evidence. That is about as close to religion as you can get.

I hope you don't have kids, as they're going to not look kindly on people who share your lazy, nonsensical proud-to-be-stupid attitude.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[cbeaudry]

I'm not assuming anything. I have looked into it, unlike you.

Associating me with a tv personality as an insult is the best you can do?
I don't give one lick about that person. I'm Canadian and don't pay attention to your ridiculous comedy media.

You want answers? Fresh ones off the press??

"Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17C (0.306F) by 2100." Lomborg

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

Do you think greenhouse warming is a function of chemical reaction rates?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[david_thornley]

Sure it makes sense. We have additional CO2 in the air, warming the atmosphere. We know this happens. The planet is retaining more heat because of it. Therefore, if the recent temperature rise has nothing to do with CO2, then the additional heat from the CO2 has to be somewhere on the planet, and when that repository gets full we're going to have even more temperature rise.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

If you are ignorant of the mechanisms that lead to the "greenhouse effect" then again, I suggest that you do some research. These mechanisms are well studied and experimentally proven - so much so that the assertion that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere don't lead to warming tend to generate bemusement.

If it were true (that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming) then this would be demonstrable via an experiment. Have you done this experiment?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[dywolf]

http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[randallman]

It's not so much the current temp that's a concern, but the driver that caused it. And most importantly where that driver is taking us.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".

Why are you telling me to look up irrelevant topics to answer straightforward questions?

The simplest explanation is that you don't know the answer.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

Sure it makes sense. We have additional CO2 in the air, warming the atmosphere. We know this happens. The planet is retaining more heat because of it. Therefore, if the recent temperature rise has nothing to do with CO2, then the additional heat from the CO2 has to be somewhere on the planet, and when that repository gets full we're going to have even more temperature rise.

Circular reasoning. We assume that CO2 raises temperature, so if we don't observe CO2 raising temperature, then CO2 must be raising the temperature somewhere else, even if we fail to observe it.

Transforming your assumptions into dogma is a horrible way to practice science.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[mfearby]

Indeed you are right. Physics apparently doesn't care for the innermost yearnings of tortured climate models. No amount of dodgy work on behalf of "scientists" is going to force up those darn temperatures!! Ice isn't melting; snow hasn't becoming a thing of the past; cyclones/tornadoes have NOT increased in frequency (in fact, there's a bit of a lull going on in recent memory). No, your precious CO2 just isn't turning out to be the bogeyman that Al Gore and friends want it to be.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

If it were true (that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming) then this would be demonstrable via an experiment. Have you done this experiment?

Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".

It appears that you are confused about the nature of the greenhouse effect (confusing it with greenhouses or some blather about "chemical reactions") which doesn't bode well for proving your theory that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming.

Are you able to prove your theory that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming? Yes or No?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[mfearby]

Cherry picking is exactly what the IPCC. Mediaeval warming period? Smudge that from the record to generate a nice hockey-stick style graph. Ah, that's better. The sky is falling! Pay us more money to produce more of this worthless crap. The only cherry picking going on is by governments, scientists, and green groups who can't bring themselves to review their own work and wonder why their worthless models turned out to be so worthless.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

It appears that you are confused about the nature of the greenhouse effect (confusing it with greenhouses or some blather about "chemical reactions") which doesn't bode well for proving your theory that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming.

"My" theory? Reading comprehension is not your strong suite. I am criticizing your critique of someone else's position.

You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect into his position and treated that as an internal contradiction.

That's nonsense, because it's your assumption. The point about greenhouses is merely that the common words used in this debate are abused beyond their meaning.

Are you able to prove your theory that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming? Yes or No?

The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming". Never mind that the earth is too complex a system to isolate the effect of CO2.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[riverat1]

Of course 2015 is going to blow all the previous temperature records out of the water and if it's anything like the last 2 big El Ninos in 1982/1983 and 1997/1998 it's likely that 2016 will be even higher than 2015. In 2017 the year 2015 or 2016 will be the start of a new "pause".

And ice is definitely melting.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

"My" theory?

Correct.

You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect into his position and treated that as an internal contradiction.

Excellent. If you are correct, and greenhouse gases have no warming effect then this is obviously something you have proven experimentally. Cite the relevant paper in which you published your results.

The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming".

Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.

Never mind that the earth is too complex a system to isolate the effect of CO2.

Cite the relevant paper that demonstrates that we need to isolate the effect of CO2 to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please remember "Trees are not thermometers"!!!!!!

fucking Mann, what a fucking idiot, there are too many other variables, you cannot extract temperature from tree remains/fossils.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[david_thornley]

It's not circular reasoning, since we know independently that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the amount of heat on the surface of the planet. That's been known since the end of the Nineteenth Century.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

"My" theory?

Correct.

I have not offered a theory. You lack reading comprehension.

Excellent. If you are correct, and greenhouse gases have no warming effect then this is obviously something you have proven experimentally. Cite the relevant paper in which you published your results.

This is a false dilemma. Pointing out that "greenhouse gases cause warming" has insufficient evidence does not require me to take another position.

I do not need to offer the right answer to say that 1+1 = 3 is wrong.

Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.

Cite the relevant paper that demonstrates that we need to isolate the effect of CO2 to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.

I don't need to cite anything. I am pointing out your logical fallacy. You don't even know how to know truth.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

I have not offered a theory.

You didn't say The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming".?

Yes or No?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

your theory that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming.

"My" theory?

Correct.

Falsely attributing a particular position to me does not make it my theory.

You didn't say The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming".?

That statement is irrelevant to the above exchange.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

A yes or no answer. It's pretty straightforward. You didn't say The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming"?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[dave420]

1. You are assuming. If you can't see the assumptions in your posts, well, you're doing my work for me.

2. I'm not American, and you being Canadian doesn't change the fact that you are doing a great impression of him.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[dave420]

The Medieval Warm Period was a heavily localised phenomenon offset by drastic cooling elsewhere. That's why it doesn't figure in global temperatures, as it wasn't global.

And you should be able to realise that "but they're being dishonest too" does not make your dishonesty fine. The fact the IPCC is not, in reality, being dishonest makes your argument and defence even more pathetic.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[cbeaudry]

Again... attack the person, not the message, right?

I posted a link. Comment on it, or keep your ignorance to yourself.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

Yes, I said, "The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming"

Yes or no question for you: Did you attribute "increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming" as my theory?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

Yes, I said, "The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming"

Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.

Yes or no question for you: Did you attribute "increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming" as my theory?

Yes. You chose to dispute a theory that has been proven experimentally (see Arrhenius et. al.). So either you are (a) merely denying reality (not my problem), (b) have time travelled from a different past where Arrhenius, Fourier and Tyndall didn't prove the theory of greenhouse gases experimentally (c) Have a theory that gives you a reason to think that Arrhenius was wrong.

You've chosen to be coy about your real thinking, so I'll make free to assign whatever reason I see fit.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.

I don't need to cite anything. I am pointing out your logical fallacy.

Yes. You chose to dispute a theory that has been proven experimentally (see Arrhenius et. al.).

I can dispute a theory without adopting a different one. I can say 1+1 = 2 is wrong without providing a different answer. I can say 1+1 = 3 is wrong without providing a different answer.

This is really, really basic logic, and you don't get it. I suggest that you avoid scientific disputes and go into art instead, where your subjective feelings can have free rein.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

I don't need to cite anything.

You can choose to cite the relevant proof of your theory, or choose not to, and in consequence, your opinion/fantasy will be ignored. Your choice.

I can dispute a theory without adopting a different one.

If you think that merely spouting a fantasy obligates others to disprove that fantasy than all that will happen is that you will be laughed at.

I can say 1+1 = 2 is wrong without providing a different answer.

You can assert that 1+1 = 2 is wrong, as you have asserted that Arrhenius is wrong, but nobody will believe you.

Do you honestly think that anybody cares about your fantasies?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

Do you honestly think that anybody cares about your fantasies?

That's an excellent question that you should ask yourself. Logical fallacies, false attribution, and selective quoting - you have no credibility.

On top of that, you're treating "study" with religious dogma. Science isn't a religion.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

You can choose to cite the relevant proof of your theory, or choose not to, and in consequence, your opinion/fantasy will be ignored. Your choice.

(nil response)

Which option do you choose? Are you going to cite the relevant material or accept your own irrelevance?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

When you have no credibility, I don't care what you think of my "irrelevance".

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

When you have no credibility,

Thanks for spoutiing yet more unproven assertions, but let's just take your proofs one assertion at a time.

Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

Thanks for spoutiing yet more unproven assertions

I've already demonstrated why you have no credibility. The only thing left to do is to mock your impotence.

If you think I'm irrelevant ... why are you wasting your time?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

Whoops! Looks like you forgot to provide the citation:

Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.

Or should we assume you have no citation?

Thanks for spoutiing yet more unproven assertions

I've already demonstrated why you have no credibility.

Excellent: then you'll have no trouble at all providing a citation, when it comes time to examine your latter assertions in detail.

If you think I'm irrelevant ... why are you wasting your time?

Oh it's not trouble. Mostly just copy and paste.

Later on the discussion will get more interesting. Stick around.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

Irrelevant demand is irrelevant.

Logical fallacies remain. Credibility still gone.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

Can;t provide the cite?

Time's up. Your theory is bunk.

Credibility still gone.

Didn't you mistake "thermodynamic" for exothermic?: Do you think greenhouse warming is a function of chemical reaction rates?

I think you did. When I said "thermodynamic" you thought I meant "exothermic", because you're an ignorant buffoon.

Didn't you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".

Didn't you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?:Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".

Tell us again about credibility.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

Deliberately and falsely attributed theory. Demands to be taken seriously.

Switching topics for a reaction, any reaction.

Hint: Hold yourself accountable for your own words, and then you have credibility to criticize others' positions.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

DId you say: Do you think greenhouse warming is a function of chemical reaction rates? ?

Yes or No?

Did you say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".

Yes or No?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

Awww, you still think of yourself as a prosecutor getting to the truth.

Retract your false attribution of "my theory".

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

You mean this attribution:

DId you say: Do you think greenhouse warming is a function of chemical reaction rates? ? Or this one:

Did you say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

You know which one you falsely attributed to me.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

You mean this attribution:

DId you say: Do you think greenhouse warming is a function of chemical reaction rates? ? Or this one:

Did you say: Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".

You know which one you falsely attributed to me.

So those attributions are correct then. Well that's good :-)

Seems it would be easier if you just say yes or no. But your choice.

Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?

Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

So is your fantasy to be an Inquisitor interrogating the unbelievers in Science?

Maybe you can wear one of those funny hats. They'll never expect it.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

Guess again!

Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?

Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

"Science Heretic! Confess now and the Inquisition will grant you a quick death!"

I confess that you're too fat and stupid to pull it off. People are just going to point and laugh.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

Are people laughing at me, or the guy who entered a discussion on a scientific subject which he/she had no apparent knowledge of, and then didn't want to discuss the science?

Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?

Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

People are laughing at the illiterate fool who commits logical fallacy after logical fallacy when attacking other's positions.

Like a man who smashes himself in the face with a hammer and thinks he's making a point about how dangerous he is.

Dangerous to himself perhaps.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

People are laughing at the illiterate fool who commits logical fallacy after logical fallacy when attacking other's positions.

And this is you, right? The guy whose only apparent argument is an ad hominem fallacy? Are there ANY facts about climate science that you have asserted and defended with a citation during the course of this discussion?

Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?

Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

And this is you, right? The guy whose only apparent argument is an ad hominem fallacy?

You weren't paying attention when I pointed out your false dilemma, huh?

Actually, that's not true, because you change the subject to everything else except your own logical fallacy.

You're running away from your own words but still posture as qualified to prosecute and interrogate.

Asking for citations when dealing with a logical fallacy is a really stupid categorical error. Dumb.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

You weren't paying attention when I pointed out your false dilemma, huh?

This is the false dilemma the depends on your assumption that I, and not Svante Arrhenius, developed the theory of the greenhouse gas effect? False dilemma indeed!

Unless you think that I am Svante Arrhenius? Did I travel through time or am I just really well preserved?

Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?

Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?

Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

This is the false dilemma the depends on your assumption that I, and not Svante Arrhenius, developed the theory of the greenhouse gas effect? False dilemma indeed!

That's not even close to what I was talking about. Strawman.

This is yet another example of your practical illiteracy. You may have the education to understand phrases in isolation, but you clearly are unable to grasp the ideas they communicate.

Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?

Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?

Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?

What magical power do you think the repetition of your irrelevant false premised questions has?

Logic isn't magic, dumbass.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

That's not even close to what I was talking about.

Did you say You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect

Yes or No?

Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?

Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?

Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

The witchdoctor waves his hand in solemn ceremony, chanting words with no meaning.

Nothing happens.

The witchdoctor furrows his brow and repeats his words.

This time, this time.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

Did you say You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect?

(no answer)

Should we assume you were lying then?

Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

(no answer)

Should we assume this interpretation of your remarks?

Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?

(no answer)

Should we assume you still think this?

Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?

(no answer)

Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?

(no answer)

Should we assume this is true?

If you don't answer the questions, we'll just assume you have no explanation other than the most obvious interpretation of your remarks.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

If you don't answer the questions, we'll just assume ...

We? You should stop listening to the voices in your head. Your assumptions suck.

... you have no explanation other than the most obvious interpretation of your remarks.

Nice try, but you've already established you are an irrational, illiterate moron.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

You should stop listening to the voices in your head

You just claimed that I'm a time travelling zombie. Somehow I don't think I'm the one with head problems.

Nice try, but you've already established you are an irrational, illiterate moron.

Somehow, I don't think you are in a position to insult anyone, given that you've now implicitly admitted that you entered this conversation because you thought "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic" - and then foamed at the mouth for a week or so while I asked you why. Nobody will take your thoughts on climate seriously ever again. Oh, and by the way, looks like you forgot to answer the questions:

Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?

Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?

Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

You just claimed that I'm a time travelling zombie. Somehow I don't think I'm the one with head problems.

You really need to see a doctor and get medicated. Your grip on reality is slipping.

That, or you're an compulsory liar. Still, get help.

Somehow, I don't think you are in a position to insult anyone, given that you've now implicitly admitted that you entered this conversation because you thought "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic" - and then foamed at the mouth for a week or so while I asked you why.

Go see a doctor, soon. The pills will help quiet the voices in your head, and you'll stop falsely accusing others with the nonsense you hallucinated.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

You just claimed that I'm a time travelling zombie. Somehow I don't think I'm the one with head problems.

You really need to see a doctor and get medicated. Your grip on reality is slipping.

Ah - so you didn't say that the greenhouse gas theory was my theory and as yet unproven? You didn't claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?

That, or you're an compulsory liar.

An compulsory liar? Are you 10 years old? Don't use words you think you heard your mum use.

Somehow, I don't think you are in a position to insult anyone, given that you've now implicitly admitted that you entered this conversation because you thought "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic" - and then foamed at the mouth for a week or so while I asked you why.

Go see a doctor, soon. The pills will help quiet the voices in your head, and you'll stop falsely accusing others with the nonsense you hallucinated.

It's your choice. You can elaborate on your earlier comments Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius" to explain how my interpretation is false. Otherwise the interpretation stands.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

Ah - so you didn't say that the greenhouse gas theory was my theory and as yet unproven? You didn't claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?

If you weren't illiterate, you'd have noticed that I did not claim either of those positions. If you weren't mentally unbalanced, you wouldn't have fantasized it. Get help.

Otherwise the interpretation stands.

No one cares how an illiterate irrational lying moron interprets my words. No credibility, remember?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

Ah - so you didn't say that the greenhouse gas theory was my theory and as yet unproven? You didn't claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?

If you weren't illiterate, you'd have noticed that I did not claim either of those positions.

Stop lying.

1. [you] You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming

2. [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".

I've quoted your own words back to you several times whilst you ducked and scrabbled for cover, you must be a drooling moron if you didn't think I would be able to contradict your lies by quoting your own words.

No one cares how an illiterate irrational lying moron interprets my words. No credibility, remember?

Your feelings about the matter don't enter into my thinking at all.

All that matters is getting you to voice your lies so you can be nailed to them.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

1. [you] You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming

A person with integrity would quote the entire sentence. You, however, are a liar, and too intellectually challenged to have a discussion with.

2. [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".

Just for giggles: How do greenhouses trap heat?

I've quoted your own words back to you several times whilst you ducked and scrabbled for cover [...]

What part of "you lack credibility" do you not understand? You attach nonsensical interpretations to other people's words and yet are desperate to be taken seriously.

Start by holding yourself accountable for the words you say.

For example, I called you a "compulsory liar" instead of a "compulsive liar". My bad.

Your feelings about the matter don't enter into my thinking at all.

You don't think at all, rather. That's how your interpretation of my words ended up so far from anything I was actually saying.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

1. [you] You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming

A person with integrity would quote the entire sentence -

Happy to quote the whole thing: You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect into his position and treated that as an internal contradiction. There is no reading of that sentence that has you saying anything other than attributing the theory of a greenhouse effect to me: you said it, you claimed, after some squirming, that you didn't say it, now you admit that you did. Your whole argument rests on demonstrating that the greenhouse effect is something I just made up, then you disowned your argument and then re-admitted to it.

Thanks for dropping by to lie to us.

2. [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".

Just for giggles: How do greenhouses trap heat?

Why are you again trying to change the subject: uncomfortable with being caught in a lie?

For example, I called you a "compulsory liar" instead of a "compulsive liar". My bad.

Yes it's like being attacked by a squealing rabbit. Not enough brains to clearly form words. Maybe that's why you say things and then forget what you said and then contradict yourself and then change your mind again.

Your feelings about the matter don't enter into my thinking at all.

You don't think at all, rather. That's how your interpretation of my words ended up so far from anything I was actually saying.

Did I get an interpretation wrong?

Which of the following did I get wrong?

Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?

Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?

Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

You inserted your own assumption that so called greenhouse gases must cause some warming effect into his position and treated that as an internal contradiction.

There is no reading of that sentence that has you saying anything other than attributing the theory of a greenhouse effect to me:

Like I said, you're an illiterate moron. I could step you through the thought if you ask nicely. It involves reading the entire paragraph, though, and doing a single sentence has already proven taxing on your intellect.

You didn't claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?

If you weren't illiterate, you'd have noticed that I did not claim either of those positions.

2. [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius".

[...] you must be a drooling moron if you didn't think I would be able to contradict your lies by quoting your own words.

Just for giggles: How do greenhouses trap heat?

Why are you again trying to change the subject [...]

Exchange repeated for amusement value. Do you not know what a greenhouse is?

Did I get an interpretation wrong?

Yes. Very. Get help, and then take some remedial English lessons.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

There is no reading of that sentence that has you saying anything other than attributing the theory of a greenhouse effect to me:

(no explanation)

We agree then: you lied.

Exchange repeated for amusement value. Do you not know what a greenhouse is?

Speak you lie clearly: Are you claiming to have randomly inserted a comment about greenhouses into a discussion about the greenhouse gas effect Yes or No?

Which brings me back to my question:

Didn't you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?: [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"?

It's one or the other. Which is it?

Did I get an interpretation wrong?

Yes.

Which of the following did I get wrong?

Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?

Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?

Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

We agree then: you lied.

Illiterate moron doubles down.

Speak you lie clearly: Are you claiming to have randomly inserted a comment about greenhouses into a discussion about the greenhouse gas effect Yes or No?

What lie? I said something, you misunderstood it. Your inability to understand is not a problem on my part.

Do you not know what a greenhouse is? How do greenhouses trap heat?

Which of the following did I get wrong?

You get everything wrong. It's hilarious, actually - someone who has trouble comprehending English appointing himself as the Great Defender of the Faith in Global Warming.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

There is no reading of that sentence that has you saying anything other than attributing the theory of a greenhouse effect to me: (no explanation)

We agree then: you lied.

Illiterate moron doubles down.

Do what ever you like. But I have the answer I needed. One down, 3 to go.

Speak you lie clearly: Are you claiming to have randomly inserted a comment about greenhouses into a discussion about the greenhouse gas effect Yes or No?

What lie?

It's right there idiot.

Didn't you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse?: [you] Greenhouses don't trap heat using chemical reactions, or anything related to "Arrhenius"? It's one or the other. Which is it?

I said something, you misunderstood it.

Ah, so you've chosen option 2. Excellent.

You did mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse. Which leaves only 2 questions remaining:

-> Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? (Answer: yes)

-> Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?

Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? (Answer: yes)

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

Haha.

Observe how this dishonest cretin continues to manufacture lies so as to build a Narrative.

The Grand Inquisitor of the Science Inquisition shall protect the Dogma of Global Warming against all heretics.

For great justice!

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

Observe how this dishonest cretin continues to manufacture lies so as to build a Narrative.

I'm observing one right now.

Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?

What's a greenhouse? How does a greenhouse trap heat?

What does a greenhouse have to do with Arrhenius?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

Did you mistake a discussion about greenhouse gases for a discussion about greenhouses?

Did you think that an article entitled Global Temperature Set To Reach 1 Degree C Over Pre-Industrial Levels was actually a discussion page for the local horticultural society?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

That moment of hilarity when a dimwit finally realizes he was barking up the wrong tree.

You're not going to get any answers until you hold yourself accountable for every lie and false accusation you made.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

Did you mistake a discussion about greenhouse gases for a discussion about greenhouses? Did you think that an article entitled Global Temperature Set To Reach 1 Degree C Over Pre-Industrial Levels was actually a discussion page for the local horticultural society?

That moment of hilarity when a dimwit finally realizes he was barking up the wrong tree.

So you did mistake a discussion about greenhouse gases for a discussion about greenhouses.

Caught you.

You're not going to get any answers ...

Don't lie.

And don't kid yourself - you don't get to set terms. You've already answered 3 of my 4 questions, leaving only this one:

Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

The train is fine.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

That makes no sense, but not necessarily any less sense than you normal responses I suppose.

Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

The train is still fine.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

That makes no sense, but not necessarily any less sense than you normal responses I suppose. Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[SillyHamster]

I know you were concerned, but the train is fine.

Re:Yeah, I know, I'm probably a denier...

[KeensMustard]

That makes no sense, but not necessarily any less sense than you normal responses I suppose. Do you think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?

Why do we still tolerate this BS

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, this is coming from a thermal engineer with solar panels. I have the solar panels because it made sense financially and it is an efficient use of the sun trying to bake my roof to powder.

These enviro nuts have zero perspective. Why we put up with them is purely due to all of the brainwashing that goes on in college campuses that carries forward to young adults. See the following graph for what we KNOW the earth has done in the past, before any industrialization:

http://www.climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

but we still tolerate these idiots running around with wildly inaccurate obscenely complex computer models proclaiming that we are causing our own doom... even after they were wrong about global cooling in the 70s and global warming for the last 30 years (go back and look at their models, we were supposed to be 10C hotter by now, and the news today is we might be 1C+/-.11 warmer.) So yeah, that is what is known as WRONG...

Oh and by the way, the climate models have underestimated land based plants ability to soak CO2 by 16% and they acknowledge that as levels rise, plants thrive, making the relationship non-linear (more CO2 = more and bigger plants and trees to soak it up). Thus, it may be much larger than 16% and actually more like CO2 soaked = CO2 concentration X plant factor^exponential power. Remember all that carbon that we are burning used to be plants at one time, but was trapped below the surface. This also ignores the tremendous amounts of ocean Algae and plant life that can litterally grow 100x a day under the right conditions (and one of those conditions is enough CO2).

If global warming destroys us, it will be because we listen to these morons and destroy our society. Once we are living in mud huts and the next ice age hits, we will be unable to cope and be wiped out. That is how it will actually happen, and you would know this if you are a student of history and reality, rather than a brainwashed, educated fool unable to think independently.

Re:Why do we still tolerate this BS

[Anonymous Coward]

even after they were wrong about global cooling in the 70s

A few random articles does not a widespread position make, please stop belaboring us with this.

The solution is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to look back over the past 100 years and see who is responsible for creating the factories and products that generated all of this increase in carbon emissions. They are the perpetrators of this disaster. Who is going after them?

Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

What's a "Global" temperature?

Re:Nonsensical Title

[Anonymous Coward]

It's what gives me government grants to "research" more about it. And given than it's funded by apparently infinite taxpayer money, it sort of works like a perpetual motion machine.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[rrohbeck]

The global average surface temperature.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

How do you measure this "global average surface temperature", and what does it mean?

Re:Nonsensical Title

[IceAgeComing]

There are several different ways of measuring it, but they all are trending upward.

https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/...

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

Yes, there are multiple methods. But if you don't know what you are measuring, your upward trend is meaningless.

Again, what is the meaning of "global average surface temperature"?

Re:Nonsensical Title

[IceAgeComing]

Temperatures are measured across the globe and they are all averaged together. Over the past couple of decades, this number has been trending upward, just like measurements of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere have been trending upward.

Any other questions that Google could have easily answered for you? Maybe put in a little effort to show that you are not trolling?

Re:Nonsensical Title

[mi]

Sort of like average temperature in a hospital. If you include the bodies in the morgue, the overall number is good.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

Temperatures are measured across the globe and they are all averaged together. Over the past couple of decades, this number has been trending upward, just like measurements of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere have been trending upward.

What do you think that average means?

Are you averaging night time temperature on one side of the globe to the day time temperature on the other side?

Are you timeshifting the measurement so that you're averaging peaks and lows?

What does that temperature actually mean when it is dependent on humidity, air pressure, time, and environment?

Earth has 200 million square miles of area. What is the coverage of measurements?

I haven't even asked about measurement error.

Maybe put in a little effort to show that you are not trolling?

If you think this is trolling, I have some bad news for you.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[Namarrgon]

Many of your questions are answered here, with links provided to further data. If you'd like more in-depth information about the exact process, why not contact an actual climatologist? There are some around who are taking the time to talk to the public, e.g. at RealClimate.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[riverat1]

Maybe you could do a little work and look at the scientific papers published about how they compute the average global temperature. It doesn't matter that much if the global average temperature is not exactly right in the absolute sense. As long as they use the same methods from one iteration to the next it's a reasonable indication of the trends in temperature which is what we care about most anyway.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

Many of your questions are answered here [nasa.gov], with links provided to further data.

No, they are not answered on that page. Making false statements does not give you credibility.

If you'd like more in-depth information about the exact process [nasa.gov], why not contact an actual climatologist?

I'm asking *you* (or anyone else who's responding) to answer the questions. Show me the layman understandable version, rather than trying to outsource it to some authority figure out there. If you don't know, have the honesty to admit it.

Anything that is understandable can be explained simply. Anyone who claims an issue is too complicated to explain simply does not understand it himself.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

Maybe you could do a little work and look at the scientific papers published about how they compute the average global temperature.

If it's so well known, you can explain it simply; if you don't know how to explain it, then just say so.

It doesn't matter that much if the global average temperature is not exactly right in the absolute sense.

The derivative of meaningless numbers is also meaningless. That is why the meaning of the original numbers has to be examined and understood, so we can see if the dervative is something to be concerned about.

As long as they use the same methods from one iteration to the next it's a reasonable indication of the trends in temperature which is what we care about most anyway.

They aren't. They extrapolated past temperatures based on ice cores and tree rings, and the current measurement methods are constantly being revised with new technologies.

There's a lot of guess work going on, and it is criminal that measurement error is not reported.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[dave420]

So you have no interest in learning, you just want to ask questions and ignore the answers, hoping that you don't have to think about this any more. Your ignorance, and your acceptance of it, is astounding.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Nonsensical Title

[riverat1]

If it's so well known, you can explain it simply; if you don't know how to explain it, then just say so.

I didn't say it was simple. It involved gridded area weighted averages over the whole surface of the Earth.

They aren't. They extrapolated past temperatures based on ice cores and tree rings, and the current measurement methods are constantly being revised with new technologies.

The global average temperatures since 1880 have nothing to do with ice cores, tree rings or other proxies. They're based on thermometer measurements only.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

So you have no interest in learning, you just want to ask questions and ignore the answers, hoping that you don't have to think about this any more. Your ignorance, and your acceptance of it, is astounding.

Asking *you* to explain it to me is the opposite of accepting ignorance.

The inability of various responders to provide answers is the actual ignorance.

How hard is it to give a simple answer and then point to an authoritative source? But the simple answer is skipped and the responders hide behind the supposed authority.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

I didn't say it was simple. It involved gridded area weighted averages over the whole surface of the Earth.

I didn't say it was simple either. But even complex systems can be described simply. For example, you could say that the global average temperature reflects the net amount of heat the earth traps from the sun.

Is that what it means?

The global average temperatures since 1880 have nothing to do with ice cores, tree rings or other proxies. They're based on thermometer measurements only.

No one was collecting "global average temperature" in 1880. Didn't have the tools or coverage.

What you actually have is "projected global average temperature based on the 1880 temperature measurements we happen to have".

Those 1880 temperature measurements are not made with the same tools or methods as our current measurements 130 years later. We have a lot more research money going into the topic right now. Some of that money ends up in sophisticated new temperature measuring tools which did not exist 130 years ago.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[david_thornley]

There are areas of science and mathematics that are well known, and very difficult to explain. Everybody knows that gravity exists, but we're having a lot of problems explaining it. The NP-completeness issue is well known, but it's still difficult to explain the concept of NP-hard meaningfully in a Slashdot post.

Just because measurements aren't accurate doesn't mean they're meaningless. If we're consistently measuring the Earth at 0.5C low, then we know what the temperature changes are.

Measurement error does seem to be reported. For example, 2014 is the hottest year measured in human times, but the information came with the caveat that the measurement errors are such that it might well not be.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

Just because measurements aren't accurate doesn't mean they're meaningless.

That is not related to my question. A number is assigned to Earth and the number is shown to change over time. That number doesn't carry it's own meaning. It's the unit that gives it meaning. Now, if there unit were of mass, that'd be straight forward - what's the total mass of earth? If it were of velocity, that's also straight forward enough - where is this big ball of mass going in space and time?

But "global temperature"? That's not straightforward at all. Temperature is volatile and dependent on many factors. Same heat content put into different substances gives you different temperature readings.

Let's say we measured every human's internal temperature and created a global average human temperature- what meaning does that have for earth's global temperature? Not much - humans are warm blooded mammals that regulate their internal temperature, and are only a tiny percentage of the earth's total volume or mass. What you choose to measure changes the meaning of the final number.

If we're consistently measuring the Earth at 0.5C low, then we know what the temperature changes are.

And the number is nonsensical if not properly understood. The temperature swing from morning to night is several magnitudes greater than 0.5C. The temperature swing from season to season is several magnitudes greater than 0.5C.

There is so much innate volatility in a temperature number that the definition of "average" adds a very large number of assumptions that need to be qualified.

Measurement error does seem to be reported. For example, 2014 is the hottest year measured in human times, but the information came with the caveat that the measurement errors are such that it might well not be.

Reported is not the same as verified. When it comes to science, your margin of error matters more than your actual results.

Every unqualified assumption adds error to the results. That's why I'm asking these questions, and the lack of good answers indicates a very, very large margin of error in what is said to be known.

This is prejudice masquerading as science, and people who actually like science should be concerned about this.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[riverat1]

I didn't say it was simple either. But even complex systems can be described simply. For example, you could say that the global average temperature reflects the net amount of heat the earth traps from the sun.

To say that it reflects the net amount of heat the Earth traps from the Sun wouldn't be correct in my view. It's more about the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation. The incoming radiation is mostly in the visible range while the outgoing radiation is mostly in the infrared range (ignoring radiation that is just reflected thus having no effect). The atmosphere is mostly transparent to visible range radiation but the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, CO2, methane, etc) are opaque in certain ranges to infrared radition. That in effect slows down the outgoing radiation causing the Earth's surface to heat up enough so that the outgoing radiation level matches the incoming radiation. When the level of a greenhouse gas changes that disrupts the balance causing a change in temperature at the surface.

No one was collecting "global average temperature" in 1880. Didn't have the tools or coverage.

No one is collecting global average temperature today. It's a derived number by taking the temperatures from hundreds of separate weather stations. While the coverage was less in the 1880's it was still adequate to derive a global average temperature, just with slightly higher error ranges than current ones.

The 1880's temperatures were measured with thermometers just like they are now. The major difference now is that the thermometers are mostly electronic rather than liquid in glass. Current instruments may be more precise than older instruments but the level of precision of the older instruments is more than adequate for the job.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[Namarrgon]

I'm asking *you* (or anyone else who's responding) to answer the questions.

I see; you're after an argument, not information. Have fun with that!

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

It's more about the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation.

So net energy the earth receives from the sun?

This is why I want this explanation. It shouldn't be this hard to find out what we think we're measuring with "global average surface temperature".

No one is collecting global average temperature today. It's a derived number by taking the temperatures from hundreds of separate weather stations. While the coverage was less in the 1880's it was still adequate to derive a global average temperature, just with slightly higher error ranges than current ones.

These are important details for any discussion on this issue, buried in the fine print.

Google says Earth has roughly 200 million square miles of surface area. With hundred of measuring stations, that means each station is responsible for sampling several hundred thousand square miles.

The original question was, "What is global temperature?"

The answer, according to these facts, is an indirect measure of the energy the earth keeps from the sun, using an average extrapolated from hundreds of temperature measurements from the earth's surface, with each sample representing several hundred thousand square miles.

I thank you for actually trying to answer the question; most of the other responses failed at increasing understanding.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

I see; you're after an argument, not information. Have fun with that!

I was looking for information. The information I got is that irrelevant links are treated as useful answers.

That's information about the reading comprehension and technical background of the responders.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[riverat1]

Calling it "net energy" doesn't feel right to me but whatever.

Those 100's of stations you are talking about are all on land which is only about 58 million miles^2 of the Earth's surface meaning each station is responsible for maybe 10,000 miles^2. There are also the sea surface measurements to take in to account. I've never been to clear about how they gather and collate sea surface measurements.

The question you have to ask is "Are the number of stations used adequate to derive a global temperature?" Evidence suggests it is. In particular I'd like to point out the Berkeley Earth project. They use all available data including over 39,000 unique stations yet their results aren't significantly different than NOAA, NASA and HADCRUT. So I have a hard time dinging NOAA for using a limited number of stations as long as it's statistically justified.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[david_thornley]

The temperature of the surface of the Earth is well-defined. We define a certain volume, like the atmosphere below certain limits. Any part of that can have its temperature measured. The question is how well our measurements correspond to that temperature. Scientists have been working on problems like that for centuries, and it's pretty well understood.

Since temperature does vary like that, we have to express it as an average. Temperature during the day fluctuates a lot, but if we average it over a month we get a much more representative value. If there's random errors in measuring the temperature, they'll mostly cancel out. To get the average, you get a lot of measurements throughout the month, making sure they're evenly distributed around the day-night cycle, and average them. The seasonal average is probably going to change, so if you compare May to May, December to December, you'll get a more meaningful analysis. Measuring an average temperature for a year is going to account for all seasonal variation.

I don't see what the problem is. How we get from individual measurements to monthly averages is undoubtedly covered in a variety of scientific papers I'm not interested in reading. So is the verification of the margin of error. The general principles are well known, and the details are almost certainly there. Your problem is that you're asking highly technical questions with no short answers on Slashdot, rather than digging into the scientific literature. The problem with checking science is much like the problem with auditing open source software: theoretically anyone can do it, but in practice it requires certain skills and a lot of work.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

The temperature of the surface of the Earth is well-defined

No it is not. Have you gone outside lately? Walked in the sun, rested in the shade, sat on the grass? Coming up with a single temperature number for 200 million square miles and a corresponding volume is not well defined or even meaningful.

The first thing you need to know about any model is that it's definitely wrong.

The second thing you need to know is that with the right assumptions, you can make the model usefully wrong.

And that's what I'm doing - checking if anyone here actually knows what the assumptions are, and how or why they are right.

When you make a wrong statement like the quoted one above, that's an indication that you don't have the right assumptions, and so your model is uselessly wrong.

Your problem is that you're asking highly technical questions with no short answers on Slashdot, rather than digging into the scientific literature.

"What's a `global temperature'?" is not a highly technical question.

Based on the responses so far, it doesn't actually have any meaning, which makes being concerned about its derivative pointless.

theoretically anyone can do it, but in practice it requires certain skills and a lot of work.

I'm an engineer. I analyze complex systems. The earth is a complex system, and I can understand the techniques being used here enough to know they are inadequate for the stated purpose.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

The question you have to ask is "Are the number of stations used adequate to derive a global temperature?" Evidence suggests it is. In particular I'd like to point out the Berkeley Earth project. They use all available data including over 39,000 unique stations yet their results aren't significantly different than NOAA, NASA and HADCRUT. So I have a hard time dinging NOAA for using a limited number of stations as long as it's statistically justified.

The question I'm asking is if "global" temperature is the right thing to measure?

Can you convert that global temperature into a measure of the earth's heat energy, as a measure of the net energy the earth has retained from sunlight? No.

When heat and radiation energy can be stored as chemical energy and vice versa, there's a lot that we're not measuring that are important factors.

The tools are inadequate to detect a problem.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[dave420]

All these questions have been answered time and time again. If you honestly want to learn, clearly trolling around slashdot pushing people's buttons is not going to work. The fact you are asking to be educated, and then go on to spout your own conjecture in the full knowledge of your lacking education does not paint you in the best light. If you really seek education, it's out there.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[david_thornley]

In the volume of concern, there is almost no place we can't insert a thermometer into. Therefore, the temperature at almost any point is determinable and well-defined. If we break up the atmosphere into cubic centimeters, there is an operationally defined temperature for each (I can go into reasons why the gradient across a cubic centimeter doesn't matter all that much). The arithmetic mean of those temperatures has a value, and it is well-defined. Since you don't agree, please tell me what such an average does mean. From my point of view, this is where your argument starts being nonsensical. Despite being an engineer, you obviously don't understand the basis of the techniques being used.

Since we can't make all those measurements, we find ways to approximate that mean, and try to determine the error distribution. This is where the highly technical stuff comes in. You could call this a model of the global temperature, and it's going to be wrong in some way. The question is whether it's useful. This is a very common concern in all sorts of sciences, and scientists are pretty good at dealing with such questions.

Since we're primarily interested in changing global temperature, it doesn't really matter if our measurements are off by a constant factor. Other variance does matter a lot. So, we have a qualitative description of the usefulness of a model of something that is well-defined, and we can make that quantitative if we like. This is technical stuff, and you're not likely to get all the details without reading quite a few scientific papers.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Nonsensical Title

[riverat1]

The question I'm asking is if "global" temperature is the right thing to measure?

Why wouldn't it be? I don't disagree that it's not a particularly useful number on a local or regional level but as a general indicator of the changing climate on the Earth it works. Obviously if you in instantly integrate the temperature of every square centimeter across the whole surface of the Earth you would get a different number but as long as they use a consistent methodology to derive the global temperature it should be a good indicator of how temperatures are changing over time.

Of course global temperature is just a general indicator of global warming. The effects show up in a myriad of ways. Melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea levels, changes in growing seasons and the ranges of plants and animals, etc. Nearly all of the changes point in one direction.

As far a net energy, calculations find that the Earth is accumulating energy at a rate of around 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

All these questions have been answered time and time again.

Giving bad answers doesn't count.

The fact you are asking to be educated, and then go on to spout your own conjecture in the full knowledge of your lacking education does not paint you in the best light. If you really seek education, it's out there.

Yes, education is "out there". It's not here, because most of you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

I don't disagree that it's not a particularly useful number on a local or regional level but as a general indicator of the changing climate on the Earth it works

For differing values of "works". The local dataset is useful just because it provides a record of the local temperature, which is actually observed and has its effect.

The "global temperature" can't be observed, and is only derived by complex calculations. When the local temperature record is wrong, you can observe and correct it. When the "global temperature" calculation is wrong, how do you find out?

as long as they use a consistent methodology to derive the global temperature it should be a good indicator of how temperatures are changing over time.

Not if you factor in the margin of error generated by the assumptions and techniques.

Think carefully about how many cubic feet of air is sampled by one thermometer at one measuring station, and the ratio of that sample to the overall volume of air it represents. 1.47e11 cubic feet per cubic mile. 1 station for 10,000 square miles.

There is a ridiculous amount of extrapolation in the model, and that means tiny errors in measurement create huge margins of error in the results.

Melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea levels, changes in growing seasons and the ranges of plants and animals, etc. Nearly all of the changes point in one direction.

The changes do not point in one direction. That is sensationalistic reporting aimed at creating a narrative instead of a balanced perspective.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/02/nasa-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-growing-not-shrinking/

As far a net energy, calculations find that the Earth is accumulating energy at a rate of around 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second.

1. Calculation is not observation

2. Energy in what form? Biomass is chemical energy. We do not have the measurement tools to track biomass accumulation at a global level.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[riverat1]

The "global temperature" can't be observed, and is only derived by complex calculations. When the local temperature record is wrong, you can observe and correct it. When the "global temperature" calculation is wrong, how do you find out?

By the law of large numbers it's unlikely that the global temperature calculation is wrong. BEST which I mentioned earlier uses temperatures from over 39,000 stations amounting to over a billion observations over the years. You complain that one station is responsible for 10,000 square miles but to be taken seriously you need to show that those stations are not a reasonable representation of the surrounding areas. Researchers who have spent decades looking at the issues have decided they are.

The changes do not point in one direction. That is sensationalistic reporting aimed at creating a narrative instead of a balanced perspective.

I did of course say "nearly all of". The study referred to by the dailycaller article is one study that is an outlier compared to the studies that came before it. Even if it turns out to be correct it doesn't contradict global warming. In the extreme cold of Antarctica warming actually increases the chances of more snowfall because warmer air holds more moisture than colder air. I believe the same thing is happening in Greenland with positive accumulation in the center while around the edges the ice is crumbling into the sea.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

By the law of large numbers it's unlikely that the global temperature calculation is wrong.

Not remotely relevant. The accuracy of the global temperature calculation depends on the assumptions of the model. Garbage in, garbage out.

BEST which I mentioned earlier uses temperatures from over 39,000 stations amounting to over a billion observations over the years. You complain that one station is responsible for 10,000 square miles but to be taken seriously you need to show that those stations are not a reasonable representation of the surrounding areas. Researchers who have spent decades looking at the issues have decided they are.

A billion observations of a heterogeneous mix of 5000 trillion tonnes of air molecules.

So over 10 years, you're looking at 1 sample per 50 million tonnes of air molecules per year. 1e9 may sound like an impressive number to you, but there are plenty of other large numbers when dealing with system on a planetary scale.

Even if it turns out to be correct it doesn't contradict global warming.

It only happens to contradict previous global warming predictions that all the ice would be gone and we'd have massive floods of coastal areas.

False predictions is theory falsification. Only junk science would ignore that.

In the extreme cold of Antarctica warming actually increases the chances of more snowfall because warmer air holds more moisture than colder air.

Bullshit rationalization to save the theory after the predictions failed. If you turn up the heat in your oven, a corner will become freezing cold, right?

When you're protecting the theory against the evidence, you're not practicing science.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[riverat1]

Not remotely relevant. The accuracy of the global temperature calculation depends on the assumptions of the model. Garbage in, garbage out.

The assumptions of what model specifically? If you're talking about climate models they have nothing to do with the average global temperature.

It only happens to contradict previous global warming predictions that all the ice would be gone and we'd have massive floods of coastal areas.

Now I know you really don't know a thing about global warming except what you read in climate science denier blogs. No one in the scientific community ever predicted that the ice would be gone by now. There was some speculation that if summer Arctic sea ice melt continued at the same rate as in 2006/2007 that it could start melting out by the end of summer sometime in the late 20teens but of course the ice would continue to reform in the winter for a long time to come. Most researchers believe that's likely to happen sometime between 2030 and 2050. As far as the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica it would take centuries or millenia for them to melt. Anything else is thermodynamically impossible at temperatures compatible with human life.

Already the amount of sea level rise (about 10 inches in the past 150 years) has increased the incidence of nuisance flooding in places like Norfolk, Virginia and Miami Beach, Florida.

Bullshit rationalization to save the theory after the predictions failed. If you turn up the heat in your oven, a corner will become freezing cold, right?

If the temperature rises from -10 to -5 it's warmer but still cold enough to snow but -5 degree air can hold more water vapor than -10 degree air. That's an incontrovertible scientific observation. At normal Earth temperatures the amount of water vapor air can hold goes up by about 7% for every 1 degree centigrade increase in temperature.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

The assumptions of what model specifically? If you're talking about climate models they have nothing to do with the average global temperature.

The model that claims that 39,000 stations provides precise enough measurement of the temperature of 5000 trillion tonnes of air, such that we can derive a "global temperature" and detect 100 year trends.

No one in the scientific community ever predicted that the ice would be gone by now.

I didn't say "now", either. I am describing a past future prediction. Going to no ice is obviously not going to happen when the ice is growing.

Most researchers believe that's likely to happen sometime between 2030 and 2050.

So if this dose not come to pass in 2050, are you willing to accept that this prediction is wrong and the underlying theory has been falisfied?

If the temperature rises from -10 to -5 it's warmer but still cold enough to snow but -5 degree air can hold more water vapor than -10 degree air. That's an incontrovertible scientific observation. At normal Earth temperatures the amount of water vapor air can hold goes up by about 7% for every 1 degree centigrade increase in temperature.

No one predicted that "global warming" (now "climate change") would result in more ice.

I'm not arguing about the low level physics. The proposed mechanism is backfilled speculation about a complex system that is still not fully understood.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[riverat1]

The model that claims that 39,000 stations provides precise enough measurement of the temperature of 5000 trillion tonnes of air, such that we can derive a "global temperature" and detect 100 year trends.

Mostly we're only measuring the bottom 2 or 3 meters of the atmosphere but that's beside the point. Thousands of scientists and statisticians think it's an adequate measure and that's good enough for me. If you think otherwise it's up to you to provide actual scientific evidence.

I didn't say "now", either. I am describing a past future prediction. Going to no ice is obviously not going to happen when the ice is growing.

Your original statement was "It only happens to contradict previous global warming predictions that all the ice would be gone and we'd have massive floods of coastal areas." To me that implies you meant by now. No "past future prediction" that I'm aware of said that. Ice on the Earth's surface is a complex thing composed of glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice. It's not particularly surprising that in some places the ice is increasing now. Meanwhile the net amount of ice on the planet is still declining.

So if this dose not come to pass in 2050, are you willing to accept that this prediction is wrong and the underlying theory has been falisfied?

If I live to 2050 I'll be 98 years old. I'll just be happy to make it that far. I'd be willing to accept that particular prediction was wrong but I'd be looking for the reasons it was wrong such as a major volcanic eruption. As far as the whole of climate theory being wrong it's far to complex a subject for any one thing to falsify it.

No one predicted that "global warming" (now "climate change") would result in more ice.

It's been "climate change" since at least the 1950's. Gilbert Plass published a paper in 1956 titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change". As I said before the total amount of ice across the whole planet is still declining despite the fact that it is increasing in some areas.

I'm not arguing about the low level physics. The proposed mechanism is backfilled speculation about a complex system that is still not fully understood.

So are you saying since we don't fully understand it we should treat it as if we understand nothing?

Re:Nonsensical Title

[SillyHamster]

Mostly we're only measuring the bottom 2 or 3 meters of the atmosphere but that's beside the point. Thousands of scientists and statisticians think it's an adequate measure and that's good enough for me. If you think otherwise it's up to you to provide actual scientific evidence.

You can't explain why the assumptions are justified, but now I have a burden of proof?

Nonsense. As an engineer, I have the scientific training to grasp what you can reasonably conclude from a set of data.

Given the assumptions involved, there is very little you can actually conclude form the current "global warming" data.

Your original statement was "It only happens to contradict previous global warming predictions that all the ice would be gone and we'd have massive floods of coastal areas." To me that implies you meant by now. No "past future prediction" that I'm aware of said that.

I heard it, that's good enough for me. If that's not what the scientists meant, they should try a lot harder to control the conclusions being propagated.

Ice on the Earth's surface is a complex thing composed of glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice. It's not particularly surprising that in some places the ice is increasing now. Meanwhile the net amount of ice on the planet is still declining.

The predictions did not say, "some ice will increase". They were wrong, and the popular label of "greenhouse" warming misleads the public. (Greenhouses don't get cold spots amidst their warming)

No one predicted that "global warming" (now "climate change") would result in more ice.

It's been "climate change" since at least the 1950's. Gilbert Plass published a paper in 1956 titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".

That's not a prediction that "climate change" will result in more ice.

As I said before the total amount of ice across the whole planet is still declining despite the fact that it is increasing in some areas.

If it's measured like global temperature, there's no credibility here. A quick look also finds that they're talking about AREA, when the important numbers depends on VOLUME. Area can be approximated as volume ... but again we are dealing with margin of error contributed by assumptions exceeding the result of concern.

The proposed mechanism is backfilled speculation about a complex system that is still not fully understood.

So are you saying since we don't fully understand it we should treat it as if we understand nothing?

No, I'm pointing out that zero accountability for false predictions results in no integrity for the process.

Actions based on false understanding are more harmful than actions based on little understanding. We can deal with known unknowns far better than unknown unknowns. False understanding results in far more of the latter, by definition.

Re:Nonsensical Title

[riverat1]

Ah, the arrogance of the engineer. Why don't you write a scientific paper to show them the error of their ways?

Regarding measuring ice loss I think the GRACE satellites tell the story. They measure changes in gravity around the Earth. They show large losses in mass around Greenland and West Antarctica.

stop beating up on car drivers

[JustNiz]

I agree that moving away from IC engines would be good for the enviironment, and I agree that motor vehicles are a significant contributor to human-caused emissions of greenhouse gasses, but lets get this into persspective:
  The entire transportation sector only accounts for about 27% of the total man-made greenhouse gas (MMGG) emissions:
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...

Of that 27%, Road transport accounts for 72%,
http://www3.epa.gov/climatecha...
the rest is aviation and marine. That means about 19% of all MMGG is road vehicles.
From http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/clima...
  About 23% of that 19% is from heavy duty vehicles (so 18 wheelers etc are responsible for 4.37% of all MMGG), which means that all the millions of family cars on the road are actually only responsible for 14.6%.
Clearly we need to target electricity generation (31%) and industry (21%) long before just beating up on car drivers more.

Re:stop beating up on car drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

That is all true what your saying but still the efficiencie of a coal power plant is 60+% and a car/ICE is 30% this means that YES we need to fix the coalplants, but still its beter to charge your EV with coal then with a gas.

Re:stop beating up on car drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of worrying about who we're beating up on, we should tax emissions and let the free market figure it out. That ought to appeal to conservatives.

Re:stop beating up on car drivers

[cbeaudry]

Free market and taxe?

Do you even know what your saying?

Re:stop beating up on car drivers

[JustNiz]

but burning coal has far worse greenhouse emissions than burning gasoline, so its not a level playing field.

Re:stop beating up on car drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

We (by "we" I mean "the advanced world") *have* been targeting electricity generation and industry, since Kyoto and before. That's why you see so much hype about wind and solar electricity generation nowadays. But that's not *instead of* transport, it's as well as.

Re:stop beating up on car drivers

[AmiMoJo]

Cars don't just emit CO2 though, they emit all sorts of nasty stuff that damages human health. Even just the soot is bad enough to warrant trying hard to reduce it.

Re:stop beating up on car drivers

[LongearedBat]

Point taken - we should diversify our efforts. But I don't think we should put tasks aside until we get to them in some sort of sequential queue. We should deal with them all at the same time.

Re:stop beating up on car drivers

[JustNiz]

The numbers I gave I were for all greenhouse gasses emitted, not just Co2

Re:stop beating up on car drivers

[dave420]

As AmiMoJo attempted to point out to you: a lot more comes out of the back of a car than just greenhouse gasses.

Re:stop beating up on car drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:stop beating up on car drivers

[JustNiz]

Maybe you should respond to what I *actually* wrote instead of responding to your own incorrect assumption that I didn't read or understand what he wrote.

Re:stop beating up on car drivers

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on the following facts:

1) We really want to concern ourselves with the total amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The main culprits are CO2 and Methane
2) The main sources of human produced Methane is argriculture (livestock and rice fields), fossil fuels, and decaying landfills
3) The main sources of CO2 are the burning of coal, oil and gas

My approach would be as follows:

1) We have to stop extracting fossil fuels, leave that carbon in the earth. Replace your main energy use with Nuclear (70%), Hydro (20%), Solar and Wind (10%) and use LFTR generation 4+ reactors with the Thorium fuel cycle. Replace all existing reactors with these, and recycle the spent fuel from the Uranium fuel cycle to render it safe and recover the 99% unused energy that is still in it. And I'm not talking a few reactors. I'd want 1000's, all the same design, completely modular, each pumping out a good 10-20,000 MW. At 20,000 MW, you'd only need 1000 of these to meet the total world energy consumption (in 2012 that was 155505 TWh for all sources including oil). So, build 1800 of these, in nuclear centers around the world, and you'd have more than enough energy left over to do the rest of the plan. We could do this in 20 years easy, 10 years to design, test, and build the initial reactor. 10 years to build the rest.

2) Use the massive amount of excess energy from these reactors to produce the liquid hydrocarbon fuel you need for vehicles using chemical processes and materials already in our ecosystem (becoming carbon/methane neutral). This gives you the nice liquid fuel we all know and love, without having to extract it from the earth. Yes it would be different fuel, but think of all the economic activity this would generate as we convert all our vehicles over to the new juice.

3) Use additional energy to help sequester the excess CO2 and use it for building materials etc. There's so many ways you can use CO2 it's not funny. And it's sitting there, freely available. As part of this, I would also reforest the planet. Any land currently going unused would be reforested, including large portions that have been previously used for grazing (see point 4).

4) Sorry meat eaters, beef just became a luxury item. Turn all existing cattle farms into methane/CO2 neutral farms, by severly regulating production. This would raise the price of beef, and would also shut down a lot of the production. This would also help with our water issue, as it takes 700+ gallons of water per pound of beef. We could also divert the corn to either fuel production, or actually EAT the stuff (helping to feed the world instead of cows). This would have to include cows, pigs, and chickens.

5) Problems with sea level still? Fine, use excess power to desalinate and then store the excess water. Convert one of the inner states (Ohio?) to a water storage/purification center, and desalinate at the coast, and then pipe it to the interior storage site for later use. Could also use this same site as a method to store power (giant gravity battery using water, aka a dam). Don't know what to do with the excess salt? Store it as raw material for manufacturing.

6) Reseed the oceans with life, making them super-strong fisheries. There's simply no excuse for over-fishing. We should be putting more into the system than taking out. Our protein base should be the sea, and not the land.

Yes, this would require a massive rethink and undertaking, but it would change the planet and put the US at the lead. The amount of jobs, infrastructure, and economic activity this would create would be astounding. Not only that, it could help kick start the post-scarcity economy.

Stretching the consensus

[khallow]

recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius

There is no such scientific view. I admit there is a consensus that humans have caused some degree of warming and I even agree with that. But to blandly claim without a bit of supporting evidence that there is a consensus on what temperature range is best for us is ridiculous.

What makes it worse is the lack of support for a temperature increase that small. There are a lot of countries that simply aren't on board with curbing human activities enough to avoid the cutbacks that are claimed to be necessary for holding warming to below 2 C. Time for a plan B that isn't stupid.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[rrohbeck]

Tell that to the Syrians.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[khallow]

Tell that to the Syrians.

Yet another argument conflating epic mismanagement of resources with global warming. If in a desert you pump out your ground water in order to grow cotton, there will be drought not matter if there is global warming or not.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[LynnwoodRooster]

Sure, because we all know that Global Warming is the reason brutal dictators exist, and religious extremists try to conquer the world.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[mi]

Global Warming is the reason brutal dictators exist, and religious extremists try to conquer the world

Real-life scare mongers are ahead of you here. And here.

The warming may be just as non-existent as the "damn cradle", but its effect on public health is already being discussed by people deemed — by themselves and others — to be our betters...

Re:Stretching the consensus

[dave420]

Without human CO2 emissions the global temperature trend would be negative. That indicates quite heavily that human activity is responsible for all of the warming.

Read the IPCC reports. Your questions have been answered. Either you are really, really lazy or you just don't care to know the answers.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[khallow]

Without human CO2 emissions the global temperature trend would be negative. That indicates quite heavily that human activity is responsible for all of the warming.

If you had read my post, you would have realized I more or less agree, though I don't agree that we know what the temperature trend would be in the absence of human activity.

Read the IPCC reports. Your questions have been answered. Either you are really, really lazy or you just don't care to know the answers.

The problem here is that the IPCC assertion I highlighted ("recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius") is not based on fact. Rereading the IPCC report will not change that.

But having said that, the IPCC reports do demonstrate, repeatedly, that the IPCC is firstly a propaganda tool which I suppose could be a related question. At this point, I think the IPCC reviews should just drop the "Summary for Policy Makers" due to the biases and exaggerations contained in those sections.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Stretching the consensus

[david_thornley]

The temperature range best for us is almost certainly what we've adapted to over the centuries. We're having changes in climate a lot faster than natural adaptation, creating extinctions and disruptions in the ecosystems, and it's getting to be faster than human society can easily absorb.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[khallow]

The temperature range best for us is almost certainly what we've adapted to over the centuries.

You mean over the last 40 years with A/C.

We're having changes in climate a lot faster than natural adaptation, creating extinctions and disruptions in the ecosystems, and it's getting to be faster than human society can easily absorb.

Deal with habitat destruction and invasive species and you've dealt with the climate change disruptions. Don't dealt with those two things and it won't matter if there is climate change or not.

Second, once again we have this noise about human societies being unable to deal with slight changes in temperature while ignoring that many of those societies didn't even exist over the time frames we're interested in. We're not even close to challenging the adaptability of human societies from climate change. In particular, the societies that are failing now, like Syria, for example, are doing so for reason that have nothing to do with climate change.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[david_thornley]

How do we deal with habitat destruction, if it's due to a global cause? If a part of the world gets less rain, that's habitat destruction, but what are we supposed to do about it? Irrigation would in some cases require pumping an immense volume of water up hundreds of meters or more. If the oceans get warmer, that's habitat destruction, and maybe the fish will find just as good a home farther from the equator or maybe their population will drop dramatically. This isn't a matter of not building a suburb or shopping mall.

The Syrian problems are apparently partly due to food shortages. If climate change caused by global warming has hurt food production in the area, which seems plausible to me, then Syria fell apart partly due to global warming.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[khallow]

How do we deal with habitat destruction, if it's due to a global cause?

By creating more habitat. It's worth noting here that far more habitat is lost to human day-to-day activities (like building a suburb or shopping mall) than due to climate change, human caused or not.

As to arable land, I had looked at that too. Google never worked for me on this, but some time back I calculated desertification due to soil depletion and compared it to a study which estimated loss of arable land from sea level rise and lower rainfall through to 2100 for a particular scenario of no mitigation of global warming. The former exceeded the land area of global warming related loss of arable land by two orders of magnitude. In other words, each year, we currently lose to human mismanagement about as much arable land as was forecast by that study to be lost to global warming through to the end of the century.

The Syrian problems are apparently partly due to food shortages. If climate change caused by global warming has hurt food production in the area, which seems plausible to me, then Syria fell apart partly due to global warming.

You miss the point. The Syrian problems happened solely due to land/water mismanagement and the political problems that come from a despot-led government. Global warming might have made it worse, but it wouldn't have happened at all, if it weren't for those two factors. It is dishonest to claim global warming is a contributing factor when the existence or absence of global warming doesn't change whether this disaster happens.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[dave420]

No, but the farming failures caused by shifting weather patterns and an increased local temperature average forced a massive internal displacement, exacerbating this situation massively.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[david_thornley]

There are times when managing things is easy, and you can get by with a great deal of mismanagement. There are times when managing things is hard, and you will cause real problems with mismanagement. I have no reason to doubt there was bad land and water mismanagement before the rebellion. I also have no reason to doubt there was bad land and water mismanagement previously. It might well be that global warming changed the situation from one where mismanagement was not disastrous to one where it was.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[khallow]

It might well be that global warming changed the situation from one where mismanagement was not disastrous to one where it was.

I think a compelling rebuttal is the rapid loss of control by the central government. The Syrian war went from one man setting himself on fire in Tunisia (on December 18, 2010, the triggering event for the Arab Spring) to loss of control over most of the country inside of a year. If this was due to climate change making things slightly worse and barely tipping Syria into an unstable civil war, then the decline would have been much more gradual.

Developed world countries routinely have huge protests, but those don't quickly devolve into civil wars. Developed world countries routinely have droughts and other extreme weather. Again, that doesn't quickly devolve into civil war.

Misattributing non-climate factors to global warming is a common bit of dishonest propaganda that one sees again and again in this area.

What gets ignored here is that we can't magically reset climate to 1850. There is tremendous cost involved.with global warming mitigation. It makes no sense to assume the ambitious cutbacks of tomorrow will be low cost when current efforts are remarkably costly and counterproductive.

And we ignore that global warming mitigation also makes the worst problems we face, like overpopulation and poverty worse. Those in turn by a variety of means worsen the factors that made man-made global warming such a problem in the first place directly or by aggravating effects (such as habitat destruction making species extinction from global warming worse).

I think you should demonstrate that these proposed solutions will make things better rather than merely assume that they will.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Stretching the consensus

[david_thornley]

Totalitarian governments can collapse quickly when they collapse. The Soviet Union sure didn't take long. When government really is a matter of us vs. them, the government has only a limited ability to recover from insurrection, and if it exceeds the bounds of the government's ability to cope for a bit that can tip things over. Food shortages caused by global warming-caused droughts can have a significant effect here.

Developed countries tend to be democratic, which means that the government has legitimacy with the people. If I had what I needed to launch an armed revolt in the US with a chance of winning, I could use those resources in election much more safely and with probably at least equal chances of success.

Are you of the opinion that global warming-driven climate change won't have real-world effects? We've got it now, and it has some effects, and some of those affect the everyday world. It increases the frequency of droughts, and that decreases food supply, and that can have consequences.

As far as mitigation goes, there's things we can do relatively cheaply. It isn't a matter of either giving up fossil fuels altogether or doing nothing, at least not in anything like the short term.

Re:Stretching the consensus

[khallow]

Totalitarian governments can collapse quickly when they collapse.

That's because they aren't stable.

Are you of the opinion that global warming-driven climate change won't have real-world effects? We've got it now, and it has some effects, and some of those affect the everyday world. It increases the frequency of droughts, and that decreases food supply, and that can have consequences.

I'm of the opinion that current and future consequences of AGW have been greatly exaggerated and overplayed.

Are you of the opinion that global warming-driven climate change won't have real-world effects? We've got it now, and it has some effects, and some of those affect the everyday world. It increases the frequency of droughts, and that decreases food supply, and that can have consequences.

Unless, of course, that isn't happening. That is the obvious rebuttal to an assertion made without supporting evidence.

As far as mitigation goes, there's things we can do relatively cheaply. It isn't a matter of either giving up fossil fuels altogether or doing nothing, at least not in anything like the short term.

Why doesn't the IPCC discuss the low lying fruit as an official strategy? Instead it's all discussion of the need to eliminate almost all greenhouse gases emissions by 2050 to avoid hitting an arbitrary CO2 equivalent concentration level. Where's the plan B?

Thus proving warming alarmism is a lie

[SuperKendall]

how much CO2 and other 'greenhouse gasses' humans are actually responsible for.

Don't forget China, between lying about car emissions and China lying about coal emissions, a HUGE volume of CO2 has been put into the atmosphere.

Which proves that CO2 does not cause warming, because warming has been DECREASING over the decades CO2 has been pouring into the atmosphere.

This proves simply that CO2 is not a direct driver of warming as is required for any of the warming models to be accurate in a rise of even 2C. What we are left with then is natural climactic warming, unrelated to atmospheric CO2 - which is what we'd have supposed all along if the global record of CO2 and temperature had been paid attention to to start with.

You want to get rid of pollution? So do I. But CO2 is NOT POLLUTION and by focusing on that and ignoring actual pollution you are fucking over the environment on a scale unimaginable. For that environmental crime I will never forgive nor forget the harm you warming alarmists have caused to the Earth, never again will you and your doom cult be trusted.

Re:Thus proving warming alarmism is a lie

[kheldan]

Listen, dude, I'm not an 'alarmist' of anything so stop accusing me of shit I'm not guilty of, and how does your rant really have anything to do with what I'm talking about? We keep putting a band-aid on 100 year old technology and fooling ourselves that we're 'helping' when what we need to do is get away from it entirely, and by the way they keep cutting down the rainforests in South America (I keep hearing about this every so often) which is what converts CO2 back into O2 for us to breathe; how is this being an 'alarmist' anyway? We need to knock all this shit off, sooner rather than later, and I can't see how anyone can argue that it's a bad idea unless you're just too lazy to want to change things. Sure, change is always hard, but isn't it time we, as a planet full of supposedly sentient beings, stopping being big babies about all this and just move towards things that don't cause unnecessary pollution and waste? Can you really give me a rational, intelligent argument against this idea? I don't think you or anyone can.

Re:Thus proving warming alarmism is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

Super Kendall, lying his ass of to deny reality as usual. Same old discredited denialist talking points, same lies, same obsufucation.
What a moron, are more likely paid shill.

Re:Thus proving warming alarmism is a lie

[dave420]

That's a terrible post, even for you. You really think you are proving anything by posting false claims and using them as evidence for your false conclusions?

The only thing you demonstrated is that you are either scientifically illiterate, hell-bent on deception, or both.

Re:Thus proving warming alarmism is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Thus proving warming alarmism is a lie

[Anonymous Coward]

You want to get rid of pollution? So do I. But CO2 is NOT POLLUTION and by focusing on that and ignoring actual pollution you are fucking over the environment on a scale unimaginable.

When we have burned the last bit of coal, oil, gas, ... oxygen levels will be down to 0.7%. This is going to be a problem. Sooner or later we will have to stop.

Agree....

[King_TJ]

Although scientists don't have a great track record of predicting the end of "peak oil" ... it does seem to me that we're on track to phase out the burning of fossil fuels as a primary means of energy production.

Without any legislative interference, we're going to find "supply and demand" will dictate a change of course in coming decades, if localized pollution issues don't dictate it in some cases first.

What we DO know is that the major oil companies have been investing larger and larger amounts of money to drill ever further off-shore. That's not something that makes ANY financial sense at all, given the risks + cost, except for the fact they're not finding much "low hanging fruit" anymore with easier to drill locations. The new thing of extracting oil from shale deposits gave them a new supply source too -- but how long is that really going to last, especially as we move towards safer, more reliable versions of nuclear power plants?

Temperature goal misses the point

[burtosis]

While it is pithy and simple to set a target temperature goal, like 2C, i think it misses the overall implications of a changing climate. As the Nature article today on slashdot points out, even a mild temperature change could possibly do something like turn the entire Middle East extremely humid making it basically uninhabitable. Something this trivial, like a local increase in moisture over a relative small region, could provoke war, even nuclear war.

There could be a change in ocean currents, or moisture content/cloud cover of other regions, or any number of other effects from relatively small changes in temperature that in themselves aren't dangerous but human reactions to them could actually be a 'doomsday' level.

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[SillyHamster]

As the Nature article today on slashdot points out, even a mild temperature change could possibly do something like turn the entire Middle East extremely humid making it basically uninhabitable. Something this trivial, like a local increase in moisture over a relative small region, could provoke war, even nuclear war.

Why do you think adding moisture to a desert region would make it less habitable?

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[burtosis]

http://www.nature.com/nclimate...

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[bluegutang]

As the Nature article today on slashdot points out, even a mild temperature change could possibly do something like turn the entire Middle East extremely humid making it basically uninhabitable.

What that article *actually* predicts is that the shores of the Persian Gulf, which are already near the point of being uninhabitable on the hottest days of summer, will cross that point.

And why are those shores so close to uninhabitable? Because the Middle East is one of the hottest regions in the world, and the shores of the Persian Gulf, like all shores, are humid due to evaporating water. Normally the body of water cools down the coasts, but because the Gulf is unusually shallow its water is extremely warm. So this area has a combination of heat and humidity which is unique on Earth. This is all natural - climate change will make it marginally worse, but it was always pretty horrible there. Luckily they have air conditioning there.

The rest of the Middle East will be a bit hotter and drier, but in no danger of becoming uninhabitable.

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[SillyHamster]

You have linked a study that uses computer models to create scary looking maps with lots of red.

Do you know what specific heat is, and what water is notable for with regards to that attribute?

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[riverat1]

It's a simple fact that humans can't survive if the wet bulb temperature is 35C (95F) or greater. If the combination of temperature and humidity reaches that state it's impossible for your body to cool by sweating. Spend more than a few minutes outside in those conditions and you will start to become hyperthermic, long enough and you die. The Wiki article gives and example:

An example of the threshold at which the human body is no longer able to cool itself and begins to overheat is a humidity level of 50% and a high heat of 46C (115F), as this would indicate a wet-bulb temperature of 35C (95F).

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[SillyHamster]

It's a simple fact that humans can't survive if the wet bulb temperature is 35C (95F) or greater. If the combination of temperature and humidity reaches that state it's impossible for your body to cool by sweating.

Keyword: "If". None of that is relevant.

Deserts have hot temperatures because they lack water to absorb the heat. A humid desert will stop being hot and stop being a desert.

You're jumping to the conclusion without paying any attention to whether its existence is plausible.

A humid Middle East will become a tropical land teeming with life like SE Asia. War may happen anyways, but not because additional water made the area uninhabitable.

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[dave420]

Deserts are not always hot, so I don't know what your point is. I'm beginning to think you don't know either.

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, just turn on the tap and you can watch the grass and flowers start spreading! It's like magic!

Oh wait. No, that doesn't happen. A humid middle east would take thousands of years to become like SE Asia.

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[SillyHamster]

I didn't say deserts are always hot, so you need to work on your own reading comprehension.

Don't project your lack of understanding on me.

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[SillyHamster]

Oh wait. No, that doesn't happen. A humid middle east would take thousands of years to become like SE Asia.

Just like it took thousands of years to transform California into prime agricultural farmland, amirite?

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[dywolf]

Deserts have hot temperatures because they lack water to absorb the heat. A humid desert will stop being hot and stop being a desert.

The Stupid.
It burns!

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[dywolf]

The Middle east is already extremely hot, and at the edge of human endurance.
If, with no other changes, it also had added moisture, the humidity level would rise dramatically.
assuming this was stable (and it didn't get driven off by existing patterns), this would raise the total heat index considerably, potentially beyond human inhabitability.

In fact, there's another article on Slashdot about this very thing.
You should go read it.

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[SillyHamster]

The Middle east is already extremely hot, and at the edge of human endurance. If, with no other changes, it also had added moisture, the humidity level would rise dramatically. assuming this was stable (and it didn't get driven off by existing patterns), this would raise the total heat index considerably, potentially beyond human inhabitability.

You've never lived in a desert, I take it?

Do you know what a swamp cooler is?

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually a decent portion of the persian gulf already exceeds that wetbulb temperature (with really high humidity and temperatures.) You can certainly have localized high temperatures and humidity at the intersection of weather patterns.

Re:Temperature goal misses the point

[uninformedLuddite]

Moving the goalposts again? You are so fucking predictable.

Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Re:Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it a fucking break you mindless jerk, I'm sick of your nonsense post. You never won any arguments with anybody, except in your own tiny little mind.
APK resident fuckwad of Slashdot, you know everyone thinks your a joke with your pathetic trolling don't you?

Re:Coren22 likes telling lies

[Sardaukar86]

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

..and YOU, sir, are a disgusting lying hypocrite. Please, die slowly in a fire and do us the courtesy of filming your death that I may rejoice in your suffering from the comfort of my own home.

Re:Coren22 likes telling lies

[Sardaukar86]

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Whee! Who's a disgusting liar, APK?

Certainly not the eleventy-one sockpuppet accounts that are all about to down-mod me to protect your good name, noooo!

That would be - as we all know - someone else.

Re:Coren22 likes telling lies

[Sardaukar86]

Liar, liar, APK's pants are on fire!

APK doesn't understand what 'hypocrisy' means, or he'd moderate his posts.

APK doesn't understand what 'integrity' means, or he'd moderate his posts.

APK doesn't know what citations are, or he'd include them with the ludicrous suppositions he makes in his posts.

APK doesn't know what humility is, or he'd leave off trumpeting his 'successes' in his posts. Hint: Linus doesn't big-mouth. What makes you so much better than him that YOU get to big-mouth yourself when Linus Torvalds doesn't?

APK is a one-trick-pony with only hosts-file manipulation to his name, a technique that was rightfully deposed in the 90's.

APK is butt-hurt that the world moved on and that his one-trick-pony show has waned into irrelevance.

APK learned that bluster can make up for an awful lot of substance, hence posts such as the above.

Despite the above, APK is happy to take the time to explain how positive and helpful he is as a contributor to SlashDot. The rest of us are simpletons; mere fools - just ask him!

Re:Coren22 likes telling lies

[Sardaukar86]

APK the butt-hurt baby strikes again; the more childish whinings, the more likely everyone is to agree with you, right baby? Whiny baby? What's that, cat's got your tongue? Poor baby!

Re:Coren22 likes telling lies

[Sardaukar86]

Boo-hoo, APK doesn't understand DNS, but that's OUR fault you see, because we're all HORRIBLE and INSENSITIVE to APK's unique NEEDS.

Re:Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk backs what he said quoting his opponents destroying them. They do it to themselves. He ruins them with their own words.

Re: Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

We know it's still you, APK. Putting on a silly voice and hiding behind the curtains doesn't make it any less obvious. Now run along, the adults have things to talk about.

Re: Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

APK doesn't read these posts. Everything you see by him is just his bots, scraping the site for the usernames of people he currently has his paranoid vendettas against - have you noticed that his text is always the same following a post by one of his victims.

Re: Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren what we know is that apk shut you up point by point finally here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and you ran.

Re: Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it matter? You idiots harass and stalk him by ac posts or otherwise and he wipes you out easily. It's hilarious. Coren22's in a world of hurt and so is Sardaukar86. Apk cut them to shreds with their own words and mistakes.

Re:Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

At least apk has something to trumpet about. A dehydrated whimp of a "ne'er-do-well" due to malnutrition eating your words never will.

Re: Coren22 likes telling lies

[dave420]

We know it's you, APK. Are you really that stupid to think we'd fall for it? Please get some help. It must be hell in your head if you think this is in any way a good way to act.

Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Re:Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Sardaukar86]

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS"

No, loser, the salt is in YOUR wounds, because you're the pathetic simian who cannot let a comment about your malware go unchallenged.

Nobody cares, nobody wants to care, but don't let that stop you, keep thrashing that hate-monkey of yours, he's sure to grind out some intelligent rebuttal eventually, right?

Re:Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Sardaukar86]

APK: boo-hoo, my anus hurts and it's all swollen and smells ugly. Whomever shall I blame for this tragedy?

The World: *ignores APK, says something unrelated*

APK: That's it! That's the 'in' I've been looking for, everyone can see that the WHOLE WORLD just took responsibility for my anus. Now I can squeal like a five-year-old girl with rattlesnake-in-the-vagina issues! Whee! I'm SO ENTITLED!! My rage is so righteous!

APK: It's all YOUR fault that my anus is so swollen, so smelly and disgorging so much pus! It must therefore be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to make my anus feel better! Fail to do so and be prepared to be branded the ENEMY DU JOUR!

BWAHAHAHAH! APK, like progressivism, ALWAYS WINS!!

Re:Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Sardaukar86]

Aww, poor baby's all bent out of shape because someone pointed out that his wailings were the work of a madman. Take it as a sign of CONCERN for your MENTAL HEALTH, apk, you poor sick son of a bitch you.

Re:Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Sardaukar86]

Nobody cares about your 'findings', APK, because you have no integrity here on SlashDot. We've very quickly learned you are nothing but bile and spite and as such your 'programs' are viewed with well-justified suspicion and mistrust. Perhaps if you weren't such a fucking cunt of a Human being you might get a better response, but I'm not holding my breath as you seem perpetually stuck in the mindset of 'everyone else is a cunt but me' so I don't have much hope you'll ever mature or grow up in any way, especially since you're well into your fifties and still content to behave like a sixteen-year-old child.

Re:Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see your foaming at the mouth spittle flying from here! Meds Sardillo. Meds.

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Yet admits using admin priv

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your clearly defective retarded by assburgers brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I will quit OUTING you... apk

Re:Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk please stop. You're going to get Coren22 to activate his ass(burger) shaped head's blowhole http://slashdot.org/comments.p... shitting up the screen hahahahaha

Re:Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

For fucks sake you pthetic wanker give it a rest. No one cares about your malware. You never won an argument, and we all just scroll thru your drivel.

Re:Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Sardaukar86]

Translation: boo-hoo, APK's anus is red and sore, now it's EVERYBODY's problem because APK needs our help, poor little baby!

Re:Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Sardaukar86]

Ooh, poor baby seems to have pooped its pants. Whaddyagonnado now, APK? Mommy's nowhere to be seen and you're left sitting in a pile of your own shite - guess it must be someone else's fault, right APK? You set the world to right now, you go girl!

Re:Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Sardaukar86]

Whoops - you hear that sound, APK? That's the sound of NOBODY GIVING A SHIT ABOUT YOU. That's mostly because you're worthless and your opinion amounts to that which we scrape off our shoes having walked through the dogs-off-leash park.

Re:Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to learn to read. Coren22's a wanker! Our /. peers and security experts say quite differently (not malware) http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Yet admits using admin priv

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I will quit OUTING you... apk

Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[cbeaudry]

How does this nonsense get modded up to 5.

A sketchy .jpg stating data from the 2 propaganda in chiefs scientists?
The hockey stick fool?

There is no reasoning with ideologists.

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Yet admits using admin priv himself

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I will quit OUTING you... apk

Yes

[shiftless]

You're right. Vegans almost always have far more emissions. We could power acres of wind farms with the smug, self-righteous verbiage often emanating from their wide open orifices.

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

My ex got the beach house, I hope it floods.

Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Yeah...

[tsotha]

In the past It's been both much warmer and much cooler than it is today. You could just as easily have headlined the article "Global Temperature Set To Reach 1 Degree C Under Pre-Industrial Levels".

Re:Yeah...

[david_thornley]

Human civilization is basically the last five thousand years or so, and lots of stuff has been built and planned on and such. Changing the temperature to deviate significantly from that of the last five thousand years is going to be expensive.

I can't wait for Global Warming...

[ControlsGeek]

I was born in the second coldest capital city in the world. Now fallen too fifth coldest. Not due to global warming but the breakup of the Soviet Union causing more new capital cities. Warming a few degrees is a good thing.

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Yet admits using admin priv

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way...

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I will quit OUTING you... apk

Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Yet admits using admin priv

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I will quit OUTING you - simple... apk

Gassholes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 they talking about your head again http://slashdot.org/comments.p... due to your assburgers diet? Please reply minus using your blowhole http://slashdot.org/comments.p... hahahahaha

Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Yet admits using admin priv

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I will quit OUTING you - very simple... apk

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[Layzej]

There is no reasoning with ideologists

Said with no sense of irony or self awareness XD

Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Yet admits using admin priv

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll quit OUTING you... apk

Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Yet admits using admin priv

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll quit OUTING you - simple... apk

Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 likes getting bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Yet admits using admin priv

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll quit OUTING you, troll... apk

Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 likes telling lies

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Searching this in BOLD "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

about 7C above pre-industrial levels

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Actually, we are probably at about 8C above temperatures 20000 years ago, and good thing too: if it was still that cold, most of the northern hemisphere would be covered in ice sheets. We're probably still 1-2C below the Eemian maximum temperature of about 130000 years ago.

We're still about 10C below the Eocene maximum.

Re:about 7C above pre-industrial levels

[dave420]

And that has nothing to do with anything, as we did not have massive industrialized societies which massively depend on great swathes of land being used to keep us alive.

I wish you'd stop spouting such nonsensical "arguments", as they are not grounded in fact and only serve to muddy the waters and make you look really, really stupid. Massively stupid. So dumb.

Re:about 7C above pre-industrial levels

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

And that has nothing to do with anything, as we did not have massive industrialized societies which massively depend on great swathes of land being used to keep us alive.

Why don't you read the IPCC report, you know, the conclusions of experts. It doesn't say that our survival is threatened, it treats climate change simply as a cost/benefit analysis.

I wish you'd stop spouting such nonsensical "arguments", as they are not grounded in fact and only serve to muddy the waters and make you look really, really stupid. Massively stupid. So dumb.

Really? Stating simple, objectively true facts about climate makes me "look dumb"?

And do you think I really care whether "Dave420" considers me "dumb"?

Re:about 7C above pre-industrial levels

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Re:about 7C above pre-industrial levels

[dywolf]

Yes, stating that because its warmer than during the last freaking ice age everything is ok makes you look dumb.
Probably because you are, or you wouldn't spend your time trolling with such idiotic comments.
the best trolls are at least plausible, and have a degree of intelligence behind them.
yours are the equivalent of flinging feces at the wall.

Re:about 7C above pre-industrial levels

[uninformedLuddite]

The post you replied to appears to only contain verifiable facts? Are you really so stupid?

Re:about 7C above pre-industrial levels

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, stating that because its warmer than during the last freaking ice age everything is ok makes you look dumb.

Actually, we have been in a continuous ice age for more than 2.5 million years.

the best trolls are at least plausible, and have a degree of intelligence behind them.

Your diatribes and ad hominems just go to demonstrate your own lack of knowledge and understanding.

Re:about 7C above pre-industrial levels

[dave420]

Yes, but those facts are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. He might have also pointed out just how hot Earth was before it had cooled sufficiently for a crust - it has just as much bearing on human life at the moment as the idiotic, though factual, comments to which I replied.

Re:about 7C above pre-industrial levels

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words getting bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Coren22 likes being bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats:

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

Yet admits using admin priv

&

How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll quit OUTING you troll - simple... apk

Once again, a pathetic result for Slashdot

[RogueWarrior65]

As of this writing, only 10 of 272 responses rate a 4 or 5. Come on, Slashdot editors, can't you see that topics like this aren't productive?

Simple Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Not complicated at all:
Just a touch of nuclear winter could fix it right up.
Right as rain they say.

Proxies extend to 1940

[Layzej]

No. The Marcott reconstruction has proxies that extend to 1940. The surface station data are shown along side the reconstruction (and so is the Mann reconstuction), but this is for reference. They are not used in the reconstruction. The paper is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...

Here we go again!

[p51d007]

More BS "man made" global warming crap. The problem is, a majority of "youth" have been brainwashed into believing that man can alter the climate on this planet, which makes them great pawns, in this controlling the world through the U.N. crap. One good belch out of a volcano, will screw up the globe more than humans can. Just a couple weeks ago, some hot shot researchers explained why they were wrong, about melting ice in Greenland or some crap. They said years back that due to burning of fossil fuels, soot & dirt were covering ice, causing more light to be absorbed, than reflected, heating the ice and melting it. Once researchers discovered the ice was INCREASING not decreasing, they admitted that the satellite sensors were degrading and had not been calibrated to make up for the decrease in sensitivity. The science does not support the facts on man made global warming/climate change. We are more likely to enter a new mini ice age in the next 15 years, if you use the solar cycle and lack of sunspots this year.

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Now have a look at a longer time period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Notice how it's 8C warmer now than it was 20000 years ago? Notice how we're better off because of it?

Notice how it is still 10C colder than it was 50 million years ago? A time when every landmass was covered in lush forests and land animals thrived?

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[Layzej]

During the Pliocene three million years ago, the climate was 2 to 3C warmer and the seas were 25–35 meters higher than today (Dowsett et al., 1994; Rahmstorf, 2007). I'm sure the critters of the time loved it, but our coastal cities would not. The last 10,000 years is of interest because that represents the birth of our civilization. It is the climate that we have adapted our infrastructure to.

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

During the Pliocene three million years ago, the climate was 2 to 3C warmer and the seas were 25–35 meters higher than today (Dowsett et al., 1994; Rahmstorf, 2007). I'm sure the critters of the time loved it, but our coastal cities would not.

Well, I'm glad that you accept that the critters loved it, because that removes the major scare scenario of global warming.

As for sea level rise, don't worry about it. Sea level rise is currently about 1ft/century. Think about what your coastal city was like a century ago. Compared to the massive changes and the massive rebuilding that has happened in most cities, adapting to 1ft/century is completely negligible.

Arbiratry start date

[Anonymous Coward]

What was the temperature 12 kya? 50 mya?

Lol. Look it up and prepare to laugh.

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[Anonymous Coward]

How was human civilisation going 20000 years ago? Could current numbers of humans have been supported?
How fast was the change in temperature between then and now? Slow enough for (most) systems to adapt?
Would humans have thrived 50 million years ago?

In other news, life is thriving near volcanic vents at the bottom of several oceans on this planet. Based on this, should I therefore conclude that everything would be just dandy if the planet was covered by super-heated water rich in volcanic goodness? Life, in the bigger picture, is tough: it will evolve to survive most things in one form or another. Humans, and many of our co-dependent species, are not so rugged...

Re:So? Nuclear, so-so.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Nuclear is the only proven technology.

Where do you put the radioactive waste? The site must be absolutely safe vs natural and manmade havaria for 10k, possibly 100k years. That is such a desperate problem that many very old NP reactors are now permitted to operate an extra 20 years further, simply to delay the issue of their disassembly and waste disposal. And then some disaster happens, like Fukushima and the very old reactors just can't stand it and the disaster turns into a mega-disaster.

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[Layzej]

Thanks Pollyanna. Of course the people who actually have to plan for this do not share your optimism: http://www.rollingstone.com/po...

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[dave420]

You should probably read about what increases in sea level mean to storm surges. You'd probably not spout something so ridiculous if you did. It's like you're desperate to not learn.

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

You should probably read about what increases in sea level mean to storm surges.

I have read about it. What point are you trying to get at?

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Pollyanna describes you: someone who reads disaster porn and scifi in Rolling Stone Magazine and thinks it's science. From the article you link to:

And still, the waters kept rising, nearly a foot each decade. By the latter end of the 21st century, Miami became something else entirely: a popular snorkeling spot

So, Rolling Stone assumes a ten-fold faster sea level rise than is actually occurring and then spins a fairy tale around that.

More importantly, Miami had a population of 300 in 1896. That is, a little over a century, it hardly existed at all. So, it would hardly be a big problem if, in another century, it has moved inland a few miles.

In any case, even without any sea level rise, it was unwise to build such a metropolis in such a location to begin with, and it can only exist there because of massive subsidies for things like flood insurance and civil engineering. To demand that Americans elsewhere pay even more money to preserve Miami in such a place is ludicrous. It's crony capitalism at its worst. Stop subsidizing flood insurance and public civil engineering projects, and you'd be amazed how motivated people become to move out of Miami to a safer location.

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[Anonymous Coward]

*** SMACK*** is the sound of dave420 going down eating his words bitchslapped by apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Coren22 likes lying

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Search this in BOLD there "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 likes being bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

& admits using admin priv himself

+

  How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll stop OUTING you... apk

Coren22 likes lying

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Search this in BOLD there "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 likes being bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

& admits using admin priv himself

+

  How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll stop OUTING you troll... apk

Coren22 likes lying

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Search this in BOLD there "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 likes being bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

& admits using admin priv himself

+

  How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll quit OUTING you, troll... apk

You gotta be right [Re:Typical liberal thinking]

[XXongo]

It isn't new, but "this is a conspiracy by statists to grab more power" is a conspiracy theory that doesn't make a lick of sense.

I don't see anybody alleging a "conspiracy"; "conspiracy" requires secrecy and deception.

The original poster-- "Speck'sbacon"-- was alleging a conspiracy. He was saying that we need to "follow the money", which will reveal that thousands of scientists, working for twenty different agencies in different countries on different continents, are all presenting corrupt results for money.

I was merely pointing out that not only is there no evidence for this, and not only does follow the money reveal no such thing, but that this is absurd

I'm sure scientists and politicians promoting action on AGW truly believe what they are saying, and they aren't secret about it. But that doesn't make them right.

Whether they are right is a different thread. The thread I was commenting on was pointing out the absurdities in the proposal by speck'sbacon.

Now, to the best of our knowledge, they in fact are right. But this is because they use the tools of science-- observation, calculation, and comparing competing hypotheses by measurements and use of the scientific method. And if better measurements show something different, the state of "the best of our knowledge" can change. So far, however, they haven't.

Your idea that there is a " simple, self-organizing, positive feedback" cycle supporting wrong science is a different statement, but it is also wrong. Scientists gain their reputation partly by being smart, but the way they show that they are smart is by being right. Add evidence that the existing models are right, or find evidence that competing models are right, either one works, but you do not get ahead in science by being wrong. If it looked like existing climate models were wrong, believe me, climate scientists would all be rushing to be the first to show it.

Oh god...

[tehcyder]

Here we go again.

The only real surprise is how the global green-communist-jewish-scientist-lizard man conspiracy allows people to post so many climate change denial posts without kidnapping them in black helicopters or zapping them with mind control rays.

Re: So? Nuclear, so-so.

[Bartles]

You build a nuclear powered railgun, and shoot the waste into the sun.

Re:You gotta be right [Re:Typical liberal thinking

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The original poster-- "Speck'sbacon"-- was alleging a conspiracy. He was saying that we need to "follow the money", which will reveal that thousands of scientists, working for twenty different agencies in different countries on different continents, are all presenting corrupt results for money.

The error there is yours in assuming that making money from a fad requires a conspiracy. There are plenty of fads, from selfie stick and pet rocks to iPhones, that are self-reinforcing with no central coordination or planning. Entire startups are built on such so-called "network effects", and entire countries have gone fascist or communist not because of some carefully prepared master plan, but because a political fad took off.

Scientists gain their reputation partly by being smart, but the way they show that they are smart is by being right.

The science isn't the issue here, it's the politics. Science doesn't say we need to create large statist institutions to reduce carbon emissions; that's a political choice. In fact, if anything, science tells us the exact opposite. First, if we don't act on climate change, the costs won't be any worse (and likely be lower) than if we do act; despite all the scary language, that's what the science and economics of the IPCC report amounts to. But even that assumes that governmental action on climate change would actually be effective, and the social sciences tell us that that is actually unlikely to be the case.

(As for the science itself, although I generally believe the climate models are fairly reasonable as far as climate modeling goes, whether they are "right" on predictions for 2100 can only be determined in 2100, not today.)

1C is a useless statement

[Anonymous Coward]

Try using a scale that humans are capable of relating to like Fahrenheit. What is 1C in Fahrenheit?

It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* LMAO...

(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)

APK

P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk

Re: It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

Go away APK. We're bored of your repetitive spambot offtopic posts that do nothing but cause RSI in the scrolling fingers of everyone trying to read or participate in the discussions here.

Re: It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? It was great seeing apk tear Coren22 to pieces face to face after Coren22 spent a week running away from apk http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* LMAO...

(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)

APK

P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk

It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* LMAO...

(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)

APK

P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk

It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* LMAO...

(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)

APK

P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk

It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* LMAO...

(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)

APK

P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk

It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* LMAO...

(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)

APK

P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk

It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* LMAO...

(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)

APK

P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... a

It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* LMAO...

(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)

APK

P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk

It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* LMAO...

(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)

APK

P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk

It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* LMAO...

(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)

APK

P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitte

It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: As yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* LMAO...

(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)

APK

P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitte

It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: You care & yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* LMAO...

(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)

APK

P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk

It's not polite to talk w/ yer mouth full

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: You do, & yer still "eatin yer words" 244++:1 http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

* LMAO...

(You really ought to CHANGE YOUR DIET: "eating your words" != GOOD nutrition Sardaukar86...)

APK

P.S.=> Tell us: How does "eating your words" in a 244++:1 ratio against you taste? Can't be TOO good, spiced w/ the 'bitter taste of SELF-DEFEAT', & rammed down your throat since your FOOT'S IN YOUR MOUTH too, lmao... apk

"... 1 Degee C Over Pre-industrial Levels

[baristabrian]

... and *5* Degrees COOLER than Mezolithic Levels"

2 C is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

And that is right in line with the doubling of CO2 having around a 1.5-1.6 degree C warming so we have nothing to worry about because even the IPCC says that less than 2 degrees C won't cause any serious problems.

A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?

Both of the satellite datasets (RSS, UAH) show no warming for over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.

Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements?
First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.

Second they are the least adjusted. Unlike NOAA which makes completely unjustified adjustments by raising good data (ARGO bouy temps) to match what they themselves admit is bad, corrupted data (ship engine intake temps).

Lastly they are run by 2 scientists with good credentials (Dr Mears & Dr Spencer respectively) and despite looking at what is almost the same data come to different conclusions. Dr Mears thinks CO2 does control the climate and Dr Spencer does not. I like that. Not only does it keep them honest it makes me think and read both sides to see why they are so different in their conclusions despite almost identical data. So far I side with the position of Dr Spencer.

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[dywolf]

-Yes, it's warmer than it was during the last ice age.
-Yes, life existed during periods even warmer. But not current life, which evolved under climactic conditions that took millions of years to change....not a mere 200 years. It's not the presence of life, but the conditions it evolved under, and the rate at which it is capable of adapting to changing conditions, conditions that under natural cycles take millions of years to change.

(how many times are you going to repeat the same easily dismissed bits of moronic stupidity?)

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[dywolf]

So then you read about how Sandy caused ~40% more damage, both physical and economic, due to the increased storm surge, than it would have without said sea level rise, and similar effects on other storms on coastal areas?

No apparently, you didn't, because if you had you wouldn't need to have pointed out the precise reason WHY sea level rise biggest risk factor isn't the static avg sea level, but its effect on storm surges.

SCIENCE BY CONCENSENSE what a bright idea

[crashinbrn]

so................ if it says so in a "model" then it will definitely happen, no if's and's or but's. scare tactics in full force. or somebody stands to make a bunch of money. (there was a coming ice age in the seventies btw). always a crisis. everybody is gonna DIE!!!! bla bla bla.

What the science doesn't say [Re:You gotta be...]

[XXongo]

Scientists gain their reputation partly by being smart, but the way they show that they are smart is by being right.

The science isn't the issue here, it's the politics.

You seem to be arguing some point that is different from the point I was addressing.

The issue I was talking about was the science. Not the politics.

Science doesn't say we need to create large statist institutions to reduce carbon emissions; that's a political choice.

That's correct.

In fact, if anything, science tells us the exact opposite.

Nope, you were right the first time: science doesn't address this, that's a political choice. The science can tell us how much the world will warm as a function of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and (just as important) tell us why we know it, and with what error bars. How much it will cost to correct it is an economic calculation. And how we chose to correct it-- or even whether we chose to correct it-- is a political decision.

First, if we don't act on climate change, the costs won't be any worse (and likely be lower) than if we do act;

The science tells us nothing of the sort. The science does tell us what the physical and biological effect of warming will be (although predicting the detailed effects is much harder than, and hence is quite a bit less precise than, the simple prediction of how much the warming will be.) A review of what we currently know is covered in the IPCC Working Group II report, for what it's worth: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... ("Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability").

The science does not tell us the societal or economic costs, and in no way does it tell us the cost of acting-- that's economics and politics, not science. Among other things, that first would require examining alternative plans to addressing the problem, and there really isn't any political consensus on that.

I will blame the deniers for that, by the way. By shouting "NO! IT'S A HOAX!" every time the issue of how to address the problem comes up, they have totally drowned out any substantive discussion of how, or even whether, we should deal with it; and completely derailed any discussions of the cost benefit ratio of various potential methods to deal with it. If you are arguing that all the proposed solutions are "statist"-- well, that's because the people who might have other ideas are too busy shouting "IT'S A HOAX."

...(As for the science itself, although I generally believe the climate models are fairly reasonable as far as climate modeling goes, whether they are "right" on predictions for 2100 can only be determined in 2100, not today.)

Well, that's true, but it's true because it's a tautology. The only way to tell whether any prediction for the future is right is to wait to see whether it happens.

Re:What the science doesn't say [Re:You gotta be..

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The science does not tell us the societal or economic costs, and in no way does it tell us the cost of acting-- that's economics and politics, not science.

To the degree that economics makes falsifiable predictions about the future, economics is a science.

Nope, you were right the first time: science doesn't address this, that's a political choice.

Economics and political science certainly tell us that large, statist institutions are inefficient or even ineffective.

he cost benefit ratio of various potential methods to deal with it.

The IPCC has evaluated the cost/benefit ratios, and it comes to the conclusion that the cost of action and inaction about balance out under its assumptions, but that is assuming that action is actually successful. Since there is a high probability that action is unsuccessful yet costly, that alone means that we shouldn't take action.

Well, that's true, but it's true because it's a tautology. The only way to tell whether any prediction for the future is right is to wait to see whether it happens.

Well, apparently you don't understand that fact, since you attempted to justify climate predictions for 2100 with the statement that "Scientists gain their reputation partly by being smart, but the way they show that they are smart is by being right." Generally, we don't know whether scientists are right until decades after they formulated their theories. And we won't know whether climate scientists are right for another half century.

If you are arguing that all the proposed solutions are "statist"-- well, that's because the people who might have other ideas are too busy shouting

Your problem is simply that you aren't listening to the simplest and most effective solution: do nothing. Fossil fuels are already expensive and provide a strong built-in incentive to economize on their usage. The market will therefore take care of this by itself.

Coren22 can't keep his word... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)

APK

P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk

Coren22 likes being crushed (crushed himself)

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)

APK

P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!

(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk

Coren22 can't keep his word... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)

APK

P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk

Coren22 likes being crushed (crushed himself)

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)

APK

P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!

(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[Anonymous Coward]

But not current life, which evolved under climactic conditions that took millions of years to change.

Actually, the Eocene is precisely when mammals and primates got their start. It is the ice age we have been in for the last couple of million years that is the anomaly for mammals and primate.

In addition, the conditions during the warmer periods of the Eocene were not just when mammals started their spectacular rise and diversification, they are objectively nice conditions, with lush vegetation from the poles to the equator.

(how many times are you going to repeat the same easily dismissed bits of moronic stupidity?)

How much time is it going to take for you to stop wallowing in your ignorance and actually read up on paleontology?

Re: So? Nuclear, so-so.

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize they dug the uranium out of the ground to begin with? Just put it back. Yucca Mountain should have been allowed to open.

And they have been storing waste onsite for decades, because there is so relatively little waste. Radioactive waste is a red herring, a distraction.

Where do you put all the toxic waste from manufacturing all those solar panels?

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[Anonymous Coward]

No apparently, you didn't, because if you had you wouldn't need to have pointed out the precise reason WHY sea level rise biggest risk factor isn't the static avg sea level, but its effect on storm surges.

Your statement is attempting to relate the damage from Hurricane Sandy to sea level rise. But even people who postulate a connection between climate change and Hurricane Sandy aren't basing their arguments on sea level rise, they are basing their arguments on air and water temperatures. So, I'm sorry, your argument doesn't work.

The only reasonable argument about sea level rise and storm surges is the (correct) observation that the probability that a surge goes over a fixed sea wall or dike increases exponentially with sea level. But that problem disappears when you increase the fortifications by the amount of sea level rise. According to climate change predictions, that's about 1ft by the year 2100, something that can trivially be done as part of regular, necessary maintenance of those fortifications.

Coren22 likes lying

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK doesn't think that DNS servers are worth running and seems to believe that somehow Microsoft Active Directory can run without DNS." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @12:58PM (#50811615)

Where'd I say AD will run minus DNS Coren22? I've said AD = internal network DNS dependent as far back as 2007 http://forums.tweaktown.com/wi...

(Search this in BOLD there "To warn users who have ActiveDirectory/AD LAN-WAN setups to NOT use external DNS servers!" referring to OpenDNS suggestions for those using AD stupid in the POSTS BEFORE IT in my security guides for users (geared to stand alone single machines no less), & right there on that page proves it stupid - so even if you posted as myself someplace here on /. "impersonating me", I have your ass NOW, shithead!)

I've also stated MANY TIMES I use remote DNS in OpenDNS @ home (but not @ work on AD networks + exchange/outlook: Free OpenDNS model doesn't work with AD dependent Exchange + Outlook specifically you lying little imbecile).

I also don't hardcode in "every site there is under the sun" is why, so I have to use DNS, but OpenDNS & rarely.

I also RARELY MISS A LOOKUP since I put where I spend a good 95++% of my time online in my favorite sites into hosts @ the TOP of hosts for utmost LOCAL FASTER RESOLUTION SPEEDS and more reliability vs. Open DNS (not OpenDNS) resolvers being abused, Kaminsky redirect poisoned DNS servers (of which 99.999% of ISP DNS are not proofed against to this very day even though a patch exists which OpenDNS uses), rogue DNS servers, and yes ROUTERS with bushwhacked by malware DNS settings (happening a LOT lately).

Hardcodes in hosts are faster than remote DNS, waste less resources than local dns in power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other I/O by FAR considering ALL THE PARTS of such a setup in programs, data, I/O, & power (especially if setup as a separate machine).

APK

P.S.=> You're a disgusting liar... apk

Coren22 likes failing security & coding

[Anonymous Coward]

Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats

"So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

& admits using admin priv himself

+

  How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

---

"Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

FACT:

Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

APK

P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll stop OUTING you, immature "signature boy" troll... apk

Coren22 likes being bitchslapped 65++:1

[Anonymous Coward]

"I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

Coren22 can't keep his word... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)

APK

P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk

Coren22 likes being crushed (& he ran)

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)

APK

P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!

(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk

Coren22 can't keep his word... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)

APK

P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk

Coren22 likes being crushed (& he ran)

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)

APK

P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!

(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk

Coren22 can't keep his word... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)

APK

P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk

Coren22 gets crushed (& he ran)

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)

APK

P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!

(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk

Coren22 can't keep his word... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)

APK

P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk

Coren22 gets crushed (& he ran)

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)

APK

P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!

(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk

Coren22 can't keep his word... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)

APK

P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk

Coren22 gets crushed (& he ran)

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)

APK

P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!

(Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[silentcoder]

>Well, I'm glad that you accept that the critters loved it, because that removes the major scare scenario of global warming.

Different critters for the most part, major climate change = mass extinction.

We evolved for a world with THESE critters in them, we have absolutely basis to assume we could survive one without them and instead populated by others.

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? What "different critters" would that be? And how would those differences affect humans? IYou don't know. You're just throwing shit up hoping something sticks

In reality, the Eocene is when modern mammals and primates got their start. It is exactly the environment we evolved in, with the last couple of million years being an unusual cold spell.

AGW alarmists are worse than Young Earth Creationists.

Re: So? Nuclear, so-so.

[stoatwblr]

Why? It's only waste in the sense that it can't be used in the heath-robinson (rube-goldberg) contraption that comprises a current civil nuclear plant.

Nuclear plants currently boil water to make steam to turn turbines.

They don't run very hot, because the fuel rods are poor heat conductors and melt if it gets too warm. This means they're thermally inefficient. More than 2/3 of their heat is vented to atmosphere.

That water is also a problem because water dissolves everything eventually, even faster when it's under high pressure and at high temperature and slightly acidic to start with. You really _don't_ want it near your radioactives because some amount always ends up in solution and if there's a leak you now have large quantities of radioactive steam to dispose of, or radioactive water entering the biosphere, or (if the cooling fails entirely and the rods melt), hydrogen/oxygen being cracked out by the heat, carrying various radioactive gases along too.

Short term we have to keep using conventional water reactors.

Long term, Molten salt systems are intrinsically safe and a no-brainer to move on to - no pressurisation, no boiling, freeze sold at 400C (so they don't go far if they leak) and gassing is relatively easy to handle as extracting gases is part of the design and that extraction means they can throttle up/down quickly to follow loads, which reduces the need for nasty peaking plants. They've already been tested but not at civil nuke scale.

Using molten sodium coolant is a pretty dumb idea, as several operators have discovered. Molten lead is better but you still have fuel rods to deal with and if the lead freezes they're hard to extract. With a Molten salt system the fuel is in the liquid and that also means you can SCRAM the thing very quickly (the test system was shut down every friday night and restarted every monday morning - because noone wanted to watch over it during weekends. Try that with a "normal" nuclear reactor and see how short a period it takes to break it.)

Economics [Re:What the science doesn't say]

[XXongo]

Nope, you were right the first time: science doesn't address this, that's a political choice.

Economics and political science certainly tell us that large, statist institutions are inefficient or even ineffective.

I know way too many economists. I don't believe that I have ever heard an economist use the word "statist". That's basically a word libertarians invented to mean "anybody who supports anything a government does that I don't like."

As a general thing, economists point out that some things are well accomplished by market solutions, and some things require government actions. One of the conditions where free markets are not efficient is when there are externalities to production: that is, when a company's actions affect others in a way that they do not have to pay for. Pollution is a classic example of this. If it is more expensive to produce goods with no pollution, then companies that pollute will drive companies that don't pollute out of business.

What economists usually point out as the solution to this problem is to do the free market solution: make the companies pay for their externalities. This, in layman's terms, means: tax them for polluting. The result is that the ones who really do achieve efficiencies by polluting will pay to do so, and the ones who don't will adapt by avoiding polluting. (I should point out that this is different from the usual liberal solution, which would be to simply make it illegal to pollute.)

So, most of the economists I know favor a carbon tax. It's actually sort of a no-brainer for them; if emitting carbon dioxide has costs, the people who emit it should pay the costs, and thus they will adjust their actions to find alternate production means that emit less carbon dioxide. This is a form of "substitution of resources"-- a classic (and well understood) economic effect.

However, politicians hate the word "tax", and so this will never happen. The "cap and trade" concept was invented to try to achieve the same effect as a tax, but without using that poison word.

The rest of your post puts forth a false dichotomy, in which there are only two possibilities, to not make any changes whatsoever to attempt to address climate, or to do radical changes according to some unspecified plan, in order to (I would guess) completely stop carbon emissions. In fact, you are simplifying a complicated problem, and there is a complete continuum of possible actions between "nothing" and "completely stop carbon emission," and there are a great number of possible solutions in all the shades in between. The obvious right answer is to do those things that make sense, and not do the ones that don't.

You're also wrong and misreading the IPCC reports, by the way. There is no one solution, with one well defined cost, that can be compared to one effects model, with again a well defined cost.

Your problem is simply that you aren't listening to the simplest and most effective solution: do nothing. Fossil fuels are already expensive and provide a strong built-in incentive to economize on their usage. The market will therefore take care of this by itself.

First, I'm not sure why you think I'm not considering the option of doing nothing, since I've mentioned it in pretty much every single post I've made in this thread. That is one of the things that should be in the cost/benefit analysis.

Second, if the cost of fossil fuels doesn't include the cost of all the effects of burning it and putting the waste into the atmosphere, it's not paying its way-- the people who do have to pay for the effects are subsidizing the price. And so the market won't "take care" of this, because the externalities are not part of the market price-- the price is artificially low, meaning that too much coal will be burned.

Re:Economics [Re:What the science doesn't say]

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

First, I'm not sure why you think I'm not considering the option of doing nothing

Because you said so, in a roundabout way ("If you are arguing that all the proposed solutions are 'statist'"). In fact, there is one solution that is not, namely doing nothing. It's been on the table for a long time, but people with vested political and economic interests keep denouncing its proponents as "deniers".

Second, if the cost of fossil fuels doesn't include the cost of all the effects of burning it and putting the waste into the atmosphere, it's not paying its way-- the people who do have to pay for the effects are subsidizing the price. And so the market won't "take care" of this, because the externalities are not part of the market price-- the price is artificially low, meaning that too much coal will be burned.

That's irrelevant to the point I was making, namely that if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions quickly and efficiently, market mechanisms without government interference are likely to be the quickest way of accomplishing that goal, since markets already have a strong incentive to reduce fossil fuel use because it's expensive. That point has nothing to do with externalities.

Accounting for externalities is a good thing in principle. But the problem with that idea is the notion that governments can do this. In fact, the various carbon taxes that exist or are proposed do not account for externalities correctly, and they certainly don't go to the people who actually bear the cost from carbon emissions.

I know way too many economists. I don't believe that I have ever heard an economist use the word "statist". That's basically a word libertarians invented to mean "anybody who supports anything a government does that I don't like."

"Statism" is a term from political science referring to the concentration of economic and political power in the state; it is the opposite of "anarchism". The term is useful as a neutral generic descriptor for a variety of political ideologies, like progressivism, socialism, fascism, Nordic welfare state, etc.

You're right that libertarians like the term, for the simple reason that both major US political movements, conservatism and progressivism, are both statist. As a term of political advocacy, it's actually far too tame and academic to be very effective in attacking conservatism and progressivism.

As a general thing, economists point out that some things are well accomplished by market solutions, and some things require government actions.

When economists compare market action against government action, they compare markets composed of greedy, selfish, imperfect actors against an idealized government composed of disinterested, selfless, and perfect actors. However, the kind of people making up government and making decisions are no better (and arguably worse) than those making up markets. So, while in principle some idealized government could do a better job than real markets, that's not the government we have and that's not a government we can get. And economists have analyzed how government behaves when it is composed of the same kind of greedy, selfish, and imperfect actors that we find everywhere else in our society, and the outcome isn't good.

You're also wrong and misreading the IPCC reports, by the way. There is no one solution, with one well defined cost, that can be compared to one effects model, with again a well defined cost.

You are right that the IPCC doesn't propose "one solution", but it provides estimates for (1) the cost of climate change if we continue without changes, and (2) the cost of intervention to achieve certain outcomes.

In fact, their estimate for (1) is higher than the policy of no government intervention, because carbon emissions will likely decrease through market mechanisms and because they don't properly dis

Sardaukar86 "eats his words" yet again... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"your 'programs' are viewed with well-justified suspicion and mistrust" - by Sardaukar86 (850333) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:24AM (#50899343)

Per the quote of your raving loon rants: Security Pros & /.'ers disagree:

---

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit = Safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

So is it's installer per VirScan-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

---

* :)

You WISH you were me, but you're just too damn STUPID to be in my league... lmao!

(I sincerely hope all New Zealanders aren't like you - big mouthed morons who constantly have to "eat their words"... tell us, won't you, HOW DO THEY TASTE now that you've stuck your foot in your mouth YET AGAIN vs. me (lol), & rammed them down your throat, washing them down with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat"?)

APK

P.S.=> This dietary issue of yours is by NO means a 1st for you vs. myself either (244++:1 in MY favor vs. your big mouth-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... ) - so do yourself a favor & CHANGE YOUR DIET: Eating our words != GOOD NUTRITION... lol!

... apk

LOL: Sardaukar86 "eats his words" YET again... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK is a one-trick-pony with only hosts-file manipulation to his name" - by Sardaukar86 (850333) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @04:15AM (#50899307)

Per a quote from your loon rant: Have you done better, earlier, & more of these things Sardaukar86 in computing?

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

Being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com...

It's also been myself helping out the folks at the UltraDefrag64 project (a 64-bit defragger for Windows), in showing them code for how to do Process Priority Control @ the GUI usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 level in their program (good one too), & being credited for it by their lead dev & his team... see here -> http://ultradefrag.sourceforge... or here http://sourceforge.net/tracker...

Which ended up fixing a "bug" for them later, here -> http://sourceforge.net/p/ultra... via its implementation (partially, NOT fully implemented yet as I outline it & use in my applications such as this one -> http://www.start64.com/index.p...

---

* You WISH you were me, but you're just a "ne'er-do-well" bigmouth... lmao!

(QUESTION: HOW DOES IT TASTE "eating your words" now that you've stuck your foot in your mouth YET AGAIN vs. me (lol), & rammed them down your throat, washing them down with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat"?)

APK

P.S.=> You're going to DIE OF MALNUTRITION if you keep this up (lol) - > 244++:1 in MY favor vs. your big mouth-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... ) & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - so do yourself a favor & CHANGE YOUR DIET: Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION... lol!

... apk

Sardaukar86's dying of malnutrition... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Eating his words vs. me providing yet more evidence of it:

"you're the pathetic simian who cannot let a comment about your malware go unchallenged - by Sardaukar86 (850333) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @03:57AM (#50899263)

Your POOR DIET (eating your words) decreased what little brain function you had - Security pros & /.'ers disagree w/ that raving loon rant of yours:

---

b>APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit = Safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

&

So is it's installer per VirScan-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

+

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

---

"APK is a one-trick-pony with only hosts-file manipulation to his name, a technique that was rightfully deposed in the 90's" - by Sardaukar86 (850333) on Tuesday November 10, 2015 @03:57AM (#50899263)

Noted security pros disagree & on "1 trick pony" your big mouth has allowed me to RAM that right back down your throat in my p.s. below:

---

Aryeh Goretsky NOD32/ESET says hosts = good security-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

Oliver Day (Symantec) does-> http://www.securityfocus.com/c...

---

* Sardaukar86 - thank you: YOU ARE GOOD @ FAILING vs. myself!

(QUESTION: HOW DOES IT TASTE "eating your words" now that you've stuck your foot in your mouth YET AGAIN vs. me (lol), & rammed them down your throat, washing them down with the "bitter taste of SELF-defeat"?)

APK

P.S.=> You're DYING OF MALNUTRITION (lol)- > 244++:1 in MY favor-> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... ) & on "1 trick pony" in things you'll NEVER do I have too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - Do yourself a favor & CHANGE YOUR DIET: Eating your words != GOOD NUTRITION!

... apk

Dave420's "eating his words" diet (lol)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Everyone who does use HOSTS files (myself included) doesn't use your software" - by dave420 (699308) on Thursday November 05, 2015 @07:30AM (#50869743)

A small sampling of /.'ers say my work is good who use my hosts file engine quoted:

---

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

---

* So, what's that you said I have quoted above Dave420? LMAO... you FAIL as usual, again, vs. me!

APK

P.S.=> See subject: You REALLY ought to consider changing your diet Dave420 - EATING YOUR WORDS != Good nutrition (but, hopefully, you'll DIE of malnutrition & we'll be free of you)... apk

Dave420's "eating his words" diet (lol)... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Everyone who does use HOSTS files (myself included) doesn't use your software" - by dave420 (699308) on Thursday November 05, 2015 @07:30AM (#50869743)

A small sampling of /.'ers say my work is good who use my hosts file engine quoted:

---

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

... apk

---

* So, what's that you said I have quoted above Dave420? LMAO... you FAIL as usual, again, vs. me!

APK

P.S.=> Jokes on YOU fool - you're the joke & the one that makes it possible (see subject): You give *EVERYONE ON THIS SITE A HARD TIME*, & thank goodness your rather DULL BRAIN makes it easy to do it back to you troll... apk

Markets and politics [Re:Economics]

[XXongo]

First, I'm not sure why you think I'm not considering the option of doing nothing

Because you said so, in a roundabout way ("If you are arguing that all the proposed solutions are 'statist'").

We seem to have a vocabulary problem here. Doing nothing is not a "solution." Doing nothing is choosing to not solve the problem. This is indeed an option which should be considered, but you can't call it is a "solution"-- saying "we don't have to solve this problem" is not a solution.

In fact, there is one solution that is not, namely doing nothing. It's been on the table for a long time, but people with vested political and economic interests keep denouncing its proponents as "deniers".

"Deniers" are people who deny that the greenhouse effect exists, or at least deny that human-generated greenhouse gasses cause warming.

As far as I know, there isn't a word for people who agree that human-generated gasses cause warming, but propose that the optimum way to address the issue is to do nothing. I don't think I've ever met proponents of that previously-- in fact, I'd be interested if you have a citation to somebody else holding that view.

Second, if the cost of fossil fuels doesn't include the cost of all the effects of burning it and putting the waste into the atmosphere, it's not paying its way-- the people who do have to pay for the effects are subsidizing the price. And so the market won't "take care" of this, because the externalities are not part of the market price-- the price is artificially low, meaning that too much coal will be burned.

That's irrelevant to the point I was making,

No, it's not. You claimed that market forces would solve the problem. They won't, because the cost of warming is not incorporated into the market price.

namely that if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions quickly and efficiently, market mechanisms without government interference are likely to be the quickest way of accomplishing that goal,

That's an assertion. You have given no evidence to support it.

since markets already have a strong incentive to reduce fossil fuel use because it's expensive.

No, it's not. Fossil fuels are cheap. They are cheap, in part, because the cost of the externalities are not included in the price, which means that the price is subsidized The fact that the price is subsidized means that the market is not accurately accounting for it.

That point has nothing to do with externalities.

Exactly. Since you're not accounting for externalities, the equilibrium price point doesn't include them. Since the equilibrium doesn't include this cost, the solution isn't optimized to trade the cost of not reducing emission against the cost of reducing emissions.

Accounting for externalities is a good thing in principle. But the problem with that idea is the notion that governments can do this. In fact, the various carbon taxes that exist or are proposed do not account for externalities correctly, and they certainly don't go to the people who actually bear the cost from carbon emissions.

That's a reasonable point to argue. However, don't attribute it to "economists", because most economists won't agree. Dealing with externailties is hard, but most economists accept that, one way or another, governments have to be involved.

I know way too many economists. I don't believe that I have ever heard an economist use the word "statist". That's basically a word libertarians invented to mean "anybody who supports anything a government does that I don't like."

"Statism" is a term from political science referring to the concentration of economic and political power in the state;

Re:Markets and politics [Re:Economics]

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

We seem to have a vocabulary problem here. Doing nothing is not a "solution." Doing nothing is choosing to not solve the problem. This is indeed an option which should be considered, but you can't call it is a "solution"-- saying "we don't have to solve this problem" is not a solution.

Indeed we have a vocabulary problem. "We do nothing" only means that government does nothing because the "we" in that phrase refers to collective action by society. You erroneously believe that "we do nothing" amounts to nothing being done at all. In fact, most things in the US get done when "we do nothing" as a society, and action is left to individuals operating in a free market.

No, it's not. You claimed that market forces would solve the problem. They won't, because the cost of warming is not incorporated into the market price.

Your premise is wrong, namely that externalities need to be accounted correctly for in order for markets to solve something. Horse shit was a huge externality for using buggies in cities in the 19th century. Did people develop automobiles only after that externality was accounted for? Of course not. People developed automobiles because they are cheaper and more powerful; no horse-shit-tax was needed.

Dealing with externailties is hard, but most economists accept that, one way or another, governments have to be involved.

Dealing with externalities would mean transferring money from the people causing the additional costs to the people actually bearing the consequences of those costs. But that is not what any of the AGW mitigation proposals do; instead, they simply raise the cost of fossil fuels and then transfer the money to government cronies. The only "benefit" of that is that it encourages people to look for alternatives to fossil fuels; but they are already doing that because fossil fuels are already expensive and taxed.

No, they don't. I am slightly amused here by the fact that two posts up you were saying we should listen to what economists say (because you assumed they agree with you), and when I point out that real-world economists don't actually agree with you, you tell me that we shouldn't listen to them because they are too naive to understand governments are imperfect.

I don't know of any real-world economist who says that the only way to discourage fossil fuel use is to properly account for externalities. In fact, most economists simply say that the more expensive you make fossil fuel, the less people will be using it and the more they will be incentivized to look for alternatives.

You make a nice libertarian argument. But there is more to economics, and for that matter to political science, than libertarian arguments.

Well, so far I haven't seen any argument from you how and why government action would be effective, or why it would be more effective than doing nothing. You simply repeat the mantra that unless we "account for externalities", something bad will happen, with no explanation of what you even mean by that, or explanation of how the proposed AGW mitigation efforts do that.

Re:Markets and politics [Re:Economics]

[XXongo]

We seem to have a vocabulary problem here. Doing nothing is not a "solution." Doing nothing is choosing to not solve the problem. This is indeed an option which should be considered, but you can't call it is a "solution"-- saying "we don't have to solve this problem" is not a solution.

Indeed we have a vocabulary problem. "We do nothing" only means that government does nothing because the "we" in that phrase refers to collective action by society. You erroneously believe that "we do nothing" amounts to nothing being done at all.

Indeed, we do have a vocabulary problem. When, in your original post, you said "do nothing," I assumed that you meant "do nothing." There was no "we" in what you posted. Now what you're saying is to do something, but in a distributed system, where your "do nothing" does not mean do nothing, but means to not take in a directed, organized action.

OK. You're saying that people will decrease their use of fossil fuel because it's expensive. I'd like to see some numbers here. But, actually, I can analyze it trivially. Fossil fuel usage increases directly in proportion to GNP. Overall, the gross world product is increasing-- the poor are getting less poor (despite all the doomsaying). This is despite the face that, in your belief, fossil fuels are "expensive". So, the net result is that fossil fuel consumption is increasing.

Gross world product here: http://stats.areppim.com/stats...
Fossil fuel use here: http://worldhistoryforusall.sd...

Going up. Not down. Nope, that does not solve the problem.

But, you wouldn't expect it to. Since the piece doesn't reflect externalities, there's no reason in the world to expect usage to decrease to account for the fact that the planet is growing warmer. That isn't part of the market calculation.

I don't know of any real-world economist who says that the only way to discourage fossil fuel use is to properly account for externalities.

You could have stopped typing after "I don't know any real-world economists".

In fact, most economists simply say that the more expensive you make fossil fuel, the less people will be using it and the more they will be incentivized to look for alternatives.

Exactly! You got it! Gold star!

"incentivized to look for alternatives." Exactly. That's called "substitution of resources". That's how markets work.

Re:Markets and politics [Re:Economics]

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

When, in your original post, you said "do nothing," I assumed that you meant "do nothing."

I think I was clear enough: "do nothing [...] the market will take care of this by itself"

OK. You're saying that people will decrease their use of fossil fuel because it's expensive. I'd like to see some numbers here.

No, I'm saying that entrepreneurs have an incentive to develop alternative energies and increase efficiency, for the simple reason that energy is a major input to just about every product. Increase energy efficiency by 10% and you increase profits by at least several percent. That's true whether or not you account for externalities.

In fact, most economists simply say that the more expensive you make fossil fuel, the less people will be using it and the more they will be incentivized to look for alternatives.

Exactly! You got it! Gold star!

But you aren't getting it. There is nothing magic about "accounting for externalities" when talking about supply, demand, and taxes. The more you tax, the less demand there is. In fact, current US gas taxes already actually are around what the EIA estimates to be the externality cost of carbon from burning gasoline (and in Europe, it's much higher), so existing taxes already achieve what you claim is the right thing to do. But you can increase taxes arbitrarily and drive usage to zero if you like. Of course, you also make people poorer and poorer, and the poorer they are, the worse able they are to deal with climate change. The Netherlands are 1/3 below sea level and are doing a lot better than many coastal countries that are above sea level. Worse yet, carbon taxes and similar programs effectively amount to highly regressive taxes and hurt the poorest most.

But there are deeper problems with the approach of "let's account for externalities through taxes": such policies are subject to lobbying and evasion, and they don't work well incentivizing people to develop new technologies. Worse yet, by incentivizing people to use bad technologies, you actually reduce the amount of money available for new R&D.

I repeat: if your goal is to reduce carbon emissions and reach carbon neutrality, the quickest way to do that is for government and society to do nothing and leave things to the free market, with no carbon taxes or other meddling.

Of course, personally, I think climate change is somewhere between harmless and beneficial anyway. I'd like to see us burn fossil fuels for another century just to be sure we have raised CO2 levels enough to get out of the current ice age.

You could have stopped typing after "I don't know any real-world economists".

You were doing so well for a while engaging at least in a reasonable debate before engaging in this silly snark; it's particularly silly because your economic arguments are flawed.

Basics of Economics[ Re:Markets and politics]

[XXongo]

You keep making up different arguments; it's hard to keep up. However:

In fact, most economists simply say that the more expensive you make fossil fuel, the less people will be using it and the more they will be incentivized to look for alternatives.

Exactly! You got it! Gold star!

But you aren't getting it. There is nothing magic about "accounting for externalities" when talking about supply, demand, and taxes. The more you tax, the less demand there is.

Exactly. There's nothing "magic" about simple economics. The more expensive something is, the less is used. It's little more than common sense, but using numbers.

So: You just clearly and succinctly stated that this approach would work to reduce carbon emissions. We agree.

Now, a different question is whether this is the best approach, and a different yet question is whether this is even a problem that we need to solve at all.

However, you seem to be violently agreeing with me on the basic economics, so I'll stop here.

Re:Basics of Economics[ Re:Markets and politics]

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

So: You just clearly and succinctly stated that this approach would work to reduce carbon emissions. We agree.

That wasn't the point under discussion. The point under discussion was your justification for taxes as accounting for "externalities". I pointed out that we are already taxing in roughly the amount of the externalities that carbon emissions create, and that there is nothing special about taxing at that amount. From an economic point of view, the only situation that would make a difference is if you tax exactly the amount of externalities you produce and then transfer the money to the people suffering the externalities, but that isn't actually happening in any of the carbon taxes.

Would it work? We actually already know it doesn't because it has been tried. Markets don't react to tax increases like they do to an increase in price of the underlying commodity. Taxes can be avoided by moving production out of the country or by lobbying. Consumers demand for energy and gasoline is fairly inelastic. And tax increases will likely be compensated for by a decrease in the price of the commodity.

However, you seem to be violently agreeing with me on the basic economics, so I'll stop here.

I think you are an excellent example of Dunning-Kruger: you are so ignorant of economics, you don't even realize it.

The bitchslapping of Dave420... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Everyone who does use HOSTS files (myself included) doesn't use your software" - by dave420 (699308) on Thursday November 05, 2015 @07:30AM (#50869743)

Some /.'ers made you "eat your words": They use my hosts file engine saying it's good vs. your bullshit:

"his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

"I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

"APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

"his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

(LMAO... you FAIL as usual, again, vs. me!)

* What's that you said I have quoted from you above Dave420?

APK

P.S.=> Thanks for making me look good: You always say something I can put away with undeniable facts that prove you wrong... lol!

... apk

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[Layzej]

You may want to look up Pollyanna. You seem to be confused as to the meaning. While you're at it, you may want to look up the economic cost of the projected sea level rise for Miami alone. If you're going to have a strong opinion on this topic it may as well be an informed one.

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

While you're at it, you may want to look up the economic cost of the projected sea level rise for Miami alone. If you're going to have a strong opinion on this topic it may as well be an informed one.

I'm way ahead of you: (1) basically, even the IPCC says that the costs and benefits about balance out if we do nothing, and (2) the IPCC (as well as you) are actually overestimating the costs of inaction and underestimating the costs of action.

As for "Pollyannaism", it's people who propose action on AGW who are unreasonably optimistic: they believe that government action is effective, that its costs are lower than they are, and that we can somehow "stabilize" the climate and coastal areas. You people have all the naivite of a young earth creationist and a socialist rolled into one.

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[Layzej]

Nope. The only study that showed net benefits up to 1C warming had errors. Here's how it looks corrected: https://andthentheresphysics.w... . Say, why not answer the question? what is the economic cost of the projected sea level rise for Miami alone?

Re:Increase of 1 degree C over pre-industrial time

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Nope. The only study that showed net benefits up to 1C warming had errors.

I didn't claim that there was a "net benefit" to warming. I made a statement about the IPCC. However, I didn't say what I wanted to say.

What the IPCC actually says is that the cost of mitigation about balance the benefits from mitigation. That is, according to the IPCC, we always incur a net cost from climate change, but the cost is the same whether we successfully mitigate or not.

Say, why not answer the question? what is the economic cost of the projected sea level rise for Miami alone?

The cost is close to zero, since essentially nothing that is in Miami today will have any economic value in the year 2100. That fact is independent of what happens to Miami in the year 2100, whether it gets flooded, destroyed by a nuclear blast, or erased in an alien invasion.

Another way of looking at it is that about a hundred years ago, Miami was a tiny hamlet with a few hundred people, so at worst, it will simply go back to that; that is, over the span of 200 years, nothing will have been lost even if Miami becomes almost completely uninhabitable.