Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Contrarians Lose Big Betting Against Global Warming (theguardian.com)
Layzej writes: Two members of the Global Warming Policy Foundation academic advisory board have each lost [roughly $1,320 (1,000 British Pound)] betting that 2015 would not be warmer than 2008. The Guardian reports: "Between 2008 and 2015 there would be more than 0.1C of human-caused global warming, so for 2015 to be cooler would have required a huge La Nina event, or big volcanic eruption, or perhaps the contrarians were banking on human-caused global warming being wrong. Whatever their reasoning, it was a foolish bet to make. 2015 was a record-breaking hot year, about 0.32C hotter than 2008. It wasn't even close." The winner of the bet, economist Chris Hope, also discussed the possibility of implementing climate betting markets, and noted: "they could offer a financial incentive for people who disagree about the likelihood of climate change to carefully assess the risks, instead of just shouting their disagreement across the void. If we do nothing, all the signs are that dangerous climate change is one of the safest bets around."
50% change of loosing if 2008 was an average year...
An el nino (not caused by humans) occurred that year and we are just now coming out of it.
Two members of the Global Warming Policy Foundation academic advisory board have each lost [roughly $1,320 (1,000 British Pound)] betting that 2015 would not be warmer than 2008.
I'd be willing to bet that some rich conservative financed their bet, so that they didn't lose any money.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
If I read this right, they won their bet... It got hotter, but none of it was man made.
It's all a plot, and everybody is in on it except you.
Why wouldn't I take that bet and place explosive charges around Mt. Pinatubo? Pets Siamese cat.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I think this is what the AC is talking about.
AFAICT it wouldn't have mattered, by multiple measurements 2015 was warmer than 2008.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Why would I make a bet with the same people who are adjusting the temperature readings?
Exxon (XOM) was trading at $79 per share in August 2008 and now it's up to $86. You would have made a little money.
to see the Slashdot climate change denier comments
... the comment section on this article will be filed with trolls and political shills from the left and right.
Just like every other article...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
OK, you sprung us, we've all been colluding behind your back in one great big conspiracy the whole time. At the start we just wanted to play a silly gag about being descended from apes (evolution, even the name is silly), but you were so easy to trick we had to go again. So we upped the stakes with the whole "spherical world" theory... and you believed us! I mean come on, WTF did you think was stopping all the people in the so-called "southern hemisphere" from falling right off??? But you swallowed it! Seriously, keeping a straight face whenever we saw you was almost impossible! So after all of that how could we resist a bit of fun with the climate stats?
Anyhow, sorry for the embarrassment - you must be feeling rather silly right now. We promise we'll let you in on the gag next time.
signed
the mysterious "them"
Why wouldn't I take that bet and place explosive charges around Mt. Pinatubo? Pets Siamese cat.
Hanging with cats now, Xenu?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Remember, the republicans chose as their presidential nominee a man who claims that global warming is a hoax perpetuated by China to weaken our economy. These people have their heads so far up the rectums of the fossil fuel industry that they blather on about a "war on coal" and jumped Hillary's case when she talked about shutting down coal plants... not even for renewables, but for other fossil fuels (natural gas) that burn cleaner. They're so damned convinced that there are no repercussions to burning fossil fuels and dumping carbon into the atmosphere, so totally self-assured that there is no such thing as climate change, that even replacing the worst and dirtiest fossil fuel of them all with another fossil fuel is a matter of psychotic controversy for them. (Hell. If there's NOT a "war on coal", then there damn well should be!)
And when one of their own had the temerity to point out that even if you're 100% confident in your belief that the global climate has absolutely not changed, is not changing, and never will change, fossil fuels will still eventually run out, and that stubbornly clinging to them is like being "last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads" or "the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged"... when Arnold Schwarzenegger broke it down into pure, cold-blooded, capitalism snd pointed out that there is a lot of money to be made and a lot of jobs to be had in renewables and they've been great for California's economy (Now having nudged out France to become the 6th largest in the world... they branded him a traitor and have all but totally disavowed him.
The climate change deniers and fossil fuel fanboys are not rational actors, and they're not acting in good faith. Sadly, I think the only real thing to do is to wait for them to be demographiced out. And we'll just have to hope that, once their successors have taken power and cast them aside, it's not too late to repair the damage going forward from there.
Imagine all the people...
Create legal betting markets so that the ignorant can lose their money in a new way!
One more reason to keep the population stupid, scared and angry. As if there weren't enough already.
Should be pointed out the winner of the bet also betted against it getting warmer. Even he was not confident enough in his own statements that he hedged his bets
Gotta use those mod points sometime...
I don't see how £1,000 is losing big. The future of humanity and many other species are on the line. We're all going to lose big by extinction.
So according to you, physics is biased towards global govermental control. Some big cabale goes on in the background and manipulates the laws of physics to allow for a global catastrophic scenario, which in turn gives governments the power to reign in.
Your post is incongruent without premises nor conclusion. A complaint and a call to action without a solution is just whining. Could you elaborate on what you meant?
No, according to him we're already slaves to corporations... at least ever since 1987 when the "global government" banned CFC's because of that "ozone hole" thing. While the said ozone hole is actually closing now, this horrible, communistic global action has destroyed our very lifestyle.
No, wait. It hasn't.
So El Nino vs El Nino years... not totally unfair but they should've used 5+ year averages(?).
What will be really interesting is if the next non El-Nino / El Nina influenced year, say 2018 is warmer than the El-Nino in 2008....
because one volcano doesn't make a difference.
His bits about the Pentagon crash being entirely faked with no aircraft involved and a building being deliberately blown up (instead of being burnt down due to thousands of gallons of fuel splashing about) will especially enlighten where he is coming from.
He used his HR granted title of "engineer" to a leading hand in SOFTWARE with no project to lead and no subordinates as "proof" that he knew about civil engineering and that steel doesn't get soft in fires.
His lines above such as the following make perfect sense in that context:
He's pushing a very strange agenda with no reference to reality.
What do you get? To be a slaves to the corporations who get permission to buy some of what those same corporations sell.
Corporations are part of a conspiracy to impose more regulation. You heard it here first, folks.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Good thing they didn't have to prove that humans caused that warming.
Modded -1: Trump
One that's big enough certainly does. Pinatubo's eruption more than offset the temp rise of the past 50 years all by itself and for up to 3 years.
There are no climate contrarians - just people in differing stages of grief.
It's okay, be all angry, we understand.
Grr denier!
Just because some random website claims something is true, doesn't actually make it true.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
No, it's science. The same scientific method that gave you the drugs that keep you alive, and the computer you used to tell the world how little you care about science. Sure - have problems with the politics, but to deny science because you don't like its implications is the act of an intellectually dishonest coward. Are you also a senior conspiracy theorist?
No, we took a vote, and he DEFINITELY will not be in on the next gag.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
This is incorrect
Granted, you didn't specify wat exactly do you mean by 'latest' here, the PALEONSENS study ('Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity', from Nature, link can be found in the article) is from 2012. If you have some newer peer reviewed research showing these types of results are somehow false, please link them and don't just state these things as if they're facts.
This is incorrect
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
If I had mod points I'd mod you up.
Not because climate change isn't real. (The climate has never not been changing). But because anthropogenesis is a sham.
When shitloads of physical evidence, on the other hand, confirms something - it's almost certainly much more likely to be true than not true - especially when the contrary position is supported by a massive, steaming heap of no evidence at all (otherwise known as pure bullshit).
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
And somehow there are still people who feel climate change is not a problem...
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
No, in fact, the only thing like that threatening my lifestyle is the ban on using HFCs in inhalers. Big Pharma assholes again.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And somehow there are still people who feel climate change is not a problem...
It's not "somehow". It's cognitive dissonance.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They will still when the water is rising past their chest level, because, hey, no problem, I can still breathe. And if it rises more, I can swim.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The Grand Poobah would like to have a word with you, you're not supposed to tell him that!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Which is why parent lost his bet already. I'd try to distinguish shills from the average opinionated poster.
Yes, but..... that shitloads of physical evidence still won't make it "true" to complete fucking uneducated morons who think their ignorant as shit opinions are somehow right regardless of reality. It should, but lets face it, no one's ever gone broke betting on the sheer stupidity of the human species in general, and anti-intellectual miscreants in specific.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
I thought it was Cranial-Rectal Inversion Syndrome. http://media.photobucket.com/u...
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
See, i read parents post as: "help, my meds aren't working anymore."
But it does just go to show, that a little intelligence goes a long way.... towards parting complete idiots with a nice little tidy sum of cash.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
No, the cure for global warming is generally to tax those corporations who have enslaved us and put some regulations on them so they stop charging us money to destroy our shared environment. The extra taxes will go towards cleanup and reversing the damage that has already been done.
Where are you getting your information?
If your inhaler has high fructose corn syrup in it, it may in fact be candy and not a medical device FYI
Of course we've heard of the El Nino. The El Nino, the Pinto, and the Santa Mary were the three ships Jesus used to bring his dinosaurs to the US to set up his all white gun club.
I get it, you didn't give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, and you're certainly not giving up now.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
> But because anthropogenesis is a sham.
Humans creating life is a sham ? Spoken like a true virgin.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I know you think you're being clever, but that's often the case. There's nothing more effective to weed out competition than to regulate it away. Think about cable companies and common carrier, yeah, that's regulation that corporations lobby for. Keep up and you see it happen all the time, and yes, it's for their own benefit. You really couldn't believe solar city would lobby to ban coal and nuclear? Food companies will lobby for expensive health standards knowing that it keeps the cost of entry too high for new players to enter the market, happens all the time. You're not very good at thinking, are you?
If your inhaler has high fructose corn syrup in it, it may in fact be candy and not a medical device FYI
What's wrong with your parser that it can't tell the difference between a capital and lowercase S? That seems like an odd bug.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
> because one volcano doesn't make a difference.
Sometimes, a single volcano can change History and make all the difference... ...unless it has impotence.
Volcano, just seek our specialized labs for help if you're having eruptile dysfunction.
Yes, those 90+ percent of scientists who believe in AGW are all part of a shadowy global elite hell-bent on controlling us through fear! Good thing there are still those plucky young multi-billion dollar oil companies fighting for the little guy, making sure we can carry on paying them 1.2 trillion dollars per year so our lights don't go out!
No, in fact, the only thing like that threatening my lifestyle is the ban on using HFCs in inhalers. Big Pharma assholes again.
Right on. I'd like to kick the ass of whatever genius thought it was a good idea for me to pump vapourized ethanol into my already inflamed bronchial passages. Fucktards. Fortunately, here in Canada I can still get inhalers with a sensible propellant - most of the time...
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
The foolishness of the bet comes not really from any climate-change denial nonesense, but just from random chance. Betting that any given year will be hotter or colder than any other given particular year is stupid, there's too much chance for something else to go wrong (from whatever your perspective). A better bet, if you're really looking to test the climate change bit, would have been something like "The 10 year period starting in January 2008 will be, on average, warmer than the 10 year period starting January 1998." The data on THAT would be way more interesting and useful to our purposes here.
Think about cable companies and common carrier, yeah, that's regulation that corporations lobby for.
Except net neutrality regulation, which they are lobbying strongly against. It's almost as if they lobby for whatever is in their best interest, rather than simply lobbying for more regulation! Hmm, I wonder why oil companies are always lobbying against environmental and renewable energy regulation..?
Tell billions of screaming indians, chinese, and millions africans that they can't have jobs, ac, cars and western lifestyles and that they need to go back to subsitance farming.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
what control group are they using to show what would have happened had we not been here?
Ah yes, if only scientists had created a control planet before the industrial revolution so we could compare what the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration by 33% is, oh well guess we can't do anything about it because we're only 90+ percent sure not 110% percent sure. Also fossil fuel exhaustion and pollution, well those don't matter either!
Polly wants a cracker?
Do you always roll around in excrement rather than making a cogent arguement? Welcome to Slashdot!
There were scientists who believed in ether theory until the day they died, long after it was definitively disproven. If there had been a single government institution in charge of physics research and it was headed and staffed by ether theory proponents, all of whom would have lost their jobs, had their careers ended, and worst of all, been utterly humiliated by the emergence of the truth, do you think the numbers might have been fudged just a little bit?
Imagine if the tools for measuring were pretty shitty (didn't give a full picture), the experiments were uncontrolled (there is no control without humans for Earth), there were an unending number of confounding factors that could influence the measurements, and the results took decades to come in.
If you want to ignore human nature, that is your business, but don't ask us to cede control of our economy to a central authority so these people can signal their virtue by its destruction.
... the comment section on this article will be filed with trolls and political shills from the left and right.
Just this once, can't we have a large-scale scientific issue characterized by science and fixed by engineers?
Oy, you are why /s was invented.
The extra taxes will go towards cleanup and reversing the damage that has already been done.
Yea, of course it will. That's what extra taxes are used for ALL THE TIME! It's great, isn't it? Extra taxes are NEVER used to enrich corporations and elites. No, I'm sure that won't happen this time, either.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Skeptical Science is a propaganda website promoting a political agenda. I wish people would stop citing it. They look worse than the idiots citing Red State.
Did they miss this? Might want to ask for their cash back if there was ever any real cash and this isn't just some story to get climate change in the news.
what control group are they using to show what would have happened had we not been here?
Ah yes, if only scientists had created a control planet before the industrial revolution so we could compare what the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration by 33% is, oh well guess we can't do anything about it because we're only 90+ percent sure not 110% percent sure. Also fossil fuel exhaustion and pollution, well those don't matter either!
Hmmm...
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Actually - those regions are mostly using renewables already and expanding their use far faster than the US is - I live in Africa.
Not least because it's cheaper when you're adding new capacity (which is what they mostly do).
Electricity is compared using something called Levelized Cost Per KW/H - which is a price worked out for the supply source, that includes the cost of construction to recoup, fuel and maintenance costs etc. etc.
There was such a comparison done in South Africa just this week - here are the numbers:
New nuclear: best case scenario R1.30 per kw/h, more realistic number (using the fuel and maintenance costs of existing nuclear supplies and not assuming new nuclear will be cheaper) R1.50
New coal: between R1.05 and R1.19 depending on the capacity of the generator.
Solar: R0.87
Wind: R0.52
Notice how the cost for wind is roughly 1/3rd the realistic rate for nuclear, and less than half the best rate for coal ? So building coal and nuclear is fundamentally stupid and happens exclusively where massive corruption is involved.
It's arguable how well renewables compare with fossil fuels in established markets like the USA where lots of long-paid-off fossil fuel capacity exist, but it's no contest in emerging markets where new electricity generators have to be built and the construction costs factored into the retail price.
And that's without even considering time as a major factor. The earliest timeline for bringing new nuclear online is 15 years, new coal is between 7 and 10 years. A new solar plant of comparable output can be done in 2.
There is very little nuclear and coal construction happening in the developing world today and what little there is, is almost entirely driven by corruption. Literally big plant building companies bribing government ministers to build expensive plants rather than cheap ones. One of the worst culprits being the company that owned Chernobyl.
Either way - the risks that climate change presents to Africans (crop losses, starvation, plagues, droughts, floods) are also factors here. The harm from climate change will overwhelmingly hit poor countries far harder than rich ones -despite poor countries overwhelmingly being the least responsible for it.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
2015 was the year that proved to me that the data isn't accurate. We had one of the coldest springs I could remember. And I joked to my friends, no worries, it'll be claimed that it was the hottest on record. My friends laughed dismissively as we knew it was well below normal temperatures with the exception of a warm February.
Lo and behold, it was announced that 2015 was one of the hottest springs on record for the U.S. Now being the good student of the scientific method, I figured regional vs global here. Clearly, our region was well below normal temperatures. But I wagered the Southwest and pacific coast must have been warmer, and perhaps the south as well. But mid-atlantic to New England was clearly much colder than normal.
So I look at the data maps. And yes, there was a big hot blotch out westward. Just as I suspected. But then, they had my entire region in moderate red for elevated warmth. At this point, I am calling BS. Because we were well below normal temperatures for spring. In fact, I lost a crap ton of fruit crops due to extremely late and continual frosts.
So ya...I call BS on the data. It's not calibrated right.
Damnit... do you think he'll still fall for the whole 'black holes in space' gag ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Except of course that you're using double burdened numbers for nuclear and subsidized numbers for solar and probably wind, nough your market for that is a little more corrupt then makes sense.
Except that there is no physical evidence at all. "Global Average Temperature" is an ideological construct - there is no such thing in physical reality and if you knew the slightest thing about physics you would know how dumb of an idea it is. But then again, Einstein proved a hundred years ago that there was no such thing as time, and that hasn't made much of an impact on people, so I won't hold my breath.
The average global warming believer is just as primitive and ignorant as the average middle ages believer in the catholic church. Two stupid religions for the stupid people of two different eras.
"It's Science," "The Bible Says So," "99.9% of scientist agree" ... 99.9% of cardinals agree on the divinity of the Pope. The apocalypse is coming. Give us your money to atone for your sins.
Maybe you should try reading some history instead of science and you could figure this stuff out.
but they are paid a lot more for the lying.
the air over land warms 3x faster than the ocean
Without discussing whether this figure is accurate, you can nullify your own point. Here's how:
If the air over land warms 3x faster than the ocean, the converse would also be true, specifically that the land cools 3x faster than the ocean during cooler periods. So regardless of whether all of the temperature sensors are on asphalt or not, the global average over a whole year would be the same.
To know that the temperature readings are being adjusted in a dishonest way requires knowledge of that the adjustments are invalid. Let's see your data.
So this betting would be a good "put your money where your mouth is" way to shut some people up.
Who is starting the website?
The zapadnik seems to be here only to post political propaganda. When you look the post history you notice lack of non-political replies, so I would guess that person behind it gets money for posting this propaganda.
Man made climate change is going to kill us all... blah blah blah
Give us lots of money and political power to remediate it. NOW... blah blah blah
In the end we'll have a Progressive Socialist utopia... blah blah blah
If you don't like it, we'll send you to re-education camps... blah blah blah
And if you still don't like it, we'll [insert socialist nightmare punishment here]
You get all your information about climate change from a blog.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/31/a-warm-period-by-any-other-name-the-climatic-optimum/
Post up your data that shows most of the Holocene was BELOW todays temperatures, ok?
"ozone hole" thing
You mean the thing that's been there since we started looking for it? And the thing that's in Antarctica where CFCs are not being used, but where Earth's magnetic field is the weakest, and where the Earth is facing the center of the Milky Way and thus exposed to the most cosmic radiation--ie., exactly where we'd expect to find a natural hole?
Arguing that global warming isn't happening because it has bad consequences is literally insane.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
But then again, Einstein proved a hundred years ago that there was no such thing as time
The Dunning-Kruger is strong in this one.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Yes, a warmist blog at that. But hey, our govt pays for certain kinds of research and conclusions, BUT THERE IS NO COLLUSION....
John Cook is a kook.
So according to that link extra mass causes an atmosphere to heat up, so if the Earth is getting warmer then logically it must have taken on more mass very recently. Care to show us where that extra mass is hiding?
And if atmospheric composition doesn't matter, why is Venus 30x hotter than Earth when it only receives 2x the solar insolation and has slightly less mass?
Not to mention we've known about Jupiter's internal heat source since 1969.
Yes that entire site is starting to sound like one big straw man isn't it? Or straw planet, perhaps?
IT IS HOT OUTSIDE. IT IS HOTTER THAN LAST YEAR. According to WeatherUnderground, this July, in FL, the average temperature was 97. In 2008 it was 94. IT IS HOT. I know that you don't believe the scientists when they say it is hot, but I assure you that IT IS HOT OUTSIDE. WHEN WILL YOU BELIEVE THAT IT IS HOT?!
For the record, Skeptical Science was founded by this guy:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lbw90JPZq6Q/U3B9roVxLAI/AAAAAAAABJ4/swCjiaMzqFk/s1600/Herr+Cook.gif (Note, that is a real picture that Cook took of himself. He decided he was a climate Nazi. Seriously)
Who was a self-employed cartoonist.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3
Cook later went on to get a degree in psychology where he wrote papers that included all sorts of shaky shit. For example, he pretended to be Lubos Motl. He decided to do a 'study' where he posted 'arguments' from skeptics and had people read the 'arguments' and see if that changed their views on climate science. The only problem is that Cook pretended he was Motl and just made shit up instead of using arguments that Motl actually made. Oh, and Cook also posted as Lubos Motl on the S.S. (note, Skeptical Science, or S.S., and the image above. Anyone thinking that Cook has some odd interests?)
http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html
To top that off, there is the 'Recursive Fury' paper which was absolute garbage and had to be retracted.
http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats/
On top of that, Skeptical Science also got caught in a scandal where the '97%' paper he wrote (97% of all scientists argree with ME!!!!, more or less) was found to be, once again, a pile of crap. The raters were cheating which by itself makes the paper crap. (note, the link below is to an archive of the S.S. thread)
http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/The%20Consensus%20Project/2012-02-27-Official%20TCP%20Guidelines%20%28all%20discussion%20of%20grey%20areas,%20disputed%20papers,%20clarifications%20goes%20here%29.html
And, to add to Mr. Cook woes, he also sucks at math. Here is a paper discussing Cooks mathematical challenges.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Know who you are citing. Skeptical Science is not trustworthy.
The harm from climate change will overwhelmingly hit poor countries far harder than rich ones -despite poor countries overwhelmingly being the least responsible for it.
And yet we never hear of solving the climate change problem by making those poor countries into wealthy countries, especially since poverty will always have a variety of harms, several which are much larger than climate change in terms of environmental or human harm, for which it is vulnerable even in the complete absence of climate change.
No, we can't. Not even once.
If it's a large scale issue, there's always large $ at stake, and therefore always politics involved, along with all the associated trolls, shills, astroturfers and assorted wankers.
So according to that link extra mass causes an atmosphere to heat up, so if the Earth is getting warmer then logically it must have taken on more mass very recently. Care to show us where that extra mass is hiding?
That's a rather odd way to read the study. In fact, you've created a straw man that's irrelevant to the study entirely [SMH].
And if atmospheric composition doesn't matter, why is Venus 30x hotter than Earth when it only receives 2x the solar insolation and has slightly less mass?
Since the intensity of the Sun's radiation decreases with distance from it as 1 over r-squared, Venus receives (93/67.25) squared, or 1.91 times the power per unit area that Earth receives, on average.
Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15C = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66C, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus.
We have to compare atmospheric temperatures at equal pressures in the two atmospheres, and when we do that we find the Venus atmospheric temperature is always just 17% higher than the corresponding (same pressure level) temperature in Earth's atmosphere -- and that essentially constant factor is due solely to the two planets' relative distances from the Sun, nothing else (in particular, not due to the great difference in the amount of carbon dioxide in the two atmospheres). The pressure on the surface of Venus there is far outside the range of Earth's atmospheric pressure. From the results of the comparison I have done, we can say that if Earth had much more atmosphere, so that its surface pressure was equal to Venus's surface pressure, then we would expect the 463C surface temperature of Venus to be 17% higher than the surface temperature of the Earth with that much atmosphere.
Not to mention we've known about Jupiter's internal heat source since 1969 [google.co.uk].
Yes, but now it can be precisely measured.
Yes that entire site is starting to sound like one big straw man isn't it? Or straw planet, perhaps?
No, but your initial characterization of it most certainly is exactly that. And you knocked down your straw man. Congrats!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Notice how the cost for wind is roughly 1/3rd the realistic rate for nuclear, and less than half the best rate for coal ? So building coal and nuclear is fundamentally stupid and happens exclusively where massive corruption is involved.
Building nuclear is non-stupid when you want 7x24x365 power. Or do you have some hither-too unknown industrial-scale battery technology that you're keeping from everyone else? Do you want data centres and factories? Well, their operators want reliable power.
Wind and solar can work for the household, with a decent house bank, but IMHO it doesn't reliably scale (yet).
I'm all for a mixed grid, but for every kW of wind and solar, you need some NG generators that can be spun up in a moment's notice. And that's on top of the base load.
... the comment section on this article will be filed with trolls and political shills from the left and right.
Just this once, can't we have a large-scale scientific issue characterized by science and fixed by engineers?
Some people believe that the world was created in 4004 BC. Some people think that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. Some people don't believe in science.
So no.
Arguing with someone on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics...even if you "win", you're a retard.....
#include bier;
That's a rather odd way to read the study.
Well, I just read the bit in the link you posted that said "and once again demonstrates that [...] atmospheric temperatures are controlled by mass/gravity/pressure and are independent of greenhouse gas concentrations on any of these 9 planets with atmospheres, including Earth", so how am I supposed to interpret that? If the temperature on Earth is rising independently of solar insolation, and "atmospheric temperatures are controlled by mass/gravity/pressure", then that must mean that mass/gravity/pressure is increasing, no? Maybe you could re-interpret that for me?
Since the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth-root of the power incident upon it, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of Venus should be the fourth-root of 1.91 (or the square-root of 93/67.25) = 1.176 times that of the Earth. Furthermore, since the atmospheric pressure varies as the temperature, the temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere should be 1.176 times the temperature at that same pressure level in the Earth atmosphere, INDEPENDENT OF THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF INFRARED ABSORPTION in the two atmospheres. In particular, the averaged temperature at 1000 millibars on Earth is about 15C = 288K, so the corresponding temperature on Venus, WITHOUT ANY GREENHOUSE EFFECT, should be 1.176 times that, or 339K. But this is just 66C, the temperature we actually find there from the temperature and pressure profiles for Venus. We have to compare atmospheric temperatures at equal pressures in the two atmospheres, and when we do that we find the Venus atmospheric temperature is always just 17% higher than the corresponding (same pressure level) temperature in Earth's atmosphere -- and that essentially constant factor is due solely to the two planets' relative distances from the Sun, nothing else
Oh dear oh dear, you've forgotten something important; The bond albedo of Venus is 0.75, Earth's is only 0.3. If Venus' atmospheric temperatures fit a simplified formula using just solar insolation based on the distance from the sun, then once you take its high albedo into account there must be additional heat absorption to compensate for the higher amount of reflected radiation.
Yes, but now it can be precisely measured.
And how has that challenged the claim of 90+% climate scientists that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing warming, given that we've actually measured changes to average temperatures?
Be the background and education of the founder what they may, the point is the arguments made by OP are not supported by peer reviewed science. That is, the veracity of the studies and results which point to OP being wrong - are not dependent on the credentials of whoever founded the blog because he has had no part in said studies. He claimed UAH satellites show the stratosphere is not warming, and I pointed out that UAH itself has explicitly said this is not the case. here's the link to the paper itself.
So, if the articles quoted and mentioned which refute OPs claims are not accurate, I ask you and other to link to peer reviewed papers showing that to be the case, because pointing out that whoever started the blog isn't very good at math has absolutely no relevance to the veracity of the actual scientific papers mentioned.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
The man doesn't speak for *many* who traditionally aligned themselves as "Republican". (That's why you have the party imploding, and why it already split with the "Tea Party Republicans".)
Whether or not Trump gets elected to office, I think the party is pretty much done for. The only way it's getting salvaged is if a lot of the people who got disgusted with it and walked away, combined with the more "Centrist" or Libertarian members get together and revamp it.
When you talk to many of THOSE Republicans, they're not a fan of proposals like Obama's and Mrs. Clinton's attempts to end the coal industry -- but not because they deny climate change exists. They simply believe (as do I, actually) that the change needs to happen on its own -- not via government mandate/force. Because for one thing, you otherwise create a lot of collateral damage to our economy. Don't forget, for example, that our freight rail system transports more coal than almost anything else. If you eliminate the coal industry right now, you may as well also kill freight rail while you're at it. And THAT doesn't seem like a very environmentally sound move, since everything else carried by rail today would have to go by individual trucks instead. Plus, it puts the remaining coal miners out of work as well as the railroad workers. Those are two industries where you don't need a lot of formal education to earn a paycheck that can sustain a family. What's the plan for all of those displaced workers? Tell them all to become solar panel installers?!
IMO, what's not really very realistic is the posturing and "scare tactics" going on with climate change, that we must make drastic changes NOW or else risk dire consequences. In reality, the whole thing won't suddenly reverse itself after 200+ years of burning fossil fuels worldwide, just because in 2017, we mandate an end to much of it. The move to more environmentally-friendly or sustainable energy alternatives is marching forward, even if government takes a hands-off approach. Economics alone will dictate it as people see the alternatives as ways to cut their monthly energy bills. And as electric cars progress, you'll see more people opting for one regardless of environmental factors, simply because they like the reliability factor. (No more complicated transmission in them to break down? That's a pretty big advantage! No more need to worry about changing engine coolant or oil changes? Another improvement in ease of ownership for electric. And electric motors can provide loads of instantaneous torque, meaning they're ideal for performance cars.)
not a "paper" an executive summery, "papers" have references at the end, the first place scientist look
So, let's be sure we all understand what you are saying;
All the physicists that study climate in all the countries in the world are all being intimidated to publish results for experiments that don't show what they do show?
All the physicists working in all the countries in the world are incentivized to publish crap they know to be false, because, of that incentivization?
All the physicists in Russia, China, the USA, the UK, the Eurozone, all the physicists in South America, Africa and Asia, all the physicists in Australia are all meeting in secret and agreeing upon this agenda and are all saying the same thing?
I am a physicist! Why am I left out? I mean, now one has contacted me to either incentivize me to say a certain thing about climate or to threaten me if I don't.
I feel cheated. Where is my Payola?
no, the plan is to increase taxes on things that inject carbon into the atmosphere, thus incentivizing NOT injecting carbon in the atmosphere.
Some plans by some countries are to use the taxes to increase planting of forests to help 'clean' the atmosphere.
Some plans by some countries are to use the taxes to safeguard and revitalize reefs, to help clean the atmosphere.
One country wants to use the taxes it collects to try to fly aircraft that have some sort of catalyst to clean the atmosphere.
Other countries have other plans.
Do you not read scientific literature on this subject? Or do you only read fringe, fruitcake crap that supports your worldview?
Solar and wind is very cheap in Developing countries where Electric outages are simply a matter of fact. In the Developed world outages are largely unacceptable and You need Conventional Production overcapacity that can take over and continue running thru extreme weather events that can shut down your solar and wind for days if not weeks. Even The alternative which is large, long term storage such as using pumps to fill a dam, is really just a hydroelectric power-plant that is mostly sitting idle and loosing money. The lesson here is that if you want to really be thorough about the cost of renewable's in the Developed world you have to take in account the price of mitigation for their intermittent nature
And how has that challenged the claim of 90+% climate scientists that adding CO2 to the atmosphere is causing warming, given that we've actually measured changes to average temperatures?
Yes, we have measured changes to the average temperature. As has happened throughout all of Earth's history. But the correlation in recent times between CO2 concentration and temperature changes just doesn't track very well.
The result is independent of the fraction f absorbed, which is why naively approaching the problem as if f = 1 nevertheless gives, without the need to even consciously consider albedo beforehand, the amazingly clear result that the temperature ratio depends only--and amazingly, quite precisely--upon the ratio of the two planets' distances from the Sun. Any "expert", upon seeing this amazing result, should quickly have realized it means both atmospheres must absorb the same fraction of the incident solar radiation, and be warmed only by that fraction.
The temperature ratio is an empirical fact, and the absorbed power ratio implied from that was a logical fact. Since the two atmospheres DO, factually, absorb the same fraction of the solar radiation incident upon them, there was, in reality, no physical reason to extend the analysis by "correcting for albedo".
The facts:
There is no significant greenhouse effect on Venus with 96.5% carbon dioxide, and none on the Earth with just a trace (0.04%) of carbon dioxide.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I checked out the second article and followed the sources. The root source was http://ufosightingshotspot.blo.... What a crock.
And from the first article you linked to: "one scientist's controversial theory" That says it all. If it had merit, other scientists would follow up.
The people who SHOULD be embarassed are the ones yelling "hoax" and screaming "government grants" and "government conspiracy", while ignoring the largest and biggest financial interests, oil and gas. Unfortunately, in a country where Donald Trump can be a presidential contender, who knows. When the denial finally ends, they'll probably just blame Obama like they do for everything else.
Can you post a link to this study please? I'm assuming the wind solar numbers don't include storage. It would be interesting to run these with storage at projected values (say $150 and $100 per kWh) . Time is certainly a factor as is resiliency. For instance, 20 distributed battery backed solar installs would be more resilient than a single nuclear plant.
Tinfoil hat?
No, this is WILLFUL stupidity!
But the correlation in recent times between CO2 concentration and temperature changes just doesn't track very well.
Source for the figures you're basing that on?
Any "expert", upon seeing this amazing result, should quickly have realized it means both atmospheres must absorb the same fraction of the incident solar radiation, and be warmed only by that fraction.
Ah good, I see you're still pasting the same copypasta as before.
Now then, here's the thing...
Yes, given a sample size of 2 we've found a case where we have found a simple ratio that happens to match. Now, how does that prove there is a strong correlation between the single variable it's based on? Given a sample size of 2?
Next up the original author of that paragraph may not feel the need to even "consider albedo", but albedo is not some theoretical atmospheric model, it is an actual, measurable value. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Venus has been measured to be 75%. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Earth has been measured to be 30%. The fact that this radiation has been scattered away into space means that it, by definition, cannot be being absorbed by the atmosphere.
Now I can't see any answer to that in the post you're sourcing from, so you might have to actually answer that one yourself
Annie Nonymous(sp) has it right.
Once something becomes "large-scale", resources have to be gathered. Politics is a process that humans use to allocate resources. The other effective process that humans use is war.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Science is a stupid idiot.
Having said that...what you said...
"Just this once, can't we have a large-scale scientific issue characterized by science and fixed by engineers?" ...I totally agree with your sentiment.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Astrolshilasturwanks
It's "I could never be wrong Syndrome".
At the moment, we're too busy trying to convert wealthy countries into poor countries. As we funnel more and more assets into the pockets of fewer and fewer people.
Amazing how alike Capitalism and Communism can be sometimes. In the end, the masses end up all at an equal level of misery either way.
Yeah. Like who'd believe that there could be holes in Nothing?
No, claiming that one group or another group believes X despite the idiocy of believing X is moronic. X is generally a bullshit piece of rhetoric put out by people holding power to gain more power. The Hegelian dialectic is not new, in fact when Hegel wrote it down it was not new, he just did a fine job of explaining the methodology to manipulate the public.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
No, but claiming funding stops because "conservative" or "liberal" is a sham.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yes, given a sample size of 2 we've found a case where we have found a simple ratio that happens to match. Now, how does that prove there is a strong correlation between the single variable it's based on? Given a sample size of 2?
Your specific question was about Venus, which I found the answer for (and nothing of interest to dispute it). The original link was about Jupiter, which confirms the same basic physical equations. So that's 3. But there are a limited number of planets we can get this kind of data on, only one sun, and everything you're arguing is based on a sample size of ... let's see... 1.
Next up the original author of that paragraph may not feel the need to even "consider albedo", but albedo is not some theoretical atmospheric model, it is an actual, measurable value. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Venus has been measured to be 75%. The total amount of electromagnetic radiation being scattered away from Earth has been measured to be 30%. The fact that this radiation has been scattered away into space means that it, by definition, cannot be being absorbed by the atmosphere.
It's shown to be completely irrelevant to the calculation of temperature at specific pressure, which also has been measured, and fits the equations of Mr. Huffman.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Err you don't read the science news then. You didn't even bother to Google it before saying it too
Gesundheit!
Uh, xie got all xer information from somewhere, sure.
And then cited the underlying papers.
When you read something first on slashdot or on a blog, does that make it more or less true? Of course not. You read TFA to see.
GP's phrasings indicated xie'd done just that.
Uh, xie got all xer information from somewhere, sure.
Primarily the IPCC report.
Crap blogs are misleading.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Particularly when you look at MIT research on the effects of tinfoil hats. They concentrate some of the radiation, including some frequencies people think are for mind control. Some people never look at the science behind things.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Thanks for proving yet another stereotype. Every Petry that I've known has been batshit conspiracy crazy and they're supposedly "educated" engineers. Your family is proud you carry the retard torch high.
Sounds like another publicity stunt used to promote an agenda. I sincerely doubt anyone bet real money or won/lost anything. It's like me saying I bet my friend $1000 that Hillary could go a whole day without lying and then reporting to the press that I lost my bet.
I'd like to hear about this [singular] "proposed cure for global warming" you talk about. I thought there were a lot of varied ideas being kicked around, including plans to reflect some sunlight, plans to sequester carbon, and plans to reduce carbon emission in energy production. But, no, you say there's one proposal, and that one's deliberately incomplete.
Given that we are warming up the surface of the planet, with unpleasant results, I'd like to see various different plans get tried, since we're more likely to get results that way. But that's just me.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Fortunately, then, there isn't a single government institution in charge of climate research, that nobody's losing their job over being wrong, and there's great rewards in store for anyone who can account for AGW in any other way.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You might want to learn some statistics. If you flip a fair coin once, it'll come up heads or tails and that's unpredictable. Flip one a million times and it's going to be very close to 500K heads. Noisy readings can be averaged to much more accurate results.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How is it that simply not wanting something to be true can make people go blind and immune to truth and facts? I wonder if there is any hope for humanity.
You'd have to read a different book than the Bible (or whatever fact-free substitute you're using) to learn about the evidence.
Ezekiel 23:20
Your specific question was about Venus, which I found the answer for (and nothing of interest to dispute it).
The answer you regurgitated made the bold claim that because Earth and Venus happen to share a ratio when you plug a single figure into the equation that proves it to all experts. If you want to use that answer you're going to have to defend it.
The original link was about Jupiter, which confirms the same basic physical equations. So that's 3.
I've checked the figures, your link claims a temperature of 400K at 11 atm, yet the Galileo Probe reported 426K at 23 atm, so something doesn't match up there if there's such a simple ratio. The original article is behind a paywall so who knows what stipulations the temperature data had, or if they're even repeated accurately.
But there are a limited number of planets we can get this kind of data on, only one sun, and everything you're arguing is based on a sample size of ... let's see... 1.
So your answer is that, because we only have one planet to test on, we should try large scale experimental geo-engineering on it that 90+% of scientists think will be bad for it? Are you insane?
It's shown to be completely irrelevant to the calculation of temperature at specific pressure, which also has been measured, and fits the equations of Mr. Huffman.
Those calculations were based on the total power incident from the Sun, but by choosing to compare atmospheres at 1atm he's using an altitude on Venus of 50km. The cloud cover on Venus starts at 60-70km altitude, so the power incident reaching 50km will be affected by the cloud's albedo so you have to take it into account. Not to mention the obvious fact that if that radiation is measured being reflected away from Venus it means it can't physically be adding to the energy of the atmosphere.
At the moment, we're too busy trying to convert wealthy countries into poor countries. As we funnel more and more assets into the pockets of fewer and fewer people.
Funny how climate change mitigation is being used as a vehicle to further enable that.
Amazing how alike Capitalism and Communism can be sometimes.
What's odd about it? Create a legal means to steal from each other and stealing happens.
we never hear of solving the climate change problem by making those poor countries into wealthy countries
Sorry, how would that solve climate change? At best it might make the poor countries able to better afford the adaption costs. Assuming it's possible to wave a wand and make them wealthier in the first place, of course.
The responsibility lies primarily with the developed countries, who have profited the most from the centuries of pollution they've been emitting, to man up and deal with the problem they created. All the poor countries can do to help is take advantage of the newer energy technologies to avoid treading the same filthy path.
I know you think you're being clever, but that's often the case.
My point (which I suspect that you agree with) is that a corporation who thinks they can get away with influencing the government will influence the government to improve their near-term bottom line, no more and no less.
The problem with the GP's conspiracy theory is that it's too broad and too grand to reflect reality. We know that some corporations are secretly backing the anti-evolution movement because casting doubt on science in those fields in the mind of the public helps cast doubt on (say) the link between smoking and cancer or the link between fossil fuels and climate change.
There is no grand conspiracy for the simple reason that different people and different organisations have different agendas. Remember the protests against SOPA and PIPA? Many interpreted it as Hollywood having a different corporate agenda from Silicon Valley. There was, actually, a grain of truth to this. Tech companies didn't get involved entirely out of the goodness of their hearts...
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
At best it might make the poor countries able to better afford the adaption costs.
And there are three other effects here: lower or even negative population growth, wealthy people care more about the environment, and a wealthy society is far more resilient to natural disasters.
The responsibility lies primarily with the developed countries, who have profited the most from the centuries of pollution they've been emitting, to man up and deal with the problem they created.
Ok, how much of a problem is that really? And what of all the other more important problems the developed world is solving like global poverty, overpopulation, pollution, corruption, arable land and habitat destruction, etc? Why does climate change get priority over that?
What cure was discussed by me? Don't invent words I never wrote, read what is there. GP stated Conservatives and funding, two words which have a pretty strong connotation behind them. I responded that the proposal given thus far by _Governments_ has been "TAX THE POPULACE". They have given no plan outside of tax, and that is both Liberals or Conservatives. People bleat the false mantra of "conservatives don't believe in global warming" because that is what they are told, even though the real thing people don't believe in is that tax will fix a damn thing.
Go back to the 70s, and most people were fine to pay extra for CFC free products and cardboard over Styrofoam. The extra money took pollutants out of the environment, all was good with that. The Government did not come out and say people need to pay tax because "pollution", there was an investment and plan to change things. Compared to the proposed plan by the UN and all of the Governments involved, which is simply to pay a tax for carbon.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
... the comment section on this article will be filed with trolls and political shills from the left and right.
Just this once, can't we have a large-scale scientific issue characterized by science and fixed by engineers?
Well... we had the ozone hole. Scientists detected it, observed it's growth, made the case as to why it was a bad thing, identified the cause and the cure. Engineers worked out the details and came up with a fix (alternative propellants). Politicians acted, and now the ozone layer is almost back to normal. So that's a good example of the sort of action you are talking about. Huzzah!
But here's the kicker: literally *because* the system worked so well and bad outcomes were averted you get ignorant fools who will stand up and claim there never was a problem (the problem has been eliminated, so in their minds it means it never existed in the first place) and hence the money was wasted and this is an argument against global warming and climate science in general.
So don't hold your breath - lack of oxygen it's bad for you.
An odd bug for an odd bugger.
Maybe you don't hear it - I hear it every day.
Though I will grant you that the deniers never mention that - their too busy shouting alarmist bullshit about a world government and big scary taxes.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Actually - those prices DO include mitigation.
Not to mention that the developed world DOES have capacity in both coal and nuclear (where do you think that 'realistic' nuclear number came from - it's what it costs at the existing plants).
The general suggestion is that for short term expansion solar and wind is perfectly adequate - since we still have the older but more reliable technologies to provide a base. I can't speak for the developed world in general but in South Africa outages are EXCLUSIVELY caused by lack of capacity. They happen *ONLY* because coal and nuclear can't keep up with demand - so if you have enough other sources, that problem goes away.
We also have an ideal climate for solar and for wind and the best areas for each are very, very far appart from each other and NEVER have the same weather at the same time so no extreme weather event can take out BOTH since none can possibly hit both. Even without that factor it's a temperate area where extreme weather events are extraordinarily rare. Johannesburg just had a tornado last week, it made national news since it was the first tornado in the country in over 3 decades.
Your claim is completely ignoring local realities which is fallacious. There are NO universal truths when it comes to renewables because renewables are, by definition determined by local conditions - which renewables are best to build, where to build them, what effects to account for are all local matters and there is absolutely nothing you can say about it in one place that will ever apply in any other place.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
http://www.ee.co.za/article/co...
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
So, you don't actually have an argument then? instead you make racist comments disparaging Caucasians.
NOAA has been found corrupting their data. but let us ignore that and look at the contents of the document, did you see the uncertainty bars? they are so huge one can't say anything from that document.
Why don't you talk about the TCS measurements that I mentioned? as the observed values are vastly lower than the computer simulations.
You cannot simply ignore the fact that observations refute the predictions made by CAGW proponents. At the moment you simply ignore all the contra-evidence that you don't like, which is why you didn't comment on the TCS observations.
Now, if you are going to install an unelected regime to enforce "carbon" emissions (a nonsense meme) and suck trillions out of the productive sectors of the global economy and condemn those in the Third World to energy poverty then your ***EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE*** must be unambiguous and irrefutable. At the moment we have ridiculous talk about "consensus" (which means NOTHING according to the Scientific Method, just ask Galileo) and computer models which do not match reality and and are diverging even more rapidly as time passes. If you want to condemn the Third World to energy poverty and tens of millions of poor to DEATH, then you need actual evidence.
ps. as others have said, "skeptical science" is a political site. No one serious quotes this. but if you want political quotes as to what the real agenda is, and why the science does not actually matter to the control freaks at the UN who are pushing this fraud then read what they themselves have to say:
http://green-agenda.com
Why don't you talk about the latest TCS measurements that I mentioned? they destroy the computer simulations and the CAGW hypothesis that is based on the simiulations.
NOAA has been found corrupting their data. but let us ignore that and look at the contents of the document, did you see the uncertainty bars? they are so huge one can't say anything from that document.
Why don't you talk about the TCS measurements that I mentioned? as the observed values are vastly lower than the computer simulations.
You cannot simply ignore the fact that observations refute the predictions made by CAGW proponents. At the moment you simply ignore all the contra-evidence that you don't like, which is why you didn't comment on the TCS observations.
Now, if you are going to install an unelected regime to enforce "carbon" emissions (a nonsense meme) and suck trillions out of the productive sectors of the global economy and condemn those in the Third World to energy poverty then your ***EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE*** must be unambiguous and irrefutable. At the moment we have ridiculous talk about "consensus" (which means NOTHING according to the Scientific Method, just ask Galileo) and computer models which do not match reality and and are diverging even more rapidly as time passes. If you want to condemn the Third World to energy poverty and tens of millions of poor to DEATH, then you need actual evidence.
ps. as others have said, "skeptical science" is a political site. No one serious quotes this. but if you want political quotes as to what the real agenda is, and why the science does not actually matter to the control freaks at the UN who are pushing this fraud then read what they themselves have to say:
http://green-agenda.com
And yet an Anonymous Coward is not political? I get paid nothing for pointing out the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE against the CAGW theory - ya know, like the Scientific Method requires us to. However, rather than be paid nothing for pointing out the science if I wanted to shill I would simply promote Global Warming and get some of the $29 Billion in research grants each year to promote that narrative (a false narrative that doesn't match all the observational data).
To me it sounds like you are an AC sockpuppet propagaandist conducting ad hominem attacks on people that point out the OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE that destroys the UN's political narrative.
President Obama's science advisor, John Holdren (co-author of infamous sky-is-falling and we're all going to end up eating each other author Paul Ehrlich) once famously lost a bet over his insistence that the planet was running out of raw materials.
If we are to draw from this new bet the lesson that man-made global warming is a real and present danger requiring huge upsets in economies and such, and further, that people opposed to every detail of the Al Gore hype must be presumed wrong and evil, then surely Holdren's loss means that Holdren and all the people who believe like him including Obama should all be ignored and seen as wrong and evil.......right?
silly me. I'm for being consistent. I'd make a very poor political party-first uber alles hack.
These bets are stupid, and no matter who wins they are used to fool idiots into believing they provide reinforcement for one side or the other in some scientific or economic or other field that requires more then 5 minutes to understand. They are publicity stunts and are usually only proof of who is better at selecting betting criteria, like WICH raw materials to bet on, the timeframe of the bet, what global parameter/s (in this case the completely arbitrary "global temperature") how to measure it (in this case, the advocates of AGW select all the temp station locations, data weights, "calibrations" etc) and so on.
When our solar system has exited this warm section of space...
Sorry, I didn't read further than that. I only have limited time and here I would already need about 10 minutes to correct the idiocy you display in so few words that I can't finish this without being near certainly compelled to write something akin to War and Peace that would serve no purpose because you wouldn't read it anyway and pretty much everyone but you who reads /. wouldn't really benefit anymore from it because they already know it.
The "warm section of space"... fuck, and we let people like this vote!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's why I firmly believe some people DO need tinfoil hats.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I propose a deal: You get to keep that sea side real estate. If you're right, you have a beautiful beach house.
But if I'm right I get to shoot you if you try to climb my mountain to get away from the rising waters.
Deal?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Maybe you don't hear it - I hear it every day.
Funny how I don't believe you. Anyway, to emphasize my point some more, there's been a huge, century long decline in death from extreme weather. It happened despite climate change and enormous population growth.
At the global level, available data indicate that aggregate annual mortality and mortality rates owing to extreme weather events have declined between 93% and 98%, respectively, since the 1920s. Much of this improvement represents a substantial decline in mortality from droughts and floods, which apparently caused 92% of the fatalities from extreme weather events between 1900 and 2008 recorded in the EM-DAT database. Death rates for the different categories of extreme events were generally lower in the last two decades than in previous decades, with the notable exception of extreme temperature, which was higher because of the 2003 European heat wave. Both mortality and mortality rates from storms peaked in the 1970s. The average annual mortality due to storms from 1990-2008 exceeded the average from 1900-1989 by 82%, while the mortality rate declined by 16%.
Obviously, there's more to extreme weather than the deaths it causes, but the combination of technology and a prosperous society creates a resilience to the effects of global warming that is ignored by climate change alarmism. Maybe this time you will listen than merely "hear"?
I don't invent words you never wrote. "The proposed cure for Global warming is to massively tax the populace." - your own words, implying that there is precisely one proposed cure. If you don't express yourself well (and I don't always express myself well), it's better to clarify than to argue interpretations.
Please cite this singular proposal given by governments, because I'm not aware of it. There's a general agreement that we have to cut carbon dioxide emissions, no real agreement on how. There is speculation on cutting down on the sunlight reaching the planet, and speculation on how to sequester carbon dioxide. If you bother to look, there's lots of proposals, some more realistic than others. People say "conservatives" (not that I call those people "conservatives") "don't believe in global warming" because they pay attention to what the so-called conservatives say. Some people say that AGW is a problem and that carbon taxes aren't a solution, but typically not those sorts of Republicans.
Your memory of the 1970s differs from mine. People pretty much bought what was available, as they do now, and while they complained about having to pay more they accepted it. I have no idea what you mean by an "investment" to change things that doesn't involve taxes.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Wind is available whenever wind feels like it and solar usually less than 12 hrs a day
You are absolutely inventing statements because "tax" is the only cure I have stated. You are not considering that tax can be used for punishment and forced manipulation. Carbon Tax is the only cure proposed by the UN, the US, the UK, Australia, Germany, etc.. etc.. ad nauseam. There is no plan as to where the money goes, and there are no projects slated for the tax if it's forced in to being. The tax is purely for behavioral modification purposes, punish those who use energy. (You can Google "Carbon Tax" and find plenty of information.)
The left right paradigm adopted for propaganda goes that there are only 2 sides. Those that want a tax on Carbon to stop/reduce Carbon production and those other loonies who don't believe that Global warming exists labelled "conservatives" by media. Which obviously misses the biggest camp of dissenters who say that a behavior modification tax will not fix the problem and will only benefit a few very wealthy people who collect said tax.
The tactics being used to control the narratives are as old as human history. The 3 books I mentioned all discuss public manipulation. The reasons a behavior tax won't work are quite obvious (China pays what to whom? How about Vietnam? Sudan? and how to they grow without energy alternatives exactly?)
Sorry you don't remember the 70s and the massive campaigns for CFC free aerosols and removal of Styrofoam. You can still go read articles from just about every paper and magazine that was out at the time.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Do those figures include the cost of storage and new infrastructure to get power from the few areas that have reliable wind or sunlight? Plus the cost of peaking plants to supply power when the storage is depleted.
That whole argument of a need to "account for externalities" is questionable, IMO.
It sounds like a rational argument for carbon taxes and the like, with that explanation that the free marketplace failed to account for those things, so it fills in that gap.
But traditionally, these "external factors" were never accounted for, because they involve basic resources on the planet that are accessible and shared by everyone, and essentially viewed as "free". I'm not sure that there's really any way to calculate the correct "cost" of using any of them that isn't biased towards certain individuals?
I mean, should we start applying a tax to everyone who grows crops or a garden for "soil nutrient depletion"? Once you start with the concept, where does it end? I think you'd have to logically extend it to all sorts of things.... (Heck, they tried this up here in Maryland, with a "rain tax" that made you pay based on how much impermeable surface you owned on your land. The argument was, you were negatively impacting the environment if the rain water couldn't soak into the ground in any place you constructed something or paved over some soil, so you needed to pay compensation for doing it. It was VERY unpopular and got repealed.)
With ANY of these situations, there's no agreement on what you're really costing "future generations" by taking actions that manipulate the environment around you. I think the free marketplace handles this by letting people deal with any consequences as they arise and impede progress. Maybe that's more "reactionary" than you'd ideally like? But it ensures we aren't duped into wasting huge sums of money on false solutions to problems. If we took all the fossil fuels offline right now, we'd lose so much energy generation capacity, it would put us in a really bad position to move forward to solve the climate change issues.
That's because they're idiots.
"Pinatubo's eruption more than offset the temp rise of the past 50 years all by itself and for up to 3 years."
You'd need more than just a few explosive charges around it to set it off again.
The amount of energy involved in a volcanic eruption even of the relatively small scale of Pinataubo is larger than the combined energies of all the worlds nuclear bombs dialled up to full power.
For that matter, a cold front passing over New Zealand's Southern Alps dissipates more energy than that.
We like to think we are masters of nature, but our best efforts are fairly puny compared to the day-to-day energies in the atmosphere or the lithosphere. At best, we can guide it, but only up to a point, as many river engineers have discovered. (When a river "decides" to change its course, nothing can stop it doing so)
Wind and Solar are intermittent and you need to overbuild by a factor of _at least_ 4 in order to maintain average output. The numbers quoted above are based on nameplate generation figures. In addition to that you need to geographically disperse your generation plant and overbuild your power distribution network by a substantial factor to handle power flows in relatively unpredictable directions. These figures are never included in the calculations of wind/solar output.
Nuclear tech is vastly overpriced due to the wildly inefficient (and fairly dangerous) technologies currently in use (60-70% of mined uranium is discarded before hitting the reactor. only 1% of the fuel which enters the reactor is currently used. The only positive about nuclear waste from this tech is that 60 years worth of waste will comfortably fit in an olympic-sized pool and is safe enough to handle in 300 years)
If/when molten salt tech hits commercial viability it should drop the cost by an order of magnitude simply because all the radiological safety issues imposed by having water in direct contact with nuclear materials (radioactive steam, hydrogen explosions, etc) will be eliminated. The factor of being able to "burn" existing "high level waste", not having massive supply inefficiencies (thorium is a waste product of rare earth mining 10 times more abundant that Uranium) and being able to use at least 90% of the input fuel are all just extra features.
I'll keep making the comparison that Thorium LFTR technology is akin to Watt's improved steam engine vs the Neucomen engines (current pressurised/boiling water tech) that preceeded it - because it was Watt's vastly more efficient engine which kickstarted the industrial revolution into high gear (about the only outfits which could afford to run a Neucomen engine were coal mines. For everyone else the fuel costs were simply too high to consider). LFTR has the potential to be the same kind of game changer that Watt's engine was.
It's worth noting that if coal plants were regulated like nuclear ones are, they'd all be shut down tomorrow due to excess radiation emissions and lax safety systems. Coal plants emit more radioactive materials (mainly radium) into the atmosphere each year than several Chernobyl events.
"And yet we never hear of solving the climate change problem by making those poor countries into wealthy countries"
That depends who you talk to. Various climate change researchers have made this very proposal. The problem is that to get the required energy density needed, you _need_ nuclear plants and everyone's still doing the "oooh, radiation is Baaaaaad" routine.
"Solar and wind is very cheap in Developing countries where Electric outages are simply a matter of fact. In the Developed world outages are largely unacceptable"
My wife works in a developing country. One of the primary handbrakes on industry there (and the ability to move up the development chain) is the unreliability of the power - and the shortage of it. Peak demand is at least 4 times higher than the supply capacity, resulting in rolling blackouts being the norm simply to stop the distribution system burning out.
The political decision to solve this? A 600MW coal plant built in the poorest section of the largest city (which is now almost a decade behind schedule as various shortcomings due to poor oversight are discovered and rectified), along with several other large coal plants in other cities. The immediate-area environmental effects will be bad and it doesn't solve the issue that we need wean ourselves off carbon burning as a matter of global priority.
>Funny how I don't believe you
Oh come now, practically every word Naomi Klein ever wrote on climate change has had that it's primary focus. She's hardly unique.
You won't find that in scientific reports however, because climate scientists are not sociologists. They keep their focus to their field of expertise: x causes y, reduce x.
>Obviously, there's more to extreme weather than the deaths it causes,
While you gave interesting evidence that the mortality rate from extreme weather events have gone down you
1) showed no evidence that your theory on WHY this happened is true (it may be - but you have not proven that argument)
2) failed to actively argue how to expand that to the most vulnerable societies
3) assumed that climate mitigation must be done by reducing quality of life (which is not an avenue ANYBODY is pursuing - it only exists as a strawman fallacy from deniers - on the contrary, climate change mitigation strategies are all based on replacing archaic and dangerous technologies with better and newer ones, not abandoning tech - upgrading it).
4) showed absolutely no evidence that this pattern will hold if the degree and frequency of extreme weather events were to increase significantly. That seems highly unlikely since one of the effects of extreme weather events is to be hugely expensive - they cost a lot of money to clean up and recover from. Just look how much it cost to deal with Katrina and we underspent hugely (which upped the deathtoll a lot). So that means - there must be a point where the wealth LOST due to extreme weather events will eradicate so much wealth as to start destroying any mitigating factor wealth may have had on surviving them.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I shared a link to the study itself in another post, which does answer the questions.
Short versions:
>Do those figures include the cost of storage
Yes, though there are quite a bit of assumptions around that (a lot of it based on having multiple areas for each that won't be out at the same time and so reducing storage requirements significantly).
> and new infrastructure to get power from the few areas that have reliable wind or sunlight?
None required. South Africa already has a massive power distribution grid that takes power over long ranges since the best areas for coal were never anywhere close to the major urban centers and the best areas for hydro is in another country and the best area for nuclear is on the coast. Long-range transmission has been part of the design for everything for ever - so firstly there is no cost DIFFERENCE there (any new plant needs to be hooked into the long-range grid regardless of type) and most of that grid already exists. New nuclear will not need any less new infrastructure than new wind or solar will.
I can't speak for Asia but the same pattern holds for most of the rest of Africa for the same reasons.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
But overbuilding for solar at least is easy and cheap since you can massively distribute the cost. You only need plants to supply base-load.
The right way to do solar in a country with South Africa's high level of sun is to stick it on every rooftop and encourage every homeowner to do their own, then your plants only need to supply industrial users.
My father is an electrical engineer and has done several project designs for solar - and he consistently showed how local full-capacity solar with storage is so much cheaper than power from the coal-grid that it pays for itself before the first battery replacement and becomes profitable within a year after that - EVEN if you borrow the money to build it at prime interest. With the interest repayments it still works out massively cheaper.
Solar actually works better that way - and this is one reason why it's getting popular. Every office park and commercial building in the country has solar on the roof as their primary power source now, and it's not being pushed- it doesn't need to be, companies are doing it because it is profitable to do. It is just as (in fact more) profitable for home-owners to do the same but that is happening slower because not many home-owners can afford the capital outlay (or qualify for the loans to get it). That capital outlay will ONLY be going down for the foreseable future though so you can expect that lag to catch up fast.
If you drive through the Karoo every farm has wind generators now, every single one of them - because it's cheaper and more reliable to power a farm in that vast and remote semi-desert with wind than to rely on grid power. It's already how we're doing it.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Please provide proof... as in any proof at all of your ridiculous claim.
South Africa's government is utterly in bed with nuclear and coal companies - there has not been a single renewable build in the country ever done with government support - if anything government would like to shut it down since there isn't enough bribe money in it. They are happening anyway since private industry is choosing it.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
That's a common argument, but it's not actually true, you can achieve the same by simply having so many wind and solar plants in different regions that you can reliably assure enough of them will be going at any given time to power everything.
Even ignoring the costs of climate change - the operating and building costs of these plants are so much lower that you can achieve this and still save money.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The same decision was made here - but it wasn't a sane decision, there is already evidence of massive corruption.
The thing is - the best way to reduce those black-outs is increased capacity over-all, and you need to do that with the tech you can get online the fastest.
If politicians made decisions based on engineering input rather than "who paid the biggest bribe" the developing world would be a lot less poor.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Let me put this another way.
You have property in Arizona you want to sell as seaside property.
What could you do to convince someone that it was soon to become seaside property?
Well first you can convince them that the seas are going to rise. Again. But this time it's because man is causing it and not nature. Like how many other times we have evidence to support.
Now think things through.
Who is generating the carbon credits, how much does it cost to make them, how much are they selling for, and where is the money going?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Conspiracy much?
Why should anyone assume that land in Arizona (of all places) would become a seaside resort location? Ever taken a look at a topography map? If the water gets to Arizona (which even the worst predictions of our time don't support), Arizona would be part of what's gone. So what's there to be gained?
Whether it's man made or "naturally" occurring, how does that affect the net result? I mean seriously, whether I die because someone runs me over with his car or whether a piece of rock collapses above me and caves my head in, do I care? I'm effin' dead either way, why the fuck would I give a fuck about whether someone is responsible for it afterwards?
About carbon credits, it's basically a subsidy to companies that have less polluting production in place. And the great thing about it is that the subsidy comes out of the polluter's pocket and not the taxpayer's pocket. What's your point?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh come now, practically every word Naomi Klein ever wrote on climate change has had that it's primary focus. She's hardly unique. You won't find that in scientific reports however, because climate scientists are not sociologists. They keep their focus to their field of expertise: x causes y, reduce x.
And a casual google reveals that she believes capitalism is incompatible with environmentalism. So no, Klein is not an example, but rather the opposite. Funny, how I still don't believe you.
While you gave interesting evidence that the mortality rate from extreme weather events have gone down you 1) showed no evidence that your theory on WHY this happened is true (it may be - but you have not proven that argument)
2) failed to actively argue how to expand that to the most vulnerable societies
3) assumed that climate mitigation must be done by reducing quality of life (which is not an avenue ANYBODY is pursuing - it only exists as a strawman fallacy from deniers - on the contrary, climate change mitigation strategies are all based on replacing archaic and dangerous technologies with better and newer ones, not abandoning tech - upgrading it).
4) showed absolutely no evidence that this pattern will hold if the degree and frequency of extreme weather events were to increase significantly. That seems highly unlikely since one of the effects of extreme weather events is to be hugely expensive - they cost a lot of money to clean up and recover from. Just look how much it cost to deal with Katrina and we underspent hugely (which upped the deathtoll a lot). So that means - there must be a point where the wealth LOST due to extreme weather events will eradicate so much wealth as to start destroying any mitigating factor wealth may have had on surviving them.
Let's start with point 1. We have a huge reduction in death rate from extreme weather. That's evidence, counter to your assertion that it isn't. We have a dearth of explanations for why that death rate would decline so dramatically in the face of increasing population density and climate change. Maybe Gaia likes polluting, capitalist societies?
As to point 2, what makes a society "most vulnerable"? Poverty is the common characteristic with obvious reasons why poverty creates vulnerability. Thus, by removing poverty, say by implementing one of the historical approaches to developed world status, one removes the vulnerability as well. It wouldn't be hard for a "vulnerable society" to mix and match the historical successes to tailor an approach for their own society.
I'll further note that we already have massive improvement in the well being of these "most vulnerable" societies due to the influence of global trade and some degree of modernization of their societies and infrastructure.
For point 3, the obvious rebuttal is that countries have actually tried "climate mitigation" and it's been both remarkably harmful and ineffective at mitigation. For example, Germany and Denmark doubled the price of their electricity while importing power from places like Poland's coal power plants. Many dead end technologies (solar thermal and biogeneration) have been pursued with many billions of dollars of subsidies to no useful effect. A certain US pipeline has been blocked for a decade without doing anything useful in the process (aside from costing the US and Canada economic benefit and jobs as well as a few lives).
Why would point 4 happen? You don't exactly have a scientific case for extreme weather getting far worse, you know. The researcher-based arguments for example are models all the way down with a very tenuous connection to any data or underlying physics. And the hysteria-based arguments aren't based on anything at all.
Katrina killed a lot of people because the Mayor of New Orleans failed to evacuate the city in
Sorry, I'm not inventing statements. I'm trying to understand yours, and see how they match the world.
My observation is that there are a lot of people out there who don't believe global warming is going on, or don't think people caused it, and are willing to believe anything, how preposterous, as long as it agrees with these quasi-religious beliefs. I've observed people saying that yes, it's happening, and carbon taxes are not the answer, but not in anywhere near the same numbers. (They could just be quieter about it, I guess.) I've seen the reaction to the deniers, but not favoring carbon taxes isn't a very controversial stance, and while people disagree they don't make a splash.
In the meantime, there's other proposals being kicked around, by various people, including shading the planet and sequestering carbon dioxide. There was a Slashdot article recently about a proposal to use solar energy to create fuel from the atmosphere, and if that's practical it could be very useful. Heck, there are government subsidies for the development of renewable energy sources, and those exist right now and aren't carbon taxes. Your statement that carbon taxes are the only proposed government solution is false.
And, yes, I remember the 1970s, including the media campaigns about CFC. What I don't remember is people going out and buying non-CFC products out of desire to preserve the environment. I remember McDonald's changing from styrofoam to cardboard containers for their burgers without asking anyone. (They'd previously been pushing recycling their Styrofoam containers.) I remember CFC refrigerants not being easily available, and people complaining about that. (There really wasn't a good substitute for Freon at the time.) The change was not from direct consumer demand.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sorry, I'm not inventing statements. I'm trying to understand yours, and see how they match the world.
Fair enough, and I explained what I believed the issue was: You did not consider tax as a tool for behavior modification. Historically tax has been used for exactly this way.
My observation is that there are a lot of people out there who don't believe global warming is going on, or don't think people caused it, and are willing to believe anything, how preposterous, as long as it agrees with these quasi-religious beliefs.
Full stop. First, ask yourself how rational it is to lump those who claim global warming is fake in with the group who question how much human impact is involved? It is preposterous, yet this is what the political class is doing. Next, consider why there needs to be a difference between "human caused" versus "not human caused" in terms of having a Carbon Tax as the only proposed solution? As with the first, it's irrational to do so.
In the meantime, there's other proposals being kicked around, by various people, including shading the planet and sequestering carbon dioxide. There was a Slashdot article recently about a proposal to use solar energy to create fuel from the atmosphere, and if that's practical it could be very useful. Heck, there are government subsidies for the development of renewable energy sources, and those exist right now and aren't carbon taxes. Your statement that carbon taxes are the only proposed government solution is false.
The biggest impact low hanging fruit would be: Clean up pollution, reduce fossil fuel use, reduce energy consumption overall, and most importantly do all of those things in every country across the globe. We lack a Global Government, Global Police force, and Global cooperation. Meaning, all of these things can happen but a Carbon Tax has zero chance of spurring them into action. I can propose that China gives up 100 billion dollars and stops developing more fossil fuel power plants today, and what chance do you give to them complying? If it's not zero, you are dishonest.
Your claim that Individuals will be heard over Government proposals is simply a fantasy. Good altruistic ideas are relatively common, yet the amount of global implementations of altruistic ideas are way less than a handful. Even in the case of Nuclear weaponry "fear" is the reason people don't use them and hide development, not "altruism". Any claim that our Government can demand another Government do something and therefor it will happen is preposterous.
What I don't remember is people going out and buying non-CFC products out of desire to preserve the environment.
I distinctly remember posters and banners all over our schools promoting non-CFC purchases, media spending time talking about how CFCs were causing ozone depletion. "Give a Hoot Don't Pollute" and the American Indian with the tear in his eye were icons started in the 70s. Go back and read the articles.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Conspiracy much?
This old topic-dodge is old and way over used. Not acceptable.
Why should anyone assume that land in Arizona (of all places) would become a seaside resort location? Ever taken a look at a topography map?
Yes, I have, and you obviously haven't. Here:
http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/...
Most of Arizona is over 2000 feet above sea level.
It has yet to be proven that 'rising oceans' isn't just erosion taking it's toll. Also, whether it's erosion, rising water, or sublimation the Netherlands have an interesting solution. Personally, I would keep dumping dirt and rock to bring all of the land up not just build dikes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Whether it's man made or "naturally" occurring, how does that affect the net result? I mean seriously, whether I die because someone runs me over with his car or whether a piece of rock collapses above me and caves my head in, do I care? I'm effin' dead either way, why the fuck would I give a fuck about whether someone is responsible for it afterwards?
This is bait but I will bite anyways. To leave something useful for our children, future generations, or future sentient species. We aren't going to be that future sentient race if the current generation of millennials are any indication. My point is that it's not man made, and our efforts could actually be making things worse. We do not understand the full nature of our planet by any stretch of the imagination. If we did, the weather man could predict the weather with 100% accuracy for the next 100 years.
About carbon credits, it's basically a subsidy to companies that have less polluting production in place. And the great thing about it is that the subsidy comes out of the polluter's pocket and not the taxpayer's pocket. What's your point?
If we truly want to cool this planet then we need to start planting trees. LOTS of them. Pay land owners a stipend for every tree over four they have on their property. This can come back to them at Tax time and the feds sell the earned carbon credits to the polluters. The timber industry would love this for all the forest land they own. It would encourage them to re-plant faster, and be more efficient in getting their tree's bigger, faster.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
NOAA has been found corrupting their data
According to whom? Their results agree with all the other major research groups, so either their "corruption" actually made the data more accurate (as they say), or maybe they're just one part of the vast global conspiracy of climate scientists to perpetuate a massive hoax, against their own best interests, and somehow leaving no hard evidence anywhere..
did you see the uncertainty bars? they are so huge one can't say anything
Nonsense, you don't need to know the exact figure to say the tropospheric temperatures are clearly going up. Maybe not by much - or maybe even faster than we think.
observations refute the predictions made by CAGW proponents
Which observations? Please cite them. If you're referring to the TCS, that's not "observed", that's calculated from the models - and there's been a wide range of calculated values for it.
Claiming that one or two cherry-picked measurements somehow refutes the last 40+ years of peer-reviewed evidence from a vast array of sources shows exactly the blinkered willingness to ignore the contra-evidence you're accusing others of. Get back to me when you can cite actual studies that not only contradict but explain all the evidence that's been summarised in the last few IPCC reports, like a real sceptic would. Making unsubstantiated claims and trying to cast doubt on existing data while providing none of your own just pigeonholes you firmly into the "another loonier denier" camp
ps. your political straw-man comments are entirely irrelevant to the science. Galileo had evidence; you've shown nothing.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Man, did you even read that stuff you posted? "warm section of space", really? The two links even contradict each other.
There's billions being made here. What would you do for a million?
No no, there's trillions being made here - what would an Oil CEO do for a hundred-billion-dollar slice of that?
Ask yourself, who is selling the carbon itself? Who stands to lose the most if governments start getting serious about climate change? The energy markets make the carbon-credit markets look like lost change.
Climate denial will exist so long as there's money to made from fossil fuels - regardless of the cost to the rest of us. Don't eat everything the oil barons feed you.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
According to whom? Their results agree with all the other major research groups, so either their "corruption" actually made the data more accurate (as they say), or maybe they're just one part of the vast global conspiracy of climate scientists to perpetuate a massive hoax, against their own best interests, and somehow leaving no hard evidence anywhere..
Do a comparison between previous releases of NOAA data and newer releases. There are systematic trends introduced. Did you not know about this? you are well-behind the eight-ball.
Furthermore look at the adjustments of the published 'adjusted' data versus the original source data, there is a trend injected to cool the past and increase the first time derivative of temperature. Did you not know this?
Then there is the fact that the proportion of NOAA released data that is estimated has been increasing steadily. The values of this estimated data inject warming that is not seen with the well-sited surface data. Did you not know this?
The independent data collecting groups such as the RSS and UAH satellite programs disagree with the NOAA. The reason many researchers don't disagree with NOAA is because NOAA is the source of their data, most researchers are working with contaminated data, hence no matter what they do after that the results are skewed.
With regard to comspiracy, do you understand the meaning of the word "Lysenkosim" ? when governments fund 'research' to the tune of $29 Billion a year and only projects promoting the CAGW narrative are funded, do you think that just might result in some loss of objectivity?
Nonsense, you don't need to know the exact figure to say the tropospheric temperatures are clearly going up. Maybe not by much - or maybe even faster than we think.
Epic fail. Uncertainties are hugely important. One cannot assess the statistical significance of any result without understanding the uncertainties. I have a PhD in Physics but even in my first year of study I would have told you that discounting the massive uncertainties in this paper (so large that it renders the differences in expectation value insignificant) shows a complete lack of understanding of modern experimental technique.
Which observations? Please cite them. If you're referring to the TCS, that's not "observed", that's calculated from the models - and there's been a wide range of calculated values for it.
In the Scientific Method a hypothesis is constructed. These are the calculated TCS values you mention. However, TCS is observable, and we now have 36 years of measurements. The observed TCS is much lower than the modeled value - which shows the hypothesis is WRONG. This is understandable since the models fail utterly to model water vapor accurately, yet water vapor is THE dominant determinant of global climate. Did you not know this?
Claiming that one or two cherry-picked measurements somehow refutes the last 40+ years of peer-reviewed evidence from a vast array of sources shows exactly the blinkered willingness to ignore the contra-evidence you're accusing others of. Get back to me when you can cite actual studies that not only contradict but explain all the evidence that's been summarised in the last few IPCC reports, like a real sceptic would. Making unsubstantiated claims and trying to cast doubt on existing data while providing none of your own just pigeonholes you firmly into the "another loonier denier" camp
Why don't you understand the Scientific Method? ANY values that are contra to the hypothesis invalidate the hypothesis - which means the hypothesis has to be discarded or amended. Except it is you pseudo-religious loons from the Cult of Climate Change who refuse to be objective and use the Scientific Method. You cannot dismiss contra evidence with silly memes like 'cherry picking'. The fact of the matter is the computer simulations are WRONG and do not match realty - whi
I do consider taxes useful for behavior modification, although I'm not real comfortable with that. I believe carbon taxes will internalize some market externalities and therefore make the economy reduce carbon dioxide emissions more efficiently. I believe that one of the important roles of government in the economy is to reduce externality and principal agent problems.
The science that says that we're causing global warming is very strong and sound. However, I don't see all that many people claiming that global warming is happening but people don't cause it. There used to be a lot more. The thing about human causation is that, if the warming is not caused by us, we may not be able to stop it.
We might be able to work carbon taxes into surcharges on imported goods, and that would influence China and other nations. Since developed countries cause the most CO2 emissions, directly or indirectly, such surcharges would have a significant effect. China seems to be working on getting away from fossil fuels, likely because of their extreme pollution problems.
The other suggestions I've seen are generally from research institutes, not altruistic individuals. It's likely that they would get government attention if worked out. It's happened before. One advantage to these schemes is that a large government could do a lot on its own, without worrying about countries like China.
I agree with your low-hanging fruit, but the real challenge is to get that happening. This is a very large Tragedy of the Commons issue.
The advertising and media coverage you mention from the 1970s was there, but we seem to disagree on the consequences. I maintain that the changes were done on a large scale, and that individual choices and altruism had little to do with it, other than increased acceptance of what was happening. McDonald's switched from plastic to cardboard to hold its burgers. Companies making aerosol cans switched to non-CFC propellant. This wasn't a case of consumers en masse deliberately buying non-CFC products that were more expensive and inferior.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Going to throw once part out of ordering.
Companies making aerosol cans switched to non-CFC propellant. This wasn't a case of consumers en masse deliberately buying non-CFC products that were more expensive and inferior.
Inferior? Hell no, in most cases there was no inferiority. More Expensive? There was a cost _benefit_ to Cardboard. McDonald's moving to Cardboard was an argument because "Will my food get home hot?", not that McDonald's would go broke buying Cardboard. Cardboard was cheaper to make, cheaper to ship, required much less storage space, and was easy to clean up (less trash on premises), so cheaper all the way around.
Now to the main issue: You admit that Tax can be used as behavior modification, see no problem using it that way, yet ignore the lack of Global compliance. So you ignore the fact that the people who are already willing and working to change to improve, would be punished. Meanwhile other countries with billions of people would not behave any differently so the world would not be better off. This will make the willing resentful, and you end up going nowhere.
Success will only come with a Globally obtainable set of plans and goals. Tax is not globally obtainable, not globally enforceable, and without global cooperation has no impact except to punish the people of highest morals.
Trying to create taxes (by your example surcharges) for China, or India, or Russia to pay a bill will not result in revenue to correct problems or change behavior. It will result in further trade imbalance because they don't need to purchase our goods. There is no way to create or enforce a Global carbon tax. Say that last statement over and over until it sinks in, because that is reality.
Last point, you have not demonstrated any need to distinguish between people that believe humans are responsible for Global warming and those who believe it's nature. You further have not demonstrated a graduated scale for the majority who sits between those two points. Such a distinction and scale would be necessary if it made any difference in what humans should be doing to keep the Earth habitable and sustainable. It simply serves as a red herring.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Do a comparison between previous releases of NOAA data and newer releases.
Yes, some of it has been changed. The reasons for this (identification and elimination of calibration errors) have been published, and the methods too. If you have a problem with the methodology, rather than just bitching about the results, then be more specific.
There are systematic trends introduced.
Your opinion. Some calibrations have enhanced (not introduced) an existing trend, some have mitigated it. But the results are what they are; unless you can provide better data, or at least offer a convincing (to real climatologists) explanation as to why the calibrations performed cannot be valid, then there's no reason to suppose they reduce the data quality, instead of enhancing it as claimed.
NOAA is the source of their data
And yet, the HadCRUT, GISTEMP, and BEST datasets are also freely available, many analyses are based on these, and all agree closely with NOAA's results. A huge array of different, independent lines of observations all confirm and substantiate their conclusions. Again, where is your data?
do you understand the meaning of the word "Lysenkosim"
Lysenko had political support but no data. Climate change has a huge amount of data behind it, from many different nations. Claiming political interference in the process from all these governments (with nothing more than unsubstantiated claims about "undesirable" research being underfunded) just makes you look like another yet loony conspiracy theorist.
There's no shortage of evidence of private and corporate millions being funnelled to discredit AGW, so funding obviously isn't the hurdle you claim - yet so far the only serious attempt by sceptics at providing an "impartial" analysis ended up backing the mainstream conclusions anyway. Data talks; bullshit has to resort to FUD on the internet.
Uncertainties are hugely important.
Of course, but neither do they render results "useless" - particularly when confirmed by other, independent lines of evidence. Even large uncertainties can provide clear evidence of a trend; only the degree of that trend is still uncertain.
TCS is observable, and we now have 36 years of measurements
How? Cite these TCS "measurements", please.
ANY values that are contra to the hypothesis invalidate the hypothesis
First, we still only have your baseless opinion that any hypotheses have been invalidated, as you have yet to cite specific data (or even a specific hypothesis - are you really still claiming the world has not been warming?).
Second, the vast majority of climatologists remain entirely unconvinced by any supposedly-contrary points argued by the "sceptics"; why is this? You claim they're all in a global conspiracy. Far more likely that they simply know something you don't (as they should, since they've spent considerably more time in their field than you).
Third, in any complex field relying on statistical models, whether climatology or particle physics, outlier values always exist. In fields where underlying randomness is a major factor and probabilistic analyses are required to establish evidence, then a handful of values that don't fit cleanly into the centre of the bell-curve do not disprove anything - and claims that suggest that show nothing more than wilful oversimplification. A full analysis of all the data is required to establish the trends behind the randomness - and so far, every such comprehensive analysis has supported the warming trend.
Do you know that the Chinese Academy of Sciences has determined that CAGW is not happening?
Wrong, and your claim (no doubt parroted from Heartland via Watts et al) was
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?