Actually when I was in high school electronics class we had great fun charging up big capacitors then tossing them to our classmates yelling "Here, catch!". A few of us were smart enough not to catch.
Mostly the atmosphere does not warm the oceans (although under some conditions there can be heat transfer to the oceans from the atmosphere). But the atmosphere can affect the rate at which the oceans lose heat which affects how much heat they retain.
In the poll that came up with 85% only 41% of the scientists polled had ever published anything on climate so it makes sense that they wouldn't get the same results as polling only climate scientists.
It fascinating to me that you think that scientists would think they could get away with ignoring objective reality and still maintain their credibility.
It's not a matter of TRUTH. It's a matter of objective reality. If scientists are deliberately skewing their results it shouldn't be that hard to show they are wrong, yet it hasn't happened.
Maybe so although I'd call it refinement rather than backtracking. But you're still left with 85% of the scientists in the survey who consider it moderately dangerous to catastrophic.
Your cited article was from 2008. It would be interesting to see how the results reported by that poll have changed in the ensuing 6 years. The poll was conducted among geologists and meteorologists, most of whom were not directly studying climate so it doesn't really negate my point. And finally 41 percent plus 44 percent means that 85 percent of them thought there will be problems from global warming. I don't know about you but for me in most cases if 85% of scientists agree to some extent about something I'm going to listen.
You can throw all of the incentives you want at scientists but in the end they still have to reflect the objective reality they are studying. In the end the value of what they produce will be judged against that and only that.
It's easy to forget humans are likely responsible for only 25Gtons of the CO2 released, where the natural carbon cycle is about 750Gtons (+- a extra volcano eruptions which are about 40Gtons)... Human contribution is non-negligible, for sure, but natural variations are of the same scale.
Lately human caused emissions of CO2 are closer to 35 GT/year and volcanic eruptions are around 0.3 GT/year. When you say natural CO2 emissions are 750 GT/year that's kind of misleading if you don't also mention the ~770 GT/year that are naturally absorbed. That's why for thousands of years before human industrialization the CO2 level was around 280 ppm while the yearly seasonal variation was about 10 ppm.
What do you mean by "magic mechanism"? Nothing is happening that is outside of thermodynamics. It is well known that over 90% of the heat of global warming is going into the oceans.
In 1896 Svante Arrhenius said "if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression." Expressed as a formula (and working with Slashdot's font limitations) that is:
(delta)Temperature=(alpha)Ln(C/C(subzero))
Where (alpha) is a constant between 5 and 7 and C is the concentration of CO2 and C(subzero) is the original concentration. That relation still holds and can be verified in the laboratory. In the atmosphere there are complications from interactions with other factors which is what models help us explore but the basic relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature still exists.
I suppose you think that NASA can bend objective reality to their will as well. In science, particularly a physical science like climate you can maybe get away with fudging things for a little while but sooner or later (usually sooner) objective reality will destroy your fudging.
Sheesh! You take a pretty dim view of human inventiveness. 150 years ago the telephone hadn't even been invented yet. The cost of solar PV has dropped precipitously in the past 15 years to the point now that plans for a coal plant were shelved because it wouldn't have been able to compete with solar. At this point the only think holding solar and wind back is a cost effective means of storing power to buffer the intermittent nature of the power and a lot of people are working on that problem.
That's just it. Wind turbines and solar are NEVER going to be producing the majority of power (unless we cut back DRASTICALLY on our power consumption).
I don't see why not. All it takes it the time we need to build it up. The current power sources weren't built over night either but are the result of many decades of build up.
DDT was never totally banned, just the indiscriminate use of it. From the relevant Wikipedia article:
A worldwide ban on its agricultural use was later formalised under the Stockholm Convention, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day...
My first take is to agree with you but like drunk driving the idiot may end up killing others who had nothing to do with his idiocy other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Sheesh! Instead of letting fear paralyze us and waiting for Ebola to show up in North America from some random airplane passenger don't you think it's better to proactively study the disease at one of the world's premier places for medical research so we can have better plans of action when it finally does show up? Or maybe we should put everyone flying into the US from Africa in quarantine for 30 days just to be sure. Ignorance is bliss until reality catches up with you.
Slashdot Mirror
In the battle of the eponymous laws, which law rules supreme?
Murphy's Law.
Actually when I was in high school electronics class we had great fun charging up big capacitors then tossing them to our classmates yelling "Here, catch!". A few of us were smart enough not to catch.
Mostly the atmosphere does not warm the oceans (although under some conditions there can be heat transfer to the oceans from the atmosphere). But the atmosphere can affect the rate at which the oceans lose heat which affects how much heat they retain.
In the poll that came up with 85% only 41% of the scientists polled had ever published anything on climate so it makes sense that they wouldn't get the same results as polling only climate scientists.
It fascinating to me that you think that scientists would think they could get away with ignoring objective reality and still maintain their credibility.
It's not a matter of TRUTH. It's a matter of objective reality. If scientists are deliberately skewing their results it shouldn't be that hard to show they are wrong, yet it hasn't happened.
Maybe so although I'd call it refinement rather than backtracking. But you're still left with 85% of the scientists in the survey who consider it moderately dangerous to catastrophic.
Your cited article was from 2008. It would be interesting to see how the results reported by that poll have changed in the ensuing 6 years. The poll was conducted among geologists and meteorologists, most of whom were not directly studying climate so it doesn't really negate my point. And finally 41 percent plus 44 percent means that 85 percent of them thought there will be problems from global warming. I don't know about you but for me in most cases if 85% of scientists agree to some extent about something I'm going to listen.
You can throw all of the incentives you want at scientists but in the end they still have to reflect the objective reality they are studying. In the end the value of what they produce will be judged against that and only that.
It's easy to forget humans are likely responsible for only 25Gtons of the CO2 released, where the natural carbon cycle is about 750Gtons (+- a extra volcano eruptions which are about 40Gtons)... Human contribution is non-negligible, for sure, but natural variations are of the same scale.
Lately human caused emissions of CO2 are closer to 35 GT/year and volcanic eruptions are around 0.3 GT/year. When you say natural CO2 emissions are 750 GT/year that's kind of misleading if you don't also mention the ~770 GT/year that are naturally absorbed. That's why for thousands of years before human industrialization the CO2 level was around 280 ppm while the yearly seasonal variation was about 10 ppm.
What do you mean by "magic mechanism"? Nothing is happening that is outside of thermodynamics. It is well known that over 90% of the heat of global warming is going into the oceans.
In 1896 Svante Arrhenius said "if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression." Expressed as a formula (and working with Slashdot's font limitations) that is:
(delta)Temperature=(alpha)Ln(C/C(subzero))
Where (alpha) is a constant between 5 and 7 and C is the concentration of CO2 and C(subzero) is the original concentration. That relation still holds and can be verified in the laboratory. In the atmosphere there are complications from interactions with other factors which is what models help us explore but the basic relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature still exists.
He said "scientist who study climate change". You can't find even 5% of that group that says there is no problem
I suppose you think that NASA can bend objective reality to their will as well. In science, particularly a physical science like climate you can maybe get away with fudging things for a little while but sooner or later (usually sooner) objective reality will destroy your fudging.
Sheesh! You take a pretty dim view of human inventiveness. 150 years ago the telephone hadn't even been invented yet. The cost of solar PV has dropped precipitously in the past 15 years to the point now that plans for a coal plant were shelved because it wouldn't have been able to compete with solar. At this point the only think holding solar and wind back is a cost effective means of storing power to buffer the intermittent nature of the power and a lot of people are working on that problem.
None of those issues is insurmountable. As time and technology march on we will solve those problems.
That's just it. Wind turbines and solar are NEVER going to be producing the majority of power (unless we cut back DRASTICALLY on our power consumption).
I don't see why not. All it takes it the time we need to build it up. The current power sources weren't built over night either but are the result of many decades of build up.
Around 100-150 years ago.
DDT was never totally banned, just the indiscriminate use of it. From the relevant Wikipedia article:
A worldwide ban on its agricultural use was later formalised under the Stockholm Convention, but its limited use in disease vector control continues to this day ...
Canada is of course a member of NATO so all the members including the US would come to their defense if necessary.
My first take is to agree with you but like drunk driving the idiot may end up killing others who had nothing to do with his idiocy other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
A good example of Poe's law.
Sounds like you're just looking for an excuse to dis solar power.
Sheesh! Instead of letting fear paralyze us and waiting for Ebola to show up in North America from some random airplane passenger don't you think it's better to proactively study the disease at one of the world's premier places for medical research so we can have better plans of action when it finally does show up? Or maybe we should put everyone flying into the US from Africa in quarantine for 30 days just to be sure. Ignorance is bliss until reality catches up with you.
The FSM approves your message. Ramen.