The preceding few thousands years (since the last Ice Age) have been a very steady upward trend.
You don't know what you're talking about. Temperatures hit a maximum during the Holocene Climatic Optimum ~5,000-9,000 years ago and have been on a slight downward trend ever since as you would expect from an examination of trends in Milankovitch Cycles.
I propose we start with a revenue neutral carbon tax that includes tariffs on the CO2 emitted in producing imported goods. The tax should start out very low but increment over time until in 25 or 30 years it's high enough to make CO2 emissions very expensive. That is a market based solution that allows maximum freedom in how to respond.
What happened to Arctic sea ice in 2013 is known as regression to the mean. If that trend continues over the next 10 years or so then you might have something, otherwise you're just getting excited over a blip on the long term trend.
Yet if you take the raw data it doesn't show any significant difference from the adjusted data, certainly not enough to say they contradict each other.
As far as polar ice being measured from 1979, that's when the satellites went up that allowed us to monitor it continuously. Older records of ice are more fragmented (but still useful).
As I surmised that quote was taken out of context. The runaway greenhouse effect that he's talking about is pretty unlikely but impossible to rule out at this point. The part that I thought was a bit over the top was when he said it's possible for the polar ice sheets to melt in a century or so. There's a lot of ice there, as he said more that two miles thick. If it's hot enough to do that then it's going to get way to hot for humans to survive well before that happens.
When did Hansen ever say the oceans would boil? The just sounds like hyperbole dreamed up climate science deniers to make him sound bad. At the very least it's taken badly out of context.
And the right just chooses to ignore it. If they don't like the proposed solutions coming from the left they should propose some effective solutions of their own rather than simply denying that the problem exists. If you ignore reality it'll come back to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
From what I've heard Cuban on average have better health than Americans at a fraction of the cost. The may not have all the high tech we have in the US but the do a good job with what they have. I don't know about Venezuelans. But I was talking mostly about countries comparable to the US like Canada, most of Europe, Japan and Australia.
The Keystone XL pipeline would employ less that 50 people after it's built. It would provide maybe 5,000 or 6,000 jobs during construction. It's not that significant a job creator. The oil in that pipeline is set for export to other countries although it might be partially refined in Houston to make it easier to transport. Personally I think the Canadian tar sands production should be shut down. It's one of the dirtiest ways possible to get oil.
"No warming" is overstating it. Surface temperatures certainly have slowed down compared to 1998 but that was an outlier year with an extreme El Nino. If you throw that outlier year out (or take the average between the preceding and following year) it still looks like warming. (Picking an outlier value to start your series with is commonly known as cherry picking.) On top of that you can't ignore the heat stored in the oceans and that hasn't slowed down at all.
So your "global warming is a hoax model" has 13 more years to go before it fits in standard climatology. We'll see what happens.
So if I spend 80k on a new car to save 1k a year in energy costs, is this a win too?
That depends on the difference in price between a non-energy saving car you might have bought and the energy saving car you might have bought. Same think with renewable energy. If you need some new source of energy to replace an old source that's worn out what's the cost difference between your various options vs. what you save in production costs after it's installed.
Yes, if I'm lucky enough live another 30 years I'll be 92. But even in the short term temperatures are still within the uncertainty ranges of climate models and until they drop out of that range for a few years I'll continue think the models are doing ok.
Fetus may have the right to life or not, but it does not have the right to use another person's body in order to survive without that person's consent.
That's where I come down on the argument too. Until the fetus is capable of surviving on its own outside of the pregnant woman's body then only she has the right to determine its fate.
The real question is why are we dependent on our employers for health care coverage in the first place. It's just another way for them to put their hooks in you.
When scientists discover a problem with the data it has to be fixed or thrown out. To take the recent example of the Lulling, Texas station it was discovered that a bad data cable was causing the readings to be low. They estimated the values for Lulling by taking the readings from other nearby stations and comparing them to Lulling when it produced good data. From that the estimated what the real values would have been. That's not as good as the real values would have been but it's the best we can do under the circumstances.
IPCC executive summaries are just that. Simplifications of the main reports where uncertainty is expressed in ranges of how likely or unlikely something is.
Your expectations only yours. They have no bearing on the expectations that scientific uncertainty brings.
Somebody with CEO-level income will have home, car, and office climate-controlled for comfort, and will be even less annoyed if food prices double.
I said in the long run. If the effects of global warming cause our civilization to break down people will have other things to worry about than providing wealthy people with the amenities.
Slashdot Mirror
The preceding few thousands years (since the last Ice Age) have been a very steady upward trend.
You don't know what you're talking about. Temperatures hit a maximum during the Holocene Climatic Optimum ~5,000-9,000 years ago and have been on a slight downward trend ever since as you would expect from an examination of trends in Milankovitch Cycles.
I propose we start with a revenue neutral carbon tax that includes tariffs on the CO2 emitted in producing imported goods. The tax should start out very low but increment over time until in 25 or 30 years it's high enough to make CO2 emissions very expensive. That is a market based solution that allows maximum freedom in how to respond.
What happened to Arctic sea ice in 2013 is known as regression to the mean. If that trend continues over the next 10 years or so then you might have something, otherwise you're just getting excited over a blip on the long term trend.
Yet if you take the raw data it doesn't show any significant difference from the adjusted data, certainly not enough to say they contradict each other.
As far as polar ice being measured from 1979, that's when the satellites went up that allowed us to monitor it continuously. Older records of ice are more fragmented (but still useful).
I use my car exclusively for diving ...
Is your car also a submarine?
As I surmised that quote was taken out of context. The runaway greenhouse effect that he's talking about is pretty unlikely but impossible to rule out at this point. The part that I thought was a bit over the top was when he said it's possible for the polar ice sheets to melt in a century or so. There's a lot of ice there, as he said more that two miles thick. If it's hot enough to do that then it's going to get way to hot for humans to survive well before that happens.
If we don't solve the problem ourselves then nature will solve it for us and it won't be pretty. Those are the choices in a finite world.
When did Hansen ever say the oceans would boil? The just sounds like hyperbole dreamed up climate science deniers to make him sound bad. At the very least it's taken badly out of context.
And the right just chooses to ignore it. If they don't like the proposed solutions coming from the left they should propose some effective solutions of their own rather than simply denying that the problem exists. If you ignore reality it'll come back to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
That says a lot about what the GP knows about science.
You wish!
From what I've heard Cuban on average have better health than Americans at a fraction of the cost. The may not have all the high tech we have in the US but the do a good job with what they have. I don't know about Venezuelans. But I was talking mostly about countries comparable to the US like Canada, most of Europe, Japan and Australia.
The Keystone XL pipeline would employ less that 50 people after it's built. It would provide maybe 5,000 or 6,000 jobs during construction. It's not that significant a job creator. The oil in that pipeline is set for export to other countries although it might be partially refined in Houston to make it easier to transport. Personally I think the Canadian tar sands production should be shut down. It's one of the dirtiest ways possible to get oil.
"No warming" is overstating it. Surface temperatures certainly have slowed down compared to 1998 but that was an outlier year with an extreme El Nino. If you throw that outlier year out (or take the average between the preceding and following year) it still looks like warming. (Picking an outlier value to start your series with is commonly known as cherry picking.) On top of that you can't ignore the heat stored in the oceans and that hasn't slowed down at all.
So your "global warming is a hoax model" has 13 more years to go before it fits in standard climatology. We'll see what happens.
So if I spend 80k on a new car to save 1k a year in energy costs, is this a win too?
That depends on the difference in price between a non-energy saving car you might have bought and the energy saving car you might have bought. Same think with renewable energy. If you need some new source of energy to replace an old source that's worn out what's the cost difference between your various options vs. what you save in production costs after it's installed.
Climategate was an exercise in out of context quote mining and has no bearing on the science that's been published.
Yes, if I'm lucky enough live another 30 years I'll be 92. But even in the short term temperatures are still within the uncertainty ranges of climate models and until they drop out of that range for a few years I'll continue think the models are doing ok.
Fetus may have the right to life or not, but it does not have the right to use another person's body in order to survive without that person's consent.
That's where I come down on the argument too. Until the fetus is capable of surviving on its own outside of the pregnant woman's body then only she has the right to determine its fate.
Which brings up the question "Does a clone have a soul?" Maybe it gets split between the original and the clone. (TIC)
The real question is why are we dependent on our employers for health care coverage in the first place. It's just another way for them to put their hooks in you.
When scientists discover a problem with the data it has to be fixed or thrown out. To take the recent example of the Lulling, Texas station it was discovered that a bad data cable was causing the readings to be low. They estimated the values for Lulling by taking the readings from other nearby stations and comparing them to Lulling when it produced good data. From that the estimated what the real values would have been. That's not as good as the real values would have been but it's the best we can do under the circumstances.
IPCC executive summaries are just that. Simplifications of the main reports where uncertainty is expressed in ranges of how likely or unlikely something is.
Your expectations only yours. They have no bearing on the expectations that scientific uncertainty brings.
Here you go, raw climate data.
That's sad. Since it occurred in 2006 it sounds to me like a Bush administration change.
Here you go, raw climate data.
Somebody with CEO-level income will have home, car, and office climate-controlled for comfort, and will be even less annoyed if food prices double.
I said in the long run. If the effects of global warming cause our civilization to break down people will have other things to worry about than providing wealthy people with the amenities.