Climate science is just as falsifiable as any other science. You just want some simple test that's quick and easy to understand which isn't possible in a complex field like that. What happens in the next 20 or 30 years will tell us if climate scientists are totally off base or not but so far they're doing pretty well.
The government usually fucks up everything it touches.
A lot of people believe this but the problem is you never hear much about the things governments do passably or well. It's the big screw ups that get the headlines. Like for instance Solyndra generated a lot of headlines but it was less than 4% of a program that was budgeted for an over 10% failure rate and the majority of the entities that received funds under that program are doing just find thank you very much.
The startup costs for nuclear are largely high BECAUSE of government.
Given past performance I'm not willing to leave the safety of nuclear power plants up to the private sector. The demands of profit making encourages cutting corners to the detriment of safety. After all Ford decided the cost of liability for exploding Pinto gas tanks was less than the cost of fixing the problem. I'm not against nuclear power per se but it still appears to be one of the more expensive ways to produce electricity.
Nuclear power is one of the most subsidized power sources around, at least in the US. Private lenders are not willing to lend to build a nuclear plant without substantial government loan guarantees and private insurers are unwilling to insure them at all (beyond a ridiculously small amount) leaving it to the government to provide that insurance. (See the Price-Anderson Act.)
Regarding the space required for solar PV cells, I read a few years ago that the area of solar cells required to supply of of the worlds electricity would amount to a block of 40 x 40 miles (or maybe km) which amounts to less than 0.3% of the Earths land surface. I think we can find room for them.
Extreme overhauls are not a bad thing. Thr (sic) aca will need one and it can be said that it should have had it before it was originally passed.
I think it remains to be seen how much of an overhaul the ACA needs. Yes, the web portal needs a lot of work and the "if you like your insurance you can keep it" didn't work out as envisioned* but that's pretty peripheral to the core of the act.
*You could argue that policies that didn't come close to meeting the minimal standards required by the act should be cancelled anyway.
Well, actually the last ice age (glaciation in scientific terms) ended around 10,000 years ago and temperatures hit a peak around 8,000 years ago when the combination of Milankovitch cycles maximized insolation. Since then it's been slowly cooling and from the natural forcings it would expected to continue to cool. But that's not happening any more. A little warming was probably a good thing but we're way past that point now.
The biggest subsidy fossil fuel companies get is they don't have to pay the cost the pollution the use of their products imposes on society. That's not unique to them but they're probably benefit the most from that.
The program that Solyndra was funded under is still under the budgeted failure rate last I heard. There were a bunch of other investments under that program that are working just fine. Not all investments work out and practically nobody foresaw the precipitous decline in solar cell prices that caused Solyndra's demise. The reason it became a big deal is the GOP saw it as a way to make political hay against the Obama administration. If it had happened under a Republican President you never would have heard of it.
Just to be clear, the Antarctic sea ice, the ice that forms on the ocean when it gets cold enough has increased some lately. But it melts nearly completely out every Antarctic summer so there is no "memory" of it from one year to the next. The Antarctic ice sheet, the ice that is sitting on land is still shrinking, particularly in West Antarctica. Volcanism can melt some of the ice but the area of volcanism is so small compared to the total area of ice it's really insignificant for ice melt. If you think that's wrong look at Iceland which is one of the most volcanic areas on Earth yet still has major ice caps.
Since this is ISON's first encounter with the Sun it's unclear how well consolidated the comet is. As I said less than 1% of comets fall apart like this before they get to the Sun but you don't know if it will until it happens (or doesn't).
Actually I think a solar panel/battery unit is the simplest. It can be delivered as a package sized for a household and after setup requires little maintenance other than keeping the solar panel clean. Those other things you mention require maintenance of the mechanical parts and some sort of distribution grid for the power.
If you read the actual paper I'm sure the information is there. The way satellites "measure" temperature is by observing the intensity of microwave radiation produced by atmospheric oxygen which is proportional to broad vertical layers of the atmosphere. Then a computation is done on that data to produce a temperature value. In doing so you have to take in to account the orbital drift of the satellite and some other factors.
What a nice example of hyperbolic thought and failure to pay attention to exactly what is being said about a subject. FYI global warming is proceeding about as scientists have expected it to but you just hear the high points without paying attention to the time frames put on them.
Incidentally, your analysis is way off. The worst case scenario for a terrorist attack is the death of millions by a nuclear blast and fallout or poisoning (chemical or radiation) or disease. Millions dead by terrorist attack is far more likely than millions dead by climate change.
No, your analysis is way off. The worst case for climate change is our civilization collapses and billions die because of the failure of our agricultural systems and the oceans dieing off because of acidification. It'll be a slow motion disaster but just because it's not as sudden as a terrorist attack doesn't mean it's not as dire.
Good post, thanks. I've been bringing up the risk management angle for several years now but nobody seems to be paying attention. One of the basic principles is that the more uncertain you are about the effects of a possible risk the more value there is in avoiding that risk.
Well, 80 meters is about all of the ice in the world melting. When it's gone there is no more sea level rise from it. There will be some rise still due to the ocean water heating up and expanding but I think at 200 meters you're just SOL.
Or perhaps the world's poor, many of whom don't have access to grid electricity as it stands can bypass that step and go directly to solar power. How much would a 1 kW solar panel with a battery improve the lives of many rural people in Africa who have to go into town every week to charge up their cell phones and have no electric light at night?
Slashdot Mirror
Climate science is just as falsifiable as any other science. You just want some simple test that's quick and easy to understand which isn't possible in a complex field like that. What happens in the next 20 or 30 years will tell us if climate scientists are totally off base or not but so far they're doing pretty well.
On top of that where did the wives of Adam & Eve's sons come from?
It the full cost were included in the price the citizens pay they might make different choices.
The government usually fucks up everything it touches.
A lot of people believe this but the problem is you never hear much about the things governments do passably or well. It's the big screw ups that get the headlines. Like for instance Solyndra generated a lot of headlines but it was less than 4% of a program that was budgeted for an over 10% failure rate and the majority of the entities that received funds under that program are doing just find thank you very much.
The startup costs for nuclear are largely high BECAUSE of government.
Given past performance I'm not willing to leave the safety of nuclear power plants up to the private sector. The demands of profit making encourages cutting corners to the detriment of safety. After all Ford decided the cost of liability for exploding Pinto gas tanks was less than the cost of fixing the problem. I'm not against nuclear power per se but it still appears to be one of the more expensive ways to produce electricity.
Nuclear power is one of the most subsidized power sources around, at least in the US. Private lenders are not willing to lend to build a nuclear plant without substantial government loan guarantees and private insurers are unwilling to insure them at all (beyond a ridiculously small amount) leaving it to the government to provide that insurance. (See the Price-Anderson Act.)
Regarding the space required for solar PV cells, I read a few years ago that the area of solar cells required to supply of of the worlds electricity would amount to a block of 40 x 40 miles (or maybe km) which amounts to less than 0.3% of the Earths land surface. I think we can find room for them.
Extreme overhauls are not a bad thing. Thr (sic) aca will need one and it can be said that it should have had it before it was originally passed.
I think it remains to be seen how much of an overhaul the ACA needs. Yes, the web portal needs a lot of work and the "if you like your insurance you can keep it" didn't work out as envisioned* but that's pretty peripheral to the core of the act.
*You could argue that policies that didn't come close to meeting the minimal standards required by the act should be cancelled anyway.
Well, actually the last ice age (glaciation in scientific terms) ended around 10,000 years ago and temperatures hit a peak around 8,000 years ago when the combination of Milankovitch cycles maximized insolation. Since then it's been slowly cooling and from the natural forcings it would expected to continue to cool. But that's not happening any more. A little warming was probably a good thing but we're way past that point now.
The biggest subsidy fossil fuel companies get is they don't have to pay the cost the pollution the use of their products imposes on society. That's not unique to them but they're probably benefit the most from that.
The program that Solyndra was funded under is still under the budgeted failure rate last I heard. There were a bunch of other investments under that program that are working just fine. Not all investments work out and practically nobody foresaw the precipitous decline in solar cell prices that caused Solyndra's demise. The reason it became a big deal is the GOP saw it as a way to make political hay against the Obama administration. If it had happened under a Republican President you never would have heard of it.
Just to be clear, the Antarctic sea ice, the ice that forms on the ocean when it gets cold enough has increased some lately. But it melts nearly completely out every Antarctic summer so there is no "memory" of it from one year to the next. The Antarctic ice sheet, the ice that is sitting on land is still shrinking, particularly in West Antarctica. Volcanism can melt some of the ice but the area of volcanism is so small compared to the total area of ice it's really insignificant for ice melt. If you think that's wrong look at Iceland which is one of the most volcanic areas on Earth yet still has major ice caps.
Wait, those things can fly under the ice?
Since this is ISON's first encounter with the Sun it's unclear how well consolidated the comet is. As I said less than 1% of comets fall apart like this before they get to the Sun but you don't know if it will until it happens (or doesn't).
Actually I think a solar panel/battery unit is the simplest. It can be delivered as a package sized for a household and after setup requires little maintenance other than keeping the solar panel clean. Those other things you mention require maintenance of the mechanical parts and some sort of distribution grid for the power.
If you read the actual paper I'm sure the information is there. The way satellites "measure" temperature is by observing the intensity of microwave radiation produced by atmospheric oxygen which is proportional to broad vertical layers of the atmosphere. Then a computation is done on that data to produce a temperature value. In doing so you have to take in to account the orbital drift of the satellite and some other factors.
What a nice example of hyperbolic thought and failure to pay attention to exactly what is being said about a subject. FYI global warming is proceeding about as scientists have expected it to but you just hear the high points without paying attention to the time frames put on them.
Good idea...Wait! The deniers already say we're spending too much on global warming research.
Terrorism also kills a lot of people.
Terrorism generally kills fewer people than die in automobile accidents in the US each year.
Incidentally, your analysis is way off. The worst case scenario for a terrorist attack is the death of millions by a nuclear blast and fallout or poisoning (chemical or radiation) or disease. Millions dead by terrorist attack is far more likely than millions dead by climate change.
No, your analysis is way off. The worst case for climate change is our civilization collapses and billions die because of the failure of our agricultural systems and the oceans dieing off because of acidification. It'll be a slow motion disaster but just because it's not as sudden as a terrorist attack doesn't mean it's not as dire.
Good post, thanks. I've been bringing up the risk management angle for several years now but nobody seems to be paying attention. One of the basic principles is that the more uncertain you are about the effects of a possible risk the more value there is in avoiding that risk.
Ooh! Is that the new drinking game? Every time a denier mentions Al Gore chug a beer? I don't know if my liver can take it.
Well, 80 meters is about all of the ice in the world melting. When it's gone there is no more sea level rise from it. There will be some rise still due to the ocean water heating up and expanding but I think at 200 meters you're just SOL.
Or perhaps the world's poor, many of whom don't have access to grid electricity as it stands can bypass that step and go directly to solar power. How much would a 1 kW solar panel with a battery improve the lives of many rural people in Africa who have to go into town every week to charge up their cell phones and have no electric light at night?
LOL. I confuse my relatives sometimes with the old joke "There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't."