There probably is some tie in between climate change and the health of Iowa's aquifers. Heavier rainfall in the spring means more water runs off even though yearly rainfall totals may not change much. Drought means agriculture and other water users draw on the aquifers more heavily than they otherwise might. This is not to discount simple overdrawing on the aquifer by users but it may mean there is less water to be had.
By the time Republicans regain the majority (including the Presidency) it will be too late to repeal it. People will start to understand all the R's posturing over the ACA was just FUD.
I wouldn't call the climate models "way off" until temperatures are outside of the uncertainty range of the model projections. The models are far from perfect but they're still better than any other method we have.
I would say the effort has been put into making it "scientifically incorrect" to deny that human caused changes in the level of greenhouse gases play a role in climate change. Scientists are drawn into the political arena kicking and screaming for the most part.
Re:All scientific conclusions should be questioned
on
How Science Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 1
If you have a doctorate in physics then you should have the chops to dig into it and find the proof that it's bullshit. You would really make a name for yourself if you did that.
I'm well aware that it generally gets colder on clear nights than on cloudy nights. First noticed it back in the 1960's. But to make your thought experiment valid you would have to limit your cloudiness* to the same narrow band in the sky as the exhaust from that smoke stack rather than covering most of the sky. I have my doubts you would notice a substantial difference in that case.
I agree that water vapor is a much larger part of the greenhouse effect than CO2 but water vapor is also the only significant greenhouse gas that is limited by the temperature of the atmosphere. If it gets colder there will be less water vapor in the atmosphere, if it gets hotter there will be more (as long as there is a source of water to evaporate which isn't a big problem since well over 70% of the Earths surface is covered by water). What follows from that is that changes in temperature driven by changes in non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2 will affect the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
If you were to remove all of the CO2 from the atmosphere the average surface temperature of the Earth would drop below freezing because the cooling effect of the missing CO2 although not enough to drop temperatures that much on its own would also cause water vapor to drop reducing temperatures even more.
*BTW, as you probably know the greenhouse effect of clouds is substantially different than simple water vapor. On the night side clouds will hold heat in but on the day side they can also reflect sunlight causing a cooling effect. Research indicates the overall greenhouse effect of clouds is probably slightly positive but the uncertainty range stretches from slightly cooling to moderately warming.
My reaction to this was "so what?" They still are paying around half as much per person as we do in the US with substantially the same overall results.
I think what "trust" means in this case is that the default assumption is the scientists are presenting their work in good faith and accurately reporting their results. If you base your work off of the work of someone else I don't think it's particularly necessary to verify the work first. Chances are if the other scientist's work is bad then you will get unexpected results. At that point you might need to go back and verify the work but probably not before. Good science rises to the top because it provides a sound foundation to build upon.
That's true but the beauty of science is that there is an underlying reality that it is measured against. It doesn't matter if the scientist is impartial or not. If their results don't match reality they will be discarded. This of course is more true of the hard sciences than it is of some of the softer sciences.
When you consider the population that the VA covers, veterans who certainly have a higher percentage of disability and serious problems than the general population it's pretty impressive how they control the costs. I'd also like to point out that the VA system is like Great Britain's NHS where the government owns the hospitals and employs the doctors, nurses and other health care professionals so your point about the government running a single payer system is well taken.
Re:An even worse mix: science and politics
on
How Science Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 3, Informative
All my mod points for the ability to edit. Of course what I meant was:
The scientists are not the ones who brought politics into it.
Re:An even worse mix: science and politics
on
How Science Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 1, Informative
The scientists are the ones who brought politics into it.
Re:All scientific conclusions should be questioned
on
How Science Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 1
You know, if you don't have enough scientific knowledge to even begin to understand what the scientists are talking about how can you do anything other than take it on faith that they know their stuff?
Re: Anti-science? See, now you have proof!
on
How Science Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you would be so kind as to replicate the catastrophic prediction results -- oh, wait, those can't be tested?
We're in the process of testing them right now. We should have results in 50 or 100 years although chances are we don't have to run the full experiment to see where it's heading.
What makes you think the results on CO2 sensitivity are "out-of-you-ass guesses" rather than just an expression of the uncertainty of the results? Where have you seen a scientist that links every bit of bad weather to AGW? There are some non-scientists who may do that but that's not science.
So the question is what to do about that? It's easy to point out the faults but much more difficult to come up with constructive suggestions. In most cases the only people qualified to judge the work are others in the field. I just don't see how you get away from peer review despite its warts.
Well, you're complaining about one aspect of it. How about the mandate to insurance companies that they can't turn you away for preexisting conditions or drop you after you develop chronic conditions or you reach a lifetime cap on coverage?
The problem with massive spending cuts is that federal government spending is such a large part of the economy (on the order of 20%+ IIRC) that any massive abrupt cuts in spending would plunge us back into recession. Austerity doesn't have a particularly good track record.
I think the idea behind the medical device tax was that because more people had coverage the makers of the devices would end up making more on the increased volume even after paying the tax.
I think when you say "it's opposed by more people than favor it" you need to distinguish between people who oppose it because they think "it's a government take over of health care" and people like me who oppose it because "it's not single payer". The latter group probably prefers having it over having nothing at all.
Slashdot Mirror
There probably is some tie in between climate change and the health of Iowa's aquifers. Heavier rainfall in the spring means more water runs off even though yearly rainfall totals may not change much. Drought means agriculture and other water users draw on the aquifers more heavily than they otherwise might. This is not to discount simple overdrawing on the aquifer by users but it may mean there is less water to be had.
It's an uncontrolled experiment. You can fudge the variables all you want but you won't prove your conclusion unless it matches reality.
By the time Republicans regain the majority (including the Presidency) it will be too late to repeal it. People will start to understand all the R's posturing over the ACA was just FUD.
Oooh! Is shit stains on toilet paper the new tea leaves?
Whoosh!
Of course the biggest group possible is everybody in the country.
Even previous IPCC members have claimed the latest IPCC report is a joke ...
Given the relatively low bar to become a reviewer that's not saying much.
I wouldn't call the climate models "way off" until temperatures are outside of the uncertainty range of the model projections. The models are far from perfect but they're still better than any other method we have.
I would say the effort has been put into making it "scientifically incorrect" to deny that human caused changes in the level of greenhouse gases play a role in climate change. Scientists are drawn into the political arena kicking and screaming for the most part.
If you have a doctorate in physics then you should have the chops to dig into it and find the proof that it's bullshit. You would really make a name for yourself if you did that.
I'm well aware that it generally gets colder on clear nights than on cloudy nights. First noticed it back in the 1960's. But to make your thought experiment valid you would have to limit your cloudiness* to the same narrow band in the sky as the exhaust from that smoke stack rather than covering most of the sky. I have my doubts you would notice a substantial difference in that case.
I agree that water vapor is a much larger part of the greenhouse effect than CO2 but water vapor is also the only significant greenhouse gas that is limited by the temperature of the atmosphere. If it gets colder there will be less water vapor in the atmosphere, if it gets hotter there will be more (as long as there is a source of water to evaporate which isn't a big problem since well over 70% of the Earths surface is covered by water). What follows from that is that changes in temperature driven by changes in non-condensing greenhouse gases like CO2 will affect the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
If you were to remove all of the CO2 from the atmosphere the average surface temperature of the Earth would drop below freezing because the cooling effect of the missing CO2 although not enough to drop temperatures that much on its own would also cause water vapor to drop reducing temperatures even more.
*BTW, as you probably know the greenhouse effect of clouds is substantially different than simple water vapor. On the night side clouds will hold heat in but on the day side they can also reflect sunlight causing a cooling effect. Research indicates the overall greenhouse effect of clouds is probably slightly positive but the uncertainty range stretches from slightly cooling to moderately warming.
My reaction to this was "so what?" They still are paying around half as much per person as we do in the US with substantially the same overall results.
I think what "trust" means in this case is that the default assumption is the scientists are presenting their work in good faith and accurately reporting their results. If you base your work off of the work of someone else I don't think it's particularly necessary to verify the work first. Chances are if the other scientist's work is bad then you will get unexpected results. At that point you might need to go back and verify the work but probably not before. Good science rises to the top because it provides a sound foundation to build upon.
That's true but the beauty of science is that there is an underlying reality that it is measured against. It doesn't matter if the scientist is impartial or not. If their results don't match reality they will be discarded. This of course is more true of the hard sciences than it is of some of the softer sciences.
That means that they want to avoid doing anything politically controversial or that steps on anyone's toes.
Hmm... I guess climate scientists didn't get the memo.
When you consider the population that the VA covers, veterans who certainly have a higher percentage of disability and serious problems than the general population it's pretty impressive how they control the costs. I'd also like to point out that the VA system is like Great Britain's NHS where the government owns the hospitals and employs the doctors, nurses and other health care professionals so your point about the government running a single payer system is well taken.
All my mod points for the ability to edit. Of course what I meant was:
The scientists are not the ones who brought politics into it.
The scientists are the ones who brought politics into it.
You know, if you don't have enough scientific knowledge to even begin to understand what the scientists are talking about how can you do anything other than take it on faith that they know their stuff?
If you would be so kind as to replicate the catastrophic prediction results -- oh, wait, those can't be tested?
We're in the process of testing them right now. We should have results in 50 or 100 years although chances are we don't have to run the full experiment to see where it's heading.
What makes you think the results on CO2 sensitivity are "out-of-you-ass guesses" rather than just an expression of the uncertainty of the results? Where have you seen a scientist that links every bit of bad weather to AGW? There are some non-scientists who may do that but that's not science.
So the question is what to do about that? It's easy to point out the faults but much more difficult to come up with constructive suggestions. In most cases the only people qualified to judge the work are others in the field. I just don't see how you get away from peer review despite its warts.
Well, you're complaining about one aspect of it. How about the mandate to insurance companies that they can't turn you away for preexisting conditions or drop you after you develop chronic conditions or you reach a lifetime cap on coverage?
The problem with massive spending cuts is that federal government spending is such a large part of the economy (on the order of 20%+ IIRC) that any massive abrupt cuts in spending would plunge us back into recession. Austerity doesn't have a particularly good track record.
I think the idea behind the medical device tax was that because more people had coverage the makers of the devices would end up making more on the increased volume even after paying the tax.
Huh? Last I heard the VA health care system was one of the most cost effective around for the amount of health care it delivers.
I think when you say "it's opposed by more people than favor it" you need to distinguish between people who oppose it because they think "it's a government take over of health care" and people like me who oppose it because "it's not single payer". The latter group probably prefers having it over having nothing at all.