CO2 was not a significant factor in the Earth's warming until the 2nd half of the 20th century. Before that it was mostly the Sun increasing its activity level and a lack of large volcanic eruptions.
The fundamentals of climate are mostly physics/thermodynamics. It's the transfer of energy through radiation, convection (and maybe a little conduction) that drives the engine of climate. James Hansen is an astrophysicist who started out studying the atmosphere of Venus then applied what he learned to the other planets/moons with atmospheres, including Earth.
Most scientists actually show their work. Mann did not. Heck he can't even reproduce it. He can't even show others his work. It took years of sleuthing by many to uncover the details and depths of Mann's frauds in his Hockey Stick Statistical Lies.
Here is the data and methods from Mann, et. al. (1998/1999), the "Hockey Stick Graph". Mann's temperature reconstruction is pretty much in agreement with at least 10 other reconstructions done since then by different researchers using different data sources and methods. His hockey stick is the blue line in this comparison graph of 11 temperature reconstructions.
I think when you say "he can't even reproduce it" you are conflating Mann with Phil Jones.
I'd love to see a referendum on that for the whole country. I'd believe it would be overturned. Only problem is we'd be buried by corporate political advertising to reject it. They might convince enough people.
Because it would be a violation of the rights of the people who make up that corporation, if they didn't.
None of the people who make up a corporation has lost their right to free speech as an individual by virtue of their being part of the corporation. Why should they collectively have additional free speech rights?
But according to settled law, more than a century old, corporations are legally persons.
And the sad thing about that was that it was a headnote written by a court clerk who was the ex-president of a railway. It is not in the decision by the Justices and the Chief Justice explicitly wrote that the court avoided deciding that question. But there's so much precedent now it would be difficult to overturn short of a constitutional amendment.
As a system and network admin for over 20 years I couldn't agree with you more. People like us know better than most the vulnerabilities inherent in computer systems.
The signature is the equivalent of signing the poll book when you vote in person. It gets compared to the signature on your voter registration card (actually a digitized copy of it) and if there is a discrepancy it is investigated. One of my neighbors had that happen after a stroke changed his signature significantly. After they double checked his ballot got counted. Once the signature is verified it is separated from the anonymity envelope and and the ballot is added to the stack ready to be counted.
And for 0xABADC0DA up the tread. Once your ballot is received it is noted in the voter database. You can go online and verify it has been received (amazing how the annoying political phone calls stop once you turn in your ballot). Also, any registered voter can sign up to be an election observer and watch the counting of the ballots on election night.
One other thing, plenty of Oregonians (like me) turn our ballots in directly to the county elections office. For me the office is conveniently just off my route to work and starting the Saturday before election day they set up manned drop off points in other convenient places, some of which you just drive up to and hand your ballot to the election worker who verifies you signed it and puts it in the ballot box.
If I saw any evidence that showing a picture ID would solve any issues with voter fraud I'd be all for it but the incidence of voter fraud that picture ID would solve is so low that it's practically nonexistent. The Bush II administration put a special emphasis on voter fraud with the US Attorneys and they didn't find much. Wandering in and signing the poll register next to your name in the list of registered voters has worked well in the past.
The models all are off in the same direction because natural variation has taken temperatures somewhat below what the average rise in the models projections. You also have to take into account how actual events differ from the scenarios they used to make those projections.
There's a somewhat famous quote from a scientist that all models are wrong but some are useful. A model can never capture all the subtleties of the real world but if they do better than other methods they're useful. Climate models have better skill than other methods.
There is plenty of demagoguery on both sides of the issue but I don't see most climate scientists engaging in it.
I'm not against nuclear power per se but it is one of the more expensive ways to produce electric power. In my opinion the best way to add a price signal to carbon would be a tax and rebate system. It's simple and costs those emitting carbon the most.
The correlation between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature has nothing to do with it. Fourier first noted that CO2 absorbed infrared radiation in the 1820's, John Tyndall quantified the absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 in the 1850's and Svante Arrhenius stated that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would cause a rise in temperature in the 1890's. All before human CO2 emissions had raised the CO2 level significantly enough to see any correlation. Scientists don't assume CO2 is the cause of global warming because of correlation, that's just corroborating evidence. They can measure the absorption of infrared by CO2 in the atmosphere.
the IPCC AR4 came out in 2007. That's only 5 years ago, way to short a time period to make any pronouncement on whether the models were wrong or not. You'll have to wait until around 2025 to do that. It takes 17 years of temperature records to be sure you are discerning the global warming signal from the noise of weather and natural variation according to a recent statistical analysis.
You misunderstand his question - it was *rhetorical* not scientific. He *presumes* the answer, he doesn't look for it.
That's your interpretation, not mine. I think you're making a pretty big assumption that he presumes the answer.
I'm sure you can't possibly mean that. Human activity generates heat, and that heat will, all other things kept equal, warm the planet. It may be that those things that tend to increase average global temperature are minuscule, and possibly undetectable against the background of natural variation, but they *must* have some nonzero, positive effect.
Human generated waste heat contributes about 0.028 W/m^2 to heating the climate. The additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contribute about 2.9 W/m^2, over 100 times as much. More details here. So my saying the UHI effect has no effect on global warming overstated it a bit by not much. If waste heat was the only thing causing global warming it wouldn't be enough to cause enough warming to worry about.
I realize that ice cores can not show the details of CO2 fluctuations on scales of less than about a century. Where is you evidence that there have been drastic fluctuations in CO2 levels that just happen to average 280 ppm on those time scales?
Under normal conditions the left hand will warm up zero or hardly at all because of the human body's heat regulation mechanisms. I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Conduction of heat plays little role in the heat energy dynamics of the Earth. It's mostly radiation and convection.
Oeschger was just doing what a good scientist does, asking questions. We may not have the answer to that question yet but what in that makes you think anything is being ignored?
The urban heat island effect has no effect on global warming. Some speculated that it was causing the temperature records to read high but that's been discredited. The CO2 that is naturally emitted has been emitted yearly for the past 10,000 years and then naturally absorbed each year. There is a natural cycle of around +/- 10 ppm every year. That's why CO2 levels remained around 280 ppm during that period. Human emissions add carbon to the carbon cycle that hasn't been there for many millions of years.
The heat/energy that drives global warming is not produced by humans but by the Sun. If there were no Sun the Earth temperature would be near absolute zero. If there were the Sun but no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the surface temperature would be near -18 degrees C. The heat produced by human use of energy is trivial compared to the Sun. Nearly all of the Sun's energy comes to us in the visible light range. What isn't reflected (70% according to you) is absorbed by the surface (mostly) and later gets re-radiated in the infrared range. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere slows down the re-radiated infrared energy on it's way back out causing the Earth to get hotter. That's simple physics.
So, has there been a shortage of gasoline lately? You know, the US has been exporting gasoline lately. That says to me that there is plenty of capacity. Why build another refinery when the existing ones are enough?
Slashdot Mirror
CO2 was not a significant factor in the Earth's warming until the 2nd half of the 20th century. Before that it was mostly the Sun increasing its activity level and a lack of large volcanic eruptions.
The fundamentals of climate are mostly physics/thermodynamics. It's the transfer of energy through radiation, convection (and maybe a little conduction) that drives the engine of climate. James Hansen is an astrophysicist who started out studying the atmosphere of Venus then applied what he learned to the other planets/moons with atmospheres, including Earth.
Most scientists actually show their work. Mann did not. Heck he can't even reproduce it. He can't even show others his work. It took years of sleuthing by many to uncover the details and depths of Mann's frauds in his Hockey Stick Statistical Lies.
Here is the data and methods from Mann, et. al. (1998/1999), the "Hockey Stick Graph". Mann's temperature reconstruction is pretty much in agreement with at least 10 other reconstructions done since then by different researchers using different data sources and methods. His hockey stick is the blue line in this comparison graph of 11 temperature reconstructions.
I think when you say "he can't even reproduce it" you are conflating Mann with Phil Jones.
Do you even know what "hide the decline" refers to?
I'd love to see a referendum on that for the whole country. I'd believe it would be overturned. Only problem is we'd be buried by corporate political advertising to reject it. They might convince enough people.
Then why do corporations have free speech?
Because it would be a violation of the rights of the people who make up that corporation, if they didn't.
None of the people who make up a corporation has lost their right to free speech as an individual by virtue of their being part of the corporation. Why should they collectively have additional free speech rights?
Money is not speech it is merely an amplifier of speech! (Yes, I'm shouting.)
They also benefit from unlimited lifetime, another thing individuals don't have.
But according to settled law, more than a century old, corporations are legally persons.
And the sad thing about that was that it was a headnote written by a court clerk who was the ex-president of a railway. It is not in the decision by the Justices and the Chief Justice explicitly wrote that the court avoided deciding that question. But there's so much precedent now it would be difficult to overturn short of a constitutional amendment.
As a system and network admin for over 20 years I couldn't agree with you more. People like us know better than most the vulnerabilities inherent in computer systems.
The signature is the equivalent of signing the poll book when you vote in person. It gets compared to the signature on your voter registration card (actually a digitized copy of it) and if there is a discrepancy it is investigated. One of my neighbors had that happen after a stroke changed his signature significantly. After they double checked his ballot got counted. Once the signature is verified it is separated from the anonymity envelope and and the ballot is added to the stack ready to be counted.
And for 0xABADC0DA up the tread. Once your ballot is received it is noted in the voter database. You can go online and verify it has been received (amazing how the annoying political phone calls stop once you turn in your ballot). Also, any registered voter can sign up to be an election observer and watch the counting of the ballots on election night.
One other thing, plenty of Oregonians (like me) turn our ballots in directly to the county elections office. For me the office is conveniently just off my route to work and starting the Saturday before election day they set up manned drop off points in other convenient places, some of which you just drive up to and hand your ballot to the election worker who verifies you signed it and puts it in the ballot box.
If it's tl;dr for you then you probably shouldn't be voting either. You need a longer attention span to make an informed vote.
If I saw any evidence that showing a picture ID would solve any issues with voter fraud I'd be all for it but the incidence of voter fraud that picture ID would solve is so low that it's practically nonexistent. The Bush II administration put a special emphasis on voter fraud with the US Attorneys and they didn't find much. Wandering in and signing the poll register next to your name in the list of registered voters has worked well in the past.
The models all are off in the same direction because natural variation has taken temperatures somewhat below what the average rise in the models projections. You also have to take into account how actual events differ from the scenarios they used to make those projections.
There's a somewhat famous quote from a scientist that all models are wrong but some are useful. A model can never capture all the subtleties of the real world but if they do better than other methods they're useful. Climate models have better skill than other methods.
There is plenty of demagoguery on both sides of the issue but I don't see most climate scientists engaging in it.
I'm not against nuclear power per se but it is one of the more expensive ways to produce electric power. In my opinion the best way to add a price signal to carbon would be a tax and rebate system. It's simple and costs those emitting carbon the most.
Convection is what drives the mixing of temperatures in the oceans. Conduction is a very minor component of it.
Full access to Michael Mann, et. al.'s 1998/1999 "Hockey Stick" data and methods is available here.
That may be a trollish comment but it's accurate too.
The correlation between CO2 emissions and global mean temperature has nothing to do with it. Fourier first noted that CO2 absorbed infrared radiation in the 1820's, John Tyndall quantified the absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 in the 1850's and Svante Arrhenius stated that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere would cause a rise in temperature in the 1890's. All before human CO2 emissions had raised the CO2 level significantly enough to see any correlation. Scientists don't assume CO2 is the cause of global warming because of correlation, that's just corroborating evidence. They can measure the absorption of infrared by CO2 in the atmosphere.
the IPCC AR4 came out in 2007. That's only 5 years ago, way to short a time period to make any pronouncement on whether the models were wrong or not. You'll have to wait until around 2025 to do that. It takes 17 years of temperature records to be sure you are discerning the global warming signal from the noise of weather and natural variation according to a recent statistical analysis.
You misunderstand his question - it was *rhetorical* not scientific. He *presumes* the answer, he doesn't look for it.
That's your interpretation, not mine. I think you're making a pretty big assumption that he presumes the answer.
I'm sure you can't possibly mean that. Human activity generates heat, and that heat will, all other things kept equal, warm the planet. It may be that those things that tend to increase average global temperature are minuscule, and possibly undetectable against the background of natural variation, but they *must* have some nonzero, positive effect.
Human generated waste heat contributes about 0.028 W/m^2 to heating the climate. The additional greenhouse gases in the atmosphere contribute about 2.9 W/m^2, over 100 times as much. More details here. So my saying the UHI effect has no effect on global warming overstated it a bit by not much. If waste heat was the only thing causing global warming it wouldn't be enough to cause enough warming to worry about.
I realize that ice cores can not show the details of CO2 fluctuations on scales of less than about a century. Where is you evidence that there have been drastic fluctuations in CO2 levels that just happen to average 280 ppm on those time scales?
Under normal conditions the left hand will warm up zero or hardly at all because of the human body's heat regulation mechanisms. I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Conduction of heat plays little role in the heat energy dynamics of the Earth. It's mostly radiation and convection.
I know that it's lame to reply to your own post but I wanted to add that I was on Prodigy in 1986.
Actually I think you needed the killer app that the browser was. Mosaic was released by the National Center for Supercomputing Applications in 1993. Gore's bill, the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991, led to the development of Mosaic.
Oeschger was just doing what a good scientist does, asking questions. We may not have the answer to that question yet but what in that makes you think anything is being ignored?
The urban heat island effect has no effect on global warming. Some speculated that it was causing the temperature records to read high but that's been discredited. The CO2 that is naturally emitted has been emitted yearly for the past 10,000 years and then naturally absorbed each year. There is a natural cycle of around +/- 10 ppm every year. That's why CO2 levels remained around 280 ppm during that period. Human emissions add carbon to the carbon cycle that hasn't been there for many millions of years.
The heat/energy that drives global warming is not produced by humans but by the Sun. If there were no Sun the Earth temperature would be near absolute zero. If there were the Sun but no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the surface temperature would be near -18 degrees C. The heat produced by human use of energy is trivial compared to the Sun. Nearly all of the Sun's energy comes to us in the visible light range. What isn't reflected (70% according to you) is absorbed by the surface (mostly) and later gets re-radiated in the infrared range. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere slows down the re-radiated infrared energy on it's way back out causing the Earth to get hotter. That's simple physics.
The temperature drop during the Little Ice Age was about -1 degree C and look how much disruption that caused.
So, has there been a shortage of gasoline lately? You know, the US has been exporting gasoline lately. That says to me that there is plenty of capacity. Why build another refinery when the existing ones are enough?