The denialists have won, and will win, until it's far too late (as it may already be).
You know what's sad about that is when the sh*t starts hitting the fan in large quantities they will be the first to place the blame others for the problem. Their motives are pure and their ideology is perfect so it couldn't e their fault.
On top of that, the implied #3 (GW is a bad thing) is also disputable.
The recent/. post on the Little Ice Age pointed out that all the effects of the Little Ice Age were caused by an average temperature drop of 1 degree Centigrade. Now with Global Warming we're talking about greater than 1 degree C of temperature rise. Why would you expect the effects from temperature rise to be any less drastic than they were with the drop?
Extrapolating from 0.075% of all glaciers may or may not be valid. It's strictly a statistical question. After all national polls use responses from 3,000 people to extrapolate the opinions of over 300,000,000 people with an error of +/- 5%. That's less than 0.001% of the population.
Guys like him don't really read any of that stuff with understanding. They never pay attention to the actual time scales involved. They just look at the worst case scenarios and assume it's all going to happen in some time frame that they can actually understand.
BY the way!!!!!!!! Can someone tell me why I cannot separate paragraphs while logged into my account?
While logged on click on "Account" at the top of the main page then the "Posting" tab then change "Comment Post Mode" to "Plain Old Text". Otherwise you have to use HTML tags to make your paragraphs.
I think the mistaken idea that skepticisim is "disbelief by default" is easy to believe for people who do not practice that most important and useful part of skepticism, self-skeptcism.
That's an insightful point. In order to be a true skeptic you must be skeptical of yourself and your motivations as well.
People who say we have to drive civilization back to pre-industrial conditions are the real alarmists here. Certainly the future will be different. The Earth is a finite resource. If we don't become more sustainable we will at some point hit the wall and crash hard, that should be obvious to anyone. But I am optimistic that human ingenuity will provide us with answers to these problems.
How about the argument that only 10 years is statistically significant in determining a climate trend. The head of the CRU cautioned that it was too short a time. A recent paper said it takes 17 years before the temperature trend is sure to rise above the noise level of natural variability.
Warming because of increased greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, didn't take over until the 1960's/70's. Before that it was mostly increases in solar output. In 1960 the CO2 level was still only 320 ppmv, up 40 ppmv from 280 ppmv before the industrial revolution. Since then it's increased another 70 ppmv to 390 ppmv in 50 years.
I think your understanding of what climate scientists understand about climate is at best minimal. No climate scientist has said it's all going end in 20 years. What they generally say is it's going to continue to gradually get worse as time goes on until we stop increasing greenhouse gas levels.
Flooding in Bangladesh due to sea level rise is a feedback from global warming and therefore is caused by climate. A change in the pattern of droughts in Subsaharan Africa could also be due to climate change.
Back when CO2 was 10x what it is today the Sun was also 6-8% cooler than it is today. That's enough to make a significant difference in how hot it got.
I sense a lack of imagination in you. Yes we'll have to change our lifestyle but that doesn't necessarily mean going back to pre-industrial living, just different than the current lifestyle.
I'm not sure how good this news is. From the Guardian article:
The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.
So while the total amount of ice has remained relatively stable it appears the snowfall is moving up in elevation. As the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapor so a possible cause of the increase in ice at higher elevations is warmer temperatures carrying water vapor higher before it precipitates out. The news may ameliorate some of the concerns over the water delivered by glaciers to the lowlands but it doesn't appear to me to be evidence against global warming.
While nuclear power doesn't generate a lot of CO2 directly (ignoring the backup diesel generators) the mining, transport and processing of uranium does generate CO2 emissions.
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.
I don't dispute factcheck but the shenanigans of Harris put the whole thing in doubt. With all the problems you'd have to say statistically it was a tie.
Re:This is why a flat tax will not work.
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
Stock can also go down in price do you get a refund for that?
No but you can deduct any losses from your taxable income.
Actually he did get elected President. He won the popular vote and a study by the New York Times and several other press organizations found that a full recount of the Florida votes would have given the state and thus the Presidency to him. But the Supreme Court stepped in circumvented the normal process and installed Bush .
Slashdot Mirror
The denialists have won, and will win, until it's far too late (as it may already be).
You know what's sad about that is when the sh*t starts hitting the fan in large quantities they will be the first to place the blame others for the problem. Their motives are pure and their ideology is perfect so it couldn't e their fault.
On top of that, the implied #3 (GW is a bad thing) is also disputable.
The recent /. post on the Little Ice Age pointed out that all the effects of the Little Ice Age were caused by an average temperature drop of 1 degree Centigrade. Now with Global Warming we're talking about greater than 1 degree C of temperature rise. Why would you expect the effects from temperature rise to be any less drastic than they were with the drop?
Extrapolating from 0.075% of all glaciers may or may not be valid. It's strictly a statistical question. After all national polls use responses from 3,000 people to extrapolate the opinions of over 300,000,000 people with an error of +/- 5%. That's less than 0.001% of the population.
Guys like him don't really read any of that stuff with understanding. They never pay attention to the actual time scales involved. They just look at the worst case scenarios and assume it's all going to happen in some time frame that they can actually understand.
BY the way!!!!!!!! Can someone tell me why I cannot separate paragraphs while logged into my account?
While logged on click on "Account" at the top of the main page then the "Posting" tab then change "Comment Post Mode" to "Plain Old Text". Otherwise you have to use HTML tags to make your paragraphs.
Yes, global warming alarmism, the idea that we'll all have to reduce our standard of living back to pre-industrial levels, is politically motivated.
I think the mistaken idea that skepticisim is "disbelief by default" is easy to believe for people who do not practice that most important and useful part of skepticism, self-skeptcism.
That's an insightful point. In order to be a true skeptic you must be skeptical of yourself and your motivations as well.
And yet less than 3 feet in the last 4,000 years and less than 15 feet in the last 7,000+ years. See here.
People who say we have to drive civilization back to pre-industrial conditions are the real alarmists here. Certainly the future will be different. The Earth is a finite resource. If we don't become more sustainable we will at some point hit the wall and crash hard, that should be obvious to anyone. But I am optimistic that human ingenuity will provide us with answers to these problems.
How about the argument that only 10 years is statistically significant in determining a climate trend. The head of the CRU cautioned that it was too short a time. A recent paper said it takes 17 years before the temperature trend is sure to rise above the noise level of natural variability.
Warming because of increased greenhouse gases, primarily CO2, didn't take over until the 1960's/70's. Before that it was mostly increases in solar output. In 1960 the CO2 level was still only 320 ppmv, up 40 ppmv from 280 ppmv before the industrial revolution. Since then it's increased another 70 ppmv to 390 ppmv in 50 years.
At the best, our understanding is minimal.
I think your understanding of what climate scientists understand about climate is at best minimal. No climate scientist has said it's all going end in 20 years. What they generally say is it's going to continue to gradually get worse as time goes on until we stop increasing greenhouse gas levels.
Flooding in Bangladesh due to sea level rise is a feedback from global warming and therefore is caused by climate. A change in the pattern of droughts in Subsaharan Africa could also be due to climate change.
Back when CO2 was 10x what it is today the Sun was also 6-8% cooler than it is today. That's enough to make a significant difference in how hot it got.
I sense a lack of imagination in you. Yes we'll have to change our lifestyle but that doesn't necessarily mean going back to pre-industrial living, just different than the current lifestyle.
Nuclear power is one of the more expensive ways to produce electricity. Solar PV is already lower cost than nuclear.
He's talking about climate scientists specifically.
I'm not sure how good this news is. From the Guardian article:
The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the "third pole" – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.
So while the total amount of ice has remained relatively stable it appears the snowfall is moving up in elevation. As the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapor so a possible cause of the increase in ice at higher elevations is warmer temperatures carrying water vapor higher before it precipitates out. The news may ameliorate some of the concerns over the water delivered by glaciers to the lowlands but it doesn't appear to me to be evidence against global warming.
And you forgot to mention the low humidity. Most years there aren't more than 3 or 4 days where it's uncomfortably humid in Oregon.
A heat pump would use less electricity to produce the same amount of heat energy.
While nuclear power doesn't generate a lot of CO2 directly (ignoring the backup diesel generators) the mining, transport and processing of uranium does generate CO2 emissions.
Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.
I don't dispute factcheck but the shenanigans of Harris put the whole thing in doubt. With all the problems you'd have to say statistically it was a tie.
Stock can also go down in price do you get a refund for that?
No but you can deduct any losses from your taxable income.
Actually he did get elected President. He won the popular vote and a study by the New York Times and several other press organizations found that a full recount of the Florida votes would have given the state and thus the Presidency to him. But the Supreme Court stepped in circumvented the normal process and installed Bush .
+1 Funny