See what I mean! You're getting all alarmed without evidence to back it up. Economic studies have found that to respond to the global warming threat would cost 2-3% of GDP. That's hardly destroying the economy. But the longer we wait to do something about it the more expensive it becomes. Living like cave men is just hyperbole. Yes, you may have to make some adjustment's to your lifestyle but that doesn't necessarily mean it's worse, just different.
You're making a political argument, not a scientific one. The fact is that solar PV power is on its way to being less expensive that coal power before 2020 so I'm not sure that Obama's statement in accurate any more. But in 2008 the reduction in cost of solar PV wasn't as evident at it is now. Of course fossil fuel power has all sorts of external costs that are not accounted for in the price of the energy it produces. If they were electricity rates would skyrocket even without switching to renewable energy.
Why don't you compare a raw dataset to the adjusted dataset. You will find that there isn't that much difference between the two and the difference isn't enough to change the conclusions. In the BEST study they state that whenever possible they have used the raw data. You can run down the adjusted data all you want but until you show scientifically that the adjustments are invalid you don't have a leg to stand on.
Yes, like "ignore that man's research, it was funded by an oil company and his opinion was bought".
I'd like to see an instance of an actual climate scientist saying something like that. Contrarian researchers such as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen get a serious response from other climate scientists. Why should they waste their time responding to people without the training to make a serious argument?
Well, the ones who have recognized the zealous claims that "humans are the cause" based on correlation and not causation...
Correlation my ass. That statement just shows how little you know of the actual science. CO2 was first shown to absorb IR radiation in the 1820's by Fourier and the effect was quantified by Tyndall in the 1850's. In 1898 Arrhenius first stated that rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere would lead to global warming (he thought it would be a good thing). Since then more details have been fleshed out. That the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions is shown by the change in the C12/C13 ratio in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels have a higher C12/C13 ratio than the atmosphere and the change of ratio in the atmosphere supports the fact that the increase is due to emissions from fossil fuels. Just the fact that the year to year rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is about 43% of human emissions is further evidence for a human cause. The fact that the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere warms is evidence that the warming is due to greenhouse gas increases. If the warming was due to the Sun the stratosphere would warm along with the troposphere. Comparison of the spectrum of emitted IR radiation at the surface and from orbit clearly shows the signature of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I could go on but that is all hard evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
There are true skeptics like Richard Mueller who once they see the actual science are willing to be convinced otherwise. Then there are deniers whose objections are ideological in nature. They don't like the implications of the science so they attack it with pseudo-science and trying to tear down their opponents.
There's truth in your statement. Another factor is that in my younger days I lived and breathed this stuff and as I've aged my interests have broadened so I don't spend as much time on it now.
Except that global warming is already affecting this generation. For most though it's in subtle ways that are easy to dismiss for most people but that won't last forever. And even if we were to get serious about it now it will 40 or 50 years before things start to stabilize.
The global warming alarmists are those who say we'll destroy the economy and go back to living like cave men in order to respond to anthropogenic global warming.
When you first talk about "massive wealth redistribution", "crippling industries and economies" and "massive lowering of lifestyle" it's a pretty sure bet that your objections are more ideological than scientific.
Consensus in science is what happens when the scientists quit arguing about a subject and move on to other things. It's not something that anyone campaigns for.
The only ones talking about religion and heretics are those opposed to the findings of climate science. When you can't come up with actual science to refute the findings all you are left with is tearing down the other side.
Although of course, if you do want to play the money game, the best way to play against the content industry is to not buy their crap.
That sounds good on the surface but too many people will continue to buy their crap anyway because they are basically clueless about the issues involved.
Nome started out as a gold rush town (although there were Inupiat in the vicinity before). You could pan gold straight out of the beach sand, deposited there by the Yukon River.
It takes a different kind of person to live in Nome but it's probably better for the rest of us that they do.
I think you are right. Unless a volcano is ready to erupt anyway it's not going to erupt from this drilling. And if it's ready to erupt there isn't anything we can do about it
Being and Oregonian and having spent time at Mount Newberry I've been following this stuff since it was first proposed in the 1980's. Drilling into molten magma is not something that would work for this project and even if they did hit magma the drill hole is so small it would plug up before it could develop into a volcano. If there's enough pressure in the magma to cause an eruption it will find its way out naturally.
Yes, maybe in about 1 billion years. I think though that geologists have figured out that the Earth's core won't solidify before the Sun expands to engulf the Earth in 4 billion + years.
Most of Oregon east of the Cascade Mountains is quite arid. It's called the High Desert for a reason. Oregon has a reputation for being rainy and wet but that's only west of the Cascades, only about 1/3 of the area of the state.
Slashdot Mirror
See what I mean! You're getting all alarmed without evidence to back it up. Economic studies have found that to respond to the global warming threat would cost 2-3% of GDP. That's hardly destroying the economy. But the longer we wait to do something about it the more expensive it becomes. Living like cave men is just hyperbole. Yes, you may have to make some adjustment's to your lifestyle but that doesn't necessarily mean it's worse, just different.
You're making a political argument, not a scientific one. The fact is that solar PV power is on its way to being less expensive that coal power before 2020 so I'm not sure that Obama's statement in accurate any more. But in 2008 the reduction in cost of solar PV wasn't as evident at it is now. Of course fossil fuel power has all sorts of external costs that are not accounted for in the price of the energy it produces. If they were electricity rates would skyrocket even without switching to renewable energy.
Why don't you compare a raw dataset to the adjusted dataset. You will find that there isn't that much difference between the two and the difference isn't enough to change the conclusions. In the BEST study they state that whenever possible they have used the raw data. You can run down the adjusted data all you want but until you show scientifically that the adjustments are invalid you don't have a leg to stand on.
Yes, like "ignore that man's research, it was funded by an oil company and his opinion was bought".
I'd like to see an instance of an actual climate scientist saying something like that. Contrarian researchers such as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen get a serious response from other climate scientists. Why should they waste their time responding to people without the training to make a serious argument?
Well, the ones who have recognized the zealous claims that "humans are the cause" based on correlation and not causation ...
Correlation my ass. That statement just shows how little you know of the actual science. CO2 was first shown to absorb IR radiation in the 1820's by Fourier and the effect was quantified by Tyndall in the 1850's. In 1898 Arrhenius first stated that rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere would lead to global warming (he thought it would be a good thing). Since then more details have been fleshed out. That the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions is shown by the change in the C12/C13 ratio in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels have a higher C12/C13 ratio than the atmosphere and the change of ratio in the atmosphere supports the fact that the increase is due to emissions from fossil fuels. Just the fact that the year to year rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is about 43% of human emissions is further evidence for a human cause. The fact that the stratosphere is cooling while the troposphere warms is evidence that the warming is due to greenhouse gas increases. If the warming was due to the Sun the stratosphere would warm along with the troposphere. Comparison of the spectrum of emitted IR radiation at the surface and from orbit clearly shows the signature of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I could go on but that is all hard evidence for anthropogenic global warming.
There are true skeptics like Richard Mueller who once they see the actual science are willing to be convinced otherwise. Then there are deniers whose objections are ideological in nature. They don't like the implications of the science so they attack it with pseudo-science and trying to tear down their opponents.
There's truth in your statement. Another factor is that in my younger days I lived and breathed this stuff and as I've aged my interests have broadened so I don't spend as much time on it now.
Most raw data and source code is available and has been for several years. To claim otherwise is to show your ignorance. You can start here.
As for methodologies, read the scientific papers.
1) In the 70s time (sic) magazine had this big story they had on the magazine cover talking about how we were heading into a new ice age.
Wait! Time magazine is a peer reviewed scientific journal? Thanks for the update.
Too bad the world is as simple as you seem to think it is.
Except that global warming is already affecting this generation. For most though it's in subtle ways that are easy to dismiss for most people but that won't last forever. And even if we were to get serious about it now it will 40 or 50 years before things start to stabilize.
The global warming alarmists are those who say we'll destroy the economy and go back to living like cave men in order to respond to anthropogenic global warming.
When you first talk about "massive wealth redistribution", "crippling industries and economies" and "massive lowering of lifestyle" it's a pretty sure bet that your objections are more ideological than scientific.
Consensus in science is what happens when the scientists quit arguing about a subject and move on to other things. It's not something that anyone campaigns for.
A better link than HuffPo is straight from the horses mouth:
http://berkeleyearth.org/
In particular look at the findings page.
The only ones talking about religion and heretics are those opposed to the findings of climate science. When you can't come up with actual science to refute the findings all you are left with is tearing down the other side.
Although of course, if you do want to play the money game, the best way to play against the content industry is to not buy their crap.
That sounds good on the surface but too many people will continue to buy their crap anyway because they are basically clueless about the issues involved.
Nome started out as a gold rush town (although there were Inupiat in the vicinity before). You could pan gold straight out of the beach sand, deposited there by the Yukon River.
It takes a different kind of person to live in Nome but it's probably better for the rest of us that they do.
Posting flamebait on /. crime against humanity, shoot on sight.
I think you are right. Unless a volcano is ready to erupt anyway it's not going to erupt from this drilling. And if it's ready to erupt there isn't anything we can do about it
I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night.
Being and Oregonian and having spent time at Mount Newberry I've been following this stuff since it was first proposed in the 1980's. Drilling into molten magma is not something that would work for this project and even if they did hit magma the drill hole is so small it would plug up before it could develop into a volcano. If there's enough pressure in the magma to cause an eruption it will find its way out naturally.
It's possible the drilling site is outside of the National Monument boundaries and in the National Forest instead.
Yes, maybe in about 1 billion years. I think though that geologists have figured out that the Earth's core won't solidify before the Sun expands to engulf the Earth in 4 billion + years.
Cloudiness doesn't stop solar energy from being gathered. It just slows it down some.
Humans are the most interesting thing to have ever happened to Earth.
I'm not sure it's valid for the subject of the interest to make that judgement.
Most of Oregon east of the Cascade Mountains is quite arid. It's called the High Desert for a reason. Oregon has a reputation for being rainy and wet but that's only west of the Cascades, only about 1/3 of the area of the state.
The closest coal station to there is over 200 miles away across several mountain ranges and it's slated to be closed down by 2020.
They still have to deal with all of the dissolved minerals that steam will bring up.