I would be willing to bet that coal power plants would likely be dominating in electric power production if it was laid open to a pure market where economics was dominating....
If coal power plants weren't allowed to externalize the cost of their pollution they'd disappear even faster.
Arctic sea ice extent minimum as measured by satellites has dropped from averaging over 7 million km^2 in the 1980s to mid 1990s to averaging under 5 million km^2 since 2007. Antarctic sea ice extent maximum has expanded by maybe 1 million km^2 lately. So total sea ice has dropped. The GRACE satellites have measured an average loss of 280 +- 58 Gt of ice per year from Greenland from 2003 to 2013 and 67 +- 44 Gt per year on Antarctic so they are losing ice. Most glaciers are losing ice as well.
Of course sea level is rising. The evidence is in satellite measurements and tide gauges all over the world. As the folks in Norfolk, VA and Miami, FL about nuisance flooding.
Solar flux has dropped from where it was in the late 2000s yet temperatures keep rising. We've been continuously monitoring solar output since the 1980s and there hasn't been enough variation in solar output to account for temperature changes.
The problem with shades for the Earth is that by reducing the sunlight that hits the Earth you also reduce the amount of photosynthesis that occurs. That would lower crop yields and the general productivity of the biosphere. Also it doesn't do anything to stop ocean acidification.
No sane reading of the Constitution limits the authority of Congress to only those explicitly mentioned in the document. Rather the authority is only limited by the explicit limitations written into the Constitution and Amendments. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to be flexible because they were wise enough to know they couldn't see all future circumstances.
Sometimes I think when we do something about these sorts of problems then the younger people coming up who didn't personally experience the problem tend to dismiss it as a problem. Having grown up in the 1950's and 1960's I'm well aware of how much air and water pollution was around back then and how much cleaner they are now but to someone born after 1980 it's not a real thing.
The same thing happens with the anti-vaxxers. My parents grew up in a world almost without vaccination and they weren't all that common when I was young. I had measles, rubella, chicken pox and whooping cough growing up and I knew people who were disabled by polio. The polio vaccine didn't come out until I was 6 years old and I remember how excited my parents were about it. But many of the anti-vaxxers grew up in a world where almost nobody got those diseases (because they'd been vaccinated) so they don't think it's that important.
I don't know what you can do about that because what you read in the history books doesn't seem that real since you didn't experience it yourself.
Congress through the acts that created the EPA and in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, etc. have set out general principles for the EPA to follow and delegating the details of implementing those principles to the Executive Branch and EPA. It's completely constitutional to delegate rule making such as this.
SCOTUS has said that the EPA has authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the acts of Congress. If Congress wants to change things they have to pass a new act and get the President to not veto it.
One of the ways the Federal Government encourages development of technologies is by passing regulations like this. They passed regulations on sulfur dioxide emissions to reduce acid rain and all the businesses were screaming about how much it was going to cost them yet a few years later they developed new technologies that allowed them to reduce the emissions at less cost than the original government estimate. Sometime technological development just needs a good kick in the butt like regulations to get moving.
Ok, you're right about NOAA. I was using the NASA/GISS terminology which is also used in the IPCC reports. As I said it's somewhat of a semantic argument.
The correct terminology is that climate models are used to make projections. They are called projections because the output is contingent on what path the real world follows in comparison to the RCPs which can't be predicted ahead of time. You could think of it as shorthand for "If the changes in greenhouse gases follow this RCP we predict this but if they follow that RCP we predict something else. Maybe it's a semantic argument but there it is.
The major climate models are as much as possible physical models, that is they model the physical processes in the atmosphere (and oceans) that make the climate what it is. The only use data such as temperatures, humidity, precipitation and wind serve is as something to compare to model output to see how well the model does.
There is the NASA/GISS ModelE, one of the leading GCMs that the IPCC reports are based on. You can download the source code (in FORTRAN I think), the documentation and other information at the link.
As far as altered data, there is very little "data" input in to climate models. The major ones like ModelE are physical models and in theory you could start them anywhere and they would evolve to a realistic climate rather quickly. As far as what's input into climate models they are obviously given a starting point. Then if you want to look at how changes in greenhouse gases affect the climate you would input various scenarios of changes in those gases over time (in the IPCC AR5 they are called RCPs or Representative Concentration Pathways). Some things in climate occur on a scale that's too small for grid sizes* that are practical so they can't be calculated in the model and they have to be parameterized. Clouds are an example of this. You could input a simulation of solar variation I suppose but it's varies so little and averages out over the longer time periods that models model that it's not necessary. Things like temperature, humidity, precipitation and wind are not input into the models but are emergent properties of them.
* Grid sizes are determined by how much computing power you have and how long you want a particular run to be. Here's a page that discusses resolution (both spatial and temporal) of climate models and how it's changed over time as more computing power was brought to bear.
You're kidding yourself if you think satellite temperatures are the least adjusted. The satellite data has to be adjusted for changes in instruments when new satellites are launched, the deterioration of the sensors over time, the changes in orbit of the satellite, the effects of clouds and high elevations on the data and no doubt other things I can't remember at the moment. The reason you like satellite temperatures is because they show something you want them to show.
We aren't talking about the seas rising by metres in our kids life times. Even the IPCC worst case scenario [www.ipcc.ch] projects sea level rise by 2100 as less than a metre, and that worst case has us accelerating our fossil fuel usage indefinitely.
Sea level could easily rise by a meter or more during the lifetime of some of the people alive today. In every new IPCC report the projected sea level rise is greater than in the previous report. There may be non-linear effects like the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that produce dramatic sea level rises in relatively short periods of time. It's an area where there is a lot of uncertainty but the uncertainty has a fat tail, that is the probability of greater than projected sea level rise is higher than less than projected sea level rise.
And you could do your part by not eating any plants or animals so the carbon they absorbed from the atmosphere doesn't get converted back into CO2 by you.
CO2 levels do not have any measurable impact on climate because the concentration in air is microscopical and statistically irrelevant,...
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 ppm. That's not a huge amount. But if I put you in a room with an airborne cyanide concentration of 270 ppm you would be dead within minutes. Just because something appears to be a minor component doesn't mean it can't have a serious effect.
Since the equation you're complaining about is essentially a zero dimension climate model it was never meant to be used in detail, just as a rough estimate for an idealized situation. The paper you found it in was published in 1981. It's old news now.
Slashdot Mirror
I would be willing to bet that coal power plants would likely be dominating in electric power production if it was laid open to a pure market where economics was dominating....
If coal power plants weren't allowed to externalize the cost of their pollution they'd disappear even faster.
The "position" is based on science. Nothing Gore does can weaken that.
Arctic sea ice extent minimum as measured by satellites has dropped from averaging over 7 million km^2 in the 1980s to mid 1990s to averaging under 5 million km^2 since 2007. Antarctic sea ice extent maximum has expanded by maybe 1 million km^2 lately. So total sea ice has dropped. The GRACE satellites have measured an average loss of 280 +- 58 Gt of ice per year from Greenland from 2003 to 2013 and 67 +- 44 Gt per year on Antarctic so they are losing ice. Most glaciers are losing ice as well.
Of course sea level is rising. The evidence is in satellite measurements and tide gauges all over the world. As the folks in Norfolk, VA and Miami, FL about nuisance flooding.
Solar flux has dropped from where it was in the late 2000s yet temperatures keep rising. We've been continuously monitoring solar output since the 1980s and there hasn't been enough variation in solar output to account for temperature changes.
But none of that matters to you, does it?
You know, it's the climate science deniers that pay more attention to Al Gore than the rest of us.
Well something is causing the temperatures to rise, ice to melt and sea levels to rise.
The only thing I'd call Matt Ridley and expert in is climate science denial. But he has motivation because his family owns coal mines.
The problem with shades for the Earth is that by reducing the sunlight that hits the Earth you also reduce the amount of photosynthesis that occurs. That would lower crop yields and the general productivity of the biosphere. Also it doesn't do anything to stop ocean acidification.
I laughed so hard I had to go change my shorts after I read that.
That summary sounds like something you'd read in The Onion.
No sane reading of the Constitution limits the authority of Congress to only those explicitly mentioned in the document. Rather the authority is only limited by the explicit limitations written into the Constitution and Amendments. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to be flexible because they were wise enough to know they couldn't see all future circumstances.
Most of the businesses that were screaming in this case were coal fired power plants. Kind of hard to move them to China.
Sometimes I think when we do something about these sorts of problems then the younger people coming up who didn't personally experience the problem tend to dismiss it as a problem. Having grown up in the 1950's and 1960's I'm well aware of how much air and water pollution was around back then and how much cleaner they are now but to someone born after 1980 it's not a real thing.
The same thing happens with the anti-vaxxers. My parents grew up in a world almost without vaccination and they weren't all that common when I was young. I had measles, rubella, chicken pox and whooping cough growing up and I knew people who were disabled by polio. The polio vaccine didn't come out until I was 6 years old and I remember how excited my parents were about it. But many of the anti-vaxxers grew up in a world where almost nobody got those diseases (because they'd been vaccinated) so they don't think it's that important.
I don't know what you can do about that because what you read in the history books doesn't seem that real since you didn't experience it yourself.
Congress through the acts that created the EPA and in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, etc. have set out general principles for the EPA to follow and delegating the details of implementing those principles to the Executive Branch and EPA. It's completely constitutional to delegate rule making such as this.
SCOTUS has said that the EPA has authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the acts of Congress. If Congress wants to change things they have to pass a new act and get the President to not veto it.
One of the ways the Federal Government encourages development of technologies is by passing regulations like this. They passed regulations on sulfur dioxide emissions to reduce acid rain and all the businesses were screaming about how much it was going to cost them yet a few years later they developed new technologies that allowed them to reduce the emissions at less cost than the original government estimate. Sometime technological development just needs a good kick in the butt like regulations to get moving.
Ok, you're right about NOAA. I was using the NASA/GISS terminology which is also used in the IPCC reports. As I said it's somewhat of a semantic argument.
The correct terminology is that climate models are used to make projections. They are called projections because the output is contingent on what path the real world follows in comparison to the RCPs which can't be predicted ahead of time. You could think of it as shorthand for "If the changes in greenhouse gases follow this RCP we predict this but if they follow that RCP we predict something else. Maybe it's a semantic argument but there it is.
The major climate models are as much as possible physical models, that is they model the physical processes in the atmosphere (and oceans) that make the climate what it is. The only use data such as temperatures, humidity, precipitation and wind serve is as something to compare to model output to see how well the model does.
There is the NASA/GISS ModelE, one of the leading GCMs that the IPCC reports are based on. You can download the source code (in FORTRAN I think), the documentation and other information at the link.
As far as altered data, there is very little "data" input in to climate models. The major ones like ModelE are physical models and in theory you could start them anywhere and they would evolve to a realistic climate rather quickly. As far as what's input into climate models they are obviously given a starting point. Then if you want to look at how changes in greenhouse gases affect the climate you would input various scenarios of changes in those gases over time (in the IPCC AR5 they are called RCPs or Representative Concentration Pathways). Some things in climate occur on a scale that's too small for grid sizes* that are practical so they can't be calculated in the model and they have to be parameterized. Clouds are an example of this. You could input a simulation of solar variation I suppose but it's varies so little and averages out over the longer time periods that models model that it's not necessary. Things like temperature, humidity, precipitation and wind are not input into the models but are emergent properties of them.
* Grid sizes are determined by how much computing power you have and how long you want a particular run to be. Here's a page that discusses resolution (both spatial and temporal) of climate models and how it's changed over time as more computing power was brought to bear.
Second they are the least adjusted.
You're kidding yourself if you think satellite temperatures are the least adjusted. The satellite data has to be adjusted for changes in instruments when new satellites are launched, the deterioration of the sensors over time, the changes in orbit of the satellite, the effects of clouds and high elevations on the data and no doubt other things I can't remember at the moment. The reason you like satellite temperatures is because they show something you want them to show.
We aren't talking about the seas rising by metres in our kids life times. Even the IPCC worst case scenario [www.ipcc.ch] projects sea level rise by 2100 as less than a metre, and that worst case has us accelerating our fossil fuel usage indefinitely.
Sea level could easily rise by a meter or more during the lifetime of some of the people alive today. In every new IPCC report the projected sea level rise is greater than in the previous report. There may be non-linear effects like the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet that produce dramatic sea level rises in relatively short periods of time. It's an area where there is a lot of uncertainty but the uncertainty has a fat tail, that is the probability of greater than projected sea level rise is higher than less than projected sea level rise.
Yeah, the Climategate quote mining episode really was a joke, wasn't it?
And you could do your part by not eating any plants or animals so the carbon they absorbed from the atmosphere doesn't get converted back into CO2 by you.
CO2 levels do not have any measurable impact on climate because the concentration in air is microscopical and statistically irrelevant, ...
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 400 ppm. That's not a huge amount. But if I put you in a room with an airborne cyanide concentration of 270 ppm you would be dead within minutes. Just because something appears to be a minor component doesn't mean it can't have a serious effect.
This is something James Hansen has been studying for over 40 years. May he knows something you don't.
Here's a link to a climate model you can run on a desktop computer: EdGCM
Since the equation you're complaining about is essentially a zero dimension climate model it was never meant to be used in detail, just as a rough estimate for an idealized situation. The paper you found it in was published in 1981. It's old news now.