The increase in radiative forcing from the additional CO2 is greater than the reduction in radiative forcing from Milankovitch Cycles as they trend to cooler conditions that would initiate a new glaciation.
I'm perfectly happy to have you communicate your disapproval to your elected representatives. I'm not trying to prevent that at all. I just disagree that the program was a waste, that's all. Since the program has performed better than Congress budgeted it for the controversy over Solyndra had more to do with attacking Obama than anything else.
The public controls how public money is used mostly through their elected representatives, especially at the federal level. There are plenty of federal expenditures I don't like too but the program we're talking about isn't one of them. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
People have the right to do what they want with their money but if you live in a society and enjoy the benefits of that society you also owe something to help maintain those benefits.
By the way, 10% return over 20-25 years is utterly horrible. Not that it's clear where you got that percentage
It's still better than a negative return. And on top of the interest return you have people employed who pay taxes and participate in the national economy which is worth something.
The better than 10% came from the fact that the total program was somewhere around $43 billion. A $5 billion return on that would be 11.6%
It all depends on how the energy is distributed. On Venus it is pretty evenly distributed over the whole planet. On Earth that is not the case. I wouldn't put it as "more hurricanes/tornadoes" but rather as "more extreme weather events". For instance there is not much evidence for more hurricanes but there is some evidence that the ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) globally is increasing some, IOW the hurricanes are getting stronger.
Your standard reply on every climate change story is getting so cliched that nobody even bothers to mark you as a troll anymore. Why don't you try something different.
The thing is charlatans take scientists statements, strip the of context and blow them all out of proportion in order to build a straw man so they can say "Look, they were wrong". For instance "children in Britain would never see snow" morphed from "snow may become a rare and exciting event for British children".
People keep saying slowing global warming will be costly but they never consider that we would be spending nearly as much building conventional energy infrastructure as we would building renewable energy infrastructure. That's kind of what this report points out. The real cost of switching to renewables is not that great and probably actually negative if you consider the externalities of fossil fuel energy production.
The report states that the investments required for the inaction alternative were slightly larger than for the action alternative so Citibank makes money no matter which way you go.
You need to be careful to distinguish between chaos in weather and chaos in climate. The chaos in weather varies within the constraints that climate puts on it. Climate is more of an energy balance problem than an exercise in chaos on relatively short terms.
A Venusian sidereal day thus lasts longer than a Venusian year (243 versus 224.7 Earth days). Venus's equator rotates at 6.5 km/h (4.0 mph), whereas Earth's is approximately 1,670 km/h (1,040 mph).
That's from Wikipedia. Because of the slow rotation there is very little Coriolis effect to drive winds and weather. On top of that the the massive greenhouse effect on Venus keeps the temperature effectively isothermal (constant) over the whole planet from equator to the poles and on both the day and night sides.
So there is very little temperature difference on Venus to drive violent weather.
That said the density of the atmosphere at the surface (92 atmospheres) is so great that even a 5 mph wind could knock you down.
It sounds to me like your position is that the government shouldn't make loans with your tax dollars if there's any chance of it being lost. Period. Is that right?
But even though Solyndra's money was lost the entire program that included them is now expected to make $5 to $6 billion for the federal government over the life of the program. That's $5 or $6 billion more than they would have had otherwise and over 10% profit. So they haven't lost money.
As the article explains the program was there to fund worthy projects that VC's wouldn't especially in the aftermath of the 2008 crash. I'd say the bureaucrats judgement of risk was pretty good if the program's making a profit.
To some extent you're correct. People tend to pay much more attention to the short term immediate things to the detriment of longer term thinking. But I don't think climate scientists themselves fall into that trap. To them it's all just another small chunk of data to be added to the recorded history of weather that they analyze statistically to determine past climate.
Slashdot Mirror
The increase in radiative forcing from the additional CO2 is greater than the reduction in radiative forcing from Milankovitch Cycles as they trend to cooler conditions that would initiate a new glaciation.
ROTFLMAO. That's the first time I've ever been called a corporate shill.
I'm perfectly happy to have you communicate your disapproval to your elected representatives. I'm not trying to prevent that at all. I just disagree that the program was a waste, that's all. Since the program has performed better than Congress budgeted it for the controversy over Solyndra had more to do with attacking Obama than anything else.
No worries, the ice age is still on, in 3-10 thousand years (I think, it's been a while since I read the papers about it).
Only if the atmospheric CO2 level drops well below 300 ppm. Until that happens there will be no more glaciations (ice ages).
They're not going to use old growth* to make paper (except the trimmings). It's too valuable as lumber.
*At least not the old growth we have in Oregon.
ATM = "at the moment" in that context I believe.
I unplug (the power on) my cable modem when I'm not online to discourage anyone who might try to get into it.
No that's what you believe that the left actually believes.
The public controls how public money is used mostly through their elected representatives, especially at the federal level. There are plenty of federal expenditures I don't like too but the program we're talking about isn't one of them. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Snow has not become a rare event for British children.
Yet. But I suspect it's rarer for them than it was for their parents and grandparents.
Or you fail at getting your point across.
People have the right to do what they want with their money but if you live in a society and enjoy the benefits of that society you also owe something to help maintain those benefits.
By the way, 10% return over 20-25 years is utterly horrible. Not that it's clear where you got that percentage
It's still better than a negative return. And on top of the interest return you have people employed who pay taxes and participate in the national economy which is worth something.
The better than 10% came from the fact that the total program was somewhere around $43 billion. A $5 billion return on that would be 11.6%
It all depends on how the energy is distributed. On Venus it is pretty evenly distributed over the whole planet. On Earth that is not the case. I wouldn't put it as "more hurricanes/tornadoes" but rather as "more extreme weather events". For instance there is not much evidence for more hurricanes but there is some evidence that the ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) globally is increasing some, IOW the hurricanes are getting stronger.
Your standard reply on every climate change story is getting so cliched that nobody even bothers to mark you as a troll anymore. Why don't you try something different.
No, there will be no mini ice age. Warming will continue unless there is a massive volcanic eruption or the Sun does something completely unexpected.
The thing is charlatans take scientists statements, strip the of context and blow them all out of proportion in order to build a straw man so they can say "Look, they were wrong". For instance "children in Britain would never see snow" morphed from "snow may become a rare and exciting event for British children".
People keep saying slowing global warming will be costly but they never consider that we would be spending nearly as much building conventional energy infrastructure as we would building renewable energy infrastructure. That's kind of what this report points out. The real cost of switching to renewables is not that great and probably actually negative if you consider the externalities of fossil fuel energy production.
I recommend brown coal. It's much softer.
The report states that the investments required for the inaction alternative were slightly larger than for the action alternative so Citibank makes money no matter which way you go.
The report says the investment costs for the Action vs. Inaction options are nearly identical so I think Citibank would make money either way.
Only a hairsplitting grammar Nazi would complain about a process that reduces pH being called acidification regardless of where it is on the pH scale.
This is silly. Climate is a huge chaotic system.
You need to be careful to distinguish between chaos in weather and chaos in climate. The chaos in weather varies within the constraints that climate puts on it. Climate is more of an energy balance problem than an exercise in chaos on relatively short terms.
A Venusian sidereal day thus lasts longer than a Venusian year (243 versus 224.7 Earth days). Venus's equator rotates at 6.5 km/h (4.0 mph), whereas Earth's is approximately 1,670 km/h (1,040 mph).
That's from Wikipedia. Because of the slow rotation there is very little Coriolis effect to drive winds and weather. On top of that the the massive greenhouse effect on Venus keeps the temperature effectively isothermal (constant) over the whole planet from equator to the poles and on both the day and night sides.
So there is very little temperature difference on Venus to drive violent weather.
That said the density of the atmosphere at the surface (92 atmospheres) is so great that even a 5 mph wind could knock you down.
It sounds to me like your position is that the government shouldn't make loans with your tax dollars if there's any chance of it being lost. Period. Is that right?
But even though Solyndra's money was lost the entire program that included them is now expected to make $5 to $6 billion for the federal government over the life of the program. That's $5 or $6 billion more than they would have had otherwise and over 10% profit. So they haven't lost money.
Nov. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. expects to earn $5 billion to $6 billion from the federal program that funded flops including Solyndra LLC, bolstering President Barack Obama’s decision to back low-carbon technologies.
As the article explains the program was there to fund worthy projects that VC's wouldn't especially in the aftermath of the 2008 crash. I'd say the bureaucrats judgement of risk was pretty good if the program's making a profit.
The Atlantic hurricane seasons tend to be below normal when there is an El Nino as we have now.
To some extent you're correct. People tend to pay much more attention to the short term immediate things to the detriment of longer term thinking. But I don't think climate scientists themselves fall into that trap. To them it's all just another small chunk of data to be added to the recorded history of weather that they analyze statistically to determine past climate.