I have nothing against nuclear power per se' but the economics of them don't appear to be very good. They'll have a hard time competing against solar PV and wind in the future.
No, the way Social Security works it will never run out of money as long as the US government continues to function. The may have to reduce the outlays below what's been promised but there will always be money coming in as long as payroll taxes are collected.
Here's what they said about it in the press release:
This NASA dataset integrates actual measurements from around the world with data from climate simulations created by the international Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. These climate simulations used the best physical models of the climate system available to provide forecasts of what the global climate might look like under two different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios: a “business as usual” scenario based on current trends and an “extreme case” with a significant increase in emissions.
If you dig around a bit you will find links to some but not all of the models used in the project. If you dig even deeper chances are you could get code for many of the other models from their original sources if you're nice to them.
NASA said 2014 was hottest year ever. But are only 38% confident it was 0.01 degree higher when you look at details.
And for the next most likely candidate for hottest year there was only 22% confidence. I think with the El Nino this year we'll probably be able to put to rest all such arguments.
NOAA just this week got caught manipulating historical data to remove the 18 year pause in global warming that keeps being brought up.
Or they were doing proper scientific analysis by normalizing the data from two disparate methods of data collection so they could combine them into one long term data set.
NOAA made an announcement 2014 was hottest year ever, then quietly corrected their web site when it was pointed out 1938 was hotter.
I think you'll find that is only for the contiguous US which is about 2% of the Earth's surface.
All the claims from IPCC have been 100% wrong every single time, and instead of admitting it they make more claims and ignore their previous failures.
If that's true how come I've never seen any scientifically valid debunking of them. Why don't you give some specifics with links to IPCC report in question and the evidence that shows it's wrong? (God, am I channeling mi now?) I'll admit that they've been wrong about some things. For instance observed sea level rise has always outpaced the IPCC predictions of it.
Hate to tell you, but you're stereotyping. There are plenty of skeptics who simply think the scientists involved have no good idea how to model the climate and that their attempts are crude at best, dismal at worst. The climate does seem to be getting warmer, but it doesn't take much to prove that. Everything else is half-baked, IMHO. Do we need to take drastic measures that will destroy the Western world's economy? Probably not.
Sorry but I'll take the word of actual scientists about how confident they are in their results. The fact that what they say can be checked against reality keeps them mostly honest.
Saying that responding will require "drastic measures that will destroy the Western world's economy" is hyperbolic alarmism. I've seen a number of economic analyses that peg the cost at 1 or 2% of gross world product. Even now the cost of wind and solar PV has come down enough to be competitive with more traditional power generation methods and they're still getting cheaper.
Have you dug into the supporting information about this release of information yet to verify the code for their models is not available or is that just a supposition on your part?
The problem is you think Phil Jones/CRU's issues override all of the data that others have collected independently of the CRU over the years. Even if you totally ignored all the work coming out of the CRU it wouldn't change the conclusions of other climate scientists around the world enough to matter.
Like the MB98 Hockey Stick Graph controversy it's a moldy old story that's been superseded by subsequent work. You need to quit living in the past.
Now if they'd only make available [1] the models (as in code)...
The code for many climate models is available if you care to take the time to look for it. For instance the NASA/GISS Model E code. Finding a supercomputer to run it on is a problem but you can scale it down to run on your PC if you like.
When I put a pot of water on the stove I can't predict accurately where the bubbles of water vapor will form when it comes to a boil but I can make a pretty good estimate of how long it will take to start boiling.
In order to get comprehensive coverage I think you'd be talking about thousands or tens of thousands of sites. And that needs to include the 70+% of the planet that is covered by oceans which means stationing ships there. I can't imagine the costs being less than in the multiple tens of millions of dollars.
Of course the source I cited does not suffer from the problem you cited. The CRU data is only a small part of their data. Maybe the original IPCC report was based largely on CRU data but that is no longer the case. If you think the whole global warming edifice falls apart if you don't use the CRU data you're dreaming.
Only surface data? What we need is the vertical temperature/pressure/humidity profiles. Whatever the spatial and temporal resolution at the surface, it is not enough to figure out what is going on. It is great that this data is made available, but it is simply not sufficient data. The vertical profiles from a few hundred places around the world at different latitudes and time of day would be much more useful.
Ok, who's going to pay for gathering all of that information? The amount of data collected is very much limited by the resources available to do the collection.
In my opinion, to conduct proper science on climatological measurements, the raw measurements should be available to all,...
Raw data is available on line. Most people are too lazy to look for it and even if they got it they wouldn't have a clue how to use it. The techniques used to make the adjustments are all out in the open too. Again, most people are too lazy or lack the technical knowledge to fully understand the adjustment methodology.
Complaining about lack of raw data or hidden adjustment methodology just shows you haven't taken the time to even investigate if those claims are founded on anything and are relying on someone else telling you that is true.
Here are the links for Berkeley Earth which is one of the more straightforward web sites to track down the data:
This particular vow may have been forgotten by then but the pressure to reduce and eventually eliminate fossil fuel burning will continue for the rest of your life. There's no getting away from the the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
Accurate thermometers have been available for over 200 years. Any problems with older temperature records have more to do with the methods of data collection than any inaccuracy in the instruments.
Sorry but what they've done in Holland won't work in Florida. The underlying layers in Florida are porous limestone and the sea will just come up from underneath. When the Floridians brought in some engineers from Holland they just shook their heads.
The problem is uncertainty. There is nowhere near enough certainty about if there actually is a problem, how bad it really is, and just what can effectively be done about it without risking destroying the only environment we have.
Uncertainty is not your friend. There may not be a lot of certainty about how bad the problem will be but there is no more certainty that it will not be that bad. Risk management principles tell you when the uncertainty is high the prudent course is to take steps to avoid the uncertainty.
Politicians/political groups, environmental activist groups, and others have thoroughly muddied and politicized the issue, destroyed/faked data, on and on, and have all but completely destroyed scientific credibility related to the climate in the eyes of the public.
The politicization of the the issue has mainly been from the contrarian side. They are using the same techniques that tobacco companies used to delay action against their products and some of them are the same people, Fred Singer for example. I've never seen any credible information about destroyed and/or faked data.
How many lives are you willing to sacrifice? How much proof would you require to sacrifice *your* life, or someone you love's life? It's easy to be OK with such things when you believe that *you* & yours will not have to sacrifice or suffer.
I could ask the same question of you. If some of the worst possible effects of global warming come to pass there will be a lot of death and disruption around the world. It could even cause the partial or complete collapse of our modern civilization. How many people should we sacrifice so fossil fuel companies can eek out the last bits of profit from their products?
I see, a lukewarmer. You must be extremely confident in your prediction of a century or two before AGW becomes a problem. If you're wrong we're in for a hell of a ride. By the time it's blindingly obvious to everybody it's way to late to stop some serious effects like multiple feet of sea level rise and the breakdown of permafrost in the Arctic.
Did you know that China actually used less coal last year than the year before? China is taking the problem seriously.
The numbers are just about quantifying the effects. Do you think if we didn't collect those observations the problem wouldn't exist? Meanwhile temperatures continue to rise, sea level continues to rise, ice continues to melt and the oceans continue to acidify.
Carbon emissions are everybody's problem, China is only one part of that and right now they're spending more on it than the US. In order to stop AGW everyone the world over has to reduce carbon emissions to a net zero. There really is no other answer.
Are the 3D-printing fanbois trying to ride on the Warmist's:"perceived-legitimacy" coattails, or is it the Wamists who are attempting to ride 3D-printing's "perceived-legitimacy" coattails?
Seems to be a lose-lose either way.
Strat
You know, the nice thing about being a "Warmist" is that we can just sit back and point out the things that are happening while people on the other side have to work hard to find the slightest little thing that might appear to support their position. I am very concerned about the future for human civilization but I have no concern at all that "Warmist" position will be found to have been wrong in the big picture.
All I can say is based on previous performance that IPCC projection is likely understating what the actual sea level rise will be as have all previous IPCC reports when compared to observations. What sort of evidence would it take to convince you (and khallow)?
Slashdot Mirror
I have nothing against nuclear power per se' but the economics of them don't appear to be very good. They'll have a hard time competing against solar PV and wind in the future.
No, the way Social Security works it will never run out of money as long as the US government continues to function. The may have to reduce the outlays below what's been promised but there will always be money coming in as long as payroll taxes are collected.
Here's what they said about it in the press release:
This NASA dataset integrates actual measurements from around the world with data from climate simulations created by the international Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. These climate simulations used the best physical models of the climate system available to provide forecasts of what the global climate might look like under two different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios: a “business as usual” scenario based on current trends and an “extreme case” with a significant increase in emissions.
The web site for the Fifth CMIP is here.
If you dig around a bit you will find links to some but not all of the models used in the project. If you dig even deeper chances are you could get code for many of the other models from their original sources if you're nice to them.
NASA said 2014 was hottest year ever. But are only 38% confident it was 0.01 degree higher when you look at details.
And for the next most likely candidate for hottest year there was only 22% confidence. I think with the El Nino this year we'll probably be able to put to rest all such arguments.
NOAA just this week got caught manipulating historical data to remove the 18 year pause in global warming that keeps being brought up.
Or they were doing proper scientific analysis by normalizing the data from two disparate methods of data collection so they could combine them into one long term data set.
NOAA made an announcement 2014 was hottest year ever, then quietly corrected their web site when it was pointed out 1938 was hotter.
I think you'll find that is only for the contiguous US which is about 2% of the Earth's surface.
All the claims from IPCC have been 100% wrong every single time, and instead of admitting it they make more claims and ignore their previous failures.
If that's true how come I've never seen any scientifically valid debunking of them. Why don't you give some specifics with links to IPCC report in question and the evidence that shows it's wrong? (God, am I channeling mi now?) I'll admit that they've been wrong about some things. For instance observed sea level rise has always outpaced the IPCC predictions of it.
Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?
It takes a lot of squinting to imagine the Earth's temperature has not been going up for the last 15 years.
Hate to tell you, but you're stereotyping. There are plenty of skeptics who simply think the scientists involved have no good idea how to model the climate and that their attempts are crude at best, dismal at worst. The climate does seem to be getting warmer, but it doesn't take much to prove that. Everything else is half-baked, IMHO. Do we need to take drastic measures that will destroy the Western world's economy? Probably not.
Sorry but I'll take the word of actual scientists about how confident they are in their results. The fact that what they say can be checked against reality keeps them mostly honest.
Saying that responding will require "drastic measures that will destroy the Western world's economy" is hyperbolic alarmism. I've seen a number of economic analyses that peg the cost at 1 or 2% of gross world product. Even now the cost of wind and solar PV has come down enough to be competitive with more traditional power generation methods and they're still getting cheaper.
Have you dug into the supporting information about this release of information yet to verify the code for their models is not available or is that just a supposition on your part?
The problem is you think Phil Jones/CRU's issues override all of the data that others have collected independently of the CRU over the years. Even if you totally ignored all the work coming out of the CRU it wouldn't change the conclusions of other climate scientists around the world enough to matter.
Like the MB98 Hockey Stick Graph controversy it's a moldy old story that's been superseded by subsequent work. You need to quit living in the past.
Now if they'd only make available [1] the models (as in code) ...
The code for many climate models is available if you care to take the time to look for it. For instance the NASA/GISS Model E code. Finding a supercomputer to run it on is a problem but you can scale it down to run on your PC if you like.
When I put a pot of water on the stove I can't predict accurately where the bubbles of water vapor will form when it comes to a boil but I can make a pretty good estimate of how long it will take to start boiling.
In order to get comprehensive coverage I think you'd be talking about thousands or tens of thousands of sites. And that needs to include the 70+% of the planet that is covered by oceans which means stationing ships there. I can't imagine the costs being less than in the multiple tens of millions of dollars.
Of course the source I cited does not suffer from the problem you cited. The CRU data is only a small part of their data. Maybe the original IPCC report was based largely on CRU data but that is no longer the case. If you think the whole global warming edifice falls apart if you don't use the CRU data you're dreaming.
Only surface data? What we need is the vertical temperature/pressure/humidity profiles. Whatever the spatial and temporal resolution at the surface, it is not enough to figure out what is going on. It is great that this data is made available, but it is simply not sufficient data. The vertical profiles from a few hundred places around the world at different latitudes and time of day would be much more useful.
Ok, who's going to pay for gathering all of that information? The amount of data collected is very much limited by the resources available to do the collection.
Why do I keep coming to /.?
Good question, especially when you think WUWT is a good source for information.
In my opinion, to conduct proper science on climatological measurements, the raw measurements should be available to all, ...
Raw data is available on line. Most people are too lazy to look for it and even if they got it they wouldn't have a clue how to use it. The techniques used to make the adjustments are all out in the open too. Again, most people are too lazy or lack the technical knowledge to fully understand the adjustment methodology.
Complaining about lack of raw data or hidden adjustment methodology just shows you haven't taken the time to even investigate if those claims are founded on anything and are relying on someone else telling you that is true.
Here are the links for Berkeley Earth which is one of the more straightforward web sites to track down the data:
Berkeley Earth - About the data set
Berkeley Earth - Source files
This particular vow may have been forgotten by then but the pressure to reduce and eventually eliminate fossil fuel burning will continue for the rest of your life. There's no getting away from the the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
Accurate thermometers have been available for over 200 years. Any problems with older temperature records have more to do with the methods of data collection than any inaccuracy in the instruments.
OK, I can see I'm dealing with a True Believer.
Back at ya.
Sorry but what they've done in Holland won't work in Florida. The underlying layers in Florida are porous limestone and the sea will just come up from underneath. When the Floridians brought in some engineers from Holland they just shook their heads.
The problem is uncertainty. There is nowhere near enough certainty about if there actually is a problem, how bad it really is, and just what can effectively be done about it without risking destroying the only environment we have.
Uncertainty is not your friend. There may not be a lot of certainty about how bad the problem will be but there is no more certainty that it will not be that bad. Risk management principles tell you when the uncertainty is high the prudent course is to take steps to avoid the uncertainty.
Politicians/political groups, environmental activist groups, and others have thoroughly muddied and politicized the issue, destroyed/faked data, on and on, and have all but completely destroyed scientific credibility related to the climate in the eyes of the public.
The politicization of the the issue has mainly been from the contrarian side. They are using the same techniques that tobacco companies used to delay action against their products and some of them are the same people, Fred Singer for example. I've never seen any credible information about destroyed and/or faked data.
How many lives are you willing to sacrifice? How much proof would you require to sacrifice *your* life, or someone you love's life? It's easy to be OK with such things when you believe that *you* & yours will not have to sacrifice or suffer.
I could ask the same question of you. If some of the worst possible effects of global warming come to pass there will be a lot of death and disruption around the world. It could even cause the partial or complete collapse of our modern civilization. How many people should we sacrifice so fossil fuel companies can eek out the last bits of profit from their products?
I see, a lukewarmer. You must be extremely confident in your prediction of a century or two before AGW becomes a problem. If you're wrong we're in for a hell of a ride. By the time it's blindingly obvious to everybody it's way to late to stop some serious effects like multiple feet of sea level rise and the breakdown of permafrost in the Arctic.
Did you know that China actually used less coal last year than the year before? China is taking the problem seriously.
The numbers are just about quantifying the effects. Do you think if we didn't collect those observations the problem wouldn't exist? Meanwhile temperatures continue to rise, sea level continues to rise, ice continues to melt and the oceans continue to acidify.
Carbon emissions are everybody's problem, China is only one part of that and right now they're spending more on it than the US. In order to stop AGW everyone the world over has to reduce carbon emissions to a net zero. There really is no other answer.
TFA is unclear.
Are the 3D-printing fanbois trying to ride on the Warmist's :"perceived-legitimacy" coattails, or is it the Wamists who are attempting to ride 3D-printing's "perceived-legitimacy" coattails?
Seems to be a lose-lose either way.
Strat
You know, the nice thing about being a "Warmist" is that we can just sit back and point out the things that are happening while people on the other side have to work hard to find the slightest little thing that might appear to support their position. I am very concerned about the future for human civilization but I have no concern at all that "Warmist" position will be found to have been wrong in the big picture.
All I can say is based on previous performance that IPCC projection is likely understating what the actual sea level rise will be as have all previous IPCC reports when compared to observations. What sort of evidence would it take to convince you (and khallow)?