The evidence shows convincingly that yours is the side of the debate reliably proven to get the facts wrong.
No, the evidence show convincingly that your side of the debate only reads the headlines and ignores the details then spins the information. For instance that NewAmerican piece changes a lot of "coulds" into "woulds". Many of the claims in the WUWT piece ignore the time frames put on the projections and say that since it hasn't happened yet then it's wrong.
The NewAmerican piece goes on at great length about global cooling in the 1970s but when you look at the actual scientific literature there were around 6 times as many published papers on global warming than there were about global cooling. As far as temperature projections the observed temperatures are still falling within the range (including uncertainty) of the climate model projections. Regarding snow there has been an increase in autumnal snow cover but that doesn't make up for the fact that snow cover in the spring is falling. I could go on but why bother. You're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what the evidence actually shows.
Statistics are used to understand the output of GCMs (Global Climate Models or General Circulation Models) but they have nothing to do with the projections of GCMs which are based on the actual physics of the climate system.
Sheesh! Did you do anything but read the headline on that "theconversation" piece? His feelings about science have evolved but no where in that piece did he "admit" that climate science is not an actual science. As far as the HuffPo piece, yes, some people are like that but so what? It certainly doesn't describe me. If you don't have a good understanding of science and how it works you're basically just stuck with listening to the experts for what you should think. Anything else is just fooling yourself. And regarding the "thepeoplescube" piece it's just a straw man argument about how doing anything about global warming requires that we destroy capitalism. It has little connection with reality.
You obviously haven't read the IPCC summaries because they never predicted what SirAstral wrote in time frames that include 2018. Too many guys like you read the headline but fail to look at the details like how long the changes are going to take.
The problem with climate change and tipping points is that it's in such slow motion compared to human time scales that you may not recognize that you've passed the tipping point until it's way too late to do anything about it. For instance the warming melts ice but not instantaneously. It will take several hundred years for the ice melt to catch up with the warming that's already occurred and by the time it does you've got 10-20 feet of sea level rise (or more) to deal with. Yeah, the rate of rise will be slow enough to retreat in a fairly orderly fashion but it's going to happen and you won't be able to do a damned thing about it.
Yes, we can do something to reduce solar irradiation but that doesn't do anything to slow down ocean acidification which may end up being as big a problem as global warming plus reducing solar irradiation will also reduce the amount of photosynthesis going on which doesn't help either.
What we should not worry about is runaway heating, because history has shown some built-in feedback mechanism that eventually reverses the trend. The next ice age is probably inevitable; we might as well enjoy the temperate climate while we can.
It's not some built in feedback mechanism that has been driving the cycle of glaciations/interglacials lately. Milankovitch cycles are the apparent triggering mechanism for the changes. After that then feedbacks do have an effect on the magnitude of the changes but it's not a feedback that initiates the changes. As far as the end of our interglacial and the start of the next glacial period climate scientists have calculated that CO2 levels would have to drop down to around 240 ppm for that to happen. So as long as CO2 levels are above 300 ppm we don't have to worry about the next ice age.
Considering that the original hockey stick model only came out about 20 years ago in 1998 it sounds like your complaint is just hyperbolic bullshit.
The hockey stick of temperature rise is happening all around us currently. The steepness of the current rise looks dramatic on the graph compared to the relatively mild temperature changes that came before it but it's still only around 0.2 degrees per decade which doesn't seem that dramatic on human time scales. But it is a pretty dramatic change on geological time scales and far beyond the pace of change that the natural world can keep up with without substantial disruption.
It was much warmer than this before. Then it cooled. Therefore the "irreversible" claim has already been falsified.
The irreversible part is that it's going to get a lot warmer and we can't prevent that from happening (without taking some pretty drastic measures in the next decade or two). Not that it will never cool down again. On human time scales you might as well call it irreversible because it will be many generations before it really starts cooling again.
So tell us, which one of your doomsday scenarios have come truth yet? Ice Caps should have been melted like two times over, a couple of cities are supposed to be under water by now, and little baby seals should be clubbing themselves due to going nuts from all the extra heat they have to experience.
If you believe those were actual scientific predictions you're just listening to hyperbolic rants from climate science deniers, not any actual scientific predictions.
But this guy was appointed to the FCC board by the previous administration. We shouldn't forget that fact.
Given the fact that of the 5 members of the FCC board no more than 3 of them can be from one party the previous administration didn't have much choice in accepting Pai for the commission. I guess they could have rejected him but it would have caused more political outcry than it would have been worth and they would have got someone similar anyway.
After 33 years of among other things running the various ERP systems at the company I worked for they phased out the last one for the fancy new system that the large company that had bought us 12 years earlier had finally gotten working well enough to bring my subsidiary into the fold. The timing was nearly ideal because I was ready to retire anyway at 64 years of age. Now I'm enjoying not getting up and going to work every day and being a able to spend my time as I see fit.
None of the things you bring up were actual scientific predictions in the context of peer reviewed science so I don't take them as examples of wrong predictions by scientists.
As far as the Reason.com article, yes there are some alarmists around who say unwarranted things but I tend to take them with a grain of salt. Some of the things mentioned in the Reason.com article didn't happen because we actually took action to prevent them from happening. Some of the things may still come to pass as it takes time for the effects to fully manifest themselves.
Regarding the second one, the reporter asked James Hansen what would happen in 40 years assuming that CO2 levels doubled.
Bob Reiss: “When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2.”
Hansen speculated that the highway outside of his office would be underwater. Of course CO2 has not doubled but if/when it does I expect that highway will be underwater sooner or later as the polar ice continues to melt.
So, I tend to pay more attention to the actual scientific predictions that are made and so far they seem to getting it mostly right.
... And since the predictions that have past, have not only be wrong, but VERY wrong...
If that's the case it should be no problem for you to cite several specific examples of these wrong predictions. I'm having trouble coming up with any examples so I'd appreciate you showing me the way.
But the longer you measure, and we haven't been measuring that long, you statistically expect new highs. That's just how the math works. You need wide-spread and decades-long measurements to make a conclusion.
If there were no long term temperature trend you would expect to get as many new record lows as new record highs. Instead what we see is record highs outnumbering record lows by close to 2 to 1 since the year 2000.
And even more dramatic is the number of record high daily lows. That is the overnight low temperatures are going up even more comparatively than the daily high temperatures. It's difficult to find data for that but in the first half of 2015 record high daily lows outnumbered record low daily lows by 6 to 1.
As far as sea level rise goes it's already too late to do much about it. It will take centuries for the big ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica to catch up with the warming that's already happened. I'd be surprised if 500 years from now sea level hasn't risen by at least 10 or 20 feet. The last time CO2 levels were over 400 ppm sea level was over 70 feet higher than it currently is. It may just be a matter of how long it takes to get there.
Given the economics of building nuclear power plants they don't have a chance against other more cost effective means of building power plants. Unless you're willing to give massive subsidies to nuclear power it can't compete. The free market won't even make loans to build a nuclear power plant unless it's backed by government loan guarantees.
Ack! You've got me figured out! I am a bit of a hermit, I'm retired and single living in a 3 bedroom house with 2 cats. I do live within my means but I'm not off the grid (Why would I need a dryer switch if I was off the grid? I'd be hanging my clothes out to dry.)
I use cash for anything up into the $200-$300 range, maybe higher than that if I plan ahead. That way they don't get any tracking information from me. I recently had to break down and order a dryer door switch on-line after not being able to find it locally. After that I kept getting advertisements for dry door switches. How many of them do they think I need?
It's good that he's gone but I doubt whoever replaces him will be any better at the job except for being more competent at avoiding most of the ridiculous scandals that Pruitt perpetrated. He treated the job as if it was his to fulfill his dreams of being in charge of his own personal kingdom. The guy was out of control spending money on personal protection that shouldn't be warranted for someone in his position. I mean who spends $43,000 on a cone of silence?
I would propose an online clearinghouse funded by the taxing districts that after you give it the information it needs calculates the taxes owed. Then the vendor collects the tax and forwards it to the clearinghouse which takes care of distributing it to the various taxing districts.
Imagine a service available for free to any U.S. retailer where they simply feed the shipping address into the service along with a description of the product and it produces a total tax amount, an itemized description of all taxes being applied that can be given to the customer, and information regarding where the collected taxes should be sent. There may be some privacy concerns, but I see no reason why this service couldn't be run locally on a merchant's system and periodically pull updates from a central location.
I've felt for a long time that the various sales taxing authorities should do something like this. Get together and create a nationwide online sales tax clearinghouse where you feed it the necessary information and it calculates the taxes owed. Then the vendor collects the tax and forwards it to the clearinghouse which takes care of distributing it to the various taxing districts. It would be paid for by using a small percentage of the taxes paid to run the system. That makes it simple for the vendor and the taxing districts are responsible for keeping the clearinghouse updated with their changes. The current system is an unfair competitive advantage to online vendors.
Hmm... you didn't bother reading the story, did you?
In its home in Korea, Samsung plans to install 42,000 meters of solar panels at its headquarters, and will continue to add approximately 21,000 meters of solar arrays and geothermal power generation facilities beginning in 2019 at its satellite campuses in Pyeongtaek and Hwaseong.
Slashdot Mirror
The evidence shows convincingly that yours is the side of the debate reliably proven to get the facts wrong.
No, the evidence show convincingly that your side of the debate only reads the headlines and ignores the details then spins the information. For instance that NewAmerican piece changes a lot of "coulds" into "woulds". Many of the claims in the WUWT piece ignore the time frames put on the projections and say that since it hasn't happened yet then it's wrong.
The NewAmerican piece goes on at great length about global cooling in the 1970s but when you look at the actual scientific literature there were around 6 times as many published papers on global warming than there were about global cooling. As far as temperature projections the observed temperatures are still falling within the range (including uncertainty) of the climate model projections. Regarding snow there has been an increase in autumnal snow cover but that doesn't make up for the fact that snow cover in the spring is falling. I could go on but why bother. You're going to believe what you want to believe regardless of what the evidence actually shows.
Statistics are used to understand the output of GCMs (Global Climate Models or General Circulation Models) but they have nothing to do with the projections of GCMs which are based on the actual physics of the climate system.
Sheesh! Did you do anything but read the headline on that "theconversation" piece? His feelings about science have evolved but no where in that piece did he "admit" that climate science is not an actual science. As far as the HuffPo piece, yes, some people are like that but so what? It certainly doesn't describe me. If you don't have a good understanding of science and how it works you're basically just stuck with listening to the experts for what you should think. Anything else is just fooling yourself. And regarding the "thepeoplescube" piece it's just a straw man argument about how doing anything about global warming requires that we destroy capitalism. It has little connection with reality.
You obviously haven't read the IPCC summaries because they never predicted what SirAstral wrote in time frames that include 2018. Too many guys like you read the headline but fail to look at the details like how long the changes are going to take.
The problem with climate change and tipping points is that it's in such slow motion compared to human time scales that you may not recognize that you've passed the tipping point until it's way too late to do anything about it. For instance the warming melts ice but not instantaneously. It will take several hundred years for the ice melt to catch up with the warming that's already occurred and by the time it does you've got 10-20 feet of sea level rise (or more) to deal with. Yeah, the rate of rise will be slow enough to retreat in a fairly orderly fashion but it's going to happen and you won't be able to do a damned thing about it.
Yes, we can do something to reduce solar irradiation but that doesn't do anything to slow down ocean acidification which may end up being as big a problem as global warming plus reducing solar irradiation will also reduce the amount of photosynthesis going on which doesn't help either.
What we should not worry about is runaway heating, because history has shown some built-in feedback mechanism that eventually reverses the trend. The next ice age is probably inevitable; we might as well enjoy the temperate climate while we can.
It's not some built in feedback mechanism that has been driving the cycle of glaciations/interglacials lately. Milankovitch cycles are the apparent triggering mechanism for the changes. After that then feedbacks do have an effect on the magnitude of the changes but it's not a feedback that initiates the changes. As far as the end of our interglacial and the start of the next glacial period climate scientists have calculated that CO2 levels would have to drop down to around 240 ppm for that to happen. So as long as CO2 levels are above 300 ppm we don't have to worry about the next ice age.
Considering that the original hockey stick model only came out about 20 years ago in 1998 it sounds like your complaint is just hyperbolic bullshit.
The hockey stick of temperature rise is happening all around us currently. The steepness of the current rise looks dramatic on the graph compared to the relatively mild temperature changes that came before it but it's still only around 0.2 degrees per decade which doesn't seem that dramatic on human time scales. But it is a pretty dramatic change on geological time scales and far beyond the pace of change that the natural world can keep up with without substantial disruption.
I don't see how statistical models applies here. The main climate models are physical models, not statistical models.
It was much warmer than this before. Then it cooled. Therefore the "irreversible" claim has already been falsified.
The irreversible part is that it's going to get a lot warmer and we can't prevent that from happening (without taking some pretty drastic measures in the next decade or two). Not that it will never cool down again. On human time scales you might as well call it irreversible because it will be many generations before it really starts cooling again.
So tell us, which one of your doomsday scenarios have come truth yet? Ice Caps should have been melted like two times over, a couple of cities are supposed to be under water by now, and little baby seals should be clubbing themselves due to going nuts from all the extra heat they have to experience.
If you believe those were actual scientific predictions you're just listening to hyperbolic rants from climate science deniers, not any actual scientific predictions.
But this guy was appointed to the FCC board by the previous administration. We shouldn't forget that fact.
Given the fact that of the 5 members of the FCC board no more than 3 of them can be from one party the previous administration didn't have much choice in accepting Pai for the commission. I guess they could have rejected him but it would have caused more political outcry than it would have been worth and they would have got someone similar anyway.
After 33 years of among other things running the various ERP systems at the company I worked for they phased out the last one for the fancy new system that the large company that had bought us 12 years earlier had finally gotten working well enough to bring my subsidiary into the fold. The timing was nearly ideal because I was ready to retire anyway at 64 years of age. Now I'm enjoying not getting up and going to work every day and being a able to spend my time as I see fit.
None of the things you bring up were actual scientific predictions in the context of peer reviewed science so I don't take them as examples of wrong predictions by scientists.
As far as the Reason.com article, yes there are some alarmists around who say unwarranted things but I tend to take them with a grain of salt. Some of the things mentioned in the Reason.com article didn't happen because we actually took action to prevent them from happening. Some of the things may still come to pass as it takes time for the effects to fully manifest themselves.
Regarding the second one, the reporter asked James Hansen what would happen in 40 years assuming that CO2 levels doubled.
Bob Reiss: “When I interviewed James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2.”
Hansen speculated that the highway outside of his office would be underwater. Of course CO2 has not doubled but if/when it does I expect that highway will be underwater sooner or later as the polar ice continues to melt.
So, I tend to pay more attention to the actual scientific predictions that are made and so far they seem to getting it mostly right.
If that's the case it should be no problem for you to cite several specific examples of these wrong predictions. I'm having trouble coming up with any examples so I'd appreciate you showing me the way.
But the longer you measure, and we haven't been measuring that long, you statistically expect new highs. That's just how the math works. You need wide-spread and decades-long measurements to make a conclusion.
If there were no long term temperature trend you would expect to get as many new record lows as new record highs. Instead what we see is record highs outnumbering record lows by close to 2 to 1 since the year 2000.
And even more dramatic is the number of record high daily lows. That is the overnight low temperatures are going up even more comparatively than the daily high temperatures. It's difficult to find data for that but in the first half of 2015 record high daily lows outnumbered record low daily lows by 6 to 1.
As far as sea level rise goes it's already too late to do much about it. It will take centuries for the big ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica to catch up with the warming that's already happened. I'd be surprised if 500 years from now sea level hasn't risen by at least 10 or 20 feet. The last time CO2 levels were over 400 ppm sea level was over 70 feet higher than it currently is. It may just be a matter of how long it takes to get there.
Given the economics of building nuclear power plants they don't have a chance against other more cost effective means of building power plants. Unless you're willing to give massive subsidies to nuclear power it can't compete. The free market won't even make loans to build a nuclear power plant unless it's backed by government loan guarantees.
Ack! You've got me figured out! I am a bit of a hermit, I'm retired and single living in a 3 bedroom house with 2 cats. I do live within my means but I'm not off the grid (Why would I need a dryer switch if I was off the grid? I'd be hanging my clothes out to dry.)
I use cash for anything up into the $200-$300 range, maybe higher than that if I plan ahead. That way they don't get any tracking information from me. I recently had to break down and order a dryer door switch on-line after not being able to find it locally. After that I kept getting advertisements for dry door switches. How many of them do they think I need?
It's good that he's gone but I doubt whoever replaces him will be any better at the job except for being more competent at avoiding most of the ridiculous scandals that Pruitt perpetrated. He treated the job as if it was his to fulfill his dreams of being in charge of his own personal kingdom. The guy was out of control spending money on personal protection that shouldn't be warranted for someone in his position. I mean who spends $43,000 on a cone of silence?
I would propose an online clearinghouse funded by the taxing districts that after you give it the information it needs calculates the taxes owed. Then the vendor collects the tax and forwards it to the clearinghouse which takes care of distributing it to the various taxing districts.
Imagine a service available for free to any U.S. retailer where they simply feed the shipping address into the service along with a description of the product and it produces a total tax amount, an itemized description of all taxes being applied that can be given to the customer, and information regarding where the collected taxes should be sent. There may be some privacy concerns, but I see no reason why this service couldn't be run locally on a merchant's system and periodically pull updates from a central location.
I've felt for a long time that the various sales taxing authorities should do something like this. Get together and create a nationwide online sales tax clearinghouse where you feed it the necessary information and it calculates the taxes owed. Then the vendor collects the tax and forwards it to the clearinghouse which takes care of distributing it to the various taxing districts. It would be paid for by using a small percentage of the taxes paid to run the system. That makes it simple for the vendor and the taxing districts are responsible for keeping the clearinghouse updated with their changes. The current system is an unfair competitive advantage to online vendors.
What the Hell does this have to do with Reagan? He was a Conservative and a Republican. A real one.
By today's Republican standards Reagan would be a RINO.
Hmm... you didn't bother reading the story, did you?
In its home in Korea, Samsung plans to install 42,000 meters of solar panels at its headquarters, and will continue to add approximately 21,000 meters of solar arrays and geothermal power generation facilities beginning in 2019 at its satellite campuses in Pyeongtaek and Hwaseong.