Most all "carbon dating" is absolute fiction. You cannot carbon date something that was never alive. They just pull most of these numbers out of their butts. It is completely unknowable.
That's why they use other forms of radiometric dating to date things that are too old for carbon dating.
My understanding is that we are in an Interglacial Period and we would expect things to warm naturally.
The warmth of the current interglacial period hit a peak 6,000-8,000 years ago and has been declining ever since (until recently). The decline in temperatures is what you'd expect to see given the current state of the cycles of the various components of Milankovitch Cycles. Something has overridden the Milankovitch Cycles.
James Taylor is an idiot and the story is bullshit. The time to gauge how Arctic sea ice is doing is in September at the sea ice minimum. Arctic sea ice doesn't vary a whole lot in the winter and spring because it's constrained by the surrounding continents. Nevertheless since February it's been setting records for minimum extent for that date.
You could probably say that both sides want your money, just in different ways. But if you're concern about money colors your attitude about the science you're doing it backwards. You can't change the scientific reality and if scientists are even in the ballpark about the effects the reality of anthropogenic global warming is going to cost you a whole lot more than doing something to avoid it.
As far as the cost to the average person it's maybe slightly more than they would spend on old existing technology but most of it would be money that's going to be spent anyway in building new power plants or maintenance of existing ones or fuel costs. The increment in spending isn't that great and things like solar and wind don't have ongoing fuel costs.
BTW, that should be "1000 PPM CO2". With business as usual we won't hit 1000 ppm this century but could well do it before 2200.
Carbon 14 is not the isotope in the atmosphere that shows the increase is from burning fossil fuels. It's the ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 13 that does that. Both C12 & C13 are stable isotopes of carbon. In fossil fuels there is more C12 relative to C13 compared to the atmosphere because being lighter C12 is preferred by photosynthesis. The ratio of C12 to C13 in the atmosphere has been increasing which supports the idea that the increase in CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels. Also the level of oxygen in the atmosphere has been dropping at a rate consistent with the uptake of oxygen due to the burning of fossil fuels.
That's pretty funny. Do you understand all the calculations and adjustments they have to make to get the satellite temperature records? They're implying the temperature for an amorphous region of the atmosphere that doesn't go down to ground level from the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules. They have to make adjustments for orbital variations, sensor decay, water vapor and clouds and high altitude land. It's much more involved than what they do for surface temperatures.
The satellite temperatures are useful information but to imply they're more accurate than surface temperatures is absurd. Even one of the scientists, Carl Mears from RSS says he thinks the surface measurements are better.
As I said the models are merely tools to test our understanding and the major GCM's are doing pretty well. I see people make claims like like yours all the time but I've never seen any scientifically rigorous debunking of them.
And as I also said the real evidence is in the real world observations. Why don't you address that?
(BTW, don't expect a reply soon, I'm leaving for a 5 day whitewater rafting vacation in 20 minutes.)
Climate sensitivity is defined as the expected temperature rise for a doubling of CO2. But the way things are going now we won't stop at a doubling of CO2 so the difference between 1C and 4C is more a matter of time than any absolute limit on temperature rise.
Also I like how you guys always latch on to the bottom of the sensitivity range as if that's the only possible value. As I said in another place why aren't you as skeptical of 1C sensitivity as you are of 5C sensitivity? Time will tell but usually the middle of the range (around 3C in this case) is the most likely answer.
I'm all for real world evidence. Note: Output from computer models is NOT real world evidence.
The real world evidence is not in the climate models. They are merely tools to test how well we understand the interactions between the different things that affect climate. You may think they don't do that well but so far the real world observations are still within the 95% confidence range of the climate model output.
Real world evidence is in the surface temperature measurements, the melting of ice, the rise of sea level (from both melting ice and thermal expansion). Real world evidence is in the changes in growing seasons and the ranges of plants and animals. Real world evidence is in the simple physical formula for the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature discovered by Svante Arrhenius over 100 years ago.
If the current El Nino continues through the end of the year 2015 or 2016 will likely set an unequivocal new global temperature record much like 1998 did. What will you have to say then?
I was all top 40 as a teenager but it was kind of a golden age during the heyday of the Beatles and Stones. Since then my taste has expanded and I appreciate just about any kind of music if it's well done. One thing that helped was going to concerts of big names. Van Cliburn came to the university I was attending and I went to the show just because of his name but he just blew me away with his virtuosity and that turned me on to a lot of classical. Same thing happened with jazz at a George Benson show and with Bill Monroe at a bluegrass show and BB King at a blues show and I could go on. A great musician is a great musician no matter what their genre. I've even heard a few rap/hip-hop songs I enjoyed.
Nowadays I mostly listen to a lot of folk/bluegrass/Americana with a healthy dose of classical and when I'm in the mood I'll tune into the local classic rock station which covers rock from the 1950s to 1980s. But what I seek out and appreciate the most is live concerts of nearly any genre with great musicians.
Dispute all the climate sensitivity estimations you want. At the rate we're going even the lowest estimations just mean it takes a few more decades to get there.
By what definition? Are you referring to barter? Any more complex market requires governance. The market based solution that I favour is a revenue neutral carbon tax. Income tax and sales tax would be reduced (which is good because why are we taxing behaviours that we want to encourage!) but the price at the pump would increase. A relatively modest RNCT was introduced in British Columbia and it seems to be working quite well.
I'm against using a carbon tax to reduce income and sales taxes because if it works as we want it to after a few decades there will be little tax collected because no one is emitting carbon which means you have to increase them again (with all of the politics that involves). Instead what I favor is a dividend where the proceeds of the carbon tax are distributed back in equal shares to all legal residents of the country. That rewards those with a lower carbon footprint and penalizes those with a higher carbon footprint.
(Never mind that lack of action on climate change will probably cost billions of people their lives while doing nothing to help the planet. But what do results count as long as your intentions are good?)
I wish we were losing because that would mean anthropogenic global warming was not going to be a problem. But in the real world the evidence for AGW continues to pile up regardless of how much you convince yourself otherwise. It's not going to go way and you'll be living with it for the rest of your life.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
There is nothing wrong with sceptics, its the deniers you want to eliminate
Would you like to send us to reeducation camps, subject us to electroshock therapy and sterilization, or just shoot or gas us right away? I mean all of those are methods that have been employed by the "science is settled" crowd over the past 100 years to rid themselves of people who disagree.
No, all that is necessary is to relegate you to the same status as the chemtrail crowd or the moon landing hoax believers so no one pays any attention to you.
I'm usually not one to ad hominem by source, but seriously... slate.com? The whole site is a political screed. But, it gets worse...
You could take a little initiative of your own and look in to Operation Ice Bridge which is the serious scientific research behind the article. But yes, the article could have pointed there too.
There is no convincing a true climate science denier. They are ideologically incapable of being convinced of the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
Slashdot Mirror
Most all "carbon dating" is absolute fiction. You cannot carbon date something that was never alive. They just pull most of these numbers out of their butts. It is completely unknowable.
That's why they use other forms of radiometric dating to date things that are too old for carbon dating.
My understanding is that we are in an Interglacial Period and we would expect things to warm naturally.
The warmth of the current interglacial period hit a peak 6,000-8,000 years ago and has been declining ever since (until recently). The decline in temperatures is what you'd expect to see given the current state of the cycles of the various components of Milankovitch Cycles. Something has overridden the Milankovitch Cycles.
James Taylor is an idiot and the story is bullshit. The time to gauge how Arctic sea ice is doing is in September at the sea ice minimum. Arctic sea ice doesn't vary a whole lot in the winter and spring because it's constrained by the surrounding continents. Nevertheless since February it's been setting records for minimum extent for that date.
You could probably say that both sides want your money, just in different ways. But if you're concern about money colors your attitude about the science you're doing it backwards. You can't change the scientific reality and if scientists are even in the ballpark about the effects the reality of anthropogenic global warming is going to cost you a whole lot more than doing something to avoid it.
As far as the cost to the average person it's maybe slightly more than they would spend on old existing technology but most of it would be money that's going to be spent anyway in building new power plants or maintenance of existing ones or fuel costs. The increment in spending isn't that great and things like solar and wind don't have ongoing fuel costs.
BTW, that should be "1000 PPM CO2". With business as usual we won't hit 1000 ppm this century but could well do it before 2200.
Carbon 14 is not the isotope in the atmosphere that shows the increase is from burning fossil fuels. It's the ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 13 that does that. Both C12 & C13 are stable isotopes of carbon. In fossil fuels there is more C12 relative to C13 compared to the atmosphere because being lighter C12 is preferred by photosynthesis. The ratio of C12 to C13 in the atmosphere has been increasing which supports the idea that the increase in CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels. Also the level of oxygen in the atmosphere has been dropping at a rate consistent with the uptake of oxygen due to the burning of fossil fuels.
That's pretty funny. Do you understand all the calculations and adjustments they have to make to get the satellite temperature records? They're implying the temperature for an amorphous region of the atmosphere that doesn't go down to ground level from the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules. They have to make adjustments for orbital variations, sensor decay, water vapor and clouds and high altitude land. It's much more involved than what they do for surface temperatures.
The satellite temperatures are useful information but to imply they're more accurate than surface temperatures is absurd. Even one of the scientists, Carl Mears from RSS says he thinks the surface measurements are better.
As I said the models are merely tools to test our understanding and the major GCM's are doing pretty well. I see people make claims like like yours all the time but I've never seen any scientifically rigorous debunking of them.
And as I also said the real evidence is in the real world observations. Why don't you address that?
(BTW, don't expect a reply soon, I'm leaving for a 5 day whitewater rafting vacation in 20 minutes.)
why the Sun is such a lightweight in this regard but it's a good thing because otherwise we wouldn't be here.
Good luck. I think if you're young enough you'll find out how badly wrong you are.
So you don't care if it's going to cost you a lot more to let it happen as to do something about it?
I'm sure the Left would love online voting. They could more easily vote for their friends, family, strangers, etc.
I'm solidly on the Left and to me the only way to run elections are with paper ballots that are capable of being counted by hand if necessary.
Climate sensitivity is defined as the expected temperature rise for a doubling of CO2. But the way things are going now we won't stop at a doubling of CO2 so the difference between 1C and 4C is more a matter of time than any absolute limit on temperature rise.
Also I like how you guys always latch on to the bottom of the sensitivity range as if that's the only possible value. As I said in another place why aren't you as skeptical of 1C sensitivity as you are of 5C sensitivity? Time will tell but usually the middle of the range (around 3C in this case) is the most likely answer.
I'm all for real world evidence. Note: Output from computer models is NOT real world evidence.
The real world evidence is not in the climate models. They are merely tools to test how well we understand the interactions between the different things that affect climate. You may think they don't do that well but so far the real world observations are still within the 95% confidence range of the climate model output.
Real world evidence is in the surface temperature measurements, the melting of ice, the rise of sea level (from both melting ice and thermal expansion). Real world evidence is in the changes in growing seasons and the ranges of plants and animals. Real world evidence is in the simple physical formula for the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature discovered by Svante Arrhenius over 100 years ago.
If the current El Nino continues through the end of the year 2015 or 2016 will likely set an unequivocal new global temperature record much like 1998 did. What will you have to say then?
I was all top 40 as a teenager but it was kind of a golden age during the heyday of the Beatles and Stones. Since then my taste has expanded and I appreciate just about any kind of music if it's well done. One thing that helped was going to concerts of big names. Van Cliburn came to the university I was attending and I went to the show just because of his name but he just blew me away with his virtuosity and that turned me on to a lot of classical. Same thing happened with jazz at a George Benson show and with Bill Monroe at a bluegrass show and BB King at a blues show and I could go on. A great musician is a great musician no matter what their genre. I've even heard a few rap/hip-hop songs I enjoyed.
Nowadays I mostly listen to a lot of folk/bluegrass/Americana with a healthy dose of classical and when I'm in the mood I'll tune into the local classic rock station which covers rock from the 1950s to 1980s. But what I seek out and appreciate the most is live concerts of nearly any genre with great musicians.
The Who can only be appreciated on cassette.
The Who were best appreciated live.
Dispute all the climate sensitivity estimations you want. At the rate we're going even the lowest estimations just mean it takes a few more decades to get there.
By what definition? Are you referring to barter? Any more complex market requires governance. The market based solution that I favour is a revenue neutral carbon tax. Income tax and sales tax would be reduced (which is good because why are we taxing behaviours that we want to encourage!) but the price at the pump would increase. A relatively modest RNCT was introduced in British Columbia and it seems to be working quite well.
I'm against using a carbon tax to reduce income and sales taxes because if it works as we want it to after a few decades there will be little tax collected because no one is emitting carbon which means you have to increase them again (with all of the politics that involves). Instead what I favor is a dividend where the proceeds of the carbon tax are distributed back in equal shares to all legal residents of the country. That rewards those with a lower carbon footprint and penalizes those with a higher carbon footprint.
(Never mind that lack of action on climate change will probably cost billions of people their lives while doing nothing to help the planet. But what do results count as long as your intentions are good?)
You people are sickening.
FTFY
I wish we were losing because that would mean anthropogenic global warming was not going to be a problem. But in the real world the evidence for AGW continues to pile up regardless of how much you convince yourself otherwise. It's not going to go way and you'll be living with it for the rest of your life.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
Touche. Nevertheless the majority of scientific evidence continues to support my side of the issue.
Would you like to send us to reeducation camps, subject us to electroshock therapy and sterilization, or just shoot or gas us right away? I mean all of those are methods that have been employed by the "science is settled" crowd over the past 100 years to rid themselves of people who disagree.
No, all that is necessary is to relegate you to the same status as the chemtrail crowd or the moon landing hoax believers so no one pays any attention to you.
I'm usually not one to ad hominem by source, but seriously... slate.com? The whole site is a political screed. But, it gets worse...
You could take a little initiative of your own and look in to Operation Ice Bridge which is the serious scientific research behind the article. But yes, the article could have pointed there too.
When I use the term "denier" nowadays I always specify "climate science denier" because that's what they are.
There is no convincing a true climate science denier. They are ideologically incapable of being convinced of the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
Umm, the agricultural university in Oregon is Oregon State University.