Ah, you must live on the East Coast. Out here in Oregon where I live it's been warm and up in the Cascades there's no snow where normally there would be at least 3 feet of snow pack by now.
There is no "rest of the complaint". The rest is just legal mumbo-jumbo saying who they are and why the place they filed their complaint is the correct venue. I quoted the whole of their argument.
Alamo seeks relief on the grounds that the Order: (1) is in excess of the Commission's authority; (2) is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) is contrary to constitutional right; and (4) is otherwise contrary to law.
That's about as generic as it can get. I don't see it going anywhere.
Actually the major sea level rise from the end of the last glacial period (ice age) ended about 4,000 years ago and sea level has been pretty stable since then. Sea level has risen about 8 inches in the last century which is more change than in the last 2,000 years. From Wikipedia:
For example, geological observations indicate that during the last 2,000 years, sea level change was small, with an average rate of only 0.0–0.2 mm per year. This compares to an average rate of 1.7 ± 0.5 mm per year for the 20th century.[34] In its Fifth Assessment Report, The IPCC found that recent observations of global average sea level rise at a rate of 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm per year is consistent with the sum of contributions from observed thermal ocean expansion due to rising temperatures (1.1 [0.8 to 1.4] mm per year, glacier melt (0.76 [0.39 to 1.13] mm per year), Greenland ice sheet melt (0.33 [0.25 to 0.41] mm per year), Antarctic ice sheet melt (0.27 [0.16 to 0.38] mm per year), and changes to land water storage (0.38 [0.26 to 0.49] mm per year).
That's true to some extent but not on human time scales. Much of the coal was laid down at a time when microorganisms hadn't yet figured out how to break down cellulose so it wasn't decaying to something that wouldn't become coal. That is no longer true.
Here it is with no spin. IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 9 - "Evaluation of Climate Models". [PDF] Search for "Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years" and you get it straight from the horses mouth.
If we were to engage in climate engineering, warming things up and adding a little CO2 is exactly what we'd want to do. It would increase the range of latitudes for food production and mitigate future ice ages, which are much more catastrophic than any effects from warming.
I wouldn't call a 40% increase in CO2 little. Rather than expanding food production ranges may just move northward and warmth isn't the only thing that affects food production. According to our current state of knowledge it's impossible for an ice age to get going with CO2 levels above about 250 ppm.
I read the study on the Martian polar ice caps. I also read that all the planets in the inner solar system are heating up at the same rate.
I see this claimed a lot but I've never seen any actual data to back it up. If you want to make it scientific give a graph that compares the different planet's temperature changes. Until I see that it's just hearsay.
And it is also a very simple-minded idea that the effects of small changes over long periods of time won't end up as new species. Give me a budget and 100,000 years and I'll show you your new species.
Is Global Warming happening now? Yep, it appears it is. Is mankind the only cause of this phenomenon? I'm not 100% sure on that, and if we don't keep looking to see what's really going on, we may be in for a rude awakening in the not too distant future. when though our best efforts at curbing carbon emmisions, we still end up screwed.
How screwed we end up being may well depend on how fast we can cut carbon emissions. It's not an either/or situation but rather a 'gradually getting worse' situation. Where we end up depends on where we stop.
I went to Wood for Trees and plotted GISTEMP, HADCRUT4, RSS lower trop. and UAH lower trop. for the last 20 years. You can see the graph here. The only one even close to showing no warming is RSS. They have some issues because the satellite they use is out of fuel and can't keep its orbit so they have to adjust for that.
Your other 3 points are just climate science denier memes that don't stand up in the real world. 2) Climate models aren't expected to predict the short term variability of things like ENSO and the PDO but those average out in the long term which is what climate models project. 3) Models do just fine hind casting. 4) There is plenty to learn about climate but the big picture seems well in hand. I'm still waiting for some earth shattering revelation.
There is no point in building large cities on the moon. Seriously, why? If you want to live underground, do it on Earth.
I see the Moon as the gateway to the rest of the Solar System. It's a ready source of raw materials outside of Earth's gravity well but has enough gravity to keep things from floating around much which makes living there easier than in zero-G. Lack of atmosphere and low gravity make launching anything to orbit or beyond pretty easy. Setting up an interconnected series of solar power collectors around the equator would take care of power needs. The Moon may even have enough gravity to ameliorate the worst effects of zero-G on human health.
I think a top priority should be setting up a starter base that can start bootstrapping the rest of the needed infrastructure.
You started the tread by claiming "For a while now I've been asking adherents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory to provide examples of just such predictions and so far nobody could manage... There are plenty of predictions that failed to materialize...". I gave you a link to a scientific paper that shows two predictions that have materialized, global temperatures and Arctic sea ice. Will you at least acknowledge that?
You keep claiming "science is settled" — but, when asked for falsifiable conclusions of this science, you are unable to come up with any.
That's exactly what the paper "Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011" has. Projections from two different IPCC reports about 1) temperatures and 2) Arctic sea ice extent compared to observations of each. What's not falsifiable about either of those? The links are in 30 different references at the bottom that the paper cites with enough information for you to look them up.
The fact that it's not exactly in the format you want or dumbed down enough for you to understand is not my problem. It's not that I lack the time, it's that you refuse to meet me half way and address what the paper says, instead arguing about the format of what I gave you. You're arguing like a lawyer, not a scientist.
Slashdot Mirror
The paper talks about relative sea level change in a single location. How much meaning that has for global sea level changes is questionable.
Ah, you must live on the East Coast. Out here in Oregon where I live it's been warm and up in the Cascades there's no snow where normally there would be at least 3 feet of snow pack by now.
How does what happened more than 6,000 or 7,000 years ago matter to modern civilization? Sea level has been remarkably stable during that period.
Ok, I should have said "claim".
There is no "rest of the complaint". The rest is just legal mumbo-jumbo saying who they are and why the place they filed their complaint is the correct venue. I quoted the whole of their argument.
To all conservatives, more government regulation is uniformly bad.
To all liberals, more government regulation is uniformly good.
What a simplistic caricature of the positions.
The Alamo Broadband complaint reads as follows:
Alamo seeks relief on the grounds that the Order: (1) is in excess of the Commission's authority; (2) is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) is contrary to constitutional right; and (4) is otherwise contrary to law.
That's about as generic as it can get. I don't see it going anywhere.
If you're not an old fart like me maybe you'll live long enough to find out how wrong you are about anthropogenic climate change.
Instead of calling people climate science deniers maybe we should start calling them climate zombies.
Actually the major sea level rise from the end of the last glacial period (ice age) ended about 4,000 years ago and sea level has been pretty stable since then. Sea level has risen about 8 inches in the last century which is more change than in the last 2,000 years. From Wikipedia:
For example, geological observations indicate that during the last 2,000 years, sea level change was small, with an average rate of only 0.0–0.2 mm per year. This compares to an average rate of 1.7 ± 0.5 mm per year for the 20th century.[34] In its Fifth Assessment Report, The IPCC found that recent observations of global average sea level rise at a rate of 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm per year is consistent with the sum of contributions from observed thermal ocean expansion due to rising temperatures (1.1 [0.8 to 1.4] mm per year, glacier melt (0.76 [0.39 to 1.13] mm per year), Greenland ice sheet melt (0.33 [0.25 to 0.41] mm per year), Antarctic ice sheet melt (0.27 [0.16 to 0.38] mm per year), and changes to land water storage (0.38 [0.26 to 0.49] mm per year).
The difference being that now we basically have a worldwide civilization.
That's true to some extent but not on human time scales. Much of the coal was laid down at a time when microorganisms hadn't yet figured out how to break down cellulose so it wasn't decaying to something that wouldn't become coal. That is no longer true.
No sweat.
Here it is with no spin. IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 9 - "Evaluation of Climate Models". [PDF] Search for "Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years" and you get it straight from the horses mouth.
If we were to engage in climate engineering, warming things up and adding a little CO2 is exactly what we'd want to do.
It would increase the range of latitudes for food production and mitigate future ice ages, which are much more catastrophic than any effects from warming.
I wouldn't call a 40% increase in CO2 little. Rather than expanding food production ranges may just move northward and warmth isn't the only thing that affects food production. According to our current state of knowledge it's impossible for an ice age to get going with CO2 levels above about 250 ppm.
I read the study on the Martian polar ice caps. I also read that all the planets in the inner solar system are heating up at the same rate.
I see this claimed a lot but I've never seen any actual data to back it up. If you want to make it scientific give a graph that compares the different planet's temperature changes. Until I see that it's just hearsay.
And it is also a very simple-minded idea that the effects of small changes over long periods of time won't end up as new species. Give me a budget and 100,000 years and I'll show you your new species.
I'm assuming we can start from what ever date we want?
Not really. To qualify as a climate graph it needs to be at least 30 years long (as defined by the World Meteorological Organization).
Why don't your cite the actual IPCC report that says that rather than some people spinning what it says?
Is Global Warming happening now? Yep, it appears it is. Is mankind the only cause of this phenomenon? I'm not 100% sure on that, and if we don't keep looking to see what's really going on, we may be in for a rude awakening in the not too distant future. when though our best efforts at curbing carbon emmisions, we still end up screwed.
How screwed we end up being may well depend on how fast we can cut carbon emissions. It's not an either/or situation but rather a 'gradually getting worse' situation. Where we end up depends on where we stop.
As opposed to the checks given to IPCC by government (you know... the people who kill people for a living).
The IPCC runs an annual budget of $7 million, according to the Wall Street Journal, making the United States a major benefactor for its global warming agenda.
That's pretty much chump change in today's world.
1. No warming for nearly twenty years.
I went to Wood for Trees and plotted GISTEMP, HADCRUT4, RSS lower trop. and UAH lower trop. for the last 20 years. You can see the graph here. The only one even close to showing no warming is RSS. They have some issues because the satellite they use is out of fuel and can't keep its orbit so they have to adjust for that.
Your other 3 points are just climate science denier memes that don't stand up in the real world. 2) Climate models aren't expected to predict the short term variability of things like ENSO and the PDO but those average out in the long term which is what climate models project. 3) Models do just fine hind casting. 4) There is plenty to learn about climate but the big picture seems well in hand. I'm still waiting for some earth shattering revelation.
There is no point in building large cities on the moon. Seriously, why? If you want to live underground, do it on Earth.
I see the Moon as the gateway to the rest of the Solar System. It's a ready source of raw materials outside of Earth's gravity well but has enough gravity to keep things from floating around much which makes living there easier than in zero-G. Lack of atmosphere and low gravity make launching anything to orbit or beyond pretty easy. Setting up an interconnected series of solar power collectors around the equator would take care of power needs. The Moon may even have enough gravity to ameliorate the worst effects of zero-G on human health.
I think a top priority should be setting up a starter base that can start bootstrapping the rest of the needed infrastructure.
If you're planning on crossing the Sahara in an electric car all you need to bring along is some solar panels.
You started the tread by claiming "For a while now I've been asking adherents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory to provide examples of just such predictions and so far nobody could manage... There are plenty of predictions that failed to materialize...". I gave you a link to a scientific paper that shows two predictions that have materialized, global temperatures and Arctic sea ice. Will you at least acknowledge that?
You keep claiming "science is settled" — but, when asked for falsifiable conclusions of this science, you are unable to come up with any.
That's exactly what the paper "Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011" has. Projections from two different IPCC reports about 1) temperatures and 2) Arctic sea ice extent compared to observations of each. What's not falsifiable about either of those? The links are in 30 different references at the bottom that the paper cites with enough information for you to look them up.
The fact that it's not exactly in the format you want or dumbed down enough for you to understand is not my problem. It's not that I lack the time, it's that you refuse to meet me half way and address what the paper says, instead arguing about the format of what I gave you. You're arguing like a lawyer, not a scientist.