When it comes to big trucks many states do weight/mileage taxing so the fuel isn't taxed at all. The only way to avoid weight/mileage taxing is to sneak through without getting caught.
Anti-vaxxers are spread pretty evenly across the political spectrum. In fact a study published in December 2014 found that conservative Republicans are very slightly more likely to hold anti-vax views than liberal Democrats. You can see the pretty graph here.
The first A in NASA stands for Aeronautics. If you're going to do aeronautics you need to know about the medium you are flying through. In the 1958 act that created NASA the first objective is: "Expansion of human knowledge of the Earth, the atmosphere and space". Also artificial satellites are now an integral part of studying the Earth. I think it's kind of hard for NASA to not be involved to some extent in all of the things you list.
And I'll add to that science is progressing faster than in the past. Computers help speed up analysis. More researchers help speed the process.
Regarding cites, as science progresses the people getting the cites now are the ones who cited the earlier paper before. It would be interesting to see a cite tree to see how people who cited you are getting cited and so on. That might be the real measure of the strength of a study.
You're making some pretty big assumptions about my politics. While I certainly have problems with voting for many (R) candidates lately I have voted for plenty in the past. Some of the notable ones you may have heard of include Mark Hatfield, Tom McCall and even Gordon Smith, others in local elections. I voted for Rocky Anderson in the last Presidential election and other 3rd party candidates from time to time. Your assumptions make an ass out of you.
I do have issues with Wyden in some areas but in this area he's doing a good job and overall he's been better than the other options I've had. As an example of my bipartisanship Rand Paul has also been good on the government surveillance front.
Sousveilliance means basically watching the watchers. In this modern world collecting information about people continues to get easier, not just by governments but by the business world as well (Google and Facebook to name a couple of prominent examples). The only real defense the general public has against this is to watch back so we can stem the abuse of the data collected.
Author David Brin writes a lot about this at his blog, Contrary Brin including his current post, "Armed with Cameras". His basic thesis is that you're not going to stop all of this enhanced surveillance even if you pass laws against it. It's too easy to do. So the answer is to sousveil, watch back intently enough so we can call the watcher out on their abuse.
BTW, I'm proud to have Ron Wyden as one of my Senators. He's in a position to know an has been at the forefront of curbing government abuse of surveillance for a long time.
Or better yet, two wrongs don't make a right. Scenario C is wrong (too low) and the models sensitivity of 4.2 C is wrong (too high). Together they may give you something that looks like the right answer but it's still wrong.
I think you need to reevaluate your criteria for model performance.
To some extent for some types of plants. But that assumes there is plenty of water, other plant nutrients and good growing conditions too. It seems to me there was plenty of vegetation when atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm.
The problem with that is the way to scientific immorality is to overturn the existing standards. If the science is wrong it can't hide from objective reality forever.
In science consensus is not arrived at with a vote but instead it happens organically when the scientists in the field quite wasting their time on a particular point because it's been examined to the point where practically nobody disagrees with it.
Another simplistic argument. Both of those stories are about the abyssal ocean below about 2,000 meters, not the upper ocean. To determine that the abyssal ocean had not warmed they took the amount of sea level rise attributed to ocean warming and determined that all of the rise could be accounted for by the warming in the upper ocean alone. They didn't actually measure the deep ocean temperatures. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Regarding your #2 we have a pretty good accounting of fossil fuel use globally and calculating how much CO2 that use will emit is a straightforward chemical equation. I think we have a quite accurate idea of how much CO2 is generated by fossil fuel use.
Slashdot Mirror
When it comes to big trucks many states do weight/mileage taxing so the fuel isn't taxed at all. The only way to avoid weight/mileage taxing is to sneak through without getting caught.
As others have pointed out NASA's study of Earth provides insights into the study of other planets as well.
The first objective in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act is: "Expansion of human knowledge of the Earth, the atmosphere and space." Seems to me that's what they're doing.
The earth being less than 10,000 years old is not anti science.
It's not even wrong.
Explain anti vaxxers
Anti-vaxxers are spread pretty evenly across the political spectrum. In fact a study published in December 2014 found that conservative Republicans are very slightly more likely to hold anti-vax views than liberal Democrats. You can see the pretty graph here.
The first A in NASA stands for Aeronautics. If you're going to do aeronautics you need to know about the medium you are flying through. In the 1958 act that created NASA the first objective is: "Expansion of human knowledge of the Earth, the atmosphere and space". Also artificial satellites are now an integral part of studying the Earth. I think it's kind of hard for NASA to not be involved to some extent in all of the things you list.
You comment would make more sense if the UN owned stocks.
No there are just the right number of first posts. But there are way to many posts proclaiming "First Post!!!!!" or variants that aren't.
And I'll add to that science is progressing faster than in the past. Computers help speed up analysis. More researchers help speed the process.
Regarding cites, as science progresses the people getting the cites now are the ones who cited the earlier paper before. It would be interesting to see a cite tree to see how people who cited you are getting cited and so on. That might be the real measure of the strength of a study.
(Sorry to reply to myself but I had to add that.)
Or maybe the fact that there are more scientists publishing today than there were 20 years ago.
Add to that the expansion of science. The more we know the more there is to study which would naturally produce more studies.
You're making some pretty big assumptions about my politics. While I certainly have problems with voting for many (R) candidates lately I have voted for plenty in the past. Some of the notable ones you may have heard of include Mark Hatfield, Tom McCall and even Gordon Smith, others in local elections. I voted for Rocky Anderson in the last Presidential election and other 3rd party candidates from time to time. Your assumptions make an ass out of you.
I do have issues with Wyden in some areas but in this area he's doing a good job and overall he's been better than the other options I've had. As an example of my bipartisanship Rand Paul has also been good on the government surveillance front.
Sousveilliance means basically watching the watchers. In this modern world collecting information about people continues to get easier, not just by governments but by the business world as well (Google and Facebook to name a couple of prominent examples). The only real defense the general public has against this is to watch back so we can stem the abuse of the data collected.
Author David Brin writes a lot about this at his blog, Contrary Brin including his current post, "Armed with Cameras". His basic thesis is that you're not going to stop all of this enhanced surveillance even if you pass laws against it. It's too easy to do. So the answer is to sousveil, watch back intently enough so we can call the watcher out on their abuse.
BTW, I'm proud to have Ron Wyden as one of my Senators. He's in a position to know an has been at the forefront of curbing government abuse of surveillance for a long time.
Correction. The story was only about fossil fuels used and didn't include other human caused sources of CO2 like cement production and deforestation.
And a broken clock is right twice a day.
Or better yet, two wrongs don't make a right. Scenario C is wrong (too low) and the models sensitivity of 4.2 C is wrong (too high). Together they may give you something that looks like the right answer but it's still wrong.
I think you need to reevaluate your criteria for model performance.
To some extent for some types of plants. But that assumes there is plenty of water, other plant nutrients and good growing conditions too. It seems to me there was plenty of vegetation when atmospheric CO2 was 280 ppm.
Kinda funny how there is a consensus in a field when every model produced by the experts in the field has proven to be wrong.
Perhaps your failure to understand the criteria that models should be measured against is the problem.
The problem with that is the way to scientific immorality is to overturn the existing standards. If the science is wrong it can't hide from objective reality forever.
A lot of people have fundamental intellectual problems accepting uncertainty or non-binary reasoning.
Bingo! And it's probably impossible to reach most of them.
Hansen's 1988 Scenario C is still wrong. His model had an inherent climate sensitivity of 4.2 when the real value is closer to 3.
In science consensus is not arrived at with a vote but instead it happens organically when the scientists in the field quite wasting their time on a particular point because it's been examined to the point where practically nobody disagrees with it.
Yes, CO2 in the atmosphere is right around 400 ppm now. It hasn't been that high for at least 3 or 4 million years.
Another simplistic argument. Both of those stories are about the abyssal ocean below about 2,000 meters, not the upper ocean. To determine that the abyssal ocean had not warmed they took the amount of sea level rise attributed to ocean warming and determined that all of the rise could be accounted for by the warming in the upper ocean alone. They didn't actually measure the deep ocean temperatures. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
The percentage may be lower but the absolute number of people working is still greater than any time before the 1990s and maybe than before 2000.
Regarding your #2 we have a pretty good accounting of fossil fuel use globally and calculating how much CO2 that use will emit is a straightforward chemical equation. I think we have a quite accurate idea of how much CO2 is generated by fossil fuel use.
You better get used to it because physics doesn't care what you think and anthropogenic climate change will continue for the foreseeable future.