We had this exact same discussion last time. You ignored every study I cited then, you refused flatly to substantiate your own claims, and you're still repeating those same claims today. I see no point in repeating myself as well.
There's not much water on the moon, and no CO2 - but plenty of both on Mars. Add power and you can make methane fuel for the return trip (and for refueling trips further out). Plus you need water for drinking & hydroponics, oxygen for breathing, CO2 for your greenhouse, hydrogen for fuel cells - much harder to be self-sustaining for any long term on the moon.
Oh look, it's this guy again - cite him a study and watch him yell "NO IT ISN'T!" and start frothing at the mouth:-)
Pro tip, dude - look a few posts up. Someone already tried posting your version, only to find it's not "better data" at all. I'm guessing you took all of Watts' claims as gospel and never realised it's based on only a single ice core (and thus says nothing at all about global temperatures). Or are you just still pushing your whole "nuh uh, you're all wrong because Greenland" schtick?
The data it's based on is also not global. It's from a single ice core in Greenland - the very definition of cherry-picked data, and hardly comparable to global temperature reconstructions.
That's one side's view, yes - there are differing accounts. You might want to read up more on the prelude to that battle. Workers had already been killed in previous clashes. The situation should never have been escalated like that - sending in hundreds of men with guns all but guaranteed further deaths.
Agree that regulation doesn't solve corruption, of course, and that powerful people will exploit any political system - but are you saying regulation doesn't solve anything? Because it's simple enough to show that sensible regulation can be very effective at reining in many forms of corporate bad behaviour.
John Jacob Astor: bribed officials & politicians to ensure his monopoly, exploited natives with liquor. Andrew Carnegie: insider trading, exploited workers, murderous strike-breaking. William A. Clarke: inspired the Corrupt Practices Act 1912, but not in a good way.
We all agree that economic activity needs to follow basic laws, but I'm mostly referring to regulations that limit corporate exploitation of things that aren't illegal, yet can be clearly damaging to society. Pollution and dumping of waste is an obvious one (incidentally, benefits of EPA regulations outweigh costs by 10 to 1). Worker health & safety is another. Price-fixing, false advertising, leveraged monopolies, offloading of external costs onto the general public etc - all things that benefit the corporation at the cost of others, often in hard-to-quantify but very real ways.
Regulations are a burden on the economy - but kept reasonable, they prevent excesses that can be much worse.
I think people have forgotten what unregulated capitalism looks like. It wasn't all that long ago.
Capitalism, like every other organisation, needs checks and balances. There's no other way to ensure accountability, and without accountability then unrestrained capitalists can do just as much damage to society as unrestrained communists or dictators. Moderate regulation is a necessary tradeoff to stop psychopath CEOs like Shkreli from efficiently strip-mining their markets to the bone.
How about putting it in the hands of a giant committee? That'd guarantee endless discussions, and zero potentially harmful changes. Sounds a lot more appealing to me than risking control by someone like Trump or Hillary.
Thus undermining the unquestioning trust we're supposed to feel in them, and limiting their ability to do whatever the hell they want. Don't we realise it's all for our own good??
Extra note: iOS devices already support AAC over Bluetooth as of iOS 7, and some higher-end BT headphones do too. So improved wireless quality is already available for iOS users that want it.
I'm sure you'll still be able to use Bluetooth headphones with your new iPhone, but I've also heard that Apple's upcoming "AirPods" use a new proprietary standard (big surprise there).
Of course, Apple doesn't have to create a new & incompatible standard just to get better wireless audio than A2DP. They could happily support aptX over Bluetooth (or even AAC or MP3). But I expect the prospect of a whole new field of Made for iPhone peripheral licencing just proved too tempting, so I expect we'll hear plenty about how this glorious new standard is well worth the extra cost you'll be paying.
So you keep claiming, but repeating it louder isn't going to help. If you can produce this supposed evidence, try doing that, because spamming links to some political site won't sway anyone. And while you're at it, see if you can explain away the mountains of evidence showing the accelerating rise in temperatures for the last 150 years.
the falsified data from NOAA, yes, FALSIFIED
Let me guess, you've got no evidence for this accusation of malfeasance either, right? Your sole basis for all this seems to be that you don't like the results, and something something conspiracy. Well too bad, science doesn't work that way. You can spout Lysenkoism all you like, but from here it looks much more like you're the one denying the evidence you dislike, and producing none of your own.
NOAA are completely open about their data correction methods, which are peer reviewed, confirmed independently, and are corroborated by data & analysis from NASA, CRU, and other international agencies. And if you still don't like it, take their raw data (yes, it's always been available) and do your own analysis (if you can get your methodology through peer review, ha ha). That's what the Berkeley Earth people did (you can check their data too) - and surprise surprise, their results agreed with NOAA, NASA, and the others. So your unsubstantiated claims of "tainted" data are laughable in the face of the real evidence.
No amount of evidence will ever persuade you from your religious beliefs.
What a coincidence; "no amount of evidence" is exactly what you've produced. And yet it's you that has repeatedly dismissed all the evidence against you, citing only some purely hypothetical political manipulation. "Zombie minion" indeed.
wine grapes could be grown as far north as York in England.
There's many commercial vineyards there today, and even further north.
Now the graves of the Vikings are under 'permafrost'
Wrong, there hasn't been permafrost at those sites for a long time.
You talk about 'nutters' yet seem to be defending a position for which you don't even understand even the basic counter evidence
I've yet to see you present any, only oft-repeated claims that you obviously have never bothered to check for yourself.
I would hope you would look at the statement of the leaders of the CAGW movement
You seriously expect us to accept a bunch of out-of-context quotes as evidence of some global conspiracy? The only "agenda" it proves is that of the people who set up the website.
"Anti-science" means people who deliberately ignore the huge amounts of collected scientific evidence, and continue to spout provably incorrect claims with no evidence of their own. "Nutters" usually follow this by attempted FUD about the reliability of all the evidence against them, inevitably resulting in global conspiracy claims. You certainly qualify for both terms.
The *planet* is clearly fine with high levels of CO2. The biosphere is fine with it too - given enough time to evolve and respond.
But we humans won't enjoy our cities getting flooded and our crops drying out (adapting will be very expensive). And a lot of the biosphere isn't being given time to respond either, since the temperature rise is happening so quickly. Those coral reefs can't just pick up and walk to a cooler area.
Yes some warming is occurring, but not enough to matter in any way worth even getting excited about - at least that's what the hard facts and careful research tell us.
Funny how the anti-science nutters are always so highly selective about their "hard facts and careful research", hand-waving away all the rest of the data that doesn't fit their own narrative as "manipulated". Let me guess, the whole of the IPCC Working Group II's collected data is all compromised and ignorable, every bit; none of those described impacts could possibly happen, amirite?
Heck it's probably
Ah, another hard fact, with more careful research behind it?
not even enough to counteract the next global cooling phase which is close at hand
It started 8000 years ago, temperatures have been dropping since then - up until we changed everything.
Now the soft facts and panicked revelations made by so called "scientists" who are backed by governments trying to bilk the people into more central control
Now the baseless allegations of conspiracy and paranoia, with the inevitable government agenda behind it. Did you notice all the Australian climate scientists recently protesting their government's agenda?
But of course I forgot, they just want to keep their jobs, and they have to keep manipulating their data and falsifying their results even when their government clearly doesn't want to hear it - low-paying research on global warming is all they can do, because the fossil fuel industry certainly doesn't have any money for them.
isn't it astounding that after literally decades of being utterly wrong about long term climate forecasts, people still listen to them?
Dammit, my brand new irony meter just exploded as well.
It contained the leak, yes, and the public is in no danger, but for workers in that facility it's a real problem, hence the cleanup expense
The amount of radioactivity released was estimated at 2 to 10 plutonium-equivalent Curies - not a small amount. While you could walk through the room and receive an insignificant dose from a meter away, if even a tiny fraction of that got into your body (e.g. via the contaminated ventilation system), that's an entirely different matter - close-range exposure for days or months is far more serious.
Personally I'm open to nuclear power, where it makes sense - and there are certainly sites where it makes the most sense. However I disagree that it's always the best alternative, and especially that any other option is "suicide".
For one, nuclear isn't as cheap as you seem to think. According to the EIA, (onshore) wind and solar PV both have significantly lower LCOE than nuclear, at $58.5 and $74.2 per MWh, vs $99.7 for nuclear. That's after accounting for their lower capacity factors, and before any tax credits. Wind and solar are cheaper to build, generally cheaper to maintain, and have zero ongoing fuel costs.
And while I agree that modern nuclear has a very low chance of dangerous failure, it's still non-zero, and you have to multiply that chance by the economic costs of consequences, which can be very high. Failure costs aren't factored in to the above numbers, but they can't be dismissed either. Despite that, I think nuclear should still be considered, particularly for more northern sites where solar is less effective and available wind may not be enough.
I'm guessing your objection to solar & wind is the "baseload" concern, where low capacity factors require alternate sources. This isn't a new issue for the energy industry (nothing has a 100% capacity factor), and is traditionally solved by distributing the load over multiple plants. A number of studies show that reliable power is certainly feasible with renewables too. For example, with widely-distributed wind farms, local variations can be spread out over the larger grid, and excess solar can be stored with pumped hydro (where available) or any of a number of commercially-available grid storage technologies, including reflow batteries (which can be easily scaled to almost any desired storage capacity). During the transition (which would likely take decades), existing gas turbines can help cover any shortfalls. I also note that geothermal plants are particularly interesting here, as not only do they have a capacity factor even better than nuclear's, they also have the cheapest LCOE of all.
Do we really care how the climate changed 315 million years ago? We weren't around then.
It's changing now, and that's affecting us directly. And unlike past events, we can see that this time it's us that's causing it. The planet will be fine of course, but in the mean time it will be very expensive for us to adapt - moving our cities and infrastructure away from low-lying areas, dealing with the increased droughts and storm damage. We can save literally trillions of dollars of costs in the longer term by phasing out coal & oil sooner, rather than later.
Go read up on the BEST project. They had similar concerns about the current analyses, including the influence of the urban heat island effect.
Unlike the armchair deniers found on the internet, they actually did their own analysis, both with and without urban readings. Somewhat to their surprise, excluding the warmer urban readings completely made virtually no difference to the overall result.
specially when there is such a huge agenda behind it with massive amounts of money
I don't suppose you're referring to the fossil-fuel industry's agenda? It's hard to get more massive than the trillions of dollars they have at stake.
if it's hot it's climate change and we need a totalitarian state to fix it
Even if the first part were true, there's absolutely no need for a totalitarian state to fix it.
Please don't conflate the problem with an entirely different problem. There are many paths to mitigating climate change, and potential solutions from across the whole political spectrum. Instead of denying the problem exists, why not promote a solution you're comfortable with?
You haven't made any points to rebut. All you've done is spout a baseless opinion that the adjustments are bad because you think they are, without ever saying how they're bad, or why they should not be made.
When you need to adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion
And where is your evidence for this claim of deliberate data fudging? Where is your evidence that NOAA's adjustments are incorrect, given that the reported land temperature rises correlate with tropospheric temperatures, ocean temperatures, sea level rise, physically-based CO2 models, and indeed independent data from the NASA and HadCRUT sets as well? Are you also going to claim a global conspiracy next?
All measurements need proper calibration. Raw sensor output is meaningless without this, particularly if the sensor's bias is expected to change over time. Your link cites peer-reviewed methodology for the adjustments described, so unless you can explain convincingly why all those scientists are flat-out (and deliberately) wrong, don't expect your nonspecific ramblings to be taken seriously by anyone who counts.
Slashdot Mirror
Nah, not innovative at all. Companies have been locking in their users and forcing unpopular decisions on them for years before Apple made it popular.
We had this exact same discussion last time. You ignored every study I cited then, you refused flatly to substantiate your own claims, and you're still repeating those same claims today. I see no point in repeating myself as well.
There's not much water on the moon, and no CO2 - but plenty of both on Mars. Add power and you can make methane fuel for the return trip (and for refueling trips further out). Plus you need water for drinking & hydroponics, oxygen for breathing, CO2 for your greenhouse, hydrogen for fuel cells - much harder to be self-sustaining for any long term on the moon.
Oh look, it's this guy again - cite him a study and watch him yell "NO IT ISN'T!" and start frothing at the mouth :-)
Pro tip, dude - look a few posts up. Someone already tried posting your version, only to find it's not "better data" at all. I'm guessing you took all of Watts' claims as gospel and never realised it's based on only a single ice core (and thus says nothing at all about global temperatures). Or are you just still pushing your whole "nuh uh, you're all wrong because Greenland" schtick?
The data it's based on is also not global. It's from a single ice core in Greenland - the very definition of cherry-picked data, and hardly comparable to global temperature reconstructions.
That's one side's view, yes - there are differing accounts. You might want to read up more on the prelude to that battle. Workers had already been killed in previous clashes. The situation should never have been escalated like that - sending in hundreds of men with guns all but guaranteed further deaths.
Agree that regulation doesn't solve corruption, of course, and that powerful people will exploit any political system - but are you saying regulation doesn't solve anything? Because it's simple enough to show that sensible regulation can be very effective at reining in many forms of corporate bad behaviour.
Just to pick the first three:
John Jacob Astor: bribed officials & politicians to ensure his monopoly, exploited natives with liquor.
Andrew Carnegie: insider trading, exploited workers, murderous strike-breaking.
William A. Clarke: inspired the Corrupt Practices Act 1912, but not in a good way.
We all agree that economic activity needs to follow basic laws, but I'm mostly referring to regulations that limit corporate exploitation of things that aren't illegal, yet can be clearly damaging to society. Pollution and dumping of waste is an obvious one (incidentally, benefits of EPA regulations outweigh costs by 10 to 1). Worker health & safety is another. Price-fixing, false advertising, leveraged monopolies, offloading of external costs onto the general public etc - all things that benefit the corporation at the cost of others, often in hard-to-quantify but very real ways.
Regulations are a burden on the economy - but kept reasonable, they prevent excesses that can be much worse.
I think people have forgotten what unregulated capitalism looks like. It wasn't all that long ago.
Capitalism, like every other organisation, needs checks and balances. There's no other way to ensure accountability, and without accountability then unrestrained capitalists can do just as much damage to society as unrestrained communists or dictators. Moderate regulation is a necessary tradeoff to stop psychopath CEOs like Shkreli from efficiently strip-mining their markets to the bone.
How about putting it in the hands of a giant committee? That'd guarantee endless discussions, and zero potentially harmful changes. Sounds a lot more appealing to me than risking control by someone like Trump or Hillary.
Thus undermining the unquestioning trust we're supposed to feel in them, and limiting their ability to do whatever the hell they want. Don't we realise it's all for our own good??
The Location permission switch for Google Play Services is certainly there on my Nexus 6P, running Android 7.0.
Extra note: iOS devices already support AAC over Bluetooth as of iOS 7, and some higher-end BT headphones do too. So improved wireless quality is already available for iOS users that want it.
I'm sure you'll still be able to use Bluetooth headphones with your new iPhone, but I've also heard that Apple's upcoming "AirPods" use a new proprietary standard (big surprise there).
Of course, Apple doesn't have to create a new & incompatible standard just to get better wireless audio than A2DP. They could happily support aptX over Bluetooth (or even AAC or MP3). But I expect the prospect of a whole new field of Made for iPhone peripheral licencing just proved too tempting, so I expect we'll hear plenty about how this glorious new standard is well worth the extra cost you'll be paying.
the EXACT OPPOSITE has been *****OBSERVED*****
So you keep claiming, but repeating it louder isn't going to help. If you can produce this supposed evidence, try doing that, because spamming links to some political site won't sway anyone. And while you're at it, see if you can explain away the mountains of evidence showing the accelerating rise in temperatures for the last 150 years.
the falsified data from NOAA, yes, FALSIFIED
Let me guess, you've got no evidence for this accusation of malfeasance either, right? Your sole basis for all this seems to be that you don't like the results, and something something conspiracy. Well too bad, science doesn't work that way. You can spout Lysenkoism all you like, but from here it looks much more like you're the one denying the evidence you dislike, and producing none of your own.
NOAA are completely open about their data correction methods, which are peer reviewed, confirmed independently, and are corroborated by data & analysis from NASA, CRU, and other international agencies. And if you still don't like it, take their raw data (yes, it's always been available) and do your own analysis (if you can get your methodology through peer review, ha ha). That's what the Berkeley Earth people did (you can check their data too) - and surprise surprise, their results agreed with NOAA, NASA, and the others. So your unsubstantiated claims of "tainted" data are laughable in the face of the real evidence.
No amount of evidence will ever persuade you from your religious beliefs.
What a coincidence; "no amount of evidence" is exactly what you've produced. And yet it's you that has repeatedly dismissed all the evidence against you, citing only some purely hypothetical political manipulation. "Zombie minion" indeed.
did you not know the Minoan Warm Period, Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm period were warmer than today?
No, because globally, they were much colder (see fig 2).
Vikings farmed in Greenland
And now it's easier than ever before.
wine grapes could be grown as far north as York in England.
There's many commercial vineyards there today, and even further north.
Now the graves of the Vikings are under 'permafrost'
Wrong, there hasn't been permafrost at those sites for a long time.
You talk about 'nutters' yet seem to be defending a position for which you don't even understand even the basic counter evidence
I've yet to see you present any, only oft-repeated claims that you obviously have never bothered to check for yourself.
I would hope you would look at the statement of the leaders of the CAGW movement
You seriously expect us to accept a bunch of out-of-context quotes as evidence of some global conspiracy? The only "agenda" it proves is that of the people who set up the website.
"Anti-science" means people who deliberately ignore the huge amounts of collected scientific evidence, and continue to spout provably incorrect claims with no evidence of their own. "Nutters" usually follow this by attempted FUD about the reliability of all the evidence against them, inevitably resulting in global conspiracy claims. You certainly qualify for both terms.
The *planet* is clearly fine with high levels of CO2. The biosphere is fine with it too - given enough time to evolve and respond.
But we humans won't enjoy our cities getting flooded and our crops drying out (adapting will be very expensive). And a lot of the biosphere isn't being given time to respond either, since the temperature rise is happening so quickly. Those coral reefs can't just pick up and walk to a cooler area.
anti-science nutters that cannot understand
My irony meter just exploded.
Yes some warming is occurring, but not enough to matter in any way worth even getting excited about - at least that's what the hard facts and careful research tell us.
Funny how the anti-science nutters are always so highly selective about their "hard facts and careful research", hand-waving away all the rest of the data that doesn't fit their own narrative as "manipulated". Let me guess, the whole of the IPCC Working Group II's collected data is all compromised and ignorable, every bit; none of those described impacts could possibly happen, amirite?
Heck it's probably
Ah, another hard fact, with more careful research behind it?
not even enough to counteract the next global cooling phase which is close at hand
It started 8000 years ago, temperatures have been dropping since then - up until we changed everything.
Now the soft facts and panicked revelations made by so called "scientists" who are backed by governments trying to bilk the people into more central control
Now the baseless allegations of conspiracy and paranoia, with the inevitable government agenda behind it. Did you notice all the Australian climate scientists recently protesting their government's agenda?
But of course I forgot, they just want to keep their jobs, and they have to keep manipulating their data and falsifying their results even when their government clearly doesn't want to hear it - low-paying research on global warming is all they can do, because the fossil fuel industry certainly doesn't have any money for them.
isn't it astounding that after literally decades of being utterly wrong about long term climate forecasts, people still listen to them?
Dammit, my brand new irony meter just exploded as well.
It contained the leak, yes, and the public is in no danger, but for workers in that facility it's a real problem, hence the cleanup expense
The amount of radioactivity released was estimated at 2 to 10 plutonium-equivalent Curies - not a small amount. While you could walk through the room and receive an insignificant dose from a meter away, if even a tiny fraction of that got into your body (e.g. via the contaminated ventilation system), that's an entirely different matter - close-range exposure for days or months is far more serious.
Personally I'm open to nuclear power, where it makes sense - and there are certainly sites where it makes the most sense. However I disagree that it's always the best alternative, and especially that any other option is "suicide".
For one, nuclear isn't as cheap as you seem to think. According to the EIA, (onshore) wind and solar PV both have significantly lower LCOE than nuclear, at $58.5 and $74.2 per MWh, vs $99.7 for nuclear. That's after accounting for their lower capacity factors, and before any tax credits. Wind and solar are cheaper to build, generally cheaper to maintain, and have zero ongoing fuel costs.
And while I agree that modern nuclear has a very low chance of dangerous failure, it's still non-zero, and you have to multiply that chance by the economic costs of consequences, which can be very high. Failure costs aren't factored in to the above numbers, but they can't be dismissed either. Despite that, I think nuclear should still be considered, particularly for more northern sites where solar is less effective and available wind may not be enough.
I'm guessing your objection to solar & wind is the "baseload" concern, where low capacity factors require alternate sources. This isn't a new issue for the energy industry (nothing has a 100% capacity factor), and is traditionally solved by distributing the load over multiple plants. A number of studies show that reliable power is certainly feasible with renewables too. For example, with widely-distributed wind farms, local variations can be spread out over the larger grid, and excess solar can be stored with pumped hydro (where available) or any of a number of commercially-available grid storage technologies, including reflow batteries (which can be easily scaled to almost any desired storage capacity). During the transition (which would likely take decades), existing gas turbines can help cover any shortfalls. I also note that geothermal plants are particularly interesting here, as not only do they have a capacity factor even better than nuclear's, they also have the cheapest LCOE of all.
Do we really care how the climate changed 315 million years ago? We weren't around then.
It's changing now, and that's affecting us directly. And unlike past events, we can see that this time it's us that's causing it. The planet will be fine of course, but in the mean time it will be very expensive for us to adapt - moving our cities and infrastructure away from low-lying areas, dealing with the increased droughts and storm damage. We can save literally trillions of dollars of costs in the longer term by phasing out coal & oil sooner, rather than later.
Go read up on the BEST project. They had similar concerns about the current analyses, including the influence of the urban heat island effect.
Unlike the armchair deniers found on the internet, they actually did their own analysis, both with and without urban readings. Somewhat to their surprise, excluding the warmer urban readings completely made virtually no difference to the overall result.
specially when there is such a huge agenda behind it with massive amounts of money
I don't suppose you're referring to the fossil-fuel industry's agenda? It's hard to get more massive than the trillions of dollars they have at stake.
No. Believe it or not, past episodes of changing climate have had a variety of causes.
if it's hot it's climate change and we need a totalitarian state to fix it
Even if the first part were true, there's absolutely no need for a totalitarian state to fix it.
Please don't conflate the problem with an entirely different problem. There are many paths to mitigating climate change, and potential solutions from across the whole political spectrum. Instead of denying the problem exists, why not promote a solution you're comfortable with?
You haven't made any points to rebut. All you've done is spout a baseless opinion that the adjustments are bad because you think they are, without ever saying how they're bad, or why they should not be made.
When you need to adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion
And where is your evidence for this claim of deliberate data fudging? Where is your evidence that NOAA's adjustments are incorrect, given that the reported land temperature rises correlate with tropospheric temperatures, ocean temperatures, sea level rise, physically-based CO2 models, and indeed independent data from the NASA and HadCRUT sets as well? Are you also going to claim a global conspiracy next?
All measurements need proper calibration. Raw sensor output is meaningless without this, particularly if the sensor's bias is expected to change over time. Your link cites peer-reviewed methodology for the adjustments described, so unless you can explain convincingly why all those scientists are flat-out (and deliberately) wrong, don't expect your nonspecific ramblings to be taken seriously by anyone who counts.