The model are excellent. I'm not sure why you think a model that predicts things we didn't expect, and then was confirmed by problem is a failure.
It has strong predictive power, that has been confirmed many times.
Regardless of this press release*, the science is extremely strong. This is why you make ad hom attacks instead of discussing the science.
*I'm not sure how else you would expect an information on science to get released to the general public other then a PR release. People know about the findnig and can look at the actual scientific literature themselves.
Which of these testable science facts do you disagree with: AGW Science:
1) A lot of visible light hits the earth. 2) Visible light pass through CO2 with no interaction. 3) Visible strikes something, IR is emitted 4) CO2 absorbs energy from IR 5) Human put more CO2 into the atmosphere then can be absorbed through the normal cycle. 6) Extra CO2 means more energy held in the lower atmosphere. You can make tests for all of that yourself.
"but because we should be good stewards of the resources around us" Why? if you don't think we can do harm to it, why do we need to be good stewards?
1) A lot of visible light hits the earth. 2) Visible light pass through CO2 with no interaction. 3) Visible strikes something, IR is emitted 4) CO2 absorbs energy from IR 5) Human put more CO2 into the atmosphere then can be absorbed through the normal cycle. 6) Extra CO2 means more energy held in the lower atmosphere. You can make tests for all of that yourself.
So tell me: Why wouldn't excess trapped energy not change the climate? Of course in changes it, just like it does with any other system. Since we keep emitting too much CO2, more energy is going to be trapped.
Climate is complex, but that doesn't mean the extra trapped energy just goes away.
Getting fixated on things that aren't exactly as predicted, but are withing error bars, doesn't help.
I think you proved his point. All your question are irrelevant and seem to be based on the fact you don't know what man made global warming is.
AGW is NOT climate change. AGW is the increased trapping of heat. An extremely well established fact. This is why deniers never talk about the science of AGW. The say AGW, but then go one to talk about climate change, like you did.
AGW is the trapping of energy from a level of green house gasses, primarily CO2, that can't be cycle through the natural CO2 process. The science of this is pretty easy. Falsifying AGW Science is trivial and any college lab could do it. So if there was a problem the AGW science every coal company would have tests and papers showing you where the physics is wrong.
So AGW is happening.
There are two question I pose to deniers: Why do you think adding energy to a system won't cause changes in the system? Why do you think it will stop changing even though we continue to put out 29GTs of CO2? 12 GT of which cannot be absorbed through the normal cycle.
the second one is to address this issue: "Might we be better off on a warmer planet?" It won't stop getting warmer until we staop putting out excess CO2. You should look up the impact CO2 has on the human beings.
SolarCity is a horrid company. I am going through a nightmare. I told them not to come out and they did. They put a small hole in my roof which they claim they patched, but refuse to tell me where on the roof they put the hole. The keep sending my electronic documents to sigh even though I cancelled the whole thing.
SO yeah I've heard of them, and the can bite my shiny metal ass.
well.. A) Natural gas is finite. B) Natural gas has other uses instead of just generating power. I thing saving a natural resource for other thing is a better long term strategy. C) Natural gas price will continue to rise.
Don't be caught in the natural gas bubble. It's temporary. Waiting until we are out of other source would be a pretty bad time to start trying to get more renewals.
"Those who want to drive carbon free to catch their chartered jet for their tropical vacation." ad hom and a non sequitor. You have to change the system, from inside the system. They don't have solar planes yet. It's really a poor argument .
As a side note, you really shouldn't just look at one factor. There are many factor besides 1 cost variable.
How is the firm energy generated at Hoover Dam allocated?
Arizona - 18.9527 percent Nevada - 23.3706 percent Metropolitan Water District of Southern California - 28.5393 percent Burbank, CA - 0.5876 percent Glendale, CA - 1.5874 percent Pasadena, CA - 1.3629 percent Los Angeles, CA - 15.4229 percent Southern California Edison Co. - 5.5377 percent Azusa, CA - 0.1104 percent Anaheim, CA - 1.1487 percent Banning, CA - 0.0442 percent Colton, CA - 0.0884 percent Riverside, CA - 0.8615 percent Vernon, CA - 0.6185 percent Boulder City, NV - 1.7672 percent
"As we all know, there are generous tax incentives, often 33% to over 50%, " do we now? please site an example where that happens for commercial green sources, as apposed to consumer(home) panels.
Frankly. incentive will help drive the market until they aren't needed.
Do you know why we pay farmers not to grow crops? It costs less for the government to do that, then to pay to store grain they don't need. It's one of the reason food system in the US is so stable. The history of why we do that is pretty interesting.
Stability is the reason for the fed loans to GM et. al.
The whole point of the internet is to share informaiton. That's why it was created, that's why you can't really lock anything down. Corporation then jump on and want to bend it to how they think it should work.
Frankly, I'm tired of corporation dictating how the public internet should work. They can build their own global network.
Yep. Plus I tried to rewrite a previous sentence. It's still my fault for not correcting the post before submitting it. OTOH, it's Slashdot and the idiots hear have made caring hard.
"More people seeing the art will make your collection worth more money."
Of course, nothing compares to the fact that I read it as the Getty Museum, initially.
I rad the article, but I swore it was the Getty Museum. Probably becasue I was talking about the Getty Museum this morning my brain just filled in parts for me. mea culpa
People who go to the museum aren't going to stop going to the museum because the pictures appear on Bing. More people seeing the aren't will me your collection is worth more money.
A museum is more then the art. It's an experience.
I wish it did. Preferable the capital building,. I don't want anyone hurt, but maybe it would be a wake up call for better funding to watch of objects.
Slashdot Mirror
The model are excellent. I'm not sure why you think a model that predicts things we didn't expect, and then was confirmed by problem is a failure.
It has strong predictive power, that has been confirmed many times.
Regardless of this press release*, the science is extremely strong. This is why you make ad hom attacks instead of discussing the science.
*I'm not sure how else you would expect an information on science to get released to the general public other then a PR release. People know about the findnig and can look at the actual scientific literature themselves.
Which of these testable science facts do you disagree with:
AGW Science:
1) A lot of visible light hits the earth.
2) Visible light pass through CO2 with no interaction.
3) Visible strikes something, IR is emitted
4) CO2 absorbs energy from IR
5) Human put more CO2 into the atmosphere then can be absorbed through the normal cycle.
6) Extra CO2 means more energy held in the lower atmosphere.
You can make tests for all of that yourself.
"but because we should be good stewards of the resources around us"
Why? if you don't think we can do harm to it, why do we need to be good stewards?
The majority of people wanting to move away from CO2 agree with you.
Also, Solar and industrial solar thermal.
Worse, his complaint is that they aren't the first few hits. Clearly he just doesn't know how search engines work.
The scienctist that can show AGW isn't happening would get a Nobel prize, and make millions with a book, and speaking.
Yes, it's a very American thing.
There is a small, but loud, vocal group that seems to think humans can't impact the planet no matter what.
These are salt of the earth people, everything is common sense people..you know, morons.
AGW Science:
1) A lot of visible light hits the earth.
2) Visible light pass through CO2 with no interaction.
3) Visible strikes something, IR is emitted
4) CO2 absorbs energy from IR
5) Human put more CO2 into the atmosphere then can be absorbed through the normal cycle.
6) Extra CO2 means more energy held in the lower atmosphere.
You can make tests for all of that yourself.
So tell me: Why wouldn't excess trapped energy not change the climate?
Of course in changes it, just like it does with any other system. Since we keep emitting too much CO2, more energy is going to be trapped.
Climate is complex, but that doesn't mean the extra trapped energy just goes away.
Getting fixated on things that aren't exactly as predicted, but are withing error bars, doesn't help.
"Oh - we have to take the word of the "consensus".
no, you absolutely do not. You can test it yourself.
Informing people about science and it's impact is an import part of science.
It is a valid argument when the person who says they are wrong offers no actual facts.
I think you proved his point.
All your question are irrelevant and seem to be based on the fact you don't know what man made global warming is.
AGW is NOT climate change.
AGW is the increased trapping of heat. An extremely well established fact. This is why deniers never talk about the science of AGW. The say AGW, but then go one to talk about climate change, like you did.
AGW is the trapping of energy from a level of green house gasses, primarily CO2, that can't be cycle through the natural CO2 process.
The science of this is pretty easy. Falsifying AGW Science is trivial and any college lab could do it. So if there was a problem the AGW science every coal company would have tests and papers showing you where the physics is wrong.
So AGW is happening.
There are two question I pose to deniers:
Why do you think adding energy to a system won't cause changes in the system?
Why do you think it will stop changing even though we continue to put out 29GTs of CO2? 12 GT of which cannot be absorbed through the normal cycle.
the second one is to address this issue:
"Might we be better off on a warmer planet?"
It won't stop getting warmer until we staop putting out excess CO2.
You should look up the impact CO2 has on the human beings.
SolarCity is a horrid company. I am going through a nightmare. I told them not to come out and they did. They put a small hole in my roof which they claim they patched, but refuse to tell me where on the roof they put the hole. The keep sending my electronic documents to sigh even though I cancelled the whole thing.
SO yeah I've heard of them, and the can bite my shiny metal ass.
well..
A) Natural gas is finite.
B) Natural gas has other uses instead of just generating power. I thing saving a natural resource for other thing is a better long term strategy.
C) Natural gas price will continue to rise.
Don't be caught in the natural gas bubble. It's temporary. Waiting until we are out of other source would be a pretty bad time to start trying to get more renewals.
"Those who want to drive carbon free to catch their chartered jet for their tropical vacation."
ad hom and a non sequitor.
You have to change the system, from inside the system.
They don't have solar planes yet.
It's really a poor argument .
As a side note, you really shouldn't just look at one factor. There are many factor besides 1 cost variable.
Nope.
from: http://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverd...
How is the firm energy generated at Hoover Dam allocated?
Arizona - 18.9527 percent
Nevada - 23.3706 percent
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California - 28.5393 percent
Burbank, CA - 0.5876 percent
Glendale, CA - 1.5874 percent
Pasadena, CA - 1.3629 percent
Los Angeles, CA - 15.4229 percent
Southern California Edison Co. - 5.5377 percent
Azusa, CA - 0.1104 percent
Anaheim, CA - 1.1487 percent
Banning, CA - 0.0442 percent
Colton, CA - 0.0884 percent
Riverside, CA - 0.8615 percent
Vernon, CA - 0.6185 percent
Boulder City, NV - 1.7672 percent
The news didn't stop until a patch had been released.
The floor mat issue was a separate problem.
The Prius was uncommanded acceleration.
"As we all know, there are generous tax incentives, often 33% to over 50%, "
do we now? please site an example where that happens for commercial green sources, as apposed to consumer(home) panels.
Frankly. incentive will help drive the market until they aren't needed.
Do you know why we pay farmers not to grow crops?
It costs less for the government to do that, then to pay to store grain they don't need.
It's one of the reason food system in the US is so stable.
The history of why we do that is pretty interesting.
Stability is the reason for the fed loans to GM et. al.
The whole point of the internet is to share informaiton. That's why it was created, that's why you can't really lock anything down.
Corporation then jump on and want to bend it to how they think it should work.
Frankly, I'm tired of corporation dictating how the public internet should work. They can build their own global network.
Big words from an AC tough guy.
Yep. Plus I tried to rewrite a previous sentence.
It's still my fault for not correcting the post before submitting it.
OTOH, it's Slashdot and the idiots hear have made caring hard.
"More people seeing the art will make your collection worth more money."
Of course, nothing compares to the fact that I read it as the Getty Museum, initially.
I rad the article, but I swore it was the Getty Museum. Probably becasue I was talking about the Getty Museum this morning my brain just filled in parts for me.
mea culpa
People who go to the museum aren't going to stop going to the museum because the pictures appear on Bing.
More people seeing the aren't will me your collection is worth more money.
A museum is more then the art. It's an experience.
Did you look at the impact crater? YOU could easily spread that little dirt over the areas and it would not be noticeable.
I've seen tree hit by lightning and the near by bushes look un-touched.
That was the plan. But, you know Reagan and his bogus budget cutting efforts.
The problem with imperial units is that
before you know it, you're looking down the barrel of a Death Star.
I wish it did. Preferable the capital building,. I don't want anyone hurt, but maybe it would be a wake up call for better funding to watch of objects.