Here we go with the usual progression of argument. Not only are the denialists in possession of the TRUTH, they are PERSECUTED for it. The same horrible kind of persecution the average white, anglosaxon protestant is hit with just for being alive, no doubt.
The null hypothesis is disproven. For years and years. The only one railing on about the heat island effect and station placement is Watts, our favourite weatherman without a scientific clue but a huge agenda. Best you can claim is that warming is not anthropogenic, and if you want to claim that, please present an explanation for it.
Nope, I am not. I suffered through enough thermodynamics lectures to get my units straight. Pure thermodynamic calories - or put up the same in Joules, to avoid the confusion. Consider the amount of very high energy fertilizer, the amount of diesel fuel spent on farming and ferrying our food around, the amount of post-production processing most of our food gets and you see the numbers.
Then why are you still railing on about Al Gore, which surely gives you a funny mod around here, but which has absolutely nothing to do with the facts at hand. Besides, i still do not get why you acknowledge the need for conservative handling of resources and on the other hand ignore every bit of research that has been published. I am simply confused about that. It is not even barely consistent.
Criticism usually includes putting forth an alternative model. Not just shouting "NO! NO! NO!". The basic forcing by CO2 is a simple physical fact - every 2nd semester student can do the math. The effect is measurable, just take a spectrum. Did that myself, ages ago in a physical chemistry lab session. Measuring the increase in atmospheric CO2 is trivial. Proving that the increase is anthropogenic is trivial - just look at the isotope ratio. Measuring solar input is trivial. These are the basic forcings. Now, the feedbacks and the amount of their contribution is open, I give you that - but the basic fact of warming due to CO2 is simply not open to debate any more.
Newsflash, Coward, I don't give a rat's arse about Gore, as I am not American and not still butthurt about some political shenanigans that happened over a decade ago. Instead, I stick to the science, and not to some blogs with an obvious agenda. But thanks for making my point. You are a nice exhibition piece for my argument.
Yup, and when they can't cool their nukes in the next dry summer, as the one that is coming up right now, we will gladly support them with some icky wind, solar and water generated energy.
In the end, you are probably right there. In the short term, peak oil will hit us way harder than global warming. The fact that for every calorie of food, about 10 calories in fossil fuels are spent does not make for pleasant dreams. And as soon as peak oil really makes an impact, we will dig out every affordable ton of coal and convert it to liquid. As much as I hope to the contrary, I don't see us limiting our CO2 output in any meaningful manner. Best we can do is prepare for the consequences.
Well, to be honest, we are not that exceptional in this regard. Many a species has created its own version of the great pacific garbage patch. Growing to your limits and then crashing seems to be a biological imperative. Only we do it on a global scale - well, you might hold that one to the early photosynthesizing algae, which poisoned the reducing atmosphere of early earth with oxygen. What sets us apart is only the fact that we are blessed (?) with sentience, and should be able to look into the future, at least a little bit.
I don't get that disconnect in your argument. On the one hand, you make some reasonable argument about being conservative, on the other hand, you flat out ignore every single fact, every bit of research that has been done and that shows a definitive impact of human action on global temperature. It is not all guessing, we have loads and loads of solid data - in the end, it is basic physics. What is open is only the parametrization of the feedbacks, the forcings are pretty clear - just take a look at the literature. Why does someone with a basically rational view on how one should handle the available resources suddenly jump to "it's all guessing"?
Weirdly, when I was living and working in the USA, I never really encountered this in real life. Ok, it was a decade ago and deep in the country of nuts and flakes, Southern California. But around here, these days, the political debate is so deeply poisoned that I sometimes lack the words to express it. I really like America - I had some great time over there, and you guys have a good thing going - but these days, I start getting concerned that you have it all falling apart, judging by the massive polarization of politics. It feels massively unhealthy from this European's point of view.
You really missed the sarcasm tag out there, did you? Have a look at the other half of the thread, where exactly this argument is made, by the way. You gotta weep for humanity if this is a reflection of the nerd community.
Don't worry, it is carbon neutral, being a biofuel. You gotta give them that, at least their flaming is environmentally friendly, if unintentionally so...
They are all over the thread already. Can't be arsed to engage them anymore, to be honest. Well, we can bask in the warm glow of burning Al Gore strawmen....
Indeed, I haven't followed it closely, but wasn't the last cycle supposed to be exceptionally weak already? Any astrophysicist around to give us some information here?
Seriously, you guys don't even have the decency to respect this man's decision without making it a talking point against the socialist boogeyman out there? Careful, the ghost of Karl Marx is out to get you, mate.
Your post makes just as much sense as your sig... which means, none. How many people need to die in a horrible, unfree manner, because of paranoiacs like you, before we finally can move on to something resembling civilization?
The end of Western Civilization's downward slope is televising a man making his own decision about how to die in dignity, fighting for all the others that are denied this right today? That's what you call da nightmare? I seriously don't want to know the rest of your so-called "morals"...
What are you on about? He is making two different comparisons, which are equally meaningless, by the way. First he compares the recent german outbreak with nuclear deaths excluding Chernobyl, then he compares the totality of E. coli infections with the totality of nuclear deaths. I have been talking about statistical reasons why the first one is bullshit. There is no cherry picking involved. Both are actually bullshit, because, in the end, comparing unrelated and uncorrelated events can't give you any insight in how to deal with any of those events.
I agree, Maxo. Been a pleasure chatting with you. I guess our differences are purely semantic in the end. I still reserve my (natural) right to call "ability" what you call "right"...;)
Are you deliberately skirting around the point that comparing unrelated events is meaningless? Or do you just not get it? Is that intellectual dishonesty or plain stupidity? Please, be honest for once and enlighten me here. Once again, the risk of dying from smoking has NO BEARING AT ALL on nuclear policy. Decisions in the former field have no consequence for the latter, and vice versa. Making such comparisons serves no point at all. I feel like bashing my head against a wall here.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course we were using SI - gotta learn how to convert from deprecated units, though, anyway.
If you admit that it should have no bearing, why the flaming fuck are you making the argument?
Here we go with the usual progression of argument. Not only are the denialists in possession of the TRUTH, they are PERSECUTED for it. The same horrible kind of persecution the average white, anglosaxon protestant is hit with just for being alive, no doubt.
The null hypothesis is disproven. For years and years. The only one railing on about the heat island effect and station placement is Watts, our favourite weatherman without a scientific clue but a huge agenda. Best you can claim is that warming is not anthropogenic, and if you want to claim that, please present an explanation for it.
Nope, I am not. I suffered through enough thermodynamics lectures to get my units straight. Pure thermodynamic calories - or put up the same in Joules, to avoid the confusion. Consider the amount of very high energy fertilizer, the amount of diesel fuel spent on farming and ferrying our food around, the amount of post-production processing most of our food gets and you see the numbers.
Then why are you still railing on about Al Gore, which surely gives you a funny mod around here, but which has absolutely nothing to do with the facts at hand. Besides, i still do not get why you acknowledge the need for conservative handling of resources and on the other hand ignore every bit of research that has been published. I am simply confused about that. It is not even barely consistent.
Criticism usually includes putting forth an alternative model. Not just shouting "NO! NO! NO!". The basic forcing by CO2 is a simple physical fact - every 2nd semester student can do the math. The effect is measurable, just take a spectrum. Did that myself, ages ago in a physical chemistry lab session. Measuring the increase in atmospheric CO2 is trivial. Proving that the increase is anthropogenic is trivial - just look at the isotope ratio. Measuring solar input is trivial. These are the basic forcings. Now, the feedbacks and the amount of their contribution is open, I give you that - but the basic fact of warming due to CO2 is simply not open to debate any more.
Newsflash, Coward, I don't give a rat's arse about Gore, as I am not American and not still butthurt about some political shenanigans that happened over a decade ago. Instead, I stick to the science, and not to some blogs with an obvious agenda. But thanks for making my point. You are a nice exhibition piece for my argument.
Yup, and when they can't cool their nukes in the next dry summer, as the one that is coming up right now, we will gladly support them with some icky wind, solar and water generated energy.
In the end, you are probably right there. In the short term, peak oil will hit us way harder than global warming. The fact that for every calorie of food, about 10 calories in fossil fuels are spent does not make for pleasant dreams. And as soon as peak oil really makes an impact, we will dig out every affordable ton of coal and convert it to liquid. As much as I hope to the contrary, I don't see us limiting our CO2 output in any meaningful manner. Best we can do is prepare for the consequences.
Well, to be honest, we are not that exceptional in this regard. Many a species has created its own version of the great pacific garbage patch. Growing to your limits and then crashing seems to be a biological imperative. Only we do it on a global scale - well, you might hold that one to the early photosynthesizing algae, which poisoned the reducing atmosphere of early earth with oxygen. What sets us apart is only the fact that we are blessed (?) with sentience, and should be able to look into the future, at least a little bit.
I don't get that disconnect in your argument. On the one hand, you make some reasonable argument about being conservative, on the other hand, you flat out ignore every single fact, every bit of research that has been done and that shows a definitive impact of human action on global temperature. It is not all guessing, we have loads and loads of solid data - in the end, it is basic physics. What is open is only the parametrization of the feedbacks, the forcings are pretty clear - just take a look at the literature. Why does someone with a basically rational view on how one should handle the available resources suddenly jump to "it's all guessing"?
Weirdly, when I was living and working in the USA, I never really encountered this in real life. Ok, it was a decade ago and deep in the country of nuts and flakes, Southern California. But around here, these days, the political debate is so deeply poisoned that I sometimes lack the words to express it. I really like America - I had some great time over there, and you guys have a good thing going - but these days, I start getting concerned that you have it all falling apart, judging by the massive polarization of politics. It feels massively unhealthy from this European's point of view.
Just randomly doing end of the world predictions. Doesn't this sound perfect for Fimbulvetr, or the winter before Ragagnarok to happen?
No idea, but you should keep your battle axe handy. Never hurts - if Fimbulvetr does not come, you can still go a-viking and have some fun.
You really missed the sarcasm tag out there, did you? Have a look at the other half of the thread, where exactly this argument is made, by the way. You gotta weep for humanity if this is a reflection of the nerd community.
Don't worry, it is carbon neutral, being a biofuel. You gotta give them that, at least their flaming is environmentally friendly, if unintentionally so...
That's part of the human condition, I guess. Nice juxtaposition to your sig, though. I gotta admit that I suck at Go...
They are all over the thread already. Can't be arsed to engage them anymore, to be honest. Well, we can bask in the warm glow of burning Al Gore strawmen....
Indeed, I haven't followed it closely, but wasn't the last cycle supposed to be exceptionally weak already? Any astrophysicist around to give us some information here?
Seriously, you guys don't even have the decency to respect this man's decision without making it a talking point against the socialist boogeyman out there? Careful, the ghost of Karl Marx is out to get you, mate.
Your post makes just as much sense as your sig... which means, none. How many people need to die in a horrible, unfree manner, because of paranoiacs like you, before we finally can move on to something resembling civilization?
The end of Western Civilization's downward slope is televising a man making his own decision about how to die in dignity, fighting for all the others that are denied this right today? That's what you call da nightmare? I seriously don't want to know the rest of your so-called "morals"...
What are you on about? He is making two different comparisons, which are equally meaningless, by the way. First he compares the recent german outbreak with nuclear deaths excluding Chernobyl, then he compares the totality of E. coli infections with the totality of nuclear deaths. I have been talking about statistical reasons why the first one is bullshit. There is no cherry picking involved. Both are actually bullshit, because, in the end, comparing unrelated and uncorrelated events can't give you any insight in how to deal with any of those events.
I agree, Maxo. Been a pleasure chatting with you. I guess our differences are purely semantic in the end. I still reserve my (natural) right to call "ability" what you call "right"... ;)
Are you deliberately skirting around the point that comparing unrelated events is meaningless? Or do you just not get it? Is that intellectual dishonesty or plain stupidity? Please, be honest for once and enlighten me here. Once again, the risk of dying from smoking has NO BEARING AT ALL on nuclear policy. Decisions in the former field have no consequence for the latter, and vice versa. Making such comparisons serves no point at all. I feel like bashing my head against a wall here.