We're looking at an impact of shifting noon by about a minute over the course of an average human's lifespan.
Maybe not even that since leap seconds can be both inserted and removed as required depending on climatic and geological events. It could very well be a wash.
I can't comment on the cases that you take issue with because you haven't provided sources, but it is possible that an area could expect more floods and more droughts as the climate changes.
Most black market activity isn't "governed by the mafia"
I think at best you could say that some black market activity isn't governed by organized crime. Either way, we have come a long way from "Markets by definition..."
That's some crazy thinking. You realize sea levels were 550 feet higher then as well? (R.D. Muller et al 2008).
So you started by saying that you don't deny the science, you just don't like the proposed solutions. What's your solution? Reject the science.
Markets do not require "governance", they can be self-governing, and frequently are.
Could you give me an example? Game theory suggests that this would fail on any large scale.
I came up with being able to get at most to about 1000ppm, which is still quite safe.
Assuming you have a good account of undiscovered repositories, which I think is probably unlikely, how do you know that 1000 ppm is quite safe? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention.
By what definition? Are you referring to barter? Any more complex market requires governance. The market based solution that I favour is a revenue neutral carbon tax. Income tax and sales tax would be reduced (which is good because why are we taxing behaviours that we want to encourage!) but the price at the pump would increase. A relatively modest RNCT was introduced in British Columbia and it seems to be working quite well.
The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth
Agreed. We need to proceed with caution. We're better equipped to tackle this if we're rich. Let's plan to stay that way.
In terms of promoting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and nuclear, the market itself already has more than enough of an incentive for that, because fossil fuels are expensive and limited.
The big problem is that there is much more fossil fuel available than we can safely burn. Just waiting until we run out (or diminish stocks to the point that they become prohibitively or even relatively expensive) is not really a solution.
You go to the article, and of all the links they have, only *two* point to anything that comes even close to scientific
It would be nice if they provided sources, but there is nothing really controversial in the article. The article from 2007 noted that arctic sea ice was diminishing faster than any models had predicted. That has not changed since 2007: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/rep... .
The problem... isn't so much what they advocate (lowering carbon emissions), but their... belief that the best way of accomplishing that is through government action.
I'm intrigued. What is the best way to accomplish this? I'd advocate a market based solution (but not cap and trade), but even that would require government intervention. Is there a better way?
Who gets to choose which to follow and which to reject? How about these stories about how the early christian church redistributed wealth. Abhorrent or tenet?
"No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.”
Or this:
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house.
Or this:
Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
The consequence of possessions was death. Jesus even suggested eternal damnation was the ultimate result of wealth. Are these stories an account of how the early church was horrible, or is this religious tenet?
Here is what the IPCC actually said of sea ice 25 years ago: On the basis of current simulations, it is not possible to make reliable quantitative estimates or the changes in the sea ice extent and depth It should be noted that the models considered here neglect ice dynamics, leads, salinity effects, and changes in ocean circulation.
Don't suffer from single study syndrome. Look for a consensus rather than focusing on one paper or another. The IPCC is a great resource for understanding the consensus.
actuallT record-breaking larger than it has ever been before in recorded history
I think you are confusing sea ice area with continental ice volume. As the volume melts it deposits fresh water near the surface. Fresh water freezes more readily than salt water. So you can have the sea ice area increase even while overall volume decreases.
Science: systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
For observations you need data. You will also need something to test your experiments against... Data. You can either collect it yourself or purchase it if it is already available. Are the republicans offering to purchase the data or are they rent seekers?
Are these same republicans also providing additional funds for the EPA to purchase privately held data sets or are they defunding the EPA? Or do the republicans want to use the coercive power of the state to force other people to provide the EPA, gratis, the fruits of their labor?
for instance, as a scientist I may want to purchase a data set for my study. I am not entitled to provide that data set to others. I can document my methods and others can purchase that data set or an equivalent one and run the same or similar methods on it. There is no secrecy here but there is a private company with an asset that they are charging for. Should the science based on the asset be disqualified? Should the state purchase the data, and if so are the republicans willing to fund that? Should the state use force to commandeer the asset?
the greatest authoritarian government, run by the most fascist, megalomaniacal, sadistic person who has ever lived, would find no better tool of absolute control than mandatory hard drug use like meth,
According to TFA: Likely candidates include venting from oil and gas activities, which are primarily coalbed methane exploration and extraction in this region; active coal mines; and natural gas seeps... The Four Corners coal-fired power plant, near Farmington, is one of the targets Nasa wants to investigate as a possible cause of the methane
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think these scientists are all or even mostly Catholics. They are probably mostly concerned that the Pope is well informed about the science.
Here are the folks who advise the Pope on science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Some names you may recognize: Edward Witten, Stephen Hawking, Francis Collins, Mario Molina, Maxine Singer, etc.
We're looking at an impact of shifting noon by about a minute over the course of an average human's lifespan.
Maybe not even that since leap seconds can be both inserted and removed as required depending on climatic and geological events. It could very well be a wash.
This attack will be used as justification for increased security at the expense of privacy.
It is seemingly paradoxical, but in New York it now snows less often and they get more snowfall: http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
I can't comment on the cases that you take issue with because you haven't provided sources, but it is possible that an area could expect more floods and more droughts as the climate changes.
A coefficient is only so interesting. A more interesting number would be the percentage of sea level rise that is attributable to thermal expansion.
Most black market activity isn't "governed by the mafia"
I think at best you could say that some black market activity isn't governed by organized crime. Either way, we have come a long way from "Markets by definition..."
Sea levels can't rise another 550 ft, there simply isn't enough water in the ice caps.
You seem very certain about a topic that you appear to understand only superficially. You have neglected thermal expansion.
Markets by definition... as long as that definition is limited to black markets... notwithstanding the fact that these are governed by the mafia.
That's some crazy thinking. You realize sea levels were 550 feet higher then as well? (R.D. Muller et al 2008). So you started by saying that you don't deny the science, you just don't like the proposed solutions. What's your solution? Reject the science.
Markets do not require "governance", they can be self-governing, and frequently are.
Could you give me an example? Game theory suggests that this would fail on any large scale.
I came up with being able to get at most to about 1000ppm, which is still quite safe.
Assuming you have a good account of undiscovered repositories, which I think is probably unlikely, how do you know that 1000 ppm is quite safe? Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
if it works as we want it to after a few decades there will be little tax collected because no one is emitting carbon
I'm not so sure that's a bad thing.
Market-based solutions, by definition, do not require government intervention.
By what definition? Are you referring to barter? Any more complex market requires governance. The market based solution that I favour is a revenue neutral carbon tax. Income tax and sales tax would be reduced (which is good because why are we taxing behaviours that we want to encourage!) but the price at the pump would increase. A relatively modest RNCT was introduced in British Columbia and it seems to be working quite well.
The biggest problem with government intervention in terms of global warming is that it inhibits global economic growth
Agreed. We need to proceed with caution. We're better equipped to tackle this if we're rich. Let's plan to stay that way.
In terms of promoting energy efficiency, renewable energy, and nuclear, the market itself already has more than enough of an incentive for that, because fossil fuels are expensive and limited.
The big problem is that there is much more fossil fuel available than we can safely burn. Just waiting until we run out (or diminish stocks to the point that they become prohibitively or even relatively expensive) is not really a solution.
You go to the article, and of all the links they have, only *two* point to anything that comes even close to scientific
It would be nice if they provided sources, but there is nothing really controversial in the article. The article from 2007 noted that arctic sea ice was diminishing faster than any models had predicted. That has not changed since 2007: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/rep... .
The problem ... isn't so much what they advocate (lowering carbon emissions), but their ... belief that the best way of accomplishing that is through government action.
I'm intrigued. What is the best way to accomplish this? I'd advocate a market based solution (but not cap and trade), but even that would require government intervention. Is there a better way?
Who gets to choose which to follow and which to reject? How about these stories about how the early christian church redistributed wealth. Abhorrent or tenet?
"No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.”
Or this:
And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house.
Or this:
Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”
When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
The consequence of possessions was death. Jesus even suggested eternal damnation was the ultimate result of wealth. Are these stories an account of how the early church was horrible, or is this religious tenet?
Which study was thrown out? None.
they said would not be there 25 years ago
Here is what the IPCC actually said of sea ice 25 years ago: On the basis of current simulations, it is not possible to make reliable quantitative estimates or the changes in the sea ice extent and depth It should be noted that the models considered here neglect ice dynamics, leads, salinity effects, and changes in ocean circulation.
Don't suffer from single study syndrome. Look for a consensus rather than focusing on one paper or another. The IPCC is a great resource for understanding the consensus.
actuallT record-breaking larger than it has ever been before in recorded history
I think you are confusing sea ice area with continental ice volume. As the volume melts it deposits fresh water near the surface. Fresh water freezes more readily than salt water. So you can have the sea ice area increase even while overall volume decreases.
What are observations if not data? What is the result of your experiments if not data?
Science free of observations and experiments?
Science: systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
For observations you need data. You will also need something to test your experiments against... Data. You can either collect it yourself or purchase it if it is already available. Are the republicans offering to purchase the data or are they rent seekers?
I RTFA and don't get the controversy.
Are these same republicans also providing additional funds for the EPA to purchase privately held data sets or are they defunding the EPA? Or do the republicans want to use the coercive power of the state to force other people to provide the EPA, gratis, the fruits of their labor?
for instance, as a scientist I may want to purchase a data set for my study. I am not entitled to provide that data set to others. I can document my methods and others can purchase that data set or an equivalent one and run the same or similar methods on it. There is no secrecy here but there is a private company with an asset that they are charging for. Should the science based on the asset be disqualified? Should the state purchase the data, and if so are the republicans willing to fund that? Should the state use force to commandeer the asset?
not have to worry about if he thinks that I think, etc.
I think he's wrong on this. A computer would still need to consider what his opponent thinks he holds and raise accordingly.
the greatest authoritarian government, run by the most fascist, megalomaniacal, sadistic person who has ever lived, would find no better tool of absolute control than mandatory hard drug use like meth,
Why not? He took them himself: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
According to TFA: Likely candidates include venting from oil and gas activities, which are primarily coalbed methane exploration and extraction in this region; active coal mines; and natural gas seeps... The Four Corners coal-fired power plant, near Farmington, is one of the targets Nasa wants to investigate as a possible cause of the methane