On the contrary. We had been heading back into a glacial period over the last 6000 years... until the industrial revolution when something happened to abruptly reverse the trend.
In 2005, it was very well known that greenhouse effect was much bigger.
True, but at least these folks were willing to put their money where their mouth is. It suggests they at least believed what they were saying. That's better than most on that side of the 'debate'.
Take contrarian hero Richard Lindzen who would only take 50:1 odds. It suggests he's aware that he's 50 times more likely to be wrong than right.
It is interesting to see who is willing to pony up some money to back up their rhetoric, and who is merely spewing denial that they do not themselves believe. For instance, look at Joe Basatardi who in 2011 said "the earth will cool.1 to.2 Celsius in the next ten years, according to objective satellite data." He later refused to follow through when a number of people accepted the bet. Good thing too as his prediction is not looking so good.
Cudos to the two Russian scientists for putting their money where their mouth is. We can suppose they at least believed in what they were saying. I'm less impressed that they didn't actually pay up, but maybe they are in dire financial straits. Who knows.
the closest thing to reportage here is links to a blog and also a graph of some sort i honestly don't have time to bother figuring out.
The graph is showing that every available temperature data set, whether it be it from USA or UK, land or satellite, and even those by skeptics - all show the same thing. Temperature is warming by about 0.2C/decade. The later period is warmer than the former. The climate modeler had greater insights into the mechanisms that affect global mean temperature than the solar physicists. The winner is clear.
I agree. Given that Canada has signed on to the US copyright system, there is no need to look for alternative/additional compensation methods. It should be one or the other. According to the new rules, the Log Drivers Waltz will not be public domain until 2072. Crazy.
No idea what you are on about, except that you agree wholeheartedly with my original post, don't really have anything to add, but wanted to post words nonetheless?
localized heat increase happening over many locales over many decades has a global impact
0.24C rise in 1.5% of the Earth is maybe 0.0036C globally and would avert 0.1C of global temperature increase. GGP has it right. Any way you slice it, the former is better than the latter.
Problem being that localized heat increase happening over many locales over many decades has a global impact. Thermal energy has to go somewhere, it doesn't just vanish because it's not generated by sun rays in this case. That's why paper is talking about 0,5GW of generation across the US, not a single wind park.
Continental USA is only about one and a half percent of the total area of the Earth. Meanwhile fossil fuel burning results in about 0.2C warming each decade across the entire globe.
If the entire earth's energy was converted to wind, you may have 29% of the Earth (all countries only cover 29%) warm by 0.24C, but you would prevent 0.2C of warming per decade over the entire planet.
It would be crazy to rely solely on wind energy, but even if we did, it would be much better than the alternative wrt warming.
33 Celsius warmer today? That is SOME Ice Age we missed!!
The difference between the depths of the last glacial period and the current interglacial is only about 4.5C. We've caused the Earth to warm about 1/4 >ice age unit so far by burning fossil fuels.
The 33C refers to our planet without greenhouse gasses vs the real Earth.
Though maybe I'm missing the bigger picture. No one is concerned if you raise your house temp by 2C. It's when you raise the global average temperature of the entire planet by 0.2C that there are consequences (melting glaciers, sea level rise, changes in ocean circulation, etc). None of these consequences arise from a localized temp increase.
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold.
Greenhouse gases add heat energy (and thus average temperature) to the Earth's global atmosphere.
These are completely different things.
Add to that the fact that CO2 is warming the globe by about 0.2C/decade. That dwarfs the localized warming after only a few decades. - even if we converted all US energy production to wind.
"stop burning fossil fuels", when before it was going to take eliminating CO2 emissions.
It's the same thing.
Your link was to a blog at wordpress
It's a quote from Holden et al. 2018. . The wordpress link is to spare you from having to buy the paper.
Well, it's nice that you notice. I'm echoing some of the crazier concepts that some climate change zealots pronounce.
Way to elevate the conversation.
It is caused by the heat trapped by the CO2 that comes from converting C and O to CO2.
What???
It is caused by the heat trapped by the CO2 that comes from converting C and O to CO2. That CO2 does not magically disappear at the end of the century, so warming caused by trapped heat will continue -- until the CO2 is actually reduced.
That all makes no sense.
Animals are not a carbon sequestering method. We take carbon and oxygen and emit it as CO2.
That carbon came from eating plants which got it from the atmosphere. That atmospheric carbon ends up sequestered (for a time) in the animal.
Just stopping the use of fossil fuels doesn't remove CO2,
Yes it does. Atmospheric CO2 will begin to drop when we stop burning fossil fuels. Read Holden et al. 2018 and it will become clear why. Read the paper.
I have never, as you well know, tried to pass off the "article" in no trick zone blog as scientific literature,
No, but the no tricks zone does. Some of the data points on that graph refer to blogs!
A graph, I might add, which WAS published in science litterature
I should hope not, given that it tries to pass off blog posts as scientific literature.
Here's one from April of 2017 which "produces a current best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.9C (1.7–7.1C, 90% confidence). " Included in the no tricks zone? Nope. Doesn't fit the narrative.
My point was not to include or exclude any papers, but to point out that the trend for all of them (except outliers) is a downward trend.
But only if you ignore recent high estimates and historic low estimates, and try to pass off blog posts as "scientific literature" and whatever other tricks you can expect form a place named the "no tricks zone" XD
Slashdot Mirror
The bet was well published when it was first made so if you had been paying attention in the right places you would have heard about it.
If you look up "Scientific Wager" in google, chances are at least a couple of the top ten results reference this bet. For example, here and here.
On the contrary. We had been heading back into a glacial period over the last 6000 years... until the industrial revolution when something happened to abruptly reverse the trend.
In 2005, it was very well known that greenhouse effect was much bigger.
True, but at least these folks were willing to put their money where their mouth is. It suggests they at least believed what they were saying. That's better than most on that side of the 'debate'.
Take contrarian hero Richard Lindzen who would only take 50:1 odds. It suggests he's aware that he's 50 times more likely to be wrong than right.
It is interesting to see who is willing to pony up some money to back up their rhetoric, and who is merely spewing denial that they do not themselves believe. For instance, look at Joe Basatardi who in 2011 said "the earth will cool .1 to .2 Celsius in the next ten years, according to objective satellite data." He later refused to follow through when a number of people accepted the bet. Good thing too as his prediction is not looking so good.
Then there's renowned climate skeptic Richard Lindzen who would "take only 50 to 1 odds on global temperatures in 20 years being lower than they are now.". Meaning he didn't have any real faith in statements that he was otherwise suggesting were unequivocal and certain.
Cudos to the two Russian scientists for putting their money where their mouth is. We can suppose they at least believed in what they were saying. I'm less impressed that they didn't actually pay up, but maybe they are in dire financial straits. Who knows.
the closest thing to reportage here is links to a blog and also a graph of some sort i honestly don't have time to bother figuring out.
The graph is showing that every available temperature data set, whether it be it from USA or UK, land or satellite, and even those by skeptics - all show the same thing. Temperature is warming by about 0.2C/decade. The later period is warmer than the former. The climate modeler had greater insights into the mechanisms that affect global mean temperature than the solar physicists. The winner is clear.
For more authoritative reportage, you can read this nature article from when the bet was made, this New Scientist's article on Five scientific theories decided by wager, or this Russian article on why the losers welched, even though they lost.
Is that what the news on slashdot is now... every time two random dudes make a bet, if one does not pay up, it's an article on slashdot?
This wager was written up in Nature at the time of the bet. It was included in New Scientist's Five scientific theories decided by wager It is included in Wikipedia's article on scientific wager.
If your wager is literally included in the definition of a scientific wager, then I would not be shocked to find it written about.
Maintenance lacks the glamour of innovation
Maybe, but there's something pretty fantastic about something like this: Commodore 64 left outside for over a decade! Could it still work??
I agree. Given that Canada has signed on to the US copyright system, there is no need to look for alternative/additional compensation methods. It should be one or the other. According to the new rules, the Log Drivers Waltz will not be public domain until 2072. Crazy.
No idea what you are on about, except that you agree wholeheartedly with my original post, don't really have anything to add, but wanted to post words nonetheless?
If you have a point, maybe just make it? Otherwise please reread the thread. You seem to have lost the plot?
localized heat increase happening over many locales over many decades has a global impact
0.24C rise in 1.5% of the Earth is maybe 0.0036C globally and would avert 0.1C of global temperature increase. GGP has it right. Any way you slice it, the former is better than the latter.
Problem being that localized heat increase happening over many locales over many decades has a global impact. Thermal energy has to go somewhere, it doesn't just vanish because it's not generated by sun rays in this case. That's why paper is talking about 0,5GW of generation across the US, not a single wind park.
Continental USA is only about one and a half percent of the total area of the Earth. Meanwhile fossil fuel burning results in about 0.2C warming each decade across the entire globe.
If the entire earth's energy was converted to wind, you may have 29% of the Earth (all countries only cover 29%) warm by 0.24C, but you would prevent 0.2C of warming per decade over the entire planet.
It would be crazy to rely solely on wind energy, but even if we did, it would be much better than the alternative wrt warming.
Well yeah, Muslims are part of the global conspiracy. So are Catholics.
33 Celsius warmer today? That is SOME Ice Age we missed!!
The difference between the depths of the last glacial period and the current interglacial is only about 4.5C. We've caused the Earth to warm about 1/4 >ice age unit so far by burning fossil fuels.
The 33C refers to our planet without greenhouse gasses vs the real Earth.
And the bulk of that is from water vapor, hmm why didn't link mention water except for cooling ? hmmmmmm
Because NASA is part of the global conspiracy. Obviously.
If you think CO2 is enough to change that balance, then you better believe altering the patterns of motion and conduction are as well.
Global mean temperature of the Earth without greenhouse gasses is ~ 33C cooler than today.
Global mean temperature of the Earth without wind turbines is ~ exactly the same as today.
Though maybe I'm missing the bigger picture. No one is concerned if you raise your house temp by 2C. It's when you raise the global average temperature of the entire planet by 0.2C that there are consequences (melting glaciers, sea level rise, changes in ocean circulation, etc). None of these consequences arise from a localized temp increase.
Windpower does not add heat to the atmosphere of Earth, it just mixes around where it's hot and where it's cold. Greenhouse gases add heat energy (and thus average temperature) to the Earth's global atmosphere. These are completely different things.
Add to that the fact that CO2 is warming the globe by about 0.2C/decade. That dwarfs the localized warming after only a few decades. - even if we converted all US energy production to wind.
One of us sure doesn't!
Yeah. If they were in shock after the elections they weren't alone. Most of the world, in fact most of the USA as well, felt the same.
Here's a GTA radio made real with a raspberry pi and a 1970's RCA radio chassis: https://www.raspberrypi.org/bl...
2. As you can see in the graph, as years advance, there are more and more papers;
Not really true unless you count blog posts as literature or include pay for play journals that will publish anything for a fee.
"stop burning fossil fuels", when before it was going to take eliminating CO2 emissions.
It's the same thing.
Your link was to a blog at wordpress
It's a quote from Holden et al. 2018. . The wordpress link is to spare you from having to buy the paper.
Well, it's nice that you notice. I'm echoing some of the crazier concepts that some climate change zealots pronounce.
Way to elevate the conversation.
It is caused by the heat trapped by the CO2 that comes from converting C and O to CO2.
What???
It is caused by the heat trapped by the CO2 that comes from converting C and O to CO2. That CO2 does not magically disappear at the end of the century, so warming caused by trapped heat will continue -- until the CO2 is actually reduced.
That all makes no sense.
Animals are not a carbon sequestering method. We take carbon and oxygen and emit it as CO2.
That carbon came from eating plants which got it from the atmosphere. That atmospheric carbon ends up sequestered (for a time) in the animal.
Just stopping the use of fossil fuels doesn't remove CO2,
Yes it does. Atmospheric CO2 will begin to drop when we stop burning fossil fuels. Read Holden et al. 2018 and it will become clear why. Read the paper.
I have never, as you well know, tried to pass off the "article" in no trick zone blog as scientific literature,
No, but the no tricks zone does. Some of the data points on that graph refer to blogs!
A graph, I might add, which WAS published in science litterature
I should hope not, given that it tries to pass off blog posts as scientific literature.
Here's one from April of 2017 which "produces a current best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.9C (1.7–7.1C, 90% confidence). " Included in the no tricks zone? Nope. Doesn't fit the narrative.
My point was not to include or exclude any papers, but to point out that the trend for all of them (except outliers) is a downward trend.
But only if you ignore recent high estimates and historic low estimates, and try to pass off blog posts as "scientific literature" and whatever other tricks you can expect form a place named the "no tricks zone" XD