Currently the price of fossil fuels companies shares is calculated under the assumption that all fossil fuel reserves will be consumed. If solar becomes cheaper than fossil fuels then it may not be economical to mine the reserves. Trillions in reserves would become essentially worthless. Guess who owns those assets?
No, sorry. It's basic physics. It has been well understood for 100 years. The only thing scientists are arguing over at this point is the magnitude of the feedbacks.
The current sea level has been rising for hundreds of years and shows no acceleration.
See http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
No. As your link points out, sea level has been rising at 3mm/year since 1991. Earlier in the century it was rising at a much lower rate. Prior to that (for the last 4000 years) it was not rising at all: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi....
Yes. Absolutely. Some amount of warming is probably a good thing. At some point though additional warming will/has become detrimental. Run away global warming is probably not in the cards, but substantial financial impacts are. We need to tone down the rhetoric and perform a cost benefit analysis. Some investment in mitigation is warranted. An ounce of prevention and all that.
Also a quick note, 20C over 10000 years is.002C/year..7C over 30 years is.023C/year
Also worth noting is that the global temperatures didn't change 20C. The last glacial maximum was only 3C to 5C cooler than the present (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-es.html). The height of the current interglacial period occurred about 8000 years ago. Since then temperatures have been dropping (up until recently).
Our chief weapon is surprise. Fear and surprise. Two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope! Um, I'll come in again...
This is a good question. Some amount of warming may be (have been) good. Temperatures had been dropping slowly for the last 8000 years since the height of the current inter glacial. Reversing that trend was probably a good thing. At some point the consequences of added warming will (or possibly have) become detrimental. Small changes in global temperature can have large impacts regionally. As the globe warms, local climates will change more dramatically than the global mean. There will be winners as well as losers.
As others have pointed out, 0.7C doesn't seem like a lot, but it represents a rather large amount of energy. Small changes in global temperature have been seen to have drastic impacts - including moving the world between glacialinterglacial states.
Predicting the weather 2 months from now is easy. Where I live it will be about 10C-15C warmer in April than in February. Predicting the temperature two weeks out - now that is tricky.
"In 2013, there were 7 weather and climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each across the United States. These events included five severe weather and tornado events, a major flood event, and the western drought / heat wave. Overall, these events killed 109 people and had significant economic effects on the areas impacted." - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billi...
I pointed out that Mann could have committed fraud even though his results were correct. I didn't accuse him of having committed fraud. Nobody knows whether he committed fraud or not.
In one sentence, then in the next:
since Mann sought to produce that signal anyway, he stopped when he had produced it,
You may be a liar or you may be a fool. You may be deliberately fooling yourself or you may have a loose grasp on reason. You torture logic until it bends to your whim. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not accusing you of anything.
Ok. The theory of evolution is backed up by over a century of research, so we can trust it. The theory of greenhouse gasses is backed up by over a century of research, but the initial research done in the 1800's is not enough to prove the most recent findings so we cannot trust it. Sound.
AGW research is interesting and plausible, but that it isn't mature enough to base global economic policy on it; no scientific field is after only a few decades. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is backed up by more than a century of research.
Gotcha, but we've only known about the greenhouse effect since the 1800's, so that's clearly not a mature science.
Are you dumb or something? I have repeatedly stated that I'm not accusing Mann of fraud,
Well one of us is. Here is what you said: "Mann's data can be fraudulent without being wrong. That is, he may have deliberately manipulated the data..." and: "You can try how far 'I committed a crime, but nobody ended up getting hurt' will get you when you get dragged into court." and "they just 'tortured the data' until they got what they wanted."
Is that in any way consistent with "I have repeatedly stated that I'm not accusing Mann of fraud"?
And now you are saying that Mann didn't use the best technique but got the right answer - either because his technique was 'good enough', or because the hockey stick is so inherent in the underlying data that you would get the same result no matter how you combined the proxies.
I'm having real trouble following this twisted plot. I can see his coauthors objecting: "But Michael, we get the same answer even if you don't torture the data!" Mann: "Everysings vorking according to plan!"
Slashdot Mirror
Alarmist much?
Good call. Play the man, not the ball.
I didn't even claim to "deny" (your word) Global Warming.
"ideology"? "physics-challenged"? Really?
Currently the price of fossil fuels companies shares is calculated under the assumption that all fossil fuel reserves will be consumed. If solar becomes cheaper than fossil fuels then it may not be economical to mine the reserves. Trillions in reserves would become essentially worthless. Guess who owns those assets?
No doubt. Coal is the devil... (but in this household we obey the law of conservation of energy!)
If you don't put a solar panel in the way then that solar energy would have just contributed to warming the planet when it hit the ground underneath.
The energy you produce with the panels is still going to end up as heat. No?
No, sorry. It's basic physics. It has been well understood for 100 years. The only thing scientists are arguing over at this point is the magnitude of the feedbacks.
The current sea level has been rising for hundreds of years and shows no acceleration. See http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
No. As your link points out, sea level has been rising at 3mm/year since 1991. Earlier in the century it was rising at a much lower rate. Prior to that (for the last 4000 years) it was not rising at all: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi....
Yes. Absolutely. Some amount of warming is probably a good thing. At some point though additional warming will/has become detrimental. Run away global warming is probably not in the cards, but substantial financial impacts are. We need to tone down the rhetoric and perform a cost benefit analysis. Some investment in mitigation is warranted. An ounce of prevention and all that.
Also a quick note, 20C over 10000 years is .002C/year. .7C over 30 years is .023C/year
Also worth noting is that the global temperatures didn't change 20C. The last glacial maximum was only 3C to 5C cooler than the present (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch6s6-es.html). The height of the current interglacial period occurred about 8000 years ago. Since then temperatures have been dropping (up until recently).
Possibly more than all of the recent warming was caused by humans. Natural factors have likely had a net negative impact on global temperatures.
The height of the current interglacial was 8000 years ago. The world has been cooling since then (up until recently).
Our chief weapon is surprise. Fear and surprise. Two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope! Um, I'll come in again...
This is a good question. Some amount of warming may be (have been) good. Temperatures had been dropping slowly for the last 8000 years since the height of the current inter glacial. Reversing that trend was probably a good thing. At some point the consequences of added warming will (or possibly have) become detrimental. Small changes in global temperature can have large impacts regionally. As the globe warms, local climates will change more dramatically than the global mean. There will be winners as well as losers.
As others have pointed out, 0.7C doesn't seem like a lot, but it represents a rather large amount of energy. Small changes in global temperature have been seen to have drastic impacts - including moving the world between glacialinterglacial states.
1981 in fact: http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Predicting the weather 2 months from now is easy. Where I live it will be about 10C-15C warmer in April than in February. Predicting the temperature two weeks out - now that is tricky.
"In 2013, there were 7 weather and climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each across the United States. These events included five severe weather and tornado events, a major flood event, and the western drought / heat wave. Overall, these events killed 109 people and had significant economic effects on the areas impacted." - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billi...
This may be considered an ounce of prevention.
Calling any scientific skeptics "deniers" is an attack on science and scientific method.
Calling deniers "skeptics" surely degrades science more.
- www.thesunisiron.com/
- http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...
- www.answersingenesis.org/
The truth is out there people!!!
I pointed out that Mann could have committed fraud even though his results were correct. I didn't accuse him of having committed fraud. Nobody knows whether he committed fraud or not.
In one sentence, then in the next:
since Mann sought to produce that signal anyway, he stopped when he had produced it,
You may be a liar or you may be a fool. You may be deliberately fooling yourself or you may have a loose grasp on reason. You torture logic until it bends to your whim. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not accusing you of anything.
Ok. The theory of evolution is backed up by over a century of research, so we can trust it. The theory of greenhouse gasses is backed up by over a century of research, but the initial research done in the 1800's is not enough to prove the most recent findings so we cannot trust it. Sound.
AGW research is interesting and plausible, but that it isn't mature enough to base global economic policy on it; no scientific field is after only a few decades. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, is backed up by more than a century of research.
Gotcha, but we've only known about the greenhouse effect since the 1800's, so that's clearly not a mature science.
Are you dumb or something? I have repeatedly stated that I'm not accusing Mann of fraud,
Well one of us is. Here is what you said: "Mann's data can be fraudulent without being wrong. That is, he may have deliberately manipulated the data..." and: "You can try how far 'I committed a crime, but nobody ended up getting hurt' will get you when you get dragged into court." and "they just 'tortured the data' until they got what they wanted."
Is that in any way consistent with "I have repeatedly stated that I'm not accusing Mann of fraud"?
And now you are saying that Mann didn't use the best technique but got the right answer - either because his technique was 'good enough', or because the hockey stick is so inherent in the underlying data that you would get the same result no matter how you combined the proxies.
Mann: "Now ve vill torture you!"
Co-Authors: "But Michael! This is literally the same result you would get anyway!"
Mann: "But ve like to torture... Zat is vhy ve became mad scientist..."
I'm having real trouble following this twisted plot. I can see his coauthors objecting: "But Michael, we get the same answer even if you don't torture the data!" Mann: "Everysings vorking according to plan!"