Yes, I've seen the 'escalator' animation and have read the relevant articles at skepticalscience. The real question isn't whether there's warming, it's what the slope of the red line actually is, when we add CO2 the way we have been.
I'm not saying that "unprecedented human activity cannot cause unprecedented environmental responses". I'm also not stating that "unprecedented human activity MUST cause unprecedented environmental responses", which you are. Look, from the IPCC AR5 report: --- The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2}
16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies. --- So the ever-so-sophisticated estimate (sorry, not 'guess'!) is from 1.5C to 4.5C, and unlike previous reports, they declined to give a best estimate (previously mentioned at 2.5C with high confidence). I believe that most people would agree that we don't have much of a problem at 1.5C and that we have a big problem if it's 4.5C, so their estimates don't really tell us much at this point. Add to that the fact that the observed temperature trends have been way at the bottom of what most of the models predict, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that alarmists like you have been seriously overestimating the dangers here.
But that wasn't the original point of the post. The point is that you cannot replicate or test the results in most of the current climate papers, other than to wait 50 years. We've waiting around 15 years since the initial predictions, though, and the initial ones weren't very good.
Re: And nobody is concerned with theoretical scien
on
How Science Goes Wrong
·
· Score: 2
Many of those papers do lead to predictions which can be tested. Witness the Higgs particle prediction and later verification.
It's dangerous to make a broad statement, but in general I would say that if you don't have a verifiable/falsifiable theory, you're dealing with philosophy and not science. Both are valid endeavors, but we shouldn't mix them up.
If you would be so kind as to replicate the catastrophic prediction results -- oh, wait, those can't be tested?
I trust the results that can be verified. Add co2, heat increases. I don't trust the out-of-your-ass guesses on co2 sensitivity, nor the maybe-it-is thinking linking every bit of bad weather to AGW.
Oh, I have no problem imagining such a future, and I would love it. We're just not there today. Today, if people stop working en masse, then billions starve, don't get medical care, die of contaminated water, etc. You know, like many unfortunate areas on Earth today.
Once we have completely automated (and self-maintaining) farms and distribution channels, and home building / maintenance, and water treatment, and others -- I'm right there with you. I don't want people to have to work if they don't feel like it. I'm sure that too much leisure time will cause plenty of problems, but that's technology for you; it's always two or three steps forward and one back. We'll solve the 'too much leisure time' problem, just as we solved the 'out of work buggy whip manufacturer' problem and we're working on solving the problems caused by instant global communications and industrialization.
But we're still a ways off, and we'll never get there if idealists like you keep trying to take the engine apart while we're riding up the hill in the car.
I can't stand those pretentious people who can't stand being out of touch for a few hours until they get back. The idiots think they need a cell phone.
I can't stand those pretentious people who can't stand being out of touch for a few days. The idiots think they need a phone.
Thank you. Most people just don't seem to understand that monitors aren't done until you can't tell the difference between a monitor and a window! It's "1920x1080 should be enough for anybody" mentality. You'd think people would learn after a while.
...until the point where you drop below what the nuclear plant's full output is needed, at which point they shut down one of the reactors. I understand the difference between baseload plants and peaking plants. My point is that you cannot consider all loads on the grid to be handled by the peaking plants based on your "marginal load" argument above. If you had a lot of electric cars in the market, then the electric cars charging at 6pm when everyone gets home would be part of the base load for that time slot.
The truth is that there are a lot of plants putting power on the lines and you've no idea which ones you're using at any given moment. In his locality, it's probably most correct for the poster to say that "75% of your car is nuclear powered" or something like that, depending on what average percentage of power is supplied by the reactors in that area.
Good point! However, I'm not judging him to be immoral based on his standards, but on mine. I find hypocrisy immoral.:) In fact, I was pointing out that since he had access to the internet, he was subject to the same criticism (although much less in absolute terms) as the person who has $33M.
I should caveat that I was not trying to make an airtight logical argument. I deliberately exaggerated his argument to, "nobody should really have any luxuries -- subsistence only -- while others in the world are starving." I know that's not what he really said, but I then poked fun of the fact that he (or she, I can't tell as it's an AC) clearly has internet access and probably a lot of other luxuries above and beyond subsistence. I suspect AC's unstated philosophy is actually, "luxuries like the kind *I* have are OK, but the people that have more than I do don't really deserve it."
Ok, but you had better not have any possessions or anything other than bare subsistence yourself. If I find out you have incredible luxuries like cars or computers when people are starving, I shall judge you to be immoral.
...aaaand at the end of the day, they're all dead because the cyclist will run out of oxygen in the room. I might prefer the quicker carbon monoxide death, to be honest.
Version 2.0 of this thought experiment should not have a sealed room.
I'm very happy that your children are healthy. However, $200 was the price, not the cost. The cost was considerably higher and was subsidized by the rest of the fine citizens of Australia. I don't think that's a bad idea at all if that's what Australia wants, but claiming that the care cost $200 is not really true.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm with you, man! Screw cloud computing; I don't even trust these new-fangled computer things. And paper? That stuff can be PHOTOCOPIED!
Nuh-uh!
Yes, I've seen the 'escalator' animation and have read the relevant articles at skepticalscience. The real question isn't whether there's warming, it's what the slope of the red line actually is, when we add CO2 the way we have been.
I'm not saying that "unprecedented human activity cannot cause unprecedented environmental responses". I'm also not stating that "unprecedented human activity MUST cause unprecedented environmental responses", which you are. Look, from the IPCC AR5 report:
---
The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6C (medium confidence)16. The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing. {TFE6.1, Figure 1; Box 12.2}
16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
---
So the ever-so-sophisticated estimate (sorry, not 'guess'!) is from 1.5C to 4.5C, and unlike previous reports, they declined to give a best estimate (previously mentioned at 2.5C with high confidence). I believe that most people would agree that we don't have much of a problem at 1.5C and that we have a big problem if it's 4.5C, so their estimates don't really tell us much at this point. Add to that the fact that the observed temperature trends have been way at the bottom of what most of the models predict, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that alarmists like you have been seriously overestimating the dangers here.
But that wasn't the original point of the post. The point is that you cannot replicate or test the results in most of the current climate papers, other than to wait 50 years. We've waiting around 15 years since the initial predictions, though, and the initial ones weren't very good.
Many of those papers do lead to predictions which can be tested. Witness the Higgs particle prediction and later verification.
It's dangerous to make a broad statement, but in general I would say that if you don't have a verifiable/falsifiable theory, you're dealing with philosophy and not science. Both are valid endeavors, but we shouldn't mix them up.
I would think it is their nightmare instead. I've never seen a homeopathy result verified.
If you would be so kind as to replicate the catastrophic prediction results -- oh, wait, those can't be tested?
I trust the results that can be verified. Add co2, heat increases. I don't trust the out-of-your-ass guesses on co2 sensitivity, nor the maybe-it-is thinking linking every bit of bad weather to AGW.
Oh, I have no problem imagining such a future, and I would love it. We're just not there today. Today, if people stop working en masse, then billions starve, don't get medical care, die of contaminated water, etc. You know, like many unfortunate areas on Earth today.
Once we have completely automated (and self-maintaining) farms and distribution channels, and home building / maintenance, and water treatment, and others -- I'm right there with you. I don't want people to have to work if they don't feel like it. I'm sure that too much leisure time will cause plenty of problems, but that's technology for you; it's always two or three steps forward and one back. We'll solve the 'too much leisure time' problem, just as we solved the 'out of work buggy whip manufacturer' problem and we're working on solving the problems caused by instant global communications and industrialization.
But we're still a ways off, and we'll never get there if idealists like you keep trying to take the engine apart while we're riding up the hill in the car.
The difference is if EVERYONE stops working, the air will still be there and the food will not.
If by "mainframe" you mean, "it's the 1980s and I use the term 'mainframe' for any vague computer concept I don't understand," then, sure. :)
I assume you don't use the cell phone or PSTN networks for anything personal, either?
Sorry, do you think key loggers are impossible on Linux or something?
I can't stand those pretentious people who can't stand being out of touch for a few hours until they get back. The idiots think they need a cell phone.
I can't stand those pretentious people who can't stand being out of touch for a few days. The idiots think they need a phone.
We still used Windows, we just used an add-on TCP/IP stack (trumpet winsock).
Thank you. Most people just don't seem to understand that monitors aren't done until you can't tell the difference between a monitor and a window! It's "1920x1080 should be enough for anybody" mentality. You'd think people would learn after a while.
...until the point where you drop below what the nuclear plant's full output is needed, at which point they shut down one of the reactors. I understand the difference between baseload plants and peaking plants. My point is that you cannot consider all loads on the grid to be handled by the peaking plants based on your "marginal load" argument above. If you had a lot of electric cars in the market, then the electric cars charging at 6pm when everyone gets home would be part of the base load for that time slot.
The truth is that there are a lot of plants putting power on the lines and you've no idea which ones you're using at any given moment. In his locality, it's probably most correct for the poster to say that "75% of your car is nuclear powered" or something like that, depending on what average percentage of power is supplied by the reactors in that area.
That's an odd way of looking at things... By that argument, nothing is powered by the nuclear generator! You just keep unplugging marginal loads...
Many sales taxes exempt the things needed for survival, such as food.
Good point! However, I'm not judging him to be immoral based on his standards, but on mine. I find hypocrisy immoral. :) In fact, I was pointing out that since he had access to the internet, he was subject to the same criticism (although much less in absolute terms) as the person who has $33M.
I should caveat that I was not trying to make an airtight logical argument. I deliberately exaggerated his argument to, "nobody should really have any luxuries -- subsistence only -- while others in the world are starving." I know that's not what he really said, but I then poked fun of the fact that he (or she, I can't tell as it's an AC) clearly has internet access and probably a lot of other luxuries above and beyond subsistence. I suspect AC's unstated philosophy is actually, "luxuries like the kind *I* have are OK, but the people that have more than I do don't really deserve it."
Ok, but you had better not have any possessions or anything other than bare subsistence yourself. If I find out you have incredible luxuries like cars or computers when people are starving, I shall judge you to be immoral.
You're right. We should really wait for it together a lot closer to a totalitarian state before worrying.
...aaaand at the end of the day, they're all dead because the cyclist will run out of oxygen in the room. I might prefer the quicker carbon monoxide death, to be honest.
Version 2.0 of this thought experiment should not have a sealed room.
"How does the Heisenberg Compensator work?". "Very well, thank you!"
A valiant try, but you don't get it. The US energy policy for many years has been "ook radiation scary!". :)
I frankly think that the anti-nuclear crowd isn't going far enough. Generating ANY energy is clearly just too dangerous.
Mutually assured? Hardly. Three words: Glass. Parking. Lot. And build a wal-mart on top of it when it cools off. :)
I'm very happy that your children are healthy. However, $200 was the price, not the cost. The cost was considerably higher and was subsidized by the rest of the fine citizens of Australia. I don't think that's a bad idea at all if that's what Australia wants, but claiming that the care cost $200 is not really true.