Heh...showing that many here are only interested in cheap shots and not actual discussion, you've missed the mark a bit.
As it turns out the Flat Earth Society has actually fallenfor the Creationism-level AGW theory:
"As it turns out, there is a real Flat Earth Society and its president thinks that anthropogenic climate change is real. In an email to Salon, president Daniel Shenton said that while he “can’t speak for the Society as a whole regarding climate change,” he personally thinks the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is contributing to global warming."
Really, if it's such a poor scientific theory that the Flat Earthers agree with you......then maybe there's not quite the "consensus" you think there is....
Thank you! I did not know about the decline in plankton levels. I wonder what impact this could have had?
Thank you for the link. Do you know if this decline has been factored into any of the simulations out there? The couple I've looked at didn't factor in biological flora at all.
When I was arguing this subject with somebody over on Digg back in the day, his standard reply (he claimed to be a meteorologist) was that one couldn't define climate without 10 years of data.
When we got past 10 years of flatline temps, he suddenly changed his tune to 15 and then 20. Of course my reposts of his earlier numbers were ignored and/or resulted in name-calling.
Thirty may or may not be reasonable--frankly I think 10 is rational enough--but keeping the goal posts fixed is more better. I'm NOT accusing you of such a thing mind you, just pointing out why some Skeptics might be a bit dubious about declarations like "at least 30 years".
I like the way you're thinking, but technically speaking a rotting zombie would merely be returning the carbon/methane that they originally absorbed from food and the like.
The AGW theory postulates that the "extra" CO2 and miscellaneous that come primarily from fossil-fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) have been removed from the environment for the most part when those deposits were laid down, and that mankind (by digging them up and burning them) is throwing the system out of balance.
So trees and people and crops and whatnot generally don't count against the overall balance since from an environmental point of view they're basically just recycling existing carbon. My original observation (not well stated I'm guessing) was that IF there were a Zombie Apocalypse then at least we wouldn't be generating any new stuff, which is the goal of folks like the ones at 350.org.
See, *there* is the issue. It's true that Slashdot has changed...but so have many of its users.
It USED to be that people could have a discussion about things, like whether or not global warming is actually happening. Some posters have provided some excellent links to studies that simply can't be refuted, and yet I see posts that say things like "...There is no doubt what has happened..."
I hate to break it to you, but YES THERE IS DOUBT. IAs a scientist having given the data some study, I can tell you it is my evaluation that most of the studies don't pass basic methodology on data collection much less on the conclusions they draw. And the computer simulations that back up most of these studies? Oh my goodness...these people would flunk a simulations class I taught, their code is that bad. To watch armchair scientists scream and yell that there's "consensus" when that is meaningless in the scientific realm is both amusing and grating.
On a technology site one discusses and debates, one does not proclaim "there is no doubt". With science there is always doubt. There are theories which fit the data better than others, but as soon as they fail (such as, say, AGW predictions of an ice free Arctic) there's a need to revisit and, if necessary, discard.
That's not really quite right...there have been several predictions from the AGW crowd that have proven to be less than accurate. One of the more notable was for an "ice free Arctic by 2000" and recent prediction that it would be ice free by 2013 (to be fair there are a couple of months yet there). These perhaps prove your point that making predictions with human factors involved is chancy at best.
On the other hand, that's not particularly an answer to the question I asked. Groups like 350.org are asking for a dedicated, wholesale change to the entire economy of the planet in pursuit of what is (at best) an unproven goal. What is missing from their website is any estimate of how much this would cost, or how long it would take.
Nobody is saying once we hit the magic 350ppm we'd have to stop all these great things they want to do. I'm just asking how long they think it would take to get there if their agenda was widely adopted.
It's a valid question--nobody said "all measurements were invalid" or anything like that--the poster asked a question.
I'm certainly no geologist, but I do know that volcanic areas are home to all manner of gas seapage through the rock in addition to the main volcanic plumes. When MOA was originally established it was primarily to measure for rainfall--I wonder how much (if any) gas seepage occurs in the region? I'd like to think that these were at least evaluated prior to it being drafted for CO2 measurements--and I'd think it would be addressed in the site FAQ. I couldn't find it there anywhere.
Just questions...can't imagine why somebody would have a problem with them.
I know they chose the site for reasons of altitude, but you raise a valid question. Unless perhaps the prevailing winds there are strong and predictable with volcanic emissions going "downwind", it's surely a factor?
There are groups (misguided in my opinion, but that's not relevant to the question) such as 350.org that want to restrict CO2 levels to 350ppm, feeling that that level is the "trigger" for global warming.
It's not clear to me exactly how much time they propose it will take to get there though. On their web site are some generic words about installing solar panels and stopping fossil fuel subsidies, which I think anybody is generally for. But I don't see anything about how much time they expect this to take even if the world moved to their agenda.
"In a world of climate change and rising temperatures I can't help but wonder: What is the carbon/energy footprint of a single ticket? To speak nothing of the total impact if this "business"? It look to me like Virgin Galactic and its customers are likely to be the absolute worst polluters on the planet...
Would they be so eager to go into space for fun if they had to pay the actual environmental cost as well? Allowing it for science is one thing... doing it solely for entertainment is another!"
This is 100% immaterial, IMO.
That's the kind of thinking that would have kept Columbus in Spain, the Vikings in Norway, and the Wright Brothers on the ground. We hairless monkeys have to do stuff that pushes the envelope, that isn't cost effective, that's downright crazy because it's who we are. Along the way progress and advancements are made, and that's all a Good Thing.
If one were to use "it's just for entertainment and hence a poor use of resources" as a criteria, then what of Hollywood? Video games? The energy that goes to power the internet? Al Gore staying at home doing a telecon vs. flying around the world? Surely a case could be made for "better" allocation of resources......?
I met Dame Thatcher once, several years ago, just before the First Gulf War. She was amazing, bright, witty, complimentary, gracious--simply an impressive woman across the board. She helped to defeat the Russians and end the Cold War.
If one RTFA, one sees that there are no actual *reports* of "larger than normal crabs" being found in the wild....the report is about crabs in CO2-charged aquariums growing larger and acting oddly. There's no actual data regarding increased CO2 in nature causing any abnormally large crabs.
That would seem a logical next step, to see if the experiment matches reality--but that's a misleading headline.
...the folks who are so anti-coal they can't even acknowledge the positive aspects of this article are really being blind here.
The US is reducing its CO2 emissions! Whether you believe that is part of global warming or just want to see a generally cleaner air above the states, this is good news! We are moving towards cleaner and (in some cases) more renewable energy sources, and diversifying out our energy infrastructure can only be a good thing.
Other nations will get there--for now many of them don't have the $$$ to be able to afford the luxury of solar, wind, and nuclear.
I'll be curious at the cost-per-foot for the construction and their solution for handling the geothermal pumps. I had a hard time designing a geothermal that my solar could drive.
You're confusing the Aegis SM-3 tactical system with the ABM strategic defense system here.
Aegis is for tactical (i.e., local) threats. It doesn't have the range or capability to engage exo-atmospheric strategic threats. The specific item cited where your quote came from dealt with the question regarding whether Aegis would violate the Missile Defense Treaty; it disallowed *mobile* strategic missile platforms. Since Aegis was not an ABM platform as defined under the treaty, it was deemed legitimate.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh...showing that many here are only interested in cheap shots and not actual discussion, you've missed the mark a bit.
As it turns out the Flat Earth Society has actually fallenfor the Creationism-level AGW theory:
"As it turns out, there is a real Flat Earth Society and its president thinks that anthropogenic climate change is real. In an email to Salon, president Daniel Shenton said that while he “can’t speak for the Society as a whole regarding climate change,” he personally thinks the evidence suggests fossil fuel usage is contributing to global warming."
(more at http://www.salon.com/2013/06/25/flat_earth_society_believes_in_climate_change/)
Really, if it's such a poor scientific theory that the Flat Earthers agree with you......then maybe there's not quite the "consensus" you think there is....
Ferret
From the High Mountains of Colroado
I may have to get one of those.....
I can easily see them being disallowed for hunting though....
Ferret
I'd buy that.
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
Thank you! I did not know about the decline in plankton levels. I wonder what impact this could have had?
Thank you for the link. Do you know if this decline has been factored into any of the simulations out there? The couple I've looked at didn't factor in biological flora at all.
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
It's cute that even an attempt at an answer has an implied insult in the use of the world "canard".
It was a question which others have managed to answer without being rude or insinuating sinister purpose.
Watts actually has some good info about the site; quite informative.
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
Excellent! Thank you; that clarifies it a bit...and since it's from the Watts site it's believable. He does good work.
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
"....nobody in the sciences disagrees other than a few cranky people with padded-helmet political views. And thats really all there is to it...."
And this is part of why AGW supporters have such a hard time convincing people--they resort to insult and name-calling at the drop of a question mark.
Lighten up.
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
When I was arguing this subject with somebody over on Digg back in the day, his standard reply (he claimed to be a meteorologist) was that one couldn't define climate without 10 years of data.
When we got past 10 years of flatline temps, he suddenly changed his tune to 15 and then 20. Of course my reposts of his earlier numbers were ignored and/or resulted in name-calling.
Thirty may or may not be reasonable--frankly I think 10 is rational enough--but keeping the goal posts fixed is more better. I'm NOT accusing you of such a thing mind you, just pointing out why some Skeptics might be a bit dubious about declarations like "at least 30 years".
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
I like the way you're thinking, but technically speaking a rotting zombie would merely be returning the carbon/methane that they originally absorbed from food and the like.
The AGW theory postulates that the "extra" CO2 and miscellaneous that come primarily from fossil-fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) have been removed from the environment for the most part when those deposits were laid down, and that mankind (by digging them up and burning them) is throwing the system out of balance.
So trees and people and crops and whatnot generally don't count against the overall balance since from an environmental point of view they're basically just recycling existing carbon. My original observation (not well stated I'm guessing) was that IF there were a Zombie Apocalypse then at least we wouldn't be generating any new stuff, which is the goal of folks like the ones at 350.org.
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
See, *there* is the issue. It's true that Slashdot has changed...but so have many of its users.
It USED to be that people could have a discussion about things, like whether or not global warming is actually happening. Some posters have provided some excellent links to studies that simply can't be refuted, and yet I see posts that say things like "...There is no doubt what has happened..."
I hate to break it to you, but YES THERE IS DOUBT. IAs a scientist having given the data some study, I can tell you it is my evaluation that most of the studies don't pass basic methodology on data collection much less on the conclusions they draw. And the computer simulations that back up most of these studies? Oh my goodness...these people would flunk a simulations class I taught, their code is that bad. To watch armchair scientists scream and yell that there's "consensus" when that is meaningless in the scientific realm is both amusing and grating.
On a technology site one discusses and debates, one does not proclaim "there is no doubt". With science there is always doubt. There are theories which fit the data better than others, but as soon as they fail (such as, say, AGW predictions of an ice free Arctic) there's a need to revisit and, if necessary, discard.
Anti-science is refusing to discuss and debate.
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
Good movie...
One good thing about a Zombie Apocalypse scenario, I guess...at least the AGW folks would get their CO2 reductions...
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
That's not really quite right...there have been several predictions from the AGW crowd that have proven to be less than accurate. One of the more notable was for an "ice free Arctic by 2000" and recent prediction that it would be ice free by 2013 (to be fair there are a couple of months yet there). These perhaps prove your point that making predictions with human factors involved is chancy at best.
On the other hand, that's not particularly an answer to the question I asked. Groups like 350.org are asking for a dedicated, wholesale change to the entire economy of the planet in pursuit of what is (at best) an unproven goal. What is missing from their website is any estimate of how much this would cost, or how long it would take.
Nobody is saying once we hit the magic 350ppm we'd have to stop all these great things they want to do. I'm just asking how long they think it would take to get there if their agenda was widely adopted.
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
Thank you for the link.
Doesn't say anything at all about "only at night" though.....in fact it says they're taking hourly and continuously. Where did you see that?
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
Your decision to post anonymously says much.
It's a valid question--nobody said "all measurements were invalid" or anything like that--the poster asked a question.
I'm certainly no geologist, but I do know that volcanic areas are home to all manner of gas seapage through the rock in addition to the main volcanic plumes. When MOA was originally established it was primarily to measure for rainfall--I wonder how much (if any) gas seepage occurs in the region? I'd like to think that these were at least evaluated prior to it being drafted for CO2 measurements--and I'd think it would be addressed in the site FAQ. I couldn't find it there anywhere.
Just questions...can't imagine why somebody would have a problem with them.
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
Now THAT is something I'd never considered!
I know they chose the site for reasons of altitude, but you raise a valid question. Unless perhaps the prevailing winds there are strong and predictable with volcanic emissions going "downwind", it's surely a factor?
Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
There are groups (misguided in my opinion, but that's not relevant to the question) such as 350.org that want to restrict CO2 levels to 350ppm, feeling that that level is the "trigger" for global warming.
It's not clear to me exactly how much time they propose it will take to get there though. On their web site are some generic words about installing solar panels and stopping fossil fuel subsidies, which I think anybody is generally for. But I don't see anything about how much time they expect this to take even if the world moved to their agenda.
Anybody know?
Ferret From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
"In a world of climate change and rising temperatures I can't help but wonder: What is the carbon/energy footprint of a single ticket? To speak nothing of the total impact if this "business"? It look to me like Virgin Galactic and its customers are likely to be the absolute worst polluters on the planet ...
Would they be so eager to go into space for fun if they had to pay the actual environmental cost as well? Allowing it for science is one thing ... doing it solely for entertainment is another!"
This is 100% immaterial, IMO.
That's the kind of thinking that would have kept Columbus in Spain, the Vikings in Norway, and the Wright Brothers on the ground. We hairless monkeys have to do stuff that pushes the envelope, that isn't cost effective, that's downright crazy because it's who we are. Along the way progress and advancements are made, and that's all a Good Thing.
If one were to use "it's just for entertainment and hence a poor use of resources" as a criteria, then what of Hollywood? Video games? The energy that goes to power the internet? Al Gore staying at home doing a telecon vs. flying around the world? Surely a case could be made for "better" allocation of resources......?
Ferret
That was a great show back in the day.
I would tag YOU as "troll", were that in my power.
Pathetic AMJ....simply pathetic.
Ferret
I met Dame Thatcher once, several years ago, just before the First Gulf War. She was amazing, bright, witty, complimentary, gracious--simply an impressive woman across the board. She helped to defeat the Russians and end the Cold War.
She'll be missed.
Ferret
If one RTFA, one sees that there are no actual *reports* of "larger than normal crabs" being found in the wild....the report is about crabs in CO2-charged aquariums growing larger and acting oddly. There's no actual data regarding increased CO2 in nature causing any abnormally large crabs.
That would seem a logical next step, to see if the experiment matches reality--but that's a misleading headline.
Ferret
The cleaner and faster we can find such minerals, the better....
Ferret
...the folks who are so anti-coal they can't even acknowledge the positive aspects of this article are really being blind here.
The US is reducing its CO2 emissions! Whether you believe that is part of global warming or just want to see a generally cleaner air above the states, this is good news! We are moving towards cleaner and (in some cases) more renewable energy sources, and diversifying out our energy infrastructure can only be a good thing.
Other nations will get there--for now many of them don't have the $$$ to be able to afford the luxury of solar, wind, and nuclear.
Ferret
I'll be curious at the cost-per-foot for the construction and their solution for handling the geothermal pumps. I had a hard time designing a geothermal that my solar could drive.
Ferret
You're confusing the Aegis SM-3 tactical system with the ABM strategic defense system here.
Aegis is for tactical (i.e., local) threats. It doesn't have the range or capability to engage exo-atmospheric strategic threats. The specific item cited where your quote came from dealt with the question regarding whether Aegis would violate the Missile Defense Treaty; it disallowed *mobile* strategic missile platforms. Since Aegis was not an ABM platform as defined under the treaty, it was deemed legitimate.
Ferret