sure, they meet the emissions...for theyear they were made.
is that not the point the article is making? that if not for the recession's impact on sales there would have been a larger fraction of the total fleet of cars made up of newer cars with lower emissions, which would have the effect of lowering the overall average emissions of the fleet as a whole. but because of the recession those sales never occured, which leaves the average emissions of the fleet as a whole higher than would have happened had the pre-recession sales trends continued.
Not even that far in to the thing, a debunking frm an actual climate scientist:
JoelShore says: January 22, 2012 at 12:16 pm I’ll post here what I communicated to Ned Nikolov directly:
Thanks for the reply.
First, I would like to say what I think is good about this reply: It is well-written and clearly explains your thinking and I thank you for that. Furthermore, the actual calculations that you do appear to be correct.
However, I believe there are some quite erroneous statements and interpretations as discussed below that will presumably set the stage for major incorrect conclusions in the second part of the reply.
Here is a brief discussion of the most major errors that I found:
page 3:
“Since Earth’s mean surface temperature is 287.6K (+14.4C), the present theory estimates the size of ATE to be 287.6K – 254.6K = 33K. However, as pointed out by other studies, this approach suffers from a serious logical error. Removing the atmosphere (or even just the water vapor in it) would result in a much lower planetary albedo, since clouds are responsible for most of Earth’s shortwave reflectance. Hence, one must use a different albedo (alpha_0) in Eq. (3) that only quantifies the actual surface reflectance. A recent analysis of Earth’s global energy budget by Trenberth et al. (2009) using satellite observations suggests 0.12. Serendipitously, this value is quite similar to the Moon bond albedo of 0.11 (see Table 1 in our original paper), thus allowing evaluation of Earth’s ATE using our natural satellite as a suitable PGB proxy. Inserting alpha_0 = 0.12 in Eq. (3) produces 269.6K, which translates into an ATE of only 18K (i.e. 287.6 – 269.6 = 18K). This is mainly a semantic issue: The conventional assumption of a constant albedo is used in order to derive the temperature rise attributable to the greenhouse effect alone. It is true that clouds also have another effect, in that they change the planet’s albedo, but that is a separate issue. Furthermore, if you do want to imagine removing the albedo due to clouds, you really also have to then ask how the surface albedo of the colder planet will change due to the increase of snow and ice. (But thenDoes the planet still have water on it to form snow and ice? It depends by what magic we got rid of the IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere! We thus get into various hypotheticals!) I think the best “clean” statement that we have is that if we imagine somehow turning off the radiative greenhouse effect without changing anything else, then our planet would be about 33 K colder.
page 5:
“In a recent analytical study, Smith (2008) argued that Eq. (5) only describes the mean temperature of a non-rotating planet and that, if axial rotation and thermal capacity of the surface are explicitly accounted for, the average temperature of an airless planet would approach the effective emission temperature . It is beyond the scope of the current article to mathematically prove the fallacy of this argument. However, we will point out that increasing the mean equilibrium temperature of a physical body always requires a net input of extra energy. Adding axial rotation to a stationary planet residing in a vacuum, where there is no friction with the external environment does not provide any additional heat energy to the planet surface. Faster rotation and/or higher thermal inertia of the ground would only facilitate a more efficient spatial distribution of the absorbed solar energy, thus increasing the uniformity of the resulting temperature field across the planet surface, but could not affect the average surface temperature. Hence, Eq. (6) correctly describe (within the assumption of albedo uniformity) the global mean temperature of any airless planet, be it rotating or non-rotating. NoYou guys have failed to fully understand the implications of Holder’s Inequality. First of all, there is no condition that says that additional thermal energy can
plus once the missle is detected reaction time is less of a factor, as the missle's path is known: straight to the ship. from the lasers perspective, the mossiel isnt moving, just getting bigger. which means once the laser is on target, it doesnt really need to track or move all that much to keep its energy on th missle. and the missles seeker is in the nose, pointed directly at the laser, which simplifies disabling it.
Then next time you need surgery I suggest you go ask your local history professor to do the job.
Heck, that isnt even the right fallacy reference to make! You dont want the No True Scotsman. you want the Argument from Authority.
But lets rememeber: fallacy is only the potential for error, not a garuntee. think of it as a Caution Light. In this case, why woul dyou care what a geologist, or physicist, or other non cliamte scientist thinks of cliamte theory? Likewise, why would you care what a climate scientist thinks of relativity or geology?
Unless the individual is extremly well round and can back up his claims with a line of accepted research, if its not his field of expertise then his claims are worth no more than those froms ome random schmuck off the street.
Again: I say you are troll hiding behind a veneer of feigned ignorance.
and now you're projecting. you sir are not only a damned liar, but a fool. the idea, the concept that your formula controls the earths temperature is what has been disproven.
you are misapplying, misusing, and abusing that formula. like using general relativity to explain why the gasoline in your car's engine goes BOOM.
no scientist has seriously postulated that theory for the control of earth's temperature since the 70s. the very concept means that you think the sun has absolutely no effect on earth's temperature.
that gas theory, that formula, does not and cannot account for the warming trend in any way shape or form. it cannot even account for the basic fundamental difference in temperatures between day and night. nor can it account for the difference in temperatures between the differant locations on the planet, such as the the difference between the poles and the equator.
in order for that formula to be the control, to be the accurate model, the sun must have no effect on the earth's temperature. further it would demand as an outcome that earth must be largely uniform in temperature globally with the chief controlling factor being altitude, not time of day or latitude, both of which are constitute a variance in the amount of sunlight recieved.
as i said: are you seriously claiming that the sun has no effect? if you are then are even bigger idiot than I thought.
you are a crackpot, and you do not know what you are talking about.
again you prove you do not know what you are talking about. do you even understand what a greenhouse is? do you even understand the atmosphere and its layers? here's a hint: the uppermost layers are not the warmest layers. you're right it is more complex than you present it...and that complexity is why you are wrong.
just because i explained what existing law is doesnt mean i necessarily side with them or condone breaches in that law. the fact that muder happens even though its against the law is not a reason to get rid of the law or stop enforcing it or to even acknoeldge that it is in fact a violation of law.
so you can keep your unfounded personal attacks and illogical leaps of logic.
as i stated, they already do require your consent. your health records are a private matter between you and your provider. they are private and confidential and federal law already recognized this.
thats not to say they cant get it. there are legal means that already exist, like supeona or warrant. i cant think of a situation offhand for either that would require it, but those mechanisms do exist.
point is, this plan from HHS obviously would have to comply with existing law. which means anonymized records obtained with consent.
Solar activity has actually declined over the past 40 years, while temperatures have gone up. I'd challenge you to explain that, except you cant. And neither can the people you mention. And the fact you even mention them shows your level of ignorance.
Piers Corbyn in particular claims to make accurate weather predictions up to a year in advance. He isnt even a meteorologist. He is a fraud and a conman.
It's not the sun and there is zero scientific evidence to support such a claim. If it were the sun, then we should be cooling right now. Which we are not. End of story.
Next the models: http://www.skepticalscience.co... Same thing: you're wrong. The models have been very accurate over time and only gotten better.
first you say "nothing happened", then you say "20 years of warming".
which is it? pick one.
because ive seen you do this before. you mementarily acknowledge warming, and then say nothing is happening. you arent even a denier doing it for ideological reason, youre just a little kid trolling msg boards.
This is also the part deniers ignore when they say "But millions of years ago there was much more CO2 in the air." Sometimes they even include an acknowedgement of the also much higher Oxygen levels, levels that have trended downward to present day concentrations.
But they fail to point out the "why", and present it as a great mystery, when in reality we have a pretty good grasp of it.
It's not scientists contesting it for scientific reasons and because they are qualified to do so (no one cares what a brain surgeon thinks of climate science, just like no one cares about climate scientist's opinion on how best to remove a brain tumor).
Its politicians, mostly from the GOP but some Dems, contesting it for political reasons, all while saying "I'm not a scientist".
Reasons matter, and contesting something for sake of contesting it, is stupid.
Again: Incorrect. Solar activity has no correleation whatsoever. We are currently in a period of LOWER solar activity. If solar activity were teh culprit we should expect to see lower temperatures. We do not.
Let me state it again clearly for you just so you do not misunderstand: For the last 35 years solar activity and global temperature have been going in opposite directions.
Read http://www.skepticalscience.co... It even includes a handy graph which shows both solar activity and global temperatures over the same time period, so that any idiot, including you, can grasp that is no connection between the current warming trend and solar activity.
And again: Climategate was a completely manufactured scandal. IE, hoax. Some people hacked a server, and then read statements out of context without any actual idea what they were reading. http://www.skepticalscience.co...
that fact that you dont even compherend that "climategate" was a completely fabricated scandal shows how ill informed you are. you also are apparently ignorant of how scientfic funding works.
you're also wrong about how science works. climate science is a real phsyical science, unlike economics which is a behavorial science. physical science does not lend itself to different conclusions as the methods of science itself quickly weed out conclusions that arent supported by evidence. This is very different from economics in which the unpredictability of the human animal is a tremendous factor. in a phsyical science the same inputs cause the same outputs. In a behavioral science like economics there is no such garuntee.
and too lazy to spend the hundreds of hours it would take for me to properly educate myself on all the issues.
This is the only thing you got right. Yes, you're too lazy to actually know what youre talking about. That's why you're spouting misinformatoin and BS rather than actual facts.
"City sensors account for very few of the data sources and even when city sensors are omitted the trend is apparent." "Multiple sources of data all show the same thing." "The temperature increase is not an artifact of declining numbers of stations." "The temperature increase is not an artifact of stations being located at airports/cities." http://www.skepticalscience.co...
this is the pragmatic approach, but note that most conservatives dont even do this. they deny that there is even a problem, that it is even occuring.
be like if the dinosaur scientists pointed their telescopes at the sky and said "there's a big rock comin!", and the other dinosaurs said "no there isnt" and then made it a political stance that the science is wrong.
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.
Peer review is science. Study isnt really the right word, the word you want is research, but yes it does make it valid.
A study or research project is not a conclusion. Rather it is simply the presentation of a set of observations. Said observations are being presented to the wider community.
The phrase you want, what you should have said, is that "peer review does not automatically validate the conclusions of a study."
However, it absolutely DOES validate the observations made, in the sense that peer review is essentially saying "we reviewed your stated methods, data, and observations, and find no fault. We believe that you saw what you say you saw, and the observations are as you said. This research is fit for use/publication that we may study and debate it further."
Validating the conclusion drawn from that data is a different matter. Someone else may come up with a different conclusion. Through debate, verification, more research and observations, a body of work is built and a consensus gradually reached. Part of that process may even be the revealing of additional data that shows the initial data didnt show enough information to actually get an accurate picture, even though the methods and study itself survived peer review.
It is not a serial process in which Peer Review is end step before Scientific Consensus. It is an iteritive process in which Peer Review is one of many steps that will be gone through many times before arriving at a Scientific Consensus.
this is why i say you are a troll hiding beneath a veneer of "explain it to me", because evena cursory google search reveals tons of data and the sources of those data, including both direct measurements of trapped atmospehric gases from ancient rocks and ice cores, to the various proxies.
we dont just have 100 years of data, we have many hundreds of thousands. granted the resolution isnt as granular as the recent data (150 years of multiple daily local observations), expecially in proxies, but by its very nature it still provides an overall account of historical data and trends. so while we cant say "On the 5th of March 1304 it was 5F in Iceland" we can say something like "average temperatures indicated by the tree rings of preserved logs in timbuktu are around 5F". It helps that science of climate science isnt concerned with specific observations at specific times in specific locations, but rather with trends over long time periods on a global scale.
Slashdot Mirror
cant call you anything cause youre too cowardly to post under your own profile.
which is ultimately the point about most bigots: theyre just cowards.
sure, they meet the emissions...for theyear they were made.
is that not the point the article is making? that if not for the recession's impact on sales there would have been a larger fraction of the total fleet of cars made up of newer cars with lower emissions, which would have the effect of lowering the overall average emissions of the fleet as a whole. but because of the recession those sales never occured, which leaves the average emissions of the fleet as a whole higher than would have happened had the pre-recession sales trends continued.
Not even that far in to the thing, a debunking frm an actual climate scientist:
JoelShore says: January 22, 2012 at 12:16 pm I’ll post here what I communicated to Ned Nikolov directly:
Thanks for the reply.
First, I would like to say what I think is good about this reply: It is well-written and clearly explains your thinking and I thank you for that. Furthermore, the actual calculations that you do appear to be correct.
However, I believe there are some quite erroneous statements and interpretations as discussed below that will presumably set the stage for major incorrect conclusions in the second part of the reply.
Here is a brief discussion of the most major errors that I found:
page 3:
“Since Earth’s mean surface temperature is 287.6K (+14.4C), the present theory estimates the size of ATE to be 287.6K – 254.6K = 33K. However, as pointed out by other studies, this approach suffers from a serious logical error. Removing the atmosphere (or even just the water vapor in it) would result in a much lower planetary albedo, since clouds are responsible for most of Earth’s shortwave reflectance. Hence, one must use a different albedo (alpha_0) in Eq. (3) that only quantifies the actual surface reflectance. A recent analysis of Earth’s global energy budget by Trenberth et al. (2009) using satellite observations suggests 0.12. Serendipitously, this value is quite similar to the Moon bond albedo of 0.11 (see Table 1 in our original paper), thus allowing evaluation of Earth’s ATE using our natural satellite as a suitable PGB proxy. Inserting alpha_0 = 0.12 in Eq. (3) produces 269.6K, which translates into an ATE of only 18K (i.e. 287.6 – 269.6 = 18K).
This is mainly a semantic issue: The conventional assumption of a constant albedo is used in order to derive the temperature rise attributable to the greenhouse effect alone. It is true that clouds also have another effect, in that they change the planet’s albedo, but that is a separate issue. Furthermore, if you do want to imagine removing the albedo due to clouds, you really also have to then ask how the surface albedo of the colder planet will change due to the increase of snow and ice. (But thenDoes the planet still have water on it to form snow and ice? It depends by what magic we got rid of the IR-absorbing gases in the atmosphere! We thus get into various hypotheticals!) I think the best “clean” statement that we have is that if we imagine somehow turning off the radiative greenhouse effect without changing anything else, then our planet would be about 33 K colder.
page 5:
“In a recent analytical study, Smith (2008) argued that Eq. (5) only describes the mean temperature of a non-rotating planet and that, if axial rotation and thermal capacity of the surface are explicitly accounted for, the average temperature of an airless planet would approach the effective emission temperature . It is beyond the scope of the current article to mathematically prove the fallacy of this argument. However, we will point out that increasing the mean equilibrium temperature of a physical body always requires a net input of extra energy. Adding axial rotation to a stationary planet residing in a vacuum, where there is no friction with the external environment does not provide any additional heat energy to the planet surface. Faster rotation and/or higher thermal inertia of the ground would only facilitate a more efficient spatial distribution of the absorbed solar energy, thus increasing the uniformity of the resulting temperature field across the planet surface, but could not affect the average surface temperature. Hence, Eq. (6) correctly describe (within the assumption of albedo uniformity) the global mean temperature of any airless planet, be it rotating or non-rotating.
NoYou guys have failed to fully understand the implications of Holder’s Inequality. First of all, there is no condition that says that additional thermal energy can
plus once the missle is detected reaction time is less of a factor, as the missle's path is known: straight to the ship. from the lasers perspective, the mossiel isnt moving, just getting bigger. which means once the laser is on target, it doesnt really need to track or move all that much to keep its energy on th missle. and the missles seeker is in the nose, pointed directly at the laser, which simplifies disabling it.
Yes....because they clearly outmatch our capabilities.
Then next time you need surgery I suggest you go ask your local history professor to do the job.
Heck, that isnt even the right fallacy reference to make!
You dont want the No True Scotsman.
you want the Argument from Authority.
But lets rememeber: fallacy is only the potential for error, not a garuntee. think of it as a Caution Light.
In this case, why woul dyou care what a geologist, or physicist, or other non cliamte scientist thinks of cliamte theory?
Likewise, why would you care what a climate scientist thinks of relativity or geology?
Unless the individual is extremly well round and can back up his claims with a line of accepted research, if its not his field of expertise then his claims are worth no more than those froms ome random schmuck off the street.
Again: I say you are troll hiding behind a veneer of feigned ignorance.
and now you're projecting.
you sir are not only a damned liar, but a fool.
the idea, the concept that your formula controls the earths temperature is what has been disproven.
you are misapplying, misusing, and abusing that formula.
like using general relativity to explain why the gasoline in your car's engine goes BOOM.
no scientist has seriously postulated that theory for the control of earth's temperature since the 70s.
the very concept means that you think the sun has absolutely no effect on earth's temperature.
that gas theory, that formula, does not and cannot account for the warming trend in any way shape or form.
it cannot even account for the basic fundamental difference in temperatures between day and night.
nor can it account for the difference in temperatures between the differant locations on the planet, such as the the difference between the poles and the equator.
in order for that formula to be the control, to be the accurate model, the sun must have no effect on the earth's temperature.
further it would demand as an outcome that earth must be largely uniform in temperature globally with the chief controlling factor being altitude,
not time of day or latitude, both of which are constitute a variance in the amount of sunlight recieved.
as i said: are you seriously claiming that the sun has no effect?
if you are then are even bigger idiot than I thought.
you are a crackpot, and you do not know what you are talking about.
again you prove you do not know what you are talking about.
do you even understand what a greenhouse is?
do you even understand the atmosphere and its layers?
here's a hint: the uppermost layers are not the warmest layers. you're right it is more complex than you present it...and that complexity is why you are wrong.
again you prove you do not know what you are talking about.
yes and they should be held accountable for that.
just because i explained what existing law is doesnt mean i necessarily side with them or condone breaches in that law.
the fact that muder happens even though its against the law is not a reason to get rid of the law or stop enforcing it or to even acknoeldge that it is in fact a violation of law.
so you can keep your unfounded personal attacks and illogical leaps of logic.
as i stated, they already do require your consent.
your health records are a private matter between you and your provider.
they are private and confidential and federal law already recognized this.
thats not to say they cant get it. there are legal means that already exist, like supeona or warrant.
i cant think of a situation offhand for either that would require it, but those mechanisms do exist.
point is, this plan from HHS obviously would have to comply with existing law.
which means anonymized records obtained with consent.
You keep saying that, but that doesnt make it true.
First, the Sun:
This is a solar activity compared to global temperatures:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Solar activity has actually declined over the past 40 years, while temperatures have gone up.
I'd challenge you to explain that, except you cant. And neither can the people you mention.
And the fact you even mention them shows your level of ignorance.
Piers Corbyn in particular claims to make accurate weather predictions up to a year in advance.
He isnt even a meteorologist. He is a fraud and a conman.
It's not the sun and there is zero scientific evidence to support such a claim.
If it were the sun, then we should be cooling right now. Which we are not.
End of story.
Next the models:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Same thing: you're wrong.
The models have been very accurate over time and only gotten better.
We've covered this a million times.
But one more won't hurt.
"Methane breaks down."
This is true. But do you know what it breaks down into?
Hint: It starts with CO and ends with 2.
CO2.
Methane breaks down into CO2.
just because you say it doesnt make it true.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
first you say "nothing happened", then you say "20 years of warming".
which is it?
pick one.
because ive seen you do this before. you mementarily acknowledge warming, and then say nothing is happening.
you arent even a denier doing it for ideological reason, youre just a little kid trolling msg boards.
This is also the part deniers ignore when they say "But millions of years ago there was much more CO2 in the air."
Sometimes they even include an acknowedgement of the also much higher Oxygen levels, levels that have trended downward to present day concentrations.
But they fail to point out the "why", and present it as a great mystery, when in reality we have a pretty good grasp of it.
It depends on the reason why.
It's not scientists contesting it for scientific reasons and because they are qualified to do so (no one cares what a brain surgeon thinks of climate science, just like no one cares about climate scientist's opinion on how best to remove a brain tumor).
Its politicians, mostly from the GOP but some Dems, contesting it for political reasons, all while saying "I'm not a scientist".
Reasons matter, and contesting something for sake of contesting it, is stupid.
Again: Incorrect.
Solar activity has no correleation whatsoever.
We are currently in a period of LOWER solar activity.
If solar activity were teh culprit we should expect to see lower temperatures.
We do not.
Let me state it again clearly for you just so you do not misunderstand:
For the last 35 years solar activity and global temperature have been going in opposite directions.
Read http://www.skepticalscience.co...
It even includes a handy graph which shows both solar activity and global temperatures over the same time period, so that any idiot, including you, can grasp that is no connection between the current warming trend and solar activity.
And again: Climategate was a completely manufactured scandal. IE, hoax.
Some people hacked a server, and then read statements out of context without any actual idea what they were reading.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
that fact that you dont even compherend that "climategate" was a completely fabricated scandal shows how ill informed you are.
you also are apparently ignorant of how scientfic funding works.
you're also wrong about how science works. climate science is a real phsyical science, unlike economics which is a behavorial science. physical science does not lend itself to different conclusions as the methods of science itself quickly weed out conclusions that arent supported by evidence. This is very different from economics in which the unpredictability of the human animal is a tremendous factor. in a phsyical science the same inputs cause the same outputs. In a behavioral science like economics there is no such garuntee.
you are in short, an ill informed idiot.
http://arstechnica.com/science...
http://mythopedia.mediamatters...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://mythopedia.mediamatters...
and too lazy to spend the hundreds of hours it would take for me to properly educate myself on all the issues.
This is the only thing you got right.
Yes, you're too lazy to actually know what youre talking about.
That's why you're spouting misinformatoin and BS rather than actual facts.
"Contrary to Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate"
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
"City sensors account for very few of the data sources and even when city sensors are omitted the trend is apparent."
"Multiple sources of data all show the same thing."
"The temperature increase is not an artifact of declining numbers of stations."
"The temperature increase is not an artifact of stations being located at airports/cities."
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Everything you jsut said is factually wrong.
this is the pragmatic approach, but note that most conservatives dont even do this.
they deny that there is even a problem, that it is even occuring.
be like if the dinosaur scientists pointed their telescopes at the sky and said "there's a big rock comin!", and the other dinosaurs said "no there isnt" and then made it a political stance that the science is wrong.
Then stop making stupid statements like the one you just made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.
Peer review is science.
Study isnt really the right word, the word you want is research, but yes it does make it valid.
A study or research project is not a conclusion.
Rather it is simply the presentation of a set of observations.
Said observations are being presented to the wider community.
The phrase you want, what you should have said, is that "peer review does not automatically validate the conclusions of a study."
However, it absolutely DOES validate the observations made, in the sense that peer review is essentially saying "we reviewed your stated methods, data, and observations, and find no fault. We believe that you saw what you say you saw, and the observations are as you said. This research is fit for use/publication that we may study and debate it further."
Validating the conclusion drawn from that data is a different matter. Someone else may come up with a different conclusion. Through debate, verification, more research and observations, a body of work is built and a consensus gradually reached. Part of that process may even be the revealing of additional data that shows the initial data didnt show enough information to actually get an accurate picture, even though the methods and study itself survived peer review.
It is not a serial process in which Peer Review is end step before Scientific Consensus.
It is an iteritive process in which Peer Review is one of many steps that will be gone through many times before arriving at a Scientific Consensus.
this is why i say you are a troll hiding beneath a veneer of "explain it to me", because evena cursory google search reveals tons of data and the sources of those data, including both direct measurements of trapped atmospehric gases from ancient rocks and ice cores, to the various proxies.
we dont just have 100 years of data, we have many hundreds of thousands. granted the resolution isnt as granular as the recent data (150 years of multiple daily local observations), expecially in proxies, but by its very nature it still provides an overall account of historical data and trends. so while we cant say "On the 5th of March 1304 it was 5F in Iceland" we can say something like "average temperatures indicated by the tree rings of preserved logs in timbuktu are around 5F". It helps that science of climate science isnt concerned with specific observations at specific times in specific locations, but rather with trends over long time periods on a global scale.
Unlike what you said, it hasnt been disproven.