The free market can only bring capacity online if the capacity exists.
A good reason to cut production quickly is that it's better for the overall production of the oil field if you don't stress it too much. Taking it easy gives the oil a chance to settle, and will increase the lifespan of the field.
At this point, it is more likely the flow of hydrocarbons is determined by the physical limits on production rate, so the price is determined by the free market.
Businesses need to have a unique way to identify their clients.
Using a unique number as identification is no different than using a combination of name, birthday, and some other properties, except that the number is much more convenient.
The food that people need to eat to work is also tied to the price of coal and oil. To produce a calorie of food, several calories of other fuels are needed.
Of course, it would also depend on the efficiency of the robot worker compared to the human worker, but I think it should be possible to make the robot more energy efficient per item produced.
It depends on the exact ratios. When you can increase taxes by 5%, and shrink the economy by 4%, you still get more money.
Also, when you lower taxes by 5%, and the economy grows by 4%, you get less.
If lowering taxes worked EVERY time, the logical consequence is that we should have zero tax rate. Obviously that's not true. Somewhere between the extremes is an optimal taxation level, and nobody knows for sure what that level is exactly. To make things more complex, there are many different kinds of taxes. You can increase some taxes, and reduce some others at the same time.
The article by Wallace Broecker is only 2 pages long, does not include any graph of a temperature reconstruction through the WMP, and includes statements like this:
Evidence for the Medieval Warm Period b m other parts of the world exists but is spotty and/or circumstantial. and this one: The case for a global Medieval Warm Period admittedly remains inconclusive
It's not a particularly convincing piece, to say the least.
And, even if there were Medieval Warm Periods in other parts of the world, he still makes no attempt to prove that these warm periods are all aligned at the same time.
AGW would justify massive control of economic and other systems by said governments
Since the theory of AGW is more than 100 years old, and we still haven't seen examples of massive control of economic systems, it seems that hypothesis is flawed.
So, why would governments want to argue on whole that AGW doesn't exist?
Because ignoring AGW is better for the economy, at least on the short term. Economic growth has been strongly tied to energy growth for a long time, and reducing fossil fuel usage without a good, readily available, alternative will have a negative impact on total energy consumption, and thus economic growth.
Besides, there are many governments around the world, and they aren't aligned in their interests or policies. For instance, the Chinese government already seems to be in good control of their economic system, and they are choosing to rapidly grow their coal plants and freeway system populated by oil consuming cars. In the US, for instance, quite a few politicians are strongly opposed to any kind of tax raise, and in favor of free market solutions. The need to deal with AGW only gets in their way.
You don't seem to understand. The fact that governments, or persons from the government accept the bad news and try to come up with a mitigation strategy is perfectly logical.
However, what is claimed is that the government will actually pay scientist to come up with bad news. There is absolutely no proof for that, and honestly, it makes no sense at all.
Obviously, in order to use your 'get-out-of-jail-free' card, we must be able to quantify the other factors, and explain exactly how they can overcome the CO2 related warming.
In fact, why can't we assert that the mechanism is reversed (temperature drives CO2), and discrepancies need to be explained in the *opposite* direction?
As soon as you can show a realistic, physics-based model, that can explain all of that, sure. Don't forget to run the same model on glacial cycles, and other climate shifts in the earth's history.
By the way, warming has not stalled. Out of the 10 hottest years in our record, 9 were in the last decade.
Say, 15 years of no statistically significant warming, but continuously rising CO2 levels?
15 years may not be enough. It all depends on the data, and its noise and trend. A weak trend combined with a lot of noise may not be statistically significant over a 15 year period.
Current warming trend is about 0.017 deg C, which means a.26 degree warming in 15 years. Year to year variation (noise) can be 0.4 degrees, so it's easy to see how the noise can swamp the data in such a short period.
Also, if the rising CO2 is combined with other factors, such as increased aerosols, La-Nina effects, or a less active sun, the warming may be less. In order to falsify AGW due to CO2, those effects must not be present at the same time in an amount that would be sufficient to counteract the CO2.
Tell me what observations would possibly shake your "absolute certainty"
That's easy. Higher CO2 and lower global temperatures without any other factor (such as increased aerosols) that could explain the discrepancy. I'm sure you could have thought of that yourself.
At best, this is a field over-reliant on proxy data, and *everyone* should be skeptical of that sort of weak science.
The AGW theory doesn't even depend on proxy data. Even without any proxy data, there is enough evidence that CO2 is warming the earth. The data is clear, and the mechanism by which it happens is clear as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, as soon as day/night usage are the same, the difference in price disappears, and people will stop additional night time charging.
At the end, you'll get a much more stable power consumption which allows much more efficient power generation.
The question is whether that process will go faster than the decline of big existing fields.
The free market can only bring capacity online if the capacity exists.
A good reason to cut production quickly is that it's better for the overall production of the oil field if you don't stress it too much. Taking it easy gives the oil a chance to settle, and will increase the lifespan of the field.
At this point, it is more likely the flow of hydrocarbons is determined by the physical limits on production rate, so the price is determined by the free market.
In what way is e-mail used as proof of identity ?
Businesses need to have a unique way to identify their clients.
Using a unique number as identification is no different than using a combination of name, birthday, and some other properties, except that the number is much more convenient.
Silly irrational reasons aside, of course.
He probably knows we're watching him, and this makes him look more sophisticated.
Aside from the assertion the card, why do you think it would be bad ?
There's nothing wrong with using a SSN as an identification. The problem is when you use it as authentication.
The food that people need to eat to work is also tied to the price of coal and oil. To produce a calorie of food, several calories of other fuels are needed.
Of course, it would also depend on the efficiency of the robot worker compared to the human worker, but I think it should be possible to make the robot more energy efficient per item produced.
fixed that for you.
As long as you have an endless supply of raw resources and energy, that'll work just great.
So, we agree lowering taxes doesn't work EVERY time. Good.
Now back up your claim that they are WAY too high.
It depends on the exact ratios. When you can increase taxes by 5%, and shrink the economy by 4%, you still get more money.
Also, when you lower taxes by 5%, and the economy grows by 4%, you get less.
If lowering taxes worked EVERY time, the logical consequence is that we should have zero tax rate. Obviously that's not true. Somewhere between the extremes is an optimal taxation level, and nobody knows for sure what that level is exactly. To make things more complex, there are many different kinds of taxes. You can increase some taxes, and reduce some others at the same time.
LOL. If they had that kind of restraint, they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.
The article by Wallace Broecker is only 2 pages long, does not include any graph of a temperature reconstruction through the WMP, and includes statements like this:
Evidence for the Medieval Warm Period b m
other parts of the world exists but is spotty
and/or circumstantial.
and this one:
The case for a global Medieval Warm Period
admittedly remains inconclusive
It's not a particularly convincing piece, to say the least.
And, even if there were Medieval Warm Periods in other parts of the world, he still makes no attempt to prove that these warm periods are all aligned at the same time.
Since the theory of AGW is more than 100 years old, and we still haven't seen examples of massive control of economic systems, it seems that hypothesis is flawed.
Because ignoring AGW is better for the economy, at least on the short term. Economic growth has been strongly tied to energy growth for a long time, and reducing fossil fuel usage without a good, readily available, alternative will have a negative impact on total energy consumption, and thus economic growth.
Besides, there are many governments around the world, and they aren't aligned in their interests or policies. For instance, the Chinese government already seems to be in good control of their economic system, and they are choosing to rapidly grow their coal plants and freeway system populated by oil consuming cars. In the US, for instance, quite a few politicians are strongly opposed to any kind of tax raise, and in favor of free market solutions. The need to deal with AGW only gets in their way.
Please provide the evidence that indicates that the MWP was a global event. Oh, and don't forget all the raw data.
You don't seem to understand. The fact that governments, or persons from the government accept the bad news and try to come up with a mitigation strategy is perfectly logical.
However, what is claimed is that the government will actually pay scientist to come up with bad news. There is absolutely no proof for that, and honestly, it makes no sense at all.
Obviously, in order to use your 'get-out-of-jail-free' card, we must be able to quantify the other factors, and explain exactly how they can overcome the CO2 related warming.
As soon as you can show a realistic, physics-based model, that can explain all of that, sure. Don't forget to run the same model on glacial cycles, and other climate shifts in the earth's history.
By the way, warming has not stalled. Out of the 10 hottest years in our record, 9 were in the last decade.
15 years may not be enough. It all depends on the data, and its noise and trend. A weak trend combined with a lot of noise may not be statistically significant over a 15 year period.
Current warming trend is about 0.017 deg C, which means a .26 degree warming in 15 years. Year to year variation (noise) can be 0.4 degrees, so it's easy to see how the noise can swamp the data in such a short period.
Also, if the rising CO2 is combined with other factors, such as increased aerosols, La-Nina effects, or a less active sun, the warming may be less. In order to falsify AGW due to CO2, those effects must not be present at the same time in an amount that would be sufficient to counteract the CO2.
Given that the governments would rather that AGW didn't exist, and the scientists state otherwise, it would seem they are reasonably immune.
That's easy. Higher CO2 and lower global temperatures without any other factor (such as increased aerosols) that could explain the discrepancy. I'm sure you could have thought of that yourself.
The AGW theory doesn't even depend on proxy data. Even without any proxy data, there is enough evidence that CO2 is warming the earth. The data is clear, and the mechanism by which it happens is clear as well.
Another option is to increase the fuel efficiency of gasoline cars, for example by making them lighter and smaller.