Why shouldn't the federal government dictate which light bulbs are available for purchase? They regulate all kinds of things. They regulate what foods can be sold, what drugs can be sold, what firearms can be sold, what chemicals can be sold. They also make all kinds of energy efficiency standards, such as for cars and appliances. I suppose because it has to do with reducing carbon dioxide emissions, you have to be against it on principle. Why is it that certain people argue against absolutely anything that has to do with anthropogenic global warming, no matter how much sense it makes, even as they have no problem with things that don't have to do with AGW?
How does changing the electric infrastructure change my behavior in the slightest? Today I plug my appliances into the wall. When we use 100% alternative energy, I will plug my appliances into the wall. In what way would I notice any difference at all, much less have the difference affect my behavior? Please do explain in detail. Your whole argument depends on your assertion that reducing carbon dioxide emissions "forces a change in all human behavior". Could you explain at all or provide any evidence to support your claim? Don't just write more words making the same statement over and over again. If you do, you're just making up "evidence" to support the conclusion you've already reached.
Care to provide some evidence to back up your claim? Did progress in efficiency, size, or price of refrigerators slow during the CFC conversion? Or are you simply speculating something because if it's true it lends evidence to support your point? It sounds like a desperate attempt to look like you have evidence when you have none to me.
Our observations of how the climate has changed have agreed well with what the models predicted. That to me is the acid test of how good a model is. Whether or not it seems "ad hoc" to you sounds like a subjective judgment. If it predicts what will happen accurately, it's a good model. Isn't that how science works? Or can I reject the theory of relativity on the basis that it seems like an ad hoc kludge to me?
There was also no such thing as electric light or airplanes or space travel or the Internet until we invented it. I think you'd have to agree that because we haven't invented clean coal yet that we shouldn't throw up our hands and just give up, right?
Access to fresh water will decrease because people currently live in areas where the melting snow provides water in the summer. Warmer weather means the snow will melt faster and the water will run out faster. Controlled experiments on plants do not show increased food production with increased carbon dioxide. You'll have to provide reasoning for your claim that the poorest countries will suffer the most. You seem to be making baseless assertions that agree with the conclusions you've already drawn, rather than looking at all the available evidence. This is called confirmation bias.
What what? Claiming Florida will be flooded is not a policy. It's a prediction. A policy would be a proposed course of action to mitigate the predicted effects. I don't see anyone claiming that "Florida will be flooded", although there is a prediction that sea level will rise by about a meter this century, and this would mean that Florida would lose 10% of its area. Those predictions are well supported by the science. I don't see anyone predicting that billions will die -- that is a straw man. A warmer climate indeed has both positive and negative effects, but the net effects on the economy are negative wen the warming is above 2 degrees Celsius. There is widespread agreement on this, which is why it's the target for the Copenhagen Accord.
It's amazing how you managed to post so much information yet dodge my simple question. You should consider a career in politics. I'll ask again. Who is proposing stopping human progress as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? We didn't stop human progress by reducing our use of CFCs. Refrigerators today are actually cheaper, more efficient, and larger than the ones that used CFCs.
I still don't see anyone proposing stopping technological progress or cutting of the supply of fossil fuels to other countries. I see countries working cooperatively to solve a problem. If there is a defector, for example, if China does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we can simply impose a tax on Chinese imports. That would give China an economic incentive to reduce greenhouse gasses, but it is still their decision to make whether they want to reduce emissions and how they do it. See the difference?
Yes, it is called thermodynamics. The energy to melt the ice is coming from somewhere, and we know that an increase in greenhouse gasses would cause a temperature increase that would supply the energy. Do you have an alternative hypothesis that agrees with our observations and our current understanding of physics and chemistry?
Where did I say you were wrong? As far as I can see, I made no statement about what you said or didn't say. I made statements about the scientific research and the media's portrayal of it, not about you. You can point me to any incorrect assumptions I made. I think it's you who made the incorrect assumption.
I'll ask again. Who is proposing adding barriers to the access of third world countries to the cheapest and most readily available forms of energy? Really, please, do give me some evidence to back up this claim of yours. As far as I know, it's up to each individual country to determine how they will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. And it's up to each individual country whether they will even agree to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
If you put a compacted snowball in a tub of water, and as it starts melting and covers the surface of the tub, do you conclude that the ice is increasing because the area of ice is increasing? Or do you need to measure the volume or mass of the ice to determine if it's melting? If you ask me, the area has increased because it's melting and breaking up.
We know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we can easily compute how much warming an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause. The warming we've observed is consistent with the observed increase in carbon dixoide and prediction of how much warming it would cause. Unless someone can find another model that would predict warming from some other cause, increased carbon dioxide is the only tested hypothesis we have.
Who is advocating "throttling back technological advancement"? Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will require lots of new technological advancement, such as clean nuclear power plants that burn their waste instead of leaving it emitting radiation for thousands of years, cheap solar power, advancements in energy efficiency, and carbon sequestration. It's the people who say we shouldn't be reducing carbon dioxide emissions that say we shouldn't be investing in these technologies.
The reward was posted in 1935 but it's been solved after 65 years? Someone needs to brush up on their subtraction or current events -- the year is currently 2011. I don't think I would trust the person who made that mistake to accurately explain this advanced mathematical research.
Who is proposing stopping human progress? The proposal is to develop new technologies for generating energy without emitting greenhouse gasses, and it's the people who are against reducing carbon dioxide emissions who want to stop or hinder progress in that area. Developing clean nuclear power, solar power, and carbon sequestration is hardly stopping human progress. That's just a straw man. If you had a legitimate argument against reducing carbon dioxide emissions, you wouldn't have to resort to using a logical fallacy in your argument, would you?
We don't need weather stations in the Arctic and Antarctic to know that it's warming there. We can just observe that the ice is continuing to melt. What else could be causing that? Polar bears and penguins dancing the mamba?
You mean to tell me this was not a completely legitimate study? You don't say!!! I suppose next you'll be telling me that vaccines don't cause autism! Or that those monster cables I just bought really don't give me the ultimate in high fidelity sound! Or that we really weren't all created by a magic man in the sky!
Slashdot Mirror
Why shouldn't the federal government dictate which light bulbs are available for purchase? They regulate all kinds of things. They regulate what foods can be sold, what drugs can be sold, what firearms can be sold, what chemicals can be sold. They also make all kinds of energy efficiency standards, such as for cars and appliances. I suppose because it has to do with reducing carbon dioxide emissions, you have to be against it on principle. Why is it that certain people argue against absolutely anything that has to do with anthropogenic global warming, no matter how much sense it makes, even as they have no problem with things that don't have to do with AGW?
How does changing the electric infrastructure change my behavior in the slightest? Today I plug my appliances into the wall. When we use 100% alternative energy, I will plug my appliances into the wall. In what way would I notice any difference at all, much less have the difference affect my behavior? Please do explain in detail. Your whole argument depends on your assertion that reducing carbon dioxide emissions "forces a change in all human behavior". Could you explain at all or provide any evidence to support your claim? Don't just write more words making the same statement over and over again. If you do, you're just making up "evidence" to support the conclusion you've already reached.
No one is proposing changing "all human behavior" and the basis is solid scientific research. We're proposing reducing carbon dioxide emissions by developing technology for producing energy with lower carbon dioxide emissions and by using technology to improve energy efficiency. All the research points to the conclusion that Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. You seem to be of the camp that believes if you keep repeating something often enough, people will believe it. You are probably right, in that people like you have convinced some people that AGW is a big hoax designed to control us. If that's true, surely you could produce some small smidgen of evidence to support your claim.
A degree Celsius warmer than a century ago, currently warming at a rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. It's actually going to present quite a problem over the next century, with about 10% of Florida disappearing under water. I'm surprised you haven't heard about it.
No. What proves global warming is an entire range of observations consistent with warming. Simply put, we observe the warming and even many secondary effects caused by the warming, such as increased humidity. The planet most definitely is warming, at a much faster rate than over the past few thousands of years. At the current rate of warming, about 10% of Florida will be under water in a century.
Care to provide some evidence to back up your claim? Did progress in efficiency, size, or price of refrigerators slow during the CFC conversion? Or are you simply speculating something because if it's true it lends evidence to support your point? It sounds like a desperate attempt to look like you have evidence when you have none to me.
Our observations of how the climate has changed have agreed well with what the models predicted. That to me is the acid test of how good a model is. Whether or not it seems "ad hoc" to you sounds like a subjective judgment. If it predicts what will happen accurately, it's a good model. Isn't that how science works? Or can I reject the theory of relativity on the basis that it seems like an ad hoc kludge to me?
There was also no such thing as electric light or airplanes or space travel or the Internet until we invented it. I think you'd have to agree that because we haven't invented clean coal yet that we shouldn't throw up our hands and just give up, right?
Access to fresh water will decrease because people currently live in areas where the melting snow provides water in the summer. Warmer weather means the snow will melt faster and the water will run out faster. Controlled experiments on plants do not show increased food production with increased carbon dioxide. You'll have to provide reasoning for your claim that the poorest countries will suffer the most. You seem to be making baseless assertions that agree with the conclusions you've already drawn, rather than looking at all the available evidence. This is called confirmation bias.
The Stern Review attempts to answer these questions in great detail. In short, the answers are:
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
What what? Claiming Florida will be flooded is not a policy. It's a prediction. A policy would be a proposed course of action to mitigate the predicted effects. I don't see anyone claiming that "Florida will be flooded", although there is a prediction that sea level will rise by about a meter this century, and this would mean that Florida would lose 10% of its area. Those predictions are well supported by the science. I don't see anyone predicting that billions will die -- that is a straw man. A warmer climate indeed has both positive and negative effects, but the net effects on the economy are negative wen the warming is above 2 degrees Celsius. There is widespread agreement on this, which is why it's the target for the Copenhagen Accord.
It's amazing how you managed to post so much information yet dodge my simple question. You should consider a career in politics. I'll ask again. Who is proposing stopping human progress as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions? We didn't stop human progress by reducing our use of CFCs. Refrigerators today are actually cheaper, more efficient, and larger than the ones that used CFCs.
I still don't see anyone proposing stopping technological progress or cutting of the supply of fossil fuels to other countries. I see countries working cooperatively to solve a problem. If there is a defector, for example, if China does not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we can simply impose a tax on Chinese imports. That would give China an economic incentive to reduce greenhouse gasses, but it is still their decision to make whether they want to reduce emissions and how they do it. See the difference?
Yes, it is called thermodynamics. The energy to melt the ice is coming from somewhere, and we know that an increase in greenhouse gasses would cause a temperature increase that would supply the energy. Do you have an alternative hypothesis that agrees with our observations and our current understanding of physics and chemistry?
Where did I say you were wrong? As far as I can see, I made no statement about what you said or didn't say. I made statements about the scientific research and the media's portrayal of it, not about you. You can point me to any incorrect assumptions I made. I think it's you who made the incorrect assumption.
There is only one conclusion supported by the science. Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. It's not a he said - she said argument. The science has reached only one conclusion. I know the media likes to pretend there are two equal sides to the argument, but as far as I can tell there's no science that concludes the warming is due to some other cause. You can point me to some if you know of any.
I'll ask again. Who is proposing adding barriers to the access of third world countries to the cheapest and most readily available forms of energy? Really, please, do give me some evidence to back up this claim of yours. As far as I know, it's up to each individual country to determine how they will reduce carbon dioxide emissions. And it's up to each individual country whether they will even agree to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Look at the link I provided. NASA is saying the Antarctic ice is melting. Watts is looking at the area of ice, not the volume or mass. NASA is measuing the mass of ice.
If you put a compacted snowball in a tub of water, and as it starts melting and covers the surface of the tub, do you conclude that the ice is increasing because the area of ice is increasing? Or do you need to measure the volume or mass of the ice to determine if it's melting? If you ask me, the area has increased because it's melting and breaking up.
We know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and we can easily compute how much warming an increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause. The warming we've observed is consistent with the observed increase in carbon dixoide and prediction of how much warming it would cause. Unless someone can find another model that would predict warming from some other cause, increased carbon dioxide is the only tested hypothesis we have.
Ah, eldavojohn, posting math research stories but unable to do subtraction.
Who is advocating "throttling back technological advancement"? Reducing carbon dioxide emissions will require lots of new technological advancement, such as clean nuclear power plants that burn their waste instead of leaving it emitting radiation for thousands of years, cheap solar power, advancements in energy efficiency, and carbon sequestration. It's the people who say we shouldn't be reducing carbon dioxide emissions that say we shouldn't be investing in these technologies.
The reward was posted in 1935 but it's been solved after 65 years? Someone needs to brush up on their subtraction or current events -- the year is currently 2011. I don't think I would trust the person who made that mistake to accurately explain this advanced mathematical research.
Who is proposing stopping human progress? The proposal is to develop new technologies for generating energy without emitting greenhouse gasses, and it's the people who are against reducing carbon dioxide emissions who want to stop or hinder progress in that area. Developing clean nuclear power, solar power, and carbon sequestration is hardly stopping human progress. That's just a straw man. If you had a legitimate argument against reducing carbon dioxide emissions, you wouldn't have to resort to using a logical fallacy in your argument, would you?
We don't need weather stations in the Arctic and Antarctic to know that it's warming there. We can just observe that the ice is continuing to melt. What else could be causing that? Polar bears and penguins dancing the mamba?
You mean to tell me this was not a completely legitimate study? You don't say!!! I suppose next you'll be telling me that vaccines don't cause autism! Or that those monster cables I just bought really don't give me the ultimate in high fidelity sound! Or that we really weren't all created by a magic man in the sky!