Governments around the world have agreed that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That's the plan. If you have a better plan, write to your government and let them know what it is.
We're putting 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. At that rate, every person on Earth would be responsible for creating nearly 5 tons of tree each year to eat up all that carbon dioxide. I don't think there's enough space on land for that, even if everyone could plant trees that fast.
"They" didn't change "it". Global warming means exactly what it sounds like it means: the Earth is getting warmer on average. Climate change means all of the associated changes in the climate that go along with increased temperatures, such as increased drought in areas that are prone to drought. And you're right that global warming doesn't mean that it will get warmer everywhere, because at first some places will become cooler. However, as global warming progresses, it will eventually be hotter on each place on Earth than it was in the early 1900s.
What predictions would those be? I've seen the temperature rise, the sea levels rise, and ice in the Arctic, the Antarctic, and Greenland melt. Those were all predicted before they occurred.
You're assuming that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will necessarily "hobble the economy". I've never seen a coherent explanation of why that would be the case. Could you explain?
No, the point of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is absolutely not to halt all climate change. We couldn't do such a thing if we tried! The problem is the rate of change of climate. We want to reduce our effect on the climate so it isn't changing as rapidly. If it changes more slowly, we can adapt to the change much more easily.
The whole point of my post was to see all of this horrible misinformation in favor of AGW being spread regularly, and it has uncovered... nothing. I just don't know what the deniers are even ranting about these days. Their arguments are just gibberish.
No, I'm not being thick. I was expecting actual misinformation such as "volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels", "Antarctic ice is not melting", "the planet's temperature is not increasing", "the warming is due to increased solar output" and so on. If you ask me, the misinformation is coming from the other side, you know, the one that doesn't have actual evidence on their side so they need to fabricate it.
As for your "short period of time" claim, I did not see a date in the first article you posted, and it also provides no time frame for when the prediction holds. How you could consider that to be a prediction already proved incorrect, much less misinformation, is beyond me.
Those are predictions about the future, as noted by the future tense form "will X". Think about what you would need to do so show those statements are misinformation. You don't have a crystal ball, do you? Even if you do are could conclusively show the predictions are inaccurate, that still doesn't demonstrate willful dissent of misinformation, just someone making an incorrect prediction.
Again, could you give some misinformation that is regularly spewed by the left about climate change?
Nothing different or special about us? Humans and their livestock and pets make up 98% of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass. There are hundreds of millions of people and trillions of dollars in infrastructure just a meter or two above sea level. Our civilization will be massively disrupted if sea levels rise by just a meter and we experience bad droughts. Sure, the planet will survive, but we're fucked!
Ironically, these particles are named after exclamations. The God Particle was the name of a book originally titled The Goddamn Particle because the Higgs boson was so hard to find. A better name for the Oh-My-God Particle may be the Oh-Shit! Particle. The names have nothing to do with religion.
I typically write short programs in Python because the syntax is so concise. It's a powerful language that's fairly easy to use, as opposed to C which is a low-level programming language. This is even more true if you use the NumPy and SciPy packages.
I've seen people complain that physicists are making things up to get more grant money, such as people complaining about hypotheses about multiple Higgs bosons or super-symmetry. This is a dangerous trend. If it becomes a popular notion that scientists regularly publish fraudulent results just to get more money, people will stop accepting the results obtained from science and we'll all suffer. I'm certain that some scientists actually do participate in flagrant fraud, but the worst offenders are caught and their reputations are ruined. I think an entire stem cell research lab is going to be closed because of rampant fraud. Funny thing is, I don't see anyone claiming that means all stem cell research is fraudulent.
My argument is simply that the sun has in fact become hotter during its lifetime, contrary to what the post I was replying to stated. Why try to read something more in to what I say?
It hasn't become hotter in recent decades but it has become hotter over the past 600 million years.
Since its birth 4.5 billion years ago, the Sun's luminosity has very gently increased by about 30%.3 This is an inevitable evolution which comes about because, as the billions of years roll by, the Sun is burning up the hydrogen in its core. The helium "ashes" left behind are denser than hydrogen, so the hydrogen/helium mix in the Sun's core is very slowly becoming denser, thus raising the pressure. This causes the nuclear reactions to run a little hotter. The Sun brightens.
If you think an intelligent agent is causing changes to DNA, that is absolutely at odds with thinking the changes are random mutations. When I hear people say that some Christians believe that evolution is how God achieves his goals, I always thought that meant that an intelligent designer set the process in motion and went away and let nature run its course. Are you saying that people who say this believe that an intelligent agent is actively changing DNA? If so, how many changes are due to the agent and how many are natural? And how do you tell?
People who disagree because of their worldview are typically at odds with vast amount of evidence that falsifies their beliefs. From the disagreements I've seen, it generally a two-sided issue with evidence firmly coming down on one side, and the other side unwilling to change their beliefs to fit the evidence. In the case of evolution and AGW, the evidence comes down firmly on the side of natural process without intelligence for evolution, and human-produced greenhouse gases causing warming for AGW.
Slashdot Mirror
Governments around the world have agreed that we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That's the plan. If you have a better plan, write to your government and let them know what it is.
We're putting 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. At that rate, every person on Earth would be responsible for creating nearly 5 tons of tree each year to eat up all that carbon dioxide. I don't think there's enough space on land for that, even if everyone could plant trees that fast.
"They" didn't change "it". Global warming means exactly what it sounds like it means: the Earth is getting warmer on average. Climate change means all of the associated changes in the climate that go along with increased temperatures, such as increased drought in areas that are prone to drought. And you're right that global warming doesn't mean that it will get warmer everywhere, because at first some places will become cooler. However, as global warming progresses, it will eventually be hotter on each place on Earth than it was in the early 1900s.
Why would the ice in the Arctic and Antarctica be melting if the earth is cooling?
What predictions would those be? I've seen the temperature rise, the sea levels rise, and ice in the Arctic, the Antarctic, and Greenland melt. Those were all predicted before they occurred.
You're assuming that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will necessarily "hobble the economy". I've never seen a coherent explanation of why that would be the case. Could you explain?
No, the point of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is absolutely not to halt all climate change. We couldn't do such a thing if we tried! The problem is the rate of change of climate. We want to reduce our effect on the climate so it isn't changing as rapidly. If it changes more slowly, we can adapt to the change much more easily.
The whole point of my post was to see all of this horrible misinformation in favor of AGW being spread regularly, and it has uncovered... nothing. I just don't know what the deniers are even ranting about these days. Their arguments are just gibberish.
No, I'm not being thick. I was expecting actual misinformation such as "volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels", "Antarctic ice is not melting", "the planet's temperature is not increasing", "the warming is due to increased solar output" and so on. If you ask me, the misinformation is coming from the other side, you know, the one that doesn't have actual evidence on their side so they need to fabricate it.
As for your "short period of time" claim, I did not see a date in the first article you posted, and it also provides no time frame for when the prediction holds. How you could consider that to be a prediction already proved incorrect, much less misinformation, is beyond me.
Those are predictions about the future, as noted by the future tense form "will X". Think about what you would need to do so show those statements are misinformation. You don't have a crystal ball, do you? Even if you do are could conclusively show the predictions are inaccurate, that still doesn't demonstrate willful dissent of misinformation, just someone making an incorrect prediction.
Again, could you give some misinformation that is regularly spewed by the left about climate change?
I'll ask again politely. Could you give some examples of misinformation that is regularly spewed? If you don't have any, just don't bother replying.
Nothing different or special about us? Humans and their livestock and pets make up 98% of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass. There are hundreds of millions of people and trillions of dollars in infrastructure just a meter or two above sea level. Our civilization will be massively disrupted if sea levels rise by just a meter and we experience bad droughts. Sure, the planet will survive, but we're fucked!
Ironically, these particles are named after exclamations. The God Particle was the name of a book originally titled The Goddamn Particle because the Higgs boson was so hard to find. A better name for the Oh-My-God Particle may be the Oh-Shit! Particle. The names have nothing to do with religion.
Could you give some examples of misinformation that is regularly spewed?
No, without trademark protection, anyone could write Superman comics and sell them as such. I think you're thinking of copyright protection.
I typically write short programs in Python because the syntax is so concise. It's a powerful language that's fairly easy to use, as opposed to C which is a low-level programming language. This is even more true if you use the NumPy and SciPy packages.
We're releasing far more CO2 into the atmosphere than can be recovered by merely planting more trees.
Not to mention the isotopic ratios of carbon in atmospheric carbon dioxide show that the extra carbon comes from fossil fuels.
I've seen people complain that physicists are making things up to get more grant money, such as people complaining about hypotheses about multiple Higgs bosons or super-symmetry. This is a dangerous trend. If it becomes a popular notion that scientists regularly publish fraudulent results just to get more money, people will stop accepting the results obtained from science and we'll all suffer. I'm certain that some scientists actually do participate in flagrant fraud, but the worst offenders are caught and their reputations are ruined. I think an entire stem cell research lab is going to be closed because of rampant fraud. Funny thing is, I don't see anyone claiming that means all stem cell research is fraudulent.
My argument is simply that the sun has in fact become hotter during its lifetime, contrary to what the post I was replying to stated. Why try to read something more in to what I say?
[citation needed]
But, but, but... You forgot the one-world gubment ruled by socialist dictator Obamabot!
If you think an intelligent agent is causing changes to DNA, that is absolutely at odds with thinking the changes are random mutations. When I hear people say that some Christians believe that evolution is how God achieves his goals, I always thought that meant that an intelligent designer set the process in motion and went away and let nature run its course. Are you saying that people who say this believe that an intelligent agent is actively changing DNA? If so, how many changes are due to the agent and how many are natural? And how do you tell?
People who disagree because of their worldview are typically at odds with vast amount of evidence that falsifies their beliefs. From the disagreements I've seen, it generally a two-sided issue with evidence firmly coming down on one side, and the other side unwilling to change their beliefs to fit the evidence. In the case of evolution and AGW, the evidence comes down firmly on the side of natural process without intelligence for evolution, and human-produced greenhouse gases causing warming for AGW.
No, ice at both poles has been melting: Antarctic ice is melting and Arctic ice is melting. Sea level is rising mostly because of thermal expansion and also the previously mentioned melting. You can also just look at the instrumental temperature record. You can see the warming and its effects, right?