Do you have a mental reaction time measured in microseconds? Machines have superhuman functionality. It is perfectly rational not to insure humans.
We all have mental reaction times measured in microseconds. As I understand it, the current expectation is that you can react to an accident in about half a second, which is only a half million microseconds. That's quite ample for vehicle control as we demonstrate every day.
And why wouldn't we continue to insure humans? It's far riskier now to insure people, what changes to make insurance not viable?
All it takes is one state. And why would human drivers become uninsurable while automatic drivers somehow wouldn't? I'm sensing some ill-thought top-down behavior modification going on here.
We don't live in a deterministic world. It's not even a matter as sodul stated of being human. Having said that, it wouldn't be that hard to put in a standard package of items in such a vehicle (umbrellas, toothbrushes, toys, etc) and automatically bill the riders for any items they use or take. In fact, that's almost a no-brainer due to the profit potential.
Don't underestimate the degree to which the market does NOT cater to niches. If 95% accept such vehicles with open arms for their convenience, the other 5% will be dragged along kicking and screaming whether they like it or not.
There are several things to note about this alleged failure of markets to cater to niches. First, it doesn't happen in the real world. For example, in the auto world, there are plenty of niche automakers and not all of them make ludicrously expensive cars. And if there is a large unmet need, then there's a natural way via the usual manufacturing process to scale a niche automaker to mass production automakers. Most of the brand names in the industry that are more than a few decades old were originally businesses of this sort that underwent that very same transition.
Second, it's worth remembering here that there have long been substantial non-market obstacles to automakers. For example, in the US you have to destroy a few cars in order for them to be determined to be road-worthy.
Third, don't forget the used auto market. After all, we still see Model Ts on the road in the US. Old cars don't magically disappear. And the huge number of self-driving cars will lead to a vast used car market for these vehicles. It wouldn't be that hard to refurbish such a car, especially one which already has the capability in some form, to be human-drivable.
Fourth, don't forget the car manufacturers. By your numbers alone, we have the regular car market dropping to 2% of the current market, while the bitter clingers will be 5% of the current market. Guess which market is still two and a half times as large as the other by vehicle count? And as far as profits go, that larger, human-driver market will tend to be more profitable per vehicle since it has "options" (high profit add-ons like seat warming or fancy paint coatings). A lot of these businesses might go out of business due to the large reduction in market size (of roughly a factor of 15 by your numbers), but not everyone will. And the human-driver market is still bigger than the other both by number of vehicles and profit per vehicle.
After all, you've been preaching here that there are a lot of people ignorant of economics and history, behaving like cardboard villains out of an Ayn Rand novel.
I think we have an example right here with your flake out. It's not about my libertarian leanings or your willful ignorance of economics and history, but the fact that globally, we have been getting wealthier and better off. There are a number of ways we could screw that up and I think Ayn Rand, for all her flaws, did manage to find a few of the dysfunctional ways.
You are ignoring the costs of all this. The economics of it all
I already have noted that transportation is cheap enough that we routinely move enough people, just in the US, to keep up with sea level rise.
What happens to land prices when people en mass are moving to a common area? ( note, how many square miles are there at each latitude? ) They go up. This should not be a surprise, areas where people want to live are more expensive. Now, what happens to land prices when everyone wants to get away from someplace? They go down, Combine needing to sell in a place being vacated and needing to go someplace lots of people are trying to move to with being poor.
As a practical matter, it isn't going to happen.
And the obvious rebuttal here is that we already know what happens because we see greater levels of migration today than would be imposed by climate change alone.
No, it's vastly harder, because we have vastly more stuff. Our paleolithic ancestors could pack all their really valuable possessions around on their backs.
More stuff doesn't mean harder. After all, we have trucks, they didn't, For example, a while ago, I did a 2700 mile move where I loaded everything I had, including a car in a moving business's 18 wheeler. I then flew out and worked for several days before my stuff arrived. It was no more than a man-month (and probably more like half that) of effort by everyone involved in handling my stuff. Meanwhile our hypothetical paleolithic ancestors would have to walk that distance. Even completely unloaded and doing nothing else but walking, it's probably going to take them a year.
To say that it's harder today to move than it was then, is to completely ignore the powerful transportation technologies we have developed.
They didn't have a map, dude. They just went far enough, then stopped. Over time, they eventually spread. That says nothing about how rapidly they could travel.
Unless, of course, you pay attention. Maps? That's technology we've developed for making moves easier.
Private property actually makes that problem of finding a place vastly easier since one can just buy a home rather than fight someone for it.
Yeah, that's what you thought. But they have to be willing to sell. At this point, any sizable number of people trying to relocate is going to have a fight on its hands anyway.
Which in practice has been demonstrated to not be a serious problem. As to "any sizable number of people", somewhere around a tenth to a sixth of the US's population is on the move in a given year. We have yet to start fights over that. That rate of population movement is sufficient to keep ahead globally of the rising seas (it''s a billion people moved every two to three decades).
Keep in mind that most of humanity will be by the end of the century living in wealthy societies that will be more capable of feats of transportation than the US was at the end of the 20th Century.
But a world that is changing rapidly is a calimity to poor people tied to the land, especially in a modern world with national boundaries and private property where you just can't pick up and move like our paleolithic ancestors would have.
Yes, it's vastly easier to move now. Our paleolithic ancestors were tied to the land in a way we just aren't because they couldn't move very far or very fast. For example, last I heard, it was thought that the people who crossed the Bering Strait into the Americas reached the tip of South America a thousand years later. We can drive most of that distance comfortably in about two to three months.
And for most of humanity's history, the nomad still had the territory problem since the lands they moved to typically already had people on them. Private property actually makes that problem of finding a place vastly easier since one can just buy a home rather than fight someone for it. That's vastly more efficient in resources.
Solar variation is not the cause of the current warming. Got that? Good.
It's not "the" cause, but it is a cause of current warming. It appears to me that we would be among the hottest temperatures for this interglacial period even in the absence of human contribution to global warming.
I don't understand your logic here. Those "conflating factors" in analyzing climate of the 14-19 centuries don't have anything to do with current climate. For that we have measurements of solar activity.
We don't have similar past measurements of solar activity, so we don't actually know the degree of contribution from solar activity to the current degree of warming.
However, here is something to think about. If it were discovered that the solar variation during the Maunder minimum caused the temperature drop of the Little Ice Age, that would make the climate scientists say "oh my god, the highest estimates of warming due to the greenhouse effect are the right ones; it's a lot worse that the conservative estimates."
Or that there was a lot more radiative forcing than expected. In addition, the Maunder minimum happened just prior to the start of the industrial age. The current claimed degree of human-generated warming is based on an assumption of very little increase in solar output from then to now. If the solar output increase is much greater than claimed, then the human-generated contribution has to be smaller as a result.
But, in either case, whether the Maunder minimum does or doesn't explain all or part of the little ice age isn't really relevant to the question of whether we understand current climate, because we don't need proxies for solar activity to understand current climate: we have measurements. Saying "we haven't found a connection between the Maunder minimum and the climate" isn't bias-- it's just a statement of what we don't know.
I see considerable evidence out there, such as the factor of three difference between lowest and highest estimate of the radiative forcing of CO2, to indicate that we don't understand climate well enough. And if we "don't know", then why is there a "best understanding" that conveniently dismissable volcanic activity was responsible for the Little Ice Age? There are a lot of assumptions that all go a politically and ideologically convenient direction.
70% of the cost of your health care bill is either directly, or indirectly caused by insurance. Abolish all insurance that is related to health care, and your health care costs will drop by 70%.
Unless, of course, that doesn't happen. There are two things to note here. First, a huge part of the insurance is to pay for other peoples' inflated health care costs. Insurance would be considerably cheaper, if health care costs were cheaper. A nationalized program doesn't reduce peoples' consumption of health care any more than capped cost insurance does.
And it's worth noting that the rest of the developed world doesn't have health care costs that are 30% of the US's. For example, if we look at Wikipedia, the US clearly spends a third more on health care as a fraction of GDP (almost 18%) than its nearest neighbors (Netherlands, France, and Germany 11-12%). Nobody on that list (OECD countries) manages to achieve a 70% reduction as a fraction of GDP compared to the US. And everyone's health care costs as a fraction of GDP have been going up.
Second, the US has in particular a terrible history of reforming its health care. I wouldn't count on the claimed level of savings merely because of the US's considerable, demonstrated capacity to fuck things up. My view is that you should be able to achieve considerable level of savings adopting an insurance-based health care system, should the US choose to do that.
And compared to the tremendous fraud that occurs in countries without this kind of paper trail, it's probably worth it. Not that things couldn't be improved, but it's not all senseless. Accountability is expensive.
Now, if only they'd do the same for the large scale projects. They can procure a fighter jet with the right kind of screws, but they can't procure a fighter jet that does what they want it to do.
Summaries and conclusions often don't actually match the data. The IPCC reports are particularly notorious for this.
If at that point you feel like whining something like "Until they provide the raw unedited unnormalized data this can't be believed", then read the several hundred page reports.
Or I can choose to wait for actual data and just skip the snow job.
But the solar variation is not ten times as much. We measure the solar output. We know that this is not responsible for the current warming because we measure it.
Nobody measured solar output during the Maunder minimum.
You keep repeating that word "bias." The only bias I've seen you refer to is "every organization that produces a scientific result that confirms climate scientific models is biased." As far as I can tell, the only evidence you have for that purported bias is that you don't want to credit their results.
Let's just look at your first post on the matter.
Well, except nobody knowns whether the Maunder minimum even had anything to do with the little ice age, except for the coincidence of timing. The best understanding at the moment is that the little ice age was due to volcanic eruptions:
We see here a willingness by researchers to rule out conflating factors despite having insufficient evidence. That is IMHO evidence for the bias I referred to.
The numbers are based on an assumption about the size of the variation of solar output. If solar variation is double that, then the extent of contribution is double as well and so on. I doubt solar variation is ten times, that would be crudely the threshold for global warming being due entirely to solar output, which I think would be going too far.
The question of what we should do about global warming has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the science is correct. People are attacking the science to make political points-- specifically in order to not address the question "what should we do about it", because they are afraid that they would not like the answer.
Except that the science is contrary to your assertion a large part of the problem. Ignorance frequently causes problems for us scientifically such as introducing grounds for observation bias or ripe opportunity for people supposedly "attacking the science' for politics.
I did. Should have been 0.025%. That corresponds to 0.075 C difference in the case of 300 K.
In either case, though, that's not enough to explain the current warming. Does not explain enough of the current warming to really bother with.
A key problem here is that the real problem is not whether global warming exists or not, but rather how dire and urgent a problem is it? If a significant component of global warming is due to non-human factors, then that weakens the case for various expensive public policies and remedies such as ending dependence on fossil fuels (which perversely can include valuable market protection for existing fossil fuel providers), various public subsidies, and carbon markets.
I find it suspicious that all confounding factors are treated this way. Even though we don't have a good idea of what solar variation was in play before the modern era, we are assured that it was less than 0.1%. Even one of your linked research articles claims that solar activity was at all all time high for the past 11k years, but that this activity was still negligible. That's a remarkable coincidence.
Same goes for various decades-long variations in global mean temperature. They were perfectly happy to treat the relatively rapid temperature rise from about 1970 to around 1995-2000 as due to global warming while treating the slower rise since as some sort of temporary anomaly.
Which, of course, you haven't read and have no intention of reading. It's just easy to say "show me the data" when you actually don't have the slightest interest in it.
Sounds like you did the work for us. Which pages should we read?
Just imagine how much more interesting and satisfying historical and scientific debates would be, if everyone settled arguments by telling people to read several hundred page reports.
You asserted, with no evidence, that the change in total solar irradiance between active sun and quiet sun is a plausible explanation of the 20th century warming.
I don't. Let's look my key statement on the matter:
I'm a lukewarmist, I believe there is some effect. But this is a huge factor to downplay.
"Lukewarmist" means I agree that there is global warming and I think from above, one can see that I'm further implying my belief that there is some degree of human contribution to that. I have never asserted that solar variation completely accounts for modern global warming.
A quick back of the envelope analysis would show that this is not the case. But you're not willing to do the calculation, and not willing to look at the calculation from people who have.
You still have to determine what the effective warming from CO2 is too in order to compare the two. There is another approach. Namely, we can start with the observation that crudely, heat radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature (in other words, assume Earth is close enough to a black body to use the T^4 model of heat dissipation via radiation to absolute zero (space being close to that). Then for our second assumption, assume that Earth is near enough to equilibrium to use steady state thermodynamics.
A 0.1% variation in solar influx corresponds then to a 0.25% variation in temperature of the Earth.. Assuming 300 K average temperature, you have almost 10% of the rise in temperature in the begining of the industrial age (0.8 C) due to solar variation. I suppose that could be a "few percent" as you put it earlier. Moving on, if solar variation was much greater than 0.1% variation in solar output, then it's going to be a larger share.
That is a non sequitur since a non-increase in jobs doesn't follow from a non-decrease in hours worked.
Unless, of course, it does.
It's a non sequitur because there is no correlation between hours worked and availability of jobs. For example, an increase in hours worked could be because there is an overall greater demand for labor or it could be because there are greater fixed costs per employee. Those factors result in very different job creation rates.
Just because the developed world has screwed itself up with respect to creating new businesses and new jobs doesn't mean that the rest of the world has shared in the folly.
Unless, again, it does. People in the developed world aren't magically more immune to the follies of the developed world.
But they have two things going their way. First, they have pressing priorities, like feeding billions of people that encourage them to postpone those follies. Second, they have the living example of the west.
And people are "lapping up" this narrative because it is based on 500 years of history.
Which is of course wishful thinking, as human history has gone longer than just 500 history. This is like believing in all the AGW hype based on a few decades of data. Which of course is another narrative people lap up.
That's ample data since it's many human lifetimes and many human cultures all experiencing these common trends. Further, there are well known economic phenomena, namely, comparative advantage and Jevons paradox which explain why we would expect this trend to continue for a while.
Further, we have evidence that technology did improve human labor before 1500, it's just that the effect from slower technology growth of those times is swamped by confounding factors like population growth and the rise and fall of trade networks and civilizations.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you have a mental reaction time measured in microseconds? Machines have superhuman functionality. It is perfectly rational not to insure humans.
We all have mental reaction times measured in microseconds. As I understand it, the current expectation is that you can react to an accident in about half a second, which is only a half million microseconds. That's quite ample for vehicle control as we demonstrate every day.
And why wouldn't we continue to insure humans? It's far riskier now to insure people, what changes to make insurance not viable?
There isn't a CEO on the planet who would allow the costs to go down over time, because it's bad for business.
And there are the customers who will switch at the drop of a hat to a cheaper or better product. It's not one way.
Very few states allow these options currently.
All it takes is one state. And why would human drivers become uninsurable while automatic drivers somehow wouldn't? I'm sensing some ill-thought top-down behavior modification going on here.
We don't live in a deterministic world. It's not even a matter as sodul stated of being human. Having said that, it wouldn't be that hard to put in a standard package of items in such a vehicle (umbrellas, toothbrushes, toys, etc) and automatically bill the riders for any items they use or take. In fact, that's almost a no-brainer due to the profit potential.
Don't underestimate the degree to which the market does NOT cater to niches. If 95% accept such vehicles with open arms for their convenience, the other 5% will be dragged along kicking and screaming whether they like it or not.
There are several things to note about this alleged failure of markets to cater to niches. First, it doesn't happen in the real world. For example, in the auto world, there are plenty of niche automakers and not all of them make ludicrously expensive cars. And if there is a large unmet need, then there's a natural way via the usual manufacturing process to scale a niche automaker to mass production automakers. Most of the brand names in the industry that are more than a few decades old were originally businesses of this sort that underwent that very same transition.
Second, it's worth remembering here that there have long been substantial non-market obstacles to automakers. For example, in the US you have to destroy a few cars in order for them to be determined to be road-worthy.
Third, don't forget the used auto market. After all, we still see Model Ts on the road in the US. Old cars don't magically disappear. And the huge number of self-driving cars will lead to a vast used car market for these vehicles. It wouldn't be that hard to refurbish such a car, especially one which already has the capability in some form, to be human-drivable.
Fourth, don't forget the car manufacturers. By your numbers alone, we have the regular car market dropping to 2% of the current market, while the bitter clingers will be 5% of the current market. Guess which market is still two and a half times as large as the other by vehicle count? And as far as profits go, that larger, human-driver market will tend to be more profitable per vehicle since it has "options" (high profit add-ons like seat warming or fancy paint coatings). A lot of these businesses might go out of business due to the large reduction in market size (of roughly a factor of 15 by your numbers), but not everyone will. And the human-driver market is still bigger than the other both by number of vehicles and profit per vehicle.
After all, you've been preaching here that there are a lot of people ignorant of economics and history, behaving like cardboard villains out of an Ayn Rand novel.
I think we have an example right here with your flake out. It's not about my libertarian leanings or your willful ignorance of economics and history, but the fact that globally, we have been getting wealthier and better off. There are a number of ways we could screw that up and I think Ayn Rand, for all her flaws, did manage to find a few of the dysfunctional ways.
You are ignoring the costs of all this. The economics of it all
I already have noted that transportation is cheap enough that we routinely move enough people, just in the US, to keep up with sea level rise.
What happens to land prices when people en mass are moving to a common area? ( note, how many square miles are there at each latitude? ) They go up. This should not be a surprise, areas where people want to live are more expensive. Now, what happens to land prices when everyone wants to get away from someplace? They go down, Combine needing to sell in a place being vacated and needing to go someplace lots of people are trying to move to with being poor. As a practical matter, it isn't going to happen.
And the obvious rebuttal here is that we already know what happens because we see greater levels of migration today than would be imposed by climate change alone.
Keep in mind that most of humanity will be by the end of the century living in wealthy societies
Planning for a mass dieoff, huh?
No, just pointing out the obvious.
No, it's vastly harder, because we have vastly more stuff. Our paleolithic ancestors could pack all their really valuable possessions around on their backs.
More stuff doesn't mean harder. After all, we have trucks, they didn't, For example, a while ago, I did a 2700 mile move where I loaded everything I had, including a car in a moving business's 18 wheeler. I then flew out and worked for several days before my stuff arrived. It was no more than a man-month (and probably more like half that) of effort by everyone involved in handling my stuff. Meanwhile our hypothetical paleolithic ancestors would have to walk that distance. Even completely unloaded and doing nothing else but walking, it's probably going to take them a year.
To say that it's harder today to move than it was then, is to completely ignore the powerful transportation technologies we have developed.
They didn't have a map, dude. They just went far enough, then stopped. Over time, they eventually spread. That says nothing about how rapidly they could travel.
Unless, of course, you pay attention. Maps? That's technology we've developed for making moves easier.
Private property actually makes that problem of finding a place vastly easier since one can just buy a home rather than fight someone for it.
Yeah, that's what you thought. But they have to be willing to sell. At this point, any sizable number of people trying to relocate is going to have a fight on its hands anyway.
Which in practice has been demonstrated to not be a serious problem. As to "any sizable number of people", somewhere around a tenth to a sixth of the US's population is on the move in a given year. We have yet to start fights over that. That rate of population movement is sufficient to keep ahead globally of the rising seas (it''s a billion people moved every two to three decades).
Keep in mind that most of humanity will be by the end of the century living in wealthy societies that will be more capable of feats of transportation than the US was at the end of the 20th Century.
I quite agree. No one talks about hot grits in the pants anymore. It's really gone down the tubes.
I think this post illustrates the pointlessness of a lot of Slashdot posting. It's an AC whining about imaginary problems.
But a world that is changing rapidly is a calimity to poor people tied to the land, especially in a modern world with national boundaries and private property where you just can't pick up and move like our paleolithic ancestors would have.
Yes, it's vastly easier to move now. Our paleolithic ancestors were tied to the land in a way we just aren't because they couldn't move very far or very fast. For example, last I heard, it was thought that the people who crossed the Bering Strait into the Americas reached the tip of South America a thousand years later. We can drive most of that distance comfortably in about two to three months.
And for most of humanity's history, the nomad still had the territory problem since the lands they moved to typically already had people on them. Private property actually makes that problem of finding a place vastly easier since one can just buy a home rather than fight someone for it. That's vastly more efficient in resources.
Do you think a single person will see a minute in prison for this?
I think a lot of people will see prison for this. Just not the people you're thinking of.
Solar variation is not the cause of the current warming. Got that? Good.
It's not "the" cause, but it is a cause of current warming. It appears to me that we would be among the hottest temperatures for this interglacial period even in the absence of human contribution to global warming.
I don't understand your logic here. Those "conflating factors" in analyzing climate of the 14-19 centuries don't have anything to do with current climate. For that we have measurements of solar activity.
We don't have similar past measurements of solar activity, so we don't actually know the degree of contribution from solar activity to the current degree of warming.
However, here is something to think about. If it were discovered that the solar variation during the Maunder minimum caused the temperature drop of the Little Ice Age, that would make the climate scientists say "oh my god, the highest estimates of warming due to the greenhouse effect are the right ones; it's a lot worse that the conservative estimates."
Or that there was a lot more radiative forcing than expected. In addition, the Maunder minimum happened just prior to the start of the industrial age. The current claimed degree of human-generated warming is based on an assumption of very little increase in solar output from then to now. If the solar output increase is much greater than claimed, then the human-generated contribution has to be smaller as a result.
But, in either case, whether the Maunder minimum does or doesn't explain all or part of the little ice age isn't really relevant to the question of whether we understand current climate, because we don't need proxies for solar activity to understand current climate: we have measurements. Saying "we haven't found a connection between the Maunder minimum and the climate" isn't bias-- it's just a statement of what we don't know.
I see considerable evidence out there, such as the factor of three difference between lowest and highest estimate of the radiative forcing of CO2, to indicate that we don't understand climate well enough. And if we "don't know", then why is there a "best understanding" that conveniently dismissable volcanic activity was responsible for the Little Ice Age? There are a lot of assumptions that all go a politically and ideologically convenient direction.
70% of the cost of your health care bill is either directly, or indirectly caused by insurance. Abolish all insurance that is related to health care, and your health care costs will drop by 70%.
Unless, of course, that doesn't happen. There are two things to note here. First, a huge part of the insurance is to pay for other peoples' inflated health care costs. Insurance would be considerably cheaper, if health care costs were cheaper. A nationalized program doesn't reduce peoples' consumption of health care any more than capped cost insurance does.
And it's worth noting that the rest of the developed world doesn't have health care costs that are 30% of the US's. For example, if we look at Wikipedia, the US clearly spends a third more on health care as a fraction of GDP (almost 18%) than its nearest neighbors (Netherlands, France, and Germany 11-12%). Nobody on that list (OECD countries) manages to achieve a 70% reduction as a fraction of GDP compared to the US. And everyone's health care costs as a fraction of GDP have been going up.
Second, the US has in particular a terrible history of reforming its health care. I wouldn't count on the claimed level of savings merely because of the US's considerable, demonstrated capacity to fuck things up. My view is that you should be able to achieve considerable level of savings adopting an insurance-based health care system, should the US choose to do that.
And compared to the tremendous fraud that occurs in countries without this kind of paper trail, it's probably worth it. Not that things couldn't be improved, but it's not all senseless. Accountability is expensive.
Now, if only they'd do the same for the large scale projects. They can procure a fighter jet with the right kind of screws, but they can't procure a fighter jet that does what they want it to do.
Just read the summary and conclusions.
Summaries and conclusions often don't actually match the data. The IPCC reports are particularly notorious for this.
If at that point you feel like whining something like "Until they provide the raw unedited unnormalized data this can't be believed", then read the several hundred page reports.
Or I can choose to wait for actual data and just skip the snow job.
But the solar variation is not ten times as much. We measure the solar output. We know that this is not responsible for the current warming because we measure it.
Nobody measured solar output during the Maunder minimum.
You keep repeating that word "bias." The only bias I've seen you refer to is "every organization that produces a scientific result that confirms climate scientific models is biased." As far as I can tell, the only evidence you have for that purported bias is that you don't want to credit their results.
Let's just look at your first post on the matter.
Well, except nobody knowns whether the Maunder minimum even had anything to do with the little ice age, except for the coincidence of timing. The best understanding at the moment is that the little ice age was due to volcanic eruptions:
We see here a willingness by researchers to rule out conflating factors despite having insufficient evidence. That is IMHO evidence for the bias I referred to.
I'm not "A".
It isn't.
You just did the numbers.
It isn't.
The numbers are based on an assumption about the size of the variation of solar output. If solar variation is double that, then the extent of contribution is double as well and so on. I doubt solar variation is ten times, that would be crudely the threshold for global warming being due entirely to solar output, which I think would be going too far.
The question of what we should do about global warming has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the science is correct. People are attacking the science to make political points-- specifically in order to not address the question "what should we do about it", because they are afraid that they would not like the answer.
Except that the science is contrary to your assertion a large part of the problem. Ignorance frequently causes problems for us scientifically such as introducing grounds for observation bias or ripe opportunity for people supposedly "attacking the science' for politics.
So you haven't read them either?
I think you slipped a decimal.
I did. Should have been 0.025%. That corresponds to 0.075 C difference in the case of 300 K.
In either case, though, that's not enough to explain the current warming. Does not explain enough of the current warming to really bother with.
A key problem here is that the real problem is not whether global warming exists or not, but rather how dire and urgent a problem is it? If a significant component of global warming is due to non-human factors, then that weakens the case for various expensive public policies and remedies such as ending dependence on fossil fuels (which perversely can include valuable market protection for existing fossil fuel providers), various public subsidies, and carbon markets.
I find it suspicious that all confounding factors are treated this way. Even though we don't have a good idea of what solar variation was in play before the modern era, we are assured that it was less than 0.1%. Even one of your linked research articles claims that solar activity was at all all time high for the past 11k years, but that this activity was still negligible. That's a remarkable coincidence.
Same goes for various decades-long variations in global mean temperature. They were perfectly happy to treat the relatively rapid temperature rise from about 1970 to around 1995-2000 as due to global warming while treating the slower rise since as some sort of temporary anomaly.
Which, of course, you haven't read and have no intention of reading. It's just easy to say "show me the data" when you actually don't have the slightest interest in it.
Sounds like you did the work for us. Which pages should we read?
Just imagine how much more interesting and satisfying historical and scientific debates would be, if everyone settled arguments by telling people to read several hundred page reports.
You asserted, with no evidence, that the change in total solar irradiance between active sun and quiet sun is a plausible explanation of the 20th century warming.
I don't. Let's look my key statement on the matter:
I'm a lukewarmist, I believe there is some effect. But this is a huge factor to downplay.
"Lukewarmist" means I agree that there is global warming and I think from above, one can see that I'm further implying my belief that there is some degree of human contribution to that. I have never asserted that solar variation completely accounts for modern global warming.
A quick back of the envelope analysis would show that this is not the case. But you're not willing to do the calculation, and not willing to look at the calculation from people who have.
You still have to determine what the effective warming from CO2 is too in order to compare the two. There is another approach. Namely, we can start with the observation that crudely, heat radiation is proportional to the fourth power of temperature (in other words, assume Earth is close enough to a black body to use the T^4 model of heat dissipation via radiation to absolute zero (space being close to that). Then for our second assumption, assume that Earth is near enough to equilibrium to use steady state thermodynamics.
A 0.1% variation in solar influx corresponds then to a 0.25% variation in temperature of the Earth.. Assuming 300 K average temperature, you have almost 10% of the rise in temperature in the begining of the industrial age (0.8 C) due to solar variation. I suppose that could be a "few percent" as you put it earlier. Moving on, if solar variation was much greater than 0.1% variation in solar output, then it's going to be a larger share.
That is a non sequitur since a non-increase in jobs doesn't follow from a non-decrease in hours worked.
Unless, of course, it does.
It's a non sequitur because there is no correlation between hours worked and availability of jobs. For example, an increase in hours worked could be because there is an overall greater demand for labor or it could be because there are greater fixed costs per employee. Those factors result in very different job creation rates.
Just because the developed world has screwed itself up with respect to creating new businesses and new jobs doesn't mean that the rest of the world has shared in the folly.
Unless, again, it does. People in the developed world aren't magically more immune to the follies of the developed world.
But they have two things going their way. First, they have pressing priorities, like feeding billions of people that encourage them to postpone those follies. Second, they have the living example of the west.
And people are "lapping up" this narrative because it is based on 500 years of history.
Which is of course wishful thinking, as human history has gone longer than just 500 history. This is like believing in all the AGW hype based on a few decades of data. Which of course is another narrative people lap up.
That's ample data since it's many human lifetimes and many human cultures all experiencing these common trends. Further, there are well known economic phenomena, namely, comparative advantage and Jevons paradox which explain why we would expect this trend to continue for a while.
Further, we have evidence that technology did improve human labor before 1500, it's just that the effect from slower technology growth of those times is swamped by confounding factors like population growth and the rise and fall of trade networks and civilizations.