Oh it's easy. It's the same as "Microsoft Windows will make your life better". You may be skeptical about this and expect proof. Which should be easy to explain; complaining about the question doesn't cut it.
Skepticism in science if good. It either reinforces a good theory or disproves a bad one. There's no point in getting mad at the process.
So these are the numbers? We're sure about them now? What kind of confidence do we have in their methodology?
There's a buried comment below, is this true? "Little truth, forest fires put out more CO2 here in the US in one year then all petrol/coal burning over a ten year span. And why is that, because we fail to allow the smaller "brush" fires to clean up the floor. Native Americans, and other countries allow these brush fires, and the fires never get anywhere close to burning down an entire forest."
That's a little informal, but lets say for the sake of argument it's correct. Now, how does that knowledge reconcile with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I ?
Sorry, it's called "a life", annoying, I know, you're so lucky you don't have that problem and can pay full attention to Slashdot.
CO2 went up so that's mans contribution? Huh? That does not follow.
It used to be 7000 once. it goes up, it comes down. It's all over the place. Now, show me how you know what % mans contribution is to this rise (or fall depending on what point in the timescale you look at).
That's ok, logic and numbers aren't for everyone, some people enjoy the warm fuzzy love that is informal logic, which we call rhetoric. May is serve you well.
"Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed as many as 1,000 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina, as a Category 4 hurricane. After causing 95 fatalities in the US, Hazel struck Canada as an extratropical storm, raising the death toll by 81 people, mostly in Toronto. As a result of the high death toll and the damage Hazel caused, its name was retired from use for North Atlantic hurricanes."
Sorry about the confusion with Montreal, a friend of mine was on a boat in Montreal at the time this started and the trouble for her began then and that's how I remember it. Point is, you think of hurricanes as Florida, but they have in fact always been a threat, albeit less of a one, on the wilds of the neo arctic up here.
That way there be dragons. If you put a price on carbon then under that framework it is possible to charge people for growing plants.
Sounds absurd I know, but in a world that charges people for the water on their on their own land...
As kids we used to joke that one day they'd charge for air. You get free air at your gas station?
If you make something possible, some jerk will do it one day. As the single most important nutrient to plants you never want to put a price on carbon, ever. Try taxing heavy metals, phenols, dioxins, unburned hydrocarbons, nobody ever dumps pure CO2 into the air.
Also note the buried comment below: "Oddly enough, if you use the oldest continuously monitored sea level measure, run by the Royal Navy for over 250 years, you see that sea levels have not risen more than 1 cm over the last century."
Now how do you explain that this only happens in NYC and area? Have you seen what it is in other areas?
Maybe if the part they're measuring from is sinking, but most places have one mm a year. Hard to imagine how New York gets such a different amount given it's the same ocean.
Why is this marked insightful? If we expect storms of strength X, and we are getting storms of strength X *.30, that alone suggests something is afoot.
Or it could mean we aren't 100% accurate predicting the weather.
No, it's the alarmists who haven't read all the literature and cling to an unproven hypothesis that no government has accepted yet, that NASA proved faulty and even their own spiritual leader has backpedaled on.
James "Gaia theory" Lovelock gives up (2012): "The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace." http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/no_consensus/its_over/
Global warming is so 1985. It's not like we haven't known about it since the 1940s, nobody could figure out a way to make money of it until now, so they're exploiting it for all it's worth now. And you're helping. *slow clap*
Large is good, the energy is spread out over a greater area. Did you notice (a lot) more people die with the smaller ones?
You want big, they're weaker Sandy 1 & 2. Katrina was a 5 and smaller and moved more quickly. It had way more energy. Sandy just had the bad taste to hit the NYSE, but really it was fairly unremarkable and wouldn't have raised so much as an eyebrow if it hadn't hit NYC.
On the bright side it did destroy area and buildings Jersey Shore used for that horrible show which is to date the best argument for the existence of God.
Bloomberg businessweek. Ah yes that bastion of environmental stewardship.
After all look at the great work they've done stopping deforestation and pollution while saving the our oceans lakes and rivers, the Tuna and the whale. Oh wait, no, they report on companies that cause those problems to say what a good job they're doing on the bottom line.
I'm sure their carbon tax markets that only exist if we believe CO2 is the problem is just a coincidence.
"Natural" doesn't mean "spontaneous". There's always a cause.
Nor does it mean it's impossible. It's too vauge to "mean" anything.
We've looked around and the only smoking gun anybody's come up with so far is atmospheric CO2 levels..
That's only true if you've only read a subset of the literature.
The question is: Where's all the extra CO2 coming from? Oh, that's right...
Say, you wouldn't happen to have a number that expresses what percent of CO2 man is responsible for would you? That should be easy to get if we know so much about CO2 now.
Have a look at the sea level rise page in that bastion of non-partisan factuology: Wikipedia. To say "sea level rise is xxx" is patently false on inspection; that is, it's not that simple.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh it's easy. It's the same as "Microsoft Windows will make your life better". You may be skeptical about this and expect proof. Which should be easy to explain; complaining about the question doesn't cut it.
Skepticism in science if good. It either reinforces a good theory or disproves a bad one. There's no point in getting mad at the process.
So these are the numbers? We're sure about them now? What kind of confidence do we have in their methodology?
There's a buried comment below, is this true? "Little truth, forest fires put out more CO2 here in the US in one year then all petrol/coal burning over a ten year span. And why is that, because we fail to allow the smaller "brush" fires to clean up the floor. Native Americans, and other countries allow these brush fires, and the fires never get anywhere close to burning down an entire forest."
No of course not but you're the one asserting the point the onus is on you to have an authoritative answer.
That's a little informal, but lets say for the sake of argument it's correct. Now, how does that knowledge reconcile with this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I ?
Sorry, it's called "a life", annoying, I know, you're so lucky you don't have that problem and can pay full attention to Slashdot.
CO2 went up so that's mans contribution? Huh? That does not follow.
It used to be 7000 once. it goes up, it comes down. It's all over the place. Now, show me how you know what % mans contribution is to this rise (or fall depending on what point in the timescale you look at).
That's ok, logic and numbers aren't for everyone, some people enjoy the warm fuzzy love that is informal logic, which we call rhetoric. May is serve you well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hazel
"Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season. The storm killed as many as 1,000 people in Haiti before striking the United States near the border between North and South Carolina, as a Category 4 hurricane. After causing 95 fatalities in the US, Hazel struck Canada as an extratropical storm, raising the death toll by 81 people, mostly in Toronto. As a result of the high death toll and the damage Hazel caused, its name was retired from use for North Atlantic hurricanes."
Sorry about the confusion with Montreal, a friend of mine was on a boat in Montreal at the time this started and the trouble for her began then and that's how I remember it. Point is, you think of hurricanes as Florida, but they have in fact always been a threat, albeit less of a one, on the wilds of the neo arctic up here.
That way there be dragons. If you put a price on carbon then under that framework it is possible to charge people for growing plants.
Sounds absurd I know, but in a world that charges people for the water on their on their own land...
As kids we used to joke that one day they'd charge for air. You get free air at your gas station?
If you make something possible, some jerk will do it one day. As the single most important nutrient to plants you never want to put a price on carbon, ever. Try taxing heavy metals, phenols, dioxins, unburned hydrocarbons, nobody ever dumps pure CO2 into the air.
Also note the buried comment below: "Oddly enough, if you use the oldest continuously monitored sea level measure, run by the Royal Navy for over 250 years, you see that sea levels have not risen more than 1 cm over the last century."
Now how do you explain that this only happens in NYC and area? Have you seen what it is in other areas?
Maybe if the part they're measuring from is sinking, but most places have one mm a year. Hard to imagine how New York gets such a different amount given it's the same ocean.
Sorry, I should have pointed out a friend was there and it made a big mess. But you got the point right, minor details notwithstanding?
Why is this marked insightful? If we expect storms of strength X, and we are getting storms of strength X * .30, that alone suggests something is afoot.
Or it could mean we aren't 100% accurate predicting the weather.
Uh huh. I bet it's the biggest one in the last several billion years of this planet. Have you looked back about 150 years? And 300? And 450?
The report doesn't specify how we add numbers either, but that doesn't mean it's not true because it's not mentioned.
What has been clearly explained is a broken hypothesis that no government in the world accepts and gets weaker with each new discovery.
I'm not talking about a conspiracy theory, just facts you don't seem to be aware of and are therefore not qualified to judge.
Only two hurricanes in the Atlantic season so far. That's way down.
It's unfortunate one hit NYC, but you do take that risk when you live at sea level on the water.
No, it's the alarmists who haven't read all the literature and cling to an unproven hypothesis that no government has accepted yet, that NASA proved faulty and even their own spiritual leader has backpedaled on.
NASA/NOAA to IPCC: your models are broken, you ignored the facts plants eat CO2 (2010)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
NASA: 150 year Greenland melt cycle right on time (2012)
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
James "Gaia theory" Lovelock gives up (2012): "The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/no_consensus/its_over/
A more moderate approach is articulated: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all
Global warming is so 1985. It's not like we haven't known about it since the 1940s, nobody could figure out a way to make money of it until now, so they're exploiting it for all it's worth now. And you're helping. *slow clap*
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/.images/med_greenhouse_effect.jpg (Popular mechanics, August 1953, P 119)
Mesopotamia was abandoned 5000 years ago because of climate change.
See, turns out the earth isn't a static system. And there's a thing called "biological succession".
Shift happens.
Hey it worked for Goebbels.
Is this the largest hurricane ever recorded? Yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_hurricane_records
Large is good, the energy is spread out over a greater area. Did you notice (a lot) more people die with the smaller ones?
You want big, they're weaker Sandy 1 & 2. Katrina was a 5 and smaller and moved more quickly. It had way more energy. Sandy just had the bad taste to hit the NYSE, but really it was fairly unremarkable and wouldn't have raised so much as an eyebrow if it hadn't hit NYC.
On the bright side it did destroy area and buildings Jersey Shore used for that horrible show which is to date the best argument for the existence of God.
Bloomberg businessweek. Ah yes that bastion of environmental stewardship.
After all look at the great work they've done stopping deforestation and pollution while saving the our oceans lakes and rivers, the Tuna and the whale. Oh wait, no, they report on companies that cause those problems to say what a good job they're doing on the bottom line.
I'm sure their carbon tax markets that only exist if we believe CO2 is the problem is just a coincidence.
Yes, hurricanes are how earth vents heat to space.
Citation needed.
"Natural" doesn't mean "spontaneous". There's always a cause.
Nor does it mean it's impossible. It's too vauge to "mean" anything.
We've looked around and the only smoking gun anybody's come up with so far is atmospheric CO2 levels..
That's only true if you've only read a subset of the literature.
The question is: Where's all the extra CO2 coming from? Oh, that's right...
Say, you wouldn't happen to have a number that expresses what percent of CO2 man is responsible for would you? That should be easy to get if we know so much about CO2 now.
1953: Hurricane Hazel. Montreal.
Have a look at the sea level rise page in that bastion of non-partisan factuology: Wikipedia. To say "sea level rise is xxx" is patently false on inspection; that is, it's not that simple.