"You don't specify what "catastrophe" is supposed to mean. But the scientific literature, as well as the evidence, quite consistently supports the existence of substantial positive feedbacks, in agreement with the IPCC range of 2-4.5 K per CO2 doubling."
Forests soak up third of fossil fuel emissions: study By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – Jul 14, 2011 PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown. The study, published in Science, provides the most accurate measure so far of the amount of greenhouse gases absorbed from the atmosphere by tropical, temperate and boreal forests, researchers said. "This is the first complete and global evidence of the overwhelming role of forests in removing anthropogenic carbon dioxide," said co-author Josep Canadell, a scientist at CSIRO, Australia's national climate research centre in Canberra. "If you were to stop deforestation tomorrow, the world's established and regrowing forests would remove half of fossil fuel emissions," he told AFP, describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected".
No no - we tried saying that when you asked us to believe him and you wouldn't accept it.
You don't get those two bites at the apple, that is you don't get to hold him up and expect is to believe him and give us a hard time when we point out he isn't a scientist and then use the same argument you rejected back at us when it's point out he, like Hansen, flat out fucking lied. And admits all of his friends did too.
Causes of glaciation are indeed key. For the longest time we just didn't know.
Now, a French team have pretty good proof of causes of glaciation, and it translates into "global warming? hah, I wouldn't exactly panic if I were you".
Except for the solar bit. China is the world leader in wind and solar. The lack of oil has been holding back progress in China. The lack of oil in the US means 400 pound soccer moms can't have three Escalades.
WTF is a climate scientist anyway? In 1985 climate research and climate scientists appeared out of nowhere. Where did they get their training? Where did they get their attitude nobody else was qualified to talk about this?
I think they're just failed scientists from other fields who were good at getting funding and the nuclear industry was all too happy to help out.
Given how much Hansen has been caught lying I'm surpised anybody listens to him. How do you know he's not lying now?
""My" solution is about harnessing nuclear energy for electricity and also the production of hydrogen to fuel vehicles. You get that figured out and you've killed two birds with one technology, so to speak."
Just ask the birds of Fukishima.
Nuclear has proven to be not an option, sensibly, it's being deprecated. I assume you folks all know it's been the nuclear industry funding the AGW hysteria all along right? They're even astroturfing right here right now.
Consider two possible worlds: one where we build thousands of nuclear plants. Another where instead we equip the whole world with solar. Assume ten years and similat budgets.
Can you forsee any differences? What might disaster scenarios be like in each case?
I asked Brian K. Reid this question and he wrote me a nice letter explaining how he just dismantled his darkroom and got an Epson printer because of the quality of their inks, which are archival grade and are said to last over 100 years. More so, they're unbelievably color fast; he did a test where he printed the same image twice then put one though a dishwasher and compared and there was absolutely no difference.
I can't find this email now (and that bothers me, I thought I had all of it back to 86) and if it's crucial I can ask Brian to send me another copy, he does a better job of keeping all his email than I do.
I did find these snippets from later conversations on the same topic and hope they're of some use.
------------ I just ditched my darkroom about a year ago. I sold all of the equipment and materials to a fellow in Adelaide, Australia. Now I use Lightroom and Photoshop and giclée printers. I can make much better prints, much faster, without the foul chemical smells. And what's better, I actually do it instead of just talking about it.
I kept enough equipment to develop 35mm and 120 film, but if I ever develop any I will scan it in at 4000DPI and then use Lightroom.
If you don't believe that giclée (inkjet) prints are as good or better than silver gelatin prints, send me an image file and a mailing address and I'll make a print of your image on my Epson 3800 and send it to you. B&W or color. I'll use this paper: http://www.museofineart.com/museosilverrag.aspx
---------------------
Printers become vastly more expensive to buy and maintain if they print on wider paper. The 2200 prints on 13-inch-wide paper. The Epson Artisan 50 at CDN$99 new will probably have a lower lifetime cost of ownership than a used R1800 or R2200. And it makes great pictures. Printing enlargements to hang in an art museum is not the forte of the Artisan 50, but it does better prints than any local store will do.
Epson is not stupid, and they only make their best inks (the K3 series) available with their more expensive printers. The cheapest printer that uses K3 inks is the R2400. The R2200 uses the previous generation of pigment inks (Ultrachrome) which are getting harder to find and whose prices are going up.
Slashdot Mirror
Bingo.
Unless of course there's something in their fruits and vegetables that helps prevent cancer, and we lack that.
Hint: cyp1b1 picotanneol.
It's fucking space. It's gonna be hard and people are gonna die. That's why it's called "exploration" not "a vacation".
Look on the bright side. They both have a better safety record that Star Trek.
Oh good, somebody's in charge of other peoples stress levels. These shoes are killing me. Perhaps you can offer an opinion?
If you use terms like "denier" and "reality" you are advocating, not looking for truth and have already made up your mind.
That's religion, not science. You haven't looked at all of the data.
"You don't specify what "catastrophe" is supposed to mean. But the scientific literature, as well as the evidence, quite consistently supports the existence of substantial positive feedbacks, in agreement with the IPCC range of 2-4.5 K per CO2 doubling."
Oh rly?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
"Growing trees does not make a difference"
Nope.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
Forests soak up third of fossil fuel emissions: study
By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – Jul 14, 2011
PARIS — Forests play a larger role in Earth's climate system than previously suspected for both the risks from deforestation and the potential gains from regrowth, a benchmark study released Thursday has shown.
The study, published in Science, provides the most accurate measure so far of the amount of greenhouse gases absorbed from the atmosphere by tropical, temperate and boreal forests, researchers said.
"This is the first complete and global evidence of the overwhelming role of forests in removing anthropogenic carbon dioxide," said co-author Josep Canadell, a scientist at CSIRO, Australia's national climate research centre in Canberra.
"If you were to stop deforestation tomorrow, the world's established and regrowing forests would remove half of fossil fuel emissions," he told AFP, describing the findings as both "incredible" and "unexpected".
No no - we tried saying that when you asked us to believe him and you wouldn't accept it.
You don't get those two bites at the apple, that is you don't get to hold him up and expect is to believe him and give us a hard time when we point out he isn't a scientist and then use the same argument you rejected back at us when it's point out he, like Hansen, flat out fucking lied. And admits all of his friends did too.
Actually, first he took money from the messenger, then lied to the messenger, then shot him.
How do you know Hansen isn't lying now?
"then no, they're really not exaggerated"
Other than the bits they admitted exaggerating about:
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/04/25/1325241/gaia-scientist-admits-mispredicting-rate-of-climate-change
Causes of glaciation are indeed key. For the longest time we just didn't know.
Now, a French team have pretty good proof of causes of glaciation, and it translates into "global warming? hah, I wouldn't exactly panic if I were you".
David Suzuki did an hour on it. .
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/
CERN validated the theory. Then put a gag order on the results
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/
"70% of the crude oil being extracted from the tar sands is exported directly to the United States mostly for use in transportation."
(shakes fist) Damn you OPEC for your price fixing. Oh, wait...
You mean by doing what America and Europe did?
Except for the solar bit. China is the world leader in wind and solar. The lack of oil has been holding back progress in China. The lack of oil in the US means 400 pound soccer moms can't have three Escalades.
"Do you think climatologists haven't heard or the Panama strait closing and the effect it had on global ocean circulation?"
Wouldn't surprise me. They hadn't heard plants eat CO2: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
Or that cosmic rays cause global cooling and glaciation: http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/
Or the pesky carbon-13 dilemma: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I
Or that's it's not good to lie: http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change
WTF is a climate scientist anyway? In 1985 climate research and climate scientists appeared out of nowhere. Where did they get their training? Where did they get their attitude nobody else was qualified to talk about this?
I think they're just failed scientists from other fields who were good at getting funding and the nuclear industry was all too happy to help out.
Given how much Hansen has been caught lying I'm surpised anybody listens to him. How do you know he's not lying now?
Nuclear like Japan?
Or solar like German, India and China?
Thing about nuclear is, it's centralized. Solar is decentralized, there's no transit cost. Half your power bill is transit.
Use it where you make it.
"Do we (as Americans -- sorry to all those not American) want the 21st century to be the "Chinese Century"?"
Well, they've invaded less countries, aren't quite as nuclear, have better food and make great computers. I say we give them a chance.
Also, with the extra two months of warm this year in Canada we had green grass year round. How might that affect Co2?
Somebody suggested NASA and the NOAA think about this, look what they said: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
""My" solution is about harnessing nuclear energy for electricity and also the production of hydrogen to fuel vehicles. You get that figured out and you've killed two birds with one technology, so to speak."
Just ask the birds of Fukishima.
Nuclear has proven to be not an option, sensibly, it's being deprecated. I assume you folks all know it's been the nuclear industry funding the AGW hysteria all along right? They're even astroturfing right here right now.
"No, the seas will not rise 50 feet. The wildest estimates are about 8 ft by 2100"
Yeah but they admitted they were lying about that: http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/04/25/1325241/gaia-scientist-admits-mispredicting-rate-of-climate-change
Hansen is known to be a liar.
Whittlin' down that list of honest "climate scientists" pretty small there.
Consider two possible worlds: one where we build thousands of nuclear plants. Another where instead we equip the whole world with solar. Assume ten years and similat budgets.
Can you forsee any differences? What might disaster scenarios be like in each case?
How would you quantify the natural co2 emissions?
What comments do you have on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I ?
And what about: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
Build a computer on faith alone. You'll notice you're reading this on one made entirely by science.
Grandpa, what is this "disc" thing you speak of?
I have a more radical solution. If I detect IE I use an undocumented instruction and make sparks fly out the back of the computer.
Payback for all that "this site only works in IE" rubbish.
I asked Brian K. Reid this question and he wrote me a nice letter explaining how he just dismantled his darkroom and got an Epson printer because of the quality of their inks, which are archival grade and are said to last over 100 years. More so, they're unbelievably color fast; he did a test where he printed the same image twice then put one though a dishwasher and compared and there was absolutely no difference.
I can't find this email now (and that bothers me, I thought I had all of it back to 86) and if it's crucial I can ask Brian to send me another copy, he does a better job of keeping all his email than I do.
I did find these snippets from later conversations on the same topic and hope they're of some use.
------------
I just ditched my darkroom about a year ago. I sold all of the equipment and materials to a fellow in Adelaide, Australia. Now I use Lightroom and Photoshop and giclée printers. I can make much better prints, much faster, without the foul chemical smells. And what's better, I actually do it instead of just talking about it.
I kept enough equipment to develop 35mm and 120 film, but if I ever develop any I will scan it in at 4000DPI and then use Lightroom.
If you don't believe that giclée (inkjet) prints are as good or better than silver gelatin prints, send me an image file and a mailing address and I'll make a print of your image on my Epson 3800 and send it to you. B&W or color. I'll use this paper:
http://www.museofineart.com/museosilverrag.aspx
---------------------
Printers become vastly more expensive to buy and maintain if they print on
wider paper. The 2200 prints on 13-inch-wide paper.
The Epson Artisan 50 at CDN$99 new will probably have a lower lifetime cost of
ownership than a used R1800 or R2200. And it makes great pictures. Printing
enlargements to hang in an art museum is not the forte of the Artisan 50, but
it does better prints than any local store will do.
Epson is not stupid, and they only make their best inks (the K3 series)
available with their more expensive printers. The cheapest printer that uses
K3 inks is the R2400. The R2200 uses the previous generation of pigment inks
(Ultrachrome) which are getting harder to find and whose prices are going up.