The greenhouse effect IS responsible for the high temperatures. This is why the temperature stays pretty much the same even on the dark side of the planet. Solar radiation comes in but radiates away very slowly. This is demonstrated by the night side temperatures, which are pretty much the same as the day side temperatures. This is also verified by the stratospheric temperature difference from the surface (the stratosphere is very cold, since little heat is escaping from the troposphere).
Density plays a part because it further reduces the rate of heat escaping. However, it is the CO2 gas that is key. An atmosphere of 95% Nitrogen, for example, would not be nearly as scorching and given the slow rotational rate, the night side of the planet would be bone chilling cold. Our own atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, and without the various greenhouse gases (water vapor, CO2, methane, etc.) our planet would be a block of ice.
If only there was a line that can be easily identified between "Corporation that knows what it's doing for the greater good" and "Corporation that is trying to abuse the hell out of the system and/or doing something stupid".
That's easy. Corporations NEVER operate for the greater good. They operate for the greater profit. If what they do happens to have some benefit to mankind, that is an unintended consequence. But people are only kidding themselves if they think that in a capitalist/corporatist society that a company has anything but it's own interests in mind.
It's all about the money. Always has been. Always will be.
You didn't mention the spread of diseases and invasive species and mass extinctions as a result of climate change.
Climate change is a chain reaction that hits every creature on the planet. The faster the change, the harder it is for the current set of species to adapt. It's absolutely pointless to have more arable land if climate change wipes out the natural predators that would allow you to grow your food in the first place (or introduces new pests that have no natural enemies in the area).
no you just won't admit that the weather is far more complex than you can imagine.
the thing is not that the earth is getting warmer but why?
Most of the ice sheets that are melting are only 5-10 thousand years old. that means 10,000 years ago it was warm enough that they didn't fucking exist. We also know in the past the earth was a lot warmer than it is now.
So how come it is humans warming up the planet when the planet not only has been warmer in the past without humans, but has done so in the last 10,000 years before humans even had domesticated animals.
I can believe our burning CO2 into the atmosphere is bad. the smog is a great example of that. However that doesn't mean that this isn't part of a normal warming and cool trend the planet goes through. In fact not a single person who supports Global warming will even look at such data.
So water levels increase? It will be disastrous, but the majority will survive.
Hey, I know you're genius and everything but...well...there's a little problem with your analysis.
You see, there's these things called the laws of thermodynamics. And...not that I want to go against a genius like you but...well they kind of shoot your whole "natural cycle" explanation for the current warming full of holes.
The Earth doesn't just warm up and cool off just because it wants to. That would violate the laws of thermodynamics you see. Something has to trigger these changes. So let's examine the data. We see the warming kicked in very recently (within the past 100 years or so). We see the warming has been increasing. This seems to imply that whatever is going on, it's still happening.
In order to heat up the planet you either need an increase in solar output or an increase in the energy being trapped on the planet (or a mixture of both). Since the planet itself produces a negligible amount of surface heat, the laws of thermodynamics pretty much limits you to these choices. Those pesky thermodynamics laws! Always restricting our freedoms!
However, according to solar observations the solar output has not increased. The fact that solar insolation at the surface hasn't changed also rules out spontaneous orbital and/or axial changes. And yet the planet it still warming. Well, if the sun hasn't been putting out more energy and the orbit/axis hasn't changed, then that means our planet is somehow accruing it. How could it possibly be doing that?
The clue comes from the warming. We know that it is recent. We know that it is increasing. We also know that human activities have significantly increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The simplest and most logical conclusion is that the large and rapid increase in greenhouse gases from human activities has triggered the recent warming.
Perhaps a genius such as yourself will be able to propose an alternate way for the net energy increase of the planet to occur without increased solar output and without increased greenhouse gases that doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Global warming (or greenhouse) theory was introduced in the later half of the 19th century, right around when Darwin proposed his theory of evolution. This included investigating how changes in atmospheric chemistry could cause planetary climate change (i.e ice ages).
So contrary to your belief, climate science has been around for about the same amount of time, and has been equally well researched.
This is complete nonsense that shows not only an amazing lack of understanding of how the grant system works, it also shows a complete ignorance on the current state of climate science.
Do you have sources to back up your claims? Because there are thousands of resources online that prove you wrong.
While I agree with your sentiments, the scientific evidence on the subject is about as solid as it gets. Thanks to chemical isotope analysis, it is clear that humans are the source of the increase in various greenhouse gases, including CO2. The rest of the argument fundamentally boils down to the laws of thermodynamics. The Earth doesn't warm just because it wants to. In order for the Earth to warm up on a global scale, either the sun has to be putting out more energy or the Earth has to be trapping more energy (or a mixture of both). Solar observations have shown that solar output has not exceed normal bounds (we've actually been in a lull), so therefore the Earth must be trapping more heat. And given that this rapid warming has happened over the past 100 years or so (when we started dumping tons of GHGs into the atmosphere) the answer should be pretty obvious.
As to your second point, whether or not it will be a crisis for humanity, again we have plenty of evidence that it will. Historically, whenever the climate has shifted rapidly, whether warming or cooling, it impacts biological diversity negatively. Life needs time to adapt, and rapid change usually spells death for a lot of species. While we are more adaptable than most, our livelihood depends on a relatively stable climate. Warming temperatures will shift weather patterns that can cause droughts, floods, invasive species migrations, so on and so forth (some of which we are seeing now).
Of course there is climate change that is a constant. The original term was global warming and prior to that it was global cooling. Yes the climate scare mongers claim that that was a single article and not hype but I remember the hype as a small kid so it was not a single passing article.
It was over-hyped because of the media and the media only. Like today, the vast majority of climate scientists were concerned with globally warming. Ironically, it was later determined that at least part of the slightly cooler temperatures experienced during that time was a result of human SO2 emissions, which have now been greatly reduced due to clean air regulations (and thus removed the cooling effect).
As to the 'science' I have an easy test. Have the models contain no data nor assumptions prior to 1990.
All models require initial conditions. You can't just put a model in some random state and run it forward. The results would be utterly meaningless. This applies to pretty much any complex scientific model you'd care to mention.
Then predict the weather of the 2000-2010 time with accuracy.
Climate models do not predict weather. The predict climate. There's a significant difference.
They are claiming they can do that for the future with their models so they ought able to pass such a simple validation.
No scientist is claiming climate models can predict weather. You've made a false assumption and you're proceeding to argue from that false assumption.
Now do it for 2 other 10 year periods in during the 1900's. No way they pass because the models are not as good as they claim
Climate models never have, nor ever will, predict weather. Climate and weather, while related, are different phenomena.
It is also clear you have not done much, if any, real research on this topic. You also don't seem to understand what the climate models do, what they're used for, or how they operate.
Climate models are used as guidance. They're used for ensemble simulations to give scientists likely scenarios of the future. They are not the end all be all of climate science. They are a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
Climate models must be validated before they can be deemed useful, and the validation tests are far more rigorous than your trivial example. A typical validation starts the model before the industrial revolution. Then it is run forward to present day or beyond (both with and without human contributions). As it turns out, the models do a pretty good job of predicting our current climate conditions, and have also done a good job of demonstrating the impact our contributions are having on the climate. For a better overview of the models, I suggest the IPCC report. It's a little outdated now, but the fundamentals are the same.
Ethanol from corn has always been a stupid proposition. It's a little above break even at best, is hard on the soil, you'd need a huge amount of acreage to replace any decent fraction of fossil fuels, uses a food crop as a fuel source, and the list goes on and on. The only reason it as done is because of the corn lobby, despite just about every other expert saying it was idiotic to do so.
There are much higher yielding and less destructive ways to produce ethanol. But they can't compete with the massive government subsidies going into to the Midwest's corn hole. Hopefully these subsidies will expire and the true cost of corn based ethanol will quickly kill it so that the more intelligent and productive means can be put into action.
The difference between your examples and this Rossi character is that black hole and planetary discoveries were verifiable science that could be reviewed by others. Rossi's got a black box that no one really knows anything about. His evasion and roadblocks he puts in the way of trying to determine exactly what is going on is highly suspect.
Ron Paul has my vote. Sound economic policies and he stays true to individual liberty and property rights. Other candidates (on both sides) have hit on some of his point but always take the party stand on the typical left vs right issues. Ron Paul is a winner across the board, he can out-republican the conservatives in the primaries on issues of property rights, taxes, etc. and can out-democrat the liberals on issues of civil liberties, war, etc. He's a winner across the board with both parties if both sides will accept the principle and great benefit of freedom, which both parties wish to take away from us in various ways.
Sound policies? He wants to take off the straight-jackets in the sociopath ward of our society.
Granted, his views on the military are something that I happen to agree with, but turning our country into even more of a greed-fueled, egocentric, plutocracy is not my idea of progress.
He seems to believe that humans are fundamentally good and altruistic. We aren't. If we were, then systems like capitalism, communism, and socialism would work just fine. However, history has shown repeatedly that a not insignificant fraction of the population is more than happy to push their fellow man down the stairs as long as it means they get to go up another floor.
Do I think we have to many stupid laws? Of course. But Paulitopia is not a place I want to see, nor live in.
Hmmm....on second thought, maybe having him win won't be so bad. His views are so extreme and uncompromising, absolutely nothing would get done. And when congress does nothing, it's a net win.
This is a funny numbers game. CO2 is far from the worst greenhouse gas, so all these people posting their reactions about Americans and their big suv's, cars whatever, need to look more closely at which gases cause the most greenhouse effects, and where these gases come from.
From such a statement, you have clearly not read much of the scientific research on climate change. The most potent GHG is water vapor, however it's atmospheric life is measure in days. Another potent GHG is methane, with an atmospheric life of 10 years. CO2 on the other hand has an atmospheric life of a century or more. That's what makes it more of a concern.
You can fit me into the "greenhouse deniers" if you like, but I'm suspicious of pretty much all the data that is surrounding this issue -- there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this for there to be any real hope of getting sound scientific data right now...
Seriously? You're actually being serious when you say that? Have you even looked at what the funding level is for climate science as opposed to, I don't know, Exxon's balance sheet?
Corporations directly affected by taking action to mitigate carbon emissions make billions in profit and 100's of billions in revenue every year. By comparison science budgets for climate research are a paltry joke. If climate scientists really wanted to make money they'd leave the public sector and become corporate shills and fanbois.
I've also yet to hear anyone make a reasonable sounding proposal to make any positive changes, its always up in the air stuff like "We all need to hold hands and plant trees and drive less" -- that's absurd.
That's because you don't want to listen. Sound proposals have been made but are to drowned out by idiotic rantings and ravings created and fostered by the manufactured FUD campaign funded by big moneyed interests. This happens whenever Mr. Moneybags is confronted by something that will cut into his profits for the good of humanity. This happened with smoking. It happened with asbestos. It happened with lead. It happened with acid rain. It happened with ozone depletion. And now it is happening with climate change.
Lowering pollution is a good idea whatever the effects on temperature so I'm all for this goal, but to actually get to the point of seriously damaging the economy and lives we've all come to like living isn't going to happen and shouldn't.
So you're saying that we're too self-centered and greedy to bother with thinking about the future. Well, I can certainly agree with that.
Steps can be taken that would not "seriously damage the economy". The FUD shops have done a good job of convincing everyone that any steps taken will destroy the country though, so I'm not all that surprised to hear this sentiment. Of course, not doing anything now is just kicking the can down the road, which I admit is a game that we are exceedingly good at.
However, only a complete idiot would think that our current lifestyle can continue like this indefinitely. Our society is not sustainable as it is, and the sooner we come to grips with this the less painful it will be.
These are scientific issues and probably have scientific solutions. People seem to want impossible things on this issue. Hippies are an illogical group of people who work solely in knee-jerk reactions and boogey-man scare tactics, they just complain without making much sense. Coal power bad, but nuclear is bad too! Damn, these goes our safest and best way to generate power. It all has to be hippie-power, hydro and solar. Yeah, well, if that worked then why wouldn't they use it, they can fleece us on power bills with solar or hydro just as easily as coal or nuke.
I don't see a lot of logic and reason with this entire issue.
And you end with painting everyone who wants to address these issues with the same brush of being to extreme or inane
Apple is big money. You can be sure that enough Grants and Franklins will be kissing palms that the absolute worst that would happen to Apple is a little slap on the wrist.
In both scenarios, the problem is the projection, not the events that happened in that 10-year span.
This is why we can't have nice things. The problem isn't the projection. Only a complete idiot would make such a statement. THE GLACIERS ARE STILL MELTING. It doesn't matter if it happens in 100 years or in 30 years. It will still have a substantial impact on the area. It's just that now, they have even less time to prepare for it. It takes a climate change to significantly impact a glacier that's been around for thousands of years (and will now vanish in a geological blink of an eye).
The original estimates were conservative because they didn't have everything worked out. Now they've completed additional research identifying other factors and improved the science. The improved science now points to a more rapid melting than the original results indicated. That's how science works.
Understanding why the estimation was off by decades might be important information to know, and all that. I am personally highly skeptical that an average temperature change in the region of a tenth of a degree or whatever it has been over the past decade could be responsible for this.
First, the average global temperatures have risen about.75C, not a tenth of a degree. Second, there are some regions that warm much more than others the Arctic regions have seen deviations of more than 5C in some places). Temperature changes affect weather patterns, which in turn affect precipitation amounts. Less than average precipitation plus warmer than normal temperatures plus particulate matter (black carbon and such) will result in rapid shrinking of glaciers.
If you would RTFA you'd know that they are talking about a multi-decadal problem. These glaciers have been retreating for decades, and it seems they're accelerating.
The only reason why they're aiming for young people is because they are dirt cheap compared to an experienced programmer. Once someone gains experience they look at the 60+ hours they're working for half the average salary and decide to look for greener pastures.
The turnover is so high because only the young are exploitable enough to take crappy salaries and long hours in order to get some relevant professional experience on their resumes. Only an idiot or someone incredibly loyal (also an idiot) would continue to work in that position once they had gained the relevant experience.
If your company is having high turnover, it's most likely because your company is doing something wrong.
"Over the lifetime of the panels, that's about 30 cents per kilowatt hour, which is three times the cost of typical utility fees."
[citation needed]
I'm not sure how you arrived at that number.
You can get grid-tie kits around 9KW for less than $20K. Double that for installation, to be generous. That's $40K, before Fed and State incentives. But for the sake of argument, let's leave those out. The 9KW system provides enough power to cancel out the electrical usage of the average US home (958 KWh/month see http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs).
The typical rated lifespan of solar panels is 25 years. But again, lets be generous and say it is only 20 years. So $40K over 20 years for an average monthly electrical usage of 958 KWh/month (see http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs) works out to 17 cents per KWh.
That's before any incentives were thrown in. You get a 30% federal tax credit for solar panel installations, so that $40K is now $28K, dropping the 20 year rate down to about 12 cents per KWh. Numerous states offer additional incentives which can bring the price even lower. And these rates won't go up over time like electric rates will.
Maybe 10 years ago you numbers were correct, but that certainly isn't the case anymore. In fact, if you live in the sunny areas of the country you can get average KWh prices down into the single digits using solar.
Slashdot Mirror
Coming up, Pongo's review of Rocky five....thousand. Pongo.
The greenhouse effect IS responsible for the high temperatures. This is why the temperature stays pretty much the same even on the dark side of the planet. Solar radiation comes in but radiates away very slowly. This is demonstrated by the night side temperatures, which are pretty much the same as the day side temperatures. This is also verified by the stratospheric temperature difference from the surface (the stratosphere is very cold, since little heat is escaping from the troposphere).
Density plays a part because it further reduces the rate of heat escaping. However, it is the CO2 gas that is key. An atmosphere of 95% Nitrogen, for example, would not be nearly as scorching and given the slow rotational rate, the night side of the planet would be bone chilling cold. Our own atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, and without the various greenhouse gases (water vapor, CO2, methane, etc.) our planet would be a block of ice.
If only there was a line that can be easily identified between "Corporation that knows what it's doing for the greater good" and "Corporation that is trying to abuse the hell out of the system and/or doing something stupid".
That's easy. Corporations NEVER operate for the greater good. They operate for the greater profit. If what they do happens to have some benefit to mankind, that is an unintended consequence. But people are only kidding themselves if they think that in a capitalist/corporatist society that a company has anything but it's own interests in mind.
It's all about the money. Always has been. Always will be.
Ahhhhh! Don't you just love the smell of capitalism in the morning!
If credibility were a credit score, then Roy Spencer wouldn't be able to get a loan to buy a tooth brush.
Just go to the GISS site to see the temperature record: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
You didn't mention the spread of diseases and invasive species and mass extinctions as a result of climate change.
Climate change is a chain reaction that hits every creature on the planet. The faster the change, the harder it is for the current set of species to adapt. It's absolutely pointless to have more arable land if climate change wipes out the natural predators that would allow you to grow your food in the first place (or introduces new pests that have no natural enemies in the area).
no you just won't admit that the weather is far more complex than you can imagine.
the thing is not that the earth is getting warmer but why?
Most of the ice sheets that are melting are only 5-10 thousand years old. that means 10,000 years ago it was warm enough that they didn't fucking exist. We also know in the past the earth was a lot warmer than it is now.
So how come it is humans warming up the planet when the planet not only has been warmer in the past without humans, but has done so in the last 10,000 years before humans even had domesticated animals.
I can believe our burning CO2 into the atmosphere is bad. the smog is a great example of that. However that doesn't mean that this isn't part of a normal warming and cool trend the planet goes through. In fact not a single person who supports Global warming will even look at such data.
So water levels increase? It will be disastrous, but the majority will survive.
Hey, I know you're genius and everything but...well...there's a little problem with your analysis.
You see, there's these things called the laws of thermodynamics. And...not that I want to go against a genius like you but...well they kind of shoot your whole "natural cycle" explanation for the current warming full of holes.
The Earth doesn't just warm up and cool off just because it wants to. That would violate the laws of thermodynamics you see. Something has to trigger these changes. So let's examine the data. We see the warming kicked in very recently (within the past 100 years or so). We see the warming has been increasing. This seems to imply that whatever is going on, it's still happening.
In order to heat up the planet you either need an increase in solar output or an increase in the energy being trapped on the planet (or a mixture of both). Since the planet itself produces a negligible amount of surface heat, the laws of thermodynamics pretty much limits you to these choices. Those pesky thermodynamics laws! Always restricting our freedoms!
However, according to solar observations the solar output has not increased. The fact that solar insolation at the surface hasn't changed also rules out spontaneous orbital and/or axial changes. And yet the planet it still warming. Well, if the sun hasn't been putting out more energy and the orbit/axis hasn't changed, then that means our planet is somehow accruing it. How could it possibly be doing that?
The clue comes from the warming. We know that it is recent. We know that it is increasing. We also know that human activities have significantly increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The simplest and most logical conclusion is that the large and rapid increase in greenhouse gases from human activities has triggered the recent warming.
Perhaps a genius such as yourself will be able to propose an alternate way for the net energy increase of the planet to occur without increased solar output and without increased greenhouse gases that doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.
And with a name like Kim DotCom, I expected him to be a Korean porn site.
Does this me we can arrest gun shop owners for murder now?
Global warming (or greenhouse) theory was introduced in the later half of the 19th century, right around when Darwin proposed his theory of evolution. This included investigating how changes in atmospheric chemistry could cause planetary climate change (i.e ice ages).
So contrary to your belief, climate science has been around for about the same amount of time, and has been equally well researched.
This is complete nonsense that shows not only an amazing lack of understanding of how the grant system works, it also shows a complete ignorance on the current state of climate science.
Do you have sources to back up your claims? Because there are thousands of resources online that prove you wrong.
Science isn't about truth. It's about facts.
While I agree with your sentiments, the scientific evidence on the subject is about as solid as it gets. Thanks to chemical isotope analysis, it is clear that humans are the source of the increase in various greenhouse gases, including CO2. The rest of the argument fundamentally boils down to the laws of thermodynamics. The Earth doesn't warm just because it wants to. In order for the Earth to warm up on a global scale, either the sun has to be putting out more energy or the Earth has to be trapping more energy (or a mixture of both). Solar observations have shown that solar output has not exceed normal bounds (we've actually been in a lull), so therefore the Earth must be trapping more heat. And given that this rapid warming has happened over the past 100 years or so (when we started dumping tons of GHGs into the atmosphere) the answer should be pretty obvious.
As to your second point, whether or not it will be a crisis for humanity, again we have plenty of evidence that it will. Historically, whenever the climate has shifted rapidly, whether warming or cooling, it impacts biological diversity negatively. Life needs time to adapt, and rapid change usually spells death for a lot of species. While we are more adaptable than most, our livelihood depends on a relatively stable climate. Warming temperatures will shift weather patterns that can cause droughts, floods, invasive species migrations, so on and so forth (some of which we are seeing now).
Of course there is climate change that is a constant. The original term was global warming and prior to that it was global cooling. Yes the climate scare mongers claim that that was a single article and not hype but I remember the hype as a small kid so it was not a single passing article.
It was over-hyped because of the media and the media only. Like today, the vast majority of climate scientists were concerned with globally warming. Ironically, it was later determined that at least part of the slightly cooler temperatures experienced during that time was a result of human SO2 emissions, which have now been greatly reduced due to clean air regulations (and thus removed the cooling effect).
As to the 'science' I have an easy test. Have the models contain no data nor assumptions prior to 1990.
All models require initial conditions. You can't just put a model in some random state and run it forward. The results would be utterly meaningless. This applies to pretty much any complex scientific model you'd care to mention.
Then predict the weather of the 2000-2010 time with accuracy.
Climate models do not predict weather. The predict climate. There's a significant difference.
They are claiming they can do that for the future with their models so they ought able to pass such a simple validation.
No scientist is claiming climate models can predict weather. You've made a false assumption and you're proceeding to argue from that false assumption.
Now do it for 2 other 10 year periods in during the 1900's. No way they pass because the models are not as good as they claim
Climate models never have, nor ever will, predict weather. Climate and weather, while related, are different phenomena.
It is also clear you have not done much, if any, real research on this topic. You also don't seem to understand what the climate models do, what they're used for, or how they operate.
Climate models are used as guidance. They're used for ensemble simulations to give scientists likely scenarios of the future. They are not the end all be all of climate science. They are a tool. Nothing more, nothing less.
Climate models must be validated before they can be deemed useful, and the validation tests are far more rigorous than your trivial example. A typical validation starts the model before the industrial revolution. Then it is run forward to present day or beyond (both with and without human contributions). As it turns out, the models do a pretty good job of predicting our current climate conditions, and have also done a good job of demonstrating the impact our contributions are having on the climate. For a better overview of the models, I suggest the IPCC report. It's a little outdated now, but the fundamentals are the same.
Ethanol from corn has always been a stupid proposition. It's a little above break even at best, is hard on the soil, you'd need a huge amount of acreage to replace any decent fraction of fossil fuels, uses a food crop as a fuel source, and the list goes on and on. The only reason it as done is because of the corn lobby, despite just about every other expert saying it was idiotic to do so.
There are much higher yielding and less destructive ways to produce ethanol. But they can't compete with the massive government subsidies going into to the Midwest's corn hole. Hopefully these subsidies will expire and the true cost of corn based ethanol will quickly kill it so that the more intelligent and productive means can be put into action.
The difference between your examples and this Rossi character is that black hole and planetary discoveries were verifiable science that could be reviewed by others. Rossi's got a black box that no one really knows anything about. His evasion and roadblocks he puts in the way of trying to determine exactly what is going on is highly suspect.
Ron Paul has my vote. Sound economic policies and he stays true to individual liberty and property rights. Other candidates (on both sides) have hit on some of his point but always take the party stand on the typical left vs right issues. Ron Paul is a winner across the board, he can out-republican the conservatives in the primaries on issues of property rights, taxes, etc. and can out-democrat the liberals on issues of civil liberties, war, etc. He's a winner across the board with both parties if both sides will accept the principle and great benefit of freedom, which both parties wish to take away from us in various ways.
Sound policies? He wants to take off the straight-jackets in the sociopath ward of our society.
Granted, his views on the military are something that I happen to agree with, but turning our country into even more of a greed-fueled, egocentric, plutocracy is not my idea of progress.
He seems to believe that humans are fundamentally good and altruistic. We aren't. If we were, then systems like capitalism, communism, and socialism would work just fine. However, history has shown repeatedly that a not insignificant fraction of the population is more than happy to push their fellow man down the stairs as long as it means they get to go up another floor.
Do I think we have to many stupid laws? Of course. But Paulitopia is not a place I want to see, nor live in.
Hmmm....on second thought, maybe having him win won't be so bad. His views are so extreme and uncompromising, absolutely nothing would get done. And when congress does nothing, it's a net win.
This is a funny numbers game. CO2 is far from the worst greenhouse gas, so all these people posting their reactions about Americans and their big suv's, cars whatever, need to look more closely at which gases cause the most greenhouse effects, and where these gases come from.
From such a statement, you have clearly not read much of the scientific research on climate change. The most potent GHG is water vapor, however it's atmospheric life is measure in days. Another potent GHG is methane, with an atmospheric life of 10 years. CO2 on the other hand has an atmospheric life of a century or more. That's what makes it more of a concern.
You can fit me into the "greenhouse deniers" if you like, but I'm suspicious of pretty much all the data that is surrounding this issue -- there is too much money to be made on "popular" science like this for there to be any real hope of getting sound scientific data right now...
Seriously? You're actually being serious when you say that? Have you even looked at what the funding level is for climate science as opposed to, I don't know, Exxon's balance sheet?
Corporations directly affected by taking action to mitigate carbon emissions make billions in profit and 100's of billions in revenue every year. By comparison science budgets for climate research are a paltry joke. If climate scientists really wanted to make money they'd leave the public sector and become corporate shills and fanbois.
I've also yet to hear anyone make a reasonable sounding proposal to make any positive changes, its always up in the air stuff like "We all need to hold hands and plant trees and drive less" -- that's absurd.
That's because you don't want to listen. Sound proposals have been made but are to drowned out by idiotic rantings and ravings created and fostered by the manufactured FUD campaign funded by big moneyed interests. This happens whenever Mr. Moneybags is confronted by something that will cut into his profits for the good of humanity. This happened with smoking. It happened with asbestos. It happened with lead. It happened with acid rain. It happened with ozone depletion. And now it is happening with climate change.
Lowering pollution is a good idea whatever the effects on temperature so I'm all for this goal, but to actually get to the point of seriously damaging the economy and lives we've all come to like living isn't going to happen and shouldn't.
So you're saying that we're too self-centered and greedy to bother with thinking about the future. Well, I can certainly agree with that.
Steps can be taken that would not "seriously damage the economy". The FUD shops have done a good job of convincing everyone that any steps taken will destroy the country though, so I'm not all that surprised to hear this sentiment. Of course, not doing anything now is just kicking the can down the road, which I admit is a game that we are exceedingly good at.
However, only a complete idiot would think that our current lifestyle can continue like this indefinitely. Our society is not sustainable as it is, and the sooner we come to grips with this the less painful it will be.
These are scientific issues and probably have scientific solutions. People seem to want impossible things on this issue. Hippies are an illogical group of people who work solely in knee-jerk reactions and boogey-man scare tactics, they just complain without making much sense. Coal power bad, but nuclear is bad too! Damn, these goes our safest and best way to generate power. It all has to be hippie-power, hydro and solar. Yeah, well, if that worked then why wouldn't they use it, they can fleece us on power bills with solar or hydro just as easily as coal or nuke.
I don't see a lot of logic and reason with this entire issue.
And you end with painting everyone who wants to address these issues with the same brush of being to extreme or inane
And it STILL won't happen.
Apple is big money. You can be sure that enough Grants and Franklins will be kissing palms that the absolute worst that would happen to Apple is a little slap on the wrist.
Actually, if we are alone, then Yes we ARE the "pinnacle of civilization".
You know, that is a deeply depressing thought.
In both scenarios, the problem is the projection, not the events that happened in that 10-year span.
This is why we can't have nice things. The problem isn't the projection. Only a complete idiot would make such a statement. THE GLACIERS ARE STILL MELTING. It doesn't matter if it happens in 100 years or in 30 years. It will still have a substantial impact on the area. It's just that now, they have even less time to prepare for it. It takes a climate change to significantly impact a glacier that's been around for thousands of years (and will now vanish in a geological blink of an eye).
The original estimates were conservative because they didn't have everything worked out. Now they've completed additional research identifying other factors and improved the science. The improved science now points to a more rapid melting than the original results indicated. That's how science works.
Understanding why the estimation was off by decades might be important information to know, and all that. I am personally highly skeptical that an average temperature change in the region of a tenth of a degree or whatever it has been over the past decade could be responsible for this.
First, the average global temperatures have risen about .75C, not a tenth of a degree. Second, there are some regions that warm much more than others the Arctic regions have seen deviations of more than 5C in some places). Temperature changes affect weather patterns, which in turn affect precipitation amounts. Less than average precipitation plus warmer than normal temperatures plus particulate matter (black carbon and such) will result in rapid shrinking of glaciers.
If you would RTFA you'd know that they are talking about a multi-decadal problem. These glaciers have been retreating for decades, and it seems they're accelerating.
Capitalism is the noose we gladly hang ourselves with in the hope that we can get off before we pass out and kill ourselves.
The only reason why they're aiming for young people is because they are dirt cheap compared to an experienced programmer. Once someone gains experience they look at the 60+ hours they're working for half the average salary and decide to look for greener pastures.
The turnover is so high because only the young are exploitable enough to take crappy salaries and long hours in order to get some relevant professional experience on their resumes. Only an idiot or someone incredibly loyal (also an idiot) would continue to work in that position once they had gained the relevant experience.
If your company is having high turnover, it's most likely because your company is doing something wrong.
There is no reasonable way to intensively screen 89 million passengers per year
Of course there is. Just install screen doors at all security checkpoints.
"Over the lifetime of the panels, that's about 30 cents per kilowatt hour, which is three times the cost of typical utility fees."
[citation needed]
I'm not sure how you arrived at that number.
You can get grid-tie kits around 9KW for less than $20K. Double that for installation, to be generous. That's $40K, before Fed and State incentives. But for the sake of argument, let's leave those out. The 9KW system provides enough power to cancel out the electrical usage of the average US home (958 KWh/month see http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs).
The typical rated lifespan of solar panels is 25 years. But again, lets be generous and say it is only 20 years. So $40K over 20 years for an average monthly electrical usage of 958 KWh/month (see http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs) works out to 17 cents per KWh.
That's before any incentives were thrown in. You get a 30% federal tax credit for solar panel installations, so that $40K is now $28K, dropping the 20 year rate down to about 12 cents per KWh. Numerous states offer additional incentives which can bring the price even lower. And these rates won't go up over time like electric rates will.
Maybe 10 years ago you numbers were correct, but that certainly isn't the case anymore. In fact, if you live in the sunny areas of the country you can get average KWh prices down into the single digits using solar.