There is no scenario in which the problems of solar outweigh the problems of nuclear enough to sway the pendulum into nuclear's favor.
Scenario: Yellowstone erupts, dimming sunlight all over the world and continually dumping dust onto solar panels and into wind turbine gears.
Monocultures are vulnerable. A diverse energy portfolio is more resilient, and nuclear power has a low carbon footprint. That might be why the national academies of 13 nations called for the "development of nuclear power plants that are safe and secure, and ensure the secure long-term management and disposal of waste. International collaboration in development of the next generation of nuclear reactors and in reducing the risk of proliferation is essential."
... high sunspot activity generally means fewer clouds, which in turn means it gets hotter. When "solar storm" activity is low, more cosmic rays leak in, forming more clouds, cooling the weather.
When more cosmic rays leaked in, the climate didn't change. Richard Alley mentioned (at 42:00 in his 2009 AGU talk) that beryllium proxy data reveal a spike in cosmic ray intensity during the "Laschamp anomaly" ~40,000 years ago, but the corresponding oxygen isotope proxy for temperature didn't change unusually during that time period.
Solar farms are already observed to fry birds and blind pilots. Not to mention the huge amount of landscape they consume. And in high latitudes, not only to they take up even more (and more ecologically sensitive) area, they aren't even usable a good part of the year.
Concentrated solar thermal plants can fry birds or blind pilots, but solar PV panels don't. They don't take up ecologically sensitive landscapes when they're mounted on roofs, and that distributed nature can be more resilient than putting all our eggs in a large centralized power plant. We need to build more nuclear power plants, but we also need more renewables like solar, wind/wave, tidal, geothermal, and maybe even osmotic power.
In my area, they don't even come close to competing with other sources for cost.
Does that cost include the damages caused by the CO2 emissions of those other sources? If we're going to include damages caused by solar thermal plants, shouldn't we also include the damages we learned about from studying the effects of rapid CO2 emissions during the end-Permian, PETM, etc.?
You might be interested to know that the Butterfly Effect has made a profound contribution to weather and climate modeling. Without it, we would not know even the relatively small amount that we do know.
Does the "relatively small amount that we do know" include how adding CO2 warms the Earth's surface? You've been vigorously disputing these fundamental physics for years. Can you finally admit that mainstream scientists know how adding CO2 warms the Earth's surface?
Good grief, Jane. They also didn't predict growing sea ice in a world that's infested with leprechauns. But neither of those silly objections are relevant, because the real world is warming. Remember?
Since these conditions are not the conditions presumed in the model, in fact they have not predicted anything. You are just a master at inappropriately shifting contexts, as I have pointed out many time. You don't get to say that they predicted a result given THESE conditions, then say the same result under OTHER conditions constitutes a "prediction". Especially given the uncertainties involved. That's bullshit. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]
Nonsense, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 predicted that increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the planet and causes a slight increase in Antarctic sea ice. This certainly constitutes a prediction because these conditions are happening. After all, as you've said, nobody is denying it's warming.
The next time you want to keep ignoring the predictions of Manabe et al. 1991 and all these other confirmed predictions, it might be more honest to just say that you reject all those confirmed predictions, rather than trying to pretend that they never happened.
You aren't using "all the available data". Once again, you are using the data that is convenient to you.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]
... I will ask you again: would the slope be the same if you chose 2000 for a starting point, or 1850? No, it would not. I made a simple comment based on a simple fact: 1981 was at or near a local maximum, and using it for a starting point of your "average" is questionable at best. That is an accurate statement. If you chose 1930 instead, as another local maximum you would again have to justify that as a starting point. You don't get to weasel out of that. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]
I don't have to "weasel out" of anything, because despite your baseless accusation I've always advocated using all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means not cherry-picking the starting point, and instead using the entire dataset.
That doesn't explain record sea ice extents at a time when it is claimed that ocean, not particularly land, temperature is increasing. I'm not trying to claim it's irrelevant. But it certainly does not seem sufficient. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]
"Because West Antarctica juts out into the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), those warming waters are thinning its ice sheet at an accelerating rate.... Its ice sheet is also mainly grounded below sealevel, making it more vulnerable to the warming oceans than the East's which is mainly grounded above sealevel."
The fact that West Antarctica is mainly grounded below sealevel means that ocean warming causes rapid land ice thinning there. Also, the fact that the bedrock is deeper farther inland from the grounding line has "interesting" consequences. See Rignot et al. 2014 and Joughin et al. 2014.
Manabe was 14 years ago. Conditions have changed rather significantly in that time, as has our understanding of the geology. It may be that Manabe is still correct. On the other hand, it may not. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]
No, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 was 24 years ago. The fact that Manabe was 24 years ago is exactly why I've repeatedly showed it to you. They predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world, but you keep insisting that "The science is faulty at its roots. The models haven’t predicted one thing, in 30+ years.... You don’t really need to know anything about the science except that IT HASN’T PREDICTED ANYTHING. That makes it bad theory.... CO2 warming theory has predicted NOTHING."
In addition to the other 17 reasons I gave you, don't you think this is another reason you should reconsider making these baseless accusations?
I've told Janeandeconomart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.
You seem to feel that what "you told people" is necessarily truth. That's an interesting point of view. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]
Huh? Jane, I just gave you links to peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent in response to your insinuations that scientists are deliberately misleading. In response, Jane tries to guess at my feelings about what I "told people".
Instead, you might find it more productive to click on those links and learn about peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent. Then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge whether you should dare to accuse scientists of deliberately misleading.
I've also repeatedlyexplained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.
You are implying that my statement that 1981 was near a temporal local maximum is incorrect? You would rather use 1930 as your starting point? As opposed to, say, 2000 or 1850? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]
Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means using all the data in that dataset. That's why it's so ironic that Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998. But Jane obviously won't ever be able to grasp this irony, because he just did the
I've repeatedlytold you this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
... it's a bit of a mystery to me how they can claim that ice is melting due to unusual ocean warming, when we know that ocean surface ice has been at record levels. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]
I've explained that Manabe et al. attributed the slight Antarctic sea ice increase to increased precipitation in the area. This freshens the frigid surface water and reduces mixing with the warmer water below. Other possibilities include stronger winds which spread out the ice and expose more surface water to be frozen.
Correction: arctic ice is below 1 standard deviation from 1981-2010 average, but within 2 std. deviations. Still, remember that 1981 is a (dare I say deliberately chosen?) high point from which to start measurements, so going by the 1981-2010 average is probably a bit misleading. And the total global ocean ice is still well above normal, because of the record high Antarctic ice right now. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-05-22]
I've told Janeandeconomart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.
I've also repeatedlyexplained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.
No, that's actually why the U.S. patent office stopped accepting applications for perpetual motion machine patents. They wasted uncountable hours debunking experiments that seemed plausible at first glance but always just ended up wasting everyone's time.
It's not just that Shawyer's claims violate conservation of momentum. The Alcubierre and Natario drives also violate conservation of momentum, but at least they explain that violation in the context of Noether's theorem. In contrast, Shawyer just made a ridiculous mistake by forgetting that the normal force a microwave photon exerts on a surface is always normal to that surface. Sadly, Shawyer seems to have duped a lot of otherwise skeptical people into uncritically cheerleading his absurd claims.
As expected, Jane provides absolutely no links to back up any of his accusations. And still no evidence that Jane grasps the irony of his lecturing scientists about what scientists think.
And Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.
... Are you aware that the KKK has historically been tied to the Democratic Party of the U.S.? Look it up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-12-16]
... Left-wingers who don't know that the KKK has historically been closely tied to the Democrat party? (Even just Wikipedia will tell you that much.) [Jane Q. Public, 2015-01-22]
And we should never forget that the KKK was primarily a Democrat organization. Many people don't remember that. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-03-08]
... How easily people forget. Forget, for example, that Southern segregationists (and even the KKK) were overwhelmingly Democrat over the last century.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-21]
Pardon the FUCK out of me, but unjustifiably being compared to the KKK would piss A LOT of people off. [Lonny Eachus, 2013-05-31]
Is that why you repeatedly bring up the KKK? Because it's a good way to piss a lot of people off?
Truth: Lincoln also suspended Habeus Corpus. And he wanted to ban slavery SO HE COULD SHIP ALL THE NEGROES BACK TO AFRICA.... Lincoln was not much of a "hero". He was a racist asshole. [Lonny Eachus, 2012-01-18]
... Abraham Lincoln was a hero of the black people for abolishing slavery, yes? [Lonny Eachus, 2012-04-26]
Abe Lincoln: the ultimate "white supremacist". He wanted to end slavery IN ORDER TO send them all back to Africa. #RealHistoryNotSchool [Lonny Eachus, 2013-12-17]
Abe Lincoln was the most openly racist President in history. Obama visiting Lincolns' memorial is a tribute to ignorance. Lincoln wanted to end slavery because HE WANTED TO SHIP ALL THE BLACKS BACK TO AFRICA. It's history. Read it. Get educated. And by the way, yes Lincoln actually TRIED to ship some former slaves away, but it ended in disaster. Look it the f* up. [Lonny Eachus, 2014-05-26]
Lincoln did not like negroes. His stated reason for wanting to free them was so that he could ship them back to Africa. He actually sent one ship full of them to the Caribbean as a trial run. Mo
Speaking of arrogance, narcissism and sociopathy, Jane ran away like a snivelling coward instead of showing that he wasn't lying when he repeatedly claimed he's happy to admit his mistakes:
I didn't "accuse you" but I did suggest the possibility. More than just a possibility, really. And I find the "coincidence" (as I explained above) of him answering for you to be just a bit too unlikely. Actually, I think it's damned near impossible.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]
That might be the most hilarious bit in Jane's comedy act, where he wrongly claims that "there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett"".
And yet Jane's 100% wrong, despite being 99.9% certain. As always. And Jane refuses to admit he's wrong. As always. And Jane simultaneously insists that he's happy to admit he's wrong. As always.
But at least Jane finally admitted that Jane is suggesting anything. Baby steps.
I see. So you admit "RespekMyAthorati" is one of your sockpuppet accounts? If not, why are you answering for "him"? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]
Good grief, Jane. That link goes to my clear statement that I'm not "RespekMyAthorati". So it's difficult to imagine that Jane's asking that question in good faith.
But maybe Jane's chronic amnesia is kicking in again, so Jane might actually be honestly confused... once again. If Jane's actually just honestly confused, Jane should try to remember that I answered Jane's comment because Jane used my real name to wrongly accuse me of being "RespekMyAthorati":
... Is this your amateur attempt at the despicable practice of "doxxing"? Besides: I would estimate in good faith that there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett", who demonstrably can't stand to be tied down to one pseudonym like his "Khayman80" account, he thinks it's fun to harass other people using multiple sock-puppet accounts.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]
Sadly, Jane will probably never appreciate the ironic contrast between those first two sentences.
Jane probably also won't appreciate the irony that Jane uses my real name to wrongly accuse me of posing as someone else, while complaining bitterly and threatening to call the police and/or sue whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus. But again, I'll remember this the next time Jane pretends to be offended whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus.
... You have also been caught sock-puppeting before. So that should be no surprise to anyone, either.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]
Good grief. Once again, the irony of Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet "Jane Q. Public" wrongly accusing me of sock-puppeting is overwhelming.
Once again, Jane's completely wrong. This "khayman80" account is the only account I use at Slashdot
For some reason Jane doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about what scientists think.
Since you consider yourself to be a scientist, maybe I can use you for an example of how scientists think? You have VERY frequently demonstrated that you appear to think repeating the same false thing in public over and over again somehow makes it more true. I assure you, it's not. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-26]
Good grief. When have I ever said false things? Since Jane claims this happens "VERY frequently" it should be easy to link to a single, solitary example.
Jane seems to be saying he isn't lecturing scientists about science. That's absurd, Jane. You're lecturing me about what scientists think right here! In fact, you just accused me of knowingly lying because I've pointed out that your baseless accusations about what scientists think are... baseless accusations.
Jane seems to be stuck in a recursive loop where his baseless accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies spawn more baseless accusations of lying.
The ironic icing on this cake is the fact that Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.
For some reason Jane doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about what scientists think.
Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.
In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.
At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of fraudulent bullshit lies.
Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?
Now remember your baseless accusations that scientists who point out the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change are guilty of fraudulent bullshit lies. Don't you think it's even a little ridiculous that you're lecturing scientists about what scientists think?
Jane, that's the most charitable explanation for all your baseless accusations.
Once again, leave you in peace so you can keep baselessly accusing scientists of fraud?
I haven't "baselessly" accused anyone of anything. I make sure I have very good bases when I make actual accusations. If anything, your comment was a "baseless accusation".... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]
Again, your accusations were baseless, and you reasonably should have known that. Instead, you doubled down and tripled down on your baseless accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies. And now you're quadrupling down.
For some reason Jane doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about what scientists think.
Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.
In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.
At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of fraudulent bullshit lies.
Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?
Now remember your baseless accusations that scientists who point out the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change are guilty of fraudulent bullshit lies. Don't you think it's even a little ridiculous that you're lecturing scientists about what scientists think?
... I used to respect Nye a lot. But ever since he started opening his mouth about AGW he has been sounding like his head has gotten so big it could be mistaken for he Goodyear Blimp. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]
Ad-hominem will get you nowhere. Billy Nye DEMONSTRATED that he knows squat about AGW by co-hosting THIS video with Al Gore... showing an experiment to "prove" CO2 warming that could never have actually worked. While Anthony Watts also gets part of it wrong -- actual greenhouses do not actually work by "trapping infrafed radiation" -- he still demonstrates conclusively that the Nye-Gore "demonstration" was 100% a crock of made-up shit. To publicly DEMONSTRATE his ignorance and dishonesty in that manner, then call others half-stupid, is very strong evidence that Bill Nye is a chronic sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome. Or just plain a liar. Choose one. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-02-23]
Jane/Lonny Eachus accuses Bill Nye of being a liar or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but Jane can't even write down a simple energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms.
I've repeatedly explained that only the power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary. I've even linked to textbooks so Jane can verify that this is how "conservation of energy" works.
If Jane ever reads and understands those textbooks, he'd know that the cooler power isn't relevant for the same reason that he could know that a crayon mark doesn't cross the lines in a coloring book. Again, this is really basic physics.
And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation that Jane's still adamantly rejecting. That's another independent way for Jane to see that he should consider the possibility that only power passing through a boundary should be included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.
If Jane can't even master the most basic details about conservation of energy, Jane won't ever be able to analyze how greenhouses work because that depends on understanding conservation of energy.
Jane, you of all people really shouldn't be accusing scientists of being liars or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
I didn't "accuse you" but I did suggest the possibility. More than just a possibility, really. And I find the "coincidence" (as I explained above) of him answering for you to be just a bit too unlikely. Actually, I think it's damned near impossible.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]
That might be the most hilarious bit in Jane's comedy act, where he wrongly claims that "there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett"".
And yet Jane's 100% wrong, despite being 99.9% certain. As always. And Jane refuses to admit he's wrong. As always. And Jane simultaneously insists that he's happy to admit he's wrong. As always.
But at least Jane finally admitted that Jane is suggesting anything. Baby steps.
I see. So you admit "RespekMyAthorati" is one of your sockpuppet accounts? If not, why are you answering for "him"? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]
Good grief, Jane. That link goes to my clear statement that I'm not "RespekMyAthorati". So it's difficult to imagine that Jane's asking that question in good faith.
But maybe Jane's chronic amnesia is kicking in again, so Jane might actually be honestly confused... once again. If Jane's actually just honestly confused, Jane should try to remember that I answered Jane's comment because Jane used my real name to wrongly accuse me of being "RespekMyAthorati":
... Is this your amateur attempt at the despicable practice of "doxxing"? Besides: I would estimate in good faith that there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett", who demonstrably can't stand to be tied down to one pseudonym like his "Khayman80" account, he thinks it's fun to harass other people using multiple sock-puppet accounts.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-23]
Sadly, Jane will probably never appreciate the ironic contrast between those first two sentences.
Jane probably also won't appreciate the irony that Jane uses my real name to wrongly accuse me of posing as someone else, while complaining bitterly and threatening to call the police and/or sue whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus. But again, I'll remember this the next time Jane pretends to be offended whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus.
... You have also been caught sock-puppeting before. So that should be no surprise to anyone, either.... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-03-24]
Good grief. Once again, the irony of Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet "Jane Q. Public" wrongly accusing me of sock-puppeting is overwhelming.
Once again, Jane's completely wrong. This "khayman80" account is the only account I use at Slashdot. What Jane actually means is that his crippling paranoia has led Jane/Lonny Eachus to repeatedly and
Slashdot Mirror
Scenario: Yellowstone erupts, dimming sunlight all over the world and continually dumping dust onto solar panels and into wind turbine gears.
Monocultures are vulnerable. A diverse energy portfolio is more resilient, and nuclear power has a low carbon footprint. That might be why the national academies of 13 nations called for the "development of nuclear power plants that are safe and secure, and ensure the secure long-term management and disposal of waste. International collaboration in development of the next generation of nuclear reactors and in reducing the risk of proliferation is essential."
When more cosmic rays leaked in, the climate didn't change. Richard Alley mentioned (at 42:00 in his 2009 AGU talk) that beryllium proxy data reveal a spike in cosmic ray intensity during the "Laschamp anomaly" ~40,000 years ago, but the corresponding oxygen isotope proxy for temperature didn't change unusually during that time period.
Concentrated solar thermal plants can fry birds or blind pilots, but solar PV panels don't. They don't take up ecologically sensitive landscapes when they're mounted on roofs, and that distributed nature can be more resilient than putting all our eggs in a large centralized power plant. We need to build more nuclear power plants, but we also need more renewables like solar, wind/wave, tidal, geothermal, and maybe even osmotic power.
Does that cost include the damages caused by the CO2 emissions of those other sources? If we're going to include damages caused by solar thermal plants, shouldn't we also include the damages we learned about from studying the effects of rapid CO2 emissions during the end-Permian, PETM, etc.?
Does the "relatively small amount that we do know" include how adding CO2 warms the Earth's surface? You've been vigorously disputing these fundamental physics for years. Can you finally admit that mainstream scientists know how adding CO2 warms the Earth's surface?
Oops, 11 year baseline (like 2000-2010).
Good grief, Jane. They also didn't predict growing sea ice in a world that's infested with leprechauns. But neither of those silly objections are relevant, because the real world is warming. Remember?
"We know the Earth is warming, you idiot. That's not the issue here." [Lonny Eachus, 2010-07-01]
Nonsense, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 predicted that increasing atmospheric CO2 warms the planet and causes a slight increase in Antarctic sea ice. This certainly constitutes a prediction because these conditions are happening. After all, as you've said, nobody is denying it's warming.
The next time you want to keep ignoring the predictions of Manabe et al. 1991 and all these other confirmed predictions, it might be more honest to just say that you reject all those confirmed predictions, rather than trying to pretend that they never happened.
That's absurd, Jane. I've repeatedly linked to Polyak et al. 2010 and Kinnard et al. 2011. Polyak et al. reconstructs Arctic sea ice back to 1870, and Kinnard et al. goes back 1,450 years.
I don't have to "weasel out" of anything, because despite your baseless accusation I've always advocated using all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means not cherry-picking the starting point, and instead using the entire dataset.
That's why it was so baffling when Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH d
There are reasons to doubt the land ice melting connection to Antarctic sea ice, but I don't think that's one of them. I mentioned real reasons by citing Swart and Fyfe 2013, Polvani and Smith 2013 and referencing fig. 2 and fig. 4(e) from Parkinson and Cavalieri 2012 (PDF).
But ocean warming is sufficient to thin West Antarctic ice sheets, as I've explained:
"West Antarctica is among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth, with an ice sheet that's vulnerable to the warming oceans because it's mainly grounded below sealevel."
"Because West Antarctica juts out into the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), those warming waters are thinning its ice sheet at an accelerating rate. ... Its ice sheet is also mainly grounded below sealevel, making it more vulnerable to the warming oceans than the East's which is mainly grounded above sealevel."
The fact that West Antarctica is mainly grounded below sealevel means that ocean warming causes rapid land ice thinning there. Also, the fact that the bedrock is deeper farther inland from the grounding line has "interesting" consequences. See Rignot et al. 2014 and Joughin et al. 2014.
No, Jane. Manabe et al. 1991 was 24 years ago. The fact that Manabe was 24 years ago is exactly why I've repeatedly showed it to you. They predicted that Antarctic sea ice would increase in a warming world, but you keep insisting that "The science is faulty at its roots. The models haven’t predicted one thing, in 30+ years. ... You don’t really need to know anything about the science except that IT HASN’T PREDICTED ANYTHING. That makes it bad theory. ... CO2 warming theory has predicted NOTHING."
In addition to the other 17 reasons I gave you, don't you think this is another reason you should reconsider making these baseless accusations?
Huh? Jane, I just gave you links to peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent in response to your insinuations that scientists are deliberately misleading. In response, Jane tries to guess at my feelings about what I "told people".
Instead, you might find it more productive to click on those links and learn about peer-reviewed long-term reconstructions of Arctic sea ice extent. Then maybe you'll be in a better position to judge whether you should dare to accuse scientists of deliberately misleading.
Good grief, Jane. Once again, I'd rather use all the available data. In the context of using a single dataset, that means using all the data in that dataset. That's why it's so ironic that Jane baselessly accused Layzej of cherry-picking when he loaded the entire UAH dataset, then Jane suggested only using data since 1998. But Jane obviously won't ever be able to grasp this irony, because he just did the
I've repeatedly told you this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: "... sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."
I've explained that Manabe et al. attributed the slight Antarctic sea ice increase to increased precipitation in the area. This freshens the frigid surface water and reduces mixing with the warmer water below. Other possibilities include stronger winds which spread out the ice and expose more surface water to be frozen.
I've told Jane and economart that Fig. 2(a) from Polyak et al. 2010 shows that the reconstructed Arctic sea ice extent in the 1930s was comparable to that in 1979, and the modern decline is quite clear.
I've also repeatedly explained that Jane's accusations of deliberately misleading cherry-picking are completely backwards. As usual.
No, that's actually why the U.S. patent office stopped accepting applications for perpetual motion machine patents. They wasted uncountable hours debunking experiments that seemed plausible at first glance but always just ended up wasting everyone's time.
It's not just that Shawyer's claims violate conservation of momentum. The Alcubierre and Natario drives also violate conservation of momentum, but at least they explain that violation in the context of Noether's theorem. In contrast, Shawyer just made a ridiculous mistake by forgetting that the normal force a microwave photon exerts on a surface is always normal to that surface. Sadly, Shawyer seems to have duped a lot of otherwise skeptical people into uncritically cheerleading his absurd claims.
I'm interested to see why Sawyer's still repeating the same nonsense after ~10 years:
http://johncostella.webs.com/s...
Lonny leaps into action once again.
Lonny leaps into action.
As expected, Jane provides absolutely no links to back up any of his accusations. And still no evidence that Jane grasps the irony of his lecturing scientists about what scientists think.
And Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.
Is that why you repeatedly bring up the KKK? Because it's a good way to piss a lot of people off?
Continued here and here.
Continued here and here and here.
Speaking of arrogance, narcissism and sociopathy, Jane ran away like a snivelling coward instead of showing that he wasn't lying when he repeatedly claimed he's happy to admit his mistakes:
That might be the most hilarious bit in Jane's comedy act, where he wrongly claims that "there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett"".
And yet Jane's 100% wrong, despite being 99.9% certain. As always. And Jane refuses to admit he's wrong. As always. And Jane simultaneously insists that he's happy to admit he's wrong. As always.
But at least Jane finally admitted that Jane is suggesting anything. Baby steps.
Good grief, Jane. That link goes to my clear statement that I'm not "RespekMyAthorati". So it's difficult to imagine that Jane's asking that question in good faith.
But maybe Jane's chronic amnesia is kicking in again, so Jane might actually be honestly confused... once again. If Jane's actually just honestly confused, Jane should try to remember that I answered Jane's comment because Jane used my real name to wrongly accuse me of being "RespekMyAthorati":
Sadly, Jane will probably never appreciate the ironic contrast between those first two sentences.
Jane probably also won't appreciate the irony that Jane uses my real name to wrongly accuse me of posing as someone else, while complaining bitterly and threatening to call the police and/or sue whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus. But again, I'll remember this the next time Jane pretends to be offended whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus.
Good grief. Once again, the irony of Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet "Jane Q. Public" wrongly accusing me of sock-puppeting is overwhelming.
Once again, Jane's completely wrong. This "khayman80" account is the only account I use at Slashdot
Oops, I meant to write that "Jane seems to be saying he isn't lecturing scientists about what scientists think."
Lecturing scientists about science is Jane's other hobby.
Good grief. When have I ever said false things? Since Jane claims this happens "VERY frequently" it should be easy to link to a single, solitary example.
Jane seems to be saying he isn't lecturing scientists about science. That's absurd, Jane. You're lecturing me about what scientists think right here! In fact, you just accused me of knowingly lying because I've pointed out that your baseless accusations about what scientists think are... baseless accusations.
Jane seems to be stuck in a recursive loop where his baseless accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies spawn more baseless accusations of lying.
The ironic icing on this cake is the fact that Jane still hasn't admitted he was wrong when he repeated the same false Sky Dragon Slayer things in public over and over.
For some reason Jane doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about what scientists think.
Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.
In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.
At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of fraudulent bullshit lies.
Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?
Now remember your baseless accusations that scientists who point out the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change are guilty of fraudulent bullshit lies. Don't you think it's even a little ridiculous that you're lecturing scientists about what scientists think?
Jane, that's the most charitable explanation for all your baseless accusations.
Again, your accusations were baseless, and you reasonably should have known that. Instead, you doubled down and tripled down on your baseless accusations of fraudulent bullshit lies. And now you're quadrupling down.
For some reason Jane doesn't seem to grasp the irony of him lecturing scientists about what scientists think.
Perhaps an analogy could help. Jane, suppose someone who had never professionally programmed using Ruby on Rails asked you how most Ruby programmers would solve a problem. Because you're a professional Ruby programmer and you generously assume this person is asking in good faith out of genuine curiosity, you tell him how most Ruby programmers would solve that problem.
In response, that person (who's not a professional Ruby programmer) accuses you of incompetence, and insists that he knows how most Ruby programmers would solve the problem better than you do.
At this point, if you're feeling generous, you might provide a link to a poll showing that most professional Ruby programmers do in fact solve the problem that way. In response, he accuses the professional programmers who organized the poll of fraudulent bullshit lies.
Wouldn't that seem a little ridiculous?
Now remember your baseless accusations that scientists who point out the overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change are guilty of fraudulent bullshit lies. Don't you think it's even a little ridiculous that you're lecturing scientists about what scientists think?
Answered here.
By the way:
Jane/Lonny Eachus accuses Bill Nye of being a liar or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome, but Jane can't even write down a simple energy conservation equation without wrongly "cancelling" terms.
I've repeatedly explained that only the power passing through a boundary is included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary. I've even linked to textbooks so Jane can verify that this is how "conservation of energy" works.
If Jane ever reads and understands those textbooks, he'd know that the cooler power isn't relevant for the same reason that he could know that a crayon mark doesn't cross the lines in a coloring book. Again, this is really basic physics.
And again, inserting the standard physics definition of the word "net" into Jane's equation reproduces the energy conservation equation that Jane's still adamantly rejecting. That's another independent way for Jane to see that he should consider the possibility that only power passing through a boundary should be included in the energy conservation equation across that boundary.
If Jane can't even master the most basic details about conservation of energy, Jane won't ever be able to analyze how greenhouses work because that depends on understanding conservation of energy.
Jane, you of all people really shouldn't be accusing scientists of being liars or suffering from Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
That might be the most hilarious bit in Jane's comedy act, where he wrongly claims that "there is about a 99.9% probability that "RespekMyAthorati" is a man named "Bryan Killett"".
And yet Jane's 100% wrong, despite being 99.9% certain. As always. And Jane refuses to admit he's wrong. As always. And Jane simultaneously insists that he's happy to admit he's wrong. As always.
But at least Jane finally admitted that Jane is suggesting anything. Baby steps.
Good grief, Jane. That link goes to my clear statement that I'm not "RespekMyAthorati". So it's difficult to imagine that Jane's asking that question in good faith.
But maybe Jane's chronic amnesia is kicking in again, so Jane might actually be honestly confused... once again. If Jane's actually just honestly confused, Jane should try to remember that I answered Jane's comment because Jane used my real name to wrongly accuse me of being "RespekMyAthorati":
Sadly, Jane will probably never appreciate the ironic contrast between those first two sentences.
Jane probably also won't appreciate the irony that Jane uses my real name to wrongly accuse me of posing as someone else, while complaining bitterly and threatening to call the police and/or sue whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus. But again, I'll remember this the next time Jane pretends to be offended whenever I point out that Jane is Lonny Eachus.
Good grief. Once again, the irony of Lonny Eachus's sock-puppet "Jane Q. Public" wrongly accusing me of sock-puppeting is overwhelming.
Once again, Jane's completely wrong. This "khayman80" account is the only account I use at Slashdot. What Jane actually means is that his crippling paranoia has led Jane/Lonny Eachus to repeatedly and
I agree. What I'm trying to figure out is, even overstating the total by including non-research funding, how did he arrive at a total of $106 billion?
Answered here.