A scientific consensus describes, not proscribes, the accumulated data & scientific theories. Read that again; descriptive, not proscriptive. Denying a consensus with nothing more than bluster and ad hominem retorts is a blatant denial of science. Provide relevant & complete evidence or you are no better than the creationists.
It is incredibly disheartening to see so much willful ignorance & denial of science on this site.
This meme of "discuss the science only" is quaint. In the scientific journals, yes - most definitely. In the the popular press & in general discussion, not likely. The problem isn't in the scientific journals, it's in people having preconceived notions and cherry-picking the science to bolster their beliefs.
Are we supposed to ignore science when discussing the politics of responsive actions? That is the status quo.
Fuel economy (energy efficiency): at least 100 Miles per gallon of gasoline energy equivalent (Mpge)
Vehicles must use AXP-supplied fuel during performance tests and races. A limited number of representative fuels will be provided. This will neutralize fuel gaming, and allow us to focus on viable fuels that are available in the marketplace to a level of our satisfaction. At this point, we expect to provide gasoline, diesel, electricity, natural gas, bio-diesel, and E85
$2,375 in 1917 has the same buying power as $38,600 in 2008.
A proletarian, i.e. one of the poorest class of people, can afford a $39,000 car?
The 2009 Phoenix SUV has a purchase price of $54,000, and has the following stats.
0-60 m.p.h.: Less than 10 seconds Factory Set Top Speed: 95 m.p.h. Range: 100+ miles per charge Charging Time: On-Board Vehicle 6.6KW Charger: 5 to 6 hours Off-Board High-Power 250KW Charger: Under 10 min. to 95% SOC
This glaring example of innumeracy is from the submitter, as it is nowhere in the article.
On average, Pasko said that regular P2P traffic makes 5.5 hops to get its destination. Using the P4P protocol, those same files took an average of 0.89 hops.
Are we supposed to ignore the scientists because an editorial columnist is shocked that ice that melted in the summer, refroze in the winter? The rest of the column is similar willful ignorance - "it's cold in the winter, so global warming is a scam!"
Local weather events do not disprove, nor prove, a global trend.
CO2s heat-absorbing effects, i.e. its spectrum absorption, have been known, and repeatedly experimentally validated, for over 100 years. It isn't some flaky correlation, like increased ice cream sales "causing" shark attacks.
Svante Arrhenius, 1896b, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground", London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (fifth series), April 1896. vol 41, pages 237-275.
Solar irradiance does directly track historical temperatures; however, the past 30 years have shown increasing temperatures with steady solar irradiance.
Direct satellite measurements of solar irradiance find no rising trend since 1978, the start of measurements. Sunspot numbers have leveled out since 1950. The Max Planck Institute reconstruction shows that irradiance has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.
An increase solar irradiance would warm all layers of the atmosphere as there would be more heat radiating through all atmospheric layers back out to space. An increased greenhouse effect would reflect more heat to the surface, thus warming the lower atmospheric layers and cooling the upper atmospheric layers. The second case is what is being observed.
A scientific consensus describes, not proscribes, the accumulated data & scientific theories. Read that again; descriptive, not proscriptive. Denying a consensus with nothing more than bluster and ad hominem retorts is a blatant denial of science. Provide relevant & complete evidence or you are no better than the creationists.
This blog post seems to be a denier's primary point today.
Here's the Hadley Center's global temperature record. Each of the past 6 years of decreasing solar activity, the waning side of solar cycle 23, have been in the hottest 8 on the 158 year record.
Here's the Hadley Center's global temperature record. Each of the past 6 years of decreasing solar activity, the waning side of solar cycle 23, have been in the hottest 8 on the 158 year record.
Slashdot Mirror
Make that 304 million, up from 201 million in 1968.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
http://www.infoplease.com/year/1968.html
The oceans absorb CO2 as well. Pointing to only one side of a natural cycle is a prime example of willful ignorance.
The oceans are currently absorbing 7 billion tons of CO2 more than they outgas each year, with terrestrial absorption at 5 billion tons net per year.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.html
A scientific consensus describes, not proscribes, the accumulated data & scientific theories. Read that again; descriptive, not proscriptive. Denying a consensus with nothing more than bluster and ad hominem retorts is a blatant denial of science. Provide relevant & complete evidence or you are no better than the creationists.
It is incredibly disheartening to see so much willful ignorance & denial of science on this site.
This meme of "discuss the science only" is quaint. In the scientific journals, yes - most definitely. In the the popular press & in general discussion, not likely. The problem isn't in the scientific journals, it's in people having preconceived notions and cherry-picking the science to bolster their beliefs.
Are we supposed to ignore science when discussing the politics of responsive actions? That is the status quo.
$2,375 in 1917 has the same buying power as $38,600 in 2008.
A proletarian, i.e. one of the poorest class of people, can afford a $39,000 car?
The 2009 Phoenix SUV has a purchase price of $54,000, and has the following stats.
0-60 m.p.h.: Less than 10 seconds
Factory Set Top Speed: 95 m.p.h.
Range: 100+ miles per charge
Charging Time:
On-Board Vehicle 6.6KW Charger: 5 to 6 hours
Off-Board High-Power 250KW Charger: Under 10 min. to 95% SOC
http://www.austintxgensoc.org/calculatecpi.php
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/why-choose-phoenix/roi-calculator.php
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/vehicles/suv-specifications.php
That works out to an average 84% reduction.
The first thing I thought of was sligs, a cross between a large slug and a pig. A delicacy: 'The sweetest meat this side of heaven.'
Are we supposed to ignore the scientists because an editorial columnist is shocked that ice that melted in the summer, refroze in the winter? The rest of the column is similar willful ignorance - "it's cold in the winter, so global warming is a scam!"
Local weather events do not disprove, nor prove, a global trend.
CO2s heat-absorbing effects, i.e. its spectrum absorption, have been known, and repeatedly experimentally validated, for over 100 years. It isn't some flaky correlation, like increased ice cream sales "causing" shark attacks.
Svante Arrhenius, 1896b, "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground", London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science (fifth series), April 1896. vol 41, pages 237-275.
http://tinyurl.com/3afl5b (google book search)
http://hps.elte.hu/zagoni/Arrh1.htm
A single year does not make or refute a trend.
The oceans are currently absorbing 7 billion tons of CO2 more than they outgas each year, with terrestrial absorption at 5 billion tons net per year.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.html (NASA's Earth Observatory site is currently offline)
(alternate link) http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=95
Solar irradiance does directly track historical temperatures; however, the past 30 years have shown increasing temperatures with steady solar irradiance.
Direct satellite measurements of solar irradiance find no rising trend since 1978, the start of measurements. Sunspot numbers have leveled out since 1950. The Max Planck Institute reconstruction shows that irradiance has been steady since 1950 and solar radio flux or flare activity shows no rising trend over the past 30 years.
An increase solar irradiance would warm all layers of the atmosphere as there would be more heat radiating through all atmospheric layers back out to space. An increased greenhouse effect would reflect more heat to the surface, thus warming the lower atmospheric layers and cooling the upper atmospheric layers. The second case is what is being observed.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers_png
ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA/SUNSPOT_NUMBERS/MONTHLY.PLT
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Solar_Cycle_Variations_png
Try again when you have real data. The natural cycles are taken into account.
A scientific consensus describes, not proscribes, the accumulated data & scientific theories. Read that again; descriptive, not proscriptive. Denying a consensus with nothing more than bluster and ad hominem retorts is a blatant denial of science. Provide relevant & complete evidence or you are no better than the creationists.
Yes, please draw me a picture that shows how a 500 year cycle accounts for a 30 year temperature increase that is supposedly now going away.
A couple casual articles with scientific references:
Urban Heat Island effect
Satellite show little to no warming in the troposphere
... while the gun companies proclaim that ricochets and missed shots never happen.
How does a 41,000 year cycle, or even a 500 year cycle, explain the past 30 years of temperature increase?
Astronomical Theory of Climate Change (Milankovitch Cycles)
Scientific data is "overrated". That's depressing.
Each of the past 6 years of decreasing solar activity, the waning side of solar cycle 23, have been in the hottest 8 on the 158 year record.
Local weather does not refute a global climate trend.
It is incredibly disheartening to see so much willful ignorance & denial of science on this site.
This blog post seems to be a denier's primary point today.
Here's the Hadley Center's global temperature record. Each of the past 6 years of decreasing solar activity, the waning side of solar cycle 23, have been in the hottest 8 on the 158 year record.
Which is probably why coal companies are included in the suit. My apologies for stating "oil & coal companies".
Here's the Hadley Center's global temperature record. Each of the past 6 years of decreasing solar activity, the waning side of solar cycle 23, have been in the hottest 8 on the 158 year record.
Antarctic sea ice is at record high levels, while Antarctic land-based ice loss speeds up (full paper).
Local weather does not refute a global climate trend.
Global Temperature Record
This parallels the "Big Tobacco" cases. The oil companies are the ones who have profited and lied about the side effects of their product.
Which also happens to be the first.
Is that a few thousandths or a few quadrillionths?