Yes, but counteracting the effects of urban heat islands requires a different course of action than counteracting AGW. That is a significant point. If it means passing a regulation that all rooftops be painted white, then that seems like a better idea than clamping down on use of carbon fuels. Nevermind that that same regulation would do more to reduce CO2 emissions than a billion hippies could ever accomplish with their entire collective lifespan.
On the other hand, if we were to try to halt AGW by shifting all of our energy production to LFTRs, and used that energy to create artificial fuels from carbon in the atmosphere, then there would be no effect on urban heat islands, even as global CO2 levels stabilize.
Sorry, what were you saying about being "right" more often than wrong? Peer review is a system, and systems can be corrupted or overwhelmed. That is exactly what has happened throughout the field. Tiny, closed off sub specialties are especially vulnerable to this effect.
This is good. Now, as the next part of the exercise, can you find the "one dimensional" thinking among many who subscribe to AGW? I would suggest you add in the implications of that logic as well. Let me get the ball rolling:
Belief: Increased CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Reasoning: Venus is 95+% CO2. Implication: continued output of CO2 will take us to a tipping point situation that will result in $badthings (some alarmists go so far as to claim human extinction, more level headed people worry about rising sea levels and changing weather patterns).
Belief: CO2 emissions can be decreased through application of carbon taxes. Reasoning: You get less of what you tax. Implication: imposition of a tax reduces carbon emission, but raises prices of commodity goods, the governments that collect the tax money then spend it on goods that are produced using fossil fuels, meaning no net decrease in CO2 emissions, more poverty, and already impoverished people will have less food.
Belief: Global warming is bad for the poor, therefore not global warming is good for the poor. Reasoning: the opposite of a bad thing is a good thing. Implication: Silliness. The opposite of drowning is dehydration. Neither is good, obviously. In this case, it is bad for people to be forced to move, but it is arguably much worse for them to starve.
Your list is good, because it contains testable predictions. Clearly, mankind puts out a great deal more CO2 than volcanoes, so that is not a valid argument against AGW. However, other things come out of volcanoes, and as far as greenhouse gases go, CO2 is the ultimate lightweight. You can only get weaker effects from diatomic and mono-atomic gases. I would be interested to see what else comes out of volcanoes in quantity.
Yes, the bulk of shipping traffic did leave, but only because everyone was dead and much of the city destroyed. Everyone doesn't die from global warming or a few cm/year of sea level rise.
But even under those circumstances, they were able to raise the island by that much. The cities on the East Coast can't manage a foot? With modern technology and a mostly not-dead population?
I presume you have never been to Galveston. The entire island was raised, including the buildings that survived, and is even with the seawall where the two connect, sloping slightly back towards the bay, I think.
I was not commenting on it's "impregnability", I was talking about the engineering of the project, which was much more difficult than would be the case for most of the East Coast, who only needs an extra foot or so to remain at their current elevation for the next hundred-odd years.
I didn't say "subsidize them", I said "don't tax them". The two are separate issues, and balancing subsidies with taxes is a TERRIBLE idea that does nothing but waste time and capital.
I do agree that farm subsidies should be taken off the books immediately.
Well, that's well and good, but are the other planets warming or not? This is an important empirical question. We can speculate as to the cause or lack thereof AFTER determining if the initial assertion is true.
Thanks for the link. You will notice from reading through the comments that I felt the same then as I do now. However, at some point I heard the allegations about the man not actually being a climate skeptic, with statements going back decades that global warming was definitely real, and it was caused by man. I don't remember where those came from or whether they were vetted or not. That said, the article makes a lot of sense, and strikes me as being very even handed and neutral, which makes me tend to trust it on a subconscious level.
Further, since the study only claims that the highest correlation they have found has been between warming and CO2, it is not exactly conclusive, though it does narrow the probability space, and lowers the likelihood of a lot of arguments used by skeptics and "deniers", an effect that is independent of his intentions.
I thought that was a self-explanatory line of reasoning. Developed economies that export food are as a rule reliant on fossil fuels to put out crops. Fuel price goes up, food price goes up. This happened in 2008 and caused worldwide riots (confined to the third world). IIRC, this was a major part of the impetus to the Arab Spring. I may be misremembering that, though. I do remember food riots in Cairo in 2008, though.
Further, much of the population of Africa is dependent on food aid through charities with limited budgets which are only likely to get tighter. This means that many more people will be one harvest away from famine and death.
Yes, inflation does the same thing, which is why we also need to stop the genocidal maniacs in charge of Western economies. A given effect can have more than one cause.
A "tiny" island with a city that was larger and more important than Houston. And they had to raise it by tens of feet. The Atlantic seaboard is unlikely to need more than a foot for the next century. You don't even have to make a concerted effort of it. Just make it known that sea levels are rising, and people will do it on their own. Those properties that are not worth saving, won't be, and you get the double benefit of having new marshland for wildlife.
When I was a boy, my friend's father had one of these. They would take all the kids in the neighborhood to whatever activity we were doing. Saved a ton of gas.
If you read further along in that article, you will see that such vehicles remain popular in Europe due to the lack of a distinction between cars and light trucks for emissions standards. This is relevant to the regulatory discussion. Gee, I wonder who wrote the light truck exemption? I don't think it was Al Gore.
None of those are station wagons, or even similar, from what I can see. Those seat five, where the full wagon (which is the actual name of what I thought was called the station wagon) sat NINE. To get such seating capacity today, you have to drop your mileage by 10 mpg or more and get a big old minivan or SUV.
As for regulations, just who do you think it is that writes them? Here's a hint--generally not Greenpeace.
If you are going to give up, then do so by shutting the fuck up. Your abuse does no good. You claim it does no harm, which is debatable. Since it is debatable, shut the fuck up. You're not helping anyone. You only reinforce the concept of "sides" with your abuse, rather than encouraging people to come out from behind the barricades and actually, I don't know, look for the truth.
Also note that your last paragraph is the definition of unscientific thinking.
Good, I feel much better. I always wondered why we didn't keep using Apollo as a launch platform. It being very, very expensive seemed likely, but I guess it really was just politics.
There was a fellow who said the same thing like a year ago, and all the pro-AGW people were singing in the streets, trumpeting their final victory.
Then it turned out that the guy had actually been pro-AGW from the start, and simply signed on to the Koch funded study under false pretenses, pretending to be a skeptic, so he could strike them a killing PR blow. That is not science.
However, from a review of the article, Muller appears to be rational and acceptably skeptical. He does not subscribe to ideological warfare, or feel the need to defend ideas that support AGW, but are weak or flat out untrue, instead blasting them, and those who do. This is the correct approach, and adds tremendously to his credibility in my book. I haven't read his study yet, but I hope he maintains his neutral, truth seeking position there as well.
Even that assumes that electricity demand is elastic. I'm not so sure that is the case. A 25% reduction in supply could very easily double or triple the price, if not more. Instant depression.
You can say that all you want, but I can't find a new Station Wagon ANYWHERE.
Regulations exist to be circumvented, and regulators exist to be captured. The more you add, the richer the people at the top get. If you manage to add enough to stop them from getting rich, then the entire economy collapses under the weight, as you long ago killed off all of the big boy's competition.
Raise oil taxes? What do you have against Africans? There will be mass starvation on that continent if food prices rise any more than they have, and that food is highly dependent on fuel prices.
Rather than using a stick to beat people until morale improves, how about we remove the barriers between us and clean, limitless energy instead?
RTFA. There is no reason to link the drought in the US with global warming. Droughts of this magnitude happen every 30 odd years. Happened in the 80's, in the 50's, and in the 30's.
That is a lesser evil than half of Africa starving to death because of increased food prices caused by carbon taxes on farmers in the US and elsewhere.
Of course, we COULD just abandon our idiotic de facto ban on nuclear research and build LFTRs everywhere, both halting the growth of CO2 emissions (among other more potent greenhouse gases) and making energy cheaper for everyone, improving everyone's standard of living.
After the storm of 1900, the entire Island of Galveston was raised by 10 or 20 feet. If they could do it back then with limited technology and resources while dealing with thousands of dead bodies and 50 ft tall piles of debris, I think we can deal with a centimeter per decade rise.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but counteracting the effects of urban heat islands requires a different course of action than counteracting AGW. That is a significant point. If it means passing a regulation that all rooftops be painted white, then that seems like a better idea than clamping down on use of carbon fuels. Nevermind that that same regulation would do more to reduce CO2 emissions than a billion hippies could ever accomplish with their entire collective lifespan.
On the other hand, if we were to try to halt AGW by shifting all of our energy production to LFTRs, and used that energy to create artificial fuels from carbon in the atmosphere, then there would be no effect on urban heat islands, even as global CO2 levels stabilize.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science
Sorry, what were you saying about being "right" more often than wrong? Peer review is a system, and systems can be corrupted or overwhelmed. That is exactly what has happened throughout the field. Tiny, closed off sub specialties are especially vulnerable to this effect.
This is good. Now, as the next part of the exercise, can you find the "one dimensional" thinking among many who subscribe to AGW? I would suggest you add in the implications of that logic as well. Let me get the ball rolling:
Belief: Increased CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Reasoning: Venus is 95+% CO2. Implication: continued output of CO2 will take us to a tipping point situation that will result in $badthings (some alarmists go so far as to claim human extinction, more level headed people worry about rising sea levels and changing weather patterns).
Belief: CO2 emissions can be decreased through application of carbon taxes. Reasoning: You get less of what you tax. Implication: imposition of a tax reduces carbon emission, but raises prices of commodity goods, the governments that collect the tax money then spend it on goods that are produced using fossil fuels, meaning no net decrease in CO2 emissions, more poverty, and already impoverished people will have less food.
Belief: Global warming is bad for the poor, therefore not global warming is good for the poor. Reasoning: the opposite of a bad thing is a good thing. Implication: Silliness. The opposite of drowning is dehydration. Neither is good, obviously. In this case, it is bad for people to be forced to move, but it is arguably much worse for them to starve.
Your list is good, because it contains testable predictions. Clearly, mankind puts out a great deal more CO2 than volcanoes, so that is not a valid argument against AGW. However, other things come out of volcanoes, and as far as greenhouse gases go, CO2 is the ultimate lightweight. You can only get weaker effects from diatomic and mono-atomic gases. I would be interested to see what else comes out of volcanoes in quantity.
Yes, the bulk of shipping traffic did leave, but only because everyone was dead and much of the city destroyed. Everyone doesn't die from global warming or a few cm/year of sea level rise.
But even under those circumstances, they were able to raise the island by that much. The cities on the East Coast can't manage a foot? With modern technology and a mostly not-dead population?
I presume you have never been to Galveston. The entire island was raised, including the buildings that survived, and is even with the seawall where the two connect, sloping slightly back towards the bay, I think.
I was not commenting on it's "impregnability", I was talking about the engineering of the project, which was much more difficult than would be the case for most of the East Coast, who only needs an extra foot or so to remain at their current elevation for the next hundred-odd years.
I didn't say "subsidize them", I said "don't tax them". The two are separate issues, and balancing subsidies with taxes is a TERRIBLE idea that does nothing but waste time and capital.
I do agree that farm subsidies should be taken off the books immediately.
Well, that's well and good, but are the other planets warming or not? This is an important empirical question. We can speculate as to the cause or lack thereof AFTER determining if the initial assertion is true.
Thanks for the link. You will notice from reading through the comments that I felt the same then as I do now. However, at some point I heard the allegations about the man not actually being a climate skeptic, with statements going back decades that global warming was definitely real, and it was caused by man. I don't remember where those came from or whether they were vetted or not. That said, the article makes a lot of sense, and strikes me as being very even handed and neutral, which makes me tend to trust it on a subconscious level.
Further, since the study only claims that the highest correlation they have found has been between warming and CO2, it is not exactly conclusive, though it does narrow the probability space, and lowers the likelihood of a lot of arguments used by skeptics and "deniers", an effect that is independent of his intentions.
I thought that was a self-explanatory line of reasoning. Developed economies that export food are as a rule reliant on fossil fuels to put out crops. Fuel price goes up, food price goes up. This happened in 2008 and caused worldwide riots (confined to the third world). IIRC, this was a major part of the impetus to the Arab Spring. I may be misremembering that, though. I do remember food riots in Cairo in 2008, though.
Further, much of the population of Africa is dependent on food aid through charities with limited budgets which are only likely to get tighter. This means that many more people will be one harvest away from famine and death.
Yes, inflation does the same thing, which is why we also need to stop the genocidal maniacs in charge of Western economies. A given effect can have more than one cause.
A "tiny" island with a city that was larger and more important than Houston. And they had to raise it by tens of feet. The Atlantic seaboard is unlikely to need more than a foot for the next century. You don't even have to make a concerted effort of it. Just make it known that sea levels are rising, and people will do it on their own. Those properties that are not worth saving, won't be, and you get the double benefit of having new marshland for wildlife.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_wagon#Full-size_wagons
When I was a boy, my friend's father had one of these. They would take all the kids in the neighborhood to whatever activity we were doing. Saved a ton of gas.
If you read further along in that article, you will see that such vehicles remain popular in Europe due to the lack of a distinction between cars and light trucks for emissions standards. This is relevant to the regulatory discussion. Gee, I wonder who wrote the light truck exemption? I don't think it was Al Gore.
None of those are station wagons, or even similar, from what I can see. Those seat five, where the full wagon (which is the actual name of what I thought was called the station wagon) sat NINE. To get such seating capacity today, you have to drop your mileage by 10 mpg or more and get a big old minivan or SUV.
As for regulations, just who do you think it is that writes them? Here's a hint--generally not Greenpeace.
If you are going to give up, then do so by shutting the fuck up. Your abuse does no good. You claim it does no harm, which is debatable. Since it is debatable, shut the fuck up. You're not helping anyone. You only reinforce the concept of "sides" with your abuse, rather than encouraging people to come out from behind the barricades and actually, I don't know, look for the truth.
Also note that your last paragraph is the definition of unscientific thinking.
Good, I feel much better. I always wondered why we didn't keep using Apollo as a launch platform. It being very, very expensive seemed likely, but I guess it really was just politics.
There was a fellow who said the same thing like a year ago, and all the pro-AGW people were singing in the streets, trumpeting their final victory.
Then it turned out that the guy had actually been pro-AGW from the start, and simply signed on to the Koch funded study under false pretenses, pretending to be a skeptic, so he could strike them a killing PR blow. That is not science.
However, from a review of the article, Muller appears to be rational and acceptably skeptical. He does not subscribe to ideological warfare, or feel the need to defend ideas that support AGW, but are weak or flat out untrue, instead blasting them, and those who do. This is the correct approach, and adds tremendously to his credibility in my book. I haven't read his study yet, but I hope he maintains his neutral, truth seeking position there as well.
That isn't how physics works. Magnetic fields effect charged particles, not photons.
Even that assumes that electricity demand is elastic. I'm not so sure that is the case. A 25% reduction in supply could very easily double or triple the price, if not more. Instant depression.
You can say that all you want, but I can't find a new Station Wagon ANYWHERE.
Regulations exist to be circumvented, and regulators exist to be captured. The more you add, the richer the people at the top get. If you manage to add enough to stop them from getting rich, then the entire economy collapses under the weight, as you long ago killed off all of the big boy's competition.
Raise oil taxes? What do you have against Africans? There will be mass starvation on that continent if food prices rise any more than they have, and that food is highly dependent on fuel prices.
Rather than using a stick to beat people until morale improves, how about we remove the barriers between us and clean, limitless energy instead?
RTFA. There is no reason to link the drought in the US with global warming. Droughts of this magnitude happen every 30 odd years. Happened in the 80's, in the 50's, and in the 30's.
That is a lesser evil than half of Africa starving to death because of increased food prices caused by carbon taxes on farmers in the US and elsewhere.
Of course, we COULD just abandon our idiotic de facto ban on nuclear research and build LFTRs everywhere, both halting the growth of CO2 emissions (among other more potent greenhouse gases) and making energy cheaper for everyone, improving everyone's standard of living.
After the storm of 1900, the entire Island of Galveston was raised by 10 or 20 feet. If they could do it back then with limited technology and resources while dealing with thousands of dead bodies and 50 ft tall piles of debris, I think we can deal with a centimeter per decade rise.
I don't recall seeing this claim debunked. I have only seen people claim that this claim has been debunked, mixed in with ad hominem.
Perhaps the parent hasn't seen it either? Maybe you should post a link rather than being an abusive twat.
I have to ask: did you adjust your figures for inflation?