Comment Re:More proof (Score 1) 667
I think you'll be surprised how soon the base load issue of solar and wind get solved.
Living in the Pacific Northwest we have lots of hydro-power and wind.
I think you'll be surprised how soon the base load issue of solar and wind get solved.
Living in the Pacific Northwest we have lots of hydro-power and wind.
As I posted in a previous reply here is more of a big picture look at it:
GISTemp Decadal Global Surface Temperature
(Anomaly from 1950-1981 mean)
Decade_______Anomaly
1884-1893_____-0.26
1894-1903_____-0.25
1904-1913_____-0.40
1914-1923_____-0.28
1924-1933_____-0.17
1934-1943_____+0.00
1944-1953_____-0.03
1954-1963_____-0.02
1964-1973_____-0.02
1974-1983_____+0.10
1984-1993_____+0.24
1994-2003_____+0.46
2004-2014_____+0.59
As you can see the temperature rise from 1904-1903 to 2004-2014 is 0.99 degrees. Looking at it in decadal slices takes out the noise of year to year variability.
In the "big picture", there aren't many effective levers to pull to solve the warming problem, and the cost of pulling them is higher than the benefit.
Sez you. I've seen plenty of analyses from others including economists that say otherwise. At the rate we're going the "small amount" of warming over a few hundred years is still 10 times faster than the warming at the end of the last glaciation (ice age) and will cause sea level rise in 10's of feet.
I would probably vote no because solar and wind power are cheaper than nuclear. I'm not against nuclear power for environmental reasons although it has its problems there but because they are expensive. If someone develops inexpensive modular nuclear power units I'd be willing to see them deployed.
So what? 2014 certainly is in the top 5 hottest years ever in the instrument record. As I said you're getting lost in the details and not seeing the big picture.
Try Berkeley Earth. The source files for their analysis are here. The description of their dataset is here where they say they used raw data wherever possible and describe the filtering they did.
Ok, if you prefer you can call it debasification. It amounts to the same thing. The pH of the oceans is dropping.
The 19334-1943 mean was the same as the 1951-1980 mean so 2014 is equally unusually hot (and in case you're going to ask what about 1930-1933 the 1924-1933 mean was -0.17 compared to the 1951-1980 mean). 10,000 years ago was at the tail end of the last glaciation (ice age in the common vernacular). From proxy research it appears to at most been about the same as the 1951-1980 average although of course the error margin is larger.
Don't worry. If you live another 150 or 200 years you might get your wish.
"Denier" is a perfectly good word. The only ones I see linking it to holocaust denial are the people who are butthurt over being called climate science deniers.
Climate change (global warming?) skeptics admit that humans are affecting climate, but the real question is "how much are humans changing it?". And while asking that, we should also ask:
- Is the data used to measure climate accurate? (IPCC controversially says: "urban heat islands don't matter when measuring temperature")
No, the IPCC says we apply corrections for the UHI effect and the corrections have been scientifically validated.
- Is the climate actually warming? (satellite datasets say not for the last 18-25 years, terrestrial datasets say 14 years)
It takes a pretty narrow view to try and make that statement. Meanwhile the oceans continue to absorb more energy, sea level continues to rise and ice keeps melting, symptoms of a warming world.
- If there is warming, how much of it is caused by CO2 rises? (not much, since warming has "paused" while CO2 levels increased)
Which just shows that you don't understand the magnitude of natural variability is over 10 times the magnitude of the warming signal from CO2 and feedbacks. Eventually as the warming continues to rise it will overcome the vicissitudes of natural variability. The fact that 2014 is the warmest in the instrument record and it wasn't also an El Nino year indicates that's starting to happen.
- How accurate are the CO2-temperature feedback models? (not very, they have overestimated by 2-4x)
2-4 times is gross hyperbole. Temperatures are still within the uncertainty bands of climate model projections so it's impossible to say the models are wrong.
- How much of the CO2 rise is caused by humans?
Considering that the year to year increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is only about 45% of yearly output of human emissions the answer has to be 100%.
- What is the cost/benefit of lowering CO2 now vs delaying 50/100 years when tech will be more advanced?
If the possible bad effects of not reducing CO2 emissions are even moderately possible then risk management theory says it's far more costly to wait than to do something about it. Even now the cost of wind and solar power is starting to be competitive with existing electricity production so the cost really isn't that great. And the cost of renewables is still going down.
For that particular example, I had in mind the University of California climatology department's models from the nineties. That's just one example, though - pick up any issue of Greenpeace magazine or any of All Gore's stuff that's had time to come true. You'll find plenty of claims about what will happen in twenty years or fifty years. Now that it IS twenty years later, we can see which of those are utter bullshit, and which aren't.
I challenge you to come up with a concrete example from the early 1990s that actually shows that. By concrete example I mean a paper or article from a researcher in the field. I'd be surprise, shocked even if your UofC anecdote is correct.
Yes, that NASA. Here is the full table for your perusal:
Probability of Warmest Year
2014___~38%
2010___~23%
2005___~17%
1998___~4%
So 2014 is about 1.6 times more likely to have been the warmest year than 2010.
Democrats aren't trying to legislate the truth of climate change. They're trying to put those who think it's a hoax on record to use as political ammunition against them.
There are other sciences like astronomy, geology and paleontology that have no greater experimental basis than current climate theory. Do you feel the same way about them?
You're getting lost in the details. If you just take the raw data without adjustments you'd be hard put to find much difference between them and the adjusted temperatures. Scientist make the adjustments to correct for known errors and make the temperatures more accurate for their scientific purposes. The different methods of doing this serve as a check on each other and even though they produce slightly different results they are in agreement within the margin of error.
If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming
