Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 Next
Comments 91651 to 91700:
-
Marcus at 16:52 PM on 22 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
You make a good point Bern. Prior to my energy efficiency drive, my electricity bills were around $200 per quarter-even with tariff increases, they're now less than $150 per quarter. So, if anything, I can show an *inverse* correlation between my fossil fuel use & my personal wealth. Now, thanks to my Green Energy scheme, I use *no* fossil fuels at all for my electricity needs, & all for AU$0.01c per kw-h more-which amounts to a *whopping* $6 per quarter more for my electricity than what I was paying just 1 month ago-oh dear, better head off to the *poor house*. Similarly, if I used a car to get to work every day, I'd currently be spending about $40 per week on my petrol alone, but because I use public transport to get everywhere, I spend only $30 a week-meaning I save over $500 per annum-again, inverse correlation between personal fossil fuel consumption & personal wealth. Seems like Gilles argument really fails to hold any water. -
Marcus at 16:44 PM on 22 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
Gilles, you've yet to provide any data that proves your claim that the fossil fuel=wealth correlation is either historical or mathematical-in spite of your multiple repetition of the claim. I've provided some other perfectly reasonable social changes-namely increasing wage parity (courtesy of trade unions), & increased contraception & abortion access-that far better correlate with increasing wealth in Western Nations than consumption of fossil fuels. Second, solar panels produce their greatest amount of electricity when demand for electricity is at its highest(between 10am & 4pm), which makes them perfect for peak power generation. Of course, alongside significant price reductions & improvements in efficiency, solar cells have also undergone massive improvements in terms of the amount of cloud cover required to stop *all* electricity production from the cells. Oh, & contrary to your statement, price of the cells-& energy storage-is the issue, because as the cost of both continues to fall, then the ability of householders to install enough solar panels & battery storage to both supply the grid *and* meet all their own power needs becomes infinitely more affordable. Still, you obviously don't care to hear that, because it goes so much against your mantra of "no wealth without fossil fuels". -
Marcus at 16:32 PM on 22 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
As impressive as the Solar Power Tower is, I reckon we should go for Big Dish technology-which uses a sterling engine to create electricity directly. As far as I'm aware, it can also be coupled with a secondary system through which you can run chemicals for heat dissociation. -
yocta at 15:36 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
Great presentation (except for the Comic Sans font) I like Dr Trenberth's explanation of the 2003 European heat wave. -
scaddenp at 15:05 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
Without maths you can claim (as a Perth resident did) that sea level rise is due to increasing obesity of Australians! As others have pointed out, you are misunderstanding "global mean temperature" and thus challenging a straw man. Please go to temperatures are unreliable as suggested. The GISSTemp site has a very extensive list of its published methods and papers. Start here for the methodology. More is explained in IPCC WG1. It appears to me you havent read it given the claims you are making. Care to tell us what your source for these claims are? -
scaddenp at 14:42 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
cloa513 - look closer at the figure. The shaded portions are the error bars. Your comments about temperature make no sense. Please explain (but preferably in the right place on this site). The natural baseline is sum of known natural forcing (solar, volcanic aerosols etc). This is explained in considerable detail in IPCC WG1 and in the papers it links to. As to models not being able to produce testable results, well have a look at this In sum, you are believing things about climate science that are not true. -
Daniel Bailey at 14:34 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
The first two commenters have obviously (judging by their timestamps) not even bothered watching the educational video that is the subject and focal point of this post. Pity. If they had bothered to take that valuable time then perhaps they might have dwelt a bit longer on their learnings before posting as they did. "Invest the copper coins of your pocket in your mind and your mind will line your pockets with gold..." The Yooper -
scaddenp at 14:32 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
cloa513 - the pattern of your comments strongly suggests that you are uncritically assuming something you have read on a pseudo-skeptic source is true. How about picking up the claim you think most convincing, find the Argument from the top bar that matches it, and then taking it from there. But for goodness sake, read the rebuttal, read the linked papers and then tell us why think it is still wrong. (Preferably with data and peer-reviewed literature to support your claim). -
cloa513 at 14:32 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
Energy flows are real. Energy is energy. Temperature is not temperature under different conditions. They should have error margins because of calculations, measurement error etc. I bet those errors margins are large and what is the natural baseline to compare this numbers with. Its impossible to produce a baseline that doesn't even larger error margins as the data was considerably less and less accurate. Instead they rely on models which can't produce real testable results using direct measurements. -
scaddenp at 14:28 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
cloa513 - please substantiate your claims if you want to make sense. Maths is the handmaiden to science, modelling known physics. You may wish to comment on Models are unreliable but I wouldnt bother unless you have some substance to your claim. -
h pierce at 14:28 PM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
RE: That's why humans are responsible for the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 year. The conc of CO2 is presently ca 390 ppmv, but this value is _valid_ only for purfied dry air (PDA) which is comprised of nitrogen, oxygen and the inert gases, which are the fixed gases, and CO2. The conc in real air is always less due the presence of water vapor and clouds whose droplets contain CO2 and which alter the local conc of CO2. Real is the term for local air at the intake ports of air separation plants and contains the fixed gases, CO2, water vapor, reactive gases (e.g., oxides of sulfur and nitrogen), volatile organic compounds from natural sources (e.g., plants)and from human sources and activities (e.g., painting, gasoline, cooking, warfare, etc) and aerosols. For PDA at STP, there are 390 mls, 17.4 mmoles, 0.766 g,or 0.000766 kg of CO2 per cubic meter which has a mass of 1.2929 kg. For tropical air at 100% humidity and 32 deg C the density is 1.096 kg per cubic meter and the conc of CO2 is ca 372 ppmv. If PDA is cooled to 220 K, there is 21.6 mmoles of CO2 per cubic meter at one atmosphere pressure, and the conc is 390 ppmv since there is no water vapor. It PDA is heated to 330 K, there is 14.6 mmoles of CO2 per cubic meter at one atmosphere, and the conc of CO2 is 390 ppmv since there is no water vapor. The increase of CO2 in air is due in part to agriculture. For example, tillage of soil expose humus which oxidixes to CO2. Fertilization promotes the growth of microbes, worms and grubs which only respire and give off CO2 which they die and decompose. What does all of the above boil down to? It means that not only is there less CO2 in free real air than is indicated by analyses, we don't know the mass of CO2 in free real air nor its distribution in space and time. -
cloa513 at 14:23 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
Figure 2 is absolute garbage- numbers coming off totally varying bases with no scientific credibility. Its maths only not science. You can do anything with maths. -
robert way at 14:23 PM on 22 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
ClimateWatcher at 05:16 AM on 22 March, 2011 Dana's chart (taken from my post) does include Cru. Cru=Hadley which is HadCrut (Land/ocean). Before you speak. Think. -
rhjames at 14:13 PM on 22 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
Fig 5 certainly indicates how just a small change in cloud cover could have a big effect on the heat balance. I guess we only have to stand in the sun as a cloud comes over to appreciate just how significant this is. -
garythompson at 14:09 PM on 22 March 2011Examining the impacts of ocean acidification
i think i answered my own question from above. i found a paper that appears (from the abstract and first page) to give me what i need. -
GaryB at 13:49 PM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Climatewatche: Your response is quite telling. The main thrust of my post was the relevance of past warming but you jump on fingerprints with a couple of denialist talking points. I take it from that you agree past warming is irrelevant to the current situation? cloa513: I take it you got that talking point from a denialist site? Care to expand a little on what it means? -
alan_marshall at 13:25 PM on 22 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
Protecting The Global Commons I agree with Adler that the first and second principles of the Libertarian Party 2010 platform are not inconsistent with a united international effort to control climate change. Where I believe the libertarians need to go further is to recognise that property rights are not just the private interest of individuals, groups, and governments. Nation states have been with us for thousands of years, but their borders end at the sea. The major portion of the Earth’s surface, the oceans together with Antarctica, are not the property of any individual nation. Neither does our precious atmosphere belong to any one nation. That leaves us with just two alternatives. Either the oceans and the atmosphere are the property of no-one, in which case everyone can pollute them as they please, or they are the common heritage of mankind, often referred to as the global commons, in which case nations must act together to protect them. For nations to effectively act to protect the global commons, I believe some kind of global governance is needed. We have the beginnings of that in the current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, but as we saw at Copenhagen, if this remains just a forum for nation states to protect their own self interest, our common interest will be compromised. How global institutions for protecting the commons develop remains to be seen, We already have a World Bank and a World Trade Organisation. Perhaps we need something like a World Carbon Bank. I think Hansen’s tax-and-dividend approach is a good option. At some point in the future I would like to see it implemented by all nations, perhaps even as a global system. Where libertarians can make a positive contribution, as we work together to combat climate change, would be to provide checks and balances to help ensure such global institutions are grounded on democratic processes that respect the principles of their platform. -
malamuddy at 13:08 PM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Please delete this if my maths is wrong,but the denialist figure of a "mere 0.004 of 1%" always worries me. Surely 0.004 of 1% is the same as .00004%. But 400 ppm carbon dioxide (which is probably the source of the figure) is .04%. If we were talking blood alcohol, we would be talking almost illegal quantities. -
topquark at 13:02 PM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Thompson said:It is a natural gas that is clear, tasteless and odourless.
Hey, just like carbon monoxide! P.S. "principle errors" should be "principal errors". -
dana1981 at 12:07 PM on 22 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
Gilles - your claim that the hockey stick rise is almost purely pre-1960 is pure nonsense -
Bern at 12:02 PM on 22 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
ranyl @ 70: Sorry, no, you're not quite right. The natural sinks of CO2 don't care about where the CO2 is coming from - all they care about is the atmospheric concentration. If atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are higher than the equilibrium point, the sinks absorb more of it. Period. So CBDunkerson's comment that the sinks would continue to absorb 17 gigatons per year is correct. You seem to have missed the point, though, that this rate is by no means constant - it will decrease as the atmospheric concentration decreases, and will logarithmically approach equilibrium (i.e. it will take centuries to get there). You are correct, though, that some current sinks will turn to sources - e.g. as atmospheric levels drop, CO2 dissolved in the oceans will start to come back out. This is one of the factors that greatly extends the time to reach equilibrium, especially as the oceans seem to be absorbing the vast majority of human emissions. -
Bern at 11:53 AM on 22 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
Gilles, you're forgetting the golden rule (well, one of them, anyway): Correlation does not equal Causation Personally, my income level is by no means tied to my consumption of fossil fuels. Why, I managed to reduce our fossil fuel consumption by at least 20% just by putting a solar hot water system on the roof, and, gosh, my pay hasn't gone down in the three years since... Has your employer told you that they'll cut your paypacket if you start using biofuels, or solar electricity? If so, that's certainly in breach of all manner of employment laws, at least here in Australia... -
Bern at 11:45 AM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
cloa513 - no, they talk about global mean temperature anomalies, which are by no means scientific nonsense. If you don't understand the difference, let me see if I can explain it simply for you (and any other readers who might be swayed by your words): If it's 1.3ºC warmer than average in Nairobi, and 1.3ºC warmer than average in Oslo, does that tell you something useful & meaningful? Even though it might be 35ºC in Nairobi but only 13ºC in Oslo? Obviously, you want to take more than just the values for any given day, to get a broader picture, and avoid "noise" in your data. That's done by averaging the values both geographically and over time. Otherwise, you'd be putting even more significance on things like a town in northern Canada having temperatures 30ºC above average back in January... (no, that is not a typo!) -
scaddenp at 11:29 AM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
cloa513, you seem to be trying hard to make this same point in the wrong place. How about posting this in temp record is unreliable, but be sure to read the resources there first. Especially, you should read the papers on how global temperature is determined. Its not done the way you seem to think it is and the methodology actually used is backed by a lot of actual research. Tamino's article pointed to there, can be found here (link in article broken).Moderator Response: [DB] I've just updated the Tamino links in the article you link to. Thank you for pointing out the bad links. -
adelady at 11:29 AM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
cloa513, I'm sure we've had this conversation before. Statistical averages are useful in many, many contexts. Number of children per family changing from 4.1 to 2.7 does not mean we've found a way to create fractional children. Reducing needed doses of a medication from 8.3 to 6.1 of a standard dose tablet does not mean that lots of people waste endless hours precision cutting tablets. Reducing the amount of land needed to produce a standard quantity of grain does not mean farmers are shaving slices off paddocks. But numbers like these do tell us really useful things about societies or medical practices or agriculture. Same for average global temperature. It's a useful indicator, it's not a detailed diagram of any particular thing.Moderator Response: [DB] You have a good eye and sharp memory. Checking, cloa513 has made 12 comments here at Skeptical Science on various threads. All 12 are variations on "we-can't-know-anything-it's-not-us-temps-are-unreliable-yadayadayada..." memes. Gold to adelady; Silver to scaddenp. :) -
ahaynes at 11:27 AM on 22 March 2011One-line rebuttals now available as flashcards for study or play
I updated the flashcards to use the new short URLs (link). But unfortunately (when you're Studying them online) you still can't click on the URL for the relevant SkS page, or even drag over the URL to copy it. A feature, say the flashcard folks; a bug, say I. -
Marcus at 11:14 AM on 22 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
HR, the warming rate for 1910-1940 was less than +0.12 degrees per decade. The warming rate for 1980-2010 was almost +0.17 degrees per decade. I'd call that a pretty stark difference in warming rates-especially when we consider the major factor driving the 1910-1940 warming-namely rising solar irradiance-were *absent* during the 1980-2010 warming phase. -
cloa513 at 11:13 AM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
So called scientists keep introducing the Global Mean Temperature even using basic physics its quite easy to show its a scientific nonsense- its maths without context. -
Gilles at 11:01 AM on 22 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
well, marcus, I have no idea of what you're calling "false" correlation.The correlation is mathematical and historical, and is plenty justified by physical laws. You said you have a dvd player, a cell phone and other toys. Do they grow naturally on trees in Australia ? don't you travel across your country or abroad (if not, I think you have a relatively low level of consumption, and may be of income - which wouldn't contradict the correlation of course). BTW, the cost of solar panel is not everything , of course - you have the obvious problem of intermittency, or the supplementary cost to mitigate it. -
villabolo at 10:58 AM on 22 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
"So how do Libertarians deal with the problem of climate change? I believe it was the late Milton Friedman who once said that externalizing business costs (which he justified) could be compared to the following. A coal burning power plant releases soot into the atmosphere and it dirties your white shirt. You have to clean your shirt more often. Even though it is the coal company's fault that your shirt is dirty, they do not pay the price of taking it to the dry cleaner's. Since the corporation, in his view, does not have any social responsibility but only the responsibility to itself of maximizing profits, they could "externalize" their costs all they want. All hail the Libertarian prophet! -
scaddenp at 10:57 AM on 22 March 2011Latest GRACE data: record ice loss in 2010
Henry, you wouldnt have to post questions like that if you simply bothered to read the papers. -
scaddenp at 10:55 AM on 22 March 2011The Climate Show Episode 9: Nuclear power and hot spots
And warmer nights/winters etc etc. -
Gilles at 10:53 AM on 22 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
so again dana : how do you interpret the "hockey stick" shape of proxy reconstruction, whose rise is almost entirely observed BEFORE 1960 ? is it mainly anthropogenic or natural? you said that anthropogenic component does not exceed 0.2 °C before 1960, but that is well inside the natural variation, so what happened to produce the "hockey stick" shape of proxies reconstruction (barring the instrumental records) ?Moderator Response: [DB] Please, no more all-caps (cf. Comments Policy). -
neilrieck at 10:49 AM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
In a court of law, the jury is presented with "factual evidence" and it is the job of the prosecution or defense to discredit it with expert testimony. When one side attempts to reintroduce previously debunked evidence, the other side can object, then is is up to the judge to sustain or overrule the objection in order that the case may proceed. In some instances the judge will address the jury directly telling them they must forget something just presented. But climate science is being debated "in the court of public opinion" rather than "a court of law" and it seems to me that that many non-science people feel the need to reintroduce the same non-sense debunked yesterday. They do this because there is no professional immediately available to raise an objection, or any judge to recognize what is going on then admonishing the participants in order to move things along. I fear that I.Q. levels on planet Earth have just dropped 20 points in the past 20 years and humanity will continue to go round-and-around on the climate warming issue until some wise Solomon steps in a makes a paternalistic decision for us. p.s. this constant rehashing not only happens in the field of climate science, I am told that patent clerks still get thousands of submissions each year for what one would commonly called "a perpetual motion machine" from poor sods with no understanding of the first and second laws of thermodynamics. -
scaddenp at 10:40 AM on 22 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
Yeah, self-evident "facts" like reducing carbon emissions will destroy the world economy and bring in a new dark age. I think everyone here has duty to ensure Gilles assertions are backed with data.Moderator Response: [muoncounter] A worthy goal; however, some commenters, especially those who tend to be prolific, resist substantiation of their opinions at all costs. Makes it all that much harder for the fact-based community. -
dana1981 at 10:27 AM on 22 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
HR #26 - you managed to fit a whole lot of strawmen into one comment there."You write an article that says roughly half the warming is from solar"
Sorry, where did I say that? I'm pretty sure what I actually said is that if the TSI increase was 1 W/m2, then the temperature increase due to solar effects was roughly on par with the increase due to CO2."What was the magnitude of warming from 1910-1940, you didn't state it?"
I said the trend was 1.3°C/century, which gives a magnitude of about 0.4°C over the 30 years."I'm assuming you think it's 0.3oC (half from CO2, half from solar)
You really shouldn't make assumptions. If I believed it was half CO2 and half solar, I wouldn't have also mentioned oceanic cycles, volcanoes, aerosols, etc."Are you assuming the earth came to equillibrium in this period?"
No, I most certainly am not."Is past articles you have suggested that we may have only realised 33% of the warming associated with the post-1950 forcing...Can you explain this discrepancy?"
Yes, the discrepancy is due to the fact that I never said that. We've actually realized about 60% of the warming associated with the post-industrial forcing. -
scaddenp at 10:26 AM on 22 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Tom, before you waste too much time on damorbel, you might like to look at page 5,6 etc. Also, note my post here. It seems that damorbel is not willing to be persuaded by experimental evidence on those terms. -
mothincarnate at 10:21 AM on 22 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
Ever feel like you're bashing on the same points, over and over again, only to hear the same irrational rejection of information? At this point, the AGW deniers still refuting the above simply don't care for evidence as far as I'm concerned. -
Paul D at 10:15 AM on 22 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Ken Lambert: "I trust is taken into account in all Wind power comparisons with coal, nuclear & geothermal." Despite the relatively low load factors for wind turbines, the energy payback is usually as good as or better than other sources. If you look at life time data: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html then you see that the worst case input energy for wind turbines is 16.7% of total energy output, the best case is just 1.3%. For coal, the worst case is 14% and the best is 2.9% For gas, the worst is 17.9% the best is 3.8% It should be pointed out that most nuclear power stations are just as inefficient as fossil fuel power stations, the efficiency is some 30% to 40%. The issue is even worse for coal since most of the embedded energy is wasted. -
HumanityRules at 10:11 AM on 22 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
17 dana1981 "HR and Kooti - it's entirely possible that less than 0.15°C of the early 20th century warming is due to solar effects. I don't see that as problematic" That seems a little cavalier. Do you accept that what Kooiti says is accurate? As he points out those estimates of solar variability you are using are already out of date even ignoring the new paper I pointed out. You write an article that says roughly half the warming is from solar then suggest even if this is not true it really doesn't matter. I don't get that. I've got a few separate technical questions. 1) What was the magnitude of warming from 1910-1940, you didn't state it? I'm assuming you think it's 0.3oC (half from CO2, half from solar) but this graph, from the climate graphics page, puts it around 0.5oC. Maybe those extra 0.2oC don't really matter as well?
2) Are you assuming the earth came to equillibrium in this period? Is past articles you have suggested that we may have only realised 33% of the warming associated with the post-1950 forcing. Yet here all warming has been accounted for from the forcing in these 40 short years. Can you explain this discrepancy?
-
siglerj at 10:06 AM on 22 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
Thanks Moderator for the good response.........a shock to the system explains it Another question....who knows how much heat man is adding to the atmosphere via electricity? And does wave and hydro electric technology actually remove heat when it converts wave and head pressure energy into electricity? I would think wind and solar does.Moderator Response: [DB] The CO2 cost of generated electricity is already factored into tracked emissions. The only way to remove heat from the system is for it to escape to space in the form of radiation (thermal). Until the radiative balance is restored, outgoing energy will remain less than incoming energy. -
grypo at 09:54 AM on 22 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
@siglerj You make a fair point about me grouping *all* corporations into this. It's not really my objective. In fact, Koch Industries is a private business and they started CATO and other type organizations. The main point is that people/ corporations/ private business who profit directly in some way from an unregulated market are funding think tanks. These think tanks are using the libertarian ideology, of which they may have some values in common, to further their goals that are not inherent to the libertarian principles. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:52 AM on 22 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
HuggyPopsBear... "mankind has been on this planet for 10 million years or more" I beg to differ on that point. Homo sapiens have been here maybe about 200k years. Human agriculture has been around for maybe 10k. Modern society about 150 years. And the Apple iPad has only been out a little over a year (of course, that being the latest major advance in human-technology interface). ;-) -
adelady at 09:46 AM on 22 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
siglerj - maybe none, maybe it will release rather than absorb CO2. Exposed soil allows the carbon content of that soil to be oxidised and become CO2 in the atmosphere. The reason why bad farming practices release CO2. If the ice/snow had been covering bare rock, it depends on what kinds of minerals the rocks are made of. If olivine or serpentine, then natural gradual weathering will make absolutely no difference on the decadal time scale, but will contribute a little to sequestration over millennia. The only real chance for absorbing carbon is if trees will grow. Grasses just become part of the carbon cycle. Trees, especially their roots, can accumulate carbon over time if growing conditions are favourable. -
HumanityRules at 09:44 AM on 22 March 2011Pre-1940 Warming Causes and Logic
12 Marcus The point is the peer-reviewed work (GRL I think) not that it shows up on WUWT, deal with it on that basis. 13 IanC The point would be that changes in TSI do seem to be too small to account for climate variability in the way we seem to understand it. What can I say, I'm trying to look at the science. There has been a constant revision of our understanding of TSI variation. Somebody can correct this if inaccurate, estimates of changes in TSI from MM to present have undergone constant revision. 3-6 W/M2 in the late 1990's. 1-2 W/M2 more recently. And now this paper is suggesting it's ~1/3 of that amount (0.33-0.66 W/M2). I think if your going to use the word speculative then you should put it into context. The short history of this science is one of constant revision as I've outlined, I don't see that this is any more speculative than the other. I think the unique approach is to say magnetitic variation is the sourse of other solar variations, I guess we have to wait and see whether that is accepted. "Now I am curious to see where you are going with this. Are you arguing that neither CO2 nor the sun drives our climate?" It does seem curious. I don't think one has to jump all the way to the idea that CO2 or the sun don't drive our climate but I think it's worth considering that of our understanding of the subject is missing something important. Ian if that work is accurate how would you interpret it? -
From Peru at 09:42 AM on 22 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
I'm sorry if I am off-topic, but the use given to the term "libertarian" causes my stomach to turn awfully bad. The term "libertarian" was hijacked by the far-right to mean an ideology based on an unregulated, totally free-market economy/society. But the original meaning was politically quite the opposite. It originated from the anarchism, particularly from the COMMUNIST variant, "libertarian communism", or "anarchocommunism/anarchosindicalism". The term was particularly popular in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) by anarchists, where the libertarian communism of the CNT/FAI (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo/Federación Anarquista Ibérica)
and the POUM (Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista)
was opposed to the authoritharian Stalinists of the PCE (Spain Communist Party) that finally took over the Republic in 1937-1938.
How a term so identified with the far-Left, totally hostile to capitalism, popped up in the free-market capitalism Right, is a mistery to me.
-
Marcus at 09:38 AM on 22 March 2011The True Cost of Coal Power
Again, Gilles, you haven't proven their extrapolations are *undue*-& they certainly provide a much more iron-clad case for their extrapolations than you provide to "prove" your false correlation between Fossil Fuel Consumption & Wealth. -
Rob Honeycutt at 09:38 AM on 22 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
HuggyPopsBear... Not a contraction in terms at all. Government is not the same as elected officials. -
siglerj at 09:37 AM on 22 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
Maybe someone can help me with this......when more ground is available after more ice and snow pack deteriorates, how much CO2 will the new land/plant area absorb? Is there an estimate of how much CO2 an acre or square mile of prarie absorbs?Moderator Response: [DB] Evidence tells us that the thawing Arctic is emitting methane and CO2 right now & increasing those emissions. By 2100, a thawing Arctic permafrost threatens to add about as much GHG to the atmosphere as mankind has. So don't count on that newly uncovered surface to be a carbon sink anytime soon. -
HuggyPopsBear at 09:27 AM on 22 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
Rob Honeycutt #3 Markets are fantastic and dealing with solutions, today. But it's the government that must set up the proper incentives that drive the solutions today to solve the problems of tomorrow. This is a contradiction in terms, first you state governments are limited by office and then make the statement above. One of the biggest problems with climate change is man himself, science and the many bantered ideologies. When I say man himself, I do not mean by his contribution to the atmosphere. Increase population without controls on ANY pollution is going to cause a variance in some structures. It will not undo the full process of mother nature and mans natural evolution within himself and technology will make new changes and advances and probably create another scenario further down the track. CO2 is cyclic as is precipitation, mankind has been on this planet for 10 million years or more, the last 150 years is but a mere second in time in comparison and will not reveal through scientific modelling what this planet has seen and whats more what has happened and is to come again. You don't have to be a scientist with degrees and phd's. Open your eyes and take a good hard natural look at nature There is nothing new under the sun my son.Moderator Response: [DB] You were doing so well, too, up until your last paragraph. You really need to read the Newcomers, Start Here thread and the Big Picture thread. We know much more than models can tell us. Such as you're wrong about CO2 being cyclical in its upward driving of temperatures in this interglacial. Mankind, in your 10 million existence ascribed to them, has never been a factor in the carbon cycle before. Until now. So that IS something new under the sun (yes, Ecclesiastes is a fav of mine), my son.
Prev 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 Next
