Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 Next
Comments 92551 to 92600:
-
Tom Curtis at 01:15 AM on 15 March 2011Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Having been sceptical of nuclear power since I was old enough to consider the issues, I have recently revised that position because of the threat of global warming. IMO, the threat of global warming is so large, and so imminent that we cannot responsibly take nuclear power of the table. However, my support is not unconditional. As a simple matter of geology, there are regions in the world with heightened radioctivity due to the presence of uranium ore. The presence of those ores may be of concern to particular communities, but is not of itself an environmental issue. Conceivably, the nuclear industry could treat its waste so that: 1) It is no more radioactive on average than uranium ore; 2) It is commercially more expensive to recover the radioactive material from the waste than it is to recover nuclear fuel from the ore; 3) The radioactive waste cannot leach into the water table; and 4) The radioactive waste is stored at a remote location, far from any significant population centers. If it did so, then the nuclear waste would be no more dangerous to future generations than was the original uranium ore from which it came. Meeting these requirements, therefore, removes the primary ethical objection to the use of nuclear fuels. There would remain serious issues relating to nuclear safety and proliferation, but these can be adressed as engineering and administrative/security issues. They are in principle soluble issues, for a sufficient price. That being the case, there is no in principle objection to nuclear power remaining, even as a long term solution to energy needs. It is just necessary to ensure safety standards for supply, transport, pocessing and use of nuclear fuels are sufficiently stringent, and that the disposal of nuclear waste meets the criteria above. That may make nuclear energy too expensive. Well then, tough, for that means it can only be made cheap enough by taking unacceptable risks. But if nuclear power is commercially viable given these criteria, then it should be among the energy solutions for a low carbon future. I do not think the crisis in Japan changes this. It is evident that better engineered reactors are needed in earthquake and tsunami prone regions, which may add to the cost of nuclear power. But that is not an in principle objection. -
RickG at 01:15 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
nofreewind @117, Would that not be better than a 3 deg C increase which is the direction we are headed? -
nofreewind at 01:04 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
>NoFreeWind, Instead of whining about your perceptions of what modern is, I suggest you just get on with the job and change. Sure let's wreck our civilization to bring down 2100 temperatures by .006 to .0015 degrees, at a cost of 1900 trillion dollars. Then the world will see how smart we are and follow us, that's the theory right. Maybe, if your models are right, we could bring down 2100 temps by .1 if the world world participates. "In rulemaking documents from April 2010, the EPA writes, “Based on the reanalysis the results for projected atmospheric CO2 concentrations are estimated to be reduced by an average of 2.9 ppm [parts per million] (previously 3.0 ppm), global mean temperature is estimated to by reduced by 0.006 to 0.0015 ˚C by 2100.” http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/epa-s-own-estimates-say-greenhouse-gas-r -
Eric (skeptic) at 00:48 AM on 15 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
I'd like to thank the mods, Tom Curtis and others for defending our imperfect form of government, and correct a trivial error by dhogaza: there were six Democrats (not five) voting against EPA oversight of GHG (see http://community.adn.com/node/151996) Also AFAIK, the amendment last summer marked the last time that either body of Congress could stop the EPA without the President's signature (they have a 60 day window to do that although there are technicalities involved and Republican may try to stop funding instead). BTW, Markey is a Representative, not a Senator. -
JMurphy at 00:21 AM on 15 March 2011Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Nuclear is definitely not the complete (or even major) answer to non-carbon sources of energy, despite what some have said on here in the past, particularly because of the possible worst-case scenario events - one of which we are witnessing in Japan. Now, the reply to that may be that most countries are not as vulnerable to earthquakes and tsunamis as Japan, or that this is showing just how tough they are because it may all be contained; but, at the very least, people are now being reminded about the ultimate dangers that lie behind even the safest of nuclear power stations because there is no guarantee that the worst will not happen and, if it does happen, the worst nuclear failure is, I believe, worse than that following the failure of any other type of power station. Nuclear, at most, must only be a temporary stop-gap between carbon-based forms of energy generation and the future reliance on wholly renewable sources. -
funglestrumpet at 23:58 PM on 14 March 2011UWA Climatecasts now on iTunes
Tried downloading via My Yahoo and despite it saying via a comment box that they are mp3 files, they are saved as html file type (with an '.htm' suffix). -
Daniel Bailey at 23:30 PM on 14 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
@ idunno (54) Thanks for the kind words. Points: 1. Agreed. To it I would add the extra warmth flowing through the Bering Strait as well as the thinning of the mixing layer immediately below the Arctic Ocean sea ice. Since most of the ice loss occurs through melting from below, this layer thinning means even warmer water is brought into play nearer the ice - and it is occurring year-round. Once the melt-season cranks up, if we get even a moderate Arctic Dipole, the daily losses will be breathtaking. Thinner ice means even more turbidity & "sloshing" around of the top layers of the Arctic Ocean, with even more thinning of the mixing layer (a temperature anomaly gradient would resemble a quadratic curve if graphed)... 2. Agreed. Logicman's March 2011 Arctic Ice post (update here) contained a strong prediction of an ice-free pole this summer. If not, 2012 will be a lock. I posted on Tamino's blog (Open Mind) last fall that 2011 had but a slim chance of seeing an open-pole, with 2012 being 50/50. I have since revised that opinion in light of the sum of evidence available. The models are simply unable to match what we see visually. Simple extrapolation, as you and others have performed, shows Maslowski to now be on the conservative side. Logicman's September 2011 prediction, for those who missed it:
3. Agreed. But also consider the historical role of Arctic Ocean sea ice: to inhibit surface turbidity & insulate the surface from the warmer waters found below (essentially the ice acts as a 2-way insulator preventing both heat loss to the atmosphere and a warming/cooling of the surface layer).
Some models show that a loss of summer ice initiates a phase change, wherein the system then proceeds to a no-ice (year-round) phase in a decadal timescale (essentially the model says the system supports only a fear-round ice OR a no-ice solution as having long-term stability).
4. Agreement, completely. I would add that a warming Arctic Ocean with no summer ice to retard mixing will then warm even more, increasing the forcing applied to the clathrate layers, causing even more melting than now currently being observed by Shahkova in the East Siberian Sea Shelf area. Clathrate destabilization has already been observed in other areas as well, even down to several hundred meters depths.
Not being an expert I can't speak to atmospheric anoxia, but any sizable clathrate melting would likely raise the spectre for local-to-regional scale oceanic anoxic events, resulting in outbreaks of red tide in areas that have never seen them.
Please do not "pipe down". Clathrate melting is perhaps the biggest under-researched and under-reported danger to our climate there is. I would encourage anyone to read as much as is available on the subject. One recent paper, summarized here, provides evidence for the "clathrate gun" hypothesis. An open copy is available here.
The only other advice I would offer is on the "presentation" of what you say (in regards to the atmospheric anoxia), not the message itself. Some may find you a bit alarmist & dismiss you out of hand (indeed, some consider me to be alarmist already). In sales, it is not the steak that sells, but the "sizzle" of the steak.
Best,
The Yooper
-
Marcus at 23:07 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Oh, & just to alleviate your confusion, I do believe that coal is a completely useless & obsolete resource-but again it doesn't hurt to have some in reserve just in case we need it. All the same, it is already possible to generate base-load & Peak-load power *without* needing to resort to coal or nuclear power. That still doesn't mean that I'm advocating an overnight switch from coal to renewable energy. As I said previously, in spite of your frequent straw-man arguments, even the anti-fossil fuel people here on this site recognize that a transition to a fossil fuel free economy is *not* going to occur overnight-but that doesn't mean we can't *start* that transition right now. People like you, however, would have us hold off any action until *after* the horse has bolted. -
Marcus at 23:04 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Yeah right Gilles, you've always sounded beyond convincing of anything outside of your narrow, pro-fossil fuel opinions (which reads as "Fossil Fuels GOOD. Renewable Energy BAD"-sound familiar?) There are still clearly things-like agriculture & plastics-for which suitable replacements for oil either do not yet exist, or do not exist in sufficient quantity to replace oil altogether, though in time even for these uses oil will become completely obsolete. Even then, its always good to have these resources in reserve, just in case we need it for some kind of emergency. Contrary to your straw-man arguments, I've never argued for the overnight abolition of the use of oil-or any other fossil fuel-but a transition away from a fossil fuel free economy over a space of several decades. Of course, if we keep *wasting* the oil on pointless things-like sitting around in peak hour traffic, each burning around 2L-3L/100km of petrol, then its not even going to last that long. Yet people like you & RSVP seem to think we should just keep using it recklessly until we're forced into a rapid transition by the complete depletion of the resource, a scenario which will almost certainly result in the wars, poverty & famine which you & RSVP keep telling us you want to avoid. -
idunno at 22:33 PM on 14 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
Hi The Yooper, I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable for this to be even in the "possibility zone", and I'm not too sure that it really needs another 20 years to move it into the "probability zone". To recap my (limited and non-expert) understanding of the situation to date: 1. Global warming has been occurring at an increased rate in the Arctic region. Over the last decade the greatest SST anomaly in the world occurs in the extreme North of the Atlantic ocean. Gulf Stream water entering the Artic through the Fram Strait is now warmer than at any time in the last 2000 years. 2. Maslowski posited in 2006 that the imbalance in the heat budget of the Arctic would lead to a seasonally ice free Arctic by 2016 +/-3 years. This now looks IMO conservative. 3. While the surface ice remains, it cools the seawater, just as ice in a glass of 7up would cool your drink. When the ice melts, it will warm and "go flat" much quicker. 4. Under natural forcings the climate has only previously warmed much more slowly. Due to the extreme rapidity of AGW, sea level has hardly begun to rise yet. This means that we are well outside the range of any natural threat to the clathrate stability layer. (Under conditions of gradual change, the change in water temperature would be compensated by a rise in sea level, which would force dissolved methane back into solution due to increased pressure.) I realise I am banging on about this a lot, but I do think it is being overlooked. Trying a Google news search for "arctic sea ice", I get about 3,000 hits; if I try "arctic methane", I get 46 hits... For me, this is now the elephant in the room. Sea level rise of (worst case scenario) 10 metres by 2100 means loads of people have to move house. Methane-induced atmospheric anoxia at any time before then means that they won't be moving very fast... The effects of a very small release of methane causing oceanic anoxia in the Gulf of Mexico last year were well reported. The methane in the Arctic is not at sufficient depth to be absorbed by the seawater. It will vent into the atmosphere. The hazard will not be oceanic anoxia, but atmospheric anoxia. I wrestled with my own conscience before posting anything on this subject anywhere. I don't want to scream "Fire" in a crowded theatre. But I do think I can smell smoke, and it currently seems to me that I would be more irresponsible NOT to mention this. As I have now clearly brought it to your attention, and from all I have read, you are clearly much more informed than I, I might now make some effort to pipe down. If you want to point out any ways in which my position is entirely erroneous, I would actually welcome this, as I'm sure would anyone else reading this... Otherwise, love your work. Keep it up! -
Gilles at 22:30 PM on 14 March 2011A Case Study in Climate Science Integrity
so, dana, you seem to be among the few guys in the world who know what a relaxation timescale really is ? then please can you explain me : how much is the climate relaxation timescale ? and how would you predict the evolution of the warming rate with a linearly increasing forcing (which is approximately the case since 1970 ) ? I prefer ask you before saying anything stupid.... -
michael sweet at 22:15 PM on 14 March 2011Solving Global Warming - Not Easy, But Not Too Hard
Will nuclear power have to be re-evaluated in light of the Japan crisis? It is too bad. I have always claimed to be agnostic about nuclear power, but if one leg of CO2 free energy is lost it will be harder to solve the problem. -
Gilles at 22:09 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Marcus, help, I'm lost. You just convinced me that oil and other fossil fuels weren't necessary after all, and now you're saying that it is of primordial importance to spare them as much as possible? Why spare a useless, unnecessary resource ? -
Marcus at 21:51 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
So RSVP, what do you think is going to happen to food supply when the oil actually runs out for good-as its expected to do sometime this century? The reality is that this is *exactly* the reason we need to start using *less* oil in areas where we don't need to use it (you know, like burning 20% of our petrol just to stand still in long queues of traffic?) We should be saving *every* drop of oil for those areas where there is still no suitable replacement, whilst simultaneously looking for ways to replace oil in those areas too. Unfortunately your mates (& you, judging from your prior arguments) seem to think we should continue wasting oil doing things in the most inefficient way possible and/or by using oil where genuine alternatives exist. For example, why does the US need to use so much oil to heat homes, when methane from a landfill or sewerage treatment would do just as well? Why drive one person to a car, in the height of peak hour, when you should be able to catch a bus or-better yet-work from home using our information superhighway? Indeed, why do so many people still insist on driving gas-guzzlers when they can get around in an electric vehicle for less than a quarter of the running costs of a diesel or petrol powered vehicle? Or is your famine argument just another straw-man argument designed to defend the all-powerful oil industry's profits? -
alan_marshall at 20:30 PM on 14 March 2011Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
John, This site has become what it is because of your vision, skill and selfless dedication, but most of all because of your love for humankind, and your passion for truth. The recognition of the site implied by the nomination is an encouragement to minor contributors such as myself to play our part and to seek excellence. May the truth prevail! -
Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
Hi John Congratulations on the nomination and the iphone app. Info on the app comes in handy when responding to blogs on the ABC drum! -
PhysSci at 20:00 PM on 14 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Ben, You are mixing apples and oranges here, and obviously do not understand the subject being discussed... Your skin is a strong absorber of IR, but it is also a strong emitter of IR ... When I say 'IR trapping', I mean preventing of IR radiation generated inside from escaping to the outside. That prevention is done NOT through high-emissivity materials but by using low-e (thermally highly reflective) materials ... Talk to any engine mechanics, and he will tell you that in order to help cool an engine, they use black covers of high IR emissivity. That's because such covers help transfer more efficiently the IR heat generated by the engine to the outside environment ... I have done more reading about the radiative transfer theory than you can imagine. From your response regarding the First Law of thermo, I gather that you did not understand my points in the previous posting. Please, read it again and think it through one more time ... I'm not your 'garden variety' of 'climate skeptics', and believe me there is hardly anything you could tell me that I do not already know. On the other hand, I could probably tell you a few things that would enhance your knowledge on this subject ... For example, did you know that this 30 deg (or actually 33 deg) GH effect that's quoted in all popular literature, is mathematically wrong? One arrives at this number, when solving the S-B equation for temperature using observed solar irradiance and the Earth's total albedo. However, since radiation is a 4th power function of the absolute temperature, if one has a non-uniform distributions of temperatures such as on a spherical planet, one does NOT get the TRUE mean surface temperature by simply inverting the S-B equation. Mathematically, this is explained by Hoelder's inequality. The correct way to calculate the 'black-body' (airless) temperature of Earth (or any planet for that matter) is to first take the 4th root of the radiation absorbed at EVERY point on the surface, and THEN average (integrate) the resulting temperatures across the planet surface. When one does that, one finds that the actual GH effect is 133C. That's right - the presence of an atmosphere raises the average temperature on Earth by 133C, not 33C! ... This implies the presence of considerable EXTRA energy in the lower atmosphere above the amount supplied by the Sun. I hope this helps ...Moderator Response: [muoncounter] Please check that you have the correct names of those to whom you respond. Please refrain from subjective judgment as to who understands what and lofty declaratives like "there is hardly anything you could tell me that I do not already know." Those kinds of statements do not serve to enhance your credibility. Please note also that you've claimed a lot of reading and have yet to cite a single scientific reference. The preferred style here at SkS is to make a point and immediately show some substantiation of it, preferably from a peer-reviewed publication. If you've read this thread from the beginning, you've noted that opinion-based science doesn't usually stand scrutiny - and those discussions do little except go in circles. If you follow these suggestions, you'll find that you can have a worthwhile debate. -
RSVP at 19:06 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
To: dana1981 I wrote, "...yet, how many people would still be alive, say, one year after a complete ban on fossil fuel consumption? " ...to which you wrote (dana1981 at 07:35 AM on 14 March, 2011 ), "RSVP - nobody is suggesting a complete ban on fossil fuel consumption. No strawmen please" ...OK, not a complete ban, so is it also a strawman to assume climate science has determined that there will be less human suffering on the whole if the big oil valve in the sky gets cranked to the right, (precisely at a historical point when world oil consumption is on the increase), and that the amount of this adjustment has been adequately determined? Here I am not questioning the effects of GHGs. I am only saying that there is no free lunch at this point. The world food supply depends on oil in a huge way, and any reduction in oil is going to affect world hunger, which means lives. I am comparing apples with apples, no strawman. If anything is a strawman, its your trite reply. -
Bern at 18:48 PM on 14 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
since IR radiation travels at the speed of light, it can only be trapped by materials of very low emissivity and (respectively) high IR reflectivity such as aluminum, polish silver etc.
Er, no. Somehow, my skin (which is an awful long way from being aluminium or polished silver) traps IR radiation quite effectively - I know I quite appreciate that fact during the cooler months, standing under the heat lamps in the bathroom! To argue that IR is only trapped by materials that effectively reflect it is a fundamental misunderstanding of radiative heat transfer.This fact is well known in the insulation industry and is the basis for the so-called radiant barrier technology pioneered by NASA some 40 years ago.
Er, again, no. The "radiant barrier technology" doesn't absorb IR - it reflects it. You know, bounces it back where it comes from. Foil layers in building insulation are used to do just that - reflect IR either back into the home (to warm it in cold climates) or back out of the home (to stop it heating up in warm climates). As for your comments as to why GH theory violates the First law of thermodynamics - sigh. I suggest you do a bit more reading about radiative heat transfer and the greenhouse effect. Pay particular attention to the bits about how the surface of the earth is about 30ºC warmer than a simple radiative balance with solar input would suggest.Moderator Response: [DB] Careful, the D-K is strong in this one. I fear you are in for a long slog in your efforts. -
PhysSci at 18:46 PM on 14 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
scaddenp - Read my posting above and it will answer some of your questions. Regarding the efficiency of energy transfer by radiation vs, convection, in the atmosphere (which is a fluid), convective cooling is much more efficient than radiative cooling, simply because radiative heat exchange depends on the 4th power of absolute temperatures, while convection depends on the simple difference between temperatures. That's with respect to sensible heat flux. Latent heat flux (i.e. cooling due to evaporation) can transfer heat even across zero or negative temperature gradients as long as there is a spatial gradient in water vapor concentrations. Most convective cooling of the Earth surface is due to latent heat fluxes. Globally, the convective cooling of Earth's surface (sensible + latent heat flux) is at least 2.5 times bigger than the long-wave radiative cooling. Check papers by Trenberth et al (1997, 2009). As I said in my previous posting, the lower troposphere contains more energy than supplied by the Sun. Where is that energy coming from? -
Dan Moutal at 18:38 PM on 14 March 2011Irregular Climate Episode 18 (featuring Dana Nuccitelli)
Looks like archive.org is up and running again. So everything should be back to normal, and downloads should complete without a hitch. -
PhysSci at 18:29 PM on 14 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
This is a response to scaddenp from another blog. I've been asked to post this here as a more relevant place ----------------------- scaddenp - Yes, I have read the article "2nd Law of thermodynamics and greenhouse theory". Firstly, I never said that the GH theory violates the 2nd Law of thermo. I said it violates the First Law pertaining to energy conservation, which is even worse, because among the 4 laws of thermodynamics, only the First one is mathematically exact! Secondly, the above article makes a common mistake as many other popular publications do by using the 'blanket' analogy to describe the working of the atmospheric GH effect. Specifically it states: "The Earth loses heat to space, and your body loses heat to the environment. Greenhouse gases slow down the rate of heat-loss from the surface of the Earth, like a blanket that slows down the rate at which your body loses heat. The result is the same in both cases, the surface of the Earth, or of your body, gets warmer." Nothing can be more misleading! As I explained in a previous posting (now deleted!), blankets, coats, and real greenhouses preserve heat by obstructing convective heat exchange, not radiative cooling, i.e. by physically trapping air mass. The free atmosphere does not impose any restriction on the surface convective cooling. That is why the term 'atmospheric greenhouse effect' is a misnomer, and has been identified as such in the science literature back in the 1970s and 80s. In addition, since IR radiation travels at the speed of light, it can only be trapped by materials of very low emissivity and (respectively) high IR reflectivity such as aluminum, polish silver etc. This fact is well known in the insulation industry and is the basis for the so-called radiant barrier technology pioneered by NASA some 40 years ago. Since the atmosphere contains no IR-reflecting substances, and has a negligibly small heat storage capacity, it cannot physically 'trap' heat of any kind (radiative or convective)! Now, here is why the GH theory violates the First law of thermodynamics. These facts are well-known in the science literature, but not usually discussed in popular outlets such as this website - Satellite and surface based observations have determined that the Earth-atmosphere system absorbs on average 239 W m-2 solar (short-wave) radiation. At the same time, the lower troposphere emits towards the surface some 343 W m-2 long-wave radiation (the so-called down-welling thermal flux). If the GH effect were due to absorption and re-emission of IR energy by greenhouse gases ultimately traceable to solar input as claimed by the current theory, then how is it possible that the down-welling thermal flux exceeds the total solar input by 44% (343/239 = 1.44). Simply put, observations indicate that the lower troposphere of Earth contains significantly more internal energy than provided by the Sun. This situation is extreme on Venus, where the down-welling thermal flux is about 80 times larger than the average absorbed solar flux by the entire planetary system of Venus! Given the rather small heat storage capacity of the atmospheres on both planets, these data cannot be explained in the context of the current GH theory founded on radiation interception without violating the Firs law of thermo! ... Yes, the lower atmosphere does contain energy above and beyond of what the Sun provides, but the source of that energy is not IR radiation! It's something else and much more fundamental ... Can you guess what it is? -
PhysSci at 18:21 PM on 14 March 2011The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
Rob Honeycutt - yes, the Holocene is much more stable than glacial periods, no doubt, and this has to do with orbital variations. Also, we currently live in one of the warmest (if not THE warmest) periods of the Holocene contrary to some skeptics, who try to prove that the global temperature has been much higher 7-8 thousands years ago. All these discussions about how warm the present is or how big the rate of temperature change over the past 100 years has been compared to past periods are besides the point. The point is, where is the empirical evidence that any of the temperature changes (past and present) were caused by variations in CO2 or any other so-called 'greenhouse gases'? I have researched this topic in detail, I can tell you with full confidence that is NO credible empirical evidence in the entire historical record that CO2 has had ever any impact on Earth's climate! The CO2-climate 'connection' ONLY exists is virtual realities generated by models, but not in our physical reality. In fact, the whole GH theory is based on radiative transfer models from the 1960s and 70s ... -
From Peru at 18:19 PM on 14 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
Chris Colose: But what a 50ºC or 70ºC hot, super-sauna Earth with enormous amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere (as in the Archaean Eon and in the snowball aftermath) would mean for the atmospheric dynamics? What kind of clouds cover would dominate the Earth, high level (cirrus), low level (cumulus and stratocumulus) or monstruous convective (cumulonimbus)? How much of the planet would be cloud-covered? Could it be near 100%? How big would be the Tropical Storms? Could they reach the warm Poles? -
Gilles at 18:09 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
sorry a whole bunch has disappeared after the "smaller than" sign. [snipped]Moderator Response: Once again discussion of the Greenhouse Effect should be discussed on The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics -
Dan Moutal at 16:54 PM on 14 March 2011Irregular Climate Episode 18 (featuring Dana Nuccitelli)
Archive.org (which hosts the podcasts) is currently down. Hopefully this wont last long, but there is really nothing I can do to fix the issue. Sorry for the hiccup, and keep trying to download. It will work eventually. -
dana1981 at 16:33 PM on 14 March 2011Irregular Climate Episode 18 (featuring Dana Nuccitelli)
It's my first interview, so don't go in with high expectations! -
Kevin Hood at 16:21 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
dhogaza I agree the grassroots effort thus far is a patchwork thus far. But I also think there is a potential for sweeping change at the municipal and possibly the state level. You make a good point about State's rights. There's always federal-state tension, but I agree that the strength of the bonds are going to be tested to new degrees soon. While I hear your frustration with nothing getting done, I am not sure that nothing is worse than passing cap-and-trade. deFazio's observations make it seem that cap-and-trade might simply give an illusion of progress where none has been made. It might be better to know nothing has been done. I also have a powerful skepticism as to using the same free-market/profiteering mechanisms that tanked the U.S. economy - and contributed mightily to the current climate change plight - for resolving the situation. I favor a carbon tax, preferrably an increasingly punitive one over time, where the proceeds go to renewable energy and efficiency efforts. Of course, the word "tax" is considered a death knell to any proposition - but I think that that paradigm is worth challenging. At least you have progressively idealistic representatives in Oregon. Here in Alaska our politicians would drill through their grandmother's graves to get a drop of oil. -
dhogaza at 15:47 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Here's a good article as to why Cap-and-Trade is a Bad Idea by a US Congressional Representative (Peter deFazio, Democrat out of Oregon).
I'm from Oregon, and I like DeFazio, but the problem is that he's wrong in the sense that doing *nothing* is definitely worse than Cap and Trade. And he has never offered an alternative that has had any chance of passing. His idealism also led to him voting against the health care reform law. Sorry, Peter, extending coverage to more people is better than sitting on our ass and being disappointed that the law didn't legislate Nirvana (it's an easier argument for him because the Oregon Health Care plan already provides basic coverage for everyone in the state, not as good as [say] Costa Rica, but better than any state other than perhaps MA (but we passed our law years earlier). So his stance wasn't hurting oregonians, necessarily - just red state poor people. -
dhogaza at 15:44 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Spare me the discussion of how individual households represent only a miniscule part of the carbon emission equation - I get that. But members of these same households are those who work in industry and who have the mouths that require much agriculture and consequent transportation. Can we not push for reform/minimizing carbon footprints at our work?
Etc ... Actually many states and municipalities have been taking action, for many years. It's patchwork, and not as effective as federal actions, and obviously those states with tards as governor (Wisconsin ...) aren't playing, but progress is being made. The really huge problem on the horizon will be the Right fighting States' Rights to do pollution control, with the Federal government forbidding such action. This fight's been going on for a couple of decades, at least, with the "States Rights über alles" extreme right insisting that it only applies to states that walk away from federal regulations on business, pollution, etc ... if states exceed federal law/regulation, "States Rights" flies right out the window for these people. -
dhogaza at 15:39 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
garythompson:This article seems to imply that if only Republicans were removed from office then Cap and Trade legislation would pass. But in 2009 and 2010, Democrats had a 'super majority' in both the House and the Senate and also occupied the Executive branch. They had 2 years to push through any legislation they deemed relevant and there wasn't anything Republicans could have done to stop them. Why did they not pass Cap and Trade?
Fillibuster in the Senate. Obama put health care reform first, and since there are always a couple of Dems from coal-producing states, getting 60 votes on cloture was problematic from the beginning. Your claim that "they had 2 years to push through any legislation they deemed relevant" is false regarding cap and trade, because of those Dems from coal-producing states. With MA voting in a Republican, even the dream of getting 60 votes disappeared. Yes, if there had been no Republicans in the Senate, cap and trade would've been passed (actually, more likely, a straight carbon tax). The same would've been true if the Senate followed the more democratic rules of the House. But the combination of the fillibuster and a very small number (<5) of Dems who are beholden to the fossil fuel industry ... there was no chance. -
Kevin Hood at 15:22 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
PS: Here's a good article as to why Cap-and-Trade is a Bad Idea by a US Congressional Representative (Peter deFazio, Democrat out of Oregon). -
Kevin Hood at 15:09 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Considering that many of us here appear to be enduring ruling bodies suffering cranial-rectal inversions, here's a simple question: Why not just ignore them? Can we not affect immense change from the ground up? Spare me the discussion of how individual households represent only a miniscule part of the carbon emission equation - I get that. But members of these same households are those who work in industry and who have the mouths that require much agriculture and consequent transportation. Can we not push for reform/minimizing carbon footprints at our work? Can we not forsake cars and use public transport or nonmotorized means? Can we not consume only locally grown food, plant trees, minimize our consumer purchases? And so on - in say, a million different ways? Or are we dependent on the governing bodies above to come around and approve meaningful action? The bumperstickers "Think Globally, Act Locally" and "If enough people lead, the leaders will follow" have at least a kernel of truth. -
garythompson at 15:08 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Nothing like a political post to get the juices flowing....I posted on here at #2 and then 24 hours later it's over 100. Seems we have a lot of political steam to vent. While I can see the reason to do this occasionally on this website, I have to agree with others on here that I hope this is not going to be the norm for this site. I love this website and continue to view it daily and hope it doesn't turn into a RC clone. I've learned more on this website about Climate Science than all the others put together and I applaud those who make this site possible. There was a question from my post that I hope to clarify here. #15 - MattJ "Your idealized picture of the American personality is quite false. Why, now I have to play the part of the man from Missouri and ask YOu for the evidence for your stance: don't tell me, show me that such is the attitude of the majority of Americans." This article seems to imply that if only Republicans were removed from office then Cap and Trade legislation would pass. But in 2009 and 2010, Democrats had a 'super majority' in both the House and the Senate and also occupied the Executive branch. They had 2 years to push through any legislation they deemed relevant and there wasn't anything Republicans could have done to stop them. Why did they not pass Cap and Trade? Because they knew the majority of people didn't feel it was necessary and this included many Democrats. If the country wanted this, then the politicians would have felt secure in passing it. They didn't. -
mothincarnate at 15:02 PM on 14 March 2011Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
My votes in also! -
muoncounter at 14:46 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
"beginning immediately WW2 ended?" Hardly. Very little about US foreign policy before the 'fall' of the USSR had to do with exporting democracy. More to the point was a series of proxy wars. But what does this have to do with the topic of this thread, which is mired in the politics of here and now? -
TimTheToolMan at 14:45 PM on 14 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
This entire line of argument relies on model results that will become less reliable and relevent the further they get from the climate's component values against which they were built. The parametisation values will quickly move away from reality as new equilibriums are established in the real world for the case where CO2 was magically instantaneously removed from the atmosphere. Put another way, our models today have a snowballs chance in hell of being even vaguely accurate when moddeling climate heading towards a snowball earth. -
Susanne at 14:09 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
It's John's site and he can do what he likes with it. But it's of immense value to me and if this post heralds a change of direction towards discussing the politics of one nation - any nation - then I feel that its value will be reduced. The comments on this post, including my own, reinforce that feeling. Climate is a global matter. Politics is not. The political discussion in my country is just as brain-dead as the discussion in the US, but it's not the same discussion. I have a small chance of influencing the policy of my own government. I have none at all of influencing that of the US. This is one out of hundreds of posts. I sympathise with its content but to me as a regular reader and frequent referrer to Skeptical Science it really does seem out of place. I hope it's useful for you, meaning John and mods, to know that. Many thanks and best wishes.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion, as opinions matter and can make a difference. But there is a method to our madness. :) More science is coming, with yet more in the pipeline. -
Tom Curtis at 13:32 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
johnd @97, you are apparently now equating the mere existence of laws with the rule of law. I am certain that the unholy trinity I mentioned had laws; but I am equally certain that they did not hold those laws to apply to themselves nor their enforcement agencies. I am even more certain they did not follow the procedures of the law in their various show trials, persecutions and progroms. Nor are they exceptional. Tyrants of all stripes have been as common as muck throughout history, and nearly all brought for a time, stability and discipline to their nation. (There are a few exceptions, such a Caligula, that did not.) Just because I mentioned only three examples does not mean I could not have found a hundred and more from just the 20th century alone - as you should know. Further, anarchy would have been much preferable in Cambodia during the reign of Pol Pot, and possibly better in Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. To the extent that it was not, it was only because they attained the least of the virtues of government, whilst trampling over the greater. Because Somalia is (possibly) worse than Burma to live in; does that leave any question that it would be preferable to either to live in a democracy with the rule of law? -
Tom Curtis at 13:15 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
dhogaza @96, it is apparently important to you that the US not be considered a democracy. That is fine, I consider it sufficiently undemocratic that its government has only a borderline claim to legitimacy. However, denying that it was one of the most democratic nations on Earth in the 19th century, let alone in the 1950's seems a very long stretch. Suggesting (which is necessary for your counter argument) that making the US more democratic in the 1860's or 1950's would somehow have avoided the somehow avoided the abuses of slavery, and of African American civil rights is, I think, an even longer stretch. There is no evidence that at those times, the views of politicians were significantly out of step with their constituents (quite the contrary). Of course, a full and consistent implementation of the rule of law would have avoided those particular abuses; but not lifted African Americans from the poverty imposed by years of prejudice. As to your assertions about the intentions of the founding fathers, they all assented to the claim that: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..." That is a democratic principle if any, and if they fell short of their aspiration by not allowing the governed to indicate their consent or dissent because they were poor, or a woman, or black, that is to their shame (a shame from which we exonerate them due to the age in which they lived, but for which we would repudiate them if they expressed similar views now). What is more, Lincoln was quite clear about what sort of government was intended (if not fully effected in the US). It was democracy he fought for, so that "... this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." No matter that the US has often fallen short of aspiration; its aspiration has been democracy from its birth. Finally, campaign funding laws and poor education and media are far bigger threats to democracy in the US than any feature of its Constitution. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:14 PM on 14 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
Anyone interested in the topic of mass extinctions - or at least if we're to be part of one - may be interested in the comment at the other end of this link. Not yet time for "Auld Lang Syne", but the time neareth. The Yooper -
johnd at 13:08 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
muoncounter at 12:41 PM, by "recent", I take it to mean beginning immediately WW2 ended? -
johnd at 13:06 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Tom Curtis at 12:10 PM, I never expect that there will be 100% compliance with any assertions made, nor should ones overall view be characterised by the exceptions. To imagine that the three examples given controlled their regimes without any rules or laws ignores the realities. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if there was a total power vacuum and thus anarchy? Agreeing or not with such rules is a different matter. Who would propose that anarchy would have been preferable? Democracy should not be defined by the labels regimes apply to themselves, but rather by whether they meet the required criteria or not. Clearly a regime that imposes slavery or denies civil rights is one in name only. Perhaps you can offer an alternative to the "greater good/ greater number" that contravenes the concept and does not merely reword it. -
David Horton at 12:55 PM on 14 March 2011Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
Way to go John! And I totally agree with the nomination's notes about the large number of posts you manage to get up daily with little financial support and while doing a day job! The quality and quantity of the posts here is astounding for a basically one man operation (yes, I know behind every good man is a better woman), even taking into account the contributions from guest writers and moderators. Fingers crossed. -
dhogaza at 12:47 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
TomC: " There have been many democracies (or near approaches to democracy) which have been unequitable; which the history of slavery and the civil rights movement in the US should inform you of". Once again, the United States is not a democracy (and the Founders viewed the possibility with horror). During the antebellum era, US Senators weren't even elected by the citizens of their states. They were appointed by the state legislators. Many states had property requirements for voting, and women could not vote (even if they could, in many states, they would not have been legally able to own the requisite property - land - anyway). We're nearer a democracy today than then, but still a long ways from it. dana1981: "When a 41% minority can obstruct the will of a 59% majority, that's not even close to democracy." And remember that the fillibuster exists in a body that is already *highly* undemocratic in that each state has two senators regardless of population (as a citizen living in a smaller state, I happen to *like* that Oregon is on an equal footing with California in the Senate, but it *is* undemocratic in principle). It works out that Senators representing about 10% of the population of the United States are theoretically able to block legislation from passing the Senate ... Does this fit TomC's definition of "nearly democratic"? Now, when Obama was sworn in, the legislative branch *was* "nearly Democratic" :) -
muoncounter at 12:41 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
johnd: "an over commitment in the expense involved in imposing democracy elsewhere in the world." No, the problems with US public education are far older than our recent fascination with giving others the gift of democracy, whether they like it or not. We were able to educate a generation of engineers when the Russians put the fear of rockets into our government. Since that crisis ended, we've been more interested in letting our children educate themselves and they've chosen to learn how to become first-person shooters. -
scaddenp at 12:37 PM on 14 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Posting here in hope PhysSci will respond in correct place? "Regarding satellite observations of atmospheric absorption of IR radiation emanating from the surface, they show just that 'absorption' and provide no evidence for a temperature change due to such absorption" Consider ground detectors of IR (DLR). If there is no evidence of temperature change at the surface, explain to me how these detectors work? You seem to be implying that energy absorption by the surface of the detector is not allowed? As to efficiency of radiation cf convection. Lets see surface radiation averages 390W/m2. Convection moves 12W/m2 (and zero off planet). -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:26 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
johnd @ 88... No one is confusion politics and religion here. You keep jumping to conclusions. I'm talking about early years of science where scientific concepts were a challenge to the power structure, which at that time was a religious power structure. For the most part, religion tends to be a very minor influencer in the issue of climate change. But we are very clearly embroiled in a situation today where science is telling us something that is politically inconvenient to one side of the political spectrum. It's this case that causes basic aspects of physics to become a political tennis ball.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text. -
Tom Curtis at 12:10 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
johnd @84, let me assure you that Stalin was all about discipline (as also Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung). They were not, unfortunately, about the rule of law. If you meant "rule of law" when you wrote "discipline" you should have chosen your words more carefully. But do not, whatever you do, mistake one for the other. You are correct that institutional stability (but not stability of policy) is a prerequisite of democracy; but that does not make it the greater virtue. Stability is desirable because of the conditions it allows us to achieve; and therefore is no more valuable than those condistions. Democracy is desirable of itself. Further, equity and democracy are not the same thing. There have been many democracies (or near approaches to democracy) which have been unequitable; which the history of slavery and the civil rights movement in the US should inform you of, even if the Terror in France (or the Murder of Socrates) have slipped your memory. Finally, the greater good for the greater number is consistent with the torture, rape and murder of the small minority; and the later has occurred in pursuit of the former more times in history than can be enumerated. Therefore "the greater good for the greater number" cannot be primary objective of government, still less its basis. -
Marcus at 12:03 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
John D, the running down of education in the US is down to the simple fact that *both* sides of politics in the US are fearful that a well-educated populace might decide to get rid of the whole lot of them. That fear will only increase in light of recent events in North Africa.
Prev 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 Next
