Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  1851  1852  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  1862  1863  1864  1865  1866  Next

Comments 92901 to 92950:

  1. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Muoncounter @32, I doubt actual democracy requires that kings be philosophers, and certainly philosophers should never be kings. But a commitment to democracy does imply a free, universal system of high standard public education. dana @38, the US is not a democracy (and neither is Australia, though it is closer). But democracy is the only ethical system of government. I believe it is fundamental to moral reasoning that you cannot achieve ethical ends by unethical means. Therefore, any policy to ensure action is taken to prevent excessive AGW must be part of a policy to genuinely implement democracy in government to be capable of long term success.
  2. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    scaddenp - I'd be happy to send you a copy of my paper describing the new GH theory. Please, email me your contact info at ntconsulting@comcast.net. 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... Since that IR energy comes from the surface, it is already IN the system, and according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, cannot raise the surface temperature even further .. To give you a little clue, think about the possibility that convective cooling could completely offset the radiative warming due to GH gases, because convection is many orders of magnitude more efficient than radiation in transferring energy ...
  3. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    scaddenp at 07:52 AM , I agree with your sentiments regarding political commentary, but it is not something new. For example, the numerous threads that discussed non-scientific figures such as Monckton amounted to such. I feel that John Cook himself now needs to clarify the philosophy that underpins his site given, as stated earlier, the whole thread contravenes the comments policy. The inclusion of the word "physics" in the title is a red herring. The essential element to this discussion and the events being discussed, as mentioned continuously, is "public health or welfare" and economics, and it is that on which these political decisions, and hence this whole thread is based on.
  4. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Excellent group of comments and arguments. Sorry for my "broad brush" but I'm incensed by the conservative anti-science agenda. It's nothing new in the U.S. We still see it in the organic evolution debate and have seen it in the acid rain, ozone hole, cigarette causing cancer debate, etc. Conservatives in the U.S. are supported by big business and therefore big money. They are on the wrong side of the climate science debate.
  5. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gilles: "ALL so-called "alternative" energies require cheap and abundant materials above, all made with ... cheap fossil fuels." Gilles will continue to argue without recourse to evidence as long as we keep responding. What he seems to forget (or conveniently ignore) is one reason why fossil fuel use was historically cheap: Neither producers nor consumers had to clean up their waste product, they could just dump it into the air without thought. What other product could be used with no cost for waste disposal? The future cost of any remediation of AGW (if such is possible) is part of the free ride the fossil fuel industry has lived on for the last hundred years. Current attempts to wish the problem away just postpone the inevitable day when the bills will come due.
    Moderator Response: [DB] "Gilles will continue to argue without recourse to evidence as long as we keep responding."

    Indeed. He is prosecuting the same orbit as he conducted at RC for many threads for many months, tying up the resources of many gifted and knowledgeable people.

  6. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    dhogaza #64 - indeed, as I've noted a couple of times, if the US were a democracy then we would already have a carbon cap and trade system in place. So comments about how great a system democracy is aren't really relevant here. When a 41% minority can obstruct the will of a 59% majority, that's not even close to democracy. scaddenp #65 - precisely correct. Whether or not commenters personally believe the body of climate science evidence is correct is not the issue here. The issue is that Republicans are trying to dictate climate science with politics. They did not even make an effort to support their position that the EPA endangerment finding (which was based on a large body of scientific evidence) is wrong. Ultimately this isn't an issue for politicians to decide. This is why there are scientists working at the EPA, so they can accurately assess the body of scientific evidence. Unless the EPA decides that GHG emissions don't endanger public health and welfare, the alternative path that politicians should be pursuing is the first one described in the article - implementing a different carbon emissions control system. If the science is wrong, it will be borne out through scientific research, not through politics.
  7. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    PhysSci - the point of this article is that you cant legislate laws of physics, and law-makers attempts to do so suggest that they think you can choose your reality. Challenges to the science go elsewhere on this site. This is what makes this site useful and I would be disappointed if moderators allowed otherwise.
  8. Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    Congrats John, you're the heart of this site and you deserve the honor. Congrats also to the "triumvirate" John Abraham/Scott Mandia/Ray Weymann, they have my vote.
    Response: Thanks Riccardo but I will stress that the nomination is for the organization category and very much is for the SkS community as a whole. And that includes you! :-)
  9. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Tom Curtis:
    Rather, democracy is desirable as government because it alone of all governments reflects the equal moral worth of all people by giving all people an equal say in the governance of their nation.
    Given that the United States is explicitly *not* a democracy, but rather a representative republic, what's the relevance of your comment? If our government were intended to give all people an equal say in the governance of their nation, California and Alaska wouldn't have the same number of Senators ...
  10. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Assuming the topic of this thread is supposed to be the republican's attempt to repeal science, note it's not the first time. When the US Fish and Wildlife Service made a scientific determination that the northern spotted owl was seriously declining and met the definition of a species that should be listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, George HW Bush (Bush the Elder or Bush I, to more clearly differentiate him from "W") ordered the USFWS to disregard the scientific funding and refuse to list the species. Which led to a federal district court judge pointing out that this was illegal, because the ESA states that a decision to list or not be based solely on the Service's scientific determination.
  11. Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    My vote's already in.
  12. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics

    dana1981, let me clarify. This whole discussion about burning fossil fuels, cap and trade, the EPA attempt to regulate carbon emissions and the current actions of Congress to stop EPA is ALL rooted and based in the Greenhouse Theory. I posted my first comment in response to the the titles of the article that started this whole blog - "Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics". If the GH theory is wrong, then the entire discussion about regulating CO2 is muted ... Political decisions regarding climate HAVE to be based on physical realities <snip>

    Response:

    [dana1981]The reason we don't allow off-topic comments is so that the discussions don't get derailed.  If we allow you to repeat every "skeptic" myth you can come up with, then people will have to respond to all these myths, and we will lose track of the discussion at hand.

    If you want to argue about the greenhouse effect, as a previous comment noted, see "the greenhouse effect has been falsified" and comment there.  If you want to claim that carbon pricing will destroy the economy, see "CO2 limits will harm the economy".  If you want to dispute the physical evidence behind AGW, see "it's not us" or "CO2 effect is weak".

  13. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics

    I would have to say to John Cook that I am not that happy with political commentary on this site, like this one. Everyone can have a political opinion so it brings out a mile of irrelevant comment with no scientific content at all. Just clogs the Recent comments. Furthermore, there are plenty of sites for this type of discussion eg http://climateprogress.org/, but this site is unique in its focus on the scientific arguments and rigorously applied comments policy.

    Response:

    [dana1981]Your displeasure is noted.  However, we cannot simply sit idly by, remaining silent while one of the chambers of Congress in the world's largest historical carbon emitter attempts to dictate scientific and physical reality through politics.  As I previously noted, Skeptical Science is also about climate science solutions, and Republicans are attempting to derail every significant attempt to reduce GHG emissions.  We felt this was well worth commenting on, and stand by that decision (which was approved by John Cook before I drafted this article).

  14. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    PhysSci - we will wait your paper with interest provided its peer-reviewed and published in something better than E&E. It will be fascinating to see how you account for experimental observation (particularly the spectral characteristic of DLR and OLR) by another theory. The appropriate place to continue the discussion however is Does Greenhouse effect exist?. That way your comment wont be thrown out by moderators.
  15. Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    Seriously, when I want the consensus scientific view, w/o any nonsense, I come here. Good Job!
  16. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Perhaps we should note that a Bill that tried to legislate that- "global warming is not a natural occurrence and human activity have accelerated it" would also be a travesty of trying to legislate the laws of the physics.
  17. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    RSVP - nobody is suggesting a complete ban on fossil fuel consumption. No strawmen please.
  18. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare". ...yet, how many people would still be alive, say, one year after a complete ban on fossil fuel consumption?
  19. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gilles #47 and 49, please decide what you're trying to argue. You claimed wealth is correlated with fossil fuel use. I explained that it's actually correlated with energy use. Then you shifted goalposts to argue that fossil fuels are not cheaply and easily replaceable for every use - I never claimed otherwise. Please pick an argument and stick with it instead of shifting goalposts and constructing strawmen.
  20. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    There are many who are not convinced man’s impact through the burning of fossil fuels on earth’s climate is significant, and they include people of various political persuasions and educational backgrounds. So I ask; why is there still doubt when there is a consensus within the climate science community? Is it the influence of the “deniers”, the insidious propaganda of the “big oil and coal” industries, or renegade heretical scientist? Well no, at least not for me. I have read and continue to read the research to educate myself as much as possible, make the blog circuit often to here the opinions of others, and will ultimately come to a conclusion. However, whether it is the unanswered questions regarding cloud feedback, solar and ocean cycles, or the climate gate emails, I am not ready to accept the consensus until these things are made clear in my mind. One thing for sure though, it is not political, and I hope this site will stay with the science rather than devolve into that arena.
  21. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics

    Why someone keeps deleting my postings within minutes?? Is someone afraid of a fact-based discussion? I cannot believe the degree of censorship on this website!! I'm posting this again ... <snip>

    Response:

    [dana1981]Please read the site Comments Policy, specifically "no off topic comments".  This article is not the place to argue about the existence of the greenhouse effect.

  22. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Giles: "for a very simple reason : for 200 years, the world economic growth has been correlated positively with FF consumption and negatively with temperatures. Shouldn't it have been the opposite, if you were right ?" Erm, if you are just looking at figures, then you will find any sort of correlation. Skeptics are well known for that, aren't they? But how do you measure growth. In the same time, species have rapidly become extinct, some wiped out for profit and economic growth. Your views suggest a short term gain, heading for a massive crunch. Or rather, me, me, me and who cares about what happens tomorrow. The success of humanity can no longer purely be measured by short term goals and achievements. The other point is if you are thinking that fossil fuels can only achieve that growth, then you are obviously commiting humanity to an early grave and also are sticking fingers up at engineers that are able to come up with new solutions to current problems. Or more precisely, you don't want engineers, they are redundant in your world.
  23. Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    Please! George Mason University is a VIRGINIA public university. I'm sure they're next on our esteemed Atty Gen's list for persecution.
  24. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Giles: "I may have forgotten some. Note that ALL so-called "alternative" energies require cheap and abundant materials above, all made with ... cheap fossil fuels." I suggest you read up on carbon footprints. Much of this work has been done and the issues you elude to have been taken account. Energy carbon footprints for renewables are well known and hence we know that the fossil fuel inputs for renewables are tiny.
  25. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gilles, Alex C : you seem also to persistently ignore that the POSITIVE effects of fossil fuel consumption are much more obvious and measurable than the NEGATIVE ones, The reason they're more "obvious" has a lot to do with selective attention (e.g., ignoring externalities and opportunity costs), and that in turn has a lot to do with politics and money. In other words, you're confusing ideology with reality.
  26. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Everett Rowdy: "Scientists tend not to operate in this manner which is partly why there has been little traction on advancing this issue." Which is why both the left and right need to be behind the scientists and be supportive. Remember that left/right politics were born in the industrial revolution, so the idea that one is green and one is not is complete rubbish, both have a long history of burning fossil fuels and ripping up the environment.
  27. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    and if you want me to be more specific, dana, fossils fuels are NOT easily and cheaply replaceable for such uses : transportation, metallurgy (steel, copper, zinc, and all kinds of material), fabrication of cheap cement, glass, paper, plastics, glues, paints, synthetic fibers, fertilizers, synthetic rubbers, detergents, and to insure stable electric power production (where hydroelectricity is not available). I may have forgotten some. Note that ALL so-called "alternative" energies require cheap and abundant materials above, all made with ... cheap fossil fuels.
  28. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Everett Rowdy: "They are doing so because they oppose environmentalism" Then you/they don't have a clue what they are talking about. Everett Rowdy: "they dislike leftist politicians" Explain what relevance that has to cutting emissions or 'green' policies?? I live in the UK and most conservatives I know are pretty green and the local council which has been Tory for decades signed up for the 10:10 campaign last year. Your problem is that American politics have gone off the rails and has become ignorant of the reality of what needs to be done. You can plant trees commercially or by the state. It doesn't matter what the politics are as long as you plant trees. Same goes for emissions. Everett Rowdy: "they fear big government" Again this is completely irrelevant. If you don't like big government then find other ways of making the same cuts in emissions. That is your job, no one cares how it is done or is achieved. Be creative and do it your way.
  29. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    dana1981 : you're issuing unjustified statements. If you were right, please explain me why countries like Iceland still use fossil fuels, although they must entirely import them and that they have plenty of renewable electricity - much more than what they need for their personal use. Are they so stupid ?
  30. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Marcus : "Last of all, Gilles, the EU-27 countries achieved around a 15% reduction in total energy consumption-across all sectors of the economy (industrial, commercial, domestic & transport)-without any detriment to GDP growth." This statement is plainly wrong . CO2 emissions have improved thanks to the use of more efficient power plants (especially in the former Eastern bloc), but generally the energy consumption has increased.
  31. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gille - wealth correlates with energy consumption, period. There's nothing special about fossil fuels except that they're an artificially cheap energy source, which we've used for centuries. We can replace fossil fuels with other energy sources, and the economy will continue to grow.
  32. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Alex C : you seem also to persistently ignore that the POSITIVE effects of fossil fuel consumption are much more obvious and measurable than the NEGATIVE ones, for a very simple reason : for 200 years , the world economic growth has been correlated positively with FF consumption and negatively with temperatures. Shouldn't it have been the opposite, if you were right ?
  33. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Angus @103, It seems that you sincerely think that you are onto something here-- unfortunately, you are not. I do not have time right now to address this today (family comes first), but I'll do my best to reply on Monday. PS: "Eyeballing" graphs as you suggest is incredibly dangerous and not at all scientific.
  34. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    There is little need to convince politicians (on the left or right) that climate change is real and dangerous. Nor is it necessary to convince them that civilization as we know it might come to an end. The most effective strategy is to convince politicians that their careers are coming to an end if they don’t take effective action.
  35. Tenney Naumer at 05:30 AM on 14 March 2011
    Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    You know who I voted for! LOL This site is just so marvelous, such a valuable resource, and such great work by all involved.
  36. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    While rational thought is essential to good science, I think those who advocate addressing climate change need to recognize that most voters and politicians act according to their emotions and values. As the National Academy of Sciences has said, the science behind anthropogenic climate change is settled fact. People who oppose action in response to climate change are not doing so because they do not get the science. They are doing so because they oppose environmentalism, they dislike leftist politicians, they fear big government, they perceive intellectual elitism in the scientific world or they just like being contrarian. These are not positions that have been arrived at via rational analysis and peer review. It is futile to expect that demonstrating the science further will sway these people. If we truly want voters to consider climate change, we must appeal to their emotions and values. Scientists tend not to operate in this manner which is partly why there has been little traction on advancing this issue. Compounding the situation is that economic fear is much more immediate for voters and the short-term health of our economy is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Where the scientific process can make a difference is with youth. Youth are not calcified in their values and not locked into ruts of confirmation bias (seeking only those news articles and opinions that reaffirm entrenched positions). Youth have natural intellectual curiosity that can be nurtured to wonderful heights in our educational institutions. Youth love challenges and love forging new ways than those of their elders. And of course, they have the most at stake. Granted, this is a longer term solution and time is of the essence. But at least scientists won't be wasting time at climate change hearings or arguing with adults.
  37. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    garythompson: a majority of Americans to have preconceived notions with any AGW message that is delivered. Can you point to any source for this claim? In every study I've ever seen, it's the "skeptics" who are decidedly in the minority, despite the constant stream of slander and disinformation from well-funded denialist groups. Unless I'm mistaken, surveys consistently show that most Americans support the Clean Air Act, the EPA and other environmental regulations.
  38. Rob Honeycutt at 05:12 AM on 14 March 2011
    The name is Bond...Gerard Bond.
    Robert... I think you're one of the experts in this field who frequents SkS. Do you think it's fair to say that Bond events suggest that heat is frequently redistributed around the planet? I definitely got from the reading I did that this is a very complicated topic. In fact, global temperature during the Holocene, in general, seems to be a very complicated topic. I did two other posts (Crux of a Core 1 and 2) talking about the error of pointing to a single proxy as evidence of what global temperatures were. I wanted to use Bond events to start to paint a larger picture of the Holocene. What we don't see is various proxies going up and down in unison. We see somewhat chaotic signals where it's difficult to pinpoint why and how heat is being redistributed from one place to another. Correct? From the perspective on someone deep into the science of these events it's controversial. The exact why, how, where, are up for debate. From the perspective of the more general public it seems to me Bond events suggest that the Holocene is very stable compared to glacial periods, but still involves redistribution of heat around the planet.
  39. Climate Emergency: Time to Slam on the Brakes
    Albatross @101, there does not seem to be much in your post that actually refers to my post @100. Your post seems to consist of quoting typical "skeptic" arguments and then disagreeing with them. Nevertheless, I respond as follows in attempt to clear up any misunderstanding with the data that was actually posted by me. Re "Aaah, the goal posts shift," I am not aware that the goal posts were shifted. In angusmac @100, I presented data from AR4 because both you and the Moderator were of the opinion that I was off topic in @66. Re, "I am not going to take your posted Figure at face value. Given the choice between a practicing climate scientist and you, I choose Dr. Schmidt." You don't need to take Figure 1 at face value. Just look at Figure TS.26 from AR4 here, then move, copy or eyeball the 2005 data to 2010. It is permissible to move the data because they are "indistinguishable" (Hansen, 2011). Voila! You have my Figure 1. Please note that the 2000-2011 temperature data follows the zero-emissions scenario and all done by "prominent climate scientists." Re Hansen (2010), "the global warming trend of 0.15°C-0.20°C per decade that began in the late 1970s." You have missed my point completely. If you re-read my posts @66 and @100, you will see that (on topic) I compare emissions scenarios with current and future temperatures based on Hansen (2006) and AR4. These studies show that their emissions scenarios diverge at 2000 but more importantly so do actual temperatures. The emissions continue to increase whilst temperatures follow the zero-emissions scenarios. Therefore Albatross, it would be useful (and I suggest on topic), if you amended the 1880-2010 temperature diagrams presented by you to compare them with emissions scenarios from the modern period, instead of just posting the temperature diagrams as stand-alone. AR4 uses 1985-2025 for its emissions/temperature comparison. It would be interesting to see your comparison for this period. In summary, I have presented data from two studies by prominent climate scientists, (Hansen, 2006) and AR4. These studies, when updated with current temperature data, show that actual temperatures are tracking their zero-emissions scenarios not their moderate/high emissions-scenarios. Hence my statement that, "I[t] would appear that Mother Nature is putting the brakes on for us" is corroborated by these studies because Mother Nature is not following the moderate/high emissions-scenarios. Nevertheless, I would urge caution in jumping to conclusions too soon; Hansen (2006) suggests that we could expect reasonable results for distinction between his scenarios and useful comparison with the real world by 2015.
  40. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    One must ask why do conservative think tanks like the Heartland Institute sponsor climate change conferences with a GW denial agenda, not to mention all the disinformation posted on their website..
  41. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gary @2, "Actually, the politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of the people who voted them in office." What is also extremely disturbing is that these ideologues were elected to office. That does not reflect well on the scientific understanding and social conscience of the people who voted them into office. To be perfectly candid, that people here are defending the anti-science agenda of the Republicans sickens me.
  42. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Susanne #17 - Skeptical Science is also about climate solutions. If politicians are going to ignore, or worse, attack climate science, we can talk about it until we're blue in the face and it won't do much good. nofreewind - we're at the cusp of a transition to electric cars. It's going to take some time, but there are already plenty of options. Nissan Leaf, Chevy Volt, Coda, etc. I own an electric moped that I bought for $3k, about the same as a cheap used car. A perfect second vehicle. Tom Curtis - once again, we don't live in a democracy. If we did, we would already have a carbon cap and trade system in place. Further, a decent percentage of Republicans support cap and trade, yet virtually no Republican politicians do. They're not representing their constituents on this matter.
  43. Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    I'm sure this must be hugely gratifying for you and all of the people who support this site with posts and follow up information. Having spent a lot of time searching for reliable sources of information and seen the quality of much that is available I don't find the nomination even mildly surprising. Long may you run.
  44. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Gary @2, "Actually, the politicians are supposed to look out for the interests of the people who voted them in office." Most of the GOP politicians are not looking out for the interests of their present constituents, and especially future generations. Really telling and sad that you fail to see that. Also sad that you are also seemingly OK with the Republican's anti-science agenda and their repeated attacks on the science and scientists. That some of their own (like Markey) are even ridiculing them speaks to the travesty here.
  45. Rob Honeycutt at 03:50 AM on 14 March 2011
    Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    nofreewind @ 33.... You actually need to add a trend line to that data series you just posted.
  46. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    nofreewind: "I agree! But could you please explain how you propose to do that?" I haven't owned a car for over 10 years. As far as I know, I don't live in a cave and my computer has a silicon chip in it. Amazingly, I have food every day and I could if I wanted, travel to the other end of the country without stepping a foot into a car! Instead of whining about your perceptions of what modern is, I suggest you just get on with the job and change. 'Modern' doesn't actually equate to wealth or material ownership. That is a distortion of the word. The only thing modern refers to is 'the present' or 'now' and that can be anything.
  47. Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
    Congratulations on this well-deserved honor. I hope my following comment is seen as a compliment: I've thought of this site as the Thomas Edison of climate blogging. I can hardly keep track of the quantity and quality of contributions here. jg
  48. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    >In order to de-carbonise the US road fleet, you need to reduce dependency on cars and those that are used need to be electric. Hence to reduce dependency on foreign oil, you need to decarbonise electricity and move the US road fleet over to cleaner tech. I agree! But could you please explain how you propose to do that? Only a negligible amount of people could even afford to buy an electric car. Do you expect our Governments to go into even more debt and place the burden of paying for these electric cars on our descendants, is that the meaning of sustainable, buy now pay later? Even if we did that, would most people use the electric car as a second car for limited use, thereby even placing more stress on the resources used to manufactured these theoretical cars? Or do you propose a mandatory complete restructuring of our modern civilization? For instance, you can see the difference between Japan and Haiti with earthquake damage. A poor country with a much smaller earthquake suffers extensive damage, for rich Japan the damage was comparatively negligible. (most damage was caused by unstoppable tsunami). Do you propose that our world uses all of its' resources to prepare for this AGW "theory"(IPCC says only 90% certain) thereby crushing our overall prosperity. 40K cars using very expensive alternative energy is what i term as crushing to an economy.
  49. Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
    Marcus. I haven't seen an electric car for well over six months, do they even exist??? I heard rumors that a couple hundred of them were sold? There is absolutely no foundation to believe at this time that electric cars will displace any appreciable amount of oil. Is that what you use? The fact is that wind and solar only contribute a negligible amount of energy to our world, they replace even a more negligible amount of oil. Yes, I cherry-picked the temperature data starting after 1998. But those are the facts as we stand. Obviously you "believe" that a small percentage of a degree increase in temperature is a sign of man-made global warming, when oceanic currents, Nino/Nina, create monthly global temperature changes many magnitudes higher? Until the current La Nina is finished, when it wants to be finished, we are going even lower. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf 12 years(cherry-picked) of Hadley data, no global warming, just random noise undoubtedly created by ocean currents. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999
    Moderator Response: [DB] "no global warming, just random noise"

    Incorrect. Tamino shows here, using Hadley data, the the warming signal in the data (after compensation for cyclical exogenous factors - such as ocean currents), is statistically significant since 2000:

  50. Examining Hansen's prediction about the West Side Highway
    HR, "Is it possible that Hansen can be both a scientist and an ideologue?" Why not frame the question differently: Is it possible for a scientist to express a personal opinion? The ideologues are then those who seize those opinions and trumpet them for their own agenda.

Prev  1851  1852  1853  1854  1855  1856  1857  1858  1859  1860  1861  1862  1863  1864  1865  1866  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us