billvon 2,384
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
QuoteQuoteConsidering ocean mixing, we should have seen a .25 degree C increase in global temperature since 2001.
You're still making the same mistake of picking a single year as a baseline against which to measure trends. You can't reach a valid conclusion by doing that.
Check out the trends. The previous 60 years showed decreases or leveling of global temperatures comcomitant with a La Nina or a volcano.
Starting in 2001 we had one without an ascertainable proximate cause. I could go back to 1998, but that would be cheating and Hansen's paper used the year 200-2001 and made the scientific prediction.
We've seen other blips like this but we've had an identifiable proximate cause. The usual suspects have been eliminated.
You mention trends. I've identified not just trends but patterns going back to 1950. And a trend indicating a .17 degree per decade temperature increase.
This isn't arbitrary on my part.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
jcd11235 0
QuoteCheck out the trends.
You should do that. While you're at it, check out the difference between average annual temperatures and average pent-annual temperatures.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
mikkey 0
One of the issues I have with AGW proponents is their use of "data". the famous hockey stick has long been proven to be false and a lot of ground temperature measurements like wise, because they are not always "representative" of the globaltemperature and especially ecause they have been compromised by urban development over the years (close to build up areas, traffic, air conditioners etc.).
The only reliable measurements are sattelite based and they show a different picture. See attached one that shows increase in Co2 and temperature.
The only reliable measurements are sattelite based and they show a different picture. See attached one that shows increase in Co2 and temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
mikkey 0
Try to read this article by Bjorn Lomborg, It both talks about the witch hunt mentality of the AGW "priests" and the waste of our money and wealth through carbon caps and trading without having any substantial effect even if the AGW theory is correct.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25783305-7583,00.html
and
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25783305-7583,00.html
QuoteDISCUSSIONS about global warming are marked by an increasing desire to stamp out "impure" thinking, to the point of questioning the value of democratic debate. But shutting down discussion simply means the disappearance of reason from public policy.
and
QuoteIndeed, nobody emits CO2 for fun. CO2 emissions result from other, generally beneficial acts, such as burning coal to keep warm, burning kerosene to cook, or burning petrol to transport people. The benefits of fossil fuels must be weighed against the costs of global warming.
Gore and Hansen want a moratorium on coal-fired power plants, but neglect the fact that the hundreds of new power plants that will be opened in China and India in the coming years could lift a billion people out of poverty. Negating this outcome through a moratorium is clearly no unmitigated good.
Likewise, reasonable people can differ on their interpretation of the Waxman-Markey bill. Even if we set aside its masses of pork-barrel spending, and analyses that show it may allow more emissions in the US for the first decades, there are more fundamental problems with this legislation.
At a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars annually, it will have virtually no impact on climate change. If all of the bill's many provisions were entirely fulfilled, economic models show that it would reduce the temperature by the end of the century by 0.11C, reducing warming by less than 4 per cent.
Even if every Kyoto-obligated country passed its own, duplicate Waxman-Markey bills -- which is implausible and would incur significantly higher costs -- the global reduction would amount to just 0.22C by the end of this century. The reduction in global temperature would not be measurable in 100 years, yet the cost would be significant and payable now.
Is it really treason against the planet to express some scepticism about whether this is the right way forward? Is it treason to question throwing huge sums of money at a policy that will do virtually no good in 100 years? Is it unreasonable to point out that the inevitable creation of trade barriers that will ensue from Waxman-Markey could eventually cost the world 10 times more than the damage climate change could ever have wrought?
Today's focus on ineffective and costly climate policies shows poor judgment. But I would never want to shut down discussion about these issues, whether it is with Gore, Hansen, or Krugman.
Everybody involved in this discussion should spend more time building and acknowledging good arguments, and less time telling others what they cannot say. Wanting to shut down the discussion is simply treason against reason.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
>own waste products, and be done with it?
Well, that's doable, but counterproductive. A gallon of gas generates about 20 pounds of CO2. (It also produces water, but we'll ignore that for now.) To store the 200 pounds of CO2 from a 10 gallon tank of gas you'd need 4 50 pound CO2 tanks charged to 2000PSI. That would weigh around 640 pounds including the tanks themselves. It would also require a significant amount of energy to compress the gas to store it in the tank, although this would be minimal for most trips when the tanks were relatively empty.
Then you get home. Then what? One could imagine a service that would pipe away your CO2, but what would they do with it? Store it underground? I imagine that would work, but it would be expensive.
A much better way (IMO) is to just use the atmosphere as a transport medium. You can use the 'public atmosphere' to transport all the CO2 you want as long as you remove what you put in. You could remove it via planting stuff, or making methane via the Sabatier process, or by freezing it and shipping it off somewhere at home. Or you could pay a factory to do the same, and then buy their "credits" to offset your usage. Cheaper and easier.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites