Is this figure politically motivated?
No.
No.
Where's the proof when in reality even that figure shows it going the same route upwards
You misread the figure if you think it shows that.
Figure 4 compares observed global temperature trends from ~1860 to 2000 against three possible models created to explain these trends. 4a compares the first model, a "nature-only" model. This does not fit the observed temperature trend. Figure 4b compares the second model, a "humans-only" model. This does not fit the observed temperature trend. Figure 4c compares the third model, a "human+nature" model, and finds a good fit.
This should make sense: global warming is a complex climatic reaction to natural forcings (volcanoes, changes in solar insolation, sunspot cycles, ENSO cycles, etc.) and anthropogenic forcings (CO2 and CH4 emissions, particulate emissions, etc).
My purpose for using this figure was to quickly show that @siempre's claim that there are no accurate "hindcasting" climate models is a false claim. Since @siempre never actually contributes to dialogues, I guess s/he didn't care whether or not s/he was being false.
Global Warming and cooling is a natural process that coincidentally goes up and down over millions of years
I'm aware of that and fixed your typo.
and there's no proof that is not politically motivated
The possibility that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere could lead to global warming was first hypothesized in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius. He argued in favor of burning more carbon fuels in order to cause global warming.
So, yes, the first person to prove global warming did so for a political reason, because he thought that the greenhouse effect was a good thing.
or says it is happening in spite of humanity's fault [sic]
Were you trying to say that there's no proof that global warming is human caused? If so, you're wrong.
We should care about the environment no question, but the economy is far more important.
You are making the false claim that "caring about the environment" and "caring about the economy" can not be done at the same time.
Well, he amped up Afghanistan
Right, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the strongest member of NATO, he installed a number of troops in Afghanistan that is more consistent with the military presence that the US can afford.
Right, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the strongest member of NATO, he installed a number of troops in Afghanistan that is more consistent with the military presence that the US can afford.
when he claimed we were leaving.
Obama never claimed this until December of 2009 at the earliest, which was after the amping up.
Then add on top of that Syria
I don't think that Syria's governmental slaughter of people is in any way Obama's fault. Ditto Libya, if you wanted to argue that NATO involvement in Libya was a piece of evidence that Obama is a warmonger.
and I'd say that President Obama is pretty pro-war
All corporate politicians are. That's why the Democratic Party stopped promoting anti-war sentiments when it took over the White House. To partisan movements, being anti-war was only in vogue when the warmonger was a Republican.
Well. I see your pessimism and would make the counter-claim that humanity has already gone over the planet's carrying capacity... I grok ya, I was just trying to be slightly optimistic.
(stops putting polar bear into generator)
You mean there's other ways to produce electricity?
You mean there's other ways to produce electricity?
you can convert the energy to hydrogen, then use fuel-cells at night to generate power.
Or something, right? The solar energy hitting the Earth's surface, water and land, exceeds the amount of energy used by human civilization by over 20,000 times. So if we covered a thousandth of the Earth's surface with solar panels and were able to get only 5% efficient transfer of that power, we would be able to provide all the power that civilization needs.
Or something, right? The solar energy hitting the Earth's surface, water and land, exceeds the amount of energy used by human civilization by over 20,000 times. So if we covered a thousandth of the Earth's surface with solar panels and were able to get only 5% efficient transfer of that power, we would be able to provide all the power that civilization needs.
The problem, as @Dr What? said, is that modern technology just plain can't handle this. So if you know any engineers, get them to work on creating the next few centuries of human energy.
it's much easier (and cheaper) to put physical pollution controls in place on a few thousand power plants than it is to put them in place on several million vehicles
Saying as how capture-and-sequester technology for coal-burning power plants is more technologically achievable (at current) than a totally renewable electricity power grid, this point of yours is pretty essential to state. Thanks for adding it.
Saying as how capture-and-sequester technology for coal-burning power plants is more technologically achievable (at current) than a totally renewable electricity power grid, this point of yours is pretty essential to state. Thanks for adding it.
However, is the lack of precipitation not linked to anthropogenic climate change?
I suggest reading Tropical Glacier Retreat on RealClimate for a better discussion of how complex the Kilimanjaro situation is, on how few climatologists have blamed its reduction on global warming, and how many climate contrarians seem to ignore these two things and claim that one glacier undoes evidence from hundreds of other glaciers on the planet.
I suggest reading Tropical Glacier Retreat on RealClimate for a better discussion of how complex the Kilimanjaro situation is, on how few climatologists have blamed its reduction on global warming, and how many climate contrarians seem to ignore these two things and claim that one glacier undoes evidence from hundreds of other glaciers on the planet.
The main problem with the pictures is that there's very little to use for scale. The 2005 glaciers look further apart and slightly smaller but it's not possible with the provided photos to quantify that.
I've always wondered if Personhood legislation supporters actually think through their position.
If their goal is to protect every possible zygote in the country, they would have to keep tabs on every female who has had vaginal intercourse with a non-sterile male within the past week. Since humans show no hormonal signs of having a zygote within them until said zygote becomes an embryo and implants on the uterus, there is no way, at all, to determine actual existence of zygotes in human females without either surgical intrusion or really high-quality MRIs.
If their goal is to protect every actual (not possible) implanted embryo in the country, then they're in favour of constant hormonal monitoring of every heterosexually-active female in the country.
Either of these scenarios requires massive amounts of medical examining of tens of millions of women. I'm unsure on who the Personhood supporters think would be paying for this medical examining; maybe they're as ignorant about economics as they are about human biology.
the main problem we're going to be facing with oil - the source. Oil takes too long to be created naturally and we are running out.
There's at least one other problem with oil that deserves mentioning.
There's at least one other problem with oil that deserves mentioning.
The only, ONLY solution to our problems with energy and resources in the future is a population that can be provided for reasonably.
Or nuclear energy.
Or capture-and-sequester coal plants.
Or some combo of all three options.
Or nuclear energy.
Or capture-and-sequester coal plants.
Or some combo of all three options.
"But given that China is also the antithesis of environmental responsibility"
@phaeton99, 20 minutes before your comment.
@phaeton99, 20 minutes before your comment.
From what I have read, renewable sources of electricity can only do so much and we will still need to rely on fossil fuels or nuclear power for quite a bit of the energy we would need even now, never mind in the future when our usage will likely increase.
What you have read is correct, there is no way, at current, for renewable energy output to replace carbon energy output. Until we are able to store huge amounts of energy for long periods of time. Once that happens, then solar and wind beat the tar out of oil and coal.
However, most of the issues they have are just trade offs or variations of the issues that fossil fuels already represent.
Exactamundo. I'm not as myopic as to claim, as @Paullius appears to do, that hydro, wind, wave, geothermal and solar don't require some infrastructure and (shock!) power usage to be generated. But the argument for non-petroleum-powered vehicles isn't about them not needing any source of fuel, it's about using a more preferable fuel source than petroleum.
Exactamundo. I'm not as myopic as to claim, as @Paullius appears to do, that hydro, wind, wave, geothermal and solar don't require some infrastructure and (shock!) power usage to be generated. But the argument for non-petroleum-powered vehicles isn't about them not needing any source of fuel, it's about using a more preferable fuel source than petroleum.
#corrections
"a new study out of China"
One of the five authors is from China, the other four are from the Universities of Tennessee and Minnesota
The other thing that is out of China, besides one of the authors, is all the data, and thus all of the conclusions. So if you want to extrapolate global implications from this, please keep in mind the assumption you're making.
With an all-star cast to boot! Simon Pegg as Scrooge.
And they're gonna try to make it topical by throwing in something about the Occupy movement.
And they're gonna try to make it topical by throwing in something about the Occupy movement.
It's interesting that the two most dangerous things that First Worlders do to their health (smoke tobacco and eat indulgent foods) are both the biggest additives to health care costs (which are, ya know, sorta bankrupting entire countries) and entirely optional behaviours.
Yes. Interesting is the word I would use.
/eats more cheeseburgers
Proposal: advanced weather satellites provide for greater detection of changes in weather patterns. Changes in weather patterns can result in cataclysmic weather, such as hurricanes. NASA is the only government agency which is capable of installing advanced weather satellites into Earth orbit
Thesis: cutting funding for NASA leads to increased hurricane deaths.
Thesis: cutting funding for NASA leads to increased hurricane deaths.
the cuts from NASA are going to go elsewhere to help others.
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
a) During pre-birth human development, a human goes through several phases of development. Zygote, embryo, and fetus have meanings and are words that are used by people (if they're knowledgeable) about pre-birth humans.
b) People also refer to their cars, boats, pets, guns, etc. as "their baby". People don't use words consistently. Sorry.
c) The scientific term for bicep [sic] is biceps. Biceps brachii if you're talking arms, biceps femoris if you're talking legs.
b) People also refer to their cars, boats, pets, guns, etc. as "their baby". People don't use words consistently. Sorry.
c) The scientific term for bicep [sic] is biceps. Biceps brachii if you're talking arms, biceps femoris if you're talking legs.
