I am not making a claim about climate. I am making a claim about media and political coverage of climate change.
Grey Matter: 5.1) I have spent a few hours looking into these consensus climate models. It doesn't take long to find out that they model ****ing sunshine with "low confidence". They admittedly model water vapor poorly. Water vapor is the number 1 GHG ffs. Yet we are to believe they model CO2 and methane with such high accuracy that they can predict the global average temperature increase 100y into the future? 100y? And the models do not adequately account for water vapor and sunshine (RF)? Really? My Response: See https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/ "According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity. For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval." "Several studies in recent years have looked at the effects that another grand minimum might have on global surface temperatures.2 These studies have suggested that while a grand minimum might cool the planet as much as 0.3 degrees C, this would, at best, slow down (but not reverse) human-caused global warming." From Skeptical Science, "Sun and Climate Moving in Opposite Directions" Indirect Solar Effects Ultraviolet Radiation It has also been proposed that ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which varies more than other solar irradiance wavelengths, could amplify the solar influence on the global climate through interactions with the stratosphere and atmospheric ozone. Shindell et al. (1999) examined this possibility, but found that while this UV variability has a significant influence over regional temperatures, it has little effect on global surface temperatures. "Solar cycle variability may therefore play a significant role in regional surface temperatures, even though its influence on the global mean surface temperature is small (0.07 K for December–February)." The above graph is from Wikipedia. "Solar Activity and Climate". Water vapor is considered a climate feedback, a positive feedback that is a function of atmospheric temperature. The relative humidity stays approximately constant with temperature. The non-condensing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane raise the atmospheric temperature as they increase in concentration, and that increases the amount of water vapor that the atmosphere can hold, which causes the atmospheric temperature to rise even more. Climate scientists don't claim that they know what carbon dioxide or methane levels will be in the future. That is why they analyze around 4 possible emission scenarios. That is where most of the uncertainty lies, along with modelling clouds.
The question here is whether the backup needed for constant availabililty is sufficient. So far, those in the industry say we have a LONG way to go before we would need to build fossil fuel capacity to cover periods when other technology isn't capable of meeting demand - night use, or whatever. I'd point out that solar farms in Moroco and China are capable of generating power pretty much all through the night as there are ways to maing the heat energy needed to do so. In the alNoor plant in Morocco, that's done in part by using molten sodium as the heat transport - allowing the entire system to run at an extremely high temperature. In homes, we're seeing home sized battery capability made by a number of vendors that can carry enough power to solve night time use. That is a big step in being abel to make homes far more energy independent. Today, solar is inexpensive enough that companies will install it for free if the homeowner will share the cost savings.
~ Solar costs a fortune. It is subsidized by government/taxpayers or it would be unaffordable. Home solar programs are a waste of money .
Great post! Yes, since human activity makes a difference, scientists have to model based on what humans might choose to do. And, as for water vapor scientists DO have an idea of the upper and lower bounds of the possible effect, so charts that include error bars show fairly large error bars for this one of the several factors. But, I've not see a chart showing that this factor is anywhere near significant enough to supass the human or solar behavior that is causing warming.
That's not how I read it. Instead of 75 × more efficient, it's only a bit more than twice as efficient: a big change. But w/o the unrealistic, earlier estimate, it's MORE THAN TWICE AS EFFICIENT! And they've now open-published their new analysis & results so that others can repeat the calculations & examine it themselves; however, the viability of their analysis has already been verified by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. As for your Fukushima-concern, the safety of this method is now one of its biggest selling points: meltdowns are impossible!
We are currently in an ice age that is 2.6 million years old. We are in an interglacial warm period for the pat 12,000 years. In 10,000 years the glacial period will return. We can't stop it. It's a natural occurrence driven by the Milankovitch Cycles. Life begins at conception. Not 1 second after birth & nine months into the pregnancy. There are two sexes, male and female. The 97% concensus of climate scientists is not based upon a scientific survey of climate scientists. TELL US MORE ABOUT SCIENCE DENIAL.
OK. However, the role of the media is to report on what science has found - what SCIENCE has found. And, obviously they can report on the decision making that this world has to make as we have been informed of what's happening. Somehow, a segment of the media seems to think they have a say in the scinece, too!! The result has been that a surprising number of people think that the science of climate is ITSELF a political issue - as if scientists the world over have come together in some grand conspiracy, or some other absolute BS. And, that is HIGHLY destructive as it says we have no possible way to make an informed decision.
Cite please. You have to do WAY better than making catagorical claims like that. The cost and efficiency of solar have been improving significantly. There are investment tax credits - but, there are investment tax credits for all sorts of businesses. Fossil fuel extraction and power generation get federal and state support, too. Also, there is an advantage to the public at large for moving toward clean energy.
The support for human causes of climate change is certainly NOT limited to one survey of scientists like you imply with you 97% number that pretty much identifies one such survey. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Your stuff about procreation is a different topic. I would simply say that you don't have a right to use your religious believes about conception to enforce laws against women. IF on the other hand you would like to reduce the number of abortions, I'd propose you look to Canada, which does a better job of that than we do, yet has NO LAWS against abortion - even paying for abortion through their universal health care coverate. As for your "two sexes" thing, human biology demonstrates that there are a good number of factors that are sex linked. Those factors most frequently align in two patterns. BUT, they absolutely do NOT always do so. Creating a society which tolerates only two such alignmets and treats the rest with intolerance is just plain NOT acceptable - obviously.
Milankovitch Cycles have been the accepted cause of climate Cycles for 100 years. That is real science. Not ridiculous claims of CO2 (a naturally occurring gas) emissions and unproven anthropogenic causes based on computer models and not actually scientific evidence. That is not real science. Link is NOT to a scientific survey of climate scientists. That is science denial. Life begins at conception. Ask any scientist who specializes in embryology. Once again, science denial. And lastly, there are two sexes. Only two. Body dysmorphia is a condition of the mind and has nothing to do with biological science. Once again, science denial Liberals always accuse conservatives of what they themselves are guilty of.
In the first quarter of 2018 China installed solar power equivalent to 10 giant nuclear reactors. That was their FIRST QUARTER. Their problems are that they are awash in solar power and need to beef up transmission, etc. https://www.technologyreview.com/20...-and-potentially-troublesome-amount-of-solar/ And, we're sitting here talking about something that some flakey company might have ready to start building in 10 years! And, hey! It might be safe! In this significant economic category of clean energy, China is MILES ahead of us in design, in installation and in exports of wind and solar - leading the world by far. And, WE have a government that seems to like COAL! There is NO element of this situation that is good for America. Look what China has to offer the WORLD.
~ There are scientists who are concerned earth Co2 could actually get too low ! Notice there are never opposing side "experts" having public discussions / debates. We are just told what to believe. ~ When you can't think for yourself that's all you can do - sad and childish as it is .
That is not what science is pointing to as the issue we face. Those are the premier organizations of science. Reread my post. I did not atempt to disuade you of your belief. This is just absolutely false. You are dead wrong about the biology. That's a cheap rewrite of the standard grade school "bounces off me and sticks to you" argument.
No, you are totally free to read what ANY scientist or scientific organization has written. There are dissenters and you can read them, too. But, don't try to claim that those who dissent in various ways represent the understanding of the field of climatology as a whole. And, DO remember that we're talking about the entire field of climatology - including scientists the world over, not just in America. If you want to start claiming a conspiracy theory, you have to answer for a conspiracy that covers the world - including all branches of climatology. You would need to figure out how to argue that the vastly different data from the numerous sources manages to all align - where a conspiracy would have an insurmountable problem of what to require from each of these sources. In fact, most scientists who dissent have rather limited topics on which they dissent. Even many such as Judith Curry (recently retired) who are considered dissenters believe the warming is happening because of human contribution.
Actually, his statement is undeniably correct if only because he said sex, in the context of humans. If he/she had said gender, there would be room to debate.
Cite one of these scientists you claim to exist. Having YOU suggest one exists is not even slightly good enough. Besides any quation of such existing, there is the issue that this person may be talking about a particular region, elevation, or time period where lower CO2 could be detrimental. Nobody should be ready to accept your claim without an actual name or problem description.
There has been zero adherence to any distinction between these two terms in political discussions here. Beyond that, there definitely ARE biological mismatches. The physical and mental totality is the sum of a number of discrete biological parts. Nobody has said anything like, "Though there are only two sexes, the fact of significant gender variability means we have to be accommodating in treating these individuals as equal." So, I do not accept that terminology has anything at all to do with the issue that poster constantly promotes.
It's my understanding that we are supposed to be in the cooling phase of the cycle, just after a hot peak, but temperatures keep rising.
Milankovitch cycles , atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane levels, changes in total solar irradiance, volcanic eruptions, and continental drift affect climate. Climate scientitsis have concluded that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will prevent another Ice Age for around 100,000 years. Milankovitch cycles change the amount of incident solar radiation (insolation) that is absorbed by the earth. The earth slowly responds (over thousands of years) to the change in insolation in such a way as to magnify this effect. If less sunlight is absorbed by the earth's Northern Hemisphere, arctic ice sheet extent grows and oceans absorb more carbon dioxide. This positive feedback effect is similar in magnitude to the change in insolation. The paragraph below is from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research https://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/human-made-climate-change-suppresses-the-next-ice-age 01/13/2016 - Humanity has become a geological force that is able to suppress the beginning of the next ice age, a study now published in the renowned scientific journal Nature shows. Cracking the code of glacial inception, scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research found the relation of insolation and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to be the key criterion to explain the last eight glacial cycles in Earth history. At the same time their results illustrate that even moderate human interference with the planet’s natural carbon balance might postpone the next glacial inception by 100.000 years. From Yale Climate Connections https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/ Using a combination of various methods, researchers have estimated that about 50 percent of the net anthropogenic pulse would be absorbed in the first 50 years, and about 70 percent in the first 100 years. Absorption by sinks slows dramatically after that, with an additional 10 percent or so being removed after 300 years and the remaining 20 percent lasting tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before being removed. As University of Washington scientist David Archer explains, this “long tail” of absorption means that the mean lifetime of the pulse attributable to anthropogenic emissions is around 30,000 to 35,000 years. From: The Conversation "Climate Explained: why we won't be heading into an ice age anytime soon" When atmospheric carbon dioxide is above about 300 parts per million, the infrared warming effect is so strong it drowns out the more subtle Milankovitch cycles and there are no ice ages. Coming out of the Pliocene period just under three million years ago, carbon dioxide levels dropped low enough for the ice age cycles to commence.
~ When I was a young guy things were simple. No gender identity confusion - you were either "straight" or "gay" .
Lol, well you proved me wrong by managing to make an argument. I will give you props for that even though I don't necessarily agree with your argument.
Well, I've not seen documentation that human biology has changed over time. I think you're recognizing the change in our understanding and response as a society. We seem to be moving more to accepting the bodies we and others are born with - which has to be far better than any alternative.
