61–67 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, this wasn't a "mistake". It was citing pop science as peer-reviewed research because it happened to support their preconceived position. I'd expect that from Wikipedia, not from self-proclaimed "real" scientists.
I call that a mistake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not an accurate assessment of AGW. The current thinking basically balances an increase in particulate emissions which over the short term reduce global temperature average with greenhouse gasses which increase global temperature (plus a host of other factors). The fact that CO2 is extremely stable means than it accumulates in the atmosphere so its effects accumulate over time. Several other greenhouse gasses…
AGW is the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Anthropogenic means "caused by humans". What you described is basic radiation transfer and mass balance.
Like most complex scientific theories there are several steps of logic involved. And while a few groups agree on which specific steps break the chain a slightly larger but still small group of people can agree that it's broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus, most of the original concerns don't even make sense, even if you take them at face value. 100 years to rise a foot? Millions and millions of people dead? Sure.... All glaciers melting is going to cause sea level rise? I see someone's missed the lesson on buoyancy and displacement.
Buoyancy and displacement are irrelevant if the glaciers are not already floating. If the arctic ice sheet melts, nothing happens. If the antarctic or Himalayan glaciers melt, that will cause rising sea levels. (Fortunately for us, the antarctic ice sheet is thickening.)
I say that because Pachauri had been saying for a year that the Indian government was being arrogant by not agreeing to their "findings". And he rejected research such as this : http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discu... Compiled by people who have 3-4 decades of experience in Himalayan glaciology.
Please do check that review paper. It is not easy to find.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plus, most of the original concerns don't even make sense, even if you take them at face value. 100 years to rise a foot? Millions and millions of people dead? Sure.... All glaciers melting is going to cause sea level rise? I see someone's missed the lesson on buoyancy and displacement.
Buoyancy and displacement are irrelevant if the glaciers are not already floating. If the arctic ice sheet melts, nothing happens. If the antarctic or Himalayan glaciers melt, that will cause rising sea levels. (Fortunately for us, the antarctic ice sheet is thickening.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The demographic for "Maybe we should look seriously at cheap options for energy efficiency and carbon mitigation." is practically zero. Actually, that demographic is huge. Folks would love cheaper energy. What they're being offered is more expensive energy and carbon mitigation.
Hah. I wish. We can barely get even the most pathetically meaningless measures through our governments. Tighter car efficiency standards are almost free. Better transit options are available for a tiny fraction of what we spend on highways. Aluminum recyling more than pays for itself in energy costs, etc... All of these ideas get fought tooth and nail by people who claim to be in the "center" of the debate. It's all…
Really? The folks who design cars disagree, so clearly you could make a lot of money by showing them how, or by producing your own cars and putting those bozos out of biz.
What? You can't do it yourself? How about you invest your money in folks who you think can? If you're right....
> Better transit options are available for a tiny fraction of what we spend on highways.
And yet, the folks who actually do transit don't manage to provide said options. Morons.
> Aluminum recyling more than pays for itself in energy costs
And we do it. We also do steel recycling.
> We can barely get even the most pathetically meaningless measures through our governments.
You don't need govt's permission or a mandate to be more efficient.