This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Worried About Global Warming, Then End The Fed... And Other Thought Experiments
Submitted by MickeyMan via The World Complex blog,
Denial of authoritarianism--no, end the Fed
Salon has an article on denial of science by mainstream society. The article asks why people deny the unpleasant truths that modern science has to offer--apparently preferring to chance of the impending hell of global warming and non-fluoridated drinking water.
The thing the authors don't understand is that the general public is not pushing back against the science per se. They like the science. Science gives them big, flat-screen TVs, Blu-Ray players, cars, airplanes, special effects, laptops with more computing power than ENIAC, the internet, and so forth. They love science.
They don't like authoritarians telling them what to do. So bugger off.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Okay, I'm a little calmer now. There is another point in this entire discussion I would like to mention.
Past environmental issues have been dealt in a top-down, authoritarian fashion. Acid rain and ozone depletion were both attacked, with considerable success, by legislating against the sources. But this only worked because the main sources were few in number, easily tracked, and there were solutions available for the problem. CFCs were replaced by other coolants with less effect on the ozone layer, but this solution was only possible because the alternate coolants existed.
In earlier articles we have discussed the issue of multistability in the climate system. During periods of relative stability, negative feedbacks dominate, with the effect that the system appears to resist changes. The capacity for resistance to change is not infinite, and eventually a tipping point is reached, beyond which positive feedbacks dominate, leading to very rapid change. This idea would suggest that the climate system will resist changes to atmospheric composition for a time, which may be why there hasn't been the warming that was predicted by the IPCC models (pdf).
Governments would like people to stop emitting so much CO2 (through driving, power requirements, and industrial use). Well, alright then. 1) What replacement is there that won't significantly impact on lifestyle; and 2) has the government considered its role in the CO2 problem?
In an earlier article I discussed how the increasing number of disasters in the US is more a function of urban sprawl than any increase in frequency of natural events.
A big part of the reason that per capita CO2 emissions are higher in North America than in Europe is our urban structure--in particular the vast suburbs that surround most city centres. The big suburbs mean lots of people commuting, but the density of the sprawl is too low to favour high-capacity transit.
Big suburbs are only possible due to easy money. With no easy money, working families would not aspire to owning (alongside their bank) a huge home with a vast lawn and with neighbours within 5 m. Without easy money there wouldn't be two or three cars in the driveway.
Governments like this model of city development--it gives people hope, which helps keep the system going. Banks certainly like it--there's a lot of interest payments stretched out over 30 years, and until recently, people would practically starve rather than miss mortgage payments. People imagine they are happy, although I wonder what the future generations will think of people who willingly bought homes that took 30 years to pay for, instead of the more historically common few weeks to months. But I don't think the owners of these houses have done as well on the deal as the government or the banks.
So having created the template for massive CO2 emissions, the authoritarians wish to deny responsibility and shift the blame to their debt-serfs. Because the debt-serfs are refusing to absorb the costs, the authoritarians decry their denial of science.
If you really care about global warming, end the Fed.
»
- 18490 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
We are tired of your bullshit weasel words....
Please explain using known science why AGW is wrong. C'mon, here is your chance..
Hey buddy the floor is yours!
its only wrong when it is so supremely confidently asserted to be unequivocal truth by asshats such as yourself. in its proper context, co2 has some small warming coefficient. my personal belief is .8ish, because too much higher than that and you are into positive feedback territory that's not supported by the behavior of reality.
you took physics, dude - solve the equation froma radiative heat standpoint, then tell me what's left in the balance. such a tiny window for co2 its not even funny. you must be serverely brainwashed to have a phd in physics and not even be able to solve this equation from its first principles!!!!
so what about that heating nasa measured after the CME back in march? and what of that juxtaposed with the sunspot funk of 09-10???
the models do not make realistic predictions - or are you disputing that fact?
so one has to ask WHY they dont. some things can not be modeled correctly, otherwise it would make some realistic predictions - you've worked on computers before - when you have a garbage input, it taints your output.
why am I explaining these simple things to you?
why dont YOU assert your reasoning for believing co2 has a ...what 2? 3? 6? degree coefficient at this spot on the log curve?
you should already know, and know why 6 degrees is RIGHT OUT like 5 when you're counting to three.
You are babbling and making shit up...
There are so much that is factually dubious in what you just wrote to make any meaningful reply pointless and a waste of time...
As for predictions: try this one from ~40 years ago...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/12/286706/wallace-broecwallace-broecker-1975-global-warming-prediction/
and the original paper (scroll down):
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/files/2009/10/broeckerglobalwarming75.pdf
and this is why rational minded people dont attempt to debate with self righteous pricks that believe in the AGW fairy - you wont consider a single point made and call it all making shit up.
if you cant even address those pretty fundamental concerns...rational minded people are forced to conclude you're simply a holier than thou zealot.
nice curve fitting coincidence you posted up there - and you're calling my assertions crap??? fkn hilarious.
Yawn... you have absolutely nothing...
Oh, please tell me these concerns that you are so worried about and what factual basis they might have...
I've posted how many times now - go fucking read - you have no counter argument (aside from giving any number of articles whose first sentence is "because of human induced co2 global warming...") therefore you ignore - dont bitch at me for your choice to do so.
So you're baiting me to post more - I've asked you direct questions and get you focusing on ooh squirrel instead. Use your goddam head and come up with a rebuttal, or fuck off.
Relax fellas. I'm sure Flak can give us the mechanism (formula) for how CO2 causes heat, in addition to the mechanism for how a -38C atmosphere can heat a 14C surface, without disobeying the laws of thermodynamics.
Yawn...
"When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced."
Fatal flaw right in the opening salvo! So if these minor short term variables are known so well, how come they cant predict 'em? Hansen was saying "strong El Nino, no doubt!" this last time around and the mechanism stalled - what went wrong with this "known"?
This is right what I pointed out before - these "knowns" are NOT knowns. If you cant model and predict this stuff, how in the frig can you say "we can dismiss it when looking for the AGW CO2 signal"???? You cant!!!!!!! Or are you giving some stale static analysis here, only considering overall temperature and hell with what the various inputs are?
for example, a weak double dipped solar cycle (like what we have now) combined with a failed-yang el nino and a pinatubo like event will produce much different results than low volcanism strong el nino normal solar cycle.
Can the models actually MODEL that, or are those all ex post facto adjustments to climate models "to bring them back to reality"?
This is one of the many reasons why we cant presently trust the long term predictions made by the models - or did these things seem just fine to gloss over in the quest to blame CO2 for our "warming ills?"
Hansen....GISS....all I have to say to that is "600vs1200km smoothing" (because GISS extrapolates where it has no data, and GISS is consistently WARM) ....and "bastardizations of stiatistics"
Infrared inferemoeter experiment is safely behind a paywall,
and why the curious focus on "re-radiating"
you seem to be advocating stances that treat the earth as a closed system, dude.
that last bit is IR absorption - you've seen graphs overlaying H2O and CO2 absorption spectra, right???
/still wondering how you believe what you do
The ZH posting software is fucking up the order of posts... no idea why...
Pretty clear you do not understand the paper (on purpose since you don't like the result)
So according to you ENSO is predictable, still making shit up I see...
Here why don;t you learn about the paper it from the author (and the comments therein)
Re: IR absorption, e.g. like this one? Fig 6.3
http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf
The more you type, the bigger a fool you become...
mmhmm, cherry pickin'....AGWers have a penchant for that. I'm done with your foolishness, your idiotic assertions arent going to change the behavior of CO2.
the models dont predict or retrodict with any significant accuracy without careful after the fact tuning. every bad prediction comes from the models. since you cant address that, we're done here.
Sorry, you have not posted anything coherent enough to comment on. It is hard to debate world salad...
Here is my first salvo of a rebuttal to your crap: Explain why this is wrong:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
Next is this little chesnut:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_17/
Finally this
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC075i030p05831/abstract
The figure from the above that is relevant is the last one here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html
I have provided plently of material which you refuse or are incapable of understanding...
I just posted links to four papers whereas you have offered up nothing of consequence or relevance....
So why don;t you run off and go fuck yourself....
The physics of AGW is that a -38C troposphere can heat a 14C surface. Please explain, oh wise one, the mechanism by which heat is transfered from a cold area to warmer area. Perhaps you could point me to the experiment that proves that little hypothesis.
Seems like you should write a paper and send it to Nature and get your Nobel prize for overturning Thermodynamics and solving the AGW issue...
Why don't you? We both know why...
Edit: You really should read this paper published in 1969
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC075i030p05831/abstract
You really do have to explain how they got it right if anything you wrote is actually correct...
I didn't think you could do it. Doctor of Physics my ass. I'm not overturning it, I'm supporting it. AGW overturns it as it states heat is transfered from a cold region to a warm region, thus turning the law upside down. I don't think you even have a B.S. in science. You are a fraud. Let's see the formula Doc...
If you think what you just said bears any relation to reality you are either an outright fool or a liar...
AGW is completely consistent with all laws of thermodynamics.. here, maybe this will help you with your confusion:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/basics_one.html
Pay attention to the observed IR spectroscopy of the earth as determined by satellite measurement back in 1969....
I am going to have the last word on this Flak, and many more article's to come based on FACT (I do my work elsewhere but will gladly share it here). Re-hypothecating physics (among other things) is a fools errand.
http://dailybail.com/home/why-wind-power-wont-work.html
My what nice piece of horseshit, here is a rejoinder:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/12/the-grid-of-2030-all-renewable-90-percent-of-the-time/
and the orginal paper if you can even understand is here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759
My late uncle went to a small post office to pick up his mail on a cold January day in a tiny town in the northeast many years ago. Back then, that is where you found out about about your business before you did. The tiny wood framed building was filled with people engaged in 'small talk'. When he entered, there were so many people inside that the door wouldn't close. Feeling the beeze, the Postmaster yelled "hey Martin, were you raised in a barn"? To which my uncle replied " as a matter of fact I was, because every time I'm here, I turn around and see a horses ass".
Respectfully and sincerely yours,
john
We have a little saying where I come from:
"Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining"....
http://www.principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discovery-nasa-study-proves-carbon-dioxide-cools-atmosphere.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEFQHDSYP1I
You are the guy that would argue one should see a dentist for treatment of a hernia....
Why don't you read what the report actually said and withing what context, not what people wanted it to say...
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
Are you that naive or is it a case of complete scientific illiteracy?