New NASA study links current extreme summer events to climate change

Aug 05, 2012 by SETH BORENSTEIN
In this Sept. 30, 2011 file photo, Sailboats and a floating dock lie on the dry, cracked dirt in a harbor at Lake Hefner in Oklahoma City as drought continues to be a problem across the state. The relentless, weather-gone-crazy type of heat that has blistered the United States and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare and off-the-charts that it can't be anything but man-made global warming, a new statistical analysis from a top government scientist says.(AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki, File)

The relentless, weather-gone-crazy type of heat that has blistered the United States and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare that it can't be anything but man-made global warming, says a new statistical analysis from a top government scientist.

The research by a man often called the "godfather of global warming" says that the likelihood of such temperatures occurring from the 1950s through the 1980s was rarer than 1 in 300. Now, the odds are closer to 1 in 10, according to the study by NASA scientist James Hansen. He says that statistically what's happening is not random or normal, but pure and simple climate change.

"This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact," Hansen told The Associated Press in an interview.

Hansen is a scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and a professor at Columbia University. But he is also a strident activist who has called for government action to curb greenhouse gases for years. While his study was published online Saturday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, it is unlikely to sway opinion among the remaining climate change skeptics.

However, several climate scientists praised the new work.

In a blunt departure from most climate research, Hansen's study — based on statistics, not the more typical climate modeling — blames these three heat waves purely on global warming:

—Last year's devastating Texas-Oklahoma drought.

—The 2010 heat waves in Russia and the Middle East, which led to thousands of deaths.

—The 2003 European heat wave blamed for tens of thousands of deaths, especially among the elderly in France.

The analysis was written before the current drought and record-breaking temperatures that have seared much of the United States this year. But Hansen believes this too is another prime example of global warming at its worst.

In this Aug. 19, 2003 file photo, the Ibardin lake, which provides drinking water to the southern French cities of Hendaye, Biriatu and Urrugne, is almost dry due to the recent heat wave, near the French-Spanish border. The relentless, weather-gone-crazy type of heat that has blistered the United States and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare and off-the-charts that it can't be anything but man-made global warming, a new statistical analysis from a top government scientist says. (AP Photo/Bob Edme, File)

The new research makes the case for the severity of global warming in a different way than most scientific studies and uses simple math instead of relying on complex climate models or an understanding of atmospheric physics. It also doesn't bother with the usual caveats about individual weather events having numerous causes.

The increase in the chance of extreme heat, drought and heavy downpours in certain regions is so huge that scientists should stop hemming and hawing, Hansen said. "This is happening often enough, over a big enough area that people can see it happening," he said.

Scientists have generally responded that it's impossible to say whether single events are caused by global warming, because of the influence of natural weather variability.

However, that position has been shifting in recent months, as other studies too have concluded climate change is happening right before our eyes.

In this Thursday, Aug. 2 2012 photo, Dr. James E. Hansen head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies gestures during an interview with the Associated Press at his office in New York. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

Hansen hopes his new study will shift people's thinking about climate change and goad governments into action. He wrote an op-ed piece that appeared online Friday in the Washington Post.

"There is still time to act and avoid a worsening climate, but we are wasting precious time," he wrote.

The science in Hansen's study is excellent "and reframes the question," said Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia who was a member of the Nobel Prize-winning international panel of climate scientists that issued a series of reports on global warming.

"Rather than say, 'Is this because of climate change?' That's the wrong question. What you can say is, 'How likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming?' It's so extraordinarily unlikely that it has to be due to global warming," Weaver said.

For years scientists have run complex computer models using combinations of various factors to see how likely a weather event would happen without global warming and with it. About 25 different aspects of climate change have been formally attributed to man-made greenhouse gases in dozens of formal studies. But these are generally broad and non-specific, such as more heat waves in some regions and heavy rainfall in others.

Another upcoming study by Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, links the 2010 Russian heat wave to global warming by looking at the underlying weather that caused the heat wave. He called Hansen's paper an important one that helps communicate the problem.

In this Thursday, Aug. 2 2012 photo, Dr. James E. Hansen head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies gestures during an interview with the Associated Press at his office in New York. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

But there is bound to be continued disagreement. Previous studies had been unable to link the two, and one by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that the Russian drought, which also led to devastating wildfires, was not related to global warming.

White House science adviser John Holdren praised the paper's findings in a statement. But he also said it is true that scientists can't blame single events on global warming: "This work, which finds that extremely hot summers are over 10 times more common than they used to be, reinforces many other lines of evidence showing that climate change is occurring and that it is harmful."

Skeptical scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville said Hansen shouldn't have compared recent years to the 1950s-1980s time period because he said that was a quiet time for extremes.

But Derek Arndt, director of climate monitoring for the federal government's National Climatic Data Center, said that range is a fair one and often used because it is the "golden era" for good statistics.

Granger Morgan, head of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, called Hansen's study "an important next step in what I expect will be a growing set of statistically-based arguments."

In a landmark 1988 study, Hansen predicted that if greenhouse gas emissions continue, which they have, Washington, D.C., would have about nine days each year of 95 degrees or warmer in the decade of the 2010s. So far this year, with about four more weeks of summer, the city has had 23 days with 95 degrees or hotter temperatures.

Hansen says now he underestimated how bad things would get.

And while he hopes this will spur action including a tax on the burning of fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, others doubt it.

Science policy expert Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado said Hansen clearly doesn't understand social science, thinking a study like his could spur action. Just because something ought to happen, doesn't mean it will, he said.

In an email, he wrote: "Hansen is pursuing a deeply flawed model of policy change, one that will prove ineffectual and with its most lasting consequence a further politicization of climate science (if that is possible!)."

Explore further: Climate change and air pollution will combine to curb food supplies

More information: “Perception of climate change,” by James Hansen, Makiko Sato, and Reto Ruedy, PNAS, 2012.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Determining how warm this summer really was

Oct 01, 2010

An unparalleled heat wave in eastern Europe, coupled with intense droughts and fires around Moscow, put Earth's temperatures in the headlines this summer. Likewise, a string of exceptionally warm days in July ...

1981 climate change predictions were eerily accurate

Apr 09, 2012

A paper published in the journal Science in August 1981 made several projections regarding future climate change and anthropogenic global warming based on manmade CO2 emissions. As it turns out, the authors’ ...

Recommended for you

Australia approves huge India-backed mine

16 hours ago

Australia has given the go-ahead to a massive coal mine in Queensland state which Environment Minister Greg Hunt said Monday could ultimately provide electricity for up to 100 million Indians.

User comments : 121

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
3 / 5 (26) Aug 05, 2012
Hansen must learn Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery and about FALSIFICATION. Or just wander over to WattsUpWithThat to see falsification in action. Believe nothing that you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview. (<<== The latter clause excuses such as Hansen.)
dogbert
2.9 / 5 (27) Aug 05, 2012
James Hansen has been an AGW activist for many years. He has used his employment at NASA to lend legitimacy to his claims and has been chastised by that agency for publishing his views as if they were the agency's position.

Perhaps this quote from Freeman Dyson [Wikipedia] says it best: "The person who is really responsible for this overestimate of global warming is Jim Hansen. He consistently exaggerates all the dangers..."
SatanLover
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2012
they should grow trees and vegetation on that dry land before it becomes deserts.
djr
3.3 / 5 (16) Aug 05, 2012
In a landmark 1988 study, Hansen predicted that if greenhouse gas emissions continue, which they have, Washington, D.C., would have about nine days each year of 95 degrees or warmer in the decade of the 2010s. So far this year, with about four more weeks of summer, the city has had 23 days with 95 degrees or hotter temperatures.

Doug and dogbert - don't address the facts right - just do character assassination on the researcher. Here in Oklahoma we are facing the second year in a row of brutal heat and drought. Wild fires are destroying property all over the state. No we can't make generalizations from specific weather events - but the point is this stuff is serious - and has consequences. Can't you just leave the scientists to do their job - and try their best to keep us informed about what is going on. Again - this stuff is serious - the U.S. corn harvest is in tatters - this stuff has consequences.
Claudius
2.5 / 5 (22) Aug 05, 2012
"...climate change is happening right before our eyes."

And when has the climate ever NOT changed?

This is equivalent to saying "people are aging right before our eyes."

There is still time to act and avoid aging! Just stop breathing!
Claudius
2.7 / 5 (21) Aug 05, 2012
In the summer, it's global warming.

In the winter, it's local weather.
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (24) Aug 05, 2012
Excellent analogy, Claudius.

dir,
Yes, drought is bad. It is bad anywhere it happens. It is also a normal weather phenomenon.

Socialism is also bad and seeking to redistribute wealth by hijacking science is repugnant.

As Claudius so succinctly expressed, an unchanging attribute of climate is that it does change.

Given a choice, I would prefer moving farther from ice age conditions to moving closer to ice age conditions. Agriculture was not common during the ice ages. Really bad corn harvest.
Claudius
2.4 / 5 (20) Aug 05, 2012
Can't you just leave the scientists to do their job


"...he hopes this will spur action including a tax..."

That's why.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (23) Aug 05, 2012
Again - this stuff is serious - the U.S. corn harvest is in tatters - this stuff has consequences.

And it has happened in the past with less CO2.

dj, ever wonder why OK was homesteaded last? The land and climate was very challenging for easy farming.
The Great Plains used to be called a desert and were quite prolific at growing grasses for bison.
aturc
3.4 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2012
No it is not a good analogy. Of course climates change.
The problem has always been the rate of climate change that is currently happening appears to be too quick for humans to adapt to properly. In historical records it has often had devastating effects on humans. Why would we want to induce it or speed it up.

Also of course climate change could lead to Ice Age conditions. Our current climate is at a point of very delicate equilibrium. Who knows what our perturbations will cause.

The point is that we are destroying our only home. Busy sawing off the branch we are sitting on.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (17) Aug 05, 2012
"But according to new evidence presented by Dr. Muhs last week at a meeting of the American Quaternary Association in Flagstaff, Ariz., there have been several times during the Holocene when even more severe droughts have converted other, larger stretches of the Great Plains to seas of windblown sand dunes like those of the Sahara. These conditions were seen most recently in the 18th and 19th centuries, before the region was heavily settled."
"In 1810, in one of a number of historical accounts collected by Dr. Muhs and his colleagues, the explorer Zebulon Pike wrote this about parts of Kansas and Colorado: "These vast plains of the western hemisphere may become in time equally celebrated as the sandy deserts of Africa; for I saw in my route, in various places, tracts of many leagues, where the wind had thrown up the sand, in all the fanciful forms of the ocean's rolling wave, and on which not a speck of vegetable matter existed.""
http://www.nytime...-plains-
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (19) Aug 05, 2012
"Starting about 3,300 years ago, according to an analysis of ancient sediments by Dr. James Knox, a geographer at the University of Wisconsin, the upper Mississippi Valley suddenly began experiencing a series of what would today be called 500-year floods. The 1993 floods in that region were of that magnitude, but paleoclimatologists are uncertain whether they presage another outbreak of severe floods. One remarkable feature of the great floods 3,300 years ago is that they were touched off by relatively modest changes in the global patterns of atmospheric circulation, Dr. Knox said."
"The studies show clearly that the Holocene has abounded in climatic swings "large enough to dwarf changes seen in the instrumentally based climate record of the last 150 years," Dr. Jonathan T. Overpeck wrote recently in the journal Science. Dr. Overpeck directs the paleoclimatology program of the National Geophysical Data Center in Boulder, Colo."
"Great Plains or Great Desert?.." NYT 1996
Claudius
2.6 / 5 (18) Aug 05, 2012
The problem has always been the rate of climate change that is currently happening appears to be too quick


And climate has never changed quickly in the past? Does rapid climate change necessarily imply human influence?

The point is that we are destroying our only home. Busy sawing off the branch we are sitting on.


This is an assumption. Is there an established causal connection between our activities and climate change?
NotParker
2.8 / 5 (20) Aug 05, 2012
Sure, leave out the 1930s. Hansen is a sad joke.
Doug_Huffman
2.8 / 5 (18) Aug 05, 2012
Here in Oklahoma we are facing the second year in a row of brutal heat and drought.
Please define drought so that one drought may be objectively compared to another.

The fundamental data used by warmists is corrupt. See Watts 2012, now in pre-publication and open to comment

http://wattsupwit...ease.pdf

ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (22) Aug 05, 2012
"In the 1860's, a drought much more severe than the one that caused the Dust Bowl apparently brought the desertification of the West to its most recent peak; after that, the dunes stabilized again. Dr. Muhs said that it might take less than a decade of drought to kill enough vegetation to create desert conditions again."
http://www.nytime...p;src=pm

The take-away is that drought in the Great Plains have happened many times in the past, BEFORE the increase of CO2.
What caused those droughts and until Hansen or any other scientists can explain what happened in the past how can CO2 or human causes be the only cause today?
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (22) Aug 05, 2012
I'm beginning to wonder what kind of evidence the deniers WOULD accept. Currently it's just a knee-jerk response of:
"It's science - so it must be wrong"

I'm really wondering why people like this even waste their time on science sites. It would be like me going to religious sites and plastering the comments section with stuff that doesn't belong there. No one is impressed (much less convinced or converted) by those luddites.
ryggesogn2
3.1 / 5 (21) Aug 05, 2012
Anti, I just gave you what is needed to be acceptable. A theory and data that explains past climate changes as described in the NYT article before the changes in CO2 levels.
Why is that so difficult?
Mann and the AGWites understood this so they had to commit fraud to hide the decline.
"But this image of a fluid climate system subject to abrupt and natural up-and-downturns made "unprecedented" 20th-century warming about as marketable as Florida swampland. " see IPCC 1990 chart
http://www.americ...hid.html
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (16) Aug 05, 2012
Scientists with imagination and a good understanding of statistical methods and ability to interpret raw data and how to extract information from noises will always be ahead and in some cases by decades of those bogans and red-necks that deny to try to maintain the status quo out of fear and challenged intellects...
Doug_Huffman
2.6 / 5 (15) Aug 05, 2012
Vanishingly few differentiate deduction from induction, validation from falsification and nonscience from science. See the Boundary Problem. Believe nothing that you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview. (<<==This last clause excuses Hansen and his Okies.)
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (22) Aug 05, 2012
So anti, why do people like Mann and Hansen continue to make 'Chicken Little' pronouncements?
It couldn't have anything to do with their reputations?

antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (16) Aug 05, 2012
If you accept stuff like the dicover of the Higgs boson then this is not much different. You do the statistics and see how much chance you have of having made an error (first or second order). All he's saying that the data is way beyond any kind of "maybe it's a fluke". For other findings you have no problem accepting something with much less statistical significance - but for some bizarre reason only known to yourself that doesn't hold.

I have no problem with your beliefs - just with the mind-boggling inconsistency accross all the beliefs you profess (economic, political, scientific and religious). In all of these areas you just believe what you want to believe and damn the evidence. So what is your point in being here, anyhow?
Caliban
2.4 / 5 (14) Aug 05, 2012
Same old tired-ass bs from the usual suspects here.

doggie, riggsuckn", huffin' doug, and some new clown nick of cloddyus cite the same old repeatedly debunked, distorted, incomplete and cherry-picked data that has been magically "distilled" from (sometimes) actual research and then posted on blogs by well-known charlatans that have very little and mostly no scientific credentials, that are only too happy to utilize any datum that can be taken out of context, omitted, or distorted to support what can't even really be called "junk" or "pseudo" science. It is straight up snake oil.

If you morons expended even a fraction of the amount of energy trying to find solutions to the problem that you devote to your own entirely self-interest motivated denialist ranting, then we might actually stand a chance of getting through this.

contd
Caliban
2.7 / 5 (13) Aug 05, 2012
contd

I suppose when you are beaten and left for dead at the grocery store by a band of starvelings that can't afford to buy their own food because drought-induced crop failures have driven the price through the roof, you can console yourself as you "go to the light" that "heatwaves" always cause an increase in violent crime.

Since you insist that it's just natural variability in "weather", and all...

dogbert
3 / 5 (15) Aug 05, 2012
Caliban,
If you morons expended even a fraction of the amount of energy trying to find solutions to the problem...


We are, of course, finding solutions to the problem. The problem is socialists seeking to redistribute wealth and using the mantle of science to accomplish their political goal.

The solution we have found is to expose your socialist plan and to point out that there is no scientific data to support your claims.

We have always had climate and it has always changed.

We have had socialists for many tiring years and they never change. But they can be resisted.
Gordon_Jenkins
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2012
"Global" is a most ineresting word. It does not mean the U.S. It does not mean Russia. It does not mean Europe. So, what exactly does "Global" mean? Can it even include a place rarely, if ever mentioned at all in polite circles of sponsored climatologists? The most Vulgar and Heinous of places to ever occupy the "Globe" as in "Global", is none other than Antarctica with its Antarctic Ice Sheet. Has anybody ever heard of a thing called an Absorbtion Regrigerator? What about Cryo Sorption pumps? You see, atmospheric water vapours tend to collect on cold surfaces, like the cold water pipes for your toilet tank and sometimes the toilet tank itself. The moisture condensed there, not by circulation, of clouds and winds, but by diffusion. As the water vapour touched the cold surface, it cooled and condensed and became trapped. That is called the "cold trap" method. Funnily enough, the Antarctic Ice sheet just happens to be a cold moisture absorbtion surface and it's getting bigger!!
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2012
Dogbert feebly plumbed
We have always had climate & it has always changed.
The questionable issue is the rate *and* probabilistically causal factors. Its obvious GW can occur without GHG eg high insolation historically & with GHG re CO2, methane etc. The issue many GW denialists cannot appreciate or sidestep is the statistical relationships which suggest (more strongly) anthropomorphic origins.

Gordon_Jenkins offered an unconnected idea
Funnily enough, the Antarctic Ice sheet just happens to be a cold moisture absorption surface and it's getting bigger
Obviously there are complex factors; distribution, flow, measurement issues etc

The general correlation seems to be AGW denialists are dogmatic, seek overly simplistic arguments and cherry pick. Whereas scientists (with integrity) seek disciplined knowledge & do not automatically gravitate to dogma but explore hypotheses over the long term with rational basis.

CO2 is rising, temps are rising, regardless of insolation.
NotParker
3 / 5 (14) Aug 05, 2012
In a landmark 1988 study, Hansen predicted that if greenhouse gas emissions continue, which they have, Washington, D.C., would have about nine days each year of 95 degrees or warmer in the decade of the 2010s. So far this year, with about four more weeks of summer, the city has had 23 days with 95 degrees or hotter temperatures.


According to the recently released BEST data, the last 5 years were only the 3rd warmest TMAX (average maximum temp) in the district of columbia.

1 1996 - 2001 0.75
2 1986 - 1991 0.67
3 2006 - 2011 0.57
4 1951 - 1956 0.48
5 1926 - 1931 0.43
6 2001 - 2006 0.4
7 1941 - 1946 0.29
8 1931 - 1936 0.24
9 1946 - 1951 0.19

Hansen is a crackpot.

Data is here if you wish to check:

http://berkeleyea...rend.txt
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2012
damn the evidence

Evidence like collapsing economies in Greece, Spain, ....California,...due to big govt socialism?
Who is damning the evidence?

"Israel itself had to change in order to spur economic growth, abandoning the old socialist solidarity of the kibbutz for a political culture that encourages entrepreneurship, investment, and risk-taking. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cut taxes, reduced government spending, reformed pensions, and begun privatizing state-owned companies,"
http://www.realcl...008.html

CrooklynBoy
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2012
We will not let you destroy Capitalism for your crackpot Marxist agenda.

Deal with it.
SatanLover
2.9 / 5 (10) Aug 05, 2012
We will not let you destroy Capitalism for your crackpot Marxist agenda.

Deal with it.

capitalism is already nearly destroyed, deal with it.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2012
We will not let you destroy Capitalism for your crackpot Marxist agenda.

Deal with it.

capitalism is already nearly destroyed, deal with it.

Eventually socialism collapses so there is no 'dealing with it' except for managing the pain and trying not to repeat the socialist mistakes.
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2012
Eventually socialism collapses so there is no 'dealing with it'
You don't know that. You're just making things up as always. Economies based upon Jewish banking always collapse, as a mathematical certainty.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (6) Aug 05, 2012
We will not let you destroy Capitalism for your crackpot Marxist agenda.

Deal with it.


Won't be necessary.

Even as we speak, Capitalism is destroying itself.

julianpenrod
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2012
The same New World Order non argument doggerel.
Hansen believes in climate change so every interpretation he makes is going to favor it. As opposed to denialists who refuse to accept it no matter what the information says.
There have been isolated extreme incidents in the past. There is absolutely no difference between an isolated incident among decades of normal years, and sustained, consistent periods of successive extreme events.
Those pushing climate change are trying for economic advantage from it. As opposed to those who deny it, who are looking for economic advantage from denying it.
Climate changed before. It makes absolutely no difference that it's proceeding hundreds of times faster now.
I made the statement before and never received an answer. Just exactly what would all the climate change deniers accept as proof that climate is behave abnormally now, due to human interference? None will provide an snwer. They will retort, but not answer.
julianpenrod
3 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2012
NotParker uses characteristic New World Order non argument deceit. In this case, "disproving" the point by examining something else altogether!
Hansen said that Washington, D.C. would begin to have nine or more days each year of 95 degree or higher temperatures. Like any NWO liar, NotParker "answers" by looking at average high temperatures over suspiciously chosen six year increments! That is, the highest temperature achieved over those spans of years are averaged out. It is not examined how many hot days each year in each span had! That is not the liar's way!
Note, suppose three years in the Eighties, specially chosen so that the desired result would be unethically achieved, had otherwise normal days but, in each, one day of 100 degree temperatures. Now supposed every day, from January 1 to December 31, of every year was 85 degrees. Which would be the warmer span?
SatanLover
Aug 05, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
po6ert
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 05, 2012
variation in a statistical system such as climate is natural.
change must be stastically significant. the data set being used allows for no relaevant conclusion
Claudius
2.1 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2012
variation in a statistical system such as climate is natural.
change must be stastically significant. the data set being used allows for no relaevant conclusion


Also don't forget climate is a chaotic system, inherently unpredictable.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (15) Aug 05, 2012
Sure, leave out the 1930s. Hansen is a sad joke.


Remember, in the 1930s they didn't have the irrigation water system/reservoirs to call upon. But now, even with these added backstops, the situation is even more dire.

Also remember, it's not the changes per se, but the increasing severity and frequency and sudden ubiquity of both flood and drought (and everything in between) that is the pattern which cannot be equated with past changes/patterns which were not affected by our activities.

Remember too, in the past you could be run over by a stampeding buffalo, now you can be run over by cars and trucks. Manmade risks ADDITIONAL to natural risks.

Just see that the pattern of extremes is almost global 'coninuous norm' running into each other in timing and geography now compared to the 'orderly intermittency' of past natural patterns.

You keep 'political reading' what's under your nose and on the tv screen almost every day now. You're better than that. Good luck!

RealityCheck.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 05, 2012
So when are people going to stop arguing abut who is responsible and start talking about what we can do to mitigate the effects?
Doug_Huffman
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2012
I suppose when you are beaten and left for dead ...
Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth. God bless the Bitter Clingers.
julianpenrod
3.2 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2012
Just saying, illiterately, a data set is not enough to come to a conclusion doesn't make it insufficient. In fact, the climate records are sufficient to validate that conditions are significantly different than they used to be. There were never hundred degree heat waves in Northern Europe, hurricane seasons with more than 26 named storms, tornado numbers bordering on 2000, record year-to-year Arctic ice decrease and the first new cloud species in half a cenutry being recognized all within ten years! And if the climate was as unpredictable as Claudius wants to suggest, these and other weird weather would occur on a regular basis.
And note, I asked the deniers what manifestations they would accept as proof of climate change. They did not respond because they intend never to admit climate is changing, even when it is! They know it is changing, but they all intend to lie. Their failure to specify evidence is proof they are all liars.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2012
It is far better to stop cancer than to try and mitigate it's effects.

"what we can do to mitigate the effects?" - maggnus

Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2012
Correct. Correct. Correct. and Correct.

"And note, I asked the deniers what manifestations they would accept as proof of climate change. They did not respond because they intend never to admit climate is changing, even when it is! They know it is changing, but they all intend to lie. Their failure to specify evidence is proof they are all liars." - Julian
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2012
Gets yer sunday paper here. Read all about it.

Another incompetent paper from radio weather announcer Antony Watts (Watts up with that).

Real all about it...

http://www.skepti...que.html
kirsdela
1 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2012
like Arthur replied I am shocked that a student able to earn $9035 in four weeks on the internet. have you seen this web link NuttyRich.com
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 06, 2012
I suppose when you are beaten and left for dead ...
Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and Guns and the Truth. God bless the Bitter Clingers.


That's right, cling to your hollow sloganeering, huffy.

Guns and ammo are already --and have for some time been-- cheaper than food.

Good luck!

Birger
4 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2012


We are, of course, finding solutions to the problem. The problem is socialists seeking to redistribute wealth and using the mantle of science to accomplish their political goal.

The solution we have found is to expose your socialist plan and to point out that there is no scientific data to support your claims.


Yeah, the communist-jewish-freemason world conspiracy has faked every data set from Antarctica to Greenland, from Australia to Timbuktu...
Really, if your enemies had the near-divine powers you claim, they would already have built the Fourth Reich.
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2012
julianpenrod,
I asked the deniers what manifestations they would accept as proof of climate change. They did not respond because they intend never to admit climate is changing, even when it is!


The burden of proof resides with the people who make the claims. It is not required that others prove the claim to be false.

Here are a few things which might tend to legitimize a claim of global warmiing:

1) The arbitrary computer models being played with can produce any result the programmers desire -- and they do. What they do not produce is prediction. None of the computer predictions actually predicted temperatures & weather. So create models which actually predict the future and model the past if you want someone to believe your models.
2) Every claim of global warming includes a claim that the warming is cause by human beings. Leave out the political agenda and prove the main premise.

continued...
dogbert
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2012
continued...
3) Every claim of global warming includes nothing but bad outcomes. Recognize that any change in climate must necessarily have both positive and negative effects.
4) Every claim on global warming is followed immediately by calls for redistribution of wealth. If you are serious about the science, remove the socialism.

None of those changes will establish AGW, but trying to appear scientific about your claims will help to sell your Chicken Little stories.
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2012
The burden of proof resides with the people who make the claims. It is not required that others prove the claim to be false.

But it is required that they state which level of proof they would accept.
In science this often translates to some sigma level of confidence.

For example I don't believe in gods. But I also have to state that if one were to manifest itself and were to demonstrate its omnipotence/omniscience then that would constitute proof for me that that is indeed a god.

None of the computer predictions actually predicted temperatures & weather.

Because we're talking climate here - not weather. These are VERY differentthings (and it is endemic of 'deniers' to confuse the two)

Leave out the political agenda and prove the main premise.

Climate science is done the world over. Only in the US is it (though to be) political. That is why this argument is patently false (and why the rest of the world just looks on with incredulity at the US-'deniF
Bog_Mire
2.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2012
where else can you mail order machine guns and ammo enough to mass murder? where else can you have enough ignorance and xenophobia to believe a Sikh is a terrorist because they wear a turban? or that your President is a born terrorist because he isn't called "George"? where else can you find a political group who genuinely believe that an entire scientific profession are conspiring to redistribute wealth in the most bizarrely convoluted and difficult way imaginable?
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2012
Every claim of global warming includes nothing but bad outcomes.

Because it is those which we need to do something about.
When you get shot inthe head you may experience some positive side effects (better ventilation to the brain) - but that's not really what should be your primary concern at that point, or is it?
Every claim on global warming is followed immediately by calls for redistribution of wealth.

That's news to me. Certainly not from the scientific community.

Rampant greed and the pressures of extreme capitalism are certainly factors that have exacerbated the situation.
When you are in fierce competition or just simply want to maximise profits the first things you ditch are sustainable/environmentally friendlypractices - as they have a terrible ROI in the short term.

And short term profits is what it's all about to the stockholders. If they don't get it they will buy stock somewhere else.

But there are other views than black/white capitalism/socialism.
Pallas
3 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2012
have you guys ever heard of the dustbowl? that was 80 years ago...
dogbert
2.8 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2012
antialias_physorg,
Every claim on global warming is followed immediately by calls for redistribution of wealth.


That's news to me. Certainly not from the scientific community.


OK, lets quote this article to show the call for redistribution of wealth.

Hansen says now he underestimated how bad things would get.

And while he hopes this will spur action including a tax on the burning of fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, others doubt it.


antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2012
Hansen says now he underestimated how bad things would get. And while he hopes this will spur action including a tax on the burning of fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, others doubt it.

And this is 'socialist' exactly how? Isn't it sensible to have those that cause damage also pay for the damage?

Or do you advocate that 'the community' pay for the damage caused by corporations...because that would be (gasp) socialist, n'est-ce pas?
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2012
Taxes are the simplest and most direct methods to encourage innovation. Its not about wealth distribution as such as it depends where the money the government gets is distributed - lower taxes for the people that produce wealth - the working majority is not socialist.

Besides how else could one impose a penalty on polluters without huge administrative issues and by their complexity subject to corruption... ?
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2012
Hansen says now he underestimated how bad things would get. And while he hopes this will spur action including a tax on the burning of fossil fuels, which emit carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, others doubt it.

And this is 'socialist' exactly how? Isn't it sensible to have those that cause damage also pay for the damage?

Or do you advocate that 'the community' pay for the damage caused by corporations...because that would be (gasp) socialist, n'est-ce pas?

What damage?
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2012
What damage?

Climate change? Ever heard of it? Just saying "it doesn't exist" does not make it go away. Just like claiming that fracking is safe, drilling for oil is safe, nuclear reactors are safe, etc. doesn't make it so.

And the community IS paying for all the damage the companies are causing. With money and lives.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (12) Aug 06, 2012
What damage?
The most recent significant climate change 'damage' has been to uncover much land to farming and habitation all across the northern hemisphere.
But, I guess climate change conservatives still want the the glaciers to cover Canada and most of Norther Europe. Wouldn't want to damage those glaciers.
antialias_physorg
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2012
There's entire islan nations being inundated. Africa is going to be hit very hard with a rise in temperatures (and already is being hit very hard)
Glaciers are receeding which means less freshwater to irrigate fields.

Are you blind?

That some small cold areas will become temperate doesn't outweigh this by a VERY long shot.
ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (13) Aug 06, 2012
From the article:

The increase in the chance of extreme heat, drought and heavy downpours in certain regions is so huge that scientists should stop hemming and hawing, Hansen said. "This is happening often enough, over a big enough area that people can see it happening," he said.
If this were true, wouldn't you expect extreme temepertatures (record highs and lows) to significantly skew to the past decade?

And yet out of 100 US state high and low extreme temperature records, only 6 occur in the past decade! And, accurate records rarely go back more than a little over a century in many regions. There could be extremes from the past, we couldn't even imagine happening today.

http://en.wikiped...extremes

And globally, the world hasn't warmed in more than a decade.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

Raisng Chicken Little concerns over extremes, versus global averages, is bad science!
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2012
There's entire islan nations being inundated.
This is only true because the seas have been rising at a consistent rate since records began. There is no evidence any of this is linked to AGW.

Africa is going to be hit very hard with a rise in temperatures (and already is being hit very hard)
And yet the high and low record extremes are from 1922 and 1935.

http://www.ncdc.n...mes.html

Glaciers are receeding which means less freshwater to irrigate fields.
The U.S. is the world's largest food exporter. Just how much U.S. irrigation do you think relies on seasonal glacier melt?

Are you blind?
You appear naive.

That some small cold areas will become temperate doesn't outweigh this by a VERY long shot.
Actually, it does ...and significantly so. It's not just "some small cold areas" which are becoming temperate. It's cold, hot, and dry climate regions which are becoming temperate.
NotParker
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 06, 2012
There's entire islan nations being inundated.


Coral reefs tend to grow to deal with sea level rise. Sea level has risen 100 meters in the last 18,000 years.

Coral can deal with the 1-2mm per year rise as measured by tide gauges.

The fantasy 10mm per year rise which never occurs is more difficult because corals do not grow in response to mass delusions.
Modernmystic
2.9 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2012
I'm beginning to wonder what kind of evidence the deniers WOULD accept. Currently it's just a knee-jerk response of: "It's science - so it must be wrong"


No evidence will be enough, because AGW is not the issue with them. It's not even the issue with those who accept the science. The ISSUE (which no one ever really talks about) is the policies which have been put forward to fix the problem. They are all highly politicized and none of the mainstream ones have any realistic chance of making a difference at all.

There is something seriously wrong with our planet and we have one large group of people using it as an excuse to push their political ideology, and another group who's so afraid of the solutions proposed they can't allow themselves to admit to the fact that there even is a problem. It would be a comedy if the stakes weren't so high....
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2012
Coral reefs tend to grow to deal with sea level rise. Sea level has risen 100 meters in the last 18,000 years.

Don't be obtuse. There are millions of people who are about to be displaced in Bangladesh. Valuable farmland is being lost in Papua New guinea and parts of Indonesia. Most anything in Egypt is at sea level.
The island nation of Kiribati has basically ceased to exist for the most part. Tuvalu is no better shape. The Maledives are crying out.

How blind can you be? Open your eyes. This is not simulation. This is reality.

we're not talking about stuff that is happening in the near or far future. This is stuff that is already happening (and in some cases has already happened).
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2012
so afraid of the solutions proposed

What solutions?
Technical solutions are feared by the socialist/Ehrlich disciples because it increase the liberty and prosperity of individuals and lessens the power of the state.
Isn't that why Lomborg quit the AGWite movement?
"At protests calling on politicians to respond to climate change, a cry has rung out: No coal, no gas, no nukes, no kidding! The harsh reality thrown into stark relief by the Japanese disaster is that we do not yet have the luxury of dumping coal, gas, and nuclear power. Until we can find a feasible alternative, reducing reliance on one of them means that another must take its place."
http://www.projec...o-nukes-
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2012
Technical solutions are feared by the socialist/Ehrlich disciples because it increase the liberty and prosperity of individuals and lessens the power of the state.
Neocons are socialists now?
SatanLover
Aug 06, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SatanLover
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2012
i also keep hearing crazy stuff like marxist church, left church etc.

they obviously dont know about karls pyramid.
Maggnus
3.3 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2012
It is far better to stop cancer than to try and mitigate it's effects. [q/]

A red herring. If something had been done 20, 15 or even 10 years ago, it might have made a difference. It's too late now; the amount of co2 that has been added to the atmosphere will take hundreds if not thousands of years to be re-sequestered. Worse, there is very little being done on a practical level to reduce the amount of co2 and other greenhouse gasses still being put into the atmosphere, and there is no sign that anything practical will be done for the forseeable future.
The effects are happening now. Time to start talking about how we are going to deal with the changes we've wrought.
1 good thing: in 10,000 or so years, our ancesters will thank us for forstalling or even cancelling the iceage that likely will not come now.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2012
Don't be obtuse. There are millions of people who are about to be displaced in Bangladesh. Valuable farmland is being lost in Papua New guinea and parts of Indonesia. Most anything in Egypt is at sea level.
The island nation of Kiribati has basically ceased to exist for the most part. Tuvalu is no better shape. The Maledives are crying out.

How blind can you be? Open your eyes. This is not simulation. This is reality.

we're not talking about stuff that is happening in the near or far future. This is stuff that is already happening (and in some cases has already happened).
Again: This is only true because the seas have been rising at a consistent rate since records began. There is no evidence any of this is linked to AGW.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2012
This is only true because the seas have been rising at a consistent rate since records began. There is no evidence any of this is linked to AGW.

I dunno. The thousands of papers to this effect speak another language. Scientists don't just write these for shits and giggles. There's hard data behind them.
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
What solutions?


Marching lockstep back into the forests? Solar panels and glorified modern windmills aren't...I repeat ARE NOT going to solve the problem. Neither are an army of politicians and their five year plans to tax this and regulate that.

Nuclear power is the only viable option I can honestly see right now. Maybe in the long run fusion, but I'm not holding my breath for that. I won't derail the entire thread to allay the fears and strawmen that are always thrown at that solution...mostly because the vast majority of people on the left don't REALLY have a reasonable objection to nuclear power. A great many don't like it because if we did it then they couldn't have all the taxes and expanded federal power over the energy industry...

And that's simply what a large majority of them want out of this...nothing more or less. "Saving the planet" is a nice moniker to wear, it's just not always an honest one...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2012
Scientists don't just write these for shits and giggles. There's hard data behind them.

They are written to keep the funding stream coming into their research institutes.
But when others have the opportunity to analyze the hard data, they get different results, as was the case with Mann' 'hard' data.
antialias_physorg
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
Nuclear power is the only viable option right now.

I don't think that type of thinking is productive. There is no one approach that is going to solve all problems.
(Aside from the fact that going only nuclear isn't feasible because nuclear doesn't scale without serious problems itself)
They don't like it because if we did it then they couldn't have all their taxes and expanded federal power over the energy industry..

You may notice that the change to other power sources is not a US issue - it's a global issue. And that any US-local political qualms (you may imagine) people have aren't relevant to the global challenge ahead.

They are written to keep the funding stream coming into their research institutes

Other countries have other funding structures. Only in the US might this be an issue. But climate research is global. And in most of the world funding isn't dependent on whether you write politically correct/incorrect papers (not even in the US).
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2012
You may notice that the change to other power sources is not a US issue - it's a global issue. And that any US-local political qualms (you may imagine) people have aren't relevant to the global challenge ahead.


I can't speak to that. If someone figures out how to run their country with windmills and "silicone plants" without rolling black outs and killing millions of people I'll be impressed, tickled pink, and gladly admit I'm wrong.

I don't think that type of thinking is productive. There is no one approach that is going to solve all problems.


Quite true, normally it isn't. I haven't seen a single other solution that in my mind does anything other than make people feel good. If you have something to add which hasn't been re-hashed over and over again I'll be only too happy to listen.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2012
I don't think that type of thinking is productive. There is no one approach that is going to solve all problems.


But decisions MUST be made and if nuclear energy is discarded out of have how productive is that?
The US Navy has been operating nuclear power plants on ships and subs for decades.
It's not technology or science holding back nuclear energy, it is politics.
The United Arab Emirates are now building legitimate nuclear reactors for power.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2012
capitalism is already nearly destroyed, deal with it.


Indeed...and I'm not clear why you think this is a good thing. Do you think that America, and Europe are in good financial condition? Have I missed something in the headlines?

IOW we don't have capitalism in America, we don't have it in Europe and neither of us are doing very well at the moment. I'm not really a proponent of any specific economic system, but if something isn't working...like the socialist systems we have now...then perhaps capitalism would be worth trying?
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2012
The US Navy has been operating nuclear power plants on ships and subs for decades.

So have other navies. The result: Dumping nuclear reactors into the oceans either because these ships occasionally sink or, as in the case of the russian navy, by design. Not a terribly good idea. As my professor in a class on ionizing radiation once told us: Dumping radioactive stuff into a lake and stirring it twice (read: "solution by dilution") is not considered 'safe disposal'.

It's not technology or science holding back nuclear energy, it is politics.

And with good reason. There's a difference between technology and implementation of that technology. While in theory nuclear reactors are very safe they aren't in practice. Not because the technology isn't understood - but because companies will cut costs, humans will make mistakes, and the occasional natural disaster will play hob with our design expectations.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2012
Nuclear energy is quite safe in theory and practice. Far more people have been killed in oil, coal, and gas fired plants than all the nuclear accidents combined. Nuclear energy is not relatively dangerous at all. This is common and quite understandable misconception...but a misconception nonetheless.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2012
Nuclear energy is quite safe in theory and practice.
Have you been following the news the past few years?

Yes: there are deaths that can be attributed to oil and coal. But death count is not all there is to it. Having large swathes of countryside unusable or getting high concentrations of radionucleids in fish the world over may not DIRECTLY kill anyone - but it certainly isn't something we should aspire to (and is also something some countries with low total area cannot afford at all)

And for nuclear to make any dent in energy production we'd need 1-2 orders of magnitude more reactors (which translates into 1-2 orders of magnitude more accidents, because the types of accidents that have happened and are happening aren't caused by sub-par tech)

add to that that higher demand means higher prices for rods (and orders of magnitude more disposal sites...where exactly?)...and you can see that nuclear isn't a solution at all.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2012
but because companies will cut costs, humans will make mistakes, and the occasional natural disaster will play hob with our design expectations.


But govts never make mistakes? The worst nuclear pollution in the US was at Rocky Flats, CO. A Pu reprocessing facility run by the govt.
Coal fired plants all over the world spew out radioactive material, all with the approval of govts.
Co60, a very strong gamma source is used commercially to sterilize medical products. It is stored in the cleanest water in the world when not in use.
Medical facilities have x-ray machines and use nuclear materials for treatment.
Sounds like anti is afraid of nuclear power. Not vary rational.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2012
Modernmystic implied nuclear power is safe & to think otherwise implies people are wrong:
Nuclear energy is quite safe in theory and practice. Far more people have been killed in oil, coal, and gas fired plants than all the nuclear accidents combined. This is a common and quite understandable misconception..
Seemed moderately articulate but sadly you pretend to be a one dimensional propagandist dunderhead of low & narrow IQ !

I point out !
Radiation fallout is with us for millenia, have you heard of Chernobyl, 3-mile island, Sellafield (others), a place in Japan etc ?

I'm all in favour of fusion & for short term thorium based fission but to suggest all existing nuclear power is somehow safe & any danger is a misconception is a really bad type of attack & a lie, who pays you to be so narrow ?

We have so much solar power arriving on earth, far exceeds by several orders of magnitude our consumption, be smart unlike Modernmystic's narrow view, for our children's sake Please !
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2012
because the types of accidents that have happened and are happening aren't caused by sub-par tech


If we're talking about Chernobyl you're 100% mistaken. If we're talking about Japan the (extremely old and outdated) tech wasn't even in question. It was the policy to keep spent fuel rods on site rather than any failure of the technology involved in the plant. The majority of the radiation released is because the roof blew off the spent fuel storage facility...

(cont.)
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2012
I don't know how else to compare the safety of various power sources other than directly anti. I'm sorry that such comparisons don't support your position. The simple fact of the matter is that even hydro power alone dwarfs the deaths caused by nuclear plants, much less all the others. If it's a matter of scale I do have some comparisons of deaths/TWh from various energy sources:

Coal:161
Oil:36
Natural Gas:4
Biofuel/Biomass:12
Solar (rooftop):0.44
Wind:0.15
Hydro:1.4
Nuclear:0.04

If you want to talk about huge swaths of land being unusable, then let's talk about the enormous tracks of land needed for any realistic production of solar and wind power.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2012
a place in Japan etc ?


Do you mean Fukushima? Please be more clear.

Chernobyl


Yes, it's as bad as it can possibly get and it killed an estimated 4,000 people...quite literally impossible for this to happen in a modern design. Period.

I'm all in favour of fusion & for short term thorium based fission but to suggest all existing nuclear power is somehow safe & any danger is a misconception is a really bad type of attack & a lie, who pays you to be so narrow ?


No power source is safe. I'm stating as fact (not implying) that nuclear power is safer than almost all other forms of power. No one had to pay me to look up statistics on Google...
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2012
We have so much solar power arriving on earth, far exceeds by several orders of magnitude our consumption, be smart unlike Modernmystic's narrow view, for our children's sake Please !


For the sake of the children...did you honestly say that?

Solar power my be plentiful when you consider nothing past it's arrival on the planet. Little inconvenient things like maintenance, efficiency, transmission, land use, etc. etc. etc.

So, your definition of being "smart" is being swayed by emotional pleas? I just want to be clear.
SatanLover
1 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2012
"its a brave new world"

comment removed by piss.org

"Its called projection kock"

comment removed by piss.org
kochevnik
2.8 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
For the sake of the children...did you honestly say that?
Yeah he did because man's genetic legacy is more important that some filthy propeller heads. Nuclear is the new second-hand smoke. You may be content with destroyed environment but, frankly, your concerns are less important that those who choose to preserve a healthy environment.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2012
man's genetic legacy is more important that some filthy propeller heads.

Not according to the disciples of Ehrlich and negative growthers.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2012
"Martin P. Hoerling, a researcher with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who studies the causes of weather extremes, said he shared Dr. Hansens general concern about global warming. But he has in the past criticized Dr. Hansen for, in his view, exaggerating the connection between global warming and specific weather extremes. In an interview, he said he felt that Dr. Hansen had done so again. "
"This isnt a serious science paper, Dr. Hoerling said. Its mainly about perception, as indicated by the papers title. Perception is not a science. "
http://www.nytime...tw-share
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2012
man's genetic legacy is more important that some filthy propeller heads.
Not according to the disciples of Ehrlich and negative growthers.
There is no relationship between my topic and yours whatsoever.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2012
man's genetic legacy is more important that some filthy propeller heads.
Not according to the disciples of Ehrlich and negative growthers.
There is no relationship between my topic and yours whatsoever.

No growthers should embrace nuclear power if koch claims it makes people sterile.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2012
This is only true because the seas have been rising at a consistent rate since records began. There is no evidence any of this is linked to AGW.

I dunno. The thousands of papers to this effect speak another language. Scientists don't just write these for shits and giggles. There's hard data behind them.
What papers? You mean the ones that supposedly model future sea level rise? Perhaps you don't think actual measurements are real? You know, actual data? ...collected in the field? ...facts? ...reality?

This one has a .3mm annual bias built in (relative to land), and it doesn't show any recent acceleration.

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

And here's a longer period:

http://upload.wik...Rise.png

Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
For the sake of the children...did you honestly say that?
Yeah he did because man's genetic legacy is more important that some filthy propeller heads.


And what does this have to do with nuclear power, which has killed less than a tenth what coal fired plants do...

Nuclear is the new second-hand smoke.


That is a blatant falsehood wrapped in an emotional false comparison...go fish.

You may be content with destroyed environment but,


I've shown with statistics and facts that nuclear power does in fact do less damage to human beings than any other power source. I've no clue when I said I'd be content with a destroyed environment, but nice try with shoving words in my mouth I guess?

(cont)
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2012
frankly, your concerns are less important that those who choose to preserve a healthy environment.


If you were HONESTLY concerned about the environment you'd support nuclear power. It kills fewer people, is safer, and isn't going to bake the planet. It also has the added benefit of actually WORKING.

However, I suspect you have absolutely no honest interest in the environment, and rather have far more interest in pushing some political agenda (like expanding government power over industry and human beings in general), which technological solutions to the problem that we're actually attempting to discuss make totally irrelevant.

In fact in the face of cold hard statistics which unequivically show is that nuclear power is safer than any other kind one has a hard time coming to any other conclusion about otherwise intelligent people who argue with nothing but emotion against something that would benefit and the environment immeasurably.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2012
Here is the big difference between how humans used to be and how they are now.

Previously we only RE-acted to the environment. Now we have the cognitive capacity to INTER-act with the environment.

This is a quantum leap IMO. It's the same with the people you meet every day. You have RE-active people (read reactionary) and those that take a more, if I may be so bold, advanced tack on human interaction.

We need to take this quantum leap to as far as we can...

It's all fear driven. We attempted and still attempt to CONTROL our environment ie agriculture, cities etc. We attempted to extricate ourselves from the chaotic complexity of the environment and failed...read famine, disease, ect ect.

We need to understand that all conceptions of control are illusory. We need to fess up and face reality...on both "sides".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2012
We need to understand that all conceptions of control are illusory.

How do AGWites plan to control the climate on the Moon or Mars?
Of course they can't.
If humans are going to live there they need to create a micro-climate to live in and adapt just as many other animals do on earth.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
How do AGWites plan to control the climate on the Moon or Mars?
Of course they can't.


They can't control it, they can influence it. The degree to which is a function of technology. Large scale terraforming is sound in principle.

And it isn't just "AGWites" that believe that human colonization and terraforming are a possibility...reference Heinlein....
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
If you were HONESTLY concerned about the environment you'd support nuclear power. It kills fewer people, is safer, and isn't going to bake the planet. It also has the added benefit of actually WORKING.
With Hiroshima 280,959 people died. Just within this year, no less than 5,729 people are added to the list. According to the report of Japanese government in 2011, which is presumed to be the most moderate estimate, Fukushima reactors emitted 168 times much cesium-137 as Hiroshima atomic bomb by August of 2011.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2012
"Everyone is exposed to very small amounts of cesium-137 in soil and water as a result of atmospheric fallout."
http://www.epa.go...ium.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
"A new study from the University of Toronto at Scarborough has found that low doses of radiation could have beneficial effects on health."
http://www.scienc...2047.htm
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
If you were HONESTLY concerned about the environment you'd support nuclear power. It kills fewer people, is safer, and isn't going to bake the planet. It also has the added benefit of actually WORKING.
With Hiroshima 280,959 people died. Just within this year, no less than 5,729 people are added to the list. According to the report of Japanese government in 2011, which is presumed to be the most moderate estimate, Fukushima reactors emitted 168 times much cesium-137 as Hiroshima atomic bomb by August of 2011.


In point of fact Fukushima reactors emitted extremely little radiation. I'd be happy to see your source that the spent fuel buildings which did emit the lion's share of radiation were as high as you say and will in all likelihood kill more people than the atomic bombs.

Even if true, and even if you count the deaths of the atomic bombs the number of people that nuclear power and bombs have killed is far less than "conventional" power sources...
Howhot
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2012
In a landmark 1988 study, Hansen predicted that if greenhouse gas emissions continue, which they have, Washington, D.C., would have about nine days each year of 95 degrees or warmer in the decade of the 2010s. So far this year, with about four more weeks of summer, the city has had 23 days with 95 degrees or hotter temperatures.


Yeap, another nail in the coffin of the lying right of rush party.
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Aug 09, 2012
... the city has had 23 days with 95 degrees or hotter temperatures.


Yeap, another nail in the coffin of the lying right of rush party.


Except, way more 100F days occurred in the 20s and 1930s as of 2011.

"July 19-22, 1930 make up the longest string of days 100F in Washington at four, also featuring the hottest temperature on record. Washington has dealt with three other 100F streaks of three days, most recently in 1993. The most 100-degree days in any year was 11 in 1930, when two major streaks of 100F lasted for the record four days and three days (with a two day break in between) each. "

http://www.ianliv...-average

AGW Cult: 100F days are irelevant if they occurred in the past. But if they occur now, they are proof of AGW.

Why weren't they proof of natural variability?
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2012
Even if true, and even if you count the deaths of the atomic bombs the number of people that nuclear power and bombs have killed is far less than "conventional" power sources...

Sooo...the arguemnt is:
"If it kills you but something else kills you more then that makes it super good?"

Is that your 'strong' argument? Really?
Modernmystic
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2012
Sooo...the arguemnt is:
"If it kills you but something else kills you more then that makes it super good?"


No, it's more like; "You can't get around power generation being dangerous, but let's use the one that kills us the least, AND is the most likely to provide realistically for our needs as a growing civilization". Or IOW let's use the safest power possible that doesn't continue to contribute to the global warming crisis.

Is that your 'strong' argument? Really?


Using the safest power available is a fairly strong argument IMO.
Jonseer
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012

Modernmystic..... what you see in the anti-nuclear energy types is the actual parent of the AGW types.

Their modus operandi are the same, and no amount of factual data will sway them.

AGW types are proud of their utter ignorance of science, and so oblivious to how profoundly ignorant they are that they crow about proving seasoned professional scientists wrong with a few bits of data they heard somewhere.

And JUST like them the anti-nuclear energy types are utterly ignorant of the science, especially the modern nuclear science, yet that does not stop them from knowing far more about nuclear energy especially the dangers than any so-called expert, who obviously is an industry shill anyways.

Just like AGW types, they remember a few horrific instances where nuclear power was handled poorly and remember how as a result the world nearly ended.

The bottom line is trying to sway them with facts and information is not going to be any more effective than doing the same with the AGW types.
Jonseer
1 / 5 (6) Aug 11, 2012
Modernmystic - continued from below.

In conclusion, we've seen the AGW movie before in the form of the anti-nuclear energy forces.

The actors are different, the AGW flick picked its "stars" exclusively from the right wing, whereas the ANE forces restricted their choices to the left wing.

Other than that the script they followed was the same, and the results the same.

Thanks to fear and ignorance, proper smart and often the best choice (all things considered) were NOT made, because they place far more faith in what they thought they knew, their fear and ignorance than anything educated, professionals could or would tell them.

Now it seems as the weather goes haywire the AGW types are getting their payback, while the anti-nuke energy types still have yet to pay for their idiocy.

Pay they will however as the price of energy skyrockets thanks to their demands to avoid nuclear at all costs, we will find out how outrageously expensive that choice is very soon.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2012
You can't get around power generation being dangerous,

I dunno. Solar, wind, and wave energy don't strike me as particularly life threatening.
but let's use the one that kills us the least

Exactly my point. Nuclear certainly isn't the one we should be looking at, then.
AND is the most likely to provide realistically for our needs as a growing civilization

Exactly my point. A source based on a finite resource isn't going to do that. Alternative energies are realistic.
Or IOW let's use the safest power possible that doesn't continue to contribute to the global warming crisis.

Sure. But nuclear isn't the only option. It's the worst of all the options.
Using the safest power available is a fairly strong argument IMO.

Safe like this? And I had to go back all of two days to find it.
http://www.ft.com...3ELf3UBA
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2012
Their modus operandi are the same, and no amount of factual data will sway them.
So you agree nuclear energy is the best option for Iran? You should be lobbying the State Department to drop that political football.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2012
"Details Matter"

What is the provenance of any statistics Modernmystic claims, time period, demographics etc ? Your reliance on google is not only disturbing but ignorant of so many factors in respect of the compilation of those statistics.

What is the cost of any so called 'modern' nuclear plant Jonseer ?

Would anyone here, who guess nuclear is not dangerous, actually eat fish caught off the coast of Fukushima ?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2012
So you agree nuclear energy is the best option for Iran?

Sure, if they don't want to make nuclear material for weapons.
UAE and Saudi Arabia are pursuing nuclear power and no one really cares because they don't plan to enrich uranium for weapons.
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
Solar, wind, and wave energy don't strike me as particularly life threatening.


In California a nuclear power plant was off-line and wind and solar were not reliable backups.

People will die if they rely on A/C and the wind dies down.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2012
In California a nuclear power plant was off-line and wind and solar were not reliable backups.

Wind, solar and wave energy do require energy storage/buffer solutions. This is not news. Everyone knows this (MOST of all those in favor of these alternative energy sources)

These buffer solutions aren't in place yet. It is important to start putting them in place (first the politicos have to decide upon which one, though). One step at a time. First step was to show that the energy sources are economically competitive (which they have shown by now). Storage is next.

The energy harvested off these sources is not totally unpredictable. The amount of energy the sun shines on Earth is fairly well known. That energy WILL show up as solar radiation, wind or wave energy some time during the year. So if you can catch and store enough of it to last you the year then you're set.
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2012
"At one point last week, Britains 3,500 turbines were contributing 12 megawatts (MW) to the 38,000MW of electricity we were using. (The Neta website, which carries official electricity statistics, registered this as 0.0 per cent)."

0.0 percent. Imagine if the UK builds another 35,000 and still gets 0%.

What waste of money.

"To guarantee the same amount of power from combined-cycle gas-fired plants would cost £13 billion, barely a tenth as much."

http://www.telegr...icy.html

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2012
What waste of money.

Maybe you should read that sentence again and make note of the "at one point" part.

Over the course of last year over 25% of electricity needs for Scotland were covered by wind farms.

To guarantee the same amount of power from combined-cycle gas-fired plants would cost £13 billion, barely a tenth as much.

EXCLUDING environmental damages. And when we're in a do or die situation with climate then using a cheaper source that will kill us is not an option.

Price is not everything. Life is more important than bank accounts.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2012
Price is not everything. Life is more important than bank accounts.

It is is the cost is your life.
Not long ago, many fewer people worked long hours on farms raising food for themselves and maybe a bit extra to sell.
Why?
Because all they had for energy sources were fodder for their animals to pull plows and wood for their houses.
Life expectancy was much lower than today.

Life is more important than bank accounts? How many Greeks would agree and why do so many Germans protest giving Greeks money? Greek life must be more important than German life.
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2012
What waste of money.

Maybe you should read that sentence again and make note of the "at one point" part.

Over the course of last year over 25% of electricity needs for Scotland were covered by wind farms.

To guarantee the same amount of power from combined-cycle gas-fired plants would cost 13 billion, barely a tenth as much.

EXCLUDING environmental damages. And when we're in a do or die situation with climate then using a cheaper source that will kill us is not an option.

Price is not everything. Life is more important than bank accounts.


The issue is that wind is so unreliable, the natural gas plants will have to be built anyway, and a large percentage of them will have to be kept running (producing CO2 and burning fuel) to allow them to come on line quick enough when (not if) the wind dies down.

So you live in a fantasy world where wind always works, but in reality it never does with vast quantities of fossil fuel power needed anyway.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2012
be kept running (producing CO2 and burning fuel) to allow them to come on line quick enough when (not if) the wind dies down.

Gas plants will need to be built for the medium term (until enough storage is available), but they will not need to run full tilt as long as other sources provide the energy.

Despite what you may think there IS such a thing as meteorology - and it IS able to make good wind/weather/sunshine/wave forecasts for short periods of time (certainly long enough for gas powerplants to ramp up when needed)

That idea that we need 100% backup running all the time is just plain wrong (and it is also not born out by experiment. We did an experiment in germany linking 28 powerplants of various kinds: solar, wind, biomass, hydro...and they could provide energy all year round without any dropouts and without one molecule of fossil fulwa used)
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2012
be kept running (producing CO2 and burning fuel) to allow them to come on line quick enough when (not if) the wind dies down.

Gas plants will need to be built for the medium term (until enough storage is available), but they will not need to run full tilt as long as other sources provide the energy.


The smart thing would be to build just the gas plants.

The dumb thing would be to build both in the hope that someday a gian battery the size of Berlin could be built to store enough energy for days or weeks of no wind in the winter.

Meterologically, winter and summer are when large high pressure systems can get locked in place resulting in no wind.

Unfortunately for the victims of green stupidity, thats when heating and A/C are needed most.