Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4C by 2100

Dec 31, 2013

Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature. Scientists found global climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide than most previous estimates.

The research also appears to solve one of the great unknowns of , the role of and whether this will have a positive or negative effect on global warming.

"Our research has shown indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation," said lead author from the University of New South Wales' Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Prof Steven Sherwood.

"When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide."

The key to this narrower but much higher estimate can be found in the real world observations around the role of water vapour in cloud formation.

Observations show when water vapour is taken up by the atmosphere through evaporation, the updraughts can either rise to 15 km to form clouds that produce heavy rains or rise just a few kilometres before returning to the surface without forming rain clouds.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
Prof Steve Sherwood explains research into cloud mixing that indicates our climate is highly sensitive to a doubling of carbon dioxide. His findings suggest Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is at least 3°C. As a result, unless we curb emissions, global temperatures will rise 4°C by 2100 and more than 8°C by 2200. Credit: UNSW TV - University of New South Wales

When updraughts rise only a few kilometres they reduce total cloud cover because they pull more vapour away from the higher cloud forming regions.

However water vapour is not pulled away from cloud forming regions when only deep 15km updraughts are present.

The researchers found climate models that show a low global temperature response to carbon dioxide do not include enough of this lower-level water vapour process. Instead they simulate nearly all updraughts as rising to 15 km and forming clouds.

When only the deeper updraughts are present in climate models, more clouds form and there is an increased reflection of sunlight. Consequently the in these models becomes less sensitive in its response to .

However, real world observations show this behaviour is wrong.

When the processes in climate models are corrected to match the observations in the real world, the models produce cycles that take water vapour to a wider range of heights in the atmosphere, causing fewer clouds to form as the climate warms.

This increases the amount of sunlight and heat entering the atmosphere and, as a result, increases the sensitivity of our climate to carbon dioxide or any other perturbation.

The result is that when processes are correctly represented, the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of - which will occur in the next 50 years – means we can expect a temperature increase of at least 4°C by 2100.

"Climate sceptics like to criticize models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more," said Prof. Sherwood.

"Rises in global average temperatures of this magnitude will have profound impacts on the world and the economies of many countries if we don't urgently start to curb our emissions.

Explore further: Earth's sensitivity to climate change could be 'double' previous estimates, say geologists

More information: dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12829

Related Stories

Water in stratosphere plays key role in Earth's climate

Oct 03, 2013

Water vapor changes in the stratosphere contribute to warmer temperatures and likely play an important role in the evolution of Earth's climate, says a research team led by a Texas A&M University professor.

Study could mean greater anticipated global warming

Nov 22, 2010

Global climate models disagree widely in the magnitude of the warming we can expect with increasing carbon dioxide. This is mainly because the models represent clouds differently. A new modeling approach successfully ...

Sensitive side

May 05, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A little extra carbon dioxide in the air may, unfortunately, go further towards warming Earth than previously thought. A team of British and U.S. researchers have uncovered evidence [1] that ...

Recommended for you

NASA sees zombie Tropical Depression Genevieve reborn

2 hours ago

Infrared imagery from NASA's Aqua satellite helped confirm that the remnant low pressure area of former Tropical Storm Genevieve has become a Zombie storm, and has been reborn as a tropical depression on ...

Wave energy impact on harbour operations investigated

6 hours ago

Infragravity period oscillations—waves that occur between 25 and 300 seconds with a wavelength between 100m and 10km—can have an impact on berthing operations, depending on a harbour's geometry.

User comments : 201

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VENDItardE
2.1 / 5 (40) Dec 31, 2013
really? absolute and total bs.

center for excellence....that's a joke.
Sigh
3.9 / 5 (38) Dec 31, 2013
really? absolute and total bs.

The article describes predictions made more precise by empirical data. Sounds like good science to me. Your comment is a value judgement without data or argument. That is not even bad science, it's not science at all.
Anonym
2.6 / 5 (37) Dec 31, 2013
Consider the source. What he is saying is that more-accurate models predict even warmer temperatures ahead --- he does not mention the rather salient fact that all the models are in imminent danger of falsification due to global temps' failure to make like a hockey stick over the past 15 years (while CO2 has done so).

I suggest that the "tourists" presently trapped in Antarctic sea ice got that way because (like Climate Change Science or Gen. George Armstrong Custer) the ships' crew foresaw conditions conforming to what the models predicted, despite the evidence of their own lyin' eyes.
ScooterG
2.4 / 5 (37) Dec 31, 2013
"Our research has shown climate models indicating a low temperature response to a doubling of carbon dioxide from preindustrial times are not reproducing the correct processes that lead to cloud formation,"

So...the old models were incorrect. But now we have new and improved models that everyone can TRULY believe in!!! LMAO
verkle
2.5 / 5 (33) Dec 31, 2013
A repeat of some quack scientists' predictions of 15 years ago....sigh....
ar18
2.7 / 5 (35) Dec 31, 2013
This is the biggest bunch of BS I've ever read. From 15,000 BC to 9000 BC, CO2 levels rose 100 PPM and temperatures rose 19 F. Yet from 1900 to 2013, CO2 has risen 100 ppm and temperatures have risen 1.2 F. Say what? What happened to the "global climate is more sensitive than most previous estimates" claim then? CO2 only accounts for 6 F of the current 60 F of the current greenhouse effect so clearly CO2 is not a major determinant of the greenhouse effect as there are other factors that override CO2. What are those other determinants and why doesn't anyone like to talk about them? I know why: because it doesn't suit scientifically illiterate government agendas of alarmism. Fear is the best motivator for getting people to submit to your will -- say like enacting a global warming tax. All scientific funding goes into this false agenda due to governments (IPCC) meddling in science so we can't trust anything they promote. Science is not a democracy like the IPCC has turned this into.
Modernmystic
2.8 / 5 (20) Dec 31, 2013
While I'm certainly NOT a skeptic when it comes to AGW I can't help but wonder of the accuracy of some of the models and predictions. I don't fault the science, the models, or the climatologists. I don't think we have the technology or methodology to accurately predict the climate in 2100. I think it's hubris to even suggest otherwise. Venus is totally cloud covered and is hot enough to melt lead. Clouds don't have the effect on that system that seems to be described in the article.

I just think it's a hell of a lot more complex than they think it is. I think some (most?) of them know this and are intellectually dishonest about it in order to get people to pay attention to what is likely a serious problem. Others don't understand just how complex the system is and actually believe their own BS...

I also think it's quite immature thinking to believe that one can keep pumping out CO2 in massive quantities and not have some kind of effect on the temperature of the oceans and atmosphere.
tadchem
3 / 5 (22) Dec 31, 2013
Make no mistake: this is really research on the MODELS.
MR166
2.4 / 5 (37) Dec 31, 2013
If any of this crap was true all life on earth would have perished when the CO2 levels were 10x higher than they are today. This is Chicken Little science at it's best.
shavera
3.7 / 5 (18) Dec 31, 2013
MM: Venus is a lot closer to the sun, so much hotter, and its clouds, while they do still work as increased albedo, reflecting some sunlight, still allow enough sunlight in to work the runaway greenhouse event that occured on that planet. Clouds aren't perfect reflectors. We're trying to understand now whether Earth-level clouds and Earth-level solar radiation and Earth-level greenhouse gasses will drive increases in temperature or not, and how those feed back into each other.
shavera
4.2 / 5 (30) Dec 31, 2013
For everyone else who's bitching about how this says the "old model is incorrect." Please do try to, you know, read the article.
Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide


The new model agrees entirely with the old model, fits within error bars, it just trends toward the upper portion of the old error bars. Believe it or not, a lot of science is done like this. Nearly all of physics makes models, refines the models, tests the models on past data, etc. But for some reason the hacks only like to criticize climate models, not the models from the rest of physics.... wonder why....
MR166
1.9 / 5 (26) Dec 31, 2013
This article is just another indication of the power of the politically controlled media. When the US Drones kill babies and civilians while the Progressives are in power it never gets reported. Has anyone noticed that the once daily reporting of military deaths by the press has all but stopped since the US Progressives took office???

The US has no "Free Press" just propaganda.

The internet is our only hope until the Progressives institute a "Fairness Doctrine" that limits free speech there also!!!!
cantdrive85
1.2 / 5 (26) Dec 31, 2013
MM: Venus is a lot closer to the sun, so much hotter, and its clouds, while they do still work as increased albedo, reflecting some sunlight, still allow enough sunlight in to work the runaway greenhouse event that occured on that planet. Clouds aren't perfect reflectors. We're trying to understand now whether Earth-level clouds and Earth-level solar radiation and Earth-level greenhouse gasses will drive increases in temperature or not, and how those feed back into each other.

Sadly, the real data doesn't support any notion of "greenhouse" heating in any way shape or form.
http://wattsupwit...n-venus/

It's being heated by electrical joule heating.
http://www.thunde...enus.htm
SteveS
4.7 / 5 (14) Dec 31, 2013
Happy new year to everybody at Physorg, and may the 2014 discussions, arguments, and vitriol be just as entertaining as 2013.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (28) Dec 31, 2013
The more AGW models fail, the more frantic are the efforts to reestablish belief in it.

You would think Chicken Little would stroke out from all the frantic squalking.
Zephir_fan
Dec 31, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zephir_fan
Dec 31, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
2.4 / 5 (22) Dec 31, 2013
Zephir since I don't know what country you live in I cannot expect you to know anything about US politics. Here in the US there have been numerous legislative attempts to censor what is posted on the internet in order to preserve "Fairness"!

Of course in the final decision, it is the government and the courts that they control that decides "What is Fair".

Currently, in the US, the difference between "Free Speech" and "Hatred" is solely determined by the Politically Correct.
cantdrive85
2.4 / 5 (18) Dec 31, 2013
Zephir since I don't know what country you live in I cannot expect you to know anything about US politics.

He's little more than a sockpuppet with a starring role.
ubavontuba
2.3 / 5 (21) Dec 31, 2013
"Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more," said Prof. Sherwood.
So he's saying the earth not heating these past 16+ years, in spite of the mildest IPCC clmate model predictions, is somehow mistaken? LMFAO!
Dug
3.4 / 5 (17) Dec 31, 2013
It seems mo(i)ronic that while we all argue over the degree of anthropogenic climate impacts, mechanisms, and the historically non-performing models thereof - that almost no one wants to discuss the seven fold increase in the humans in the last two hundred years - creating those impacts. Or, developing meaningful ways of reducing those populations and their impacts to there per-industrial revolution levels. Good news! We don't have to. If we do nothing - critical food production resource shortages will do if for us in the next three decades. Problem solved and earth can return back to "normal."
MR166
2.1 / 5 (19) Dec 31, 2013
"Or, developing meaningful ways of reducing those populations and their impacts to there per-industrial revolution levels."

This sounds like a perfect job for the UN........Yea Right LOL!
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (20) Dec 31, 2013
"Or, developing meaningful ways of reducing those populations and their impacts to there per-industrial revolution levels."

This sounds like a perfect job for the UN........Yea Right LOL!

They're already on it, Operation Agenda 21.
MR166
2.4 / 5 (20) Dec 31, 2013
"reducing those populations and their impacts"

Hummm, why does that remind me of the Socialists of Nazi Germany?

Oh wait, the "New" Socialists are kinder and gentler and only want to get rid of the "Deniers" !
Returners
1.8 / 5 (23) Dec 31, 2013
Reduced population has a drawback that the leftists don't consider. They believe they, or a future generation, will have higher living standards if global population is lower, say around a Billion or so people. However, they neglect to realize that high living standards, in terms of the very wealthy anyway, are determined by productivity, and more specifically, the excess production of the less wealthy. If you are filthy rich, it usually means someone else is being exploited by you in at least some way. Removing the "idiots" as it might be said, doesn't help, because it just means more educated people end up doing the jobs of the less educated anyway. Some things may never be replaced by robots, but it remains to be seen.

Additionally, they may believe utopian ideas, such as space colonization, can be achieved sooner through lesser populations, but space programs required tremendous budgets, which requires tremendous surplus productivity, again favored by large numbers.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (21) Dec 31, 2013
So the radical left idealist has long term goals which his short term and mid-term plans actually undermine, perhaps even making them impossible.

Space flight is only possible through enormous productivity, which is only possible through enormous population. It's not just about the manufacturing, it's about the money, the harvesting of materials, the minds, the inventions to make it possible.

Even intelligence is quite possibly a matter of numbers. Simply educating people doesn't make the next Einstein. If it did, astrophysics would already be figured out completely, I would think. Obviously, the more people you have, the more likely one of them will be the next Einstein. Therefore large numbers favor both higher intelligence and higher productivity, both of which are required for future, high tech discoveries and exploration.

Do you think the U.S. could make the Hubble or JWST if we had a population of just 50 million? Probably not. There wouldn't be enough tax revenue.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (21) Dec 31, 2013
"If you are filthy rich, it usually means someone else is being exploited by you in at least some way."
Give me a brake! Who do you think creates jobs for the majority of people? People are paid according to their skill level. If you are unhappy with your pay, then learn to do something that is more valued by business and society.
RealityCheck
3.9 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2013
If any of this crap was true all life on earth would have perished when the CO2 levels were 10x higher than they are today. This is Chicken Little science at it's best.

You forget the variables of 'micro-climates' and 'pockets of adaptation/survival'. Also the rate of change is important to allow species to adapt/relocate up mountain ranges (which were much higher earlier on and have worn down much since). Then there is always the geographic Polar regions and the land/underwater habitats.

Your assumption depends on all Earth being equally hot/affected. Not the case, or you and I would not be here after all the supermeteoric bombardments and supervolcanism eras affected the whole globe but still the microclimates (underground, underwater, polar etc) saved our predecessor species.

Your simplistic 'black and white' views are not informed enough to have any relation to reality/science. Good luck elsewhere, mate! :)
RealityCheck
4 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2013
Reduced population has a drawback that the leftists don't consider. They believe they, or a future generation, will have higher living standards if global population is lower, say around a Billion or so people. However, they neglect to realize that high living standards, in terms of the very wealthy anyway, are determined by productivity, and more specifically, the excess production of the less wealthy.

Advances in mechanisation, chemistry/physics, medicine, manufacturing/material, transport/distribution, communications/education etc are what allowed higher living standards/populations. Famine disease, wars over scarce resources and slave labour acquisition plagued ancient/earlier societies. Once science/technology came of age, the 'critical mass population' need not be more than a couple billion globally. Economic systems must match available population/technologies. Overpopulation can outstrip/overwhelm limited resources/environment we depend on ultimately. Good luck! :)
Returners
2.2 / 5 (19) Dec 31, 2013
Who do you think creates jobs for the majority of people? People are paid according to their skill level. If you are unhappy with your pay, then learn to do something that is more valued by business and society.


Majority of jobs are actually related to relatively unskilled things:

Hospital techs (less skilled than doctors or nurses)
Low to medium skilled Construction, namely roads, bridges, homes, apartments, small offices.
Mining and extraction-Oil and Coal, etc
Services: food, social, cleaning
Maintenance: usually much lower pay than engineers, but necessary
Sales: Little or no formal skill required.

While it's true some jobs are paid proportional to skill, that is not universally true. Additionally, we know from data from the government and polls that the wealthy class is more rich now compared to the average person than at any time in the past, which means the average worker gets paid less compared to his employer's income than ever before.

Zephir_fan
Dec 31, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (18) Dec 31, 2013
"Good luck elsewhere, mate! :)"

I am sad to burst your bubble Shela but in the scale of 1 to 10 historic of mother earth's climate catastrophes we are at a 2. I am sorry if earth's natural climate anomalies make you uneasy and prone to climate worship but you need to chill out and stop listening to the high priests of the climate religion.
Returners
2.4 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2013
More for MR166:

You mistake the relative income among workers for the income of workers relative to the wealthy owners and employers. The comparisons are quite different.

Presently in the U.S. the top 10% of income earners rake in over 50% of the national income, and depending on who's polling data or tax data you use, I seem to remember the top 10% have between 80% and 90% of the accumulated wealth.

Even if you adjusts this for the stupidity of people willfully, stupidly paying obscene amounts of money to entertainers such as actors, singers, and athletes, these numbers still reflect an insane bias in wealth, mostly represented by the top few percent benefiting at everyone else's expense.

Oh yeah, and example where more skill or education doesn't equal more income:

My sister has a Masters degree in nursing, and she makes about 75k per year.

Her husband graduated High School with around a "C" average, sells auto parts, and makes 100k per year.

...cont...
RealityCheck
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 31, 2013
Majority of jobs are actually related to relatively unskilled things:

Hospital techs (less skilled than doctors or nurses)
Low to medium skilled Construction, namely roads, bridges, homes, apartments, small offices.
Mining and extraction-Oil and Coal, etc
Services: food, social, cleaning
Maintenance: usually much lower pay than engineers, but necessary
Sales: Little or no formal skill required.

While it's true some jobs are paid proportional to skill, that is not universally true. Additionally, we know from data from the government and polls that the wealthy class is more rich now compared to the average person than at any time in the past, which means the average worker gets paid less compared to his employer's income than ever before.

Once economy/population becomes mere numbers-for-numbers-sake, the economy becomes a 'service based' economy with people serving the needs of other people to keep them alive and fed and amused. Not a bad thing until overpopulation is too high.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2013
"When President Richard Nixon arrived in Beijing in 1972, Chairman Mao Zedong -- with his Marxist revolution, Great Leap Forward and Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution -- had achieved an equality unrivaled anywhere.
That is, until Pol Pot came along.
There seemed to be no private cars on Beijing's streets. In the stores, there was next to nothing on the shelves. The Chinese all seemed dressed in the same blue Mao jackets.

Today there are billionaires and millionaires in China, booming cities, a huge growing middle class and, yes, hundreds of millions of peasants still living on a few dollars a day.

Hence, there is far greater inequality in China today than in 1972."
"it is freedom that produces inequality."
"the only way to make people who are unequal in talents equal in rewards is to use governmental power to dispossess some and favor others."
http://www.realcl...093.html
Returners
1.8 / 5 (13) Dec 31, 2013
"Good luck elsewhere, mate! :)"

I am sad to burst your bubble Shela but in the scale of 1 to 10 historic of mother earth's climate catastrophes we are at a 2. I am sorry if earth's natural climate anomalies make you uneasy and prone to climate worship but you need to chill out and stop listening to the high priests of the climate religion.


Well, a catastrophe scale should actually start at "0" since there has to be something to represent no catastrophe at all.

Can you give a reason that justifies rating our present condition as a "2" on a scale from "0 to 10"?

I think it's probably more like a 0.5 or a 1.

Do you consider a scale from "0 to 10" to be linear, or logarithmic?

After all, a VEI 6 volcano eruption, Krakatoa, is about 200 megatons, but the Asteroid that killed the Dinosaurs is 100 teratons, 500,000 times bigger...

If the Asteroid is a "10" on the logarithmic scale then disasters we presently experience are mostly less than a "1".
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2013
"Alexis de Tocqueville saw it coming:

"The sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality or to get men to believe you love it. Thus, the science of despotism, which was once so complex, is simplified, and reduced ... to a single principle."

Get people to believe you are seeking the utopian goal of equality of all and there is no limit to the power you can amass. "

Read more: http://www.realcl...p5egsfIM
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
RealityCheck
3.8 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2013
I am sad to burst your bubble Shela but in the scale of 1 to 10 historic of mother earth's climate catastrophes we are at a 2. I am sorry if earth's natural climate anomalies make you uneasy and prone to climate worship but you need to chill out and stop listening to the high priests of the climate religion.

What 'bubble'? Unlike yourself, I check out all the reality then and now. Your assumptions are piling up. We have never faced anything like our present predicament. The change is happening rapidly and our species is affected/affecting globally. The point is that 'some' may survive the dramatic disease, weather, transportation, food production/distribution etc problems we will face, but not all of us. Will you and your family survive such upheavals? No 'worship', just realistic assessment of what is happening already around the globe. Good luck to you and yours! :)
Returners
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2013
...cont...

Ordinary Earthquakes, Hurricanes, and perhaps the largest EF-5 tornadoes only rank as a 1 or 2 on the logarithmic scale where the Dinosaur's Asteroid is a "10". In order for a Hurricane to rank as a "3" on a logarithmic scale where said asteroid is a "10", said hurricane would need to be well into the theoretical "Hypercane" range, which is almost certainly never going to happen without a volcanic eruption or asteroid causing it in the first place.
MR166
2.7 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2013
"My sister has a Masters degree in nursing, and she makes about 75k per year.

Her husband graduated High School with around a "C" average, sells auto parts, and makes 100k per year."

Obviously you underestimate his talents. If education = marketable talents there would be a lot less college graduates living in their mother's basements.
Returners
2.5 / 5 (18) Dec 31, 2013
Rygg:

It is ironic that you present yourself as either conservative or libertarian, and yet you quote a statement which runs contrary to the founding principles of the united states. After all, you seem to consider equality as being a bad thing, but equality was the alleged goal of the founding of the United States and the separation from England.

==
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Also:

"All men are by nature equally free and independent. Such equality is necessary in order to create a free government. All men must be equal to each other in natural law" - Benjamin Franklin.
==

History has shown that unrestrained capitalism leads to slavery.
Returners
2.2 / 5 (18) Dec 31, 2013
Rygg:

Now remember, Rygg, you seem to argue against pretty much all laws and policy which you deem "socialist", and yet our own history shows that every time the Government tries to "suggest" that businesses treat employees better, many of them keep doing the wrong thing. Then the Government passes laws trying to keep employers from abusing employees; they find a loophole so they can keep doing the same thing in a different way.

Example:

G. Policy: Mandatory lunch break

Employers: Mandatory clock in early and clock out late without pay for those 30 minutes.

G. Policy: Higher wages, sick days, etc.

Employers: Avoid permanent hires using temp agencies for the first year or two of employment, so as to "brink" and avoid the required compensation for full employment.

The list goes on throughout history, it was worse a hundred years ago, true, but the trend is still much the same. If not for government policies, most of us would probably be living in true slavery to corporations.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (19) Dec 31, 2013
What 'bubble'? Unlike yourself, I check out all the reality then and now. Your assumptions are piling up. We have never faced anything like our present predicament.


If you are referring to AGW, I think you vastly under-estimate the amount of meteorological and geological change that has happened to this planet, in a few cases catastrophically, even in the past few tens of thousands of years.

New evidence, according to a recent article, suggests humans have been in S. America for as long as 30k years or more. Back then, there would have been far more ice in N. America, so much less food than we have available at present, and keep in mind the utterly primitive technology available to these people; what we would barely consider technology at all. Sea levels have risen, I think, tens of feet since then, mostly about 8000 to 11000 years ago, due to 100% natural causes.

Humans survived Baekdu, Taupo, Toba, with pathetic technology, yet you think 3 or 4C change would kill us today?
MR166
2.5 / 5 (14) Dec 31, 2013
Returners the freedom and equality provided by our constitution just guarantees the right to succeed or fail on your own merits. It does not guarantee that each outcome will be "Equal".
RealityCheck
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 31, 2013
If you are referring to AGW, I think you vastly under-estimate the amount of meteorological and geological change that has happened to this planet, in a few cases catastrophically, even in the past few tens of thousands of years.

Humans survived Baekdu, Taupo, Toba, with pathetic technology, yet you think 3 or 4C change would kill us today?
You speak of PAST small populations, localized survival chances/options. I am speaking of NOW globally spread human species. There is no place to run to for ALL the many billions at once. That was my point. Our options as a global population/economy/survival scenario is not good if disease, extreme and contiguous weather events/disruptions to food cultivation, transportation etc etc are severely compromised. It is the prospect of no 'let up' from these disasters that is the problem. Hardly any time/chance/place to 'recover from' one disaster before another hits. The increasing extremes, frequency and ubiquity is problematic NOW. Good luck.
Returners
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2013
Returners the freedom and equality provided by our constitution just guarantees the right to succeed or fail on your own merits. It does not guarantee that each outcome will be "Equal".


That's not what the document says. In fact, it says the liberty and pursuit of happiness are RIGHTS.

While it isn't admittedly not a utopian statement, by the reference to happiness, it does imply there ought to be some government mechanism to ensure the freedoms of some do not over-shadow others to the extent of the loss of said right to pursuit of happiness.

I assume you are an American. You and I currently live in a country where an Apple CEO (NOT an owner/CEO, since Jobs is dead,) gets paid in millions, and receives $36 million per year in stock options, this is after the cut in pay recently. This is the archetype of the corporate executive compensation.

Now, explain to me, what idea or decision has he made worth that amount, which wasn't primarily developed by a "mere" employee?
Returners
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2013
...cont...

You see, this is how things work, unfortunately, excluding the "Eureka" moment where owner/founder/CEO types actually did do something brilliant.

Normally, employee has the brilliant idea in established companies. They don't have the resources to develop a product on their own, usually, but without these employees who have the hands and the creativity, most of these companies could not function at all, no matter how brilliant the founder's ideas were to begin with.

Now, how do you think it feels to a typical stock holder, an average American who is investing their HARD EARNED money for savings, when their stock under-performs, but the CEO was just given 36 million dollars worth of free stock for compensation?

It's outrageous.

It would be different if the typical CEO was personally cranking out ideas of the quality of Louis Pasteur or Edison, and having others implement them, but that normally is NOT the case, or is only a "once in a lifetime" event.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (13) Dec 31, 2013
... Hardly any time/chance/place to 'recover from' one disaster before another hits. The increasing extremes, frequency and ubiquity is problematic NOW. Good


I am reminded of this past hurricane season, or pre-season, when all the Wunderground users were trying to predict how many storms would happen, based on best guesses and model analysis, to compete with the pros, as it were. Everyone, and I mean everyone from NHC, Colorado State, Dr. Masters himself, the forum users, and myself, we all seriously over-estimated the number of storms, and for reasons that all of us could scientifically, rationally justify...yet we were all ridiculously wrong in the end, some of us more so than others. It turned out to be a lack-luster season with minimal activity in the Atlantic.

Now the Phillipines was recently hit by the cat 5, but that wasn't part of our little pool, and it's not uncharacteristic with history for a storm close to that strength to landfall.

...cont...

Returners
1.3 / 5 (14) Dec 31, 2013
Now, on the super-typhoon again.

From what I saw, it only broke the world record landfall intensity by about 5 mph, and there is some dispute as to whether it was actually that strong at landfall anyway.

Since we only have about 45 to 50 year record of reliable wind speed at landfall measurements, and the rest are basically estimates based on reconstructions, or based on barometric pressure, then we don't really have a large enough data set to rule out storms of 5 to 10 mph greater as being "Normal" anyway. Consider Typhoon Tip, 34 years ago, Labor Day 1935, and Camille, all about the same strength at landfall, and when global CO2 levels were much lower.

So basically what you're implying based on meteorology disasters you seem to be afraid of, is nearly doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere MIGHT have added 5mph to a typhoon which you wouldn't be able to discern the difference if you were actually in it anyway...and you can't even prove it was stronger than the normal maxima
Returners
1.3 / 5 (13) Dec 31, 2013
*Note* The wording of the section on Typhoon Tip is a bit flawed, as Tip didn't landfall on any major island. I think it may or may not have grazed some minor island nobody cares about in the pacific, but I could be wrong. In the case of Tip, I didn't mention it for landfall, since it had not. I mentioned it due to the maximum intensity in terms of wind and pressure, as well as the kinetic energy due to it's insane size.
Zephir_fan
Dec 31, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
primitiveman
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2013
First time here, and I'm hearing a lot of the same old climate denier rhetoric. A global conspiracy by scientists/governments. Climate scientists don't understand science. We still have cold winters in polar regions, and a trapped boat disproves the science. The U.N. is poised to sweep in and exert control. Quoting selected material from denier websites (reminds me of creationists). We even get believers in "voodoo economics", trickle down economics -- it is the rich who create jobs. Liberals are utopians.

The only surprise so far is that I haven't heard quotes from Ayn Rand, Alex Jones or the Bible.
Zephir_fan
Dec 31, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2013
our own history shows that every time the Government tries to "suggest" that businesses treat employees better, many of them keep doing the wrong thing.


History shows no such thing.

History has shown that unrestrained capitalism leads to slavery.

1. History shows no such thing.
2. There is no such thing as 'unrestrained capitalism'.
equality was the alleged goal of the founding of the United States and the separation from England.

Where did you learn history?
The US Constitution was desinged to limit the power of the state and provide EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNDER THE LAW. Which means the law treats everyone the same: it protects the rights to life, liberty and property for ALL, equally.
The US Constitution was not designed to take over the health care system and grant special exemptions to those BHO deems deserving.
GuruShabu
2.5 / 5 (18) Dec 31, 2013
In the 70s the priests of AGW had predicted the earth's temperature would be about 3 to 4 degrees warmer by 2000.
It was a tremendous scientific mistake and had not substance but provoking panic, fear and guilt on people therefore allowing all green's laws to be introduced.
Now they are aiming even higher trying to put a target 200 years ahead...and people still believe on these preachers.
VENDItardE made the best comment because it was short and absolutely to te point: BS!
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2013
Some are are more 'equal' than others in BHO's Amerika:

"The president gave an exception to employers, but not to individuals, without any legal basis, and made other adjustments according to his whim. Even more troubling was his message over the past three years that if you like your plan, you can keep it, and that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. We now know that the administration was aware that these claims were false, yet Mr. Obama continued to make them, repeatedly. "
http://online.wsj...50665074

"The US Department of Justice on Thursday stepped into the cultural fray about the so-called "knockout game" when it brought federal hate crime charges against a white Texas man for assaulting an unsuspecting black man."
"The majority of the reported incidents, however, have involved black men targeting white victims – and none triggered federal involvement."
http://www.csmoni...te-man-c
Zephir_fan
Dec 31, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
2.8 / 5 (18) Dec 31, 2013
Where did you learn history?
The US Constitution was desinged to limit the power of the state and provide EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNDER THE LAW. Which means the law treats everyone the same: it protects the rights to life, liberty and property for ALL, equally.
The US Constitution was not designed to take over the health care system and grant special exemptions to those BHO deems deserving.


Equality for all would demand that everyone have equal medical treatment, both in terms of emergency care and preventive care.

As for the historical comments, it is well known of the condition of the labor market before modern anti-trust laws existed. If you deny this then it is you who are in a fantasy world.

You fear a world where the state could deny you medical care, but we already live in a world where the hospital(s) can deny you medical care simply because you aren't wealthy enough to pay for the cost. Under capitalism, your humanity is defined by your wallet and bank account.
Returners
2.8 / 5 (18) Dec 31, 2013
A millionaire can have every conceivable medical test run on them for the purposes of prevention and diagnosis, because they have whatever amount of money it takes to pay for it.

An average person cannot, because they don't have that much money, nor often even that much insurance, so they just get sicker, which means even less income, which means even less medical care.

A rich person can get diagnosed with cancer right away, even ahead of time sometimes, and begin treatment, because they have regular check-ups because they can afford to. An average person cannot. I have seen any number of cases of high profile, wealthy people, such as senators or actors, who get diagnosed and treated and live longer than the average expectation, sometimes full recovery. Not for normal "Joe" though.

Sure, we benefit from some policies of our existing government in medicine, but "Capitalism" is a heartless system. It discards people just as heartlessly as the worst conception you may have of socialism
Returners
2.6 / 5 (17) Dec 31, 2013
Zephir_Fan:

The first sentence in the article addresses itself to the year 2200, which is nearly 200 years.

Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature.


Therefore, it is you who are the idiot, as the poster in question was addressing himself to the claims actually made by the author in the article.

Maybe if you actually had read the article, instead of logging on for the sole purpose of insulting people, you would have known that.
GuruShabu
3.3 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2013
@Zephir_fan,
You seem to have a very limited vocabulary -btw, skippy is probably more intelligent than you - and also it seems you cannot read beyond the first line of a paragraph.
From the text we are commenting: "Global average temperatures will rise at least 4°C by 2100 and potentially more than 8°C by 2200 if carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced according to new research published in Nature. "
Can you read this?
So, yes it is not 200 years (186 ys) but the difference does not mean anything -you arrogant idiot!- in the context.
GuruShabu
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 31, 2013
@ Returners.
Mate, what you are addressing above in your penultimate comment -let's not mention your Zephir one for his nickname brings to my memory a sentence by Shakespeare when referring to a bullshiter "He was full of piss and wind"...:) - has the very same core -Echo Tyranny- as the greens Goebbels style propaganda on CO2 and environmental issues in general.
I am pleased you've raised the subject.
However, we cannot expect Zephires have any clue on what the point is.
Happy New year!
MR166
2.2 / 5 (13) Dec 31, 2013
""Capitalism" is a heartless system." That well may be correct but true Socialism has no so soul and strips the incentive to work from it's recipients. Private charities and individual compassion take over where capitalism fails.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (17) Dec 31, 2013
Equality for all would demand that everyone have equal medical treatment,

Impossible since it will require the use of force to make UNEQUAL some other factor of the economy.
The govt would have to force medical personnel to be slaves.
But that IS the objective of socialists, forcing everyone to be a slave to the state.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (19) Dec 31, 2013
"Democrat delegate candidate Kathleen Murphy said that since many doctors are not accepting medicaid and medicare patients, she advocates making it a legal requirement for those people to be accepted.

She did not recognize that the payments are inadequate to cover the doctors' costs. She also did not recognize there is a shortage of over 45,000 physicians now and that it is forecast to be 90,000 in a few years.

Democrats appear to want to make physicians slaves of the state, "
http://www.breitb...Patients
Zephir_fan
Dec 31, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Zephir_fan
Dec 31, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
GuruShabu
3.5 / 5 (13) Dec 31, 2013
@ Zephir...
That's a statement!
I thought you would realise you'd made a terrible mistake and would shrink as a worm to decrease decrease your expose surface so to avoid more scrutiny on your stupidity.
However, for my surprise, you rise your profile even further!
So, I have to conclude that you have no idea about the level of your ignorance.
As I use to say: "Arrogance is proportional to ignorance and inversely proportional to the square of knowledge."
My sincere compliments for the champion of nonsense of the website!
I am just wondering what 2014 reserves for us, poor mortals...:)
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (19) Dec 31, 2013

""There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress "

"Capitalism" is a heartless system. It discards people just as heartlessly as the worst conception you may have of socialism


My conception of socialism:
"It is not by chance that the greatest famines have occurred within the Soviet Union (about 5,000,000 dead during 1921-23 and 7,000,000 from 1932-3) and communist China (about 27,000,000 dead from 1959-61). In total almost 55,000,000 people died in various communist famines and associated diseases, a little over 10,000,000 of them from democidal famine."
"We do have the example of Nazi Germany, which may have itself murdered some 20,000,000 Jews, Poles, Ukrainians, Russians, Yugoslaves, Frenchmen, and other nationalities. "
http://www.hawaii....ART.HTM
Zephir_fan
Dec 31, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
2.5 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2013

""There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress "


Your quote is totally irrelevant, as I am not aware of any sane person who does not want good medical care, and moreover those who are INSANE can't be trusted to make their own decisions anyway, therefore your quote is relevant to what I said neither for the sane nor the insane.

What exactly is it that you find so difficult about the concept that the actual workers, the employees, should be the ones to be paid a good living before some executive gets paid 500 to 1000 times more than the company's employees?

Why do you think this insane system is "fair"?

Can't you see how evil that is to pay the CEO 36 million per year while the employees make 500 times less than that?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Dec 31, 2013
"It may be said of Socialism, therefore, that its friends recommended it as increasing equality, while its foes resisted it as decreasing liberty….The compromise eventually made was one of the most interesting and even curious cases in history. It was decided to do everything that had ever been denounced in Socialism, and nothing that had ever been desired in it…we proceeded to prove that it was possible to sacrifice liberty without gaining equality….In short, people decided that it was impossible to achieve any of the good of Socialism, but they comforted themselves by achieving all the bad."
― G.K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils : An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State
Returners
2.1 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2013
Democrats appear to want to make physicians slaves of the state, "
http://www.breitb...Patients


Couple issues:
1, if wealthy people paid taxes as high as the norms from 2 or 3 generations ago, the government would have more than enough money to compensate doctors.

2, if employers paid people what they were really worth, a lot more people could afford health care on their own in the first place.

I've been to the emergency room three times in the past 3 years, and was only in the room for about 30 minutes to an hour, not even long enough to have a meal, and had no operations, etc, and was charged over 5000 dollars each time, on one occasion they literally did nothing for me, and on the other occasion, they had only a half-assed diagnosis which wasn't even correct, and on the third occasion, of all things, the jackass doctor literally told me the exact opposite of the correct diagnosis.
Returners
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 31, 2013
It was only after I changed primary care physicians, and arranged to see an entire laundry list of specialists that anyone properly diagnosed me, which was very recently. What's more is the internal medicine specialist was shocked when I told him what past doctors, both in the ER and (original)primary care, had wrongfully said about my tests. The ER was suppose to refer me to THAT guy each and every time previously, and they didn't, and my former primary was supposed to have flipped out and referred me to specialists. Thank God I didn't give up asking them what AST and ALT meant, and it was the damned Psychologist who finally told me the other doctors didn't know what the hell they were doing...and he was right.

The point is none of them were worth what they got previously. For the most part the only thing they accomplished was wasting my time, and delaying my diagnosis.

As far as I'm concerned, they (and hospitals) make too much money, given the poor quality of the care.
Returners
2.1 / 5 (15) Dec 31, 2013
At the end of my medical adventure, up to this point, the best the neurologist, the nephrologist, the gastroenterologist, and the infectious disease specialist all together could come up with for now is that I should "eat a high fiber diet and stop taking vitamins". I was on "One Daily", a Walgreens brand of "One a Day" multi-vitamin, likely made in the same factory as the name brand vitamin. At any rate, the vitamins aren't the cause, but they were apparently making the problem worse.

Now, do you think the original doctors, including the original primary and "two" of the 3 emergency room doctors "deserve" their salary, seeing as how they helped me not at all, and actually prevented me from getting proper treatment by their completely wrong and ridiculous diagnosis?

Now, if I was Bill Gates, or some other guy Rygg thinks "deserves" to be better than the rest of us, I could have very well gone from doctor to doctor on any amount of personal money, trying to find a cure ...
RealityCheck
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2013
I am reminded of this past hurricane season, or pre-season, when all the Wunderground users were trying to predict how many storms would happen, based on best guesses and model analysis, to compete with the pros, as it were. Everyone, and I mean everyone from NHC, Colorado State, Dr. Masters himself, the forum users, and myself, we all seriously over-estimated the number of storms, and for reasons that all of us could scientifically, rationally justify...yet we were all ridiculously wrong in the end, some of us more so than others. It turned out to be a lack-luster season with minimal activity in the Atlantic.
I understand what you are trying to say, but you miss my point about the big picture/trend. You seem to be distracted by too much individual/local details/events and miss the whole thing happening NOW all around us globally. Like a picture in the museum, you have to stand back to get the full impact of what you would see 'whole' and not just each brushstroke. :)
Returners
1.7 / 5 (14) Dec 31, 2013
Ironically, I was not taking the vitamins prior to going to the original doctors. It was at a doctor's suggestion that I started taking vitamins again in the first place, but given what the blood work said all along, and given addition tests that asshole was supposed to have run, they should never have suggested to me to take a multi-vitamin, because I did not have a vitamin or mineral deficiency, I had an EXCESS. The SoBs were literally poisoning me due to sloppy diagnosis.

Now if I had been Bill Gates, I could have paid any number of other doctors far smarter than any of them for second, third, fourth, tenth opinions if needed, and someone would have caught the mistake a hell of a lot sooner than THREE years after the fact.

No decent person should suffer the pain I suffered, and at least some of it was preventable had the doctors done their job in the first place. If those particular doctors (or hospitals) are taking losses, they can eat it for all I care.
RealityCheck
3.6 / 5 (11) Dec 31, 2013
""Capitalism" is a heartless system." That well may be correct but true Socialism has no so soul and strips the incentive to work from it's recipients.
No democratic system is 'pure' this or that. Only propagandists apply such labels.

And to all those 'corporationist aplologists' who label every social necessity/action as "socialist conspiracy" etc, let me point out that a Nation is a Family under law/social compact in democracies. If you condemn reasonable health care and other programs designed to enhance the chances/opportunities for those born on the wrong side of history/health/education/employment etc 'lottery of life', then you would be like a father who cares nothing about your children's individual needs/disadvantages, and would just 'jetison' or let starve/die any child not able to 'measure up' in dog-eat-dog race where 'corporate balance sheet' rules and only socialist measures which help you 'profit' are (hypocritically) ok. Not good for family togetherness. :)
evropej
3.6 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2013
I always laugh reading the comments. People who study the climate for years full time and build models are always quaks but someone sitting in front of a computer seems to always know the answer to complex problems.
Zephir_fan
Dec 31, 2013
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 31, 2013
Wow, one can always expect articles on 'climate change', 'global warming/cooling' to bring out the 'best' in people. But I don't want to add to that.
To get back to basics, the article seems to rely on cloud formation and cloud formation is so complex that scientists don't yet understand the full picture as it were. For a simple example, Clouds require dust (as well as many other factors) to form and that one, single item varies so much from place to place and is Dependent on other variables that I would suggest current models would have problems even for small local cells.
I would hope that we ARE learning more but sometimes I sigh in dismay.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Dec 31, 2013
a Nation is a Family

No, it's not.
Family members don't put a gun to the head of another family member and demand to be taken care of.
I could have very well gone from doctor to doctor on any amount of personal money, trying to find a cure ...


Not under a state run system you demand.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Dec 31, 2013
if wealthy people paid taxes as high as the norms from 2 or 3 generations ago,

They NEVER did pay the high rates.
High tax RATES produce lower REVENUES.
No decent person should suffer the pain I suffered, and at least some of it was preventable had the doctors done their job in the first place


Life isn't fair.

BTW, I don't know what your problem is, but if you trusted the traditional medical establishment, that was your first mistake.
There are many physicians who are willing to challenge the status quo. Drs. Eades are two who challenged the anti-fat mantra and suggest many problems are caused sugar and gluten.
Another Dr. in Huntsville, AL is treating patients with a fecal enema, with success.
"The procedure, which involves transplanting a healthy fecal sample from a donor into the GI tract of a patient suffering from recurrent C. difficile infections, is gaining popularity, but Dr. Brasco says the idea of transplanting poop has yet to be completely accepted."
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Dec 31, 2013
Two other unconventional doctors are Mercola (mercola.com) and Bernstein (http://www.diabet...k.com/).
A friend of ours took his wife to Germany for cancer treatment. He was rich. Unfortunately she didn't survive, but there are alternatives.
RealityCheck
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 31, 2013
No, it's not.
Family members don't put a gun to the head of another family member and demand to be taken care of.
And spouses and children should not have to 'demand' reasonable family care of all members and not just the 'lucky' and/or 'profitable' ones. It should be a 'given' that a family will take care of everyone when things go bad through no fault of their own. If your child gets sick you may be 'richer' for it if you throw it out into the cold to die so you can have an extra few bucks 'saved' on medical expenses to put in the bank to 'count on and keep you warm'. That's ok as long as your luck holds out. But if things go wrong for you through no fault of your own, you might think differently about what Society, Nation and Democracy means in reality and not just in 'profit and loss' terms and hypocritical political ideologies. Good luck when its your turn to need help, mate! Anyhow, best wishes for the new year; and stay safe! :)

davidivad
1 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
@returners;

so what is your final diagnosis?
StillWind
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2014

While it's true some jobs are paid proportional to skill, that is not universally true. Additionally, we know from data from the government and polls that the wealthy class is more rich now compared to the average person than at any time in the past, which means the average worker gets paid less compared to his employer's income than ever before.


Yeah...we can all trust what the government says... I don't know where you get your information, but the fact is that more people are living in better economic conditions than ever in human history.

Most of this is due to the economic engine of the United States.

Without us the rest of the world goes right back tot he 19th century and the real ecological devastation that would ensue.

You kids need to learn some history as well as economics.
Egleton
2.7 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2014
Party on like there is no tomorrow.
Because there isn't.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
This is the biggest bunch of BS I've ever read. From 15,000 BC to 9000 BC, CO2 levels rose 100 PPM and temperatures rose 19 F.

@ar18
how quickly did those temp's rise? In a day/Week/Month/A couple of years/Decade? Links/references please.

If any of this crap was true...blah...This is Chicken Little science at it's best.

@MR166
You are making a statement based upon what science? References, please.

Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more,


science making adjustments to theory/models based on observation. Isn't that how it is supposed to work?

"When President Richard Nixon ...blah, blah, blah...dispossess some and favor others."


and of COURSE ryggesogn2 jumps in with POLITICS because Ryggy does not know science.
Egleton
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2014
I see the paid hacks are taking another tack. They divert the conversation to emotional crap and away from undefendable ground.
Captain Stumpy
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2014
I just think it's a hell of a lot more complex ... intellectually dishonest about it in order to get people to pay attention to what is likely a serious problem.

@Modernmystic
I believe it is a serious problem. maybe it is publicized and promoted the way it is, flaws and all, because the more we learn, the more we realize that the possible outcomes are incredibly dangerous for humans and maybe most life in general...

@ANTI-AGWites
the general consensus from most anti-AGW enthusiast is that the science is wrong. I believe the science is right,and continues to IMPROVE, and I would rather error on the side of caution.
If we follow the anti-AGWites and their multi-million dollar support base of hidden funds, it is possible that we would create a situation that we (and most current life) cannot live in... it may not be tomorrow, or even this decade. Maybe not in the next few years...but...

I would rather support AGW than create a new extinction event.
Egleton
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2014
It looks as though the education standards in the USA have taken a dive with the economy.
What are they teaching over there? Certainly not critical thinking.
Are they teaching that everyones opinions are equally valid? (It is only an opinion, after all- no matter how hard won. And everyones' opinion has equal merit?)
I guess that freedom of speech grants every ass the right to bray.

Mimath224
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2014
Isn't there a political 'sister site' where RealityCheck, StillWind, ryggesogn2, Returners can let off political steam?

I forgot to mention it but on my display there is a big blank gap with a caption;

'Prof Steve Sherwood explains research into cloud mixing that indicates our climate is highly sensitive to a doubling of carbon dioxide. His findings suggest Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is at least 3°C. As a result, unless we curb emissions...'

Can someone tell what I am missing, please.
verkle
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
I always laugh reading the comments. People who study the climate for years full time and build models are always quaks but someone sitting in front of a computer seems to always know the answer to complex problems.


I get a laugh from reading your comments.

We realize now they were quacks because their prophecies did not come true! We don't have to know the answer to complex problems, but we can easily match up predictions with results. I would be a fool to assert that I know all of the answers to climate questions. And so would anyone else.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Jan 01, 2014
Why can't socialists separate society from state? Power and control.
Mutual aid societies used to compete with the welfare state and do a better job.
The American Medical Association cartel coerced physicians from working at mutual aid operated facilities.

"The statistical record of fraternalism was impressive. A conservative estimate is that one-third of adult American males belonged to lodges in 1910. A fraternal analogue existed for virtually every major service of the modern welfare state including orphanages, hospitals, job exchanges, homes for the elderly, and scholarship programs."
{here is your family RC, }
"Regardless of other distinctions, the theme of the loving and extended family found universal fraternal appeal. According to the ritual of the Independent Order of Saint Luke, all initiates were "members of the same family" pledged to "stand by one another at all hazards.""
http://www.herita...re-state
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2014
"One of the earliest reasons for the shift in fraternal priorities can be laid at the doorstep of the medical associations. As early as the 1910s, the profession, increasingly fortified by tighter certification requirements which reduced the supply of doctors, had launched an all-out war against fraternal medical services by imposing manifold sanctions, including denial of licenses against doctors who accepted these contracts. One highly effective method of enforcement was to pressure hospitals to close their doors to fraternal members who used "lodge doctors." By 1914, Dr. Robert Allen in the Journal of the American Medical Association could state, with slight exaggeration, that "there is scarcely a city in the country in which medical societies have not issued edicts against members who accept contracts for lodge practice." "
http://www.herita...re-state
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (16) Jan 01, 2014
Isn't there a political 'sister site' where RealityCheck, StillWind, ryggesogn2, Returners can let off political steam?


AGW Is ALL about politics.
Why do its supporters want to ignore this?
swordsman
3.9 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2014
New news is old news. These predictions date back over 100 years. Those who don't believe in "Greenhouse Gas" clearly don't believe in greenhouses. No better theories for the significant rise in global temperatures?
Cocoa
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2014
Verkle: "We realize now they were quacks because their prophecies did not come true!"

Two quick responses to your comments Verkle. Firstly - the predictions of past climate models have proven to be fairly accurate. Look at this assessment -

http://www.thegua...-warming

Secondly - if meteorologists predict it is going to rain tmrw, and it does not - do you call them quacks?

I do not understand meteorology - but I do understand that the climate is highly complex - and predictive attempts are limited by the current state of our models. This does not prevent us from building these models, running them, and improving them over time.

Calling tens of thousands of highly trained and dedicated scientists quacks - seems to me a very sad reflection on your understanding of science.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 01, 2014
New news is old news. These predictions date back over 100 years. Those who don't believe in "Greenhouse Gas" clearly don't believe in greenhouses. No better theories for the significant rise in global temperatures?

Are ALL the variables known?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2014
RC, given what BHO has done, not what he said, how does BHO care about healthcare?

" after nearly five long years -- begun to see Barack Obama for what he is, rather than for what he seemed to be, when judged by his image and rhetoric.

What kind of man would blithely disrupt the medical care of millions of Americans, and then repeatedly lie to them with glib assurances that they could keep their doctors or health insurance if they wanted to?

What kind of man would set up a system in which people would be forced by law to risk their life savings, because they had to divulge their financial identification numbers to strangers who could turn out to be convicted felons?"
"
Caring is not a matter of words. "By their fruits ye shall know them" -- not by their rhetoric, image or symbolism."

Read more: http://www.realcl...pABZFytG
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
stripeless_zebra
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2014
Scary!

Where can I buy a one way ticket to Mars?
Returners
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
Not under a state run system you demand.


Other countries with state run systems tend to have better and cheaper medical care than the U.S., if news can be believed. That's why there's "medical tourism" from the U.S. to other countries.

What's wrong with the U.S. medical industry in general isn't even the industry's fault. It's frivolous law suits.

Take this hip implant thing, where peole who were already crippled (effectively) have a hip implant, and because it doesn't turn them into the "million dollar man" they sue the hospital, win, and are awarded 8 million dollars, more than the calculated productive dollar value of a human being. Do you have any idea how many non-suing patients it takes to pay for the losses of just this one law suit? But the lawyers aren't satisfied. It's "lawsuit for hire" advertisement on television for anyone who is so much as "dissatisfied" with the outcome. That's bullshit.
Returners
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2014
The reason it costs $2000 to have an axial boil lanced, and $5000 for an emergency room visit where the doctor does nothing but prescribe some blood pressure meds and give you a shot of a "downer" to calm you down, is because of the bullshit lawsuits that some people keep propagating even in cases where nothing was really done wrong.

For some procedures there is a risk, and we all know the doctors notify patients of this fact, no procedure is guaranteed to work, no surgery is guaranteed to save your life, and any time you go under anesthesia there is a chance of a coma. Everyone already knows this, or should, and even if they don't they get notified before the procedure. Then if something goes wrong, which was within normal probability anyway, they or the family sue the hospital, the doctor, and the medical equipment suppliers as though it's a crime.

That's why ordinary medical care costs so much. The losers who sue over everything. If not for them, I'd have better care by default.
Returners
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2014
Rygg:

In defense of Obama, he did not get to pass the entirety of the measures he wanted to pass, so you can blame the REPUBLICANS for demanding a "compromise" measure which did not do everything the democrats wanted. Any time you do something half-heartedly or in some sort of mixed up fashion as this "compromise" you get sub-optimal results. It's better than nothing, but it was not what the democrats wanted to pass, and several key components of the original idea were not passed at all. When it was passed, even the democrats said right away that the bill would not work as it was intended to work, because of these changes.

The reason the party system is a failed concept is because Democrats and Republicans have often completely opposite beliefs about everything from morality to fiscal policy, from A to Z.

From the Bible, "How can two men walk together unless they are in agreement?"

It's like one hand buttoning a shirt while the other comes behind and unbuttons it.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
And lest someone mis-understand some of my prior posts, I think medical practitioners SHOULD be sued if they made completely bone-head mistakes, ASSUMING it is not a trial or experimental medicine, or a new product.

Nobody should be sued over a hip implant unless there was a procedural error, because it's a damn hip implant. It's an "experiment" in many regards to begin with. It's like an amputee complaining that he lost his hand, when there was nothing else to be done about it.

Now, for idiotic cases, like the surgeon amputating the wrong limb, or leaving a medical instrument inside a wound or body cavity, yeah, sue, you're damn right sue. I very well COULD have sued at least two doctors for malpractice based on their careless analysis of my blood work, but didn't.

Yet that's not what happens in MOST of the the advertised class action, or "bad implant," lawyer spam suit commercials. It's trivial crap than normal people suffer every day just because that's the way the world works.
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2014
Isn't there a political 'sister site' where RealityCheck, StillWind, ryggesogn2, Returners can let off political steam?

I forgot to mention it but on my display there is a big blank gap with a caption

@Mimath224
I am thinking they got booted... or they are here because it is cheaper/easier to gain access? No matter what, it is most likely they are here because they are less likely to be banned.

Are you running ad-block software? Are you running Explorer? I noticed there was always a blocking white stripe and/or ad interfering with my articles often too on my Windows/Explorer machine. Running Linux fixed it. You can load Ubuntu by boot-disk if that will help, then you can run it next to windows without losing windows.
http://www.ubuntu.com/download
just load it to DVD and make a bootable disk.

the only way around it is download the PDF or use copy/paste to a text document to read what is under the white strip. pain... Linux loads faster that Explorer FYI
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
In defense of Obama, he did not get to pass the entirety of the measures he wanted to pass,

Utter BS!!!
DEMOCRATS controlled BOTH houses of Congress when Obamacare was RAMMED through.
If BHO didn't get what HE wanted, national health care, it is due to the DEMOCRATS who were afraid of LOSING power.
The reason emergency room visits are expensive is because the federal govt FORCES emergency rooms to treat, regardless of ability to pay.
A level 1 trauma center was forced to close in Tucson, AZ because the federal govt refuse to pay for the illegal aliens the Border Patrol brought to them for treatment.
better and cheaper medical care than the U.S., if news can be believed.

It can't be believed.
Democrats and Republicans have often completely opposite beliefs about everything from morality to fiscal policy


One party rule is so much better. Just ask the North Koreans.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
ret:
"Obamacare may have promised health insurance for the masses. But on its first day, it's left more Americans without coverage than before the law was passed.

More than 4.7 million Americans had their health insurance cancelled as a result of any of the thousand-plus-page law's new rules, the Associated Press reports,"
"The Obama administration eventually admitted Obamacare's role in crushing many Americans' coverage and has scrambled to belatedly make up for it."

Read more: http://dailycalle...pAuemIL7

AP has been a cheerleader in the past for BHO.
runrig
3.6 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
First time here, and I'm hearing a lot of the same old climate denier rhetoric. A global conspiracy by scientists/governments. Climate scientists don't understand science. We still have cold winters in polar regions, and a trapped boat disproves the science. The U.N. is poised to sweep in and exert control. Quoting selected material from denier websites (reminds me of creationists). We even get believers in "voodoo economics", trickle down economics -- it is the rich who create jobs. Liberals are utopians.


Welcome to physorg primitiveman.
Yes, you will find it goes like this here.
I see you get it with your comments - so no need for me to state the obvious.
There are equally, some, who try at least to deny the ignorance - if only because it's an abhorance of human nature and often selfishly engendered, which is even more abhorant. Try ryggy out eg on the vast Koch thread.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 01, 2014
climate denier rhetoric

Just this simple statement sums up the lack of quality in the science of AGW.

If the science was, as asserted, really sound, there would be no need for a propaganda campaign by AGWites to attack and smear those who don't agree with them.
There would be no need for AGWites to equate anyone who challenges their faith with those who questioned the Holocaust.
runrig
3.5 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2014
We realize now they were quacks because their prophecies did not come true! We don't have to know the answer to complex problems, but we can easily match up predictions with results. I would be a fool to assert that I know all of the answers to climate questions. And so would anyone else.


You indeed don't know the answers, nor indeed the questions. If you were to know something about the science - any of you deniers - then you would know that the variables overlying the climate signal, the biggest being PDO/ENSO, has an unknown cycle and can ONLY be factored into the model outputs as the error bars. And NO it don't matter because the internal chaos of the cycles (long-term weather) does NOT affect the energy balance of the Earth's climate IT JUST MOVES IT AROUND. Currently it's being stored in the oceans. Oh and the vast pollution pouring out of Easia don't exact warm things do it?

http://arctic-new...tic.html
Returners
2.2 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2014
Rygg:

If other nations don't have better and cheaper medical care, then why is there "Medical Tourism" from the U.S. to hospitals in other countries? It is somehow cheaper to pay thousands of dollars for a round-trip ticket to Europe or the Far East, and get a procedure done, than to have it done in the U.S.

The reason emergency room visits are expensive is because the federal govt FORCES emergency rooms to treat, regardless of ability to pay.
A level 1 trauma center was forced to close in Tucson, AZ because the federal govt refuse to pay for the illegal aliens the Border Patrol brought to them for treatment.


Have you ever heard of the parable of the "Good Samaritan"?

It's a shame that the government should need to pass the law to force the medical facilities to treat people, because they ought to have taken it on themselves to do so from the start.

Even illegal aliens should be treated in an emergency, it's the humane thing to do, but they should be deported as well.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
Rygg:

You miss the point. the U.S. is a nation without identity. The only identity we might have is the false belief in a bunch of acts mistakenly taken as "Rights", which are usually more correctly labelled as "Priviledges".

At any rate, "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." Perhaps it is useful to apply that proverb to a government as well. One term we raise taxes on the wealthy, next term we lower them. One term the border is secured, next term we welcome everyone, and ignore illegals. One term we are against homosexuality, the next term we welcome it, and BOTH parties are at fault for things that are quite morally questionable at times. We now accept behaviors, both fiscally and morally, which a generation ago would have been deemed unacceptable and reprehensible.

Unfortunately, what is a voter to do? I have to vote for who I consider the best candidate, but I really don't agree with any of them fiscally or morally, because they all have insane ideas.
Returners
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 01, 2014
I'd be absolutely horrified if Mitt Romney or who was the other guy, Ron Paul or Paul Ryan, yeah my God i'd be horrified if any of them had been elected President.

While Obama is pretty far from what I'd like to have as a President, considering most of his flaws are nowhere near as bad as the other candidates in most areas, and no worse anywhere as far as I can tell, then I much prefer Obama over them.

I do wish Obama would exercise some more executive authority and press Congress for more gun legislation, but the Republicans again prevent common sense gun laws, so that we still have the insane "Right" to have military grade weapons stock piles in people's attic, closet, and basement, in the form of automatic and semi-automatic hand guns and rifles with 33 round clips.

You can say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," but that's a bullshit cop-out.

The Machine Gun is the one invention that eventually made the Sword obsolete on the battlefield.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
Ret:
"Echoing the laments of pundits like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood argued Saturday that China outpaces the United States in building major transportation infrastructure like high-speed rail because of its authoritarian system and because the Chinese don't have the Republican Party holding up progress."
http://hotair.com...ernment/

The result of one party rule:
"For the past eight years, Liu Zhijun was one of the most influential people in China. As minister of railways, Liu ran China's $300 billion high-speed rail project. U.S., European and Japanese contractors jostled for a piece of the business while foreign journalists gushed over China's latest high-tech marvel.

Today, Liu Zhijun is ruined, and his high-speed rail project is in trouble. On Feb. 25, he was fired for "severe violations of discipline" — code for embezzling tens of millions of dollars. "
WaPost.
Returners
2.5 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2014
Today, Liu Zhijun is ruined, and his high-speed rail project is in trouble. On Feb. 25, he was fired for "severe violations of discipline" — code for embezzling tens of millions of dollars. "
WaPost.


So what?

There are and have been corrupt politicians of all parties in every nation throughout history. This doesn't support your position any more than it supports any other position. It's irrelevant actually.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
Ret:
"Cardiac surgeries in the United States can cost up to US$50,000. In India, they typically cost around US$5,000-US$7,000."
"At Narayana Hrudayalaya, however, surgeries cost less than US$3,000, irrespective of the complexity of the procedure or the length of hospitalization. "
"Indeed, Shetty has already turned some standard industry practices on their heads. One of his first innovations when he set up Narayana Hrudayalaya in 2001 was in the way doctors are compensated. Typically, cardiac surgeons are paid per surgery and their costs constitute a significant proportion of a hospital's total expenses. Shetty invited his staff physicians to work for fixed salaries; he did not pay them less than what they would have normally taken home at the end of the month, but he required doctors to perform more surgeries, bringing down the cost per procedure. This approach continues to be one of the core savings areas at Narayana Hrudayalaya. "
http://knowledge....narayana
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2014
the U.S. is a nation without identity.

It is now after 100 years of socialism.
It used to stand for liberty, prosperity and opportunity for all.
Dirt poor from any where in would could come to the USA, work hard and succeed to what ever level they chose to.
Now the state plunders so much wealth with taxes and regulation leving little room for opportunity.
"Now, at 53, with business in a slump and little money in savings, he's pessimistic about his chances of retiring.

"It's never going to happen. By the time I reach retirement age, there won't be Social Security. There's not going to be any money," Edwards said. "I'll do like my father did: I'll work 'til I die.""
http://hosted.ap....20-03-44
Thanks to the 'progressive', greedy baby boomers.
jerryjbrown
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2014
It is very hard to take these 'models' seriously when here in the northeast there are two converging storms. The weatherman reported one scenario, then said 'in another climate model...' the converging storms would produce different results. They weren't sure what exactly is gonna happen in 2 days. Because nature is unpredictable. So 100 yrs from now??? Please, back in the 90's Mt Pinatubo erupted and the dust circled the globe dropping the Earth's temp by .5 a degree. That kind of event could never be foreseen or inputted into a model. And this obsession with CO2 when there are so many real pollutants we need to deal with.
runrig
3.2 / 5 (14) Jan 01, 2014
It is very hard to take these 'models' seriously when here in the northeast there are two converging storms. The weatherman reported one scenario, then said 'in another climate model...' the converging storms would produce different results. They weren't sure what exactly is gonna happen in 2 days. Because nature is unpredictable. So 100 yrs from now??? Please, back in the 90's Mt Pinatubo erupted and the dust circled the globe dropping the Earth's temp by .5 a degree. That kind of event could never be foreseen or inputted into a model. And this obsession with CO2 when there are so many real pollutants we need to deal with.


Educate yourself on the difference between weather and climate and above all how that plays out with regard to the energy absorbed from the Sun and what is emitted to space. You will find (if not ideologically challenged) that weather is unpredictable and that climate is not a long series of weather and so is not unpredictable.
enviro414
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2014
The cause of the warming, and end of it, are no longer a mystery.

Curiosity resulted in the discovery of the two primary drivers of average global temperature that explain the reported measurements with 90% accuracy. http://agwunveile...ot.com/. CO2 is not one of them.
runrig
3.3 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
Curiosity resulted in the discovery of the two primary drivers of average global temperature that explain the reported measurements with 90% accuracy. http://agwunveile...ot.com/. CO2 is not one of them.


"…the temperature of the bulk volume of water participating in the ocean oscillation is used in place of the surface temperature of the water, the time-integral of sunspot numbers alone appears to correlate with the estimated true average global temperature trend after approximately 1700."

Right – It's news to me (and the scientific community) that there is any record of the temp of the "bulk volume of water" since 1700. Arguing with a denier recently he even denied the ARGO data (~2000) was useful.
Another problem - the total irradiance change due the Solar cycle is only ~0.1-0.2%. Way to low to cause sig warming.
That was enough for me to stop further investigation on the "peer-reviewed" science.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2014
If the average temperature were to rise by 4C, I think Louisiana would result in a non-growing season during summer due to heat, but would probably end up with more total growing seasons as the cooler months warm up.

I doubt we'd ever lack for rain, unless continental winds somehow shift so that the prevailing pattern is always off-shore winds. Seriously, the Gulf has a lot of water in it, and any time the wind blows from the South it's likely to bring rain, no matter how hot it gets.

As for other states and nations, it's difficult to say what I should think about it, because the repercussions would need to be examined on a case by case basis. Some nations will benefit from such a change, others will not.

The same could be said for any other disaster, or for that matter any other "blessing" too. It's always been that way. If you lived in East Africa between 5 and 8 thousand years ago, you probably thought you had a utopia, and then the climate changed and it became a wasteland,
Returners
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2014
Only in modern times did technology and irrigation allow mankind to reclaim large portions of the deserts on a permanent basis, but a few millennia ago there once were forests in the region, and animals that don't even live there any more. Similarly, Gobekli Tepe shows evidence that animals which lived there a mere 12k years ago no longer live within half a continent's distance of the location. I doubt anybody could legitimately blame either change on mandkind, but I have seen a few climate extremists try to do so recently on this site.

A 4C change would suck for a lot of people, let's be honest, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. I don't know what I would do in summer time though, since I already have heat rash problems and have always been heat intolerant, but I suppose I'll have to deal with that if and when it occurs, though I'll likely not live for 87 more years anyway. Well, if they invent cloned or artificial organs, or a miracle, sure, but excluding those things ...
primitiveman
4.1 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2014
" Private charities and individual compassion take over where capitalism fails.


That is a nice fantasy. Religious and private charities have never been able to fulfill that need. Do you really think that they could replace medicare and social security -- two socialist programs that actually reduce poverty?
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2014
" Private charities and individual compassion take over where capitalism fails.


That is a nice fantasy. Religious and private charities have never been able to fulfill that need. Do you really think that they could replace medicare and social security -- two socialist programs that actually reduce poverty?

Yes, they did fill that need along with mutual aid societies.
Medicare and SS are insolvent.
Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.
verkle
2.9 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2014
Cloud mystery solved: Global temperatures to rise at least 4C by 2100


By the way, such an arrogant headline. I don't trust people who pretend to know all the answers to difficult science topics.

Returners
2.2 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2014
Yes, they did fill that need along with mutual aid societies.
Medicare and SS are insolvent.
Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.


No, silly, I am afraid they did not. If they had, nobody would have passed social security laws in the first place.

"Religious organizations" are also dominated by crooked pastors and other leaders who make anywhere from 10 to literally 1000 times the annual income of a typical member of their congregations. In their current, corrupt form, many of them quite literally do more to harm people than to help, which they are going to answer to God personally for this one day as well.

No friend, the "religious" organizations are vastly insufficient. Additionally, charities also suffer from enormous corruption in modern times, not to mention also being far from sufficient to the task.

Now try again, this time at least a little less ignorantly.
dogbert
2 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2014
primitiveman,

That is a nice fantasy. Religious and private charities have never been able to fulfill that need. Do you really think that they could replace medicare and social security -- two socialist programs that actually reduce poverty?


Medicare and its stepchild Medicaid created the need for medical insurance. Before Medicare and Medicaid, few people had medical insurance and they did not need it. Medical care was affordable. Medicare and Medicaid drove hospital costs to levels unaffordable by any but the very rich. In the '60's before Medicare and Medicaid, you might spend a week in the hospital and be faced with a bill for a few hundred dollars. Now, a week in the hospital will probably run close to a quarter of a million dollars or more.

Yes, religious and private charities did help those who could not afford medical care. Physicians and hospitals were in the habit of writing off all or most costs to the indigent.

Our government created our problems.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2014
Okay, rygg, try this.

Let's just think about the tax incentives the U.S. government (not to mention other governments) give to movie industry to make films.

People who actuallly have money spend significant amounts on entertainment: football tickets, movies, theatre, opera, sky diving, etc, etc. Now the government gives tax incentives to the very people who make the most money, the producers, meanwhile people like yourself throw a fit if the government gives some of the money to people who actually need it.

I think you have things backwards. We need more taxes on stuff like movie production, and sports (think of all the long term injuries that could be prevented if sports required more safety and was more regulated,) and this money can go to help pay for medical expenses.

Instead, they incentivize the very wealthy at everyone else's expense.
Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Jan 01, 2014
Have you been to a movie recently? Not that I do many movies, I've only seen one or two in the past few years, however, last time I was at the theatre, A 20oz drink from the soda machine costed roughly $4. Now of course, you can buy the same soda down the street a bit at the gas station for about a $1.20, or just buy a 2 liter and pour yourself a glass for a few cents more, but the theatre obviously bans you from bringing in outside food or beverages.

Sooo, good old America, where it's perfectly legal to charge somebody a bare minimum of a 300% mark-up. Thankfully, God gave me some sense, so I simply don't buy drinks at the theatre. It's a waste of money, and I'm far too rational for that sort of waste....$4.00 for a diet sprite. Seriously.

Sure, it's entertainment, but it's also usury.

Anyway, I've never seen an actor or actress good enough to justify the obscene amounts they make either.

Everyone will line up by droves to pay so much though. It's really sad you know.
Zephir_fan
Jan 01, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2014
Returners 45% of the US budget goes to entitlements and you are worried about a few $$ in tax breaks for job producing industries. Get some smarts, Industry produces the real jobs not the phoney ones that the government produces.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2014
People who actuallly have money spend significant amounts on entertainment: football tickets, movies, theatre, opera, sky diving, etc, etc.


They earned that money and they can choose how to spend.

he government gives some of the money to people who actually need it.

The govt plundered that money and usually the recipients of that plundered wealth didn't earn it and are incentive by the govt to feel entitled to wealth others earned

If you don't like to spend money on expensive movies, don't go. Don't buy the products advertised on sports.
davidivad
2.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2014
garbage in,garbage out. i hope we eventually learn enough to create an accurate simulation for these things.
Mimath224
3.8 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2014
@Returners...Oh my giddy aunt! Now we're into the cinema and soft drinks (and you mention one by name). Have to admit Zephir_fan got it right in the last post...I hope Zephir_fan reeports you to that soft drink company for not supporting those Americans who work all hours making the stuff.
Thank you Captain Stumpy for the advice but as yet I haven't had any luck. Will try again later.

primitiveman
3.5 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2014
ryggesogn2
Yes, they did fill that need along with mutual aid societies.
Medicare and SS are insolvent.
Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.


The poverty rate among seniors dropped significantly with the passage of medicare and with increased ss benefits. Their needs were not being met. Social Security is solvent for the next 20 years, and an adjustment of the income cap would extend that for decades more.

High costs are a problem throughout our health care systems, public and private. More than half of personal bankruptcies were due to health care costs. And, lawsuits are not a major contributor -- less than 1 pct. And "defensive medicine" adds another 5 percent or so, something that can be addressed without taking away our rights to sue and get compensated for malfeasance. The problems in health care extend far beyond Medicare, and include the for profit insurance industry, pharma, and fee for service profit models.
Mimath224
3.5 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2014
ryggesogn2
Yes, they did fill that need along with mutual aid societies.
Medicare and SS are insolvent.
Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.


...Social Security is solvent for the next 20 years, and an adjustment of the income cap would extend that for decades more...

... And, lawsuits are not a major contributor -- less than 1 pct. And "defensive medicine"... taking away our rights to sue and get compensated for malfeasance...care extend far beyond Medicare, and include the for profit insurance industry...fee for service profit models.


Oh yes, yes, I quite agree, not at all unreasonable, on the right forum perhaps.....try reading the article and not just the posts and maybe you'll get off that 'cloud' you're on.
I wonder if the articles claim of raising temps 3-4deg includes the 'gas' you are letting off too? Probably not because I doubt there such a model exists.

runrig
3.1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2014
If the average temperature were to rise by 4C, I think Louisiana would result in a non-growing season during summer due to heat, but would probably end up with more total growing seasons as the cooler months warm up.

I doubt we'd ever lack for rain, unless continental winds somehow shift so that the prevailing pattern is always off-shore winds. Seriously, the Gulf has a lot of water in it, and any time the wind blows from the South it's likely to bring rain, no matter how hot it gets.


If the ave temp rises 4C then the Arctic may reach an 8C rise (currently warming at twice global ave). The "growing season" would be the least of your worries. What's that going to do to SL's (Greenland is in the Arctic)? And yes that will have a vast effect on global winds, with a large weakening on jet-stream strength. Isn't Louisiana rather low? New Orleans?

You will oscillate between periods of drought and long periods of deluge/flood, Because weather patterns will get "stuck". Hurricanes?
dedereu
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2014
Very fundamental study, based on real measurements, for the future of our children, with sea levels increasing endless over more than 1000years, with no possibility to stop it, even if we suppress our CO2, and a small change of this feedback of cloud, could explain the mystery of the large increase of the instability of earth climate, in the last three million years, with strong oscillations between glaciations and warm interglacial, roughly every 120000 years !!!
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2014
The problems in health care extend far beyond Medicare, and include the for profit insurance industry, pharma, and fee for service profit models


No, the problem with health care COSTS is that lack of free market controls.
BTW, besides the bankruptcy of Medicare, fewer physicians will accept Medicare rationing care for those stuck in that system.
vlaaing peerd
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2014
ah! Climate science article...could have known it would end up in some misty discussion about healthcare.
Returners
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2014
Dogbert:

You may direct your attention to the fact average life span a generation or three ago was much lower than it is today. Why? One major reason is the availability of the healthcare we do have, which was not as advanced nor as readily available in the past.

I think a significant portion of modern costs come from frivolous lawsuits, like the one I mentioned previously involving the hip replacement.

At any rate, before we had modern facilities people died a lot younger from things we would be shocked at; simple infections, the common cold or flu, tetanus, and let's not forget tuberculosis, polio (mostly irradicated), and smallpox (now irradicated), not to mention MMR and similar vaccines being either absolutely mandatory, or mandatory for public education, healthcare workers, and certain other jobs.

These GOVERNMENT MANDATES are what make our life expectancy so high now. If we followed Rygg's no regulation capitalist scheme, half of children would die before 5 years old.
Returners
1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2014
primitiveman:

people should have the right to sue, just not for problems they might have had anyway, or which are within expected outcomes, realistically, STATISTICALLY, not idealistically.

So a hip implant didn't turn somebody into the million dollar man? So what? There was a known risk, and they had a bad hip to begin with. Unless something stupid happened, like a missing part or put in the wrong leg or some such, there shouldn't be a lawsuit, because it's already known that implants have a statistical likelihood of being rejected or causing some other problem anyway, the same as organ transplants or any other medicine.

When you take a medicine in the hospital for the first time ever, for all you know, you COULD be allergic to that drug, and it could do anything from give you hives, put you in shock or a coma, or even stop your heart or kill you. That's the risk EVERYBODY takes when they take a new drug, even if it's only one in ten million. continued...
Returners
1.1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2014
People don't usually get to sue the hospital when they are allergic to a new drug and have a bad reaction or die, well, they can, but they'll lose when it goes to a judge or jury.

They would get to sue if the hospital accidentally gave them a drug it was already known they were allergic to, however.

So why do people get to sue for as much as 8 million dollars when an all-new hip implant fails to solve all their problems? It's actually significantly less of a risk than taking a new medical drug (or even test dye) that the patient has never been exposed to. So why is it a suit involved, when there was no doctor error, only some "less than ideal" condition of the implant?

So what? The engineers are human beings, they aren't God and they shouldn't be expected to produce an implant that turns you back from a Senior to the health of your twenties, or from an injured war vet back to an ace athlete, not that I'm picking on vets, because I take their condition seriously, but I'm realist.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2014
Medicare is so great?
"The contractor building the financial management system for Healthcare.gov is being blamed by a Houston hospital for delayed Medicare reimbursements that have caused the hospital to miss payrolls for weeks. Novitas Solutions is the federal government's new Medicare payment processor for the south-central region of the country hired by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS.) "
http://www.weekly...07.html#
barakn
5 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2014
What's wrong with the U.S. medical industry in general isn't even the industry's fault. It's frivolous law suits.

Take this hip implant thing, where peole who were already crippled (effectively) have a hip implant, and because it doesn't turn them into the "million dollar man" they sue the hospital, win, and are awarded 8 million dollars, more than the calculated productive dollar value of a human being.

My friend got a hip implant that disintegrated. The metal fragments in her body caused a large amount of pain and illness. The implant was the recalled DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System. The Depuy company has been and should be sued for making a defective product and delaying the recall after learning about the problems.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
My sister has a Masters degree in nursing, and she makes about 75k per year.
Uh her name wouldnt happen to be jeannie would it?
"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."
??

40-some posts. You must admit that is a flood of biblical proportions.
At the end of my medical adventure, up to this point, the best the neurologist, the nephrologist, the gastroenterologist, and the infectious disease specialist all together could come up with for now is that I should "eat a high fiber diet and stop taking vitamins... A 20oz drink from the soda machine costed roughly $4. Now of course, you can buy the same soda down the street a bit at the gas station for about a $1.20
I may be way off base here but perhaps you failed to mention that a unanimous suggestion from all these experts was to unstick your ass from the couch and get some exercise?
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
Patient rights and the ability to sue are a real conundrum! Give the patients too much rights and no one will be able to afford healthcare due to the high liability rates and the tests that the doctors are required to perform to protect themselves.

I personally have witnessed at least of 10 to 1 ratio of competency among doctors.

Top rated doctors at the best teaching hospitals do not charge more than local doctors. So my advice to you is if your general practitioner cannot help you after a few visits and you have a serious condition go to a major university hospital for treatment and ask for the head of the department.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2014
The implant was the recalled DePuy ASR XL Acetabular System. The Depuy company has been and should be sued for making a defective product and delaying the recall after learning about the problems.


But no FDA bureaucrat who approved the device should be fired?

These replacement hips were designed for younger patients.
A friend in his early 50s had a hip replacement. He wore out his original hip running marathons.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2014
Hey ryggy what do you make of this?

"SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court granted a law license on Thursday to a man living in the United States illegally who graduated from law school and passed the state bar exam."

-Heck - maybe he could even run for president -?
MR166
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2014
"But no FDA bureaucrat who approved the device should be fired?"

Ryg as much as I distrust the government you cannot really blame the FDA for this problem. When you are dealing with state of the art advancements not all of them work as expected. It takes way to long for the FDA to approve new treatments as it is.

There is a very fine line between safety and the unnecessary delay of lifesaving new treatments.
MR166
2 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2014
"SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The California Supreme Court granted a law license on Thursday to a man living in the United States illegally who graduated from law school and passed the state bar exam."

It is obvious that only the politically correct laws count any more. Free speech must be PC or it is termed Hate Speech and banned. Laws can be changed at will by the President. The government can choose to enforce only the laws that benefit it's powers and choose to ignore those that weaken it's powers.

The US and it's law enforcement is in a sad state of decay. We are rotting from the inside out.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2014
Ryg as much as I distrust the government you cannot really blame the FDA for this problem.

Then shut down the FDA if it has no responsibility for its actions or inactions.
goracle
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2014
First time here, and I'm hearing a lot of the same old climate denier rhetoric. A global conspiracy by scientists/governments. Climate scientists don't understand science. We still have cold winters in polar regions, and a trapped boat disproves the science. The U.N. is poised to sweep in and exert control. Quoting selected material from denier websites (reminds me of creationists). We even get believers in "voodoo economics", trickle down economics -- it is the rich who create jobs. Liberals are utopians.

The only surprise so far is that I haven't heard quotes from Ayn Rand, Alex Jones or the Bible.

Just keep reading...
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2014
"New Oregon Data: Expanding Medicaid Increases Usage Of Emergency Rooms, Undermining Central Rationale For Obamacare"
"A new study, published in the journal Science, definitively reaches the opposite conclusion. In Oregon, people who gained coverage through Medicaid used the emergency room 40 percent more than those who were uninsured."
http://www.forbes...amacare/
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2014
This is a serious question about how global temperate data is handled.

Temperature is a measure of the heat energy in a quantity of something.

When surface temperature data is collected, what is that 'something'?
Are the official temperature stations measuring the energy in certain volume of air, which would also require the absolute pressure to determine the quantity of air molecules (and water vapor, so dew point is required).
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2014
Has phys.org posted this?
"Medicaid Increases Emergency-Department Use: Evidence from Oregon's Health Insurance Experiment"
http://www.scienc....1246183

Yep:
http://medicalxpr...oom.html
goracle
3.7 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2014
Wake me up when rygtard's political diarrhoea ends. I can use a good sleep...
ECOnservative
2.9 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2014
I'm always suspicious of models predicting 'bad things' at time scales where funding is needed now on one hand and verification of the model will take decades on the other. Fool me once..
enviro414
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2014
Runrig – You exhibit the constrained thinking that might have prevented you and others from discovering the drivers of average global temperature. The link and sub-links reveal the insights that led to the equation given there which calculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with R2 > 0.9 and credible estimates back to 1610. The resulting graphs are compelling.

You correctly pointed out that solar irradiance variation is insignificant but apparently failed to notice that solar irradiance variation is not one of the identified drivers.

Leaving off 'If' from the quote that you made could be misleading. A more elucidating quote might be "The net effect of ocean oscillations is to cause the surface temperature trend to oscillate above and below the trend calculated using only the sunspot number time-integral."

A theory as to how this works is described in a sub-link, http://lowaltitud...pot.com/
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2014
Wake me up when rygtard's political diarrhoea ends. I can use a good sleep...


@goracle
in this specific thread? or finishes period... cause if you mean wait till he finishes period, then you are gonna be sleeping a LONG LONG time! LOL

he is STILL going on this link!
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2014
You exhibit the constrained thinking that might have prevented you and others from discovering the drivers of average global temperature…

enviro:
Ah, Svensmark (been there done that): CERN have shown that GCR's can cause nucleation, but way too small to give significant droplet increases, and even at what temperature/altitudes this will occur best (seems H2SO4 is needed). They say that they need to do more research on it.

There is a ~11 yr cycle with GCR's (should show v temps - dont) and little overall trend through that cycle. Anyway there's a mismatch with rising temps. - surely more GCR's would mean more cloud (in general) and cooling?

Sea temp records way back were slapdash - eg water buckets left on deck in sun before measurement. "bulk" (deep temp)?

GCR flux variations then points the opposite way.
http://www.skepti...nced.htm

Oh, and you could read the comments of Chris Crawford on Pangburn's site.
Forestgnome
2.5 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2014
Good thing we don't live in a climate model!
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2014
Ryg as much as I distrust the government you cannot really blame the FDA for this problem.

Then shut down the FDA if it has no responsibility for its actions or inactions.
No thanks I dont want to be exposed to radioactive beverages, the mascara Lash lure, which caused blindness, and worthless "cures" for diabetes and tuberculosis or Elixir Sulfanilamide which killed over 100 people using a drug formulated with a toxic, untested solvent or thalidomide which deformed thousands of European babies or melamine in baby food.

The fda may not be perfect but it does work.
GuruShabu
2 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2014
@ForestGnome
Brilliant comment!
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2014
The fda may not be perfect but it does work.

But they are NOT accountable for their failures like any criminal would be.
MR166
3.8 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2014
"But they are NOT accountable for their failures like any criminal would be."

RYG nothing in medicine is 100%. If 100% effectiveness with no side effects were to be made the law then no new treatments would be approved in the US. If a company produces a treatment and they withhold information about harmful side effects they should be held liable.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2014
no new treatments would be approved in the US.

No.
New treatments would continue and those who administer those treatments would be accountable, as they are now.
There would just be no cover from an 'objective' govt agency.
Maybe the insurance industry would create an organization like UL or IIHS to evaluate and approve treatments as the insurance industry would have the most to lose financially on ineffective or dangerous treatments.
Returners
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2014
Where did you learn history?
The US Constitution was desinged to limit the power of the state and provide EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNDER THE LAW. Which means the law treats everyone the same: it protects the rights to life, liberty and property for ALL, equally.
The US Constitution was not designed to take over the health care system and grant special exemptions to those BHO deems deserving.


Did Warren Buffet's son, and your child have equal opportunity?

Warren Buffet mostly wrote his own Son out of the will, because he said a person's wealth shouldn't be determined by being born in the right or wrong womb.

If person A has parents who are ten-millionaires, and person B has parents who are literally not much more than ten-thousandaires, how the hell can you possibly believe that Person A and Person B have equal opportunity under the law?

You can't be serious.

Person A has a thousand times more opportunity...
Returners
2.7 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2014
This is a serious question about how global temperate data is handled.

Temperature is a measure of the heat energy in a quantity of something.

When surface temperature data is collected, what is that 'something'?
Are the official temperature stations measuring the energy in certain volume of air, which would also require the absolute pressure to determine the quantity of air molecules (and water vapor, so dew point is required).


the instrument technically measures it's own temperature, which is sort of a trickle-down from the actual environmental conditions.

If you think of a spring thermometer, or a mercury thermometer, the degree marks are the temperature of the aparatus, not the absolute temperature of the environment.

Things like density and humidity of the atmosphere would alter the rate of transfer between the atmosphere and the thermometer, meaning an absolute measure requires more than just the thermometer "temperature".
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2014
If you consider a mercury thermometer, it is contained in a glass tube, and glass is a thermal insulator. this means there is a delay in environmental change vs the thermometer change. it also means that in some cases where temperature may spike to a maximum, it is possible for a maximum to be reached in the environment, but the thermometer never "catch up" before the environment cools again. Therefore the thermometer will under-estimate the maximum temperature that actually happened in the environment.

This is assuming the thermometer is in the shade, like official measurements, not in an open place exposed to sunlight.

If the thermometer were exposed to sunlight, it's temperature could rise faster than that of the environment.

So in essence, the thermometer measures a running equilibrium between itself and the environment, but it is always playing "catch-up" due to less than ideal heat transfer.

This is for physical thermometers, not infrared.
Caliban
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2014
Returners 45% of the US budget goes to entitlements and you are worried about a few $$ in tax breaks for job producing industries. Get some smarts, Industry produces the real jobs not the phoney ones that the government produces.


HAHAHAHAHA-- what complete and flagrant bullshite! Let's see your citation for this fantastical appropriations scenario.

We can be assured that it didn't come from the OMB.

VENDItardE
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2014
this idiot can't even find the . and the @ sign on a keyboard.........here's how he lists his email address

s [dot] sherwood [at] unsw.edu.au
enviro414
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2014
Runrig – I copied this from Cris Crawford's website: "…the albedo works just the same for emission of radiation as it does for the absorption of radiation…". This statement is erroneous but not unexpected from someone unfamiliar with (for me post grad) radiation heat transfer. Albedo has nothing to do with SB radiation. The albedo of earth is approximately 0.3 while the emissivity is approximately 0.98. The albedo of fresh show is close to 1 and its emissivity is also close to 1.

I suspect that this basic misunderstanding has contaminated much of what Dr. Crawford perceives. He is egregeously misinformed about climate science.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2014
FWIW: Few things from Perth, Western Australia - yes we are close to the antarctic and I have observed significant increase in humidty on the hotter days over the last 30 years or so, we also have reduced rainfall and now need to rely on desalination notwithstanding increases in population - we do have less rainfall whilst humidity (on average) has increased.

Do AGW deniers understand probability, normal curve, standard deviation, error bars,anomalies etc

Have put up a couple of local things on my web area on this link, published on the almost daily news paper the West Australian regarding summary of warming/cooling from local perspectives and references to few northern hemisphere (sic polluted part of the world):-

http://niche.ii.net/AGW

btw:
I wonder who has an interest in this, commercially or otherwise in relation to HVAC:-

http://niche.ii.net/h.pdf
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2014
VENDItardE is not aware of "Spam Bots" which collect email address for mail lists & marketing
this idiot can't even find the . and the @ sign on a keyboard.........here's how he lists his email address
s [dot] sherwood [at] unsw.edu.au
Get a grip VENDItardE, just because you aren't a university trained researcher doesnt mean Mr. Sherwood wants spam & is going to some extent to reduce it, you might WANT rubbish emails

Please VENDItardE, think before you blurt from idle ignorance, seen this too many times !

Find out FIRST why this is sometimes a useful strategy to minimise Spam

Who is the uninformed Idiot ?

Apology accepted, just have the integrity to DO it and acknowledge you got it wrong this time & there is a clear rationale, you were not previously aware of, to minimise spam; random emails etc..

Please check before posting ever again, that would be so cool & therefore allow us (gradually) to shift our perception of you to something (starting to be) a bit smarter.

OK ?
runrig
3.1 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2014
Runrig – I copied this from Cris Crawford's website: "…the albedo works just the same for emission of radiation as it does for the absorption of radiation…". This statement is erroneous but not unexpected from someone unfamiliar with (for me post grad) radiation heat transfer. Albedo has nothing to do with SB radiation. The albedo of earth is approximately 0.3 while the emissivity is approximately 0.98. The albedo of fresh show is close to 1 and its emissivity is also close to 1.

I suspect that this basic misunderstanding has contaminated much of what Dr. Crawford perceives. He is egregeously misinformed about climate science.


Indeed so – you do know I'm a Meteorologist? (retired).
If he says that, then as you say he is incorrect.
The rest of my critique still stands
Tewk
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2014
I don't believe a word these "researchers" say. And who's to blame ? They are !
Has there ever been a more boneheaded presentation of a scientific argument in all of history ?
No the whole thing form the beginning had the stench of a strange concoction of Leftist political extremism, environmental cultism and financially motivated scientific fraud. Even if it happened to be true they blew it. It may come as a surprise but many people are extremely fed up be manipulated and lied to. They simply will not give them a second chance.
goracle
5 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2014
I don't believe a word these "researchers" say. And who's to blame ? They are !
Has there ever been a more boneheaded presentation of a scientific argument in all of history ?
No the whole thing form the beginning had the stench of a strange concoction of Leftist political extremism, environmental cultism and financially motivated scientific fraud. Even if it happened to be true they blew it. It may come as a surprise but many people are extremely fed up be manipulated and lied to. They simply will not give them a second chance.

Do you actually think you are original?
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2014
Tewk mumbled
I don't believe a word these "researchers" say. And who's to blame ? They are !
Has there ever been a more boneheaded presentation of a scientific argument in all of history ?
No the whole thing form the beginning had the stench of a strange concoction of Leftist political extremism, environmental cultism and financially motivated scientific fraud...
This is why education is SO very important !

It is very hard to be manipulated when you have an education in psychology & the hard sciences.

1.
Thermal properties of CO2 are well KNOWN & easy to confirm, no dispute there except from people who are illiterate or uneducated and have an agenda to push - can prove it YOURSELF !

2.
Atmospheric CO2 is rising, as reported by so many investigators and even this site, which is often used by climate deniers, confirms CO2 is rising:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

Now here is all that is necessary:-

Put 1 & 2 together & add this fact:-

World burns ~230,000L petrol/sec !
enviro414
1 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2014
Mike - "...when you have an education in psychology & the hard sciences." Good, then you are aware that the only influence that the added CO2 has is to cause the EMR to be absorbed a bit closer to the emitting surface.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2014
Mike - "...when you have an education in psychology & the hard sciences." Good, then you are aware that the only influence that the added CO2 has is to cause the EMR to be absorbed a bit closer to the emitting surface.


Enviro:
No it hasn't. The LWIR still has to get away from Earth you know!
It's down to the path-length (Beer-Lamberts Law).
Basically there is no saturation as LWIR HAS to exit at TOA and adding any amount of GHG high up (assuming well mixed) then the effective radiating level is raised to a higher, colder and less efficient level.
For the same reason that the Earth is not as cold as a Black/Grey body via it's GHG's and that they have pushed up the surface temp of -18C to around 7km and the Tropopause similarly. Mass can always be added to the Atmosphere and GHG's make it more IR dense via PATH-LENGTH.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2014
enviro414 uttered &/+ merely muttered with
..that the only influence that the added CO2 has is to cause the EMR to be absorbed a bit closer to the emitting surface.
Where'd you get this claim from, please, references ?

Careful when you use word "only", especially so when you are not researched or experienced in analysing Experimental Methods which lead so many with lesser intellectual capacity to go astray...

Runrig made a great response to you, hats off to him :-)

BUT enviro414, you seem to need a good foundation in Essential physics & terminology, I advise you to consider combinatorial complexity of the application of those paradigms by Runrig.

ie Don't be simple PLEASE

Just in case enviro414, you aren't up to speed on acronyms used in Climate Science, please checkout these links:-

http://cdiac.ornl...yms.html

In the following, explore the 1 through to 3
http://www.ipcc.c...dix1.pdf

Mine
http://niche.ii.net/AGW
enviro414
1 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2014
Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn't agree with observation, it's wrong.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some politicians and many others mislead the gullible public by stubbornly continuing to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is a primary cause of global warming.

Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.

CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now (through November, 2013) increased since 2001 by 26.18 ppmv (an amount equal to 29.2% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; November, 2013, 397.31 ppmv).

The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat (5 reporting agencies http://endofgw.blogspot.com/). That graph is through April but the average through November is not significantly different.

That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 26.18 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.
enviro414
1 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2014
What part of ". . .the two primary drivers of average global temperature that explain the reported measurements with 90% accuracy." is not clear?

runrig
5 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2014
What part of ". . .the two primary drivers of average global temperature that explain the reported measurements with 90% accuracy." is not clear?



Look on the other thread you're spamming enviro.

You have obviously not noticed that there are many things that intertwine in a complex process that means that a simplistic linear comparison of rising CO2 concentrations in the atm against global average air temps is incorrect. I have talked of the heat exchange twixt ocean/air VIA the the ENSO. When the oceans store >90% of the climate's heat - you cannot simply compare the <10% of that system and ignore the >90%. Is that clear? (rhetorical).
Try working out the rate of change of heat energy (J) in the whole system. If you're that convinced you know better with your D-K brain than the world's experts - write up a paper and earn yourself a Nobel and riches/fame beyond the mere dreams of mortals. Or at least advise Mr Pangburn to do so.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2014
Ignorance must be a really happy place for the simpletons as + & - are their primary facets of maths & as such enviro414 betrays immense ignorance of physics with this gem
..No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 26.18 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.
You're absolutely RIGHT enviro414, no amount of spin can change simple linear maths such as proportionality, damn right, get a sweet !

Trouble is enviro414, that limit of your maths is pathetically insufficient, the relationships aren't SIMPLE !

Slept through this lecture aye ?
http://en.wikiped...capacity

Eg:-
"If the heat it took to melt a billion tonnes of ice @ 0 Deg C to make water @ 0 Deg C, were applied to water then the temperature of that billion tonnes would rise more than 75 Deg C."

Wakeup enviro414 - Puh-lease !

Heat moves according to PHYSICS not your maths !
enviro414
1 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2014
Runrig – Both the calculated and reported measured AGTs include both ocean and land temperature anomalies. I wonder if you even looked at the paper, you obviously did not understand it and are mired in minutia that have been shown to be trivial if not insignificant.
enviro414
1 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2014
Mike_M – The equation is physics based (conservation of energy). It calculates reported average global temperature anomalies since before 1900 with R2 > 0.9 and estimates credible temperature anomalies back to 1610.

I wonder if you even understand what R2 = 0.9 means. My 9 units of post-grad heat transfer lead me to perceive that you are way out of your league here.

Apparently it is disturbing to you that such a simple equation does such an excellent job of explaining what the consensus has been trying to make everyone believe is complex. Try to break away from the mob-think.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2014
enviro414 hast LOST it
Mike_M – The equation is physics based (conservation of energy). It calculates....
Your language proves you have no Science training at all. All equations are maths based, many depend on clear physical properties, climate science is primarily about combinatorial complexity of heat flow, air/sea currents, heat capacity etc etc

enviro414 made a HUGE blunder
My 9 units of post-grad heat transfer lead me to perceive that you are way out of your league here.
9 units, this proves you are a complete LIAR. You only need ONE university unit to cover heat transfer well, important being "Heat Capacity" & in terms of necessity in climate science - "Latent heat of Fusion"

enviro414 proves he knows nothing
.. make everyone believe is complex. Try to break away from the mob-think.
People in Science, use Science terms - not idiot terms like "mob-think"

Post grad - eh !
Where is your most recent "Literature review" ?
What is your "Thesis" ?

Prove your 9 units !
goracle
5 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2014
Explanation of how Arctic warming can cause more extreme weather fluctuations, including cold snaps: http://qz.com/163...n-worse/
goracle
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
...
I wonder if you even understand what R2 = 0.9 means. My 9 units of post-grad heat transfer lead me to perceive that you are way out of your league here.
...

I transferred 9 units of heat during my undergrad degree, and she was grateful, as it was a cold night. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2014
enviro414 made a HUGE blunder
9 units, this proves you are a complete LIAR. You only need ONE university unit to cover heat transfer well, important being "Heat Capacity" & in terms of necessity in climate science - "Latent heat of Fusion"


HEY Mike_Massen

maybe he needed to go through the course 9 times to pass?

given some of the statements, that is not all that far-fetched...
see
"mob-think"

runrig
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2014
....mired in minutia that have been shown to be trivial if not insignificant.


No, that's just the point enviro - "the minutia" are VITAL in science.
If this were a piece in support of AGW it would be rightly laughed away and the scientist involved would would be mightily embarrassed.

How come the precise figures in his "equation"? where have they come from? why are there not uncertainties and error bands?

This is why it need expert knowledge of the subject matter at hand to check for errors and to verify it's scholarship.
The Denialosphere of course doesn't need that - it merely has to fit the need to support your contention and the prophecy is self fulfilling.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2014
Explanation of how Arctic warming can cause more extreme weather fluctuations, including cold snaps: http://qz.com/163...n-worse/


Good try goracle - I've lost count of the number of times I've stated the same thing on here and elsewhere.
But it just does not compute with them.
I of course know this.
if you are that convinced your opinion out-ways both common-sense via the balance of probability you are most assuredly wrong when weighed against the tide of scientific research (multi-disciplinary), that you are motivated to rant drivel on here ... then you aren't for turning. There are various sites explaining the psychology of Denial.
But then as I've said before also.....
"There's many an inmate of a lunatic asylum who think they're the only sane one in there."
enviro414
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2014
Mike_M – So, you think that "You only need ONE university unit to cover heat transfer well." That helps explain why you have such a poor understanding of engineering physics and default to ad hominem attack.
enviro414
1 / 5 (3) Jan 07, 2014
Runrig – "the minutia are VITAL in science" Well there is that unexplained 9.51% that everything else, which includes change to the levels of greenhouse gases, volcanic eruptions, aerosols, random fluctuation in measurements, measurement error, inaccurately corrected heat island effects, etc., must find room in.

As shown at http://globaltem.blogspot.com/ the standard deviation of reported measurements has been approximately 0.09 K for more than a century. The 'error bands' on the trend (s.d. ≈ 0.01 K) are tiny compared to that. (Those who look at http://agwunveile...pot.com/ will find this and many other links.)
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2014
enviro414 is compounding his lies even more
... "You only need ONE university unit to cover heat transfer well." ..
You claim to have studied 9 - read that as NINE post graduate units in 'heat transfer' when you only need ONE post graduate unit to cover all the basics, your inability to respond re specific heat or latent heat of fusion goes further to PROVE you have not done any physics - heat @ undergraduate, let alone post grad.

Eg. This is a post graduate course, only one unit is needed to deal with heat transfer, look !
http://courses.cu...dScience

Which university & course confirms your arbitrary lie you did 9 units ?

enviro414 goes on with wild claims
That helps explain why you have such a poor understanding of engineering physics...
Really, why is it you do not respond to the details of Science as I have asked you eg. "Heat Capacity" & "Heat Transfer" ?

enviro414 AGW deniers try to ignore details, it is Science !
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2014
enviro414 offered further proof of scientific ignorance
The 'error bands' on the trend (s.d. ≈ 0.01 K) are tiny compared to that.
Why are you purposely confusing error bands with standard deviation ?

Surely isn't this evidence you "don't have a clue" ?

Note:
Insolation has remained relatively stable for approx 10 years with a minor rise in temperatures YET CO2 continues to increase in the atmosphere as show here:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

Do you see the issue that needs investigation, that less heat is escaping, so where is it going then ?

And given the knowledge that CO2 has known thermal properties then it must be clear there is a redistribution of heat & given ice melting the issue of "Latent Heat of Fusion" is a factor in absorbing heat WITHOUT temperature rise:- Basic physics of "Heat Capacity", recall ?

What is your interpretation then of different heat capacities of ice, ice melting & water in relation to combinatorial complexity of ocean currents & ice ?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2014
CO2 has known thermal properties

What is assumed to be known, you mean?
Mike_Massen
4.8 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2014
ryggesogn2 asks here ! - as if he has NEVER researched or even done any basic check before prattling wasteful simplistic propaganda, in respect of my comment "..CO2 has known thermal properties...
What is assumed to be known, you mean?
I am stunned ryggesogn2, you iclaim isnt AGW but have NEVER bothered to check on the BASIC phenomena - you so easily come across as a complete & pathetic waste of time but, I will 'try' to educate you because obviously you just CANNOT do it by yourself !

Worse, ryggesogn2 asks on this forum when he could & should be respectful & (at least) look up his university training but, as it seems there is none then at least SEARCH - heard of Google Scholar ?

Look up any number of testable & confirmed properties AND experimental procedures ryggesogn2 can do in the privacy of his own workshop & therefore NOT be an automaton un-intelligently following dumb mob-think of the AGW deniers !

- Specific Heat
- Absorbance
- Re-radiation

Get an education & look !
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2014
am stunned ryggesogn2, you iclaim isnt AGW but have NEVER bothered to check on the BASIC phenomena - you so easily come across as a complete & pathetic waste of time but, I will 'try' to educate you because obviously you just CANNOT do it by yourself

@Mike_Massen
before you get all worked up, Ryggy is just here to piss people off.
ryggesogn2 is a TROLL that hits these threads and as you will see, will pretty much only argue about politics and opinions, things which he/she/it feels he/she/it cannot LOSE an argument about, as you cannot convince a fanatic or a religious zealot of anything that contradicts their faith. This is the source of ryggy's posts.. his/her/its Faith!
so... you can Teach, but I feel that you are likely to waste your time.in fact, most others that have tried just give up because Ryggy will just flood with links that are mostly about politics and his/her/its own paranoia
goracle
5 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2014
Mann talks about the polar vortex, etc.: http://www.cbc.ca...8739814/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2014
NEVER bothered to check on the BASIC phenomena

I don't question that CO2 absorbs specific wavelengths of IR photons. I have to deal with it every day.
I do question the methods and results of where and how that insignificant amount of energy gives the planet a fever.
Especially when H2O has significantly MORE IR absorption bands and H2O is ubiquitous in the atmosphere, but difficult to model.
goracle
5 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2014
Ryg wrote: "I don't question that CO2 absorbs specific wavelengths of IR photons. I have to deal with it every day.
I do question the methods and results of where and how that insignificant amount of energy gives the planet a fever."
If that amount was "insignificant" you wouldn't be here and be able politicize science discussions like you do.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2014
ryggesogn2 finally accepts fact free of mob denial
I don't question that CO2 absorbs specific wavelengths of IR photons. I have to deal with it every day.
Huh ? in what respect you 'deal' with it ?
I do question the methods and results of where and how that insignificant amount of energy gives the planet a fever.
You discover this by looking (in your case) more closely, at CO2 RE-radiation in CONJUNCTION with distribution, details matter with mathematics & logic.

Define your idea of "Insignificant..energy" ?

ryggesogn2 NEEDs to learn; mathematics of calculus, gas distribution & logic.

Proof ryggesogn2 STILL needs more independent learning
Especially when H2O has significantly MORE IR absorption bands and H2O is ubiquitous in the atmosphere, but difficult to model.
H2O cycles via precipitation, obviously as planet warms there will be more activity & more in transit but, CO2 has NO fast way to leave atmosphere, notice levels going up ?

More LEARNING less propaganda.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2014
Recall the simple Bill Nye demo?
I propose the glass jar be replaced with one made of Cleartran and placed inside a cryogenic vacuum chamber.
Then let's see how much energy is retained by CO2.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2014
ryggesogn2 needs to consider this
I propose the glass jar be replaced with one made of Cleartran and placed inside a cryogenic vacuum chamber.
has been done before so very many ways for around 100 years, its just not thrust through the media. It is Science at university level. It would be more efficient to first review the many experiments, critiques, analyses, methods - which has resulted in universal acceptance of those properties such they are documented in texts such as the CRC handbook REFERENCES !

If still not satisfied by the weight of evidence then craft yours but, cover Experimental Method & psychology Confirmational Bias as others with high integrity in Science are already trained to handle.

ryggesogn2 misunderstood with
Then let's see how much energy is retained by CO2.
Not really retention, it is constant flux of absorbance/re-radiation - there is NO static. This is why calculus is essential to correctly interpret the static/dynamic results of observations !
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2014
"Democrats need to quit denying the political science on the global warming issue. You don't have to be a climate denier to think that wasting billions while our country goes deeper and deeper into debt is ineffective."
http://www.washin...warming/

Not really retention, it is constant flux of absorbance/re-radiation

YES, re-radiation at wavelengths that are not blocked by the glass jar or the atmosphere.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2014
ryggesogn2 showed proof he hasnt understood straightforward logic or heat flow, a mere half thought
YES, re-radiation at wavelengths that are not blocked by the glass jar or the atmosphere.
Please exercise some understanding of the word 'blocked' & think it through like an independent Scientist with integrity !

Are you implying that when CO2 re-radiates energy & atmospheric gases 'block' this re-radiation, this blocking does nothing to the gas(es) that did the 'blocking' ?

Do they just sit there & not absorb any heat - this is ignorance of heat flow !

Obviously gases absorb this heat & results in motion (ie. heat) colliding *again* with all the other gases, there is a constant flux of this dynamic from more heat in the system. To understand that maths (in detail) you need Calculus !

It's "Conservation of Energy", proven thousands of times !

In the (clinical) lab experiment glass heats, http://en.wikiped...capacity

Need to understand specific heat of glasses !