Did we miss this? 2014 was the warmest year on record

[Moonbeam]

It's amazing actually to visit a tech web site and find so many people who are scientifically incapable of explaining their thinking and resort to personal attacks rather than stating facts.

You seem to be offended because of the fact that you have a simian brain. You are all about living in a world of illusions where you imagine you have a functional brain. I know otherwise. I can't help it that you are a moral coward. I know I have a simian brain. I know that I am evolutionarily ill adapted to handle complex forms of causation and actually feel any risk from the activities I perform daily that contribute to my own self destruction. Your poor self image doesn't allow self reflection that is negative. You fear it will make you feel bad and sure enough, I say something, and immediately you get all defensive and offended. Simian, at the first sign of threat you run up a tree and hoot at imaginary leopards. Let's touch knuckles, bro. You'll calm down when I start to pick off your fleas.

 

[rudeguy]

You seem to be offended because of the fact that you have a simian brain. You are all about living in a world of illusions where you imagine you have a functional brain. I know otherwise. I can't help it that you are a moral coward. I know I have a simian brain. I know that I am evolutionarily ill adapted to handle complex forms of causation and actually feel any risk from the activities I perform daily that contribute to my own self destruction. Your poor self image doesn't allow self reflection that is negative. You fear it will make you feel bad and sure enough, I say something, and immediately you get all defensive and offended. Simian, at the first sign of threat you run up a tree and hoot at imaginary leopards. Let's touch knuckles, bro. You'll calm down when I start to pick off your fleas.

I like my world. Its small and cozy.

 

[glenn1]

You get a 3-for-1 benefit from switching to renewables: lower energy prices so we don't spend so much money on freaking electricity bills and gasoline every week, lower CO2 just in case it's a problem, and hurting people like Iran's leadership which sponsors terrorism worldwide. Most of the top oil producers are unfriendly regimes like Venezuela, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia (in theory we're friends but in practice their subsidizing hardcore Islam has lead to much more conservatism in the Muslim world over the last several decades), etc.

If renewables actually did cost less the entire economy would be switching to them without any prompting. But they don't, they're only cost competitive by either subsidizing them or making fossil fuel alternatives artificially expensive.

 

[blastingcap]

actually, you get a lower birthrate as the wealth level of a country rises. As wealth increases, health and education become better and more widespread. Wealth comes from the application of energy to production.

No, female education alone does decrease birthrate all by itself, in part because educated women don't have kids as early, but in reality it also empowers their decision-making, and many women don't actually want to crank out tons of mouths to feed if they have a choice.

Even if income per capita did not increase at all, women's education would help. But education does tend to help increase income per capita so that further helps decrease population growth.

 

[Subyman]

Here is another article about how smoothing the temperature data does not affect its end result when compared to the raw data, although I think the author takes a slightly combative approach with his language:

http://arstechnica.com/staff/2015/02/temperature-data-is-not-the-biggest-scientific-scandal-ever/

I co-authored a global temperature model while in graduate school with my department and thesis advisor. It was a very enlightening process and extremely technical, but surprisingly loose with its calibration. I had a blast doing it and have a deep respect for the guys that work on high resolution models. The objective was to find a sustainable balance between economic stability, population, and the climate. Adding nuclear power over time was key to reducing our fossil fuel use.

 

[fskimospy]

If renewables actually did cost less the entire economy would be switching to them without any prompting. But they don't, they're only cost competitive by either subsidizing them or making fossil fuel alternatives artificially expensive.

That's not necessarily true at all. Air pollution is a textbook example of a negative externality.

 

[michal1980]

It's amazing actually to visit a tech web site and find so many people who are scientifically illiterate and whose only guiding principle in life is that they live in constant fear their wallets will be raped. Fuck the grandkids, there's a fingerprint on my patent leather. The curse of the primitive simian brain.

Wait what?

The global warming boozo's are the ones that are selling and living on fear.

OMG if we dont do SOMETHING right NOW. Bad things will happen. The whole global warming movement is based on fear mongering.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Subyman, to your knowledge are there any models that are capable of roughly predicting historical global temperature variations that occurred prior to 1880 (e.g. MWP or LIA)?

 

[K1052]

If renewables actually did cost less the entire economy would be switching to them without any prompting. But they don't, they're only cost competitive by either subsidizing them or making fossil fuel alternatives artificially expensive.

Roughly half the new generation that came online in 2014 was renewable, the balance was mostly NG.

Coal generation was kept artificially cheap by allowing utilities to externalize much of the cost onto the public through negative health an environmental impacts.

 

[PokerGuy]

It's not going to be free, but the world is becoming more polluted, over populated and we rely heavily on fossil fuels, I stand with the vast majority of scientists who believe that climate change is real, man is HEAVILY contributing to it and unless we cut back, we will reach a breaking point.

Regardless of whether you think it's real or not, that's not the issue. The issue is that even if you assume that the scientists are correct in their modeling and predictions, it doesn't tell you much about the things that could be done to remedy the issue. That's where the politics, money grabs and control agendas come into play.

If calling people "deniers" if they don't buy into the alarmist agenda that says we should do anything now regardless of actual merit makes you feel good, have at it.

 

[blastingcap]

If renewables actually did cost less the entire economy would be switching to them without any prompting. But they don't, they're only cost competitive by either subsidizing them or making fossil fuel alternatives artificially expensive.

1) Electricity is far from a free market as is the underlying premise of your argument. You do realize that for about 60 years from 1949 to ~2000, 94% of energy subsidies went to coal, oil, gas, and nuclear, right? And that to this day we still subsidize those industries, right?

Furthermore the negative externalities of things like acid rain, smog, and water pollution (not just fracking but also things like tailings) are not being accounted for with fossil fuels, though to be fair you should also do that with waste products from solar/wind turbine/etc. production.

The energy market is NOT a free market due to these distortions. Congress meddles with it at every turn, just like with agriculture and how heavily subsidized corn is once you factor everything such as water subsidies and the ridiculous ethanol mandate.

2) The flipside of 1): Renewable energy costs are plummeting as technology keeps improving, whether in solar efficiency or battery storage tech. Also, a lot of the price of power is due to transport lines; with distributed generation you save a bundle on distro and transmission lines.

Look at Africa for instance. They aren't burdened by legacy costs of stringing wire. They don't have as much land-line phone service or electricity service because that's expensive and requires a lot of density. So what they've found is that in some parts of Africa it's more economic to simply use a solar panel and battery. Similarly, mobile phones are way popular there because it's cheaper to wire up transmission towers than each individual home.

3) Energy policy should not be short-sighted. As hydrocarbons become harder to extract, price WILL keep going up. A lot of numbers people throw around #s about how we have x number of years of coal/gas/oil at present rates of consumption, ignore how we are consuming such hydrocarbons at an increasing rate, and how the low-hanging fruit gets picked first. The cheap stuff gets used up first and as we get more desperate we reach for higher and higher fruit like arctic oil or deepwater oil. Same for gas, nobody was desperate enough to frack shale for gas until 2004, and while you might hear talk of "cheap" gas, historically gas has been cheaper than it is today. Similarly, the high-grade, easy to reach coal got depleted first.

Long story short, hydrocarbon costs will rise more as more people (literally, more population) uses more energy per capita. Rather than wait till the last minute, we should be trying to get ahead of the curve.

 

[Subyman]

Wait what?

The global warming boozo's are the ones that are selling and living on fear.

OMG if we dont do SOMETHING right NOW. Bad things will happen. The whole global warming movement is based on fear mongering.

Not entirely. There are people taking advantage of the situation, but that is true of nearly any issue. Fact is there is nothing we can do NOW that will slow it down immediately. It needs to be smart implementation of policy over the next 30 years that slows the rise. Curiously, we may see a stalling over the next few years between 2015-2025/30 due to the natural cycle of sun spots variation which coincides with slight cooling. Solar irradiance variation may be over shadowed by other factors though.

What was interesting in my studies was the regional impact as the global temperature rises. The US does pretty well, especially the mid west.

 

[Subyman]

Subyman, to your knowledge are there any models that are capable of roughly predicting historical global temperature variations that occurred prior to 1880 (e.g. MWP or LIA)?

Preindustrial temperature anomalies can vary dramatically depending on the model and method used as well as the way the author calibrated the model. There are a few databases of ice core samples that the model can be compared to and calibrated from. A model can't simply be a mathematical fit to the temperature anomaly, it has to properly present the Earth in real terms (carbon ppm, aerosol density, volcanic activity, CFC concentration, methane concentration, ocean salinity, leaf litter rate, and many others.) That means to properly calibrate the model, we also need the historic values of all factors. It is impossible to know those, so we have to either try to solve for them from fixing known values and adjusting the model's unknown input data until we get a temperature fit. Trying to create a decent representation of each factor when 20+ factors influence the model is mathematically impossible, so researchers have to use clever reasoning to create their databases and back up their reasoning at the time of publication.

From roughly 1950 to present day, we have a great understanding of those factors and an actively updated database. So most researchers try to roughly fit ice core temperature data back to around 1000AD, near perfectly match post-industrial records and then try to project ~50 years out. Anything past around 30 years gets very fuzzy, but you can establish a trend.

Its somewhat like an art that has a scientific framework and basis. I really enjoyed it because it was not so cut and dry.

As for you question, most models do not try to match perfectly with historic ice core samples. Trying to get month-sized resolution on data that is pulled from the ice is impossible. As long as they hit very closely to the larger historic cycles and then begin to resolve to the post-industrial data very tightly, then they well serve us for predicting near term temperatures such as less than 50 years out.

 

[michal1980]

Not entirely. There are people taking advantage of the situation, but that is true of nearly any issue. Fact is there is nothing we can do NOW that will slow it down immediately. It needs to be smart implementation of policy over the next 30 years that slows the rise. Curiously, we may see a stalling over the next few years between 2015-2025/30 due to the natural cycle of sun spots variation which coincides with slight cooling. Solar irradiance variation may be over shadowed by other factors though.

What was interesting in my studies was the regional impact as the global temperature rises. The US does pretty well, especially the mid west.

The replay was specific to Moonb----. Who always says conservatives are ruled by fear. Most global warming belivers are overwhelmed by the fear of a warmer planet. Just look at the ideas they are spewing. 'We should do anything to help stop this' 'Doing nothing is terrible' 'Lets ban cars in cities'. 'The world will blow up if we don't do something'

He's mind is so warped he isn't able to see the world of fear he lives in.

 

[Subyman]

The replay was specific to Moonb----. Who always says conservatives are ruled by fear. Most global warming belivers are overwhelmed by the fear of a warmer planet. Just look at the ideas they are spewing. 'We should do anything to help stop this' 'Doing nothing is terrible' 'Lets ban cars in cities'. 'The world will blow up if we don't do something'

He's mind is so warped he isn't able to see the world of fear he lives in.

I see what you are saying, but I'd have to disagree with "most global warming believers are overwhelmed by fear". If most were extremely afraid then it would be addressed sooner. 2 out of 3 americans accept global warming is happening. I think there are a few nut jobs that do science a disservice by being too combative, but its the same thing as people that enjoy nature being lumped in with The Weather Underground.

There are certainly whacko nut jobs on each side.

 

[bshole]

I see what you are saying, but I'd have to disagree with "most global warming believers are overwhelmed by fear". If most were extremely afraid then it would be addressed sooner. 2 out of 3 americans accept global warming is happening. I think there are a few nut jobs that do science a disservice by being too combative, but its the same thing as people that enjoy nature being lumped in with The Weather Underground.

There are certainly whacko nut jobs on each side.

um....... Read the article. It is appears the "scientists" are all in full fear-mongering, end-of-the-world mode.

So what needs to happen? Nations must begin to prepare now for the effects of a 2-degree temperature increase. In the U.S., that means starting immediately to plan and build for the inevitable consequences of more-destructive storms and rising sea levels, particularly in coastal cities such as New Orleans; Norfolk, Va.; and, as superstorm Sandy so frighteningly illustrated, New York. Those preparations are going to cost taxpayers a lot of money.

“When it comes to the worst-case scenarios of sea-level rise, I’m not sure $100 billion will even scratch the surface,” said Brian Murray, director of economic analysis at Duke University’s Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.

Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University and a member of the Nobel Prize-winning U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says that a 2-degree rise is not itself that point, but rather the beginning of irreversible changes. “It starts to speed you toward a tipping point,” he said. “It’s driving toward a cliff at night with the headlights off. We don’t know when we’ll hit that cliff, but after 2 degrees, we’re going faster, we have less control. After 3, 4, 5 degrees, you spiral out of control, you have even more irreversible change. At this point, with prompt action to reduce emissions, we can still keep it from getting totally out of control.”

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/it-s-already-too-late-to-stop-climate-change-20121129

 

[Subyman]

I see nothing fear mongering in the professor's statements. One was asked "worse case scenario" and the other is talking specifically about 2-degree+ temperature anomalies, which would be very bad indeed.

 

[michal1980]

I see nothing fear mongering in the professor's statements. One was asked "worse case scenario" and the other is talking specifically about 2-degree+ temperature anomalies, which would be very bad indeed.

right, if a conservative does this, its called a slippery slope, but if its a fear mongering professor, then its A-OK.

 

[rudeguy]

I see nothing fear mongering in the professor's statements. One was asked "worse case scenario" and the other is talking specifically about 2-degree+ temperature anomalies, which would be very bad indeed.

What are you thoughts on Al Gore?

I've heard several people who agree with global warming say they don't like him but he continues to be some sort of figure head of the issue.

 

[Subyman]

right, if a conservative does this, its called a slippery slope, but if its a fear mongering professor, then its A-OK.

Are you being serious or just contrarian?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Strange don't you think how 2014 is the warmest year on record while we are barely started in an upswing from a ten year solar cooling period?
Weather you experience day by day, climate is by the decade.

 

[bshole]

I see nothing fear mongering in the professor's statements. One was asked "worse case scenario" and the other is talking specifically about 2-degree+ temperature anomalies, which would be very bad indeed.

Here are statements published by "scientists" in 1970. Do you sense any similarities? So in other words, I heard all this shit before from scientists when I was a kid in the 70s. They never stopped fear-mongering, they just changed what they were fear-mongering about.

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he was quoted as claiming in the article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

The very next year, snowfall across the United Kingdom increased by more than 50 percent. In 2008, perfectly timed for a “global warming” legislation debate in Parliament, London saw its first October snow since 1934 — or possibly even 1922, according to the U.K. Register. “It is unusual to have snow this early,” a spokesperson for the alarmist U.K. Met office admitted to The Guardian newspaper. By December of 2009, London saw its heaviest levels of snowfall in two decades. In 2010, the coldest U.K. winter since rec­ords began a century ago blanketed the islands with snow.

 

[Subyman]

What are you thoughts on Al Gore?

I've heard several people who agree with global warming say they don't like him but he continues to be some sort of figure head of the issue.

I don't really care one way or the other for Gore. I didn't even watch his documentary until after I had done my thesis. I derived my opinion on the matter from my research and work, so the documentary did little for my understanding of the issue. State of Fear by Michael Crichton was more entertaining

 

[Subyman]

Here are statements published by "scientists" in 1970. Do you sense any similarities? So in other words, I heard all this shit before from scientists when I was a kid in the 70s. They never stopped fear-mongering, they just changed what they were fear-mongering about.

So, what does that have do with anything I have said before? If you don't like scientists, that is fine by me. I'm not going to argue you on your opinion of the field of science.

 

[bshole]

So, what does that have do with anything I have said before? If you don't like scientists, that is fine by me. I'm not going to argue you on your opinion of the field of science.

So your definition of "science" is wide enough to include prognosticating about world wide cataclysm? Climate change is the red-headed stepchild of science.... at best.