The Global Warming Thread

[Max Peck]

Given that we're Canadian and our military is almost always used for humanitarian purposes you'll have to forgive me for not recognizing another broken thought process of Rip's.

2006-2015 excepted, of course.

Painting things is a great alternative to designing and building new ships to specific purpose.

If you don't care about succeeding at that purpose, I suppose.

And you really didn't answer why Rip hates the economy in this case but has in the past expressed support for a ultra high tech and modern navy on other occasions.

I get the impression that you didn't actually read the article -- the "paint it white" hook is just a joke in the article that made it into the title/URL. The author actually supports the idea of the USN fulfilling a HA/DR role ('The idea that we as a government and a military would ever “get out of the HA/DR business” is patently ludicrous') and is just putting forward what he saw as an innovative means for achieving the goal.

Refitting and repurposing seaworthy ships that provide the necessary functionality doesn't seem like an inherently bad idea. The trick, I would suppose, is whether the about-to-be-decommissioned ships in question actually had much life left in them. I don't know enough to have an opinion one way or the other, but I did note that the article's commentators (who seemed to be Naval personnel) had a variety of opinions on the issue. It was also interesting to see the parallels in the various ideas and alternatives put forth there, and the actual design features that were adopted for the ESD/ESB ships.

As to your final point, I would guess that Rip just doesn't see HA/DR as a prime Naval function, and would prefer to minimize the resources dedicated to it at the expense (in his opinion) of more important roles. There's no inherent hypocrisy in not wanting to spend money on things of little perceived value while being willing to spare no expense on things of great perceived value.

P.S. Playing Devil's Advocate is one of my hobbies.

[Rip]

Given that we're Canadian and our military is almost always used for humanitarian purposes you'll have to forgive me for not recognizing another broken thought process of Rip's.

Painting things is a great alternative to designing and building new ships to specific purpose.

If you don't care about succeeding at that purpose, I suppose.

And you really didn't answer why Rip hates the economy in this case but has in the past expressed support for a ultra high tech and modern navy on other occasions.

I'm all for an ultra high tech navy, just not for adjusting designs for purposes other than what is actually needed for their combat mission. If the F-35 taught us anything it should be that diluting a weapons design purpose to make it multi-purpose can be a huge mistake both in function and economics.

[RunningMn9]

Don't worry folks, Sen. Cruz is going to get to the bottom of things. He's qualified because his parents are "scientists, mathematicians and computer programmers".

Ted Cruz is a schween.

His goals are pure:

This is a hearing on the science behind the claims of global warming. Now, this is the Science Subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, and we’re hearing from distinguished scientists, sharing their views, their interpretations, their analysis of the data and the evidence. Now, I am the son of two mathematicians—two computer programmers and scientists—and I believe that public policy should follow the actual science, and the actual data and evidence, and not political and partisan claims that run contrary to the science and data and evidence.

So....this is a hearing on the science behind the claims of global warming. So obviously the witness list will be a Who's Who from the world of Climate Change scientists, who are working to produce the science behind the claims of global warming. You know, luminaries like Judith Curry, John Christy, William Happer and Mark Steyn. Oddly enough, none of these individuals have anything to do with the science behind the claims of global warming.

Here's one of their brilliant ideas. See, the problem with climate science (according to these four) is that the grant process is designed to give money to people who will produce the conclusion that you are paying for. You can't trust it because the scientists are just giving you want you want. Their solution?

I would like to argue very strongly that we set aside some fraction of funding for climate research that is designed to be for the other side.

Presumably this science, that you are paying for to reach a specific conclusion, will be totally trustworthy when it reaches the conclusion that you paid for.

[GreenGoo]

Given that we're Canadian and our military is almost always used for humanitarian purposes you'll have to forgive me for not recognizing another broken thought process of Rip's.

Painting things is a great alternative to designing and building new ships to specific purpose.

If you don't care about succeeding at that purpose, I suppose.

And you really didn't answer why Rip hates the economy in this case but has in the past expressed support for a ultra high tech and modern navy on other occasions.

I'm all for an ultra high tech navy, just not for adjusting designs for purposes other than what is actually needed for their combat mission. If the F-35 taught us anything it should be that diluting a weapons design purpose to make it multi-purpose can be a huge mistake both in function and economics.

I assumed they were purpose built for humanitarian missions, not tacked on.

[GreenGoo]

I get the impression that you didn't actually read the article

Reading is hard. Stop bothering me with trifles.

[Rip]

[Holman]

You see, um, when two warships love each other very much...

[Max Peck]

COP21 climate change summit reaches deal in Paris

A deal to attempt to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2C has been agreed at the climate change summit in Paris after two weeks of negotiations. The pact is the first to commit all countries to cut carbon emissions. The agreement is partly legally binding and partly voluntary. Earlier, key blocs, including the G77 group of developing countries, and nations such as China and India said they supported the proposals. President of the UN climate conference of parties (COP) and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said: "I now invite the COP to adopt the decision entitled Paris Agreement outlined in the document. Looking out to the room I see that the reaction is positive, I see no objections. The Paris agreement is adopted."

The measures in the agreement included:

• To peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible and achieve a balance between sources and sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century
• To keep global temperature increase "well below" 2C (3.6F) and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C
• To review progress every five years
• $100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020, with a commitment to further finance in the future.

[Holman]

And... Republicans in Congress are already swearing to trash the deal in 2017.

[Kraken]

And... Republicans in Congress are already swearing to trash the deal in 2017.

Moving the US from being the biggest roadblock to being a leader on this front will go down as one of Obama's more significant accomplishments...so naturally the Republicans must oppose it. Fortunately, the US is the only country in the world where deniers have political power; unfortunately, the rest of the world can't move toward solutions unless the US plays along.

Since most Americans agree that global warming needs to be addressed, one might expect voters to trash the Republicans. One who did expect that would not understand that the House has been taken out of play.

[Rip]

And... Republicans in Congress are already swearing to trash the deal in 2017.

Moving the US from being the biggest roadblock to being a leader on this front will go down as one of Obama's more significant accomplishments...so naturally the Republicans must oppose it. Fortunately, the US is the only country in the world where deniers have political power; unfortunately, the rest of the world can't move toward solutions unless China plays along.

Since most Americans think that global warming needs to be addressed, one might expect voters to trash the Republicans. One who did expect that would not understand that reality has been taken out of play.

Mortoned

[Zaxxon]

McKibben is not impressed.

[Zaxxon]

#notascientist

[Kraken]

For all that this agreement is weak beer -- it only achieves half of the carbon reduction that scientists agree is needed, and only if all significant participants meet their voluntary targets -- it still marks a political turning point and should be applauded for that reason alone. Sure it's late to be taking first steps...but better late than never, and it does stipulate five-year updates. A framework for meaningful change now exists.

The nation that gets out front on sustainable energy technologies is going to gain a huge economic advantage in decades to come. Being in the pocket of coal and oil industries just contributes to the R Party as a trailing indicator. But in the long run a lot of red states are going to get hosed by digging in their heels, so you can see where they're coming from. Politicians are expected to defending their constituents' current economic interests, not to plan for 2050 and beyond.

[Rip]

McKibben is not impressed.

You’ve got to stop fracking right away (in fact, that may be the greatest imperative of all, since methane gas does its climate damage so fast). You have to start installing solar panels and windmills at a breakneck pace – and all over the world. The huge subsidies doled out to fossil fuel have to end yesterday, and the huge subsidies to renewable energy had better begin tomorrow. You have to raise the price of carbon steeply and quickly, so everyone gets a clear signal to get off of it.

Not sure I have ever laughed that hard before.

[LordMortis]

McKibben is not impressed.

You’ve got to stop fracking right away (in fact, that may be the greatest imperative of all, since methane gas does its climate damage so fast). You have to start installing solar panels and windmills at a breakneck pace – and all over the world. The huge subsidies doled out to fossil fuel have to end yesterday, and the huge subsidies to renewable energy had better begin tomorrow. You have to raise the price of carbon steeply and quickly, so everyone gets a clear signal to get off of it.

Not sure I have ever laughed that hard before.

I was talking to an energy expert last week and his thoughts aren't positive. He said (with no Internet to point to, just over dinner conversation) that we are quickly taking up all of the best solar and winds spots in the world. The energy return on investment for clean energy is too small already and it's only going to get smaller, and even worse, the ability to store clean energy for consumption is limited by resources we just don't begin to have enough of on planet earth. Specifically, the earth can't support a few hundred thousand EV battery storage being made every year.

His thought is the only way we'll even have a shot at cheap energy without a massive discovery without destroying the world is nuclear and he's dubious that that will good enough.

Help us Elon Musk, you're our only hope.

[GreenGoo]

My naive and tiny hope is that science helps us exploit our current sources of energy in more efficient ways. I think a "newly discovered source" is not possible, at least not in a timely enough manner to help out with our current problems.

So things that we already understand but can't figure out how to use efficiently might eventually save the day.

I realize my position is the equivalent of "science magic will save us!" but that's all I've got. Human nature is sure as hell not gonna let us change our behaviour enough to do it.

edit: I consider fusion to be a current source, even if we have no idea how to do it yet.

[El Guapo]

McKibben is not impressed.

I haven't been terribly impressed by McKibben, given that his KeyStone crusade (while apparently successful) was predicated on bad data about the impact, which wouldn't have been much more than symbolic. So I'm not inclined to take his criticisms too seriously.

[El Guapo]

McKibben is not impressed.

You’ve got to stop fracking right away (in fact, that may be the greatest imperative of all, since methane gas does its climate damage so fast). You have to start installing solar panels and windmills at a breakneck pace – and all over the world. The huge subsidies doled out to fossil fuel have to end yesterday, and the huge subsidies to renewable energy had better begin tomorrow. You have to raise the price of carbon steeply and quickly, so everyone gets a clear signal to get off of it.

Not sure I have ever laughed that hard before.

I was talking to an energy expert last week and his thoughts aren't positive. He said (with no Internet to point to, just over dinner conversation) that we are quickly taking up all of the best solar and winds spots in the world. The energy return on investment for clean energy is too small already and it's only going to get smaller, and even worse, the ability to store clean energy for consumption is limited by resources we just don't begin to have enough of on planet earth. Specifically, the earth can't support a few hundred thousand EV battery storage being made every year.

His thought is the only way we'll even have a shot at cheap energy without a massive discovery without destroying the world is nuclear and he's dubious that that will good enough.

Help us Elon Musk, you're our only hope.

The basic case for optimism (or at least, for not despairing) on climate change is that there have been significant improvements in the viability / cost of renewable energy just in the past few years, spurred in part by government action / encouragement / funding, and those improvements have helped make it easier for governments to agree to emission reductions a la the Paris agreement. So there's the hope of a virtuous cycle - government encouragement / mandates / subsidies / etc. make renewable energy more affordable relative to fossil fuels, that makes it politically easier for politicians to agree to further emission reductions, which encourages the private sector to invest more in renewable energy, which makes renewable energy cheaper, which makes it easier for politicians...

Also, we should be using more nuclear power.

[LawBeefaroni]

Carbon dating at risk.

However, the use of carbon based fossil fuels such as coal and oil since the industrial revolution have increased the amount of non-radioactive carbon in the atmosphere. As the emissions grow, so does the diluting effect on carbon-14 and the accuracy of the ageing technique is lost.

"As carbon-14 decays over time the fraction will decrease so that's how we use it for dating," the paper's author Dr Heather Graven told BBC News.

"But we can also change this ratio of radioactive carbon to total carbon, if we are adding non-radioactive carbon and that's what's happening with fossil fuels, we get this dilution effect."

The study looked at the likely carbon emissions pathways over the next century and suggested that the increases in non-radioactive carbon by 2020 could start to impact the dating technique.

"If we did any current measurements on new products, they will end up having the same fraction of radiocarbon to total carbon as something that's lost it over time due to decay," said Dr Graven.

...

At current rates of emissions increase, according to the research, a new piece of clothing in 2050 would have the same carbon date as a robe worn by William the Conqueror 1,000 years earlier.

Maybe that's the plan.

[Isgrimnur]

2015 warmest on record:

It's not rare for a year to break record temperatures. But it's now happened two years in a row — and 2015 was "very, very clearly the warmest year by a long chalk," says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

NASA is presenting the annual review of global average temperatures in conjunction with NOAA, which says that not only did 2015 finish as the warmest year on record, but it did so by the widest margin ever — nearly a third of 1 degree Fahrenheit warmer than 2014's average.

In 2015, the average temperature on land and ocean surfaces around the world was "1.62° F (0.90° C) above the 20th century average," according to NOAA.

That makes 2015 the hottest since instrument records began being kept in 1880, beating the record set in 2014 by 0.29° F (0.16° C).
...
As for the United States, NOAA released that data last week, saying that for the 19th consecutive year, the annual average temperature for the continental U.S. was hotter than the 20th century average.

The agency reported, "The last year with a below-average temperature was 1996."

[Isgrimnur]

Carbon dating at risk.

However, the use of carbon based fossil fuels such as coal and oil since the industrial revolution have increased the amount of non-radioactive carbon in the atmosphere. As the emissions grow, so does the diluting effect on carbon-14 and the accuracy of the ageing technique is lost.

"As carbon-14 decays over time the fraction will decrease so that's how we use it for dating," the paper's author Dr Heather Graven told BBC News.

More nukes!

Here’s how that works. Between 1955 and 1963, the use of atomic bombs doubled the amount of carbon-14 in our atmosphere. Carbon-14 exists in the air, and plants breathe it in during photosynthesis. Animals eat those plants; we eat those animals; and carbon-14 winds up in our bodies, incorporated into our tissues. Every eleven years, the amount of that carbon-14 in the atmosphere would decrease by half.
...
What this means is that, by accident, nuclear experiments are providing a way for doctors to understand when tissues form, how long they last and how quickly they’re replaced.

[LordMortis]

2015 was the hottest on record. Oh, come on now. It's getting so they say that every year.

http://earthjustice.org/blog/2016-febru ... -on-record

Me? I'm all about the polar vortex. Our winters have been a bit unpredictable but we are getting these bitchin' cool summers.

More carbon for everybody! (Even if it is putting a hurt on investments in the propane industry)

[Kraken]

Early projections indicate that 2016 will surpass it. Local weather isn't climate and El Nino and yada yada yada, but we are having the mildest winter in living memory here. First week in February and high temps are in the 55-60 range. When we went to see Star Wars on xmas day I drove with the top down. It's a little unsettling, but pleasant, and my heating bills are loving it.

[Isgrimnur]

Just remember that when the summer heat wave hits this summer.

[Rip]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/10/ ... -in-a-row/

NOAA: Number of major tornadoes in 2015 was ‘one of the lowest on record’ Tornadoes below average for 4th year in a row

Thanks, Climate Change!

[LordMortis]

I fear I am going to have to mow lawn this weekend.

Thanx Obama.

[Jaymann]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/10/ ... -in-a-row/

NOAA: Number of major tornadoes in 2015 was ‘one of the lowest on record’ Tornadoes below average for 4th year in a row

Thanks, Climate Change!

What about The Story of the Hurricane?

[GreenGoo]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/10/ ... -in-a-row/

NOAA: Number of major tornadoes in 2015 was ‘one of the lowest on record’ Tornadoes below average for 4th year in a row

Thanks, Climate Change!

Oh, now you suddenly believe in Climate Change because it changed the climate for the better? I see how it is.

[Rip]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/10/ ... -in-a-row/

NOAA: Number of major tornadoes in 2015 was ‘one of the lowest on record’ Tornadoes below average for 4th year in a row

Thanks, Climate Change!

Oh, now you suddenly believe in Climate Change because it changed the climate for the better? I see how it is.

Actually if you look back in the thread you will see it is a continuation from my mocking all the politicians blaming tornados on climate change. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

[Rip]

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/03/10/ ... -in-a-row/

NOAA: Number of major tornadoes in 2015 was ‘one of the lowest on record’ Tornadoes below average for 4th year in a row

Thanks, Climate Change!

What about The Story of the Hurricane?

You are right. I shouldn't discount the damage it has done to our Hurricane production.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/hu ... e-ago.html

[Pyperkub]

Surprise, surprise - investing in clean energy pays off:

“The new figures confirm last year’s surprising but welcome news: we now have seen two straight years of greenhouse gas emissions decoupling from economic growth,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol. “Coming just a few months after the landmark COP21 agreement in Paris, this is yet another boost to the global fight against climate change.”

So yeah, reducing CO2 emissions has NOT had a negative effect on the economy. Investing in Cleaner Energy is both smart and efficient.

[Rip]

Propping up the economy with magic money created by the government doesn't generate CO2.

Big surprise there.

[hepcat]

You dismiss something without actually trying to address it.

Big surprise there.

[Pyperkub]

Propping up the economy with magic money created by the government doesn't crerate CO2.

Big surprise there.

We appreciate Rip's desire to stand up for the rights of buggy whip manufacturers.

[Rip]

Propping up the economy with magic money created by the government doesn't crerate CO2.

Big surprise there.

We appreciate Rip's desire to stand up for the rights of buggy whip manufacturers.

Damn iPad. Hate using it to type messages.

[Zaxxon]

Yay, Oregon!

[Kraken]

Yay, Oregon!

Getting ahead of the curve is smart. I read that MA currently has 99,000 jobs in clean energy, up from 88,000 last year.

[hitbyambulance]

I suspect WA state will be one of the next ones to go this route.

[Zaxxon]

I suspect WA state will be one of the next ones to go this route.

They don't have the legislative path that OR does (Dems don't control both chambers). Could be awhile.