You are in violation of the EPA (Page 4)

NXS - 2009-12-08 10:58 AM
The CRU admitted they dumped most of the raw temp data.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
That is not something that is done and their excuse is pretty lame. 

Another good read showing the implications of the scandle is here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

You and I will probably never agree on the man made global warming debate and that is OK.  I just don't want to see economic disaster and the transfer of US dollars (borrowed since we are so far in the hole we have to look up to look down) to third world countries to pay for our industrial sins.  It is about money, it always is, its the nature of the game those in power play.

TriRSquared - 2009-12-07 1:44 PM

No it's not.  They have television (which provides a good deal of the nation's information) and if they want can get internet.  Again it just costs more.  Or go the the local library.

Electrification was a necessity to grow these areas.  FIOS is not.  It's not analogous.

moondawg14 - 2009-12-08 1:56 PM

TV news covers about 15% of the "news" thats available, and will only cover news that is able to sell advertising time.

Web content is being designed with broadband in mind.   Every day,  the web is becoming more inaccessible to dialup.

Using your reasoning, rural electrification shouldn't have happened, either. People could have had individual gensets to create their power.  They can generate their own power, "it just costs more."

TriRSquared - 2009-12-08 12:44 PM

No it's not.  They have television (which provides a good deal of the nation's information) and if they want can get internet.  Again it just costs more.  Or go the the local library.

Electrification was a necessity to grow these areas.  FIOS is not.  It's not analogous.

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 2:08 PM

Television does not require cable (except cable TV, obviously) also, the consumer does not pay the service provider, the advertisers do.
I am not talking about using the internet only for surfing, but for e-commerce, education, potential markets for their crops and products, and access to government services. Why should farmers and ranchers be cut off from these benefits due only to geography? Let's not forget that we are talking about the people who feed not only us, but a whole lot of other people around the world?

TriRSquared - 2009-12-07 2:05 PM

Where did that stat come from?

From my own experience.

Satellite internet is not dialup

Nor is satellite internet affordable, especially compared to DSL.

No, reread my statement.  Electrification was required to make these places grow and habitable.  Internet is not required to achieve the same effect.

Funny, the ENTIRE US was "habitable" long before electricity was harnessed by man.

I cannot believe you are trying to compare broadband internet with electricity.

I cannot believe you place such a low value on information.

TriRSquared - 2009-12-08 1:16 PM

First of all they are NOT cut off.  For the 5th or 6th time.  They can get internet. I just checked.  Hughes.net is broadband (slow broadband but still boardband) for $59.99 a month.  Available just about ANYWHERE in the US.

http://consumer.hughesnet.com/plans.cfm

By your logic why should ANYONE be cut off?  Should we provide internet free to everyone?  Who is going to pay for this?

>>Why should farmers and ranchers be cut off from these benefits due only to geography?

Why should people who live in Florida be cut off from air conditioning?  Shouldn't we provide all of these people with free AC units.  Oh and electricity to run them.  It's a slippery slope.

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08

I NEVER said anything about such services being free. You are completely twisting the argument. Farmers pay electric bills just like everyone else, I am talking about availability

Yes, satellite is one option, but it will only provide at most 5mbps. That's second-rate service at best. The experiences I have had with satellite internet (we had a customer in the Canadian arctic when I worked for a software company) were that the service was pretty dodgy and up-again down-again.

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2009-12-08 1:59 PM

Yep, moving this is probably a good idea.

we've had

 

 <thread drift>

Force - 2009-12-08 3:50 PM

Yeah, I keep coming back here waiting for someone to address the contention that we have but one viable theory of climate change and that humans are responsible, to paraphrase drewb8, and I get rural electrification and baud rates...

NXS - 2009-12-08 4:41 PM


Why?  They truly believe there is only one viable theory. 

drewb8 - 2009-12-08 6:27 PM

So convince me there's not. 

Like I've said all along, if there are new studies out there showing there is some alternative cause (such as solar forcing -the studies right now show that is NOT a factor in the warming although is has been in the past.  But if there is new, more recent research to contradict this I seriously would be interested to see it) I would like to see them.  But at the moment the alternative theories have no way of explaining what is causing the warming or why the greenhouse gases we are adding to the atmosphere aren't having any effect on the climate.  So far the only theories I've heard are that the scientists are falsifying all the data or that there are uncertainties in parts of our understanding so we shouldn't believe any of it.  No other viable theories have been put forth so I'll go with the one that has a body of evidence behind it for now.

drewb8 - 2009-12-08 6:27 PM

So convince me there's not. 

Like I've said all along, if there are new studies out there showing there is some alternative cause (such as solar forcing -the studies right now show that is NOT a factor in the warming although is has been in the past.  But if there is new, more recent research to contradict this I seriously would be interested to see it) I would like to see them.  But at the moment the alternative theories have no way of explaining what is causing the warming or why the greenhouse gases we are adding to the atmosphere aren't having any effect on the climate.  So far the only theories I've heard are that the scientists are falsifying all the data or that there are uncertainties in parts of our understanding so we shouldn't believe any of it.  No other viable theories have been put forth so I'll go with the one that has a body of evidence behind it for now.

NXS - 2009-12-08 9:05 PM

The global temp hasn't risen for the last ten years.  See what I mean Force?

COPENHAGEN, DENMARK — The first decade of the 21st century is shaping up to be the warmest decade on record globally, while 2009 is likely to crack the Top 10 list of warmest years, perhaps rising as high as No. 5.

That’s based on a preliminary look at global climate trends released today by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) at global climate change talks here in the Danish capital. The WMO’s data stretches back to 1850.

...

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concurs that this decade was probably the hottest since 1850, noting that average global surface temperatures are expected to reach 0.96 degree F. above the 20th-century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F

NXS - 2009-12-08 7:05 PM

The global temp hasn't risen for the last ten years.  See what I mean Force?

jimbo - 2009-12-08 8:17 PM i guess you didn't see the news today that this decade is likely the hottest on record: i'm not sure how it could be the hottest decade on record without an increase in temperature.

drewb8 - 2009-12-08 10:50 PM

Ok, so what is your evidence for this claim?  Or is it just soemthing you're syaing that I have to take your word for?  I'm going to assume you mean the claim that the upwards trend of warming has levelled off since 1998?  The problem with this is that 1998 was an abnormally warm year (one of the warmest on record) and this 'pause' is only apparent if you start the trend on this outlying value.  If you started the trend in either 1997 or 1999 you'd see it moving upwards, not pausing or moving downwards.  The climate is not a linear system - the overall long term trend is upwards but natural variation from year to year exists.  If you look at the data from 1987-1986 you'd actually see a cooling trend, however the long term trend over that period is still upwards.  Sure if take the abnormally high year of 1998 and just draw a line to the cooler year of 2008, then it looks like the temp is decreasing over 10 years, but that's not a trend, it's just a line connecting two data points.  When you include all 10 years of data between 1998-2008 into a proper trend calculation you actually get an increase although that's not that important since its short enough a time period to be dominated by natural variation.  More importantly, when you look at the long term trend, which smoothes out the year to year variability the trend is increasing.  This graph is using the NASA GISS data from 1980 to present.



Short term trends are not significant indicators of climate but rather show short term variability within the long term climate trend. 

Now I'm making an assumption that this is your evidence that there hasn't been any warming over the past 10 years and it is based on this time period and short term trend.  I apologize if I'm wrong and you have some other data you're basing your claim on.

I hope that by trying to back up my claims with data and studies you can see I'm not trying to just dismiss out of hand any other argument.  But showing where data are being interpreted incorrectly (such as with the 1998-2008 'pause') or studies that contradict other hypotheses (such as solar forcing being responsible for the warming) doesn't mean I'm deaf to any other possibility.  Once again. just show me what is causing the warming of the climate (which incidently, even if this pause in warming from 1998-2008 WAS real, doesn't explain what has warmed the planet to this point) and why the additional GHGs we've added to the atmoshere AREN'T affecting climate at all.

Renee - 2009-12-07 1:22 PM

The growing concentrations in the oceans will become a problem long before we'll know toxic atmospheric levels that affect our breathing.

I think it makes perfect sense to look at the things that we can control - man-made output - before they become uncontrollable. Isn't that what we do in our daily lives?

jimbo - 2009-12-07 10:17 PM  i'm not sure how it could be the hottest decade on record without an increase in temperature.

drewb8 - 2009-12-08 10:50 PM

Ok, so what is your evidence for this claim?  Or is it just soemthing you're syaing that I have to take your word for?  I'm going to assume you mean the claim that the upwards trend of warming has levelled off since 1998?  The problem with this is that 1998 was an abnormally warm year (one of the warmest on record) and this 'pause' is only apparent if you start the trend on this outlying value.  If you started the trend in either 1997 or 1999 you'd see it moving upwards, not pausing or moving downwards.  The climate is not a linear system - the overall long term trend is upwards but natural variation from year to year exists.  If you look at the data from 1987-1986 you'd actually see a cooling trend, however the long term trend over that period is still upwards.  Sure if take the abnormally high year of 1998 and just draw a line to the cooler year of 2008, then it looks like the temp is decreasing over 10 years, but that's not a trend, it's just a line connecting two data points.  When you include all 10 years of data between 1998-2008 into a proper trend calculation you actually get an increase although that's not that important since its short enough a time period to be dominated by natural variation.  More importantly, when you look at the long term trend, which smoothes out the year to year variability the trend is increasing.  This graph is using the NASA GISS data from 1980 to present.



Short term trends are not significant indicators of climate but rather show short term variability within the long term climate trend. 

Now I'm making an assumption that this is your evidence that there hasn't been any warming over the past 10 years and it is based on this time period and short term trend.  I apologize if I'm wrong and you have some other data you're basing your claim on.

I hope that by trying to back up my claims with data and studies you can see I'm not trying to just dismiss out of hand any other argument.  But showing where data are being interpreted incorrectly (such as with the 1998-2008 'pause') or studies that contradict other hypotheses (such as solar forcing being responsible for the warming) doesn't mean I'm deaf to any other possibility.  Once again. just show me what is causing the warming of the climate (which incidently, even if this pause in warming from 1998-2008 WAS real, doesn't explain what has warmed the planet to this point) and why the additional GHGs we've added to the atmoshere AREN'T affecting climate at all.

NXS - 2009-12-09 5:02 AM


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Jackemy - 2009-12-09 6:44 AM
Just a question. The Earth has been around about 4.5 billion years. So how is 1 year short term and 25 years long term? In relation to the Earth's existence aren't both time spans insigificantly short to determine a trend?

TriRSquared - 2009-12-09 6:27 AM And according to history as CO2 levels rise there is usually a cooling period after the rise....Look at this graph...so based on the recording what do you see happening next?  Any reasonably intelligent person is going to look at this and INSTANTLY see a pattern.  A pattern of CO2 increase followed by a drop in temperature.

Also the scale of these changes show how useless a 20-30 year graph really is. Zoom in on this graph and you can make it look really scary too.  The trick of showing a small section of a graph (like the one Drew posted) is as old as marketing.  You can make it look really bad depending on how you present the data.

Of course the AGW groups will say "but humans have changed the plant and it will no longer follow the same pattern"... you can't win...



Also I wanted to address the point that "no real scientists" dispute AGW. 

Seems to me there are more than a few.