Global warming

Mint,
From what I read recently I think you are mistaken about the total cost for wind. I posted the response in the other thread though to quit taking this one off on the tangent.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=54295&page=8

 

You know what I meant

Not stable as in meeting all of demand all of the time. But stable as in being economically viable and supply a non-trivial fraction of yearly consumption.

Denmark produced 21% of electricity consumption from wind power in 2007, last year it was 25.9%.

Cheers

 

Seems to me the one who's constantly hand-waving is you, since you're dead-set on global warming not existing (in the sense that its major contributing effect is caused by humans, anyway), based on absolutely nothing (credible, anyway) whatsoever.

Nor does it disprove it.

Anyway, correlation doesn't have to imply causation, since we have actual evidence to provide the correlation bit.

Logic fallacy. Global warming's not any less of a theory than anything concerning say, astrophysics for example. Why don't you go on a ranting spree raving about how that's all bunk, and that astronomers are a bunch of liars just because we can't replicate the formation of stars, solar systems and entire galaxies in practical experiments here on earth?

Wrong... We can model anything just fine. ANYTHING. Model everything 100% accurately? No, but we CAN model it.

Yeah, that's what you get for having pre-concieved notions about something.

 

Is that really the bottom line, though? Evolution - at least large scale evolution - is not truly testable either, but do you want to deny it as well? It passes every near-test we come up with, and so does AGW.

If you want to see some really stunning evidence supporting AGW, look here:
http://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html
They factored out all the major natural effects that skeptics could come up with: volcanoes, El Nino, and sun output variance. They use a bunch of different temperature sets, including satellites. There are other studies eliminating the more whack skeptic theories like cosmic rays. This removes a lot of the natural variation, and so it creates a prediction that is easier to test. 5-10 years is enough to verify the trend.

The presence of AGW is well established. What hasn't been justified, however, is the need for urgent action, or spending way more to fight AGW than what is put into foreign aid.

 

Another simple question(s). We look/debate one side of the equation, but equality important is the question of population control. Should that ever be debated/considered? I remember the first episode of Terra Nova, where they had a saying "A family is four". So is population control part of the equation or not?

 

A sciencetific hypothesis doesn't have to be testable, it has to be verifiable. Whole scientific fields would disappear otherwise: Cosmology, geology, evolutionary biology and indeed climate science.

We can't do Big Bang in a lab. After Hubble discovered red shift, there were two hypotheses formulated to explain it, Big Bang and steady state. The background microwave radiation verified the Big Bang hypothesis as does the distribution of hydrogen, deuterium and helium in the universe (ie. big bang nucleo-synthesis.

Cheers

 

That's one of the reasons we need to focus on sustainable development. I think every country that developed in the last 100 years has drastically slowed down population growth. Western countries almost have zero growth, and Europe is going negative, IIRC

Some people use population growth as an excuse not to pursue sustainable development, claiming that pop has to get under control first, but it always works the other way around.

 

US and Canada are both pretty far from 0 growth, but immigration accounts for a lot of that.

I saw a 2011 chart somewhere Russia had moved to positive growth and Germany had fallen from 0.

 

I don't know what kind of units that's in, but the US and Canada are around 1% per year. India is 1.3%, China is 0.5%, and most of Europe is well below 1%.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/ex...t=1265961600000&hl=en&dl=en&icfg&iconSize=0.5

 

It says on the bottom it's % and I guess it doesn't say but it's over 5 years.

From 2006 to 2011 Canada's went up to 5.9%, the US down to 4.4%, but 2/3rds of Canada's growth was immigration, the other 1/3 natural, while the US was closer to the reverse of that with mostly natural growth.

I just don't think 1% is all that close to 0 when talking about population, it's not the UAE or whatever other country might be having a huge surge of 3-5%, but you're still talking about the US increasing by 100m people by the middle of this century. Canada could increase to over 50m. Lots of developed countries (Japan/Western Europe) are much lower in growth for sure with many being negative.

 

If it has widespread support from people knowledgeable in the field, of course. The link you posted in the start of this discussion has been widely panned and debunked; it's just repetition of the same falsehoods about global warming that have been posted many times before.

The nonsense about "AGW authorities", which is just a silly bit of nonsense, just makes you look like the AGW-equivalent of Xxx, and lowers your credibility.

Yeah, because you've already decided beforehand that it isn't credible, regardless of actual facts. If you were actually objective, you'd see the arguments you rely on now are largely bunk.

AGW relies on experimental evidence as well...

Generally, everything starts off less accurately, and then progresses more and more. Before Johannes Kepler formed his laws of planetary motion, we believed the universe was arranged in spheres with the Earth in the center. Kepler realized that the planets circle our sun, and not the Earth, but because he was a religious nutter he believed the orbits were perfectly circular, until he was forced to abandon that and concluded they're actually elliptical. Well, mostly anyway.

More specifically, why are you stating a figure of less than 50%, do you have any basis for that?

 

ROFL congrats dude.

 

As it looks to me, smart people with 150+ IQs who never get to realize their potential in any meaningful way is something that is just all too common in this world. In many ways, you remind me about Christopher Langan, the "smartest man in America" with an IQ of 195+; much like you, he had an abusive upbringing, grew up to get dismissed as an idiot on the internet, and generally not achieved much of anything.

If you're so incredibly smart, I'd suggest you pick up something to do that actually requires some significant smarts and that would actually be notable if you did it:

• Solve some known outstanding math problem (e.g. the kobon triangle problem, just to pick a problem that is easy to describe)
• IQ tests: if you're as smart as you claim, try the Titan Test or any of the other tests that qualify for the Mega Society.
• Code up something nontrivial that does not appear to have been done before (something like a GPU-accelerated AAC encoder, or an x86 version of Dynamo, or a snes emulator with GPU mode 7, or an audio compression program that outperforms optimfrog, or a thousand other things)
• Since you evidently care about AGW (even though you are seeing it as a hoax), join ClearClimateCode or some similar effort.

I mean, seriously: as it looks right now, you are holding up a Skyrim discussion thread as proof of your intellect - as if the most noteworthy achievement of your life is to have defeated Dagoth Ur or something.

 

One of my best friends in high school was "diagnosed" with an IQ over 180. He went to an Ivy League school, majored in math and physics, eventually dropping physics because it was too much work carrying two majors. And then went on to grad school at a prestigious university... and had a nervous breakdown.

Being smart is great, but you have to have balance. That means socializing, sports, whatever, in order to get some balance in your life. As far as careers go, find something you enjoy that you can be passionate about. I find I take work too personally, which is bad as it leads to more stress than necessary.

-FUDie