kman’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I need help

  I'm trying to understand something so that i can explain it to others. Let's say that things change, but we only manage to make it to the low end of the UN projections by 2100.

  What are the effects of the 0.74 C warming we've seen over the last century, i.e. how bad is it?

  Also, how bad would a 2 C warming by 2100 be, i.e. what would be effects of it?

  Some resources would be very helpful. Thanks!On A guest essay from Jan Lundberg posted 2 years, 2 months ago 16 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re: You Can Pick Your Friends...

  John, you're a dumbass. Why do i say that? Because you didnt or dont do your research before blurting out rubbish. Last week's hurricane was Hurricane Dean, which was a Cat 5. When it made landfall, it went down to 4, then 3, and so on and so forth as it dissipated - as ALL hurricanes do. The only reason you dont hear about the damage it caused is because it made landfall in a relatively uninhabited area.

  The issue being discussed is how warmer SSTs (sea surface temperature, as you probably dont know what that is) increase the strength of hurricanes. Warmer land does not feed hurricanes, as that is probably gonna be your next comment. Learn your hurricane physics before you start your usual.

  http://www.weather.com/newscenter/hurricanecentral/?from= ...

  Check the link and look at the history so far. In the atlantic, we've already had 4 tropical storms and 2 hurricanes (both Cat 5), while in the Pacific we've had 5 tropical storms/depressions and 3 hurricanes. Ofcourse, the season has only started, and we still have a little under 3 months to go.On Climate change is increasing the frequency of Category 5 storms posted 2 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Indeed

  I'm new to the country so I dont know too much about sustainable evergy initiatives around the country. But San Diego had buses that all operated on natural gas, hence being cleaner than conventional public transport. Also, the public transportation system was amazingly punctual, like clockwork! I was really impressed, and only wish my crappy home town would move towards similar policies.On Los Angeles City Council OKs a peak-hour bus-only lane posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re: Private Property

  That's a very good argument John. Private property is the responsibility of the owner, therefore the owner should care for it, as you are doing with your CF bulbs.

  However, what happens when something isnt so private and has to be shared by the fact that it is a commons? Take air for example. How can you claim the air in your house as yours. That same air flows in and out of your house, taking any air pollution you cause with it to the next place. The climate....we know earth's climate is a global system. How can you claim ownership of your climate? How can you ensure that any screwups you make with your climate wont spill over to other's climates?

  In the end, Adam Smith was right...people acting in their own self interest will benefit society, but ONLY as long as there are no externalities. And when it comes to the environment, it's very hard to lay claim to what is yours and therefore your responsibility. It might be easy to own land, but air, water, climate, biodiversity etc are not purchasable things.On Flawed new analysis purports to show that there's no scientific consensus on climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 34 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re: Svensmark

  Indeed, if Svensmark is right, then it would be absolutely revolutionary. However, Laut and others have found several errors in his experiment and analysis, and application to the recent temperature trends. More particularly, according to measurements of cosmic ray flux, the amount of cosmic rays reaching us hasnt increased enough or at all to cause the temperature increase.

  http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20 ...

  Furthermore, the low cloud quantity and cosmic ray flux relationship breaks down after 1990 or so. Also, there is a a 6 month lag between cosmic ray flux changes and temperature increase in the parts that they do match. While Svensmark claims that this is due calibration issues, ISCCP which does the monitoring of cosmic rays disagrees. Finally, if ionizing radiation does cause increased low cloud cover, then it should have done so during the chernobyl incident.

  In short, while the cosmic ray theory is very interesting, and a few experiments suggest a relationship between cosmic ray fluz and cloud forming nuclei, the theory doesnt hold up strong enough against the accelerated warming since 1970 or so. Even the recent analysis by Solanki at the Max Plank institute (which takes into account the cosmic ray flux)doesnt hold up.On 'One hundred years is not enough'--Yes it is posted 2 years, 2 months ago 18 Responses