Don't take lightly these efforts in China where most manufacturing for Apple products take place. No need to use Global Warming as a reason for this effort. China has a more immediate challenge in battling smog. This is a step in the right direction to get rid of the smog in China where the air is not fit for breathing half the time during the year.
Exactly! CO2 increases, historically, have lagged temperature increases, not caused them.
Apologies for the misinterpretation.
I am acutely aware that we have strayed off the main topic of this page, but still:
Yes this is a theory (above) which I believe has a lot of merit, and basically it is based on the long time constants (~800 years delays) related to heating and cooling of the oceans.
But there are also other effects where science is just scratching the surface.
Thermodynamically, increased CO2 in the atmosphere (and the increase is a proven fact, a small fraction of what is man-made) will increase temperature in an atmosphere in perfect equilibrium (which is not the case for the earth's atmosphere), this will cause a reaction at a much shorter timescale.
My point is that science do not know this sensitivity, most scientifically based theories indicate a sensitivity of between 1 and 2 C (increase caused by doubling CO2 concentration), but even a negative sensitivity is possible. The point is: WE DO NOT KNOW, but most scientific reports I have read indicate a low positive number, a very few a negative number.
The politically based scenarios we read about typically implies a sensitivity of 5 - 10 C which has a very weak scientific base.
Exactly! CO2 increases, historically, have lagged temperature increases, not caused them.
Apologies for the misinterpretation.
Right... 100% of climate scientists are "wrong" and on the dole except you off course, who read it off the net and pulled it straight out of your ass; you know things...
The main problem the human specie faces today is overpopulation. A perfect storm for war, poverty, famine and ecological disaster. Just mix in three parts religion and stir. Excess CO2 is probably not what is going to kill us first. It will probably be a rogue nation with a nuke.
Regarding climate change, you might find this movie rather surprising. It critical of the global warming science. I'm as far from being a right winger as one can get but the movie does raise some interesting points. It is a an hour long video.
Right... 100% of climate scientists are "wrong" and on the dole except you off course, who read it off the net and pulled it straight out of your ass; you know things...
Problem is, these people you refer to are not climate scientists, they are politicians.
It might be that he is referring specifically to politicians.
However, the bond-fide, peer-reviewed, fully credited climate scientists all happen to agree.
It's sort of like evolution: there is some discussion, even arguing, about the impact of various different influences, but nobody, absolutely nobody, disputes the basic concept.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Lisa Jackson did work for Obama and Cook is giving her more and more power. But yes crony capitalism sucks and it's amazing to me that so many liberals don't seem to have a problem with it.
Don't forget about Sue (Susan) Wagner, formerly of Blackrock.
All that's missing in this picture is the Force lightning shooting out of her fingertips.
It might be that he is referring specifically to politicians.
However, the bond-fide, peer-reviewed, fully credited climate scientists all happen to agree.
It's sort of like evolution: there is some discussion, even arguing, about the impact of various different influences, but nobody, absolutely nobody, disputes the basic concept.
I dont dispute the basic concept, very few does, but not nobody, but I can assure you the effects and the understanding of the entire field of physics is not even close to the setteled state you hear about from most politicians and journalists. There are few areas we are so short of having the full picture as in climate science.
That isn't the point. You're worrying about the stated purpose when the OTHER by-product is just as bad, that the stated purpose just happens to address.
Air quality.
Well I guess if everyone is willing to give up their cars and start riding bikes to work that will help. If we close down all of manufacturing, start growing all our own food in our backyards that will work. If Al Gore stops flying on a private jet everywhere to give climate change speeches that will help.
If we can dial back civilization to about 1800 then we will be able to tell if humans are impacting the earth. Climate change is like everything else the White House talks about it's always something Obama can't do anything about so he can avoid actually working on things he could change.
People want to talk about climate change they just don't want to give anything up to make it better.
Those quoting science pick whatever article supports their side while ignoring articles which do not support their case.
One thing is clear. Go read the serious article on climate through time and you will see it is nowhere as straightforward as some might have you think.
Groan, it's not even close. Please don't make it sound like it's some even-handed debate (incidentally, it's really even only a debate in a couple of countries -- the US and perhaps, Australia).
You should take your own advice and "go read a serious article."
I'd be very happy to give you some references, if you'd like.
If you can at the very least acknowledge the impact of, say, air pollution...
Two things.
1. Global warming has nothing to do with environmentalism.
2. There’s no AGW.
I’m 100% behind Apple being an environmentalist company, and they should keep making everyone else look pathetic in comparison to what they do environmentally. But buying the AGW malarkey is silly.
Don't forget about Sue (Susan) Wagner, formerly of Blackrock.
All that's missing in this picture is the Force lightning shooting out of her fingertips.
She's probably created more wealth and jobs in her little fingertip than you and I and all of us here put together in this forum could ever hope to in multiple lifetimes.
Some humility may not be such a bad thing. (Unless, it's misogyny that's talking.)
She's probably created more wealth and jobs in her little fingertip than you and I and all of us here put together in this forum could ever hope to in multiple lifetimes.
Some humility may not be such a bad thing. (Unless, it's misogyny that's talking.)
Would greatly appreciate that if you want to cite me, do not pick a single sentence only! I find it very hard to see the relevance of this (Great!) statement of George Orwell.
Right... 100% of climate scientists are "wrong" and on the dole except you off course, who read it off the net and pulled it straight out of your ass; you know things...
When you have an actual rebuttal, feel free to post it.
Originally Posted by mstone
The main problem the human specie faces today is overpopulation.
Malthus was disturbed (and wrong), you know. He took crowding in Europe at the dawn of the industrial age as “the limit” when we’ve seen it grow exponentially since.
Originally Posted by spheric
...peer-reviewed...
Shown to be a scam. It’s the adult equivalent of YouTube’s “SUB4SUB” without any scientific merit.
Funnily enough, that’s exactly what has been happening to the temperature data. “The Earth is warming. The Earth has always been warming.” Except in the ‘70s when science was still in charge and we knew we were heading for a cool spell.
Groan, it's not even close. Please don't make it sound like it's some even-handed debate (incidentally, it's really even only a debate in a couple of countries -- the US and perhaps, Australia).
You should take your own advice and "go read a serious article."
I'd be very happy to give you some references, if you'd like.
Thanks for the offer but I have been reading for quite some time.
When you have an actual rebuttal, feel free to post it.
Malthus was disturbed (and wrong), you know. He took crowding in Europe at the dawn of the industrial age as “the limit” when we’ve seen it grow exponentially since.
Shown to be a scam. It’s the adult equivalent of YouTube’s “SUB4SUB” without any scientific merit.
Nope.
Funnily enough, that’s exactly what has been happening to the temperature data. “The Earth is warming. The Earth has always been warming.” Except in the ‘70s when science was still in charge and we knew we were heading for a cool spell.
What very few people know is that about half of the 0.8 C generally accepted increase since 1850 (and I guess if you asked most people they would never guess at such a low increase), are corrections which have not been properly documented. After we got a more scientific base for the recordings (the US reference climate network, satellites and balloons) the increase have slowed dramatically.
Comments
Don't take lightly these efforts in China where most manufacturing for Apple products take place. No need to use Global Warming as a reason for this effort. China has a more immediate challenge in battling smog. This is a step in the right direction to get rid of the smog in China where the air is not fit for breathing half the time during the year.
Exactly! CO2 increases, historically, have lagged temperature increases, not caused them.
Apologies for the misinterpretation.
I am acutely aware that we have strayed off the main topic of this page, but still:
Yes this is a theory (above) which I believe has a lot of merit, and basically it is based on the long time constants (~800 years delays) related to heating and cooling of the oceans.
But there are also other effects where science is just scratching the surface.
Thermodynamically, increased CO2 in the atmosphere (and the increase is a proven fact, a small fraction of what is man-made) will increase temperature in an atmosphere in perfect equilibrium (which is not the case for the earth's atmosphere), this will cause a reaction at a much shorter timescale.
My point is that science do not know this sensitivity, most scientifically based theories indicate a sensitivity of between 1 and 2 C (increase caused by doubling CO2 concentration), but even a negative sensitivity is possible. The point is: WE DO NOT KNOW, but most scientific reports I have read indicate a low positive number, a very few a negative number.
The politically based scenarios we read about typically implies a sensitivity of 5 - 10 C which has a very weak scientific base.
Now after 30 years, this is the first thing that has indicated to me that Apple has lost its way.
Kowtowing to bad science. Global Warming was disproven in the 1980s, but it's great for stealing peoples money, which government loves to do.
Apple should stay out of it.
Maybe its time you get your head out of the fracking darkness and stop saying total shit.
Exactly! CO2 increases, historically, have lagged temperature increases, not caused them.
Apologies for the misinterpretation.
Right... 100% of climate scientists are "wrong" and on the dole except you off course, who read it off the net and pulled it straight out of your ass; you know things...
The main problem the human specie faces today is overpopulation. A perfect storm for war, poverty, famine and ecological disaster. Just mix in three parts religion and stir. Excess CO2 is probably not what is going to kill us first. It will probably be a rogue nation with a nuke.
Regarding climate change, you might find this movie rather surprising. It critical of the global warming science. I'm as far from being a right winger as one can get but the movie does raise some interesting points. It is a an hour long video.
Right... 100% of climate scientists are "wrong" and on the dole except you off course, who read it off the net and pulled it straight out of your ass; you know things...
Problem is, these people you refer to are not climate scientists, they are politicians.
However, the bond-fide, peer-reviewed, fully credited climate scientists all happen to agree.
It's sort of like evolution: there is some discussion, even arguing, about the impact of various different influences, but nobody, absolutely nobody, disputes the basic concept.
I guess we shouldn't be surprised. Lisa Jackson did work for Obama and Cook is giving her more and more power. But yes crony capitalism sucks and it's amazing to me that so many liberals don't seem to have a problem with it.
Don't forget about Sue (Susan) Wagner, formerly of Blackrock.
All that's missing in this picture is the Force lightning shooting out of her fingertips.
It might be that he is referring specifically to politicians.
However, the bond-fide, peer-reviewed, fully credited climate scientists all happen to agree.
It's sort of like evolution: there is some discussion, even arguing, about the impact of various different influences, but nobody, absolutely nobody, disputes the basic concept.
I dont dispute the basic concept, very few does, but not nobody, but I can assure you the effects and the understanding of the entire field of physics is not even close to the setteled state you hear about from most politicians and journalists. There are few areas we are so short of having the full picture as in climate science.
That isn't the point. You're worrying about the stated purpose when the OTHER by-product is just as bad, that the stated purpose just happens to address.
Air quality.
Well I guess if everyone is willing to give up their cars and start riding bikes to work that will help. If we close down all of manufacturing, start growing all our own food in our backyards that will work. If Al Gore stops flying on a private jet everywhere to give climate change speeches that will help.
If we can dial back civilization to about 1800 then we will be able to tell if humans are impacting the earth. Climate change is like everything else the White House talks about it's always something Obama can't do anything about so he can avoid actually working on things he could change.
People want to talk about climate change they just don't want to give anything up to make it better.
Those quoting science pick whatever article supports their side while ignoring articles which do not support their case.
One thing is clear. Go read the serious article on climate through time and you will see it is nowhere as straightforward as some might have you think.
Groan, it's not even close. Please don't make it sound like it's some even-handed debate (incidentally, it's really even only a debate in a couple of countries -- the US and perhaps, Australia).
You should take your own advice and "go read a serious article."
I'd be very happy to give you some references, if you'd like.
Human-induced climate change is a reality.
If you can at the very least acknowledge the impact of, say, air pollution...
Two things.
1. Global warming has nothing to do with environmentalism.
2. There’s no AGW.
I’m 100% behind Apple being an environmentalist company, and they should keep making everyone else look pathetic in comparison to what they do environmentally. But buying the AGW malarkey is silly.
A lie.
Temperatures have not increased as CO2 has, so you can’t say this from that.
I couldn't put it any better than George Orwell did: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
I couldn't put it any better than George Orwell did: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
Isn't that Hillary's campaign slogan?
Don't forget about Sue (Susan) Wagner, formerly of Blackrock.
All that's missing in this picture is the Force lightning shooting out of her fingertips.
She's probably created more wealth and jobs in her little fingertip than you and I and all of us here put together in this forum could ever hope to in multiple lifetimes.
Some humility may not be such a bad thing. (Unless, it's misogyny that's talking.)
She's probably created more wealth and jobs in her little fingertip than you and I and all of us here put together in this forum could ever hope to in multiple lifetimes.
Some humility may not be such a bad thing. (Unless, it's misogyny that's talking.)
No, it's the picture talking.
Isn't that Hillary's campaign slogan?
Yeah, I am beginning to think it might be what I suspected it was...
I couldn't put it any better than George Orwell did: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
Would greatly appreciate that if you want to cite me, do not pick a single sentence only! I find it very hard to see the relevance of this (Great!) statement of George Orwell.
Right... 100% of climate scientists are "wrong" and on the dole except you off course, who read it off the net and pulled it straight out of your ass; you know things...
When you have an actual rebuttal, feel free to post it.
Malthus was disturbed (and wrong), you know. He took crowding in Europe at the dawn of the industrial age as “the limit” when we’ve seen it grow exponentially since.
Shown to be a scam. It’s the adult equivalent of YouTube’s “SUB4SUB” without any scientific merit.
Nope.
Funnily enough, that’s exactly what has been happening to the temperature data. “The Earth is warming. The Earth has always been warming.” Except in the ‘70s when science was still in charge and we knew we were heading for a cool spell.
Thanks for the offer but I have been reading for quite some time.
When you have an actual rebuttal, feel free to post it.
Malthus was disturbed (and wrong), you know. He took crowding in Europe at the dawn of the industrial age as “the limit” when we’ve seen it grow exponentially since.
Shown to be a scam. It’s the adult equivalent of YouTube’s “SUB4SUB” without any scientific merit.
Nope.
Funnily enough, that’s exactly what has been happening to the temperature data. “The Earth is warming. The Earth has always been warming.” Except in the ‘70s when science was still in charge and we knew we were heading for a cool spell.
What very few people know is that about half of the 0.8 C generally accepted increase since 1850 (and I guess if you asked most people they would never guess at such a low increase), are corrections which have not been properly documented. After we got a more scientific base for the recordings (the US reference climate network, satellites and balloons) the increase have slowed dramatically.