Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

What should the temp of the world be with just the natural forces that are still taking us out of an Ice Age ?

Next time I put up a thermostat in my house, using your reasoning, I will place it right above my kitchen range above the burner where I heat the teakettle. After all, that is one of the handiest places for me to see it and adjust it while cooking breakfast and supper.

The rate of change is independent of what the starting temperatures were.

Dickhead said : There's no need for a 'correction factor.'

The rate of change is independent of what the starting temperatures were.

cyclops, you posted:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The rate of change is independent of what the starting temperatures were.

Presumably you meant the rate of change [of temperature] is independent of [location and] what the starting temperatures were.
My response to that assertion of yours was merely a valid argument of why your statement is false. It is false inside a room. It is false outside a room. It is false on the top of mountains. It is false at the bottom of valleys. It is false on the plains. It is false on water. It is false everywhere EXCEPT where atmospheric pressure, and the radiation and absorbtion of heat are designed to be constant (e.g., in a laboratory).

Adding 10 degrees into a system is the same, whether that system starts at 40F or 50F.

Cycloptihcorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Adding 10 degrees into a system is the same, whether that system starts at 40F or 50F.

Cycloptihcorn

Another laughable assertion, another of numerous by now. That statement only heightens my curiosity about your science education, as I posed in the question in previous post.

You took several chemistry and physics classes, and you don't know what is in error with your assertion? Good grief!!! Put simply, correction for temperature contaminations are not straight line equations, at least not from one monitoring station to another. That should be totally obvious to anyone, cyclops.

Are you so extremely partisan that you have thrown all common sense out the window?

February 28, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
How the G.O.P. Goes Green
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

It is early evening on Capitol Hill, and I am sitting with Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican, who, along with John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, is trying to craft a new energy bill " one that could actually win 60 votes. What is interesting about Graham is that he has been willing " courageously in my view " to depart from the prevailing G.O.P. consensus that the only energy policy we need is “drill, baby, drill.”

What brought you around, I ask? Graham’s short answer: politics, jobs and legacy. We start with politics. The Republican Party today has a major outreach problem with two important constituencies, “Hispanics and young people,” Graham explains:

“I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment " and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. ... From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people. You can have a legitimate dispute about how to solve immigration, but when you start focusing on the last names of people the demographics will pass you by.”

So Graham’s approach to bringing around his conservative state has been simple: avoid talking about “climate change,” which many on the right don’t believe. Instead, frame our energy challenge as a need to “clean up carbon pollution,” to “become energy independent” and to “create more good jobs and new industries for South Carolinians.” He proposes “putting a price on carbon,” starting with a very focused carbon tax, as opposed to an economywide cap-and-trade system, so as to spur both consumers and industries to invest in and buy new clean energy products. He includes nuclear energy, and insists on permitting more offshore drilling for oil and gas to give us more domestic sources, as we bridge to a new clean energy economy.

“Cap-and-trade as we know it is dead, but the issue of cleaning up the air and energy independence should not die " and you will never have energy independence without pricing carbon,” Graham argues. “The technology doesn’t make sense until you price carbon. Nuclear power is a bet on cleaner air. Wind and solar is a bet on cleaner air. You make those bets assuming that cleaning the air will become more profitable than leaving the air dirty, and the only way it will be so is if the government puts some sticks on the table " not just carrots. The future economy of America and the jobs of the future are going to be tied to cleaning up the air, and in the process of cleaning up the air this country becomes energy independent and our national security is greatly enhanced.”

Remember, he adds: “We are more dependent on foreign oil today than after 9/11. That is political malpractice, and every member of Congress is responsible.”

This isn’t just for the next generation, says Graham: “As you talk about the future, if you forget the people who live in the present, you will have no future politically. You have to get the people in the present to buy into the future. I tell my voters: ‘If we try to clean up the air and become energy independent, we will create more jobs than anything I can do as a senator.’ General Electric makes all the turbines for the G.E. windmills in Greenville, South Carolina.” He also is pushing to make his state a manufacturing center for nuclear reactor components and biomass from plants and timber.

What would most help him bring around his G.O.P. colleagues? The business lobby. “The Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers need to tell my colleagues it is O.K. to price carbon, if you do it smartly,” he says.

Sure, Graham’s strategy will give many greens heartburn. I don’t agree with every point. But if there is going to be a clean energy bill, greens and Democrats will have to recruit some Republicans. Graham says he’s ready to meet them in the middle. “We’ve got to get started,” he says, “because once we do, every C.E.O. will adopt a carbon strategy, no matter what the law actually requires.”

And for those Republicans who think this is only a loser, Senator Graham says think again: “What is our view of carbon as a party? Are we the party of carbon pollution forever in unlimited amounts? Pricing carbon is the key to energy independence, and the byproduct is that young people look at you differently.” Look at how he is received in colleges today. “Instead of being just one more short, white Republican over 50,” says Graham, “I am now semicool. There is an awareness by young people that I am doing something different.”

Five more G.O.P. senators like him and we could have a real energy bill.

“We can’t be a nation that always tries and fails,” Graham concludes. “We have to eventually get some hard problem right.”

Who said anything about temperature contamination? I made a perfectly true statement about adding energy into a system from two separate starting points of temperature.

But, to go along with you: why are they not straight-line equations? Explain in greater depth. And please - don't use the term 'common sense,' because the truth is that you don't actually have much of that, and it's just something you say when you mean 'I'm correct, but have no evidence or logic to support it.' You do this a lot.

Cycloptichorn

Nah, it's not. The idea that scientists cannot account for, say, a difference in pressure due to elevation, is silly. Of course they can. The rate of change at two separate locations CAN be compared, even if the locations are vastly different and start at different temperatures.

Adding 10 degrees into a system is the same, whether that system starts at 40F or 50F.

The rate of change is independent of what the starting temperatures were.

FALSE! The rate of change is most definitely dependent on what the starting temperatures of both the heater AND what is heated. Obviously if what is heated starts at the same temperature as the heater, there will likely not be any temperature increase.

It depends on how big the room is AND how well the room is insolated PLUS other factors. Generally, the amount of temperature increase in a closed, highly insulated room is not directly proportional to the temperature of a constant heater in that room. Typically, the higher the starting temperature for a constant heater temperature, the smaller will be the magnitude of the temperature increase of the room.

Also, doubling the heater temperature in a closed room will not necessarily double the temperature in that room.

The rate of change is independent of what the starting temperatures were.

Presumably you meant the rate of change [of temperature] is independent of [location and] what the starting temperatures were.
My response to that assertion of yours was merely a valid argument of why your statement is false. It is false inside a room. It is false outside a room. It is false on the top of mountains. It is false at the bottom of valleys. It is false on the plains. It is false on water. It is false everywhere EXCEPT where atmospheric pressure, and the radiation and absorbtion of heat are designed to be constant (e.g., in a laboratory).