Last Build Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 23:44:31 +0000
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 23:44:31 +0000Barton, you wrote: 'A real “supply curve” is rarely this straight and this simple, but this gives the general idea. Supply rises with price.' A real supply curve is never that straight. You may supply more apples to the market if the price goes up, but there is a limit to how many apples you can supply no matter what the price. Moreover, there is another person you did not mention who will take your apples from you and take them to market for you and everyone else who produces apples. He can do that more efficiently than you since he has a large truck and sales outlets in many towns. He then gets himself a monopoly in apples and can set a sales price well above your cost price which is all he is willing to pay you. In a free market there is always at least one person willing to do that.
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 22:48:25 +0000There are a couple of papers in the RMetSoc's Weather about how CO2 is increasing now we have passed Peak CO2! Indications of positive feedback in climate change due to a reduction in Northern Hemisphere biomass uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.2715/full "An estimate of the climate change significance of the decline in the Northern Hemisphere's uptake of carbon dioxide in biomass" http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.2762/full Authors: Curran and Curran.
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 21:47:16 +0000Trump has appointed an oil man to head the EPA, Soon the coal companies will be reopening and the USA will be on a fast catch up program with the rest of the world with coal fired electrical generation turbines. Its going to be an energy Renaissance in the USA. The tax credits required to get electricity production to that needed for industrial growth will be funded by closing "earth sciences" at NASA, NOAA, and NCAR. Climate science can survive as an underground movement that runs on contributions from school paper sales, cake walks and such. The science will be vastly purified by getting it out of the hands of politicians and its "addiction" to taxpayer cash. This will be a good thing. Great news for a brand new age.
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 21:06:14 +0000Related to #70 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/04/google-democracy-truth-internet-search-facebook no comment
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 20:09:46 +0000Christopher #31, SLR for past 200 years has measured at 18cm/century pre AGW. There are several things wrong with this statement. A trend taken over the past 200 years is not pre-AGW. It substantially includes the period dominated by AGW influence. Even if you assume the 19th Century to be pre-AGW there is actually a likely significant anthropogenic influence on late 19th Century SLR through black carbon emissions. You've provided no reference for the claim either. The only papers I'm aware of that reconstruct back 200 years are a series by Jevrejeva and team. In Jevrejeva et al. 2008 and Jevrejeva et al. 2014 I find respective trends of 1.4mm/yr (1803-2002) and 1.2mm/yr (1811-2010) across the most recent 200 years in the record. The splits between first and second century are 1mm/yr (1803-1902), 1.95mm/yr (1903-2002), -0.15mm/yr (1811-1910), 2mm/yr (1911-2010). So it seems the most recent century - the one strongly influenced by AGW - has a much higher rate of SLR. I look at Portland Maine, but suite yourself and look at the record for the entire east coast. That's not suiting myself, I said look globally. There are other regions of the planet which have current SLR rates of about 10mm/yr. There's too much variability to assume one region can represent the entire world over just 30 years. 11 inches is not 24 And the past is not the future. The NOAA Portland SLR data points to 11 inches of SLR between 2000 and 2100. No, it doesn't. The trend in that location over some period of time points to the trend in that location over that period of time and nothing more. ...accelerate at 0.5mm/decade that would yield SLR of 8mm/year in the last decade of the century and 21 inches of SLR by 2100. I can see that as possible. But we are still shy of 2 feet. Are you really going to quibble on 3 inches with such a crude extrapolation? How about 0.6mm/yr/decade, 0.7mm/yr/decade? Or 25% increase per decade? How do I convince my audience that this is going to happen. You could say the reason - physics. What is going to happen specifically will depend on scenario - what economic decisions humans make - and on system responses to our influence. It's not set in stone that 2 feet will happen by 2100 but it is entirely plausible. You could look at projections of individual contributing factors to SLR under various scenarios, with uncertainties, to better familiarise yourself - download http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/ar5_wg1_ch13sm_datafiles.zip
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 18:34:16 +0000My understanding is that the unrealised global warming for this century is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing (src: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html#10-7-1), so if we are already close to 1°C in 2016, it is obvious that we have already passed the 1.5°C unless we are able to actively remove GHG from the athmosphere.
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 09:15:01 +0000I'm sure this happened 100 years ago. The sun was very quiet around 1910 or so and then there was a spike in global temps in 1914-1915.
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 08:28:38 +000052 - "May I propose that if any single contributor posts 3X in a row, we stop it all there? Are we rational inquirers or what?" I propose that in any election recount, in any precinct, if the total number of ballots issued do not match the total number counted then the precinct should be excluded from the recount. Oh wait. That is already the law. Nevermind.
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 08:22:55 +000067 - "There is a theory that intelligent people are supposed to be able to handle complex issues. I:m not sure how true that is." What does that say about the American people's inability to select a hones, rational leader who isn't mentally ill and a congenital liar?
Wed, 07 Dec 2016 08:20:34 +00007 -"Secular Libertarians leap to the conclusion that the state should butt out of the economy altogether; that unfettered use of the free market will quickly produce an ideal state of affairs." Yes. This is also why farmers should get out of the business of biology and simply acquire what the free market which is nature, provides to them. The free market that is the natural environment is maximally productive isn't it? Farms do nothing but distort the natural economy raise prices, and make food less available.