The Democratic party has found a new consequence of climate change: prostitution. Rep. Barbara Lee and twelve other House Democrats issued a resolution stating that climate change can cause food and water shortages, which could lead impoverished women to turn to prostitution as a means of income:
“nsecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health,” it says.
More broadly, the resolution says climate change will hurt “marginalized” women, such as refugees, sexual minorities, adolescent girls, and women and girls with HIV. It also cites Hurricane Katrina as evidence of how climate change can affect women, noting that the storm displaced “over 83 percent of low-income, single mothers” in the region.
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/107526-house-democrats-climate-change-turns-women-prostitutes/
Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 217. (Read 636458 times)
I obviously realise that is the theory. However, if I was qualified to write papers and had no moral problems with writing whatever would get me paid the most, I wouldn't be looking for grant money from governments to make me rich.
I would be approaching those with the most money who stood to gain or lose the most. i.e. Big industry.
The idea that the vast majority of scientists, who don't tend to be particularly motivated by money, have been corrupted en masse by all the worlds governments as part of some decades long plan to introduce a new tax is beyond laughable.
I would be approaching those with the most money who stood to gain or lose the most. i.e. Big industry.
The idea that the vast majority of scientists, who don't tend to be particularly motivated by money, have been corrupted en masse by all the worlds governments as part of some decades long plan to introduce a new tax is beyond laughable.
Fracking has thrown a huge monkey wrench into those plans - whatever they actually were - maybe sort of multiple layers of groupthink - mass hysteria than active conspiracy but there certainly have been and were some active conspiracies.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/scandal-bbcs-six-year-cover-up-of-secret-green-propaganda-training-for-top-executives/
I obviously realise that is the theory. However, if I was qualified to write papers and had no moral problems with writing whatever would get me paid the most, I wouldn't be looking for grant money from governments to make me rich.
I would be approaching those with the most money who stood to gain or lose the most. i.e. Big industry.
The idea that the vast majority of scientists, who don't tend to be particularly motivated by money, have been corrupted en masse by all the worlds governments as part of some decades long plan to introduce a new tax is beyond laughable.
I would be approaching those with the most money who stood to gain or lose the most. i.e. Big industry.
The idea that the vast majority of scientists, who don't tend to be particularly motivated by money, have been corrupted en masse by all the worlds governments as part of some decades long plan to introduce a new tax is beyond laughable.
Why would any scientist wishing to make money by falsifying evidence claim climate change exists? I'm pretty confident they could earn a lot more espousing the opposite 
Grant money. Getting published into scientific journals by people who think alike.
Why would any scientist wishing to make money by falsifying evidence claim climate change exists? I'm pretty confident they could earn a lot more espousing the opposite
The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA
I don't need or care about what NASA said on the matter of 'an average temperature of Earth', we can discuss it from first principles.Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA
Another comment, showing the shoddy workmanship in 'global temperature' does not 'prove or disprove AGW' but it does show shoddy workmanship in is passed off as good or settled science.
Who is the denier?
The Earth is just plain not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Technically correct, because the earth has a hot core. But the geothermal flux (0.09 W/M2) is miniscule compared with mean solar irradiance (341.3 W/M2). So how is this relevant? As to whether Pluto's core is significantly warmer than its surface, I don't honestly know.
The Sun is a gas ball and it's dynamics are shown by the virial theory.
Virial theory?! There is a virial theorem--but it applies to quasi-spherical collections of freely co-orbiting bodies (e.g. elliptical galaxies or open clusters.) It says nothing about densely packed balls of matter with small mean free path.
Sure there are some uses for temperature measurements, but attempting to build a number for a 'global average temperature' has no meaning. You might as well average all the numbers in a telephone book.
Poor example. Telephone numbers do not encode the value of any parameter, rather they are merely arbitrary routing addresses. So of course their average is meaningless. It does not follow that temperatures (which do encode the value of a parameter) cannot be meaningfully averaged.
All this aside, I would submit that one could refer to "temperature at the gas/liquid and gas/solid interfaces" or to "air temperature two meters above said interfaces" in a perfectly consistent manner. These are not the same numbers, to be sure, but they are far from uncorrelated, and they tend to show similar historical trends.
All this aside, I would submit that one could refer to "temperature at the gas/liquid and gas/solid interfaces" or to "air temperature two meters above said interfaces" in a perfectly consistent manner.
That would be true for a regional section in my opinion. Say a hundred square mile piece of the Sahara. A chunk of Antarctica. A midwest section of farmland perhaps.
But mix up terrain, water mass, ice mass, and you have a mess. Plus you never had the alleged "air temperature two meters above the surface".
But yeah, re your conclusion, the closest we could get to actually talking about a 'global temperature' would be polar orbiting satellite. Reading microwave radiation from oxygen in the air. Or go further out and just read albedo of the planetary disk. Doing either for extended periods of time (decades) introduces instrument error issues.
One might attempt the problem in terms of total heat content, but 'average temperature' does not pass muster.
If you know the air temperature and the specific heat of the air then you get the internal energy of the air.For the water it works the same way.
The average of two points each measuring 20C is 20C, the average of one point 0C and another at 40C is 20C. But those describe vastly different environments.
I think you need to know the not just the 'internal energy' for a non linear system, not in equilibrium, but the rate of change of that parameter. Reason is, something that shows 1C higher T and higher heat content, but have a greater rate of energy outflow.
Well, we can discuss this quite a bit, but it would seem that you do get my point.
The Earth is just plain not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
Technically correct, because the earth has a hot core. But the geothermal flux (0.09 W/M2) is miniscule compared with mean solar irradiance (341.3 W/M2). So how is this relevant? As to whether Pluto's core is significantly warmer than its surface, I don't honestly know.
The Sun is a gas ball and it's dynamics are shown by the virial theory.
Virial theory?! There is a virial theorem--but it applies to quasi-spherical collections of freely co-orbiting bodies (e.g. elliptical galaxies or open clusters.) It says nothing about densely packed balls of matter with small mean free path.
Sure there are some uses for temperature measurements, but attempting to build a number for a 'global average temperature' has no meaning. You might as well average all the numbers in a telephone book.
Poor example. Telephone numbers do not encode the value of any parameter, rather they are merely arbitrary routing addresses. So of course their average is meaningless. It does not follow that temperatures (which do encode the value of a parameter) cannot be meaningfully averaged.
All this aside, I would submit that one could refer to "temperature at the gas/liquid and gas/solid interfaces" or to "air temperature two meters above said interfaces" in a perfectly consistent manner. These are not the same numbers, to be sure, but they are far from uncorrelated, and they tend to show similar historical trends.
The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA
15°C? So this is how we know global warming is man made because surely it was 14.889°C or something just before the industrial revolution?
One might attempt the problem in terms of total heat content, but 'average temperature' does not pass muster.
If you know the air temperature and the specific heat of the air then you get the internal energy of the air.For the water it works the same way.
The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA
Yes, it's amazing the amount of nonsense Spendulus comes up with.
Anyway, just a minor correction about that site: Sedna's average temperature is about -261C, not the -280C shown.
Pluto is, with the slight exception I mentioned.
The Sun is a gas ball and it's dynamics are shown by the virial theory.
Sure there are some uses for temperature measurements, but attempting to build a number for a 'global average temperature' has no meaning. You might as well average all the numbers in a telephone book.
The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA
Yes, it's amazing the amount of nonsense Spendulus comes up with.
Anyway, just a minor correction about that site: Sedna's average temperature is about -261C, not the -280C shown.
The average temperature of Earth according to NASA figures is 15°C
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/14516/temperature-of-earth/#ixzz2q4TnkQmA
But is there even such a thing as a 'global average temperature'?
Are you asserting that
1) No such thing can be defined, even in principle (implying that it is meaningless to state that the sun is warmer than Pluto,) or that
2) You have in mind some better definition of GAT than those measures currently in use (please share with us, if so..)
Pluto can be considered a frozen ball, although at times it does develop a thin sublimated atmosphere of nitrogen. As a frozen ball it has a temperature.
As for the Sun, we can estimate temperatures at various locations and depths. There certainly is measurable or computable thing that might be called an 'average temperature of the Sun.'
As for the Earth.
Is there an 'average temperature?' I suspect there is at various depths in the crust and in the mantle. But on the surface or slightly below the surface or in the air above the surface? If so, which?
One might attempt the problem in terms of total heat content, but 'average temperature' does not pass muster.
But is there even such a thing as a 'global average temperature'?
Are you asserting that
1) No such thing can be defined, even in principle (implying that it is meaningless to state that the sun is warmer than Pluto,) or that
2) You have in mind some better definition of GAT than those measures currently in use (please share with us, if so..)
A group of Bay Area environmentalists has proposed labels that will warn drivers of their contribution to global warming every time they pull up to the pump.
Similar to the Surgeon General’s warning on a pack of cigarettes, the proposed stickers would remind motorists of the State of California’s position that fossil fuels are leading to potentially hazardous climate change.
The labels are needed because, “There’s no immediate signal to a consumer of gasoline to show their effects on climate,” Jamie Brooks told the San Francisco Chronicle. Brooks represents 350BayArea.org, the group behind the proposal.
The Chronicle reports that the proposal is being proposed to individual city governments, and that San Francisco and Berkeley officials have already been approached about the idea. There was no timeline on when the labels could appear. If approved they would likely face legal challenges from the oil industry.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/01/09/warnings-labels-proposed-as-global-warming-reminder-at-california-gas-pumps/
Similar to the Surgeon General’s warning on a pack of cigarettes, the proposed stickers would remind motorists of the State of California’s position that fossil fuels are leading to potentially hazardous climate change.
The labels are needed because, “There’s no immediate signal to a consumer of gasoline to show their effects on climate,” Jamie Brooks told the San Francisco Chronicle. Brooks represents 350BayArea.org, the group behind the proposal.
The Chronicle reports that the proposal is being proposed to individual city governments, and that San Francisco and Berkeley officials have already been approached about the idea. There was no timeline on when the labels could appear. If approved they would likely face legal challenges from the oil industry.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/01/09/warnings-labels-proposed-as-global-warming-reminder-at-california-gas-pumps/
Hence my argument that we should falsify AGW claims, in other words, MAKE THEM TESTABLE. Someone needs to make a claim that can be falsified according to Karl Popper's demarcation solution. Then we can test and/or observe.
Well, they make falsifyable claims all the time."Burning of fossile fuel --> more CO2 in the air"
"More CO2 --> more heat absorption"
"Higher temperatures --> increased melting of ice"
"Higher temperatures --> more water evaporation"
and so on
In reflecting on it, I see serious problems with that basic construction, on which many of these premises and arguments are based. Hence, I would reject 'science' which attempted to draw conclusions from such premises with demonstrable errors.
Let me put it this way: Anyone who does not understand what I mean in the above paragraph should definitely not be debating this subject.
Not a fake.
Jump to: