seedload wrote:
Well, you seem to use the fitted line for your first assessment and the actual temperature for the second. Not really fair. If you use fitted for both, you get 0.3 degrees of difference between period 1 and 3 and 0 degrees of difference between period 2 and 4. I would be curious why the second grouping shows no difference in trends while the first grouping does, since, again, the CO2 difference is much greater. Maybe the little difference you see is noise or error or... who knows. Maybe the CO2 signal is in there. If it is, it is small compared to the overall dominant trend.
I was actually pulling from where you changed the color. I did make one mistake. For the high temp of the last section I did use the fitted line...Using the actual temp you provided it comes to 0.5 vs 0.6 or a 20% increase in speed. This is actually more telling since I believe that is roughly a % change in co2 levels...
seedload wrote:
NO, CO2 levels have gone up the whole time. Ever increasingly so.
Please provide if you have them...
seedload wrote:
That was funny. See if you can figure out why.
clonan wrote:
Now personally, I lean towards AGW but I don't think it (the global change in temperature) is exclusivly (due to) man.
seedload wrote:
The argument is stupid? Seriously. STUPID? Man, you are nieve and your economic explanations above are not correct in any regard. Changing energy sources does not hurt some/help some. Changing energy sources is wasted production that doesn't produce other stuff. So, expending energy to do something that is not needed decreases the making of stuff (GDP). And, since the new "energy" is more expensive, it now costs more to make the stuff that we do make. Since stuff costs more, everyone gets hurt.
Actually, if you look back into history, EVERY time a society shifted to a new primary energy source it resulted in a massive increase in productivity, a reduction in cost and the rapid development of new technology.
Example oil.
There was a HUGE debate against allowing motorized vehicles on the roads. They were viewed as noisy and unsightly (kind of like how people view wind turbines and solar plants) when compared to the majestic horse. The was incredible pressure citing a collapse of the economy if the horse couldn't safely travel the roads. Entire industries were destroyed. There was a huge saddle and harness manufacturing industry that now no longer exists. I could go on and on.
Instead, oil WAS encouraged as a replacement to the horse even though it cost MUCH more at the time since the laws and infrastructure was designed for the horse. A major argument was environmental protection... Horses make a LOT of manure and exhaust was viewed as cleaner. Once the infrastructure was in place all of a sudden people noticed that the horse industry had been hugely subsidized (i.e. street cleaners and hay production). Once those were taken into account the cost difference evaporated.
The argument is almost identical to todays.
The same goes with the transition from wood to Coal or whale oil to kerosene or kerosene to electricity and of course from man to animal power and then animal to steam and then steam to internal combustion. In each case there was SOME disruption. Some lost work, some businesses went under but at the same time MORE new business were created.
HOWEVER... every time a society is forced to go back to a PRIOR energy source because the current one runs out or becomes unavailable that society typically fails. Just look at the US in the 70s...and that was a very SHORT disruption. We know there is a finite amount of oil and coal. The estimates range from 20 years to 200 or so...
As far as price, I submit that the price difference is all but negligible. We subsidize coal and oil indirectly in almost every facet of our society. From legal protection against pollution to increased health care costs due to particulate matter (asthma and others).
In fact we subsidize oil to the tune of 1/3 of our federal budget!
We maintain the largest military in the world and police all the waterway to provide security for our shipping routes, especially oil. Everything spent on the military outside of national guard, coast guard and border patrol is a subsidy to business owners and Oil et the lions share. We are going to end up spending close to 2 TRILLION dollars in Iraq and please don't pretend that it wasn't about oil. Only the ministry of oil was protected by government troops when we invaded. All other government facilities were left unguarded.
If you dropped 2 Trillion on Solar power over 10 years you could COMPLETELY replace ALL coal with a minimal disruption and almost no change in the price of power.
I study the economics of power generation...you should really do your research first.