Here's how to think about climate change

[Street Juice]

farmers might even switch over to harvesting machines

They're not quite there yet.

Robots Are Trying To Pick Strawberries. So Far, They're Not Very Good At It

I'm not surprised it's not very good if this is what they were testing. This isn't even a strawberry picking robot, clearly. It's from the dairy industry and used to milk cows.

 

[Street Juice]

The point I was making was that none of it is set in stone

No, it's set by something much more powerful. The market.

As long as enough strawberry pickers are willing to do the job for $8 ... the price will be $8.

There are 5.6 billion people in the world living in countries poorer than Mexico. Why not just offer a dollar per hour? There are plenty of people in bangladesh who would jump at the chance to earn a dollar per hour picking strawberries in America while their eight kids receive $20,000 / year educations courtesy of the US taxpayer.

 

[Flash]

A

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

.​

Based upon all the false and corrupted data and bogus predictions we have seen from climate scientists over the last 30 years I think there is a 100% chance they are wrong.​

 

[fncceo]

Why not just offer a dollar per hour?

Do you know understand how negotiation works? You offer a dollar LESS ... and see who takes it. If no one, or not enough people, accept that, then, and only then, do you offer a dollar more.

 

[Street Juice]

Immigration is a the most regressive tax there is.

 

[Dick Foster]

At the core of the human-caused climate change dogma is the idea of the carbon footprint-

Don't be absurd.The heart of the science is that all of the hard data that shows how human emissions of CO2 are causing strong global warming.

You're trying to deflect from that simple fact with weird political conspiracy theories.

If all the data didn't say you were babbling nonsense, you could address the scientific facts instead of deflecting with conspiracy theories. But the data does say that, leaving conspiracy theories as the only option you see as viable.

Bllshit. If the same people who are blowing so much smoke up your stupid ass really wanted to make a significant dent in the use of fossil fuels they could by persuing something realistic like thorium fueled fission instead of all the bullshit solar and wind crap that can only distract all the technically illiterate drooling morons and stooges on the left. If you're included among them, feel free to jump right in.

 

[ReinyDays]

No one wants to pick strawberries. It's hot, back-breaking work. Why should a lawyer get $300 / hour and a strawberry picker $8 / hour? It's not in the Bible. Maybe lawyers should get $100 / hour and strawberry pickers $20. Normally the market would sort out the price, but we let one segment of society pervert the market by importing cheaper humans from abroad, thereby driving down the wages of their fellow Americans. It's a sweet deal, because when their cheaper humans get sick or pop out a bambino that needs educatin' the employer can shove those costs on to taxpayers including on to those taxpayers whose wages he undercut.

I saw a study once where some economist was claiming that if all the illegals were sent home tomorrow, the price of milk would increase by two and a half times. I think I saw it in the Washington Post. If it's in the Post, you know not to trust it, so I ran the numbers. I found what jobs on dairy farms pay, for legal and illegal labor, what percentage of a dairy farms expenses go to labor, not counting the farmer and his family, how much of the wholesale price per hundredweight reflected the labor cost, mark-up in the supermarket--all that information is available-. It turned out that if all the illegals were replaced by Americans tomorrow who were paid the high salary the tough job deserves, milk would have shot up from something like 2.69 per gallon to $2.89. In other words, negligible. No one would have noticed. I used to visit economics stack exchange sometimes, and posted my findings there. All these professional economists started down voting me like crazy.

Okay ... pay strawberry pickers $20/hr for two weeks ... then what? ... that's not enough money to survive the other 50 weeks in a year ...

Dairy farms don't rely on itinerant labor ... cows need milking every 12 hours so Joe Farmer can hire full-time employees and just falsify the I-9 filings, or not file at all ... it's not like employers are ever brought up on charges ... so that's year round work ... how does this help the strawberry farmer round up 50 strong backs for two weeks labor once a year? ... the system in place now is full of abuse, what system do you propose to eliminate this abuse? ... something about getting US citizens to live in tents six months a year as a career doesn't sound like something that could happen ... $8 an hour at McD's gets people home every night ...

"2.69 per gallon to $2.89" ... does that include margins? ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Bllshit. If the same people who are blowing so much smoke up your stupid ass really wanted to make a significant dent in the use of fossil fuels they could by persuing something realistic like thorium fueled fission instead of all the bullshit solar and wind crap that can only distract all the technically illiterate drooling morons and stooges on the left. If you're included among them, feel free to jump right in.

Thank you for the invitation to jump in ... [giggle] ... it's all about location, they're paying something like 20¢/kW-hr down in San Diego, and it's sunny there 398 days a year ... solar panels on the rooftop makes a lot sense ... so well, SDG&E won't buy back any juice that's fed back to the grid (or so I'm told) ... windsurfers discovered the Columbia Gorge carries a steady constant wind just perfect for their sport ... the wind farm is profitable so far sitting there in the middle of BPA's two trunk lines ...

Does wind/solar work for you? ... maybe not and and I don't blame you for dissing it ... I would never install solar panels, I don't use that much electricity during summers and winters are always dark and gloomy here ... there's wind in our hills but no cabling ... spring water is a complete nuisance, rivers of the crap everywhere, hydro's the solution for us ...

I'm fine if you want to burn coal until we get nuclear up and running, just as long as you understand cheap coal won't last ... and when coal's expense is a bad time to start working on alternatives ... let's call it 100 years before we can count on the nuclear replacement, if we start now ... coal is otherwise useless but crude oil is maybe something we want to conserve ... meh ...

 

[fncceo]

I'm fine if you want to burn coal until we get nuclear up and running, just as long as you understand cheap coal won't last

Nuclear isn't an option. The people who don't want us burning coal killed nuclear 20 years ago. No new nuclear power plants have gone on line in America since 1996.

 

[ReinyDays]

Nuclear isn't an option. The people who don't want us burning coal killed nuclear 20 years ago. No new nuclear power plants have gone on line in America since 1996.

Westinghouse went bankrupt and sold off it's nuclear division ... haven't heard if the new owners were planning on building reactors or just dividing up the equipment and sell it off ...

Mistakes were made ... I don't know how much you know of the history ... but we need to start from scratch and start spending LOTS and LOTS of money ... fossil fuels will run out, nuclear is the only option ... if we wait, we're gonna hurry and more mistakes will be made ... Fukushima every year ... let's give it 25 years and all them filthy hippies will be dead ...

 

[Innocynioc]

I despise it when anyone presumes to tell me how to think. I think for myself. I am not convinced of the correctness of anthropogeni\c global warming theory, but I don't need anyone at any time to tell me how to think.

Get off your ego trip, Bubba.

 

[fncceo]

Nuclear isn't an option. The people who don't want us burning coal killed nuclear 20 years ago. No new nuclear power plants have gone on line in America since 1996.

Westinghouse went bankrupt and sold off it's nuclear division ... haven't heard if the new owners were planning on building reactors or just dividing up the equipment and sell it off ...

Mistakes were made ... I don't know how much you know of the history ... but we need to start from scratch and start spending LOTS and LOTS of money ... fossil fuels will run out, nuclear is the only option ... if we wait, we're gonna hurry and more mistakes will be made ... Fukushima every year ... let's give it 25 years and all them filthy hippies will be dead ...

I know the history of commercial nuclear power and understand the technology. The US military has been using reactors on warships for over 60 years, without a single loss of life related to radiation. Nine people have died in American commercial nuclear power plants, from falls and electrocutions.

None of that matters, there is a political stigma associated with nuclear power that will make them economically prohibitive. They will be bullied in the courts and state assemblies until they can't be run profitably.

We will continue to burn coal and LPG for power for the foreseeable future.

 

[mamooth]

Bllshit. If the same people who are blowing so much smoke up your stupid ass really wanted to make a significant dent in the use of fossil fuels they could by persuing something realistic like thorium fueled fission instead

So, your idiot argument is that since rational people don't embrace some unproven fantasy tech, that proves ... something. Back in reality, it proves the rational people are rational.

And that really dumb logic on your part is just one reason why everyone laughs so hard at you.

Got any other logic-defying conspiracy theories to lay on us? We could use the laughs.

 

[mamooth]

I know the history of commercial nuclear power and understand the technology.

So then you understand how incredibly expensive it is compared to every other form of power.

Money matters. If your plan costs too much, your plan is unworkable. Nuclear power costs too much.

 

[mamooth]

Can you please clarify all the weasel words in your post ... the heart of science is empirical data, and we won't have empirical data for 100 years from now until a 100 years have pasted ... so what does "hard data" mean exactly?

Temperature. CO2 levels. IR flux levels. And so on.

... strong global warming is defined how?

10 times faster than anything in history.

... the latest IPCC report gives 2ºC in 100 years assuming climate forcing triples ... empirical data doesn't ever rely on assumptions ..

Don't be absurd. Tomorrow's weather forecast relies on assumptions.

. if 0.02ºC per year is "strong", what do we define as "moderate" or "weak" global warming ... and please link to the math, I'm curious about which "facts" connect CO2 concentrations to climate forcing, in a quantitative way ...

The directly measured stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. No models are involved there. There are no natural explanations for those things, so any "It's natural" theories are wrong. It's that simple. The data says your theory is wrong, so your theory is wrong.

And as you didn't know about that, you should ask your cult leaders why they chose to keep you ignorant about such things.

Remember, we're using ∆t here, not dt ... so what does ∆T equal? ...

Dang, you're in serious deflection mode.

 

[SSDD]

Temperature. CO2 levels. IR flux levels. And so on.

We know that CO2 follows temperature...got any actual empirical evidence that temperature follows CO2? Any at all?

10 times faster than anything in history.

Gold standard temperature reconstructions from ice cores at both poles show that in just the past 10,000 years, there have been numerous temperature shifts that were greater, and happened far more quickly than anything we have seen in the past 150 years...

Your belief that the present climate is somehow unprecedented is nothing but cultish dogma which completely ignores a great deal of paleoclimatology..

Don't be absurd. Tomorrow's weather forecast relies on assumptions.

And yet, in your cultish delusion, you believe the assumptions as if they were written on stone...

The directly measured stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. No models are involved there. There are no natural explanations for those things, so any "It's natural" theories are wrong. It's that simple. The data says your theory is wrong, so your theory is wrong.

All of those things are fantasy hairball...The stratosphere is warming...do a google search to see just how wrong you are...there is no increase in back radiation as there is no back radiation...and the outgoing long wave radiation has been increasing for a good long time...

Your smoking guns are fantasy arising from your fervent belief in cultish dogma...

And as you didn't know about that, you should ask your cult leaders why they chose to keep you ignorant about such things.

Actually you should ask your cult leaders why they lie to you about such things and have you go out and make an ass of yourself by making such proclamations in public..

Dang, you're in serious deflection mode.

Look who is deflecting by accusing someone else of deflecting...you never fail to be a top shelf projector hairball...you never fail to accuse others of precisely the behavior you are guilty of..

 

[ReinyDays]

Can you please clarify all the weasel words in your post ... the heart of science is empirical data, and we won't have empirical data for 100 years from now until a 100 years have pasted ... so what does "hard data" mean exactly?

Temperature. CO2 levels. IR flux levels. And so on.

We have temperature data back 100 years, but not CO2 concentrations nor "IR flux levels" ... and we certainly don't have this data for 100 years from now ... but you've chosen to not answer the question of "so what does "hard data" mean exactly?" ... I know what IR flux is, but I don't think you do by the way you're using it in this context ...

... strong global warming is defined how?

10 times faster than anything in history.

Ah ... we're nowhere close to that level of warming ... things are actually cooling in 2017 and 2018 ... this 20-year plateau in temperatures disproves strong global warming ...

... the latest IPCC report gives 2ºC in 100 years assuming climate forcing triples ... empirical data doesn't ever rely on assumptions ..

Don't be absurd. Tomorrow's weather forecast relies on assumptions.

There it is ... you apparently know nothing of meteorology ... thus why you seem to know nothing about climatology ... in a 5 mph wind field, look upstream 120 miles, that's tomorrow's forecast, that works quite well out 72 hours ...

. if 0.02ºC per year is "strong", what do we define as "moderate" or "weak" global warming ... and please link to the math, I'm curious about which "facts" connect CO2 concentrations to climate forcing, in a quantitative way ...

The directly measured stratospheric cooling, increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands are all smoking guns for human-caused global warming. No models are involved there. There are no natural explanations for those things, so any "It's natural" theories are wrong. It's that simple. The data says your theory is wrong, so your theory is wrong.

And as you didn't know about that, you should ask your cult leaders why they chose to keep you ignorant about such things.

How do we directly measure stratosphere temperatures? ... weather balloons only penetrate the very lowest levels ... sounds like you're using sciency-sounding goobligook to deflect me from noticing you didn't answer the question ... "strong" GW is 10 times faster, what is "weak" GW? ...

Did you mistake me for someone who denies man's contribution to GW? ... I hope not because I don't ... I'm the one who denies all that bad things won't happen, and be careful, "bad" is not well defined in science, mine is a philosophical position that GW is GOOD ... all things on Earth will prosper, we've entered into a NEW GOLDEN AGE of human existence, God gave us fossil fuels to burn and raise the temperatures in order to return us (finally) back to the Garden ... the Great Six Days are over now !!! ...

Remember, we're using ∆t here, not dt ... so what does ∆T equal? ...

Dang, you're in serious deflection mode.

Yes, we established above you seem to know very little about meteorology ... so the difference between meteorology and climatology would be lost on you ... it's not a deflection, it's math, something you wish to avoid apparently ...