Slashdot Mirror

The truth remains — there have not been many climate-related predictions published, that came true in due time. In fact, I can't find even a single one such prediction

Actually, an interesting question. The oldest "scientific consensus" I can find that gives a number that can be used as a prediction is the 1979 National Academy of Sciences report. This predicted that the climate sensitivity was between 1.5 and 4.5C per doubling: that is, 3 plus or minus 1.5. Citation: Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1979. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/121... (you can go back earlier than this, but this is the first one where a panel of scientists came together to evaluate all the models available at the time, and not just a single team making a model.)

That's 36 years ago, so it's long enough to compare prediction to reality. In 1979, carbon dioxide (annual average) was 336.8 ppm; in 2014 concentration was 398.6 ppm. citation: http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/... That's an increase of 118%, log(2) of that is 0.243. So given that CO2 increase, the predicted temperature rise between 1979 and 2014, if the NAS value was correct, is 0.81 plus or minus 0.4.

Actual temperature rise, according to the GISS temp, is 0.17 above datum in 1979, 0.75 above datum in 2014, for a temperature rise of 0.58C. citation: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...

The prediction of 0.81 plus or minus 0.4 is within the error bars of the actual measurement, 0.58. So I will rate this as a correct prediction.

Ah I see you've finally gone from Stage 3 (It's not a Problem) to Stage 4 (We can't do anything about it). Progress. Sort of.

Reality: Yes we bloody well can.

We can't do enough to matter...

Or let me put this another way... Ok, yes we COULD, if humanity worked together on stuff...

But considering human nature, we AREN'T going to do anything about it.

There, is that better? Instead of, "we can't", I'm pointing out that, "we won't".

The uptake of green energy generation, particularly solar, is actually MORE rapid in developing nations than in western ones. In large part because its easier and cheaper in these poorer nations to slap a panel on a roof than build an entire energy distribution grid based off centralized generation.

Ahh, good to know, so CO2 levels world wide are dropping now? Total CO2 output of planet Earth is dropping each year?

Because that is what it would take. I don't much care (nor does the Earth) what any one nation does, or what a local group of people does. The question is, what is all of humanity doing?

http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/...

Looks to me like they are climbing.

BTW, notice that gas is now getting cheaper? That actually causes more of it to be used, it will cushion the bottom of the fall of oil, as people go back to burning it as the price drops. True CO2 reductions won't happen until the base cost of coal, oil, and natural gas becomes more expensive. Until then, we're going to burn it all.

The records were showing a cooling trend until they were recalibrate.

Some of the recalibration were obviously valid. Others are not as clear cut. For example, the orbital decay correction was entirely valid.

Regardless, even the corrected datasheets don't show warming if you look from 1998 to today
http://data.remss.com/msu/mont...

The whole "pause" thing which is argued started in 1998 and what caused people to start looking for where the heat went. You're saying into the ocean... because it isn't in the air.

70.0 - 82.5 is the global table. The other columns address different regions.

As to sea level... from church:
http://static-content.springer...
From the EPA
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...
the actual graph:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechan...

Do you see the problem?

The sea rise is linear. Our rate of emissions have not been exponential. Explain how the CO2 even correlates with that when the trend lines don't match?

The rate of change in emissions should be reflected in the rate of change in the environment assuming these systems respond quickly to these changes.

What we're seeing is LINEAR changes to exponential inputs. That implies the two variables don't even correlate much less one being caused by the other.

Also sort of interesting is this data on on the CO2 concentrations:
http://co2now.org/images/stori...

I find it interesting that basically was flat from 58-64... as you can see it ramps up going faster and faster towards the present.

Anyway, I'd like to see if we can get a single point emission of CO2... something large enough to be detectable globally for some period of time. I think a large volcanic erruption might create such a rise... and then I'd like to see how long it takes for the trend line to return to normal.

Your IPCC citation assumes 120 years. I don't understand how that is possible. We're emitting 1 percent of total atmospheric carbon every year and the rate of actual change in our environment is about 1/3rd of our emissions.

That implies that 2/3rds of our emissions are being taken out of the atmosphere and not re-emitted ANNUALLY. If 2/3rds of our emissions are being removed and not re-emitted annually... then what does that do to the life expectancy of emitted CO2?

The IPCC figure you're citing is 120 years... that seems obviously impossible. And your other figures you were cited were ranging from 100-30 years... which means we have range of 30 to 120 years just from your citations.

We're talking about the 6 foot tall man give or take 30 feet again. As to serious debate, you're in one right now to the extent that any such thing can happen on the internet. I'm not interested in your political references. Stop making them. I'm utterly indifferent to how many people agree with you.

As to your data on increases in carbon... I didn't say carbon wasn't increasing. I said that the rate of increase in the carbon doesn't match the increase in our emissions. If the time it stays in the atmosphere is 120 years as the IPCC says or around the 100 year range that wikipedia says... then we should see a closer match between emissions and atmospheric concentration. The discrepancy can only be explained by the biosphere sinking the carbon... possibly in the oceans if you like but still out of the air. And even the 30 year figure seems dubious to turn an exponential curve into a linear one.

As to Turley et al 2006, you're skipping over my request for a longer trend line on pH valu

Strange, the news than China passed America (USA) was around 2011 or 2012 even, it was big news even here on /. But perhaps the "news about that" was late and came only 2012, at least it was very recent.
Interesting read about 2014 ... https://germanwatch.org/en/dow... USA on rank 41 of the "best performing CO2 reduction countries" ...
However I see now clear numbers are not easy to get: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w... here it says China produced 27% of the worlds emissions in 2011 (USA 17%)!
And here it says USA and China changed leadership 2006 (as you said): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Here it is even claimed that basically all nations (except the eU in total, no breakdown by country however) increased their CO2 output in the recent years: http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/... -- which I find hard to believe.
Anyway, the USA still seem to be around 16% share of world wide CO2 production, not 14%, interesting read about various changes the recent years: http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/...

Solar panel creation uses many toxic products, chemicals and dangerous gases, including Sulfur Hexaflouride, the MOST POTENT GREENHOUSE GAS... Is it really about the planet, or is it about money?

From Wikipedia - "According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, SF6 is the most potent greenhouse gas that it has evaluated, with a global warming potential of 23,900 times that of CO2 when compared over a 100-year period."

2002 was the last year I could find a quick worldwide sales number for SF6, 5096 metric tons. Using your factor of 23,900 and rounding up, that's the equivalent of 122 million tons of CO2 assuming every molecule of SF6 was dumped directly into the atmosphere. By comparison, in 2012, an estimated 9700 million tons of CO2 were emitted. Of course, only about 7% of SF6 production is used in semiconductor manufacturing, and only a fraction of that is solar cell production and of that fraction not all is released into the atmosphere. Cradle-to-grave estimates for all greenhouse gas emissions in grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh came in at 1001 for coal, 500 for natural gas, and 45 for solar cells.

Capture and sequestration of CO2 from burning coal would have large capital costs and increase coal usage by about 30%, putting the cost of electricity from coal right in the same ballpark as unsubsidized wind and solar.

Please do a little research and thought before you shout "ZOMG SF6 MOST POTENT GREENHOUSE GAS!"

Dealing with your 'blockquote' style is way too hard. I suspect this is a rathole, and nobody else is reading it, and that you know what you said, so I'll omit the quotes.

So, your assertion is that changes in CO2 levels is NOT caused by human activity, or that the contribution by humans is negligible. Sadly, most authorities disagree with you. I have no way of measuring the effect, so I can't weigh in, other than to mention that I trust folks who do this for a living far more than I trust you. Here are a few links:

EPA
IPCC
NOAA
More IPCC
RealClimate

According to folks that study this, the sea level is rising. Here are some links:

Union of Concerned Scientists
National Geographic
EPA
NASA, scroll down.

The ice core mystery has been explained in such a way that the time differences are in the noise. Here is a link that attempts to explain it: arstechnica. However, one obvious reason why CO2 might follow temperature rises is that lots of CO2 is released in the arctic tundra when the permafrost melts. As solar cycles cause warming CO2 is released. However, it could easily be a situation where small changes in temperature cause CO2 spikes, which then contribute to a feedback loop. Since nobody was there, nobody really knows for sure. However, this article describes a paper in Nature 2012 that describes the feedback loop. Note the paper assumes that excess CO2 causes temperature rises. That is pretty much not contested at this point, I believe, due to a strong theoretical understanding of the interactions. Since there were no excess sources of CO2 in the Pleistocene, the temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise. Since we are artificially increasing CO2, we trigger the warming effect without a requirement for excess solar radiation.

I have read 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' by Taubes. The book is very convincing. The view of nutrition as a power game, with no real science behind it is quite interesting. Sadly for your case, there is LOTS of science to back up the assertions of Global Warming caused by human activity. Too many to simply dismiss.

If there is no problem with CO2 causing global warming, and we are going to be ok despite these emissions, well, that would be wonderful. Due to lobbying by Koch and friends, that is probably what we are going to end up with anyway. However, if there is only a 1% possibility that the worst will happen, and hundreds of millions of people will die because of it, I will still support doing whatever we can to prevent it. Can you really be so sure of your facts, many of which are supported by papers paid for by Koch subsidiaries who have a real financial interest in stopping any action on climate change?

. Temperature is broadly (and significantly) speaking linearly related to C02 emissions . The flucuations of temperature because the climate is a complicated system within that context are irrelevant Climate sensitivity is NOT going to save you, it's mentioned because accurate predictions for the near future require it be incorporated.

It's not a " throw carbon into the atmosphere and suffer no further consequences for free" card.

BTW: http://co2now.org/

Furthermore, the oceans appear to be losing their ability to absorb C02:

http://www.watthead.org/2007/05/warnings-from-warming-world-new-study.html

Re: your earlier assertion that of a "few inches" of ocean rise From the IPCC report, it is in fact .59 meters, a lot more than a few inches. What's more: ::

Contraction of the Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to continue to contribute to sea level rise after 2100.

Current models suggest that ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative at a global average warming (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9ÂC to 4.6ÂC.

If a negative surface mass balance were sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m.

The corresponding future temperatures in Greenland are comparable to those inferred for the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago, when palaeoclimatic information suggests reductions of polar land ice extent and 4 to 6 m of sea level rise

What really matters is the carbon which is not part of the natural cycle, the carbon taken from the ground and burned up. We are not about to stop burning it, but surely there are ways to reduce significantly our consumption.