Slashdot Mirror

Please get this out there. There is a number of studies that demonstrate that H2 is bad, very bad, for the Ozone layer. The problem is that H2 is light, very light and it is subject to atmospheric escape (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape). On its way up and out it will pass through the Ozone layer where H2 is highly reactive to O3. The result is H2 + O3 > H2O +O2. So you end up with either water or hydrogen peroxide in the ozone layer. That is bad for 2 reasons. 1) it causes stratospheric cooling which impedes the production of ozone 2) Water at this layer interferes with the ozone production while providing not protection benefits.
http://web.stanford.edu/group/...
http://www.theozonehole.com/hy...
https://www.caltech.edu/about/...
https://sciencing.com/hydrogen...
https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/~dst...

I dunno why Slashdot doesn't like them. They're part of unicode and Slashdot is UTF-8.

E.g suppose I paste an left double quote from here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

slashdot displays this

âoe

However if I paste it into here

http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~richa...

I see

LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK 0x201C

It seems like Slashdot doesn't like any UTF-8 sequence that decodes outside of ASCII and turns it into gibberish. Very odd.

Though if I do this

“

I get

“

It seems like it doesn't like anything but 7 bit ASCII in comments.

The University of Edinburgh has a vCJD monitoring unit which records the instances of the disease in the UK. See their latest report. When reading it, it is important to note that it covers all types of CJD, but only the vCJD info is relevant to the mad cow issue (other types of CJD have, for example, genetic causes).

The key take home facts are that (a) the total number of deaths so far in the UK since the disease emerged in 1995 is 178 (128 definite and the rest probable). 28 people died of the disease in 2000 and it has been in decline since then. In the last five years only TWO people have died of it, one in 2013 and one this year. There are ZERO current suspected living cases.

It is of course possible that there could be a second wave of deaths since risk is known to be linked to genetic markers and their could be another genetic group with a much longer incubation period. But with each year with no deaths this seems less and less likely.

The man page was from http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/ so not specifically GNU.

There are cut-away plans on the web

I thought you wrote "mid-day", because you were too STUPID to use a capital letter for 'May'. But then, you were also too stupid to use capital letters for the first word of half of your sentences. WTF?

grammar rules are a fiction and a way the ruling class imposes control on others by establishing an arbitrary "right way to do things" then castigating those who do not kowtow to it. This article published in the academic journal English Today is a screed against the Strunk and White book "Elements of Style" that explores both the specific party fouls and the overarching inconsistencies and outright hubris of the book.

You can do that with atmosphere to predict short term and evolution, and you can do that on a different level to predict long term evolution.

No you can't. At least, thus far, the computer models haven't been able to do it.

Oh by the way, I an atmospheric scientist and I work with computer models every day. I have serious doubts about how well we can simulate the future climate of earth in 10 years, let alone 100 years into the future.

Your doubts have been supported. You got the time scale (ten years) about right, too. It seems like they are over-estimating the magnitude of various feedbacks.

When these past megadroughts are compared side-by-side with computer model projections of the 21st century,

How about we fix the climate models before using them to predict things? If they can't predict things, they can't predict things.

And while we're at it, let's fix the medical models. They're always off by predicting how long you will live with any given disease, sometimes by decades, so it's clear that we should stop with the medical treatments until we have it perfect.

When these past megadroughts are compared side-by-side with computer model projections of the 21st century,

How about we fix the climate models before using them to predict things? If they can't predict things, they can't predict things.

Given that the models overestimate the warming, choosing the low end is justified.

It's fair to consider the high end, though. Once again, a meter won't have people snorkeling in their houses. As mentioned, continental drift and rebound from the last ice age account for more change to the coastline than global warming (continents move around 2cm per year with continental drift). Add to that natural erosion, sediment, etc, and AGW is not the most important effect on most coastlines.

That's what 95% of the climate scientists believe we have done.

I don't know why you think that. All climate scientists who are not in a coma (or on vacation in Aruba collecting temperature data) are aware that the models are wrong. The hypothesis is wrong and needs to be adjusted. And scientists aren't stupid, that is exactly what they are doing, thinking of different ways to adjust the hypothesis. But it takes time.

"Extreme weather" is hypothesized, but it gets a lot of sensational attention out of proportion to the evidence supporting those hypotheses. The models that predict extreme weather are far less accurate than these models.

The 'hiatus' is well acknowledged in the scientific community. More precisely defined, the hiatus means that warming from CO2 is much lower than models predicted. That is, the models are all wrong.

The scientific community has moved from arguing that there is no hiatus and is now trying to understand why the temperature hasn't risen nearly as much as expected, despite the massive increase in CO2 released every year.

KDE on wayland is not complete yet. There has been work for kwin, but one thing is sure: if you want to use it on wayland, you will need, as usual, systemd. Of course, the author points out that this does not imply you will also need to install a web server and a ntp daemon, and that the dependency is on the API not on the program itself, but then show me an alternative implementation i can use. You know, systemd brings nice new APIs and so on, but then I read about the next thing systemd broke. Its in the man page of the shutdown command that this should work.

If you want to talk about science, then show me a tested climate model that has been subjected to an empirical test of its validity.

There are plenty of climate models that have been subjected to an empirical test of validity.

Constantly questioning is running experiments, taking measurements, and trying to model the future and see how well it lines up with reality. Scientists are doing that all the time, and the result

And the result is that for decades we've overestimated the effect of CO2 and that all the computer models are wrong. If you deny that after the multiple studies have shown it, then you're the denier.

Well, apart from the rather convenient starting year of 1998:

Another possible driver of the difference between observed and simulated global warming is increasing stratospheric aerosol concentrations. Results from several independent datasets show that stratospheric aerosol abundance has increased since the late 1990s, owing to a series of comparatively small tropical volcanic eruptions 8 . Although none of the CMIP5 simulations take this into account, two independent sets of model simulations estimate that increasing stratospheric aerosols have had a surface cooling impact of about 0.07 C per decade since 1998 8,9 . If the CMIP5 models had accounted for increasing stratospheric aerosol, and had responded with the same surface cooling impact, the simulations and observations would be in closer agreement

IOW the article itself points out that the reason for the overestimation was unpredictable high volcano activity. Feel free to create models that either predict the unpredictable, or always predicts high volcanic activity, resulting in underestimated temperature rise for almost all years where that doesn't come true.

The consensus from scientists who build models is 'not dangerous. And it IS noteworthy that the models are known to over-estimate the effects of CO2.

If you're going to choose which scientist to 'believe,' then believe the ones who actually collect data, like John Christy. He wanted to know if the AGW hypothesis was correct, so what did he do? He went out and created a dataset from California's central valley, to compare temperatures in settled areas to non-settled areas. He wondered about the accuracy of the global temperature record, so what did he do? He created an alternate way of measuring temperature using satellites. He went to Africa to create datasets, to measure and see what is really happening, while other scientists were creating models (which we now know were inaccurate).

That is how you do science, by collecting data to verify or disprove your hypothesis. You don't beg the press to demonize people you don't like, that's not science.

Constantly questioning is running experiments, taking measurements, and trying to model the future and see how well it lines up with reality. Scientists are doing that all the time, and the result

And the result is that for decades we've overestimated the effect of CO2 and that all the computer models are wrong. If you deny that after the multiple studies have shown it, then you're the denier.

That scenario as described in the paper, assumes a CO2 doubling by 2030 but states that Scenario B's assumption of said doubling by 2060 is more likely...... Either way, there's still quite some time before Hansen's prediction can be definitively shown to have been wrong

No, the paper is really wrong (which is a more serious problem, but not as entertaining. You can forgive a man for predictions he didn't even publish). CO2 releases have tracked between scenario A and B, but temperatures have been below scenario C, which assumes no more CO2 was added to the atmosphere after 2000. The model is junk.

But he shouldn't feel too bad, he's not alone. Most of the other climate models are wrong, too.

Would it make you feel better if a scientific journal published a paper?

"All [models] in our ensemble predict that [the United State's] mean CAPE will increase over the 21st century, with a mean increase of 11.2 percent per degree Celsius of global warming,"

To back up that point, It's been demonstrated recently that our climate models our wrong.

Here's a prediction from 1988, that part of New York would be underwater before now:

“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.”

Please note that the consensus is that the damage will be massive, it's just about _how_ massive....

No, it's not consensus. Note that the fourth link indicates there's basically no consensus at all among scientists about how to respond to AGW. Should we adapt? Should we mitigate? No consensus at all there.

And while we are on the weather; we can actually make more reliable predictions about the climate than about the weather, because weather forecasts try to produce an detailed map of things like temperature, cloud cover, wind and precipitation within very short time frames of a few hours, whereas the detail in climate forecasts is more like averages over decades and across whole regions.

It turns out that's not true, at least right now. Because predicting weather a day or two in advanced is an easily repeatable and testable situation, our models have gotten better and better.

Because it takes a decade or more to test the predictions of a climate model, the improvement cycle takes much longer. It takes a long time to even realize they are wrong.

The science is clear even if we don't 100% understand all he dynamics,

If the science were clear, the models would be reasonable accurate. In reality they are off by a lot. There's still a lot of science that needs to be done (which isn't surprising, because you can't really do a randomized double-blind study to determine the effects of things on the earth. It's harder than that).

Unfortunately, he's right. The models are wrong.

If you'd like to actually look at science papers instead of a crappy website, here's one in Nature that shows the models are inaccurate

So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "loaded question?" Look it up, because your question commits that fallacy.

Most scientists accept that there's been some warming. How much of it is caused by CO2 is an open question, because the models need adjusting (though to be fair, the main difficulty is likely in over-estimating feedbacks). Scientists disagree on that problem, but the main question that matters from a practical standpoint is, "what should we do?" There's no consensus on this at all.

1) Should we do nothing, because eventually technology will replace coal before anything bad happens? (this is suggested by John Christy).
2) Should we do nothing, even though damage will be caused, because the damage will be easier to fix than to prevent? (I believe Bjorn Lomborg holds this view).
3) Should we replace all coal plants with nuclear immediately, even at great expense? (this is proposed by James Hansen)
4) Should we spend a lot of money on research for fusion?
5) Should we spend a lot of money to help push forward the electric car? (I saw this proposed in the Wall Street Journal)?
6) Should we replace all coal power with wind and solar? (this isn't actually possible with today's technology, but some people want it)
7) Should we agree to the Kyoto protocol, damaging the economy while making little impact on CO2 release?
8) Should we agree to the Copenhagen accord, which will do little, but cost billions in transfer payments to impoverished countries?

This is just scratching the surface of possible responses, and there is absolutely no scientific consensus on how to respond to AGW, or even if it needs a response.

please link to an example of "sketchy science" that has been proved wrong by more solid, peer-reviewed science.

I know you're just smacking down a troll, but climate models have been over-estimating warming for years, as demonstrated by this science.

From the commentary:

Ultimately the causes of this inconsistency will only be understood after careful comparison of simulated internal
climate variability and climate model forcings with observations from the past two decades

Recent papers have investigated this and found that when either observed ENSO conditions are forced on the model, or model runs are picked whose simulated ENSO matches observed ENSO there is better agreement with observed temperatures.

By the way, the models don't just overestimate warming since 1997ish, they also underestimate it before 1997.

I'm curious to see which fundamental assumptions made by current models you believe to be contradicted by this paper.

If this paper is correct, then the effect (according to the authors) overwhelms ENSO, among other things. As it is already acknowledged that ENSO is a very major factor, the models have tried to account for it or at least incorporate its effects in some way. That would all have to be re-figured. And that's no small thing.

If ENSO cannot be predicted to any great degree (it cannot), yet it has a major effect on climate models, and now another effect is found that is claimed to have a far greater effect than ENSO, what then?

Obviously the models would be revised to use the new information. That's all great. If so, then maybe they could finally actually start predicting something... which would finally make them useful. So far, they've had almost no practical predictive value. Not none, maybe... so I retract the statement that they're "useless". They may not be useless. They're just nearly useless.

I know you're just smacking down a troll, but climate models have been over-estimating warming for years, as demonstrated by this science.

And know we might have am idea of where that missing heat went... Thereby possibly being able to improve the models.

Given what we're already seeing, I don't relish what might happen if/when this 'trapped' heat is let 'loose' again, into the volumes the current models covered, in addition to what we keep pumping into the atmosphere...

Also, what might warmer water deeper down do to deposits of temperature/pressure-solidified carbohydrates (can't recall the name for them at the moment)?

I know you're just smacking down a troll, but climate models have been over-estimating warming for years, as demonstrated by this science. That's not to say that climate models are bad science, they are good science investigating the nature of the earth; but people who put too much faith in them without evidence were performing bad science.

There is a large movement of scientists, many not involved in climate science at all, urging meaningful action on climate change based on the worst case scenarios set by these incomplete/unreliable models. So what we end up with is backlash by people completely rejecting the entire field, and "feel good" projects and treaties that have minimal impact at best, all of which will only serve to delay the meaningful action they urge. Scientists in general and especially climate scientists and the IPCC, need to stay out of the public/political debate, it only undermines the public's faith on their impartiality.

please link to an example of "sketchy science" that has been proved wrong by more solid, peer-reviewed science.

I know you're just smacking down a troll, but climate models have been over-estimating warming for years, as demonstrated by this science.

That's not to say that climate models are bad science, they are good science investigating the nature of the earth; but people who put too much faith in them without evidence were performing bad science.

Yet the climate buffoons ignore the oceans in their models.

OK, I am down on climate models, because they have poor accuracy, but come on, they don't ignore the oceans in their models. Check it out on Wikipedia at least before writing something.

You might be able to say that their handling of the oceans is incorrect, and if you have a good reason, such a post would be interesting, but scientists definitely aren't ignoring the oceans in their models, I don't even know why you would think that.

So did you not look at the graphs I link to, or do you take issue with them?

Of course I did. There are several issues with them. The ones I will mention are:

First, they're from SkepticalScience. Now, I don't normally indulge in arguments that someone might misconstrue as ad-hominem, but SkepticalScience's involvement in the recent, blatant debacles regarding "97% consensus" seriously puts their scientific integrity to question in my mind. I mean, that was a statistical thing that a high-schooler probably could not have unintentionally screwed up quite that badly. All evidence says it was pure statistical garbage being paraded as fact. To have perpetrated that -- I'm just going to call it "blunder" here -- while at the same time criticizing someone else's statistics seems pretty damned hypocritical on their part.

Second, in case you hadn't noticed, they aren't graphs of the same thing at all. Which makes your whole argument a straw-man.

Third, the article continues their habit of pushing the idea of "increasing catastrophic weather events" which most climate scientists today say is not very credible. (IPCC AR 5 report: "low confidence".) Further, not only has that NOT been observed, we have been in a long period of record-low cyclonic energy, world-wide, for decades. If anything, there has been the opposite trend from what the alarmist projections said we would see. The United States hasn't had a anything classed as a major hurricane for a near-record period of time, and Florida has recently set a new all-time record duration with no hurricanes at all.

Why do you think they've done nothing about it?

You tell me. You're the one spouting all this conspiracy stuff, not me.

If you would like some more information about the gross INaccuracy of climate models over the last 1-2 decades, I suggest you read this article: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years, which was published in Nature Climate Change in 2013. According to that paper, the average amount that all 117 models that were studied overestimated warming was 100%. That's... well, not very accurate. A projection of no warming at all would not have been significantly less accurate than what the models actually projected. (Although in the other direction of course.)

This is what the lead author had to say about the paper and its publication:

1. Reviews
Our commentary was reviewed by 4 anonymous peers selected by the journal and underwent 2 major revisions and one minor revision over the course of 6 months. It was also internally reviewed by 3 colleagues in my Centre. It was not solicited by the journal.

2. Originality
To my mind there's a difference between what people think they know through popular discourse (which is perfectly fine), and what they actually know after weighing the evidence provided in original peer review literature (which is better). Some aspects of our commentary were known by some, and other aspects were known by few or none.

3. Uncertainty
Several sources of uncertainty in several contexts are considered in our commentary. These a laid out in detail in the Supplementary Information file that accompanies our commentary. Our specific estimate of the observed GMST trend and uncertainty for the period 1998-2012 is based on monthly-mean data and takes into account serial correlation (as described in my co-authors book titled "Statistical Analysis in Climate Research"). I can't vouch for the Skeptical Science Trend Calculator, but I do note that with it one obtains identical trends and uncertainties regardless of whether monthly-averaged or running-averaged data is used.

4. Cherry-picking
This is not issue with our commentar

Be we aren't having those becasue people keep lying and denying scientific facts. There is a reason denier don't actually talk about the scientific facts, but instead lye and cherry pick....... The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Yeah, that matches you again. If you actually knew the facts, you'd realize that not only are the models wrong, but also even if the worst models were right, that still wouldn't be a reason to try to get the number back to 300ppm.

But you don't want to talk about those scientific facts, or do you?

Basically the survey found that the experts in the field have 97% consensus

Problem is that skeptical scientists such as Richard Lindzen agree with that 'consensus', because the question is too narrow. Ask something more interesting like, "should we replace all our coal power with renewables because to prevent AGW?" or "is AGW going to be catastrophic?" and you will find that there is no consensus.

But I think they can be constructed to be close enough to determine a reasonable outcome.

You didn't clarify what you mean by 'reasonable outcome,' but this paper in Nature demonstrates that the climate models have serious errors.

Not only have the models successfully reproduce all historical data since 1900, but the actual results of the past several years have continually been within the predictions of the models.

The models are wrong.

Basically, a famous person can write anything and it will be retweeted. An unknown person can write the same tweet and it will be ignored.

Link to paper:

Sasa Petrovic, Miles Osborne and Victor Lavrenko. RT to win! Predicting Message Propagation in Twitter. ICWSM, Barcelona, Spain. July 2011. http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/...

Similarly, it is impossible for Climate Science to be a fraud.

Paleoclimate data is the obvious counterexample. The field is dominated by a few, government-funded organizations. We don't have solid climate measurements of any sort before about 1850. This leaves the field wide open to chicanery.

If the climate record did not indicate the currently calculated levels of secondary feedback then somebody, somewhere would have noted that.

The climate record of the last twenty years is one such counterexample and it has been noted. What I think is significant about it is that the future can't be controlled. That is precisely where you'd expect to see the greatest deviation between claims about climate and our perception of those results. And we do see large deviations from the predictions to the actual climate changes of this period.

According to the EU Website the 34 billion euros is the entire budget for climate adaptation, technology and mitigation, not the research budget. I guess someone lied to you.

I did say there would be plenty to spare. It's not expensive to buy scientists. And I did say that this money was going to "explicit climate change related spending".

Contrast that with climate denial. We KNOW that Anthony Watts receives a salary to post lies on his popular blog wattsupwiththat - a salary provided by the Heritage Foundation. Nobody denies it. We know how much money "Lord" Monkton makes by his travelling circus. We know that Judith Curry was lying when she said she had seen AR5 prior to publication. We know that the claims of these salaried/entrepreneurial PR agents wiht respect to alternative explanations for climate change have been refuted - every single claim.

So you can do ad hominem attacks. Can you do real, honest, rational argument?

Well, I'm not going to disagree with you, that the person you were replying to was wrong. However you might be interested in this which shows that the climate models do have a lot of room improvement.

The sad inaccuracy of climate models has been discussed in journals. They are inaccurate beyond the uncertainty intervals.

If you actually understand science then, check this out. Something from a real journal.

If the science behind global warming is so fake, why don't you expose it and convince everyone it's fake?

He doesn't need to, Nature already did it, at least as far as the climate models go.

Inuit, not Eskimoes as you put it, don't have 50-100 different words for snow. There are many references for this, but one should suffice. http://curiosity.discovery.com...

While that's a good reference, this one is generally considered the most definitive.

If you don't accept the science that the computer models are wrong, then you are denying science.

Check out this science. Do you accept it or not?

problems with the data

Well now you are failing to understand what my point was to begin with. My point was that some people respect poorly supported hypotheses as if they were fact, and if you point out that they are poorly supported (like the runaway Venus effect), they call you deniers.

But now that you want evidence of specific problems in climate science, papers like this one are showing how wrong the computer models actually are. Also the East Anglia emails show that there are people in the field who are not scientists, whether they are right or not.

I think the true deniers are people who try to deny papers like this one, that show how bad the computer models actually are.

"... and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me."

No, it's not "the opposite of wrong"... it's just wrong. We HAVEN'T observed the warming that was predicted.

A paper in Nature last September (pdf) was a study of 117 of the most-cited CO2 climate warming models. 114 of them not only overestimated warming, the average (mean) amount they exaggerated warming (versus actual observed temperatures) was MORE THAN 100%.

And if you think that is somehow an anomaly, I assure you it isn't. The climate hasn't "warmed" in at least 16 years. AGW-proponent climate scientists publicly admit that they have no idea why.The reason is simple: their theory is fundamentally flawed.

The fact is, the theory of Catastrophic Greenhouse Gas Warming is just plain weak "science", and always has been. There is an awful lot of counter-evidence that you just haven't heard about because you have to actually look for it. It isn't spoon-fed to you by the government or the news.

Not to mention the truckloads of evidence that have continued to build concerning the compromised integrity of data, and its irresponsible handling by said climate scientists.

Add to that the publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim.

And if you think "there has been no serious dispute" of these CO2-based warming claims, as many climate scientists and their supporters have tried to claim, you would be mistaken. That is a list of just some of the peer-reviewed papers that disagree.

There are mountains of such information out there, if you just but look. Do yourself and everyone else a favor, and be more skeptical.

"I never know if you are lying or just confused. But what you say is not correct. Neither that there is any dispute, nor that you've ever pointed me to any page that says otherwise.

Confused or lying? Lying or confused? All in a single post."

Okay. On the outrageously infinitesimal probability that you have argued with me so frequently but missed the hundreds of links I have posted, here are just a few of them. First, about the physics. (If you are unfamiliar with how this relates to AGW, I suggest you look up some of the discussions of the physics of CO2-based AGW according to climate scientists, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law.)

No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still.

Then, let's see... there are so many to choose from. I have 120 bookmarks of these from just the last couple of years... most of which I've linked to here. And more written down from years prior. Hey, here's one. About that "97% consensus". (Note here: this information did not come from Christopher Monckton, but he did write about it. The same points are available in more painstaking detail elsewhere. I linked to this same information from a different source a few days ago. The point being: don't try shooting the messenger. I'll just laugh at you. If you can refute the message, go ahead.)

"That's a 0.3% consensus, not 97%"

Because, you see, according to an actual survey of AMS members, it turns out that their opinion of AGW is actually based more on their "perception of consensus" (rather than science) and their "political ideology" (rather than science). Wow. I would never would have guessed that latter. Just kidding. I most certainly would have. But isn't that what you accused ME of? What a coincidence!

If you don't like reading about it on WUWT, here is a link so you can download the paper directly from the American Meteorological Society's own website.

How about some information regarding the actual CO2-based-warming climate models?

Hmm. How about: how IPCC has deliberately mislead the public.

And more of that: "IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted..."

Yet another reason bogus claims about expensive storms have been bogus...

How 114 out of 117 climate models studied exaggerated warming by a mean of over 100% (pdf). That one is from Nature.

No dispute? Hahahaha.

Wait... this wouldn't be complete (it isn't anyway, not by a long shot) without just a hint of the boatload of evidence that Steve Goddard has been compiling about dishonest temperature information being fed to us by our erstwhile "authorities" on the matter.

Well, hell. I could do this all day. So here's a list of more references you can read for yourself, all peer-reviewed. I'm not going to count them.