Slashdot Mirror

If you don't like NPR, here are some other sources:

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-climate-real.html

http://blog.ucsusa.org/rachel-licker/what-is-the-national-climate-assessment-the-most-comprehensive-report-on-climate-change-in-the-u-s

http://www.themorningsun.com/article/MS/20170822/LOCAL1/170829886

And links to the actual document:

PDF file draft as of June 2017: https://assets.documentcloud.o...

New York Times link to the draft report: https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

National Academy of Sciences Review of the Draft report: https://nas-sites.org/americas...

Easy enough: that's in the report's FAQ: http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/...

"Who is sponsoring this study?

The study is sponsored by the New Venture Fund, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the National Academy of Sciences."

I don't see a lot of evil, conspiring corporations in that list. I also don't see people who want to prove their version, either. I see people and organizations who have a genuine interest in food safety, and who really want to know if GMOs are safe or not. They arrived at a conclusion based on facts, not on desires. And the facts are that current GMOs are safe.

If they didn't arrive at your personally preconceived results, it's probably because your biases came from non-scientific sources. You should closely examine the sources where you get your "news", as they aren't exactly proving themselves trustworthy here.

No, you'll never start listening to mainstream scientists or stop lapping up the garbage fed to you by crackpots. Why pretend otherwise, unless you're the most epic troll in history? I've already shown you this NAS report listing current effects we've seen, but as usual you just plugged your ears and ran back to WUWT.

Whatever we do there are risks, and start yeah, but start what? What if climate change is actually a fairly low risk in the grand scheme of things and meanwhile lack of cheap (coal fired) electricity is holding back Africa, and the underdevelopment of infrastructure, is making one of those global epidemics more likely? Something which could decimate humanity in a few years? Why is climate change touted as THE MOST IMPORTANT issue? When that's just a wild speculation about risk?

Which do you start?

We might, say, start by collecting an international body of experts and ask them to look into the issue. Maybe they could periodically write reports, maybe on the physical science side of the issue, but also on the impacts of the physical changes. Just a weird idea, of course, but if we had started early enough, we might have had a first overview by 1990! And if we don't quite trust those experts, we could e.g. ask some national science academies to evaluate the issue.If they all violently agree, we might start to consider actions.

As for Africa: Sure, Africa has done so well in the age of "burn it like there is no tomorrow", so continuing in the same direction is obviously the right thing to do. Or maybe this is the most cynical propaganda meme I've yet encountered.

If you have actual, direct evidence, why did you not link to THAT, rather than somebody else's claim? [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I linked to reviews of actual, direct evidence by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) in their joint publication (PDF), and another review of evidence by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.

While Jane is reading those reviews, he should also consider addressing this issue with his basic thermodynamics:

Your own insistence that power in = power out (assuming perfect conversion and no entropic losses) belies this argument. You are arguing against yourself and you refuse to see that. If power in = power out (your own stipulation) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

I'm not the only one insisting that power in = power out through any boundary where nothing inside is changing. Once again, that's a fundamental principle called "conservation of energy". Here are some introductions: example (backup), example (backup), example (backup).

As you can tell, conservation of energy is a fundamental physics principle. Assumptions of "perfect conversion and no entropic losses" aren't applicable, and anyone who mistakenly thinks they are should read through those examples to learn about conservation of energy.

If power in = power out (your own stipulation), and the only NET power INTO a defined spherical region is electrical, and the only NET power OUT of that region is radiative, then net radiative power out at steady-state must therefore be equal to the net electrical power consumed. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Jane seems to be saying that at steady-state:

net electrical power consumed = net radiative power out

But net radiative power out of a boundary around the source = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in", so the equation Jane just described also says:

net electrical power consumed = "radiative power out" minus "radiative power in"

However, this new equation doesn't match Jane's earlier equation:

My energy conservation equation is this: electrical power in = (epsilon * sigma) * T^4 * area = radiant power out [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-08]

Notice that Jane's earlier equation doesn't describe net radiative power out, which is why it violates conservation of energy. Is Jane retracting his earlier incorrect equation, or does Jane dispute the definition of the word "net"?

I'm getting plain fed up with all these cockamamie "CO2-based disaster" predictions. It's nothing but speculation run amok, and all the more baneful because it's politically- and money-driven. Fact: we have no real, objective evidence that CO2 is going to cause us any real problems. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Really? Then why did over a dozen national science academies say with one voice that "the need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable"?

The scientific evidence has been stacking up against the idea for at least 10 years. It isn't happening, it isn't going to happen. And even if it did, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-12-14]

Even if CO2 causes us real problems, it would probably benefit us more than hurt us? Really? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF).

Here's another 2014 publication by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science.

Those scientific reports don't agree with Jane, nor do statements made by all these large scientific societies.

The problem with this is that climate changes, whether or not humanity is involved. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Once again, I've tried to point out that the scientific community who's warning about human-caused climate change is the same scientific community who discovered and named many of these modes of natural variability.

I've tried to point out that NASA's been measuring the Sun's brightness (etc.) for decades and concluded that natural variation can't explain the warming since 1950.

I've tried to point out that if the natural climate hadn't changed before, that would imply that it hadn't ever changed so we couldn't possibly change it now.

I've tried to point out that 420 million years of natural climate change support the idea that we are changing the climate, precisely because it has varied before.

I've tried to point out that some of the closest natural analogues to modern human-caused climate change, like the PETM and end-Permian, just reinforce my concern about treating the atmosphere like a free sewer.

I've repeatedly failed to communicate, and considering the stakes involved the weight of all these failures is becoming unbearable. I wish I could effectively counter the asymmetric strategies of the merchants of doubt.

The article you linked is now 5 years old, the cited studies even older, and I've been told by meteorologists that work for NOAA that some of these are tending in the opposite direction now. [Anonymous Coward, 2014-12-11]

Oh, some anonymous NOAA meteorologists told an anonymous coward that "some of those are tending in the opposite direction now"? Even if we humor this vague unverifiable anecdote, how could we figure out if it paints the whole picture accurately?

One way would be to skip the anonymous anecdotes, and see what NOAA actually says. NOAA runs www.climate.gov which has a number of educational resources for topics like the greenhouse effect and causes of climate change. Anyone who learns science from these NOAA resources will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible. And, of course, dozens of large scientific societies agree. That seems like a more accurate way of painting the whole picture.

But what about even more recent publications? In 2014, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society (U.K.) wrote a joint publication (PDF). Anyone who learns science from this NAS/Royal Society publication will understand that the globe is warming, and humans are primarily responsible.

You can appear to “prove” almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-05-12]

I know my argument is anecdotal vs. Yours which has very nicely laid out citations, but my overall point is simply this: you can get these studies to show just about anything you want if you work the numbe

You mean like the overall long-term increase in Antarctic ice mass, despite breakups in the Western sheet?

False. Antarctic land ice mass is decreasing, and reliable estimates of Antarctic sea ice volume (or mass) aren't available.

Even if you meant to refer to Antarctic sea ice extent (not mass), you already ignored me when I told you that this is consistent with Manabe et al. 1991 page 811: " sea surface temperature hardly changes and sea ice slightly increases near the Antarctic Continent in response to the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

But maybe you'll listen to the National Academy of Sciences, if you honestly don't think the National Academy of Sciences is "alarmist". Again, their recent report is educational. They address Antarctic sea ice in question 12.

The gradual, long-term non-warming that has occurred over the last 15-17 years, depending on who you ask?

Jane and Lonny Eacus have repeatedly ignored me whenever I've told you that there's been no statistically significant change in the surface warming rate. But if you honestly doesn't think the NAS is alarmist, you might learn something from their answers to questions 9 and 10. This point is particularly relevant: "More than 90% of the heat added to Earth is absorbed by the oceans and penetrates only slowly into deep water. A faster rate of heat penetration into the deeper ocean will slow the warming seen at the surface and in the atmosphere, but by itself will not change the long-term warming that will occur from a given amount of CO2."

I agree: science is a wonderful thing. You can appear to "prove" almost anything you want if you restrict your study to relatively isolated phenomena, and ignore the bigger picture.

No, that's not science the way it's practiced by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the American Geophysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Physical Society, the American Meteorological Society, the American Statistical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American Scientists, the American Quaternary Association, the American Society of Agronomy, the

No, my links show that scientists understand the difference between correlation and causation. Here's another document by the National Academy of Sciences which may interest anyone who actually wants to understand the science. See page 5.

It's here in laymen's terms from the National Academy of Science: http://nas-sites.org/americasc...

1) Who needs a computer model when you can see the polar ice melting. Yes, its really melting - go see it for yourself it you don't believe it. Strike up a friendship with somebody in Iceland if you disagree and ask them what they are seeing.
2) Who cares, the house is on fire. Let's not waste time arguing about how it got started.
3) We only have one earth so there will be no control group or second chance. You don't need to be a medical doctor to know that a self inflicted gunshot wound is a bad idea. You don't need to be a climate scientist to see that the global climate is changing and that the logical explanation is mankind's burning of fossil fuel. The time for skepticism has passed.
4) The data has been readily available and its being ignored. Our innocent descendants need to be protected from the selfishness of our generation and the previous two or three. Even if global warming is a hoax, is it fair that our generation uses more than its fair share of the planet's resources so a few super rich multinational corporations can get super richer?
5-9) See #2

The vast majority of free thinkers who have reviewed the data agree that man is having an unprecedented impact on the atmosphere and the ocean. For better or worse we are reshaping the climate and there will winners and losers. The losers are innocent people and wildlife who cannot adapt to the changes and our descendants left with a planet stripped of its resources.

If we want to be selfish and immoral - fine - let's just don't be a hypocrites about it. As we all pump gas into our cars and adjust our thermostats we should recognize there are consequences of our actions.