Slashdot Mirror
New Research Forecasts Global 6C Increase By End of Century
jamie writes with this snippet from the UK's Independent:
"The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday. ... [The study] found that there has been a 29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008, the last year for which figures are available. On average, the researchers found, there was an annual increase in emissions of just over 3 per cent during the period, compared with an annual increase of 1 per cent between 1990 and 2000. Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000 and resulted from the boom in the Chinese economy. The researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession, but further increases from 2010."
Sir... pssst...
Just to make it more obvious i was only kidding, the article is in Celsius ;)
"Is there some reason you picked the Channel TLT data and not the, say, Channel TLS data which reports a negative 0.325 K/decade? "
Actually the greenhouse gas theory does indicate a higher insulation value of the atmosphere, which logically means cooler temperatures at higher altitudes.
What about all this emissions stuff they've been strapping to my engine?
Won't help much if the Chinese make 10 cars for every car we make "green".
There was an article on here (or digg?) which showed photographs of the incredible water and air pollution in China. It looked worse than a third world country. I can believe they are responsible for most of the CO2 increase.
Except the climatologist doesn't know how much heat is being added to the pot, what the composition of the fluid is within the pot, or even how much fluid is there... and still claims to make precise predictions based upon the imprecise data.
Or, more correctly, makes predictions like, "If nothing changes...." when, in fact, things are always changing. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased plant growth, which decreases atmospheric CO2. Solar radiation changes in intensity. Changes in temp and amount of foliage change the level of water vapor in the atmosphere, changing the planet's reflectivity.
Tying a prediction like this to "just" an observed short-term increase in CO2 emissions (which, by the way, isn't a 29% increase in the amount of CO2, but the amount being emitted... without taking into account the amount being absorbed by other players in the ecosystem) ignores 99% of the data.
The problem with China is that it's a country that is run like a corporation, with the party officials the management (and the executives), the citizens the employees, and the corporations both domestic and foreign as shareholders. And like any big corporation, they generally believe they're infallible, too big to fail, always right, etc. Questioning them is like telling your boss that you know more about how to do his job that he does. Imprisonment is akin to being transferred to a dead-end position in a department nobody knows or cares about, and terminations are rather quite literal.
So for China to be the one major polluter, sure, look in their general direction, but don't expect to change their minds anytime soon, since they're not beholden to you, or anybody for that matter, except their profit margins and their shareholders.
As for us, or more specifically the United States, it isn't as much "blaming ourselves for this mess" even if we're largely responsible for creating the initial conditions that snowballed into the present mess, as it is a form of preventative maintenance to try to stem the flow even as China fucks it up for everybody, and we can't really do anything about it because China has our governments by the balls and isn't planning on letting go anytime soon.
"There is much pleasure to be gained from useless knowledge." - Bertrand Russell.
So, how can we solve it?
The 2'nd above requires that it be a percentage based on how much CO2 is from your area based on sat measurements ( and skip the garbage about population; that is about spreading responsibility; it will not happen). In addition, it has to be known that the base amount will grow. BUT, by allowing other nations to clean up their act, they can lower the amount that they pay.
This is probably the ONLY fix for all this. WHy? Because it prevents politicians from cheating. It keeps pols from claiming that another nation is emitting more, and they will. The reason is that this is measurable by sats, it can be easily seen by all.
In addition, it takes into account ALL EMISSIONS. Want to lower it, but can not cut back on CO2 right now? Plants trees. Route the CO2 from cement and power plants to algae and greenhouses.
Until a nation has the courage to do this, nothing will change. It is only when ALL NATIONS have to partake, will it change things.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yes, and that's 0.06 per year or 0.06/365 per day. Sorry, but your "test" is simply not credible at all. There will always be natural variation on top of everything else.
Dude, that's a stupid argument.
At the end of the day, if you make predictions that can be interpolated, using some linear or non-linear function, you have science. If you cannot, you don't.
So, do you mean to tell me that this 6C cannot be tracked until we magically arrive at 100 years from now? I think unless you give me an F(X) for temperature, you do not have science. You have religion. I'm assuming that the 6C is the basis of some F(X). If it cannot be, then, all you have is religion and 6C is crap.
This is my sig.
You can drive whatever car you like for all I care. But you better compensate the rest of us if you damage our mutual environment.
So, what gives you the right to say that the environment is yours? If you can claim a right to say how it should be disposed, then, I have the same right too.
But...I say the atmosphere is mine, and really, you ought to be mailing me a check for even breathing.
This is my sig.
Yes. Here's what the earth looks like over 65 and 500+ million years. Both graphcs show that we are actually in a COOL period and have been for some time:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Of course the global warming hysterics true tyrannical intentions have been unmasked. Stories like this have zero credibility and do not belong in the politics not science section. How about a story about a space elevator?
an ill wind that blows no good
How fudged are those numbers? The global warming alarmists have had their hand caught in the cookie jar. Until they release all of their data for outside audit by dissenting scientists, their findings are worthless.
You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
Given the happenings of the past couple of days, I think it is pertinent at least at this time for the University of Anglia to release the data that was used in the study and the algorithm used to calculate the 6c/century figures. Let independent scientists verify that the algorithm actually works and does give the purported result.
Or are we still expected to believe the 6c figures because they said so?
Except that everyone acknowledges that there's been no warming since 2000.
I'm sure that 10,000 years ago, the hominids were worrying about the end of the ice age. Consider that most people's sense of "normal" extends from whatever conditions existed when they were 18 years old. Since rap music didn't exist when I was 18, all rap is completely worthless in my mind, and needs to go away for the world to be restored to the conditions when I was 18. Oh, the music those young kids listen to! (excepting of course that people now my age were saying the same thing back then.)
Basically, all this worrying about AGW is simply overwrought Christian guilt. "Oh noes! We've changed the world! We're guilty, God, punish us!" The sensible thing to do is to carry on and keep calm, and address problems as we find them ... just like we've always done. But that would disappoint a lot of people, because it's fun to be in crisis mode.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I have to dismiss out of hand because of the timing. This is political and not scientific. Any press release right before a summit on climate that makes such disastrous claims has to be assumed to be demonstrably false.
No, I mean we need to use averages over some time period. You pretend we don't, so that you can easily 'falsify' predictions using a metric you pulled out of your own arse.
you: 100 years from now, the earth will be 6C warmer
me: linear interpolates to this year.
you: says y=mx+b is not shape of curve.
me: what is shape then?
you (and everyone else): well its some magical thing...
I'm just asking, what's the function of prediction?
This is my sig.
You're quoting GISS data??
The same people who did this?? http://globalwarmingquestions.googlepages.com/giss
Now you can say that that was just a simple error. But what an error it was! And it worked extraordinarily in their favor.
Many other areas of science falsifying data at this level would be ridiculed mercilessly. But when climate scientists make "errors" that heavily bias things in their favors its waved off and we just move along with the next dire announcement of the next set of data.
The political agenda of so many in the AGW debate is so powerful that, yes, I really do believe them capable of lying to support their positions.....
I have a hard time accepting data from 80 years ago from lip blown hand shaped thermometers as equivalent to today's, and with one qualified measuring station per state to today. There is no basis whatsoever for claiming a temperature rise of 1 degree over a time span of a century. And the probable error increases to many degrees from alternative natural indicators of temperature. cooked books.
In short, because 10 years ago was the peak of the 'super El Nino' heat wave event.
This site has a neat analysis by a guy who is a critic of the status quo climate change science. It shows fairly unequivocally that the last 10 years has been fairly steady. Note the typical time scale used by climate scientists for measuring trends is usually 30 years, not 10.
Don't forget to look at the first graph showing the last 150 odd years and the undisputed fact that warming is happening over a long term scale.