Slashdot Mirror
World Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Outpace Worst-Case Scenario
Layzej writes "The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record in 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated. A chart accompanying the study shows the breakdown by country. The new figures mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago. It is a 'monster' increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past. The question now among scientists is whether the future is the IPCC's worst case scenario or something more extreme."
Thank goodness that "global warming" is bullshit.
Hansen predicted doom unless we cut back on CO2 years ago:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/1988_hansen20.gif
What happened? No significant cuts yet 20 years later we are still well under his best case models.
Do they really know what is going on? Shouldn't models somewhat capture trends of the data?
No more 3 hour drives to the coast! I'll be enjoying my beachfront property and palm trees right here at home before too long!
It takes a while for climates to change
But here is another factor/point that I believe gets lost in translation.
People actually have health problems and lung issues which can be directly linked to pollution.
Why dont they mention that as well?
The cost to treating a child with lung illness greatly increases the cost on society at the luxury of the polluting business. Why is this not a conclusion that people do not see or do not report about?
It is not isolated, it is everywhere. Just seems odd.
You know, something seems wrong if the worst case scenario is is this greatly surpassed. Four years ago? It looks like all the countries are at the same rate of increase as they were back then (for the most part) if you go by that Reuter's chart. I'm reading this wrong somehow, right? Status quo increase can't be worse than the "worst case scenario"?
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
More food for plants right?
Yeah, are you a vegetable?
In short, the scenario outlined by Ben Bova's near-future Grand Tour series of books.
Think of a pile of thermite, and how it's basically harmless even when red hot... until some part finally gets past the tipping point, and suddenly you've got a river of artificial lava sputtering out drops of molten iron. An example scenario would be the "sudden" shutdown of the Atlantic part of the oceanic conveyor current. In the longer term, ongoing ocean acidification will kick the bottom out from under the entire oceanic food chain.
I hope you've found the act of shitting in the same place you sleep profitable, humans.
The models indicate there is supposed to be a lag. But so far for previous rises the heat did show up.
Last summer some dolt tried to convince me it was 40C outside. I pointed to my drink, which was sitting on the table at a lovely 4C, as evidence it couldn't be that warm, or my drink would be warm too. He got all huffy and mumbled about ice-cubes moderating the temperature, but it was obvious he was just making that shit up.
I finished my drink 5 minutes later, and it was cool and refreshing to the last drop.
I can't tell if you're trolling, or if you're actually that fucking ignorant.
Likewise, climate models are designed to simulate the physicsof the global ecosystem, and not just perform statistical regressions.
Perhaps next time you might consider having the slightest fucking clue of what you're talking about before joining a discussion with adults?
No comment.
> CO2 outpaces worst-case scenarios yet the heat doesn't show up.
Heat lags CO2. Just like the middle of winter is not Dec 21 and the middle of summer is not June 21.
The earth is warming up a little more each year. Please learn a little before making wrong headed statements.
Adding heat to the oceans takes a long time. Think boiling water. Adding 1 or 2 degrees to the entire oceans takes an awful lot of energy accumulation. The heat we have added so far has just started to turn over the ocean currents.
I'm leaving ...
Actually that's not necessarily true. I don't know whether you remember your introductory differential equations class where you did basic modeling, but essentially a model starts with a few observations being converted into hypothesis. Not all facits of a model are explicitly known prior to generating the result data.
"The people creating those models can be biased in their beliefs and in analysis of the data the models are based on."
It's biased by things like the heat capacity of the ocean, for example.
"The models don't indicate that there is supposed to be lag, the models were /programmed/ to /assume/ that there will be lag, that's how computer models work."
The models are not arbitrary statistical models, they are models of known physics and observed facts of the world.
You know, perhaps the only thing to do is just start a anti-idiot revolution. We could get a pack of nerds together and start executing anyone who couldn't explain that correlation != causality or find the roots of a quadratic equation. The best part is nobody would try to stop us, because who would willing join a mob of 'idiots' to put down the packs of wheezy db programmers intent on idioticide...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Actually we have seen a sharp increase in temperature globally. global running 5 year ave.
If I were taking him seriously, I would have asked if he could photosynthesize. Increased atmospheric CO2 is a little more complex than just making the grass greener. The one that bugs me more than most is increased ocean acidity, kill the corals, and possibly increase sinkhole formation activity - living in Florida is bad enough now with the idiots pumping water for strawberries so hard that they put holes all over the place, including in roads (I-4 had a big one), under houses, etc. But, more sinkholes would fall into the known unknown category, along with heat trapping, etc. The really scary ones are the unknown unknowns.
Umm, no. CO2 is harmful before 5,000PPM. By the time it reaches 50,000PPM it's beyond harmful and downright lethal.
Of course this is only talking about the direct affect of respiration of high CO2 concentrations, a far fetched danger that no one has ever used as an argument to reduce CO2 emissions.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Currently 1998 is the hottest year on record. Two combined land and sea surface temperature records from Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the US National Climatic Data Centre (NCDC) both calculate that the first six months of 2010 were the hottest on record. According to GISS, four of the six months also individually showed record highs.
At the time the article was written, the first six months of 2010 were hotter than the corresponding months in 1998. Unfortunately that trend continued, and this year NOAA announced that 2010 had tied with 2005 for the hottest year on record. (2005 was hotter than 1998; the guardian got that fact wrong).
Source: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html
It looks like you're in a discussion related to the climate. Would you like help?
No comment.
Here's actual data for CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
There is a finite amount of fossile fuels underground, the worst case scenario is that we develop a way to extract and burn most of it, wich would raise global temperatures by about 6 degrees, regardless of speed.
So...
Why is this year and last year a cool year, and the last 10 years showing a cooling trend according to BEST?
Skeptics welcome scientific evidence. It is the obstructionist pseudoskeptics (deniers) that will never be convinced until their ulterior motive is fulfilled.
Still won't shut up skeptics.
Yes, you'd love to silence all debate, wouldn't you?
Real science welcomes skeptics, thanks for letting us know you'd rather side with a cult that brooks no disbelief, just waiting for the noodly tentacles of the Great Warming Spaghetti Monster to wrap us all in a suffocating layer of warmth.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is that scientists, on average, are not crazed alarmists. They work in a field full of cut-throat peer review where the one who truly, verifiably disproves the most long-standing stuff gets the recognition and the spoils. Their language is conservative, a wide range of speculation must be admitted for consideration but they're going to err on the side of caution.
There's nothing in nature short of a major mass extinction event to match what we're creating. I can't fathom why anyone's having kids. The kids we have already are truly screwed.
It is a 'monster' increase that is unheard of
Which monster increases have you heard of?
Advice: on VPS providers
Hypocapnia is when you don't have enough CO2 in your blood.
I have a bookmark for a .co.uk medical gas supplier on another computer. They have PDFs of their products' Material Safety Data Sheets. As I recally, they have Oxygen, Oxygen +5% CO2, Plain Air + 5% CO2, straight CO2 (for anesthesia), etc.
But I did find a printout of this page: Hyperoxia-Induced Hypocapnia. The practical implication of this piece is that every old person who has been prescribed oxygen by their doctor is also being poisoned. This creates more things to treat, so it's good for the medical system, but not so good for the patient.
If you're going to be on oxygen, 5% CO2 should always be blended in...
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
They were all talking about differential equations, just some of you don't know it. Global circulation models are a collection of coupled atmosphere, ocean, etc models. Each of these models contain a core set of differential equations, which are either discretized to be integrated forward in time in physical space, or decomposed into spectral space, which has certain benefits for non-linear terms in the Navier-Stokes equation. There are a number of parameterizations to handle sub grid-scale processes so their effects taken into account at the resolved grid scale*. In essence you have a bunch of differential equations and a closure to give yourself a closed system for each component of the GCM, which you then use to force other components, and you integrate it all forward in time.
And the gp was right about observations. If you recall your ODE/PDE class, you'll be interested to know this is a boundary-value problem and you need to specify initial and boundary conditions. Initial conditions are your observations, or whatever your assumptions about the current state are. Often the GCM models are initialized in the year 1800 or 1900, giving them 100+ years of simulation time to equilibrate and match known observations before they are really forecasting the future. As for boundary conditions, the model is global, so the boundaries wrap around and you dont need to worry about them.
* An example of this is convection. When moist air rises and condensation occurs (to form cloud drops, rain, ice, etc), energy is released into the surrounding system (enthalpy of vaporization, deposition, fusion, etc). This translates into warming of the surrounding air, and helps drive convection and represents a transport of warming from the surface to the middle and upper atmosphere. The condensation process happens on a much smaller scale than a GCM can resolve, so the equations being integrated cannot represent this process. The process does however have an effect on temperature at the resolved scale. To handle this, parameterizations are employed that make certain assumptions about these processes and then make adjustments to the resolved scale. It would be better to just resolve these effects directly, but when you try to work at the molecular scale globally, realtime moves faster than the model does.
Appeal to authority works in the other direction too, you know. Especially when the source in question was just reporting on the release as published by NASA.
Yeah, whatever. NASA's just part of the leftist lamestream media, amirite?
No comment.
What's really sad is that if the IPCC groups tried to put in a REAL worst case scenario the politicians would have a hissy-fit. From what I have heard from colleagues in the field of climate modeling, the IPCC had to work hard to get a consensus on what would be deemed a politically-acceptable worst case scenario. I look at the official "worst case" setups and assume that they represent our realistic best hope.
The Canadian numbers don't look too bad, despite the bleating about the oilsands.
That, of course, is what I care about the most: whether we're doing our part as a nation. Not much we can do about the rest of the world, especially China and the US.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
> The models don't indicate that there is supposed to be lag, the models were /programmed/ to /assume/ that there will be lag
What the models are programmed with are basic PDE's describing what we know about fluid motion, thermodynamics, mass continuity, etc. In this case there will also be code modeling the known interactions of the CO2 molecule with solar and terrestrial radiation. What the programmers are assuming (not programmers really, but the guys running the model) is how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere. The model equations will handle how a number concentration of CO2 ends up being a warming (radiative transfer would be a good class to have had for this), and the rest of your equation set will move that warming around the system.
You should download some model code (lots of it is open source!) and look at it sometime. Convince yourself its just an iterative march to grind on some PDE's and not a collection of "if CO2, wait 2 years, then T+=4K" type things.
Global warming does NOT DIRECTLY EQUAL TO IMMEDIATE INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE. Here is basically why, in a overly simplified and mostly incorrect example. The weather. ocean, biological cycles, etc. are heat engine processes. What happens when you press on the gas in your car? Does it get significantly hotter? No. It just goes faster (unless you have a pos). Ya, it does get a bit hotter but no where near equal to the added energy. True, to have a heat engine you need a differential, which we have, the mass of the crust/ocean/atmosphere itself is a heat sink. Eventually, unlike you car, the average temperature will increase but it will do it very very slowly. For example, if you reduced the cooling to a thermal engine (car depends on intake temperature) the average engine temp would increase and the output would decrease as the system stabilizes at a higher temperature. Our climate will end up doing the same thing and calm back down (sorta), However, in the meantime you can expect bigger storms, more hurricanes, chaotic weather patterns, and generally bigger, stronger, faster weather. A better term is not Global Warming, but Global Climate Change. Forget the concept that its going to get warmer, NONE OF YOU WILL LIVE TO SEE THAT. However, you WILL get to see bigger thunderstorms. And I gotta admit, I do love me a good T-storm.
Medical Gas Data Sheets (MGDS) has links to them all.
Both the Air + 5% CO2 and Oxygen +5% CO2 sheets say that breathing this gas "increases the rate and depth of breathing".
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Over 50 years on the x axis and the minimum values have not been below the previous maximums since 1990.
Just because 1 degree doesn't sound like much to you doesn't mean it isn't significant to weather patterns.
That graph can be taken out a lot further into the past if you include the geological record into it, and the uptick looks much more significant when you see how steady the temperature has been for the last 1000 years.
They are chtorrforming our planet to make it more suitable for their form of life!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The problem is that EU wants to do the RIGHT thing, America does not want to get burned, and China wants to trash the west at any and all costs.
If America was smart, we would drop the cap-n-trade and put a tax on ALL GOODS based on where the final assembly and the primary sub component come from. In addition, it would be done as a percentage based on CO2 emissions per sq km. That way, it can be easily checked from the sky via sat. In addition, by doing it this way, it discourages nations from allowing high growth rates, as well as does not punish the vast majority of 3rd world nations.
Best of all, it tells EVERY NATION that they must partake. If they emit a load of CO2 per sq km, then they will have a tax put on their goods. If the lower it, and then later when succesful (see China), then they will have a larger tax put on them. This has a nice feedback to prevent successful nations from skipping the CO2 controls.
In addition, this same approach should be used for pollution controls. One nation in particular emits more than 1/2 of all mercury that man has ever emitted. That has to be stopped.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Look pal, pseudo-skepticism only works if you blindly repeat Heartland Institute talking points. There is absolutely no room for actually knowing a fucking thing about AGW.
Now get back in your Ferrari, you cock-smoking teabagging super-rich scientist with your big house and your ten 18 year old girlfriends and your seven digit bank account, and leave those poor wittle oil companies alone.
Fucking climatological bully.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Troll.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
It is NOT people. It is the economy. If it was ppl then those areas with large amounts of ppl would have some of the highest emissions. That is not the case. It is the developed economies that emit the most.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Just as we know it. But I feel fine.
source:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
What's your source on say there has been no temperature increase in the last 10 years?
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
Check the short post and graphics here (http://www.grinzo.com/energy/2011/11/07/more-on-those-record-carbon-emissions/) including one in the comments.
Bottom line: We're way over our carbon budget and sprinting in the wrong direction. It's the worst possible form of deficit spending, one that our kids, grandkids, etc. will have to deal with for generations to come.
The people who think (due to myopia) that their economic interests will be harmed by anti-warming measures rush to insist the apparent warming may not be man's fault, and as such balk at any attempt to do anything about it. I would like to point something out, and you're all free to repeat this message. Take it and run with it. The right-wingers in this country (US) insistence that we shouldn't be so hasty to stop global warming (fearing it will hurt their portfolios) because it may or may not be our fault are like people clutching fire-extinguishers inside a burning building, claiming that until it can be proven beyond all doubt that the fire in the building is NOT due to natural causes, they are not going to let anyone force them to incur the expense of recharging or replacing the fire extinguishers by USING THEM TO PUT THE FIRE OUT. A really moronic position to hold, when you think about it. WHO CARES WHO STARTED THE DAMNED FIRE?!? LET'S PUT IT OUT BEFORE THE BUILDING GOES UP AND WE GO UP WITH IT!!!
*(You may feel free to use a boat with no life-rafts, etc., in shark-infested waters as a metaphor instead of a building... just as bad, but with even less of anywhere to go once you have no more boat... a good analogy for our planet.)
I'd like to add that if you don't all want to have to switch to Soylent Green, you might want to give a bit more thought to the environment. Most people don't realize we are not APPROACHING the carrying capacity of this planet, we have been, by definition, living AT the carrying capacity since times immemorial. As our population increases, we either edge out competing consumers (other animals, etc.,) or we adjust the carrying capacity by finding new ways to farm, however... the limit, (in the policy sense and in the geophysical sense,) of how many mouths can be fed is based on the rule of 10 (or 100 if you like meat) and the number of watts of light the sun sheds upon the Earth. We exceed that, get ready for some yummy Soylent Green! Either that, or watch ever increasing numbers of people starve... watch biodiversity plummet and all THAT entails, (think domino effect or chain-reaction crash) and if you think people are ready at the drop of a hat to fight to the death over their disagreeing with each other over what name to call their 'god'(s) or how many times a day to praise him/her/it/them, just wait until there is less food available than needed to give every person (on average) his/her daily needs even in the so-called 1st world countries... then you'll see some REAL fighting. People fight easily over trivialities like their made-up gods, but when you're holding a piece of chicken, and chickens are near extinction... they'll kill you, eat the chicken, THEN YOU.
We really must tend our garden, as they say. We're precariously perched in a place where we have enough food, plus surplus, but what happens if we have a few years really bad weather, or a tanker truck spills something contaminating an aquifer, in turn contaminating hundreds or thousands of miles of farmland, destroying the crops growing there.
Anyway, have fun.
When I was a kid in the mid 80s, the predictions were for 5+C by 2010. The current increase isn't even 1C. And you cannot "take the graph" to the past, because we don't have the science to build a graph with sufficient resolution and precision.
One small post for martian, one big win for sarcasm. This made my day!
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
I've been thinking. I haven't done any math yet. Hurricanes move a lot of heat. Could atmospheric vortex engines (maybe with some kind of enhancement to help more moisture go up) placed in the oceans, maybe at the gyres, move enough energy to help cool the earth while increasing the droplets of water in the atmosphere to help with cooling? Maybe the water would move enough to allow cheap filtering of the micro plastics.
The influence of the US is bound to the strength of its economy, the strength of its economy is bound (currently) to its use of fossil fuels. So if the US acts preemptively, it loses its power to influence others to do the same, it drives up costs for itself while driving down fossil fuel costs for others, so their economy and thus influence increases. Yet, if (in the terms of A Beautiful Mind) "If everybody goes for the blond, nobody gets laid", which is to say if consumption can't be curbed, everybody is doomed.
But the problem, when you said: "tells EVERY NATION that they must partake" You have to ask "who does that?" The bottom line is the US doesn't have an enforcement capability in China, Russia or the rest. They are sovereign nations. In fact there is no world power which can make FORCE every country to do things, especially when their is so much benefit in them defecting.
So the politics actually look incredibly grim. The best hope here is something that can fundamentally alter the equation above, so that there is positive rewards for nations going green. That something would necessarily come from the best and brightest of science and business. An example would be an efficient fossil fuel combustion process that turns an engine while sequestering carbon into a valuable industrial product like carbon fiber... Something like that is more profitable to use than not use, making the transition natural.
I guess my point is, I think its a really good time for techies to start thinking way outside the box on this problem...
-The art of programming is the pursuit of absolute simplicity.
...by about 1.3% due to the recession. Over the last 3 years, they increased on average 2.2% per year, which is a bit less than both the average in recent times and the IPCC prediction. So all this really says is that in terms of how much stuff we burn, the world has mostly "recovered" from the recession. 6% is a big increase for one year, but it's an increase from a point below the trend. And climate trends are meant to be measured over decades, not years.
Of course any increase is large compared to what should be happening...
Did you just cite one person's 23-year-old model as proof that current climate science and measurements are suspect?
Please help metamoderate.
As for boundary conditions, the model is global, so the boundaries wrap around and you dont need to worry about them.
I don't believe that is correct. Say you are working with a two dimensional x-y plane, like a circular drum head. If the edges of the drum head are kept at 0, then you have a 'wraparound' boundary condition that you can represent in the polar plane as a regular linear boundary condition from -pi to pi on 0 to the radius (visualized as rectangular boundary conditions on the theta vs. r plot). In this situation your boundary is a closed, bounded surface without interruption, and yet it can still be modeled with separable boundary conditions and then solved using separation of variables to the laplacian operating on the circular plane.
If you jump up to higher dimensions, the same logic still applies. You still have to worry about the spherical boundary conditions, they don't just disappear. Removing the boundary conditions would alter the solution technique and the family of equations that satisfy the partial differential equation your using in your model. BCs are everything.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
I have realized that any article predicting doom and destruction gets a lot of attention. Be it financial, climate, health, diet or otherwise.
Just a data point, unrelated to the accuracy of any particular article.
There is little point arguing with AGW deniers, the science is in, refusing to believe it at this point is a matter of not wanting to feel guilty about personal consumption and/or about sticking it to the 'libs'. It is impossible to reason someone out of a position which the did not use reason to get themselves to.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Its blood cold!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Australia just passed "cap and trade" here comes the money.
I can say that on Slashdot can't I? I mean I may (will?) be modded down because of my content but swearing isn't automatically penalized right?
Anyway, years ago my brother gave me Michael Chrichton's anti-global warming book to show me what HE (and my brother) thought about global warming. I didn't get into a big argument because I (unfortunately) knew that the effects would be visible in our lifetime. And if I was wrong, I'd be more than happy to buy a new SUX 6000 with 9mpg (except that would mean I'm buying oil from countries that finance terrorism and hate our guts; but that's another story).
So now it appears as if we really are headed to disaster; if global warming was a myth then how come the projections keep getting WORSE not better? If it was all a short term blip or fabrication we should be seeing things going back to normal shouldn't we?
Of course not, because man-made global warming is real. So i expect the Republicans amongst us will change:
Global Warming isn't real - TO - Man Made Global Warming isn't real. -THEN - There isn't anything we can do about it anyway
which will go along with:
Evolution is just a theory (against 95% of biologists) - AND - The constitution really doesnt state the separation of Church and Govt. (against 99% of historians) - TO - Stimulus spending doesn't boost the GDP (against 85% of economists.)*
When did the Republican party become the party of ignorance? Why do people like Rupert Murdoch keep at it even when someone like Steve Jobs (I know, I know) warns him to be mindful of his legacy? I mean when future generations look back upon what this group of people did to our country and planet, you've got to wonder what they're going to write in the history books. Do they not care?
So yes, we are so fucked
*By the way, do Republicans believe that vaccines cause autism?
Your counter-argument lacks any argument.
There's little point arguing a topic with someone who's tribal identity relies on shared ignorance of that topic.
Religion and climate change denial are identical in this regard.
Of course, since 1998 was the hottest year on record,
Try to keep up with the rest of us here. The data keeps coming in, you might want to include it in your deliberations.
It might even change your mind.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Modern atmosphere-ocean coupled models don't assume anything like that. The lag is part of the interaction between the atmosphere and oceans as the oceans are the source of nearly all of the lag.
You are correct that i am simplifying the matter. In truth, the east/west boundaries would be considered periodic, so that essentially the grid points on opposite edges of the domain are actually the same point. The north/south boundary gets interesting :). For spectral models, which require periodicity in the wave solution, the 'wraparound' zonally provides this, guaranteeing periodicity around a latitude circle. My personal modeling experience is cloud scale and regional modeling (CM1 and WRF, primarily), so I dont deal with global grids in physical or spectral space, or climate models for that matter.
Also there is still a need for upper and lower BC's, which in a very simple model might employ a no slip condition on the bottom and a radiative boundary at the top with a sponge layer to minimize energy reflecting off the top. Tthe lower boundaries will also have forcings from ocean and vegetation models/parameterizations (for moisture fluxes, sensible heat fluxes, roughness lengths, albedo, etc).
I don't know where your 5 C by 2010 came from in the mid 1980's but it certainly wasn't from climate scientists at the time.
And the simplifications definitely do make sense. With mesoscale there is just no way to solve the PDEs, even computationally, accounting for every single BC (especially if the BCs are variably periodic). In the end it seems the systems are chaotic once you extend the time-lines long out far enough. Plus Navier-Stokes is a bitch once you start dealing with that kind of fluid-flow on the global scale. (it becoming 3+ dimensional non-linear problem with non-homogenous BCs IIRC).
:) and not just what us theorist can conjure up :P
Not to mention things like tidal forces changing the dimensions of the earth, with the surface bulges changing the average sea-level pressure and temperature gradients as the equinoxes come and go, this-in-itself alters the local wind patterns in a non-negligible way such that the global system is even more chaotic due to the periodic tidal bulge from lunar orbital locking.
I spend most my time in Hilbert space and manifolds, but modelling is a fantastic area to work in (since you modelers actually have tangible data to work with usually
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
To be fair 1998 is still the hottest year on record in the Hadley/CRU record. It makes sense that a British publication would use that. Of course the CRU record is from the group that the vilified Phil Jones heads up so I don't know how much anyone wants to trust it but then again of the major temperature record groups the CRU shows the least warming. What is a "skeptic" to do?
I suspect you're a troll, but some idiots will end up agreeing with you if they ever read your post, so we'll just refute the idiocy right now.
"Volcanoes release more than humans" = wrong. Volcanic activity releases on average 65-319 mln tonnes/year, fossil fuels release 29 bln tonnes/year (EIA 2007).
"Humans breathe more".. well there's a ton of sites just doing the simple math, but in my lazy search I found this. It indicates human emissions via respiratory system is 1-2 bln tonnes/year. 2 / 29 = ~7% of all fossil fuel burned, so that is also not correct.
Honestly, I don't really feel like continuing anymore than this. I really hope you were a troll, and that you don't procreate.
You have the arrogance to think you even remotely know what you're talking about and have the right to be able to call b*llsh*t.
After you've published your first paper in a climate-science related discipline I'll reconsider my opinion, you insufferably pretentious poser.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
1998 is the hottest year in the CRU record. Both the GISS and NOAA records have 2010 and 2005 tied for the hottest year. Of course the CRU group is headed up by Phil Jones so how can you trust it?
A recent paper by Ben Santer et. al. found it takes at least 17 year of data to be sure the climate signal has overridden the noise of weather so you need to go back to at least1993.
Good observation. Now all you have to do is show scientifically why CO2 can't be a leading indicator as well.
Just something to keep in mind -
We can't measure carbon dioxide output.
We can measure carbon dioxide levels, in the atmosphere. We cannot measure how much carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere, or being extracted from it.
These numbers are estimates, based on thousands of different point measurements, processed according to whatever number-mangling process that the folks who wrote the report have decided best accumulates the totals.
So in my mind, before anyone even starts to discuss these numbers as if they were real, they should have access to 1. the raw data, and 2., the specific programs used to process the raw data into the reported estimates. And not only for this year, but for the prior years that the report is comparing with.
Absent complete disclosure, this should not be treated as a scientific report.
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
Sorry but that is wrong. From the 2001 AR3 report, specifically WG1 Chapter 9: Projections of Future Climate Change. "The temperature change for the 30-year average 2021 to 2050 compared with 1961 to 1990 is +1.3C with a range of +0.8 to +1.7C...". That is a far cry from 2.5 degrees (C or F?) in 2010-2015.
to tell you you're full of it. None of this global-warming environmentalist crap. USA! USA! USA!
And like I said elsewhere - the supply of fossil fuel is very limited and at our current rate we will run out soon. Very soon in fact. My kids will live to see the end of oil. Coal won't be too far behind once the oil is gone.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Apparently it's also explained in detail in Peter Ward's Under a Green Sky.
In order to increase to 300PPM from the baseline we have had to burn approximately half of all the fossil fuel in the world. How much more fuel do you think there is left? So what if we get to 600PPM (I'll be generous), at one point there will be no more fuel left to burn and we will be cycling CO2 into fuel crops to burn back into CO2. The question is, rather, what will the world look like with 600PPM CO2. As you said, it certainly won't be lethal for us humans.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
And these models are taking into account the solubility of bicarbonate in a slightly warmer ocean and its equilibrium with atmospheric CO2, right? The hotter the water, the less soluble the bicarb. I wonder what happens to it. Oh wait...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Stop farting or stick your head in the sand.
(Ripped off of South Park)
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
In you previous post (assuming you are the same AC) you said the IPCC prediction from 2001. That would be the AR3 report. That's what I referenced and linked to in my reply. The link you provided is for the IPCC AR1 report in 1990. I wouldn't expect to see the same chapter with the same title in two different reports. I looked at the AR1 report you linked and couldn't find anything that said 2.5 degrees in 2010-2015. Would you kindly point out where in there you got your information from? Thanks.
That's just wrong. There was no prediction of even 2.5C by 2100 in 2001.
I said 2 sentences both about stuff most people did in their intro to ODE class. That is where students have traditionally done models for themselves and what you are saying about these models wasn't true even for those simple models.
If the earth starts to warm, for any reason, to the point that it threatens the civilized world, countries will rise up and nuke each other out of frustration, which will cause a nuclear winter. Did I mention that billions will die, too? Problem solved. I'm not kidding.
Indeed, now that oil is running out, the world's developing countries, and later the western countries as well, are turning to coal. And we still have coal for many years to go. The problem with coal is that the amouth of energy you can get from it compared to the amouth of CO_2 is produced, is worse than oil and gas, meaning that to produce the same amouth of energy, more CO_2 will be produced. It would surprise me, if in the near future oil is going to be used to produce oil, an highly inefficient process with respect to CO_2 and energy produced.
The fact is that humankind is simply not smart enough to deal with it own success. The nature of 'aninmal' life is to always use all available resources. Fossile fuels will be burnt up very quickly, and it is doubtfull whether enough (and efficient) alternative energy recources will become available, because if so, they would have been competitive by now. They are not competitive right now because the return on investment (the amouth of energy they produce compared to the amouth of energy that needs to be invested) is still very low. Most solar cells nowadays are like bad battaries: you have to invest a lot of energy to produce and it will take years before they will return that energy, let alone multiply it by a factor of ten. And then those solar cells produce a form of energy that is difficult to store, and often needs to be converted in some other form of energy further reducing its profit. And then the economic crisis that will be caused by the downfall of cheap energy, which is nothing with what we have seen in the past decades, will further stop development of alternatives. It is not unthinkable that many nations will star wars over energy resources the coming century, thus only making things worse.
Until now, oceans have been a net sink of CO2, not a source. The increased concentration in the atmosphere has moved the equilibrium point more than the increased water temperature.
Well considering that some biologists argue that the pH of the oceans was around 7.4 when life began (which is why pretty much every living organism struggles to maintain this pH at least on an intracellular level), we still have a ways to go I'd say.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
CO2, it's what plants crave.
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
Today, Australia's government implemented a "Carbon Tax". Funnily enough, the ultra-right-wing opposition fearmongerers have been explaining the devistation to australia if we implement such a tax. (Coal companies will lose profits! Gasp!)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-08/carbon-tax-passes-senate/3652438/?site=newcastle
The one that carries the Bad Science column about poor experimental design and statistics? If you've found an error, point it out but don't expect anyone to be impressed by name-calling.
When life began, there was also no free oxygen, so I agree we still have a ways to go.
That doesn't make any difference for the CO2/AGW discussion though. Oceans are still taking up about half the CO2 we humans produce. And for the modern era, there's no need to model CO2 concentration, when you can just measure it, and plug it straight into the climate model.
Er, no it doesn't. CO2 lags temperature by 800 years; http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/
That may make a vicious circle. Historically the heat rises from some source (increased solar activity for example) thus the oceans heat up. As the oceans heat up their CO2 absorption rate lowers (thus the CO2 levels rise).
Now we have started by elevating the CO2 levels and, assuming the models are correct in this, thus the temperature will rise. As the temperatures rise the oceans will release CO2. There will be an equilibrium ofcourse, but will we be able to live in it?
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Pumping increasing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is going to do something heinously bad. There's no point trying to convince people the planet is going to overheat.
Just look at China's carbon emissions on the chart and then imagine that happening with every third world country.
Start discussing the situation as "those dirty poor people ruining it for the rest of us" and all the nay sayers will suddenly understand the problem.
Both things happen at the same time.
Wow, crazy, huh ?
This time, however, heat lags CO2, as you can clearly see that CO2 concentrations have increased by huge amounts in an extremely short time. In about a century, we've increased the CO2 from a normal level to a level that the earth hasn't seen in at least half a million years.
"The question now among scientists is whether the future is the IPCC's worst case scenario or something more extreme."
Or neither, but we're not allowed to pose that option, are we?
Here's the graph of the Berkeley data you're talking about:
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/berk4.jpg
Blue line is a linear interpolation of pre-1998 data.
Green line is an extrapolation of that same line.
Red line is interpolation of post-1998 data.
I don't see any evidence the trend has stopped. Do you ?
Because weather is not climate.
"The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/global_warming.png
But why did they draw China and US in the same color? Why?
Yeah, middle of winter is probably earlier than June 21st and middle of summer is definitely after December 21st...
(What? Some of us do live below the equator!)
CO2 outpaces worst-case scenarios yet the heat doesn't show up. :D
This is even more wrong than you describe.
Actually the heat is here
That moron thinks just because we have a new output record we also would already have a doomsday heat record. You are right and the temperature is trailing a bit behind CO2 levels.
I'm not sure but I believe during previous years we actually achieved a global reduction in output: note OUTPUT that is not concentration, that is the increase of the concentration.
The main article is not about growing CO2 concentration (which causes warming) but about the growing output, in other words the increase of CO2 is accelerating, despite the fact that the Kyoto treaty tried to slow the increse down.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Some of us do try, it's mostly America that won't bother and this results in other people only making a half hearted effort. And that is because politics got in the way, I mostly blame al gore for turning it into a polictical war. Australia and Europe are at least trying, China shouldn't have to try hard yet cause they are new
"The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." - Arthur C. Clarke ~1980
We know the problems, we have the solutions. The issue with getting these scientific solutions out there for mass consideration is that the media is mostly owned by the same small group of "1%", the richest among the population that do not represent the rest of us. If solutions are devised, which they have been, and these solutions undermine and replace the cancerous capitalism and market systems, then those upholding the status quo would actively ignore these solutions, and propagate false reports and propaganda to deter people from looking away from the current systems. After all, they own the media, they own the politicians, they can and do whatever they like to THEIR advantage, not ours. The systems in use today were built to benefit the 1% and turn the rest of us into wage and debt slaves. The capitalist system is modern slavery. I urge you, yes you reading this right now, to research fractional reserve banking, watch Zeitgeist Addendum and Zeitgeist Moving Forward free online, and look up The Venus Project and a RESOURCE BASED ECONOMY. www.zeitgeistmovie.com www.thevenusproject.com www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
Would you believe... NOAA?
Wikipedia's list of hottest years is penultimately sourced from the NOAA. 2001-2010 all make that list, with a maximum difference over this span of only 0.13 degrees Celsius (2005 / 2008 are listed as hottest and coolest, respectively). In order for this to be "increasing", your measuring equipment must have a error rate below 0.13 degree Celsius. A search on their page finds that the NOAA's official equipment manuals gives an optimum [minimum] error range of 0.166 degrees Celsius [listed as 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit]. I don't challenge their numbers, but their accuracy figures says the last decade has seen — within the accuracy of the measuring equipment — no change in average temperature.
Do you like Japanese imports?
Another way of saying what you just said is "global temperatures are NOT increasing by huge amounts in an extremely short time, DESPITE
CO2 levels increasing in an extremely short time".
Also, could it be that, if CO2 levels lag behind temperatures by approximately 800 years, then perhaps what we are seeing now are CO2 levels increasing due to what temperatures were doing 800 years ago - a period, if I'm not very much mistaken, which we call the Medieval Warm period.
Lastly, I object to your use of the term "normal level". Please specify what a "normal level" of CO2 is for this planet, and why you think this is so.
You are right. I should watch people pretend to have a scientific debate with arguments like "next time you might consider having the slightest fucking clue" (as did the argument I was responding to) and pretend that they deserve some sort of deference. Unfortunately, I am just not that interested in humoring politicos pretending to be scientists in order to borrow the clout of trust that scientists have.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Global temperatures are increasing by fairly big amounts in a short time.
No, apparently you have never looked closely at CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Here is a picture of the last half million years:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Note how the recent increase is much higher than before, and also goes almost vertical. Increases due to glacial cycles were much slower.
Also, even if there was an 800 year lag, it doesn't work that way. You cannot warm up the earth, cool it down again, and then see nothing happen until exactly 800 years later. And, of course, the MWP was nothing spectacular anyway. Compared to the glacial cycles, the MWP temperature swings were tiny, so the CO2 response should be tiny too.
And "normal" is just the long term average. Say between 200-300 ppm. You can see from the graph that's about the range that the earth has moved between in the last half million years. Based on the sharp increase in the graph, it is obvious were dealing with something unique here.
Several more reasons why this couldn't be true:
a) Ocean acidity is increasing, which indicated CO2 is absorbed, rather than released.
b) Carbon isotopes of atmospheric CO2 indicate that there has been in increase in very old carbon, which matches the signature of carbon stored in fossil fuels.
c) Oxygen levels in the atmosphere have decreased slightly in the last century, consistent with increase CO2 from burning.
d) If you add up all the carbon from all the fossil fuel we've burned, the number is about twice as big as the increase of carbon in the atmosphere. So, if the atmospheric CO2 is coming from some "natural" source like the oceans, where did all the CO2 from burning fossil fuels go ?
Just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars.
Making more of an effort to produce items more locally is sort of the same as "living closer to where we work", but it has benefits far beyond a shorter commute. Additionally, where most of us live we probably have stricter environmental controls, which would mean that what IS produced is produced more cleanly. This would likely drive up the costs of goods, forcing us to buy fewer items of higher quality and own them longer, which would provide further environmental (and, dare I say, social) benefits. Overall, it seems like a good plan.
www.clarke.ca
" My kids will live to see the end of oil. "
really? So the 120 years worth of oil under the United states that we are not using so that we can use up the other guys resources first will be gone instead in 50 years?
Or are you just being dumb and making a statement based on what your friends tell you instead of actual information.
"end of oil" is more than 1 generation away. with the newer deep drilling tech they are finding more and more large oil fields deep down. I suggest you get more eduction about oil, there is a lot more of it out there than you think, and the higher prices are slowing consumption as dumb people switch from Hummer H1 and H2's to vehicles that get 20-30 mpg. The problem is the poor cant switch, so they continue to drive the klunkers that get 12-16mpg.
if you really wanted to save the planet, you would support a program to give all poor people a 40mpg subcompact car in exchange for their junker.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
What is a "normal" level of CO2 for the planet?
I guess the ostrich feels nice and comfortable with its head in the sand. Maybe I should just leave it there. Or you could look at the world's oil reserves of 1.2 trillion barrels, and divide that number by the nearly 90 million barrels of oil per DAY the world is using, and do the math yourself. Using these figures there's less than 40 years out there. Oh and we haven't talked about economic growth, with countries like China adding the demand of equivalent of Australia every single year. Not to mention that the last drops of oil are going to be a lot harder to get at than today. It's going to be fun going down the curve when every few years there is half as much oil supply available as there is today. But hey if long division makes your head hurt, keep it in the nice warm sand.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I still refuse to enter panic mode, CO2 has been higher before. At some point soon we will run out of fossil fuel and an equilibrium will be reached. Of course it sucks to be a coral reef or any number of other species, but running out of fossil fuel will be much more efficient than any "carbon tax" we could dream up because then we just won't have a choice.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Correct. But the sun was also weaker before, and continents in different places. It also has been hotter, and sea levels have been higher.
Of course, that's all very interesting, but that doesn't take away from the fact that humans are profoundly changing the planet's climate on a large scale.
Agreed. It will be very efficient, and I have no doubt that's exactly what we'll do.
I wonder how much of the surprise extra emissions came from BP's Macondo blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in Summer 2010. The volatiles from the oil and all the gas have partially dissolved in the Gulf, but probably much more eventually evaporated into the air. Where it can all be counted, unlike at the wellhead itself where BP's lawyers, engineers and politicians can hide it.
And not just Macondo. But also all the extra blowouts and other leaks that aren't reported at the wells. How about all the new gas drilling, all the fracking? Natgas adds about 17x the Greenhouse Effect of the equivalent amount of CO2.
The "mysterious" nature of the extra emissions means they're totally uncontrolled. Which means they're part of the energy industry's profit scenario (which has itself outpaced the "best-case scenario"). Which means we're doomed to do even more of it.
Unless we replace these filthy, corrupting petrofuels with geothermal and other sustainable energy production. NOW. Before it's too late, which is now closer than ever.
--
make install -not war
You can, for example, ask Texaco, BP et al how much oil they sell. Unless people are buying it to hoard, that's gonna be turned into CO2.
Ask the coal mining companies how much coal they sell.
Ask the gas companies how much they sell.
Add it all up.
Of course, this is far too much work for you, so you'd rather believe that because you won't (or can't) think how to measure CO2 output that nobody can.
And how much coal is China burning? Indonesia? Nigeria? How accurate are their numbers? Have their been changes in their collecting or reporting methods, over the period studied, that affected their numbers?
How much concrete has been manufactured in the US? In China? In Brazil?
There are thousands of sources, that are reported on in various ways, and other sources that can only be estimated. These numbers need to reconciled, converted into forms that can be added together.
Without the raw numbers, and precise details on how they were reconciled, this isn't science - it's just politics.
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
Yes, China puts out more greenhouse gases, but not on a per-capita basis. We continue to be the gas belchers in that regard.
Real science comes from the love of truth. Loving truth requires asking questions. Asking questions requires not just believing the first set of answers anyone presents. That includes especially the first set of answers you think of yourself. Real science requires that you take the proposed answers, when possible, and test them. Sometimes you can test them directly. Other times the test comes indirectly, when you use them to generate more questions, and find that some of them are testable. That's where we are currently, for example, with string theory. The immediate questions it raises can't be tested. But there are questions which follow from the answers its models suggest which can be.
Climate prediction is something like that. We don't have a lot of spare planets to test the answers on that we've come up with through our questions. The main question is: We know from physics that added carbon concentrations in an atmosphere of a planet circling a hot sun should heat the planet up. Does this answer apply in our circumstance, or do other factors negate the effect? We do need to question this. That's how science proceeds, asking more questions. And then we need to look at candidate answers and, when we cannot answer those directly, use them to generate further questions, in the hope that we can test those.
That's all very proper science. You man call it "skepticism" if you want. What's not proper science is to say, "Oh look, there are more questions we can raise. So let's just ignore the initial question. Because the most likely candidate answer - that the planet will warm - would cause prudent people to revise their business plans. And the set of business plans we have now, we're just not smart enough to come up with anything else."
I'm skeptical about that. Are we really so stupid, in the golden age of capitalism, just two decades after the main competing economic system fell, that our businesses can't flexibly adapt to changing circumstances and novel risks? That's a question that invites answers, which in turn invite further questions. It can itself be addressed scientifically, and "skeptically" if you will. If the people running our business believe that we can't adapt and prosper while facing fresh challenges, I'm skeptical that we have the right people running our businesses. How did we put such unimaginative people in charge? Why are they incapable of facing big questions with innovative answers, in the manner of our best scientists and engineers? What were they taught at those high-priced MBA mills? Obviously not science, nor the productive use of "skeptical" questioning to advance us farther towards both truth and the prosperity which a better grasp of truth can leverage.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I couldn't find the graph I saw, but I was talking about this: http://perceptionasreality.blogspot.com/2011/11/global-warming-debate-muller-vs-curry.html
Yeah, if you shorten that period up to the last 10 years or so, their data shows a flat trend.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The 1990 IPCC reports on climate predicted a 0.3 degree change per decade with increasing emissions. The latest report (2007) predicts a similar trend line (stated as 2-6 degrees per century), so I have to wonder: how long would we need to deviate from these predictions before it becomes significant? 10 years (as we have)? 15? 20? 50?
Do you like Japanese imports?
Found it:
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/global-temps-lg.jpg
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
If you notice the graph, it has some very low outliers near the end. These are based on preliminary data, and have huge error bars. It's best to remove those.
On the site below, you can select your own graphs, and post-processing. I've selected the BEST data from 1950 to 2010, plus trend lines from 1950 to 2001, and a trend line from 2001 to 2010. I've omitted 2011 because of the 2 outliers in the last two months.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1950/to:2010/plot/best/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/best/from:1950/to:2001/trend
As you can see, there's not much difference in trend lines. If you include 2011 as well, the trend changes to mostly flat, but that's because of the still bad quality preliminary data for the last couple of months.
Of course, trends over 10 year are not really meaningful, let alone trends over even shorter period. Really, you should be looking at trends over 20+ years instead.
So, why isn't there a decent trend line drawn into the graph ?
Here's the same data, with trend lines, and some discussion about the error bars and statistical significance:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/
Science is built around dealing with incomplete data. Anyway, you can fairly easily verify the numbers in a little while by comparing them to the latest CO2 measurements in the atmosphere.
Personally, I think this way too. Nature finds a way to return to balance things out. Frankly, another scenario is that the fields shrivel up in the heat and global starvation causes us to start eating each other, or at least, shooting each other for what food remains, and then that drops populations back down to acceptable levels, which drives down industry as well, which reduces emissions.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Let's focus on Germany. They have increased GDP and increased renewable energy (20% of German kWh in the first 6 months of 2011 were non-emitting) while shrinking their CO2 emissions for the past 20 years.
Coal reserves at the current rate of usage a few hundret years, oil perhaps only 20 (yeah then we still have some dirty / expensive reserves left)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Let a equal "the Guardian". Let subject matter S equal "global temperature measurements". Let p equal "2010 was tied for the hottest year on record". From the linked page, with the logic inverted:
Perhaps you'll consider attacking the claim on its own merits next time? As an added bonus, you might even want to follow links and understand their contents before attempting to counter them. Otherwise, you risk looking like a complete tool.
No. I successfully replied to a comment which stated that "CO2 outpace[d] worst-case scenarios yet the heat [didn't] show up." I then demonstrated through multiple non-affiliated sources that such a claim is laughably false, and implied that the claimant has no business participating in a discussion on a topic without extending some bare minimum effort to learn the basic facts at hand.
I know this sort of discussion can be difficult to follow. I'll try to go more slowly in the future so you can keep up.
No comment.
We all share in this catastrophe, but I'm sure many people will find a way to blame it on Republicans/Christians/Creationists/Big Oil/etc. Looking over this thread I see that's already happened somehow.
/Bicycle user here.
//Would use a car if mine ever worked...
But why worry about it. It's getting hot outside; I can't do a thing to stop it, neither can you... so Ima just do whatever I must do to be part of this modern world. If you say it's my fault, then please, show me how we can stop it, and stfu with all the blame. Otherwise, get on with your life and let me get on with mine... That's where I stand.
If that were a good argument, then large corps should have abolished labour unions by now via corporate lobby.
I did not pretend to be a scientist, nor am I a politician. You also appear to have confused my snarky aside with my argument. The argument was the part where I succinctly demonstrated, using four non-affiliated sources, that there has been an obvious and trivially demonstrable warming of the climate during the time period in question.
Personally, I remain convinced that the relationship between carbon emissions and global temperatures is a a causal one, and the origin of our warming trend is anthropogenic in nature. However, I welcome honest, continued debate and inquiry into the exact nature of their relationship. On the other hand, I do not encourage or even tolerate the vocal opinions of people who fail to accept or acknowledge the widely-reported, multiply-confirmed, and inarguable facts surrounding this or any issue. People who do so should simply shut the fuck up and listen to others until they become at least minimally informed.
No comment.
The graph obviously shows China and the US are the top consumers of electricity trying to get FreeBSD compiled to run on their desktop.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
I know this sort of discussion can be difficult to follow. I'll try to go more slowly in the future so you can keep up.
This is how you continue to ensure your irrelevance.
Perhaps you'll consider attacking the claim on its own merits next time?
There is no reason to consider sources which are not credible. Look to mirror for an example of a source which is not credible.
This:
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is incorrect. a says p about S. Therefore, p is incorrect.
is NOT an appeal to authority. It's an inverse of an appeal to authority. Inverses are not logically equivalent. An appeal to authority would be this:
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct. a says p about S. Therefore, p is correct.
Are we done with this, dimwit? Your arrogance does not match your wits. Learn to be humble. Or learn to cope with dismissal.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Only ignorant (willfully or otherwise) people see a colling trend in the last 10 years. Take a look at the graph here, and you might understand how you are being misled.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Carbon loading of the oceans is literally dissolving the shells off of the backs of poor little sea creatures, melting the snorks coral cities and pissing off sharks who now have less food to eat due to nth order effects on the food chain.
Screwing with the oceans is serious business.
Electric vehicles drive the food just fine to and from trains that ship it across great distances.
And you can use various kinds of clean and renewable electricity to power both.
As for that farming machinery that can't (yet) operate on electricity or natural gas - there is already a solution for that in regulation of diesel fuel sales for farming.
Usually by government subsidies and special coloring added to such fuel in order to prevent it being used for passenger vehicles.
It's already being done around the world for fishing. So much so that filtering out the coloring and selling that diesel at market prices is a rather profitable criminal activity.
And then... there is the option of converting city parks into orchards and vegetable gardens. Adding gardens and greenhouses on the rooftops.
Even simply everyone planting a pot on their window/balcony makes a difference on a city-wide scale.
Don't worry. Humans might end up eating less meat, but they will most likely not starve.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
wow. What a fool and an idiot you are. It is NOT ppl that do the bulk of emissions. China's water has NOT disappeared. They are pulling in more for economic reasons, not ppl. Hell, they have a slow population growth rate. The water disappearing is NOT for more ppl, but for economic reasons. In addition, they are being bitten by GW. Likewise, they have loads of water, but It is not usable. It is far too polluted.
India still has a moderate growth , but again, their water use has more to do with industry growth, not ppl.
The west is growing biofuels because other nations such as Venezuela, russia, and Iran are playing games with fuel.
Now, as to the water crisis, you sounds like you want us to do CO2/capita. What that does is reward nations that allow their population to grow beyond bounds. That is stupid and foolish. Instead, by tying emissions to land, then it forces these other nations to decide on population vs industry.
It is time that fools like you open your eyes.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
even Koch broghers funded studies say it's happeneing:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/koch-funded-study-changes-prominent-global-warming-skeptic-to-a-believer/
The sure I wanted to link to is down, they do a better description of the study and the people involved. I have never linked to that site before.
Muller, who has been a long time skeptic, has come to the conclusion that yes, it s real. The deniers that are involved i the study have started back peddling and making excuses.
not he Muller conclusion where actually needed, the data is pretty dam solid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I hate to say this, but it seems like a crock. All we've seen for the past 10-15 years are all types of technologies and methods that reduce so-called greenhouse gasses. Look at the Three Gorges Dam in China, all of the solar power, the fact that virtually all cars use 4 cylinder engines, etc. We've planted more trees, created hybrids, etc. How can emissions be beyond expectations? They should be getting lower and lower. Something is amiss here.
As I said, verbatim,
The inverse is not logically equivalent, which was never asserted, but the inverse is certainly logically sound. This would have been plainly obvious had you paused for a minute to actually comprehend what was written.
I see that once again that you couldn't be bothered to attack my claims on their own merits as I encouraged. Pity.
Regardless, you simply cannot evade the fact that you inappropriately dismissed one of my sources out-of-hand, which I then backed up with five more sources, including the two original sources (NOAA and NASA) which confirmed the claim. This was, of course, only even one of four different lines of evidence proving my point. This whole time, you've been arguing with me (poorly, might I add), about bullshit semantics, while I have actually delivered on the goal of well-sourced evidence backing my claims.
And yet, you still have the painful ignorance to assert that I've ensured my own irrelevance. If you'd care to check the mods on our little thread here, I think even you will be able to deduce who came off as the half-wit and who the better.
No comment.
I've listened to scientists on the many Earth Science programs on Nova, Frontline, National Geographic, the Science channel, the History channel, etc for many years. It seems pretty clear that we have reached the feedback loop tipping point and climate change can not be stopped at this point. All we can do now is adapt to its coming. Bummer.
I missed this, somehow.
I am not in any way affiliated with climate researchers, nor do I personally benefit in any way (well, unless you count self-satisfaction) from any opinions expressed on this topic. Perhaps you're confused about the definition of "shill", too?
No comment.
I'd would keep this going, but at this point you have just become your own parody. I'll let your statements stand on their own.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Sorry, nuclear is no longer "green". The public won't accept it. Instead, solar sails beaming microwaves to the ground.
Yeah, giant mirrors in space. Maybe we can aim them at the polar ice caps just to get it over with faster.
I'll say it again, Thorium. It's the safest and cleanest alternative that is actually doable as a 100% energy replacement. It's not a matter of if, but when. Any extra-planetary colonization, be it on the moon or mars, will use Thorium. Nothing competes with it in terms of cost per kWh once you leave earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon#Energy And it's the same with Mars, where many factors rule out fuels and solar cells. Thorium seems to be the only real constant, and we will eventually use it.
The public doesn't accept giving up their SUVs still, nor do they accept electric vehicles, and in most of the world doesn't accept gay marriage. I could personally give fuck all what the public accepts. When they start running out of drinking water and gas is $10, they'll accept whatever is put in front of them.
I8-D
Not complaining, just trying to be helpful: the word is amount, not "amouth".
My webcomic
The earth's temperature changes a bit, no argument there. But, there's a reason that Greenland, which is covered in ice right now, was called "green-land" hundreds of years ago. I, for one, am all for global warming, I live in MN and it gets freakin cold up here, I wouldn't mind it warming up a few degrees again.
Well, given that union participation rates have been declining steadily for decades - and continue to do so with no end in sight - what makes you think that's not what they've been doing?
Wasn't there supposed to be a "trollololol" or something to that effect? You must have left it off.
No comment.
This does sound very tentative. On the other hand, it corresponds with my tenuous understanding of the claims of Dyer and Ward. Can you shed any light? I don't want to be going around making false claims.
Human activities increased normally, CO2 spiked. Logical conclusion: human activities are not the governing factor. If the doings of man are incidental, then climate change should be historically evident. Oh looky, cyclic ice ages. What a surprise. Now take your carbon tax and shove it where the sun don't shine.
How about the data released by that alleged former skeptic somewhat recently? It showed no warming trend in the past decade or so.
Well, he said absolutely nothing about the last ten years, so yeah, you could misinterpret that as "his data showed no warming trend in the past decade or so".
Anyway: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1998/to:2011/plot/wti/from:1998/to:2011/trend
Fandroids hate facts.
I can't imagine why no one would agree to sign any carbon reduction treaty that doesn't include any serious restrictions to China.
China will never sign.
This is why we are all doomed.
Even if one settled once and for all the climate change debate (HA!), we couldn't do anything about it due to politics.
I was only quoting his first linked article. try to keep up
by all means, bring it on