Slashdot Mirror
Climate May Be Less Sensitive To CO2 Than Previously Thought
a_hanso writes "A new study suggests that the effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide on temperature may be less significant than previously thought. 'The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7 to 2.6 degrees C. That is a much tighter range than suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report, which suggested a rise of between 2 to 4.5 degrees C."
We should be switching to nuclear anyway, it's not about global warming, it's about the eventuality of the end of the age of oil. It will happen so it's better to be thinking about it now.
You can't handle the truth.
Denier: Ah hah! Told you all! Told you all!
Warmist: World is still getting warmer, which means we will all die
Skeptic: These are all extrapolations which are barely worth the paper they are written on
Denier: We need to stop with the environmental programs, they are killing the economy
Warmist: We need to stop polluting, the world is in jeopardy
Denier: It will cost trillion to "save" the world, and it might not even be saved. Anyone who wants to spend that kind of money on a crapshoot is an idiot
Warmist: Can we afford to take a chance? Our choice is trillions now, or quadrillions later. If you don't agree with me, then you are an idiot.
Skeptic: Anybody who wants to take drastic action on the currently available data is an idiot.
Like I keep repeating - there's only 40 years of oil left. That's a generous estimate that does not take into account growth. So drill baby drill can drill all they want, the total CO2 released from fossil fuels is just going to reach equilibrium faster. When the oil/coal is gone, it's gone forever.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
It's also a 66% confidence projection using a new climate model that has undergone peer review but probably not much other discussion in the community. It's interesting, but hardly definitive.
There are hundreds of things changing the temperature contantly and it's very hard to isolate the changes CO2 caused.
How can there be a debate about scientific results? This always confuses me. One can have a debate about moral or ethical issues, but not about scientific results.
Then I would say your understanding of how science works is somewhat limited. We could have a debate about: a) whether the assumptions made at the outset were good assumptions, b) whether the data was collected in a reasonable way, c) whether the statistics were chosen and applied correctly, d) whether you've done a good enough job controlling other variables and excluding competing hypotheses, e) the magnitude and directionality of various sources of error, and whether they could confound the data, etc.
Not saying that these are problems with the study in question, but I've read studies in which each of the above (among other things) were certainly open for debate!
Actually 1.7 to 2.6 due to a doubling of CO2 is fantastic. It means with the current trajectory we're only going to get the "expected" unavoidable warming (2 degrees C) even if we do nothing till 2050 or later.
Basically, we let Peak Oil kill off the internal-combustion engine automobile and ride out solar/battery improvements for stationary energy. It changes a lot.
Now this one really does require a citation. And oil doesn't just have to be pumped in the traditional manner. There are the tar sands in Canada that hold an immense amount of oil. There is fracking, and oil and natural gas reserves in the Arctic that are just being discovered. And if the antarctic ice shelf melts to any degree, who wants to bet that oil companies won't be buying off politicians in Russia, the U.K., and America to get rules changed to drill there. A whole new continent that hasn't been exploited. But first before I believe there is only 40 years of oil left I need convincing with published facts, and even then it would have to be pretty damned convincing.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I think that 20 years ago there was only 30 years oil left.
We're digging 20,000 feet under ocean beds for oil now. Exactly how much oil do you expect there to be in the mantle?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Only good can come?
Are you sure of that?
Because I can see many things wrong with your statement.
Many bad and not so good things can come from Reducing CO2.
Cars cost more, jobs pay less, food and gas cost more.
Some businesses are getting seriously hurt. (Try making cement in California)
I can understand 5 year olds thinking that all is good and nice. You though are presumably an adult.
try some critical thinking.
Are the benefits realized by these reductions worth the cost?
I do not know. I think that further reductions may in fact not be worth the cost.
But of this I am sure.
Not only good comes from the reduction of CO2.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
What if a reduction in CO2 means a reduction in consumption of fossil fuels, and therefore a significant cost reduction, especially if oil-prices go up? What exactly will prevent another (possibly lasting) oil crisis? The oil is slowly but surely running dry, and certain (oil-dependent) countries are ready to fight over oil or use it as a weapon (just look at Iran; they are currently threatening to cut off the Strait of Hormuz, thus blocking not just their own but many other Middle-east countries oil export). It may be cheaper to rely on oil and gas at this very moment, but other energy sources, may well become cheaper in the (very near) future.
Weasel words: "At current rates of consumption". Even if it were true that there is about 3 times more oil, you cannot ignore exponential growth. 2% is exponential growth. 70/2 = doubling every 35 years. But the average world economic growth is around 3%, which means the world economy (and thus oil demand) doubles every 70/3 = 23 years. Therefore "At current rates of consumption" is a load of horse-shit that is only good for THIS year. You will find that in 10 years there will be significantly less than "140 years" of oil left. There are formulas to work out exponentials, and they are left as an exercise for the reader.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
There are the tar sands in Canada that hold an immense amount of oil.
Extracting that oil is glacially slow (we're getting maybe 1.5 million barrels per day. that's less than 1/10th of the US' current usage alone. Every oil company in Alberta is running balls out to expand that, but capacity is only expanding at about 200,000 barrels/day/year), expensive (The cheapest most accessible stuff costs $40/barrel to extract and upgrade), and messy as hell.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Weasel words from you too. "At current prices" and "at current rate of growth" and "assuming whatever assumptions are convenient for your argument" and so on. The point maybe we can agree on is that its an ass-load more complicated than "we're out of oil in 40 years" and its probably safe to say the answer is somewhere between "we're fucking doomed" and "nothing to worry about". You seem like a smart guy, dont you think posting links to "googleityoulazyfuck" is a little counterproductive to rational discussion?
So we're back to the argument, "Nobody can reliably predict the outcome of a single spin of a roulette wheel, so it is crazy to think that anybody can predict the average of thousands of spins!"
And meanwhile, the casinos continue to make money.
Strong candidate for the single dumbest argument against global warming.
Cars cost more, jobs pay less, food and gas cost more.
Some businesses are getting seriously hurt. (Try making cement in California)
Yes, because pushing the cost of doing business onto the people living around your factory, farm or the users of your products is a god-given right in the Free Market. You're subsidizing businesses if you allow them to destroy the health and environment that people live and work in.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.