Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming On Pace For 4 Degrees: World Bank Worried
iONiUM writes "From the article: 'Over the years at the U.N. climate talks, the goal has been to keep future global warming below 2C. But as those talks have faltered, emissions have kept rising, and that 2C goal is now looking increasingly out of reach. Lately, the conversation has shifted toward how to deal with 3C of warming. Or 4C. Or potentially more." Overall it seems that poorer, less developed nations will be largely impacted negatively, while some countries (like Canada and Russia) will actually experience benefits. Where does that leave the rest of the 1st world countries?"
Nice I get to turn my thermostat down.
Let's invade Canada before it becomes a super power in the new "warmer" world.
No individual nation benefits from moving to fix this alone. International diplomacy operates at the kindergarten argument level by virtue of no leader wanting to appear as though they're screwing over their populace for people of another nation.
Imagine getting a room full of five year olds with toys to sit quietly for an hour, even if the promise is candy for everyone. That's what climate change negotiations are like.
Now let me go get my canoe; need to be at the office soon.
1 degree over the next 100 years, 2 degrees over the next fifty years, 4 degrees over the next 25 years. Next year some "scientists" will probably be calling for a 10 degree rise within the next 10 years. Every year, I hear something that sounds less-and-less like hard science coming out of these "scientists" and more-and-more of something that sounds more akin to millennialist religious fanatics proclaiming the end of days.
Posting AC because posting anything that even mildly questions GW will get your karma blown into the shitter.
They have enough land, and enough oil in tar sands too. Too bad, Canada, we need some breathing space lebensraum , so we are going to have to invade you and take you over. Too bad your experiments with pinko single payer health care and welfare state has to end this way. Learn the fine distinctions between co-pay, co-insurance, deductible and life-time caps.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Venice was a first-world country. Now you can swim in its streets.
My goodness! We need to implement carbon credits! That will save the planet so the World Bank can sleep better at night. Hooray for the World Bank and all their concern for all of us! They are like a warm and snuggly blanket, defenders of high temperature everywhere.
Who gives a crap about whether it is "natural" anymore? The overall effect is quite undesirable, so regardless of whether we're causing it, we damn well ought to be doing something to counteract it, if we care to survive.
If AGW is real, you have two choices: adapt or die.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
If we hit a warming of 4 degrees, you can forget about nations or countries as we know it. The civilization may well collapse. If we hit 6 degrees, say hello to the next mass extinction. "It would cause a mass extinction of almost all life and probably reduce humanity to a few struggling groups of embattled survivors clinging to life near the poles." Details on this article.
No idea if this is change one can believe in, but it looks like a very serious change... er, problem.
With most people in the 1st world countries under debt...
The debts are larger than the output of entire countries
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
one of the benefits of living in a red state.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
http://xkcd.com/605/
This morning at 8AM, the temperature was 54 degrees F. The temperature at 3PM is 75 degrees F. Scientists predict that by next week, the Earth's surface will turn to magma.
At the same time the US speaks of becoming one of the biggest oil producer by exploiting oil shale. Tragedy of the common indeed.
The world bank report at
http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf
does not make the case that the global temperature is actually increasing. Mostly it simply worries that there are "temperature anomalies" and pontificates the consequences IF a 4 degree C were to occur. The actual global temperature is not on pace for this to actually occur, however. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/now-warming-since-kyoto-was-rejected-fifteen-years-ago/
we can handle ourselves, and vacation in the oceanfront states of Utah, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Iowa. shame the Great Lakes got overrun, but hey, Marlin fishing in Wisconsin ain't bad.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Cars are the world's single largest source of carbon. http://www.teslamotors.com/ save us!
We, as a species, will survive. Just not necessarily with our current population level intact.
Wow, bankers are the authority on science now. I suppose that's an upgrade from politicians like Al Gore?
What a joke the scaremonger / banksters are.
100% of anthropogenic global warming comes from man-made causes.
Don't concern yourself with how much of global warming is natural. We should be trying to limit man's contribution.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
If you want to counteract it, you kind of need to understand the root cause. However, given that there's been 90% consensus among the scientific community for more than a decade, the root cause is not really in question. At this point, posing the question of what causes climate change is code for saying, "addressing the known cause would have adverse impact on me, so I deny the known cause."
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Mod parent up. Comments that acknowledge climate change on slashdot tend to get modded down.
I thought it was code for "I don't know the answer, so I'm asking a question".
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
And if it is natural, what makes you think we can do anything to counteract it?
Since total human carbon emission is about 3 to 4% (even by IPCC figures), we are not
going to make a big impact on the natural cycles even if we reduce to zero..
So far exactly zero of the 'models' have managed to predict anything, so it would seem our science on the matter
is incorrect, our 'measures' to combat it seem primarily designed to fill government and large business coffers and
everyone has completely lost focus on such 'small' issues as chemical pollution (poisons..) and spiraling inefficiency
in our base lifestyles (you think massive systemic waste DOESNT effect the environment? really?
And what makes you think it would be much of a challenge to survive? I am amazed by how people seem to confuse
inconvenience with survival these days.
If you really want to massively cut back carbon emissions, then start rallying against GreenPeace and the other
kneejerk 'enviromentalists' blocking of latest generation nuclear power. Rolling out that to replace both old
dangerous design reactors and combustion based generation is by FAR the biggest step there could be.
Give in now
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
The U.S. and Europe aren't to blame, Sparky. Our CO2 emissions have been either steady on on a downward trend for some time. If you want to point fingers, look at China.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I find it preposterously unlikely that any person
A) legitimately doesn't know the answer.
B) can't or haven't read ANY of the VERY MANY explanations that have already been produced in great detail about it, available after 5 seconds of googling
C) is asking this question out of good-faith intellectual curiosity.
in the year 2012. Maybe twenty years ago, sure, it would be understandable, but if you're still curious about Climate Change - if you're posting on the Web in 2012 and claim to be uninformed about Climate Change, and don't know what to do to remedy that lack of information, you are almost certainly a straight-up disingenuous, dishonest liar.
Seriously. I can't reconcile those three ideas about a person in 2012. I find it WAY more likely that people are trying to derail things with already-settled 'is it real' debates.
yeah let's worry about how this will affect the 1st world countries, those are the real victims here
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Your posting bullshit:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
No folks, AGW did not stop in 1998.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
We need to take a lesson from Mr Burns. Burns then reveals to Smithers his grandest scheme: the construction of a giant, movable disk that will permanently block out the sun. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Shot_Mr._Burns%3F) The Simpsons solved global warming! No sun, no warming!
Citations?
I thought last summer was the hottest on record, that does not sound stable.
.... front office, the World Bank. You mean the previous neocon there, Robert Zoellick (and long-time member of the Trilateral Commission --- I know, I know, the Ameritards refuse to acknowledge influence groups, etc., ad nauseum), never realized any global climate change was going on??? Geez, thanks World Bankster, front office to the banksters --- that's kinda like all those slimey douchetards who created and sold and profited from all their debt,and now claim it belongs to the rest of us, and we must embrace austerity to pay off all their debt while they were paid billions and trillions for creating and selling such debt (I know, I know, the Ameritards refuse to learn arithmetic, so they won't understand what I'm talking about...).
Discussing climate change with the Ameritards is akin to attempting to explain to them why a 4% foreclosure rate in their country wasn't responsible for the global economic meltdown --- it was the banksters' ultra-leveraged bankster run which did it...
A 3-4% increase in atmospheric carbon can have drastic effects on temperature, so that argument is stupid.
True. But if humans only contribute 3-4% to the 3-4% increase in atmospheric carbons, what effect would human reduction in carbon consumption have on temperature. I am betting on nothing.
3 to 4% of what? Of the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now, about a third is due to humans burning fossil fuels. If we stop emitting carbon dioxide, the warming will level off within a few decades. If we continue to burn fossil fuels at an increasing rate, the warming will be several degrees Celsius this century, and it won't stop there.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Why does Slashdot have 10x the stories on global warming verses the rapidly increasing US Government debt? Don't you think debt is a more pressing problem?
If you want to counteract it, you kind of need to understand the root cause. However, given that there's been 90% consensus among the scientific community for more than a decade, the root cause is not really in question. At this point, posing the question of what causes climate change is code for saying, "addressing the known cause would have adverse impact on me, so I deny the known cause."
It's a myth that it will adversely affect the economy. Fixing the mess will create as many or more jobs as it takes away. The issue is the ones causing the problem have the money and resources to fight change so nothing gets done. They keep denying and adding to the problem and just pay off Congressmen to not do anything. Once they've bled out what money they can the sad joke is the ones causing the warming will switch to technologies to correct the problem so they make money off the fix. These are businessmen and they know from the stock market you want to make money as you ride the stock up then make money as you ride it down. We suffer while they get richer.
Hottest summer where? One hot summer does not climate make. And here's the citation. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220722/Global-warming-The-Mail-Sunday-answers-world-warming-not.html
Shit happens and it's usually caused by assholes
Little Change in Global Drought in the past 60 Years
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
You don't seem to be getting an answer to your "what percent is man made" question.
That's odd.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Just curious....
Why is a bank involved in climate science...???
Oh, that's right, global tax would greatly benefit a World Bank.
All makes sense now....
And who is buying their exports en masse, using their cheap and dirty power imputs to stock the shelves of Walmart and every other big box retailer, driving down the cost of goods? All the while, externalizing the environmental costs on all of humanity. We are drug addicts blaming the dealer. No one is blameless.
Saying "China bad!" while buying their industrial output hand over fist, not realizing the consequences of our own actions isn't looking at the whole problem. The fix? Get off the consumption treadmill - build durable, local, and repairable. Live in walkable communities.
We don't have a chance in hell. I live 10 kilometres from my office, but biking is risking your life - the infrastructure is car centric, sharing the narrow congested pothole filled roads with cars doing 60km plus. I then sit a a screen all day. I could telecommute, but our culture is such that it would be a bad career move, because physical presence is still oddly preferred, even though the real estate savings and productivity gains objectively make sense to a smart company.
The fact that we can't tackle these simple changes in our communities even before getting into international treaty complexities gives me little faith.
I suppose that this is related to the sea level rising observed by the NASA. One thing is speech with an agenda and another cold (ok, warm in this case) facts.
We could do something about it? We should? The problem is that there is no "we" there, probably the ones that could do something (and probably have a role in the current situation) won't.
1 degree over the next 100 years, 2 degrees over the next fifty years, 4 degrees over the next 25 years. Next year some "scientists" will probably be calling for a 10 degree rise within the next 10 years. Every year, I hear something that sounds less-and-less like hard science coming out of these "scientists" and more-and-more of something that sounds more akin to millennialist religious fanatics proclaiming the end of days.
Hard to see why it's "less-and-less like hard science", since it's based on evidence.
The only invariant in the science of global warming is that it always turns out worse than we expected faster than we expected. If we suddenly find ourselves with an ice-free arctic, we have to take that into account in our projections.
Posting AC because posting anything that even mildly questions GW will get your karma blown into the shitter.
Karma is cheap. You should speak your mind even if it isn't popular.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
That's 3-4% per year, and we've been burning fossil fuels for 150 years. Luckily, nature absorbs some of it, but humans have upset the balance.
Except the models that correctly predicted that surface warming would be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and the models that predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, and the models that predicted warming of ocean surface waters, and the models that predicted an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, and the models that predicted sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and the models that predicted an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and the models that predicted continuing and accelerating warming of the surface.
But other than those models, you're right, exactly zero of the models have been able to predict anything.
If it were a gradual warming, it wouldn't be so bad. But rapid warming means we'll have to quickly change where our food and water comes from and abandon waterfront properties (possibly whole cities) long before they've reached their design lives.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
The overall effect is quite undesirable
Is it really?
Save for the gulf stream reversing, most effects of global warming actually happen in a gradual fashion. No properly developed country should have any real problems in adapting to rising sea levels, hurricanes happening more often etc.
In all the discussions about global warming the poor countries tend to be the fucked ones (see TFA, f.i.). It seems to me that pooling large amounts of money to specifically provide for countermeasures in the poorer regions affected by global warming would be more effective in preventing 'catastrophes' than the current strategy.
Don't get me wrong, I am thankful that 'reduce carbon emissions!' spurs on technological development that reduces our dependence on fossil fuels, but other than that, I see very little use for it.
Who gives a crap about whether it is "natural" anymore? ...
Maybe we should all care. After all, if it's "natural", that means that despite all our efforts, the climate is ignoring us and there's nothing we can do about it. But if it's primarily "anthropogenic" (human-caused), then we have the power to overcome the natural forces and make the climate do what we want. If we can figure out what we want.
The anti-AGW crowd are essentially fatalists, criticising us for believing that we can take control of the climate. And a good part of the reason that scientists have come out to warn us all of what their data shows we're doing to the planet is that the scientists understand that we now actually do have the ability (knowledge and technology) to control the climate. We're in fact doing it. The problem is that there's nobody at the steering wheel. And the Deniers are trying to keep it that way.
Of course, climate is something that's mostly a global phenomenon. Trying to control it at a local level, even for such giant localities as the US, Russia, China, etc., is doomed to failure. We can only control the climate at a global level, and on a rather slow time scale. But humans aren't good at organizing on a global scale. We're not even very good at organizing small states, much less an entire planet. So we can expect the problems to continue, our climate zooming around wildly, with nobody at the wheel.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
So... what you're saying is that if the temp went from 60 degrees in mid-October to 64 degrees, you couldn't survive? ...Darwinism at work. It's not about our survival, as it is about our eco-footprint, and preserving the species on this planet. If we heat up the planet and most species die out as a result, we're ultimately the ones that get to experience the unpleasant consequences of that. Businesses would have to close, food prices would change, but as a species, pretty sure we'd survive.
Damn it, read before writing will you?
Before this year I used to live in Alaska.
The summers gradually got worse and worse and farmers were not happy. Yes winters and snow come later, but it rained 22 out of 30 days all summer non stop. The polar ice caps change weather systems that normally bring that rain further south. Grain producers like wheat and potato farmers are cold weather farmers. A longer growing season means theoretical better yields, but if it rains and is cold and damp the product will mold and rot.
Normally in south central Alaska it warms up and is sunny June and July. By late August it gets raining and cool and by the end of September or early October the rain picks up and starts turning to snow. The snow then keeps plants warm when it gets biter late on.
What is happening now is the rain came as early as June! Plants couldn't grow and 70 mph Sandy style winds came in September and fall is now bone dry with snow not coming until November because the polar ice caps are practically gone! Trees are dying because the roots freeze which are not insulated by snow and berries, grains, and potatoes are not growing due to the cold damp weather or are dying in mold and fungus infections. Canada is the same way and the longer growing seasons will be negated by cold rain and mud.
http://saveie6.com/
The single greatest reason to fear climate change. I'm all in, lets fix this!
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
The measurable land and air temperature showed no mathematically significant increase over that period; the small increase occurred entirely inside the range of data noise. But it's admittedly overstating the case to say that the temperature didn't go up at all.
It's also true that some of the graphs in your link are overstating their case by presenting very sketchy conjectural model data or drastically less complete measurement summaries in the same chart as modern, rigorous measurements. Extrapolation of empirically derived models of dynamic systems is typically a fool's errand. And when you realize the realistic error involved in these charts it kind of makes you go "hmmm".
The biggest problem too is developing countries where 1st world countries have little to no authority. Who's going to go into India and replace all the mufflers for 1b people driving shitty 80s cars that the EPA would have a field day over. Better yet China, who probably don't believe in global warming and are only looking to compete with the states on production. I don't think 1st world countries play as much of a role in global warming as they used to. Then again I hear the air in L.A. still isn't so good either...
The article at the second link in TFA talks about the "upside" of "global warming" for Canada, Russia, and the Scandinavian countries - longer growing season, opening up the Northwest Passage, etc.
What these fucktards are failing to take into account is the colossal change in weather patterns that we'll almost certainly experience. No, I don't want warmer winters and cheaper produce here in Canada if the price is vastly increased destruction of property and life as a result of monster-sized hail storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, and increased insect populations. The latter of these, BTW, will likely offset any agricultural gains that might result from a longer growing season - all those bugs will just love eating food crops and trees. Never mind the horrendous effects that climate change is already having in warmer climates...
The so called "global warming experts" quoted would probably claim suntans as an upside to nuclear bombs. Do we no longer teach science and critical thinking in our schools?
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
As a Canadian, I doubt the part about our "net benefit". As extreme weather becomes more common, it will become less comfortable for everyone. Maybe Canadians will be better off than Mexicans, but the farther out from the Goldilocks zone we go, the worse it's going to be, globally.
As for countries, I have doubts they can ever achieve anything. Real change is done at the community level.
Since total human carbon emission is about 3 to 4% (even by IPCC figures)
Percent of what?
So far exactly zero of the 'models' have managed to predict anything
Now you're just talking out your ass...
our 'measures' to combat it seem primarily designed to fill government and large business coffers
...and generating a conspiracy theory to justify it.
And what makes you think it would be much of a challenge to survive? I am amazed by how people seem to confuse
inconvenience with survival these days.
Yes, I'm sure you'll be happy to trade your current cushy lifestyle for the dog-eat-dog world of a Mad Max movie.
If you really want to massively cut back carbon emissions, then start rallying against GreenPeace and the other
kneejerk 'enviromentalists' blocking of latest generation nuclear power. Rolling out that to replace both old
dangerous design reactors and combustion based generation is by FAR the biggest step there could be.
I agree that nuclear power would be a good thing, but the evidence suggests that our civilization isn't mature enough to manage it. Too much profit incentive to cut corners on design, construction, and operations.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You assume the institutions and political stability needed for a functioning and health economy are going to be able to weather and adapt to the rapid change and inherent instability created by mass migrations of refugee populations. Think Bangladesh and India. You think Mexican immigration is a hotbutton issue now in the US? You haven't seen anything yet...
"as ecosystems ADJUST, funny how log lasting natural systems tend to be highly resilient and self-adjusting"
I've been pointing this out since 1985. Nobody listens.
In 2010 NASA and the NOAA bitch slaped the IPCC with this. "Your model is broken".
"8th December 2010 13:24 GMT - A group of top NASA and NOAA scientists say that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
This guy says unless CO2 rises, we won't be able to grow enough food to feed a more populous world. Grow food... uses CO2... at this point some sort of light should go off over your head. http://www.liebertpub.com/MContent/Files/Kleinman_ch19_p379-398.pdf
Keep in mind it's not so much CO2 output from man as it is REMOVING ALL THE FUCKING TREES. It didn't work so well in the Dust Bowl (thank you Ken Burns) and apparently this is some sort of revelation to those who study CO2 (wot?)
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j2BAdNIG5Q2FJlEdac1l-KXiTSCA?docId=CNG.dfe97e07f144a2d29eb615412e0c12be.a81
The rate of deforestation has increased. Go do a flyover of Borneo Island in the good and understand 95% of that island is unexplored. Now most of the trees are gone. Same in Brazil.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Because if you spit in the ocean the sea will rise. (just not by much).
Need Mercedes parts ?
Where is the hockey stick, exactly?
3 to 4% of what? Of the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right now, about a third is due to humans burning fossil fuels [wikipedia.org]. If we stop emitting carbon dioxide, the warming will level off within a few decades.
I suspect it's too late for that. If we stopped emitting immediately, the world would continue warming due to all the carbon already in the atmosphere, until equilibrium is reached. And that equilibrium might be a good way off, since the continued warming is going to reduce ice cover and thus add more warming, in a vicious cycle, until we reach an equilibrium on that as well.
*Then* we can start waiting for long-term processes to de-carbonize the atmosphere.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
No no, you get ocean 'view' property. The problem? The 'view' is 'up'.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
And the per capita rates are what? Or are U.S. humans somehow different from Chinese humans.
Tiger attacks in New York didn't stop in 1998 either.
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
The alarmists say they were being alarmist and recanted. That the rest of the world hasn't caught up is simply latency.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Posting AC because posting anything that even mildly questions GW will get your karma blown into the shitter.
I know what you mean. I can't bring up questions about spontaneous generation, Homunculus theory, or creationism without people modding me troll! It's almost as if raising arguments against the scientific consensus, arguments which have specifically been brought up for decades, arguments which no one makes unless they have an agenda which involves denying reality, is looked down on in rational debate!
I mean, Darwinists used to say that evolution was gradual, NOW they say it's punctuated equalibrium, sometimes going thousands of years without change! It's nuts! Clearly god created all life in 6 days!
Where to start...
What would make you think any natural balance has been upset? Global CO2 levels have been this high before, and in fact cycle up and down, sometimes very rapidly, with quite some rapidity. In fact there is a lot of evidence that our controlling of forrest fires (which previously would at times burn out huge areas..) has greatly reduced spikes (although volcanic spikes can be even larger still.. damn that nature!) - we have a self-adjusting ecosystem, thats why life has survived so far, through changes FAR larger than we see now.
The models you are talking about are not carbon/temperature prediction climate models, you are talking about direct first-order effects which are quite easy to model. I am talking about the full system models that purport to predict global temperature a distance in the future, care to provide an example of one of those that has predicted within 10% (of the change, not the absolute, of course) over a 5 year window? remember in a cumulative system that would make its error 100% (at a minimum, probably much higher) in 50 years...
And finally, you do realise even the most aggressive predictions of 'rapid' are in the orders of hundreds of years, not a couple, right? large tides, (normal) flooding, and our changing land/resource uses have MUCH larger impacts over tens of years than even the most extreme GW predictions..
Humans have become so insanely change-adverse as a culture, time to accept the world is not a static place.
People are fucking encouraged to question it. They just have to have actual provable data to back up their questions.
"It can't be real because I don't see it" isn't a valid question and is treated as such.
Do you know how much money would fall in their laps if they actually *could* prove it isn't happening? Coal and oil money would make them rich beyond imagination. And yet they don't. Because the data isn't there to support that, whereas decades of data show warming is happening.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
I don't know why you have a problem bringing up questions about spontaneous generation, most evolutionists believe in it. They just think it happened millions of years ago and doesn't happen anymore.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Temperatures have remained steady for 16 years now
Please look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
and tell us how many of the last 16 years are not included in the 16 hottest years on record.
As the saying goes, you're entitled to your won opinions, but not to your own facts.
in spite of computer models released by the IPCC which show that by now temperatures should be much higher.
And yet for some reason all the world's ice is melting faster than the IPCC ever had the balls to predict.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
maybe their just waiting for Dec 22nd 2012 just to be safe? ;-)
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Overall it seems that poorer, less developed nations will be largely impacted negatively
Didn't see that one coming. Next thing ya know we'll have to pay more taxes to mitigate that...to the World Bank of course.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Russia I don't think so: they has a gigantic neighbor in the south-east. A powerful, and soon-to-be hungry and thirsty neighbor. If China determines that the only solution to its survival is Russian acquifiers, they'll go for it.
Canada and the US might, OTOH, find some kind of "mutually" acceptable solution.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Posting AC because posting anything that even mildly questions GW will get your karma blown into the shitter.
Says the AC who's currently modded at +3 Insightful as I post this.
You and your crew of Tough Individualists Boldly Speaking Truth To Power have plenty of company. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to deal with the consequences of your groupthink.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
When the world's biggest polluters (China, USofA) turn their backs on hard science (especially the USA) disaster will be closer/worse than anybody thinks!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
http://xkcd.com/605/ This morning at 8AM, the temperature was 54 degrees F. The temperature at 3PM is 75 degrees F. Scientists predict that by next week, the Earth's surface will turn to magma.
Actually, http://xkcd.com/164/.
Stephan
Any real citations?
I would not trust the dailyfail to tell me if water is wet or not.
This is something that really bothers me -- especially when people point out that there were periods in earth's history when CO2 levels were much higher, and temperature levels didn't rise according to the increases in CO2. What they don't seem to understand is that the planet and its climate were completely different systems back then -- today, the forests that used to balance the system just don't exist anymore, and yet, we burn vast amounts of fossil fuels -- the very carbon the system buried in millions of years is released within a few hundred years (in the blink of an eye in geological terms), and we keep removing earth's lungs and mess with dynamic systems that are far from undestood. But some keep saying: nah, can't be us, how could puny humans mess with earth's climate?!
I hope I didn't brain my damage.
If you want to know more about why "no warming since 1998" is a myth there are references to two articles about just that subject already posted, one pointing to a guardian.co.uk article and one pointing to a skepticalscience article.
Go argue with them.
So far exactly zero of the 'models' have managed to predict anything, so it would seem our science on the matter
is incorrect.
You sir, are a tool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model#Accuracy_of_models_that_predict_global_warming
What if, on the other hand, humans are contributing about 200% of the observed increase. Impossible you say? No so, natural cycles are pulling about half of the CO2 we produce out of the atmosphere. Furthermore humanity is the only significant source of CO2 emissions in most years, human emissions are close to 100 times larger than the next nearest natural source.
Human emissions have increased the CO2 in the air by about 25% over the last century. If we reduced our emissions to nothing, temperatures would continue to climb for a 10-20 years (estimated) and then settle in at a new, relatively stable level. At that point they'd probably resume their slow march towards the next ice age, at around -0.04 degrees per century (as opposed to the 4 degrees this article indicates we might see by the end of this century).
Fanatically anti-fanatical
How much of China's pollution is to produce luxury goods for US/EU vs serving their own people?
Specifically, how many factories have been relocated to China, not just for cheap labor, but because of lax environmental laws?
Let's get real - the summary says that Canada and Russia will benefit, but the reality is that the very large numbers of people living near the coast will want to move to Canada and Russia, perhaps violently so. Large migrations driven by environmental disaster in the past have rarely been friendly. I doubt future migrations will be easy and painless.
Exactly. I think the bankers are engineering a global currency collapse as the trigger for establishment of authoritarian government. This will translate into a vast decline in the living standards for the vast majority of the population in both North America and Europe.
If I'm paranoid, someone tell me the end game of the current trend of perpetual debt accumulation coupled with steady erosion of individual liberties. A "managed" collapse is the only explanation that makes sense to me.
When the banking elite reduce the vast majority of the world's population to the level of serfs who receive strictly limited food and energy rations, the climate change problem will be solved.
And what makes you think it would be much of a challenge to survive? I am amazed by how people seem to confuse
inconvenience with survival these days.
The survival threat is global crop failure. No one really knows what will happen if it gets too warm for our current staple crops to grow well. What do we do if there's only enough food to feed 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 of the world's population? We are facing the very real possibility that we will turn some of the world's best agricultural land into desert. We can compensate for a lot of the problems we're creating with artificial climate control, but that's far too expensive to feed everyone in the first world nations at a price they can afford, never mind the rest of the world. The greatest survival threat is global war as we struggle to control the world's diminished food and water supplies.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'm gonna mod you into oblivion because you say stupid shit like "I'm probably going to get modded into oblivion". But I don't have any mod points, so I guess that's a lie.
All of these entities want a more powerful global government. Scaring people into believing the world is going to end gives them power. I don't want someone thousands of miles away telling me how to wipe my ass.
I would rather have a world ravaged by global warming than one ravaged by an oppressive world government.
The Official Site of 1337 Pwnage
Volcanoes release 130 million tons of CO2 per year, while the burning of fossil fuels releases 9 billion tons per year.
Hansen's 1988 model was about 10% higher than actual forcings growth.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
And if it is natural, what makes you think we can do anything to counteract it?
Since total human carbon emission is about 3 to 4% (even by IPCC figures), we are not
going to make a big impact on the natural cycles even if we reduce to zero..
This is my favorite solution (solution).
The downside is that climate scientists have data from relatively recent volcanic explosions that naturally create the cooling side effect. However, no one AFAIK has artificially created this condition. This begs the question: what the side effects, and can what happens if you miscalculate, making things too cold?
I'm personally crossing my fingers and hoping this, or other similar projects, precipitate a Thundarr-the-Barbarian-like global cataclysm. Bleep this garbage -- let's all start over.
Well someone has to lead the way if things are to get better, are you trying to suggest we wait for China? China and India are trying to catch up to the US, so if we can set an example as a sustainable society, there may still be a chance at limiting global warming. Given America's absurd CO2 production per capita, I think it is safe to say we need to make the first move.
My webcomic
If you're interested in the science of climate change, and why the small amount of gasses we produce is a larger problem than the percentage would imply, I recommend this easily digested series of videos.
The television will not be revolutionized.
Who gives a crap about whether it is "natural" anymore? The overall effect is quite undesirable, so regardless of whether we're causing it, we damn well ought to be doing something to counteract it, if we care to survive.
Anyone who cares about nature will let it run its course and handle its own business.
The effect is only undesirable if you're afraid of change. Life got to where it is now on this planet because living was hard and dying was easy.
Now one piddly-ass species is selfish enough to want to stop nature in its tracks? (And arrogant enough to think they're causing the changes or that they can halt/reverse them?)
We had the greatest biomass and biodiversity in the planets history when the entire planet was JUNGLE ASS SWEAT HOT. I, for one, encourage our planet to keep throwing life curve balls. It's the only way life improves.
Global atmospheric CO2 levels are highly cyclic, and have been above the current level many many times before
Not according to this: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html. (You need to watch all 3 minutes of it to get the point. It's rather dramatic.)
--
.nosig
Al Gore promised us a hockey stick spike in temperatures and he was flat wrong. In the last 16 years, you cannot say that the trend he predicted came anywhere close to being accurate. It was a scare story then, and it continues to be one.. With billions in the last 4 years going to politically connected people and promptly going bankrupt. All the schemes to add carbon taxes, reduce drilling, oppose oil shale development, fracking, and kick back schemes to promote "green energy" are just fleecing taxpayers and making the economy weaker. 2 and 3x increase in energy prices create poverty, inflation, higher unemployment, and more dependency on the government. But we can disagree. Turn off your computer, you're burning carbon.
The IPCC predictions are extremely conservative. That is the nature of the hard sciences. Expect pretty much all the projections to be revised continuously upwards as the data comes in.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Lovelock is old now but he's a real scientist. He can admit when his theory is wrong and revise.
The key IPCC players were never real scientists. They hitched their boat to a hypothesis that was politically valuable and parlayed rich careers out of it, and they will never admit they were wrong.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
If you want to point fingers, look at China.
This is such a dumb meme. China is making a /huge/ investment in renewables, and will never produce the per-capita carbon of the USA. And they will own the technology of the future (along with Europeans) if congress doesn't pull its finger out.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Everyone who starts talking about why the other side makes an argument forgets to actually evaluate said argument. Someone with a vested interest about A being true can still be correct about A being true. Otherwise going to a car repair shop would be pointless as it has a vested interest in your car to be actually broken. You still have to listen to his actual argument to evaluate the truth.
Science isn't like the bible. It keeps looking at things and changes when it looks like it was wrong. It questions itself and you should question it too but if your questioning is just more selfish "I don't see it therefore it's wrong and I'm not giving up my SUV" then don't be surprised if people think you're a moron.
Plan A, stop global warming before it becomes a problem, failed long ago. Global Warming is now an actual, current problem.
Plan B, stop global warming before it becomes an insurmountable problem, is looking more and more bleak. We can't seem to convince anyone that it's a problem even when it actually is. Maybe Plan B can be salvaged, but we need another fallback plan.
Plan C is "Earth is fucked, what now?". We'll also want to genetically engineer crops and livestock that can live in the new conditions (hotter and drier, to put it simplistically), and start migrating cities that are shortly to be underwater inward. I'm also thinking evacuation should be at least one prong of Plan C - with the last of our fossil fuels, we should be able to get a self-sustaining Mars colony started. Hell, if we could export our excess CO2 to Mars somehow, we could lower our temperatures while increasing Mars's to a more human-friendly level. Pity there's no feasible way to do that.
Odd, how come I keep hearing this 90% figure, but every time I look the number is actually 2-3%?
Om, nomnomnom...
I don't mind longer summers and shorter, milder winters at all. I believe in Global Warming, and I'm all for it.
Look into reverse osmosis. Water shortages aren't making headlines like global warming because we have ways to get fresh water out of the ocean if we get that desperate.
Not a lot of ocean here in Oklahoma.
Who says reverse osmosis requires an ocean? Your future source of water might be found in the technological wonder known as "Toilet to Tap".
You need to read up on something called the "broken window fallacy."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
the arctic thaws every year, and we don't have measurements of how much for even the last 100 years. A little run of bad weather and the "climatologists" (not a field of science for which any educational institution grants a degree) wail "it's due to global warming", whether hurricane, flood, drought or snow storm. Drought is cyclical, as is flooding. if you had been alive in the 1930s dust bowl in the midwest you'd be shitting your britches thinking the world was ending, claiming man's evil technology was to blame. The "climatologists" have been generating mostly useless models for over a decade, then cherry-picking those few that match reality (cooking the books after the fact), and then claim the model's future predictions are reliable. Meanwhile, carbon & cap& trade scams have already cost billions of eros of fraud in europe to date.
Hard to see why it's "less-and-less like hard science", since it's based on evidence.
No. Science is based on predictive skill, which is verified using data. The problem with climate science is that so few predictions are verified. The problem with populist understanding of climate science is that they dont even know what the fuck science is, so they numerical trends with actual science.
"His name was James Damore."
The U.S. and Europe aren't to blame, Sparky. Our CO2 emissions have been either steady on on a downward trend for some time. If you want to point fingers, look at China.
COUGH! Really? And the millions of tons of cee-oh-too emissions that "the west" (europe/USA/etc) have been spewing for a hundred or two years didn't start the ball rolling?
Sure China/India and friends are now catching up and have accelerated hard, but to claim that "it's not our fault" is to completely ignore the entire history of the human race.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
You're wrong: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2216238/Now-theres-ice-South-Pole-So-global-warming-thawing-Antarctica.html
Shit happens and it's usually caused by assholes
Read up on climate change. Even the detractors will admit, climate changes and has changed throughout history. I'm not fool enough to think the swapping light bulbs, buying a hybrid, and paying carbon taxes will halt all climate change or even reverse the current trend. But it will and is cutting our dependence on imported energy. I'll even take a page from the Keanu Reves movie The Day the Earth Stood Still. Humanity only evolves when we stand on the precipice. I'm confident that humanity will move when threatened. Europe evolved over thousands of years of war to become the EU. Do they still have long and deep seated hatreds? Yes. Yugoslavia anyone? But the idea of another war on conquest is unthinable. Plus they have the United States and the UK to handle the things they'd rather not handle.
So like recycling, green tech will and is come of age. It won't be due to government action, taxation, or some grand crusade. It will happen because those that figure out how to make money with green tech will also make green cheap. Today, most alluminum comes from recycling not boxite. That happened because junk yard owners bought up money loosing recycling businesses and made it profitable. The same will happen with rare earth metals, solar, nuclear, led bulbs, batteries, battery charging, and a host of other products that have yet to be invented. So if you want to save the world, don't look to the Al Gores who preach the nanny state and salvation through taxation and regulation. Buy prodcuts that are actually green, not those that simply claim greeness. Waste less. Learn to eat off a whole chicken for a few days by cooking and making leftovers. When you buy durable goods, buy quality. Something you won't want to replace next year. Care for the things you purchase. A well maintained car driven once per day in a long errand and appointment running loop releases less carbon than a $50K hybrid driven on a dozen short trips, plus you have more time for yourself and less of it on the road.
Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
An interesting read on the relationship between water and energy
IEEE Spectrum report on water versus energy
Based on today's (11/19/12) activity, Apple's stock price is on pace to reach 13,888.25 in one year. You'd better start buying up Apple stock NOW!
Global temperatures, according to the article, have risen by 0.8 degrees. Sure, that's "on pace" to reach 4 degrees by the end of the century. But that assumes that global temperatures will not fluctuate. The fact is, they will fluctuate.
The U.S. and Europe aren't to blame, Sparky. Our CO2 emissions have been either steady on on a downward trend for some time. If you want to point fingers, look at China.
Maybe in absolute terms, and only just barely. Go back and take a look per capita, and get your pointer finger ready.
Good job, Earth! You're finally warming up to the idea of companionship!
Another bloody story about global warming, or is it climate change, or is it climate disruption. If anyone lives in New York or New Jersey, they should be royally pissed at this. Because Sandy was NOT a hurricane strength storm when it hit. What would the effects of Sandy have been if she had the strength of Hazel? But because of the "global warming" debate as epitomized by this story, no one is asking Bloomberg or Christie why a storm that was NOT a design event (as engineers understand the term) resulted in so much destruction. Politicians are using global warming as cover. They don't have to answer for the catastrophe that has happened in New York and New Jersey because it is "global warming". And the useful idiots here and the media are letting them succeed. So Bloomberg and Christie will not be held to account. A catastrophe that was predictable, certain to occur, is accepted as "the new normal". NO it isn't the new normal. It is LESS than the old normal. If you live in an affected area in NY or NJ, sue your government because they have failed you. This was NOT anything larger than a design event. OK. Stopping my rant now.
This.
Sure, warming might help Canadians save a bit on their heating bills but the soil at least in most of southern Canada is terrible for agriculture. It's a rocky landscape mostly undisturbed by glacial activity. I would like to know how much Canadian land would be viable for agriculture given various warming scenarios. I have a feeling it won't make up for the midwest U.S. breadbasket.
You should pay attention to science. Economics is a science, and exceptionally clear on questions like comparative advantage, rational behavior, risk, and opportunity costs. You just happen to selectively listen to those scientists who tell you what you want to hear, while choosing to ignore those that tell you what doesn't fit your ideology.
1 degree over the next 100 years, 2 degrees over the next fifty years, 4 degrees over the next 25 years.
Quite the piece of hyperbole there. No one is predicting 4C over 25 years and you're being alarmist by saying it. I have seen some research lately that says 4C by 2100 (87 years) is possible if we continue business as usual.
With your current +2 Insightful mod it looks like you blew it by posting AC if you care that much about your karma.
Last I heard the estimate was that man-made causes are responsible for 80-120% of the observed warming.
Please go read up on the carbon cycle. In the carbon cycle a lot of CO2 is released each year but the same amount more or less of CO2 is absorbed each year. That's why the CO2 level in the atmosphere has hovered around 280 ppm for about 10,000 years, since the end of the last glaciation. Since 1830 CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 395 ppm in 2012, a 41% increase. Even 1% per year means you double it in 100 years (or less if you compound it).
tbannist is right, only about 43% of the CO2 emitted by humans each year serves to increase the atmospheric level. Most of the rest is absorbed by the oceans. What we're doing by digging up and burning fossil fuels that have been sequestered for 10's-100's of millions of years is increasing the total amount of carbon in the active carbon cycle but the relative distribution between the various sources and sinks remains about the same which leads to increased carbon in all of them.
Very illuminating.
Of course many of the mass extinctions in the past were caused by drastic climate change and that's the way we're headed now.
We had the greatest biomass and biodiversity in the planets history when the entire planet was JUNGLE ASS SWEAT HOT.
Notice though that the driving economies of the world are usually found in the temperate zones.
This will never be solved unless we can do something about the 1% of the population who are psychopaths. The climate change "debate" is a virtual play ground for these people knowing the eventual harm and mayhem they are helping to ensure.
Where does that leave the rest of the 1st world countries?
It is not as simple as "some countries will become worse off, some will be better" - that is only where it starts. The rich countries - or those that will have better conditions in a warmer world - will have to deal with potentially billions of immigrants one way or the other. We let them in and try to sort out the problems that will bring, or we try to keep them out and end up fighting a war against desperate people, who will think something like "I can stay here and die of starvation, or I can go and die as a hero, killing as many rich bastards as possible". Not an appealing prospect, to my mind.
Or we can try to start working together now and perhaps make lessen the impact.
If they changed global warming to climate change it must have happened back in the 1980's or before. Otherwise we'd have the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming instead of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (formed in 1988). Actually I've seen reference to both terms in papers from the 1950's.
the arctic thaws every year,
What, all of it?
[...] the "climatologists" (not a field of science for which any educational institution grants a degree)
http://education-portal.com/articles/Schools_that_Offer_Climatology_Programs_How_to_Choose.html
http://www.hotcoursesusa.com/us/3-all/climatology-in-usa.html
Watch this Heartland Institute video
You don't seem to be getting an answer to your "what percent is man made" question.
That's odd.
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+percentage+of+global+warming+is+man+made
Leading to:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=three-quarters-of-climate
Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years
Good enough for you?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Odd, how come I keep hearing this 90% figure, but every time I look the number is actually 2-3%?
Yes, that is odd.
Where do you see 2-3%?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Global CO2 levels have been this high before
Yup.
15 million years ago.
Pretty warm back then.
Global CO2 levels [...] in fact cycle up and down, sometimes very rapidly,
But not as rapdily as they are doing now.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
So... what you're saying is that if the temp went from 60 degrees in mid-October to 64 degrees, you couldn't survive?
Uh, if the temperature is 60 degrees in mid-October you're dead.
Oh, you're using those funny degrees. Salty ice and human body temperature wasn't it?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
the small increase occurred entirely inside the range of data noise.
That statement by itself is completely irrelevent.
As the number of measurements increases, the error bars of the TREND decrease. If the size of the trend is greater than the error bars of then trend then you have statistical significance. The noise on the DATA only affects the number of measurements required.
If you do not believe that you can extract statistically significant small trends out of data where the noise is vastly higher, then please discard all GPS units you own since they don't work.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Any real citations?
I would not trust the dailyfail to tell me if water is wet or not.
Ah but the can tell you whether it causes cancer.
(or cures it).
Watch this Heartland Institute video
And let me tell you I'm having a REAL hard time having a hard time with global warming.
Bring it on, is what I say.
Locally grown bananas would be a-ok with me.
He responded with a parable [well, my paraphrase thereof]:
"A man on a battlefield is struck by an arrow, and is bleeding badly from the wound.
What does he do? Does he calculate the trajectory of the arrow? Does he measure wind velocity? Does he survey and study his enemies' skills in archery to determine who among them could shoot so accurately? Does he analyze the composition of the arrowhead? Does he study the feathers? Does he evaluate the straightness of the shaft?
No, he removes the arrow and quickly binds the wound so that he does not bleed to death."
Global warmng: A, or non-A no longer matters. What matters now is where to move every coastal city, town, village, and port...where to move hundreds of millions of people...where to move agriculture...where to move civilization.
And, of course, how much it will cost you and your descendents.
Discussing climate change with the Ameritards is akin to attempting to explain to them why a 4% foreclosure rate in their country wasn't responsible for the global economic meltdown --- it was the banksters' ultra-leveraged bankster run which did it...
Please don't blame all of us for a few loud-mouthed asshats.
The biggest problem too is developing countries where 1st world countries have little to no authority. Who's going to go into India and replace all the mufflers for 1b people driving shitty 80s cars that the EPA would have a field day over. Better yet China, who probably don't believe in global warming and are only looking to compete with the states on production. I don't think 1st world countries play as much of a role in global warming as they used to. Then again I hear the air in L.A. still isn't so good either...
The USA is the biggest greenhouse gas emitter per capita.
Is this really that hard to understand? There are several potential avenues for profit if they coudl prove that global warming isn't happening:
1) Coal companies would probably want to hire the guy who disproved global warming (they already pay a bunch of people to study it)
2) The Heatland Institute would fund them for a speaking tour to promote their research (they already pay a bunch of people to deny it is happening)
3) They could now have a career as a prominent "conservative" or "Republican" speaker at political events.
4) Conservative publishers would sign the guy to a book deal immediately (ghost-written if necessary).
None of these things involve conspiracy thinking, those are just the obvious opportunities that would afforded to such a monumetnal achievement.
Additionally, the guy who disproved global warming should be a hero to all libertarians everywhere for reaffirming their faiith in capitalism as the solution to every problem. So there is a lot of money to be made by disproving global warming, and perhaps more importantly, it would humiliate some very powerful people's enemies in the environmental lobbies. The Koch brothers, for example, want to destroy the EPA (and environmentalism) because cleaning up after themselves costs money and they don't see why they should have to pay to clean up the messes their companies create. According to their thinking, that's what governments are for.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
If the size of the trend is greater than the error bars of then trend then you have statistical significance.
I seem to recall that the Guardian article on the controversy quoted a boffin as saying that the trend was a tenth of a degree per decade, plus or minus 1.5 degrees. In other words, over a period of 15 years it was still hidden entirely inside the margin of error.
please discard all GPS units you own
Nah, the GPS thing is a red herring, since we can easily validate that we arrive at our desired destination. Confirmation of predictions of chaotic dynamic systems is rather a different challenge, and error estimation of old temperature proxy data is more voodoo than science at this point.
the arctic thaws every year, and we don't have measurements of how much for even the last 100 years.
There is melt every year, however, the low point of ice at the height of North American temperatures in the 1930s, during which "dramatic melting" was seen was higher than the highest level in any year since satellite recording began. So while we don't have satellite measurements, we do know that the first successful north west passage took place in the 1940s and took 2 years to accomplish. The ship was nearly trapped and destroyed a half-dozen times by shifting ice during the passage.
In ten years, there may be no ice at all in the artic during the summer minimum, that's a huge difference. It seems to reason that if the Arctic has been ice free at any point in the last century people would have noticed. Hell, we'd probably know if the arctic had been ice free at any point in the last few thousand years. The Inuit tend to notice things like that. According to the Wikipedia article on climate change in the Arctic, there's no evidence that the Arctic has been seasonally ice free at any point in the last 700,000 years. So saying it's a big change might be a bit of an understatement.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
China and US are pretty close, and if you take into account that it's US money and desire for goods that is funding most of the pollution in China...
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
That's an interesting choice of concern. Why do you believe you haven't been presented with evidence?
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
It's funny that you say that you think they're "scaring the human race back into the dark ages". I see the exact opposite: they're trying to scare us into the future. Better designed cities, smart materials, advanced energy production and capture...
Some of the things, we'll borrow from the past. Just because the designs are old doesn't mean they're bad. When you design a building to be passively heated by the sun and with airflow to maintain a livable temperature without adding any energy of your own, that's a friggin' incredible feat of engineering. And yet, that's what humans have been doing for hundreds of years.
We don't need to go back to caves, we just need to be better at what we're doing now.
No, you are posting bullshit. Using the same measurements that were used to scare us prior to 1988, there has been no significant warming since
I suppose that depends on how you define significant. If you looked at the graphs on the page, you'd notice again and again they show an increase of around 0.4 to 0.5 degrees celcius since 1988. That's pretty close to the IPCC prediction.
No surprise when you realise these are basically the same people that came up with the hockey-stick by merging several different data-sets, using one set for one year and a different one for the next to get the effect they were looking for while while making it appear to be a single consistent measurement.
This is ignorant hogwash, the real critics don't stoop to just making lies up on the spot like you have. I suggest you read up on the various controversies so you can at least not look like a vapid idiot.
I understand that most people can lie easily if they believe it is for a good cause, but scaring the human race back into the dark ages is not a good cause, and I shudder at the thought of trying to understand someone so messed up they think it is.
Now, who's being alarmist? If we started comprehensively dealing with global warming right now, it would cost the world about the same amount as sewer systems cost us. And I'm sure there were people just like you in the 19th century declaring that the first sewer system would send London back ot the dark ages.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Of course many of the mass extinctions in the past were caused by drastic climate change and that's the way we're headed now.
We had the greatest biomass and biodiversity in the planets history when the entire planet was JUNGLE ASS SWEAT HOT.
Notice though that the driving economies of the world are usually found in the temperate zones.
I'm sure global warming will bring an asteroid down on us.
I like your line about economies though. It really exposes the fact that global warming is about money not life on this planet.
Mod this up.
The Congressional hearing tossed gore and his lore out the window. With plenty of scientific evidence.
The numbers have come out and the damn planet's global average hasn't gone up, nor down. Not in 16 years.
- Dan.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Wish I could edit posts.
THIS >>
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3261203&cid=42040297
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Most of Antarctica is technically a desert because it's actually too cold to snow much. Warming the temperature, for example, from -20 to -15 degrees Celcius actually allows more snow to fall, so the ice can grow while the temperature rises. It's a complex system, but here's a National Geographic article that explains some of the complexity.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
The phrase is "a hollowing out". As in, most of Japanese manufacturing and probably a good chunk of American too has been outsourced to China.
I don't know if there is a website for it, but unless you look at who is doing the mining, smelting, parts producing, assembly, shipping, distribution and waste disposal/reclamation, you can't easily say what the exact numbers are. Somebody must know. But there is a reason most every Kickstarter toy is built in China.
Al Gore promised us a hockey stick spike in temperatures and he was flat wrong.
You do realize that 2100 and 2012 are not the same year, right? The hockey stick doesn't predict temperatures it charts historical temperatures. The original one went from rought 1400 to present (at the time, 1999). The IPCC reports, however, predict a rise of around 0.2 degrees per decade. As far as I can tell Al Gore's predictions in an Inconvenient Truth were all further out than 2012. His predictions haven't come true because we haven't reached them yet. It's kind of like you're castigating someone who told you electric cars would be everywhere in 2040 because they're not everywhere right now.
In the last 16 years, you cannot say that the trend he predicted came anywhere close to being accurate.
Climate modles predict that we will occasionally have decades where the temperature slope appears to be 0. It's a consequence of noise in the data. We've had quite a few of these flat periods in the past too, yet the average temperature keeps rising. Skeptical Science has a blog post explaining the problem with this.
All the schemes to add carbon taxes, reduce drilling, oppose oil shale development, fracking, and kick back schemes to promote "green energy" are just fleecing taxpayers and making the economy weaker.
Actually, carbon taxes tend to be economically neutral to good. They encourage the reduction of CO2 emissions, and the money gets either refunded to tax payers who then spend it, or spent by the government on infrastructure projects. Both of those activities may actually stimulate the economy more than what the money would have otherwise been spent on (like raises for company executives).
As I understand opposition to shale development and fracking has a number of reasons, most of which are not global warming related. It seems people don't like poisoned water supplies and earthquakes. Who knew?
The total subsidies to green companies are actually still much lower than the subsidies offered to coal, gas and oil companies. I don't know why extremely profitable companies that pollute the land and air are beeing given tax payer money, but I'd start looking there if you want to figure out who's fleecing you.
2 and 3x increase in energy prices create poverty, inflation, higher unemployment, and more dependency on the government.
It will indeed, however, it's also unavoidable. The easy to access energy is gone, every year the cost to get the next barrel of oil out of the ground increases. It's only a matter of time before oil is the expensive, dirty option instead of the cheap, dirty option.
But we can disagree. Turn off your computer, you're burning carbon.
Actually, most of my power comes from hydro-electric or nuclear power.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Ahh yes, because the evil government boogeyman argument is so much more convincing than the AGW boogeyman argument.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Passive solar design is great, and if you think I am against that sort of thing remember you dont know me at all. The truth is the opposite. I put a few years of my life into that with no regrets in fact.
But it is so much more than that. Many of these 'green' technologies are pushed out immature, at great expense and no real gain, just political stunts. 'Carbon neutrality' is a very dangerous goal, if pursued with currently available technology 'retreat to the dark ages' would be a good description of the result. Smaller population sounds good until you think about how that could actually come about. We live in an energy based economy and carbon neutrality would certainly mean impoverishing ourselves globally. The thrust of technological progress for centuries has been to bring more and more wealth and opportunity to the masses. The privileged elites have grown richer as well, but for some people it isnt enough to be rich - not without an underclass to lord it over. Making energy (the true basis of our modern economy) more expensive serves nicely to impoverish the rank and file of society while leaving plenty of room for the elites to preserve their own wealth and power.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
claiming man's evil technology was to blame.
Great choice of example. The Dust Bowl actually WAS caused by the technology of the time, mostly poor farming practices brought from the entirely different ecosystem of Europe. The drought that occurred may have been natural, but the result of it most certainly was not.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Actually, I'm wondering, there are a large number of resource issues on the plate with an exponentially growing population. At some point we will hit the wall of the petri dish (somebody should write a song about this, preferably involving a nice 'ding' sound) and then we can die off quickly due to wars (possibly even nuclear, depending on the desperation) or slowly due to starvation and disease. It will never be that clean cut, but would it be easier to quickly reduce the population so the situation can be kept under control or just let things happen over a 20 year period as some suggest the normal decline could look like?
Je me souviens.
rich beyond imagination
Paid speaking engagements, a right-wing book deal, and a token job will make you "rich beyond imagination", eh?
You must have a shit imagination.
Required reading for internet skeptics
I made no such claim.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Alrighty then.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
My imagination is fine, but apparently you don't understand hyperbole.
Really, if you're nit picking over exactly how rich someone would get off the discovery, you've already conceded the argument.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Did you read your links, there is no degree called "climatology" there.
Inuit writing is a very recent invention, less than 300 years. without written history, it is ridiculous to say "the inuit would have notice". maybe they did, and maybe the knowledge was lost.
Nah, why would I bother doing something sensible like that.
Sorry.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Not really. Your little play-pretend scenarios are ridiculously implausible.
Of course, you can't see it because you've already bought in to a bunch of wild conspiracy theories.
It's the exact same brand of crazy you'll find on sites like WND.
You should try reality some time. It's pretty amazing, if a bit less dramatic.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Not really. Your little play-pretend scenarios are ridiculously implausible.
Really? A book deal and speaking tours are implausible?
Are you aware that the Heartland Institute already pays about a stipend to about a dozen different pseudo-scientists to continue their anti-AGW work? Have you ever considered that maybe you're the one who's not in touch with reality any more?
Of course, you can't see it because you've already bought in to a bunch of wild conspiracy theories.
Oh, please do enlighten me on this. I love to find out exactly which wild conspiracy theories I supposedly believe in this week.
Fanatically anti-fanatical