Slashdot Mirror
Grim Picture of Polar Ice-Sheet Loss
ananyo writes "A global team of researchers has come up with the most accurate estimate yet for melting of the polar ice sheets, ending decades of uncertainty about whether the sheets will melt further or actually gain mass in the face of climate change. The ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting at an ever-quickening pace. Since 1992, they have contributed 11 millimeters — or one-fifth — of the total global sea-level rise, say the researchers. The two polar regions are now losing mass three times faster than they were 20 years ago, with Greenland alone now shedding ice at about five times the rate observed in the early 1990s. This latest estimate, published this week in Science, draws on up to 32 years of ice-sheet simulations and 20 years of satellite data to give an estimate two to three times more accurate than that in the last IPCC report."
LALALAALAAA we can't hear you.
I for one look forward to being an island-dwelling overlord...
We have a spare on Mercury.
Strange things are afoot at the Circle-K.
Everybody raise their houses by 2cm, quick!
Given that the article is pay-walled, is there any prediction about ice loss? What are the most recent predictions that have given accurate result in the past?
Video of some good progressive thrash music
Warm=more food. Works for me.
I predict:
People who don't believe in AGW/man made climate change will think that this study is just part of the conspiracy
Most people who do believe in AGW/man made climate change will continue to suggest remedies that just will not happen due to economics/human nature
The small amount of actually useful discussion of how we can adapt to a changing climate (no matter what it's cause) will be drowned out in the accusations and counter accusations
Well, at least snow and ice definitely don't have some of the highest Albedo values among terrestrial surface coverings, so losing them won't increase absorption of solar radiation at all!
At this point the evidence for warming is so overwhelming that I wonder if the shift to "..but humans aren't causing it!" will be begun en masse soon. I've already started seeing "It's not worth doing anything about!", but they're still a small chunk of the denier population.
The polar ice is white, so it must be evil. Just like the anti-white racism towards humans.
55mm in 20 years, 11mm due to ice loss, a bunch more due to thermal expansion of the oceans which is also AGW-related.
5cm may not sound like much to you, but to someone looking for a 30+ year real estate investment, and observing this trend of accelerating ocean rise, it will effect property valuations for some coastal property. Especially since the expectation is that, unchecked, this measurement will eventually be in meters.
Someone had to do it.
Your poor attempt at humor missed the point that the ice caps are losing mass three to five times faster than they were 20-ish years ago. Less ice at the poles means less sunlight reflected back into space, which means more heat retained on Earth, which means higher temperatures, faster ice melting, compounding the problem further. Not to mention more radically unpredictable weather. But no, go back into your cave, put on your tinfoil hat, and deny that physics are a thing.
Then you'll be bitching about all these foreigners coming in and taking up all the land, eating all the food and making trouble.
why?
Because you're an asshat.
The study excludes suggestions of rapid melting: "Antarctica is not losing ice as rapidly as suggested by many recent studies. What’s more, snowfall in east Antarctica still seems to be compensating for some — but not all — of the melting elsewhere in Antarctica." It generally just seems to confirm what people had been assuming was happening anyway: a modest amount of melting in response to increasing temperatures. Note that melting from ice sheets only accounts for 20% of total sea level rise.
I don't quite understand what the summary is saying here. If it is an estimate, how can they know that it is accurate? Was this estimate a prediction made some time ago, and has since been verified by measurement?
Tell that to these guys...
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvRvGmJAuNc)
So, you came up with a model that accurately predicts the past?
What nonesense is that? The accuracy of a model can only be determined by testing it against reality, and not against the data it has been fitted to. You need new data to do that and I'm sorry to tell you that new annual data sets will arrive only at a pace of one per year.
Meanwhile, shut up and look at the models you've made so far and be ashamed of the constant revisions in both directions.
In any other branch of science coming up with the kind of models and inaccuracies that climate science comes up with, scientists would simply say .. well, sorry, we cannot model these processes with any degree of accuracy and be done with it. If you came up with a better model, well, good for you, but now you have to *prove* it is actually better than all the rest so far.
Problem is that for most people it doesn't gel with their personal experience.
If The Scotsman newspaper runs this news then it's a guarantee that for a couple of days following the article the letters page would be full of "It was snowing here; so much for global warming" and "But I saw ice on the ground this morning" and similar variants.
And yes, I know it's my own fault for reading the letters page in The Scotsman.
Windwaker here we come!
Damn...
Ha! With the Greenland's icesheet melting, Google can no longer credibly cover up the secret alien base complex that could be seen temporarily in GoogleEarth due to a lapse of the Google Censorship Directorate to remove the satellite image evidence.
Why simulations? Can't they just measure?
There isn't actually a picture!
/* No Comment */
doesn't water contract as it gets warmer?
Got into a discussion about this recently over the recent (and on-going) flooding in the UK. If the sea level and temperatures both rise, then a logical expectation of that would be that more water would evaporate off the oceans into the atmosphere, subsequently returning as rain and snow. That would entail more runoff and a corresponding rise in river levels and increased risk of flooding, particularly given the growing pressure on housing in some areas resulting in flood plains being used for development.
It's not just the people with beachfront properties that need to be worried...
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
It is unclear how these trends, such as ice loss from Greenland, will evolve, says Ian Joughin, one of the paper's co-authors and a satellite expert at the University of Washington in Seattle. “It really remains unclear whether such losses will decline, whether they’ll level off or they’ll accelerate further,” he says.
It's been happening for the the last 12K Years, I think it is about time someone took notice.
Only in a small zone near the freezing point.
Someone had to do it.
For 0 to 4 degrees C it contracts but warmer than that it expands. Water Physics_and_chemistry
I have it on good authority that Techno Viking is excitedly awaiting the construction of his summer home in northern Greenland.
And once queued, we'll cue them one by one.
Depends on the temperature. at 3C yes, at 5C no.
There's a difference between coming out of an ice-age (a natural process over tens of thousands of years) and global warming, where there is a noticeable change in temperature/ice-caps over a period of years/decades.
And it's trolls like you spreading FUD that don't help matters.
but to someone looking for a 30+ year real estate investment, and observing this trend of accelerating ocean rise, it will effect property valuations for some coastal property.
I live about 15 miles inland, so raising seas will actually increase my house value because I'll then be able to sell it as having a sea-view! /sarcasm
this says one thing and this -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/ says another, I building a boat whatever....
H2O contracts as it goes from solid (ice) to liquid (water), so there is a range at which that's true. At average ocean temperatures, increasing the temperature/energy level will expand the volume.
Let's raise taxes and hand our hard earned money to unaccountable bureaucrats!
Polar ice is Cartesian ice after a coordinate trasformation.
Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
If I understand the FUD correctly, the ice sheets/glaciers have been losing ice anyways, and would have lost all their ice eventually, they're just going to lose all the ice sooner than originally thought? Total non-story then.
Why do you waste your breath?
You're not trying to save the planet, you're trying to save a narrow band ecosystem in which humans are most comfortable.
The planet would still be here if we dropped every nuke we had on it, just the humans wouldn't be around to screw up their own ecosystem anymore.
actiondan is your nickname? Shouldn't it be inactiondan? Or maybe apathydan? Or maybe Idontgiveafuckaboutthefuturedan?
The ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are melting at an ever-quickening pace. Since 1992, they have contributed 11 millimeters — or one-fifth — of the total global sea-level rise
The ice sheets in Antarctica are growing. It's the only reliable good news.
One fifth? Where's the other 4/5th coming from?
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Well, according to the Vostok Petit Data, we're about due for another one right about now. So, maybe it's not global warming only, but a number of differing factors that are leading to another Ice Age 20XX
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/how-the-climate-scumbags-operate-part-1/
Easiest way to fix sea level rises is to dig two channels.
Connect the Caspian Sea and the Dead Sea (and the rest of the Great Rift Valley) to the open ocean and watch the water level drop.
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
So where the ice was 100 years ago before global warming started is exactly where "normal" is and where the ice should always have and forever have stayed? How was that determined.
Just to recap --
Most people will agree that the planet has been here somewhere between thousands of years and millions of years, and to come to "most accurate estimate yet for melting of the polar ice sheets" they have used historcial weather data that goes all the way back to......1980.
And the global warming people wonder why the majority of the scientific community thinks they are a joke? Really?
You think that accelerating melting of ice is evidence that we are going into another ice age?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm
Lots of things cause climate change.
Work Safe Porn
Oh my! 32 years and 20 years of monitoring, the melt is unprecedented! After 4 billion years of existence, the Earth is laughing quite heartily at the experts.
Everything is AGW related - hot spells, cold spells, droughts, floods, riots, earthquakes, locusts, hurricanes, doldrums - that's a cop out.
The fact of the matter here is that 11mm in 20 years, or 55mm in 20 years, is ridiculously small. Seriously, 6 *centimeters* in 20 years. Even with a thirty year horizon, that's not more than 10 *centimeters*.
Quick quiz: how much did ocean levels rise from 1900-2000, and how many acres of real estate were devalued because of it?
As for acceleration, sea level rise is actually *slowing* - there's simply no possible plausible scenario that is going to turn *millimeters* of change into *meters* of change in in 20 years, or even 100 for that matter.
If the sea level would just rise about 30 more meters or so my house would be on the beach, plus -- and this is a big plus -- no one would ever have to smell New Jersey again.
I just read the entire linked article, no mention of actual loss or rate changes, just references to "more", "faster", "significant", "alarming", "in the past", "ever-quickening pace". No specific numbers mentioned? Well one number, the rise of sea level, why include that but not a cu ft of ice or something similar? Why would specific numbers be left out?
I like the first paragraph, implying this is the ultimate study and ends all controvesy and uncertanty. That's it guys, no more questioning or studies are required, everything has already been done with this study.
"A global team of researchers has come up with the 'most accurate estimate' yet for melting of the polar ice sheets, ending decades of uncertainty about whether the sheets will melt further or actually gain mass in the face of climate change."
Hey, I'm a believer in global warming and the ice melting but this piece seems to be more politically motivated than science related.
So your assertion is that from 1992-2012, ice caps melted and caused 11mm of sea level rise, but from 1972-1992, there were only 2mm of sea level rise due to ice caps?
Pics or it didn't happen.
Oh, and just for fun, any observations you can cite of weather, CO2, ice cover, and global average temperature that would falsify your assumption that humans control the weather and the sea levels of the earth now?
The gravitational pull of the arctic ice (or lack of it) is on of the most influential factors:
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region/2255/
Seriously, you think people wouldn't have been hurt by supermegaultrastorm sandy if their houses had been 2cm higher?
Really?
So once we do away with all that pesky ice will we have more land to grow crops? The hardest thing to do will be to convince everyone who will be flooded out not to leave and just learn to breath underwater. So it's all win win for those of us in the middle of the continents. Less people to feed and more arid land to grow crops on.
55mm in 20 years, 11mm due to ice loss, a bunch more due to thermal expansion of the oceans which is also AGW-related.
BS. If you look at the actual data you'll note that the rate of sea level rise has decreased since 2002. This is entirely inconsistent with a) the claim being made by these researchers and b) the idea that the current high levels of atmospheric CO2 are causing unusual warming, swamping natural variability.
The ocean heat sink is supposed to receive something like 80% of the AGW related heat increase, causing thermal expansion as you state.
"Forget the experimental evidence - it's ruining our beautiful theory!"
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Species composed of intelligent individuals are actually very "dumb" in their decision on the species level, fall into the paradox of the tragedy of the common, fuck up their environment enough that space travel becomes a distant last priority compared to maintaining a standard of life or fight an ever increasing hostile creature until technology advance are too slow to maintain an equal fight and send back their civilisation in a pre industrial age due to lack of better energy source in the now hostile environment.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
There's a difference between coming out of an ice-age (a natural process over tens of thousands of years) and global warming, where there is a noticeable change in temperature/ice-caps over a period of years/decades. And it's trolls like you spreading FUD that don't help matters.
FUD? Isn't that exactly what you are spreading?
The refugees squatting on your front lawn might drastically lower the value, though.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
it is incredibly foolish to believe that humans are responsible for the melting of the polar icecaps. one volcano eruption puts off more CO2 than all of the emmissions that humans have put out since there were humans.
That statement is factually incorrect. Volcanos do not emit more CO2 than humans-- they emit less, by orders of magnitude.
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2011/2011-22.shtml
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html
From http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/06/scienceshot-volcano-co2-emission.html :
"A popular myth among climate change skeptics is that volcanic emissions of carbon dioxide dwarf those generated by humans. But a new report in today's issue of Eos reveals precisely the opposite: In a mere 2 to 5 days, smokestacks, tailpipes, and other human sources of CO2 spew a year's worth of volcanic emissions of that greenhouse gas. According to the paper, five recent studies suggest that volcanoes worldwide (such as Alaska's Shishaldin, shown) emit, on average, between 130 million and 440 million metric tons of CO2 each year. But in 2010, anthropogenic emissions of the planet-warming gas were estimated to be a whopping 35 billion metric tons. Individual events—such as Mount Pinatubo, whose major eruption in 1991 lasted about 9 hours—can produce CO 2 at the same rate that humans do, but they do so only for short periods of time. It would take more than 700 Mount Pinatubo-sized eruptions over the course of a year to emit as much carbon dioxide as people do, the study notes."
Let me note that it is misinformed statements like this that tend to make real scientists dismiss global-warming deniers as crackpots. If you really want skepticism of anthropogenic global warming to be taken seriously, you need to have a basic understanding of the real world.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
http://www.english-wine.com/
That's always been a concern. To put it in perspective, continental drift is an order of magnitude faster than that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Amazing how denialists don't trust any data that doesn't match their preconceptions but are only too willing to make pretty wild assumptions when they find some vague hint of something that might help confuse the issue.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
The closest to a supervolcano eruption in recent years was Krakatoa in 1883, and we still have ice in poles.
A small push could be the difference between a person at the top of a cliff and a corpse at the bottom, and you will be a killer if you do it, even if the cause of death was mostly being up there.
This thread is proof that ignorant retards and trolls are now the majority on /.
Seriously guys?
1000 years ago Greenland had ice, because we have ice core from all over the place which date 5000+ (and some older) to demonstrate it. There were *some* pastoral place but those do exists today too :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Qaqortoq2008.JPG/120px-Qaqortoq2008.JPG
The main problem is that the place was not so great for agriculture to begin with, and the drop of average of temperature of 4ÂC around 1100 to 1200AD did not help.
The reason it was called greenland is mainly because calling it "deathly cold land" would not help attract suckers to help colonize it.
US atmospheric carbon emissions have declined 20% since the mid-2000s peak. The main reason is conversion from coal to natural gas electricity. Secondary reasons are the Great Recession economic decline and the start of stronger Obama efficiency requirements. By 2015 the US should achieve the Kyoto treaty standards of 6% below 1990 levels.
The US becomes the biggest reducer due to being the 2nd largest carbon producer and its production decline.
The US shift to natural gas regulation was not because of greenhouse reasons. It was due to natural gas being cheaper than coal and anti-pollution laws against coal metal ash.
So, you're saying there hasn't been noticable change in the ice caps over the last few decades?
That, and all the trash/housing/industry/etc that is between the shore and the house, ending up in the front yard.
If your prediction is correct, then global warming will be a good thing for places like California, which can definitely use more water (and have the means for storing it if it comes all at once). Most of the Western US has water shortages and would not be upset at all if there were more rain.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So where the ice was 100 years ago before global warming started is exactly where "normal" is and where the ice should always have and forever have stayed?
Depends what you mean by the word "normal." The dinosaurs lived perfectly well in a world that had no ice caps at all, and in which the entire center of the United States was a shallow ocean that stretched from Colorado to Pennsylvania. You could call that "normal" if you like.
However, there would be a great deal of disruption to human civilization to change to that state. We have an ecosystem (and an economic system) that is well adapted for the climate we have now, not one that is significantly warmer and with significantly higher sea levels. It would cause trillions of dollars of costs just to relocate the part of the population that lives in places that will be underwater, not even to mention changing the agricultural infrastructure. Doing this slowly is one thing. Doing ten thousand years worth of climate change in fifty years is another.
It would be nice for Canada, Norway, and Siberia, though. Not so nice for the United States (except for Alaska); we have a very good climate for agriculture right now, and don't really want to have the climate of Mexico move up to Kansas. Oddly, Canada, Norway and Russia are the most adamant of the countries that are trying to block restrictions on greenhouse effect gas emissions. That's probably just a coincidence, though, since those countries are also major fossil-fuel exporters.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
That's not what I am saying. What I'm saying is that there is just as much FUD thrown around on the global warming alarmist side as there is on the skeptic side.
In fact if you look up where they found some of the viking stuff, it was when digging *current* settlement down. Not by looking up in zone which were ice covered before and are now ice free (if there are any yet).
Salt water does not.
how many of the folks that come on here to blather on and on about politics, religion, global warming, abortion, drug use, etc are actually paid shills from a political party or some weird activist group. And how many just can't help themselves. I'm not choosing sides - I'm just amazed at the enormous amount of highly questionable data that gets tossed back and forth in these discussions, and I'm even more amazed at how many AC's (and others) act in perfect lock-step with each other on their data. I wouldn't be surprised to find someone(s) is either getting paid (or hoping to) in order to spend so much time making silly arguments on /.
I know this has been discussed before, but it's just an interesting phenomenon to me. OK - back to your regularly scheduled save-the-world/no-don't-save-the-world/no-screw-you-I'll-save-the-world-if-I-want-to flame-war.
There, you got the solution for the global warming problem. If everyone puts on their tinfoil hat, more heat will be reflected to space, and temperatures will get lower. Will be ironic to make global warming deniers to put on the tinfoil hat to actually make the global warming problem to dissapear.
There aren't two equal sides here with 2 legitimate points of view. There is the scientific fact of global warming, and there are ignorant people denying it.
You are cherry picking data sources. Also, as with most data from natural sources, noise is expected, which is why we employ statistical analysis.
Someone had to do it.
That's not what I am saying. What I'm saying is that there is just as much FUD thrown around on the global warming alarmist side as there is on the skeptic side.
Maybe you should learn what FUD means.
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Denialists specialise in "Uncertainty" and "Doubt". They like to throw a little Fear around from time to time "it's a conspiracy"!
Watch this Heartland Institute video
there's simply no possible plausible scenario that is going to turn *millimeters* of change into *meters* of change in in 20 years
Never said that. When buying a house, many purchasers want their kids and grandkids to be able to enjoy it as an inheritance. Coastal erosion is a well know source of devaluation. 5cm of average sea level rise translates to several meters on a flat beach.
Someone had to do it.
Here is a graph of the ocean change, if anyone wants to look at it. Note that the graph is total change in seal level since 1990, not annual change, which is much lower.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If you look at the actual data you'll note that the rate of sea level rise has decreased since 2002.
No, he'll see a denialist bufoon trying to split a 20 year graph of noisy data into two distinct sections. He won't see the scientist that actually created that data doing something so dumb.
You tried exactly the same back in 2009, to claim that global warming had stopped in 1998. However, 3 years more data of climing temperatures showed that you were exactly the idiot people said you were. Trying to make patterns out of short term noise.
So "THE WORLD IS ENDING" is not Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt? The fact is, we just don't know for sure. I'm open to any theory based on scientific research, but no one truly knows for a fact what is going on. There is enough data on both sides to warrant looking at. The Earth is warming, but what is causing it? When you say "you're wrong" you leave no wiggle room for a change in your ideas. Isn't that the whole point of science?
Of course global warming is real. It started at the end of the last ice age
Do you see what you did there?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
You've been reading conservative blogs, or watching "The Great Climate Swindle".
You know they are lying to you, and in turn, you are lying to us.
You can check this for yourself if you have the emotional grits to be wrong.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
What makes you imagine you know better than the scientists?
Remaking human economic infrastructure around a new ecology must be cheaper then using technology to reduce CO2 emissions. (Obviously it is just ideologically preferable.)
Face-palm.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Talk about apples and oranges. A "volcanic emmission" is a misleading way of saying non eruption emmissions. IE the amount of co2 that volcanoes emit when they just sit there quietly burbling. That in no way refutes the original statement which was comparing a volcanic ERUPTION to man made CO2.
Given the fact that 1 eruption can change global climate for several years, please don't lie through your teeth and mislead people into thinking they are insignificant compared to smokestacks and tail pipes. The climate of the planet doesn't change when people burn coal and oil to keep warm in the winter, nor when millions of people commute in rush hour.
The UK is unusual in that nowehere is far from the sea so its topography has little in the way of flood plains to begin with. Population pressure has led to a lot of developments on these flood plains - minimal as they are - as you correctly state. I have seen new developments literally up to the banks of rivers with no additional drainage channels dug which is verging on criminally negligent. The upshot is that rivers now have no spare capacity to dissipate sudden rainfall and we have far more frequent and extreme flooding. Higher sea-levels will make things worse in the long run but it's a tiny effect compared to the reduction in capacity of the river system.
So "THE WORLD IS ENDING" is not Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt?
Who said that?
The fact is, we just don't know for sure.
Huh. FUD!
I'm open to any theory based on scientific research, but no one truly knows for a fact what is going on.
FUD
There is enough data on both sides to warrant looking at. The Earth is warming, but what is causing it?
FUD
When you say "you're wrong" you leave no wiggle room for a change in your ideas. Isn't that the whole point of science?
FUD.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The climate change we are facing, its effects on our food supply, energy, medicine, etc; will force us in the First World to become more self sufficient and more locally focused.
Unless some firehose of technological/financial miracles takes place to alleviate the problems caused by climate change, we will be forced to adapt. We will be forced to adapt our lifestyles in the coming decades. This doesn't mean living in caves or any other such denier nonsense. If anything this adaptation will be an opportunity for evolution and growth.
It simply means that since the 1% that Rule America are actively and aggressively feeding the flames of environmental destruction, it will be incumbent on the average citizen to build the mechanisms for self reliance on a local level. This is happening now and will only increase as the options for survival of our lifestyle become less palatable.
For details speak with anyone who lived through the Great Depression.
Waiting for the corporations, the government or the church to save you isn't an option.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
"I find your lack of faith disturbing. . ."
"It's an imperfect world,screws fall out..."
Did you ever notice that I didn't take a side? So how am I spreading FUD, when I'm not actually being a global warming denier or a global warming alarmist?
I think the general public and most posters here don't fully grasp the problem (nor do I) My basic scientific curiosity tells me that there must be multiple parameters that contribute to the size of the ice cap. These might include things like seasonal temperature variation combined with precipitation patterns. I never hear any of these parameters discussed. So is there a reason, and does the size depend only on temperature?
Except that weather is a complex thing, and there would not be an even blanket of precipitation in all areas of the world. What the models point to is more extremes – some areas with severe flooding and storms, and other areas more like deserts. California is not slated to get a wetter climate out of climate change.
So that's how the Black Sea came to be.
With the Arctic Polar Cap melted, entirely new lines for shipping will be opened. Shipping goods from China and Japan to Europe and New York will become significantly faster, cheaper and safer. The shipping industry will be able to cut their CO2 emissions to a tenth of their current amount.
Additionally, Russia could see an industrial boom along its north shore. Factories could be placed up along that coast with easy access to Canadian, American and European markets and put a lot of Russians to work.
One can look at the loss of the Arctic cap as a disaster, or a boon. It all depends on your goals for humanity.
Bearded Dragon
What the models point to is more extremes – some areas with severe flooding and storms, and other areas more like deserts.
Models are unable to predict at smaller then the continental scale (read the IPCC report). As an example,
California is not slated to get a wetter climate out of climate change.
This depends a LOT on whether El Niño becomes more common or less common, and models are also unable to predict that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No but you pulled the old trick of saying, since the crazies in the denier community say extreme things, that if science says extreme things it must be the same as the deniers.
;-)
Science has actual data to back up their extreme positions.
Which removes the 'Doubt' and leaves us with F.U.*
*and I don't mean fear or uncertainty
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Ocean View*
*view is 'up'
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Are we not overdue on an ice age? Can we have it now? Please..
Quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement from any scientist on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and then we can talk about who knows better than who. As it stands, you've simply made an appeal to unnamed authorities.
Unfortunately, California and the Western U.S. will likely be on the on the end where more water evaporates and other areas, like Seattle maybe, will be on the end where "more water precipiates". So California and the Western U.S. are likely to become more desertified, and unfortunately when they do get rain, the risk of flash flooding will actually be worse because more rain will fall and the land will be less able to absorb it.
Isn't climate change wonderful? The people who already "get too much rain" will get more and the people who already "don't get enough rain" will get less and have more of their aquifers evaporate.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
My twin nieces, Ruby and Winnie. My nephews Leo and Max.
Historically humanity has fared better in times of warmer climate.
If you truly cared about your nieces you would be happy it looks like we will not have an ice age for a while.
You don't think those of use that don't buy into the scaremongering don't have nieces (and nephews) also? I have a number, and what I don't want to do is screw over the worlds economies they are living in third world conditions when they grow up. That is a far more real and present danger than from 11mm of rise in a decade (which BTW is a very questionable number as it goes against measured sea level rise which is lower).
There is not a single life that will be lost from AGW, even if your worst case is true. People would just gradually move out of coastal cities. But all the proposed reactions to AGW to try and slow it down or stop it will end up starving a lot of people, so don't get all weepy-eyed about your own family while you seek to screw over millions of others.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Costal erosion is orders of magnitude more impactful than a 5cm average sea level rise. In fact, an average 5cm sea level rise tells you *nothing* about how local costal conditions are going to respond -> there are plenty of places where the high tide level *falls* even as "average sea level' is on the rise.
Not to mention, a 5cm average sea level rise, even if completely evenly applied to every coastal area, is dwarfed by natural variation in tidal range.
Oh, and nice trick turning centimeters of *height* into meters of *length* :) A cute sophistry, but not very effective.
Talk about FUD. You act like there was something we could have done in the last 20 years to prevent it. Even cutting to zero CO2 emissions in 1990 would not have ended global warming, or prevented the polar regions from melting.
Well except for that fact increasing *rates* of rise tend to screw you over. 11 mm this 20 years, 20 mm next 20 years is 31, 30 mm the next 20 is 51 and so on.
You're applying steady state to a decidedly non-steady state system. Will rates move that fast? We don't know, but we have quite clear data that rates of increase themselves *are* increasing.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Did you ever notice that I didn't take a side? So how am I spreading FUD, when I'm not actually being a global warming denier or a global warming alarmist?
Oh, you took a "side" alright.
The fact is, we just don't know for sure. [...] no one truly knows for a fact what is going on. [...] There is enough data on both sides to warrant looking at.
That's purest FUD which tells me what "side" you're on.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
As mentioned elsewhere, climate models aren't accurate enough to predict climate changes for features smaller than the continental scale (read the IPCC report). So these predictions are mainly guesses. A lot of what happens to California rainfall will be determined by what happens with ENSO, which climate models are also unable to predict. So be doubtful any time someone gives such a specific prediction.
In the case of California, it's not a problem if the rain comes more intensely, as long as there is more of it. The state is already prepared for having too much of its water all at once. 150 years ago, before dams were built, the central valley would be covered with feet of water every spring, then would dry up for the rest of the summer. If you drive through the valley and look at the soil, you can still see evidence of annual flooding, and where the flooding became less and less as the dirt turns to sandy loam.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Hell, even if you forget global warming - humans are raising sea-levels by simply pumping billions of gallons of water out of the ground. It doesn't get replenished on any human timescale.
linky 1
linky 2
Dams have held back some of this, but are reaching their limits for continued storage of an increasing amount.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
instead of just really screwed.
it is incredibly foolish to believe that humans are responsible for the melting of the polar icecaps. one volcano eruption puts off more CO2 than all of the emmissions that humans have put out since there were humans. how many eruptions are there on average per year? yea... a lot.
This is what happens when Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. takes over scientifically grounded journals such as National Geographic - more big oil think tank bs arguments.
Costal erosion is orders of magnitude more impactful than a 5cm average sea level rise.
And sea level rise amplifies the effect of coastal erosion, so your point is...?
Someone had to do it.
I think the problem is rather clear... we need to sue Greenland for dumping all their waste water into the ocean. How can they be this irresponsible?!?
Yes. Just more shills, mostly unpaid parrots from the conservative bubble - an alternate reality crafted by, mostly, the Kohl Bros. & other big polluters. Here's to hoping sites like Slashdot do not succumb to lucrative disinformation bribes.
Quote a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement from any scientist on catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, and then we can talk about who knows better than who.
So you don't even know what it is you're being skeptical about.
As it stands, you've simply made an appeal to unnamed authorities.
No, I asked you a question. You appear to be pretending to know about science by spouting elementary scientific terms. I was asking what your credentials are.
....I call Promising.
I COMMAND THE SEAS TO RISE!!!!
---
Here is some non-caps text for the retarded filter.
I wonder if the large areas of land (Antarctic) no longer under the heavy weight of ice will give rise to 'springback' quakes, accelerating the collapse of the remaining glaciers at an even more rapid rate.
So, can you point to evidence in the geological record where this much happened in THIRTY YEARS, not CENTURIES?
For extra credit, what do you recommend we do: move NYC, with all of its inhabitants, to, say, Denver? (And who would pay?)
mark
...Given the fact that 1 eruption can change global climate for several years...
An eruption can change climate for several years... but not due to the emission of greenhouse gasses, which are trivial.
The aerosols from an eruption, however-- the ash and sulfates-- can block sunlight and have a significant cooling effect. This is a very real effect, and making sure that climate models correctly model the effect of historic volcano eruptions is a useful way of verifying the fidelity of climate models.
CO2 emissions from volcanoes on the other hand, are just not significant. It's somewhat hard comprehend the scale of 30 trillion kilograms of carbon dioxide, which is the amount emitted by humans per year, but if you picture a cube of coal about 10km on a side, that will start to give you an idea. This is much larger than the total of what is out by volcanoes, including both eruption and non-eruption emissions.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Please toe the party line. Global warming is always and everywhere, per definition, bad. It cannot possibly have any positive effects anywhere. It does its deeds in such a way that evil is maximized. That's how nefarious it it.
If you still don't understand, an example: if you are cold and your friend next door is hot, global warming will freeze you as dry as a funeral pyre and boil your friend in his flooded home. At the same time.
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
As mentioned elsewhere, climate models aren't accurate enough to predict climate changes for features smaller than the continental scale (read the IPCC report).
I am talking about general guidelines as opposed to specific predictions. Global warming is highly likely to make dry areas dryer and wet areas wetter.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'm skeptical that there exists any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I challenge you to cite the one you believe in.
Without specifying who "the scientists" are. I might know less than Richard Lindzen, for example, but I certainly know more than Michael Mann :)
The nice thing about science is that it can be played without credentials - we don't have to rely on appeals to authority. We start with our falsifiable hypothesis statement, try desperately to find falsifications, and fail - we get closer and closer to truth that way.
So want to play science, or do you want to argue authority? :)
All I can say is, "Thank you Al Gore for inventing global warming!"
Lies, damn lies and statistics come to mind.
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
Actually, no, we don't.
http://notrickszone.com/2012/11/29/stefan-rahmstorfs-sea-level-amnesia-using-his-own-numbers-sea-level-rise-actually-dropped-3/
Frankly, rates of change in this system will *always* be changing. As it stands, they're not following the steady uptick in atmospheric CO2, which tends to cast doubt on any causal relationship from CO2.
You think that accelerating melting of ice is evidence that we are going into another ice age?
No, but the Pregressives have nothing else to believe in.
You insensitive clod ? My grandmother, sitting in her rocker, got water up to her nose and drowned. One inch lower, and she wouldn't.
(I'll tell you another sad bedtime story tomorrow if you're nice.)
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
My point is that sea level rise does *not* necessarily amplify effects of costal erosion. You're making an unsupported assertion there.
If I point out a costal area where the coastal erosion has been steady for the past 100 years, even though sea level has increased, will you accept that as a refutation of your assertion?
And if you are going to make an amplification assertion, will you quantify it? If sea level rise amplifies coastal erosion by a factor of 1.000000000001, should we care?
How do you think "Greenland" got it's name? Sarcastic Danes?
The enlargement of the sub-tropical zones because of Hadley cell expansion means most of the southern USA, particularly from Texas westward will probably get drier.
Its big oil & big polluter funded conservative think tanks doing what they are paid to do: inserting disinformation into public discussion, into public awareness, so much so, and effectively, that many conservatives actually trust & believe the pseudoscience messages ie."AGW is a hoax", "human are not responsible", "if human activity is responsible, its already too late", "this is tree-hugging liberals out to destroy the economy, and promote socialism", "only God controls nature" , "Armaggedon is coming", etc., etc., ad nauseum. There are known solutions to minimize the ferocity of the human driven mass extinction level event the natural world is in. Its not a question whether or not humanity can minimize the damage, it can. Its whether or not humanity has the political will, and moral courage, to act responsibly this point in time.
Re: the marine mass extinction: Multiple ocean stresses threaten "globally significant" marine extinction
Without specifying who "the scientists" are. I might know less than Richard Lindzen, for example, but I certainly know more than Michael Mann :)
Bingo! Your fakery revealed to the world.
The nice thing about science is that it can be played without credentials
So you're playing it as an amateur, without the qualifications of... for example Michael Mann. (A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998))
Sorry, but no. While there will be more rain on a global scale, it won't happen in the same places. Wind patterns shift with rising temperature at the poles and smaller rises at the equator, which is what's happening. What this does is slow down the jet stream, causing weather patterns to move more slowly. So hot, cold, wet, and dry episodes tend to linger more than they would have otherwise. (This is already happening.)
Other changes are quite possible. Perhaps Greenland melting could dilute the ocean, changing the patterns of ocean currents. This would bring much colder weather to northern Europe, but wouldn't be likely to change the pacific "Japanese current". This, however, is quite speculative, as Greenland melting isn't at all the same the the dumping of a large lake of glacial melt water. That happened very suddenly rather than over a period of decades. (See the Younger Dryas.) Also, the continents are in a slightly different configuration. Still, it's an uncomfortably close analogy.
Locally, where I live, weather patterns have, so far, just been moving North. But local geography differs, so the effects aren't easy to predict even for this relatively smooth change. And, of course, the slowing jet stream affects everyone North of the equator. (I don't know what's happening to it's southern counterpart, but given that Antarctica still has lots of ice, I suspect that it's maintaining speed. Though news about the timing of the monsoons changing makes that assumption questionable.)
Caution: I am not a climatologist.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The biigest single factor in you premature demise would be global warming,
and you didn't believe me....
David De Rothschild And The Global Warming Hoax ... Thanks!
This is correct: elevated temperatures increase the water-holding capacity of the atmosphere. The effects will be especially dramatic in tropical areas as hurricanes and typhoons will have an increased energy-capacity --> bigger storms. Drier areas are likely to get drier, however. Just because the atmosphere can hold more water doesn't mean it will.
Like it or not, that's how the physical laws of the universe play out. You won't find disagreement between the scientists, engineers, meteorologists, naturalists, economists and other professionals who actually understand math and physics: global climate change is occurring and it represents a threat. Too bad most of our leaders have touchy-feely degrees and (apparently) cannot understand science.
That beats the heck out of listening to psudoscientists and liberals trying to make a buck off a problem that doesn't exist.
this clearly shows that humans are in no way responsible for global warming.
Unfortunately, it shows nothing of the sort.
It says that water vapor is the most significant greenhouse effect gas. Water vapor indeed is a greenhouse gas, but water vapor cycles in and out of the atmosphere based primarily on temperature. The hotter is is, the more water evaporates into the atmosphere; the colder it is, the more water condenses out of the atmosphere. So, basically, water vapor is an amplifying agent-- if you increase the temperature, more water evaporates, and the greenhouse effect increases. This is well known.
I would like to really suggest you read the IPCC Working-Group 1 report, "The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change" http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml
You would be able to argue more effectively if you started out by being aware of what is already known.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
If I point out a costal area where the coastal erosion has been steady for the past 100 years, even though sea level has increased, will you accept that as a refutation of your assertion?
Within the confines of that coastal area, sure. Elsewhere, no.
Someone had to do it.
Cherry picking data for only 20 years about of a known 150 year plot with *lots* of noise isn't exactly 'scientific'. linky Note the top graph. Things changed significantly back in the 30s and 40s. Other data on the page suggests that rise was fairly constant centuries ago, around 0.5 mm/yr, which due to erosion of the land is to be expected. We're now easily triple that rate.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
So "THE WORLD IS ENDING" is not Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt?
The world is not ending. I don't know who's saying that, but it is not correct.
OK, I will accept that there are three sides here:
Denier wackos: The greenhouse effect doesn't exist, or if it exists we're not causing it, or maybe we are causing some of it but not most of it, but in any case don't believe it, and anybody who gives it any credence whatsoever is part of a conspiracy.
Scientists: The greenhouse effects exist, it has been understood for a long time, human-generated carbon dioxide contributes to it in a calculatable way, and extensive measurements from the ground, ships, balloons and satellites verifies the basic premises of the models and predictions. There may be uncertainty in the details, but the overall model is understood and well validated.
Alarmist wackos: the world is ending!
OK. Well, it turns out that in this case the correct answer is indeed the middle one: The greenhouse effects exist, it is well understood and modelled, and multiple measurements made by different methods by independent research verify the models and predictions.
The fact is, we just don't know for sure.
No, but we have very good models and multiple sources of extremely good data that verifies the models. The greenhouse effect is relatively simple physics, and "it doesn't exist' is not a theory that fits the physics we know.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Really? You're going to blame an increase in flooding on global warming? Try run off from parking lots and roof tops. Get a clue and some basic understanding of water retention.
Holy fuck! 6 centimeters in 20 years! Thats nearly 3 centimeter/decades!!!
I gotta get my boat ready.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
It's true because there's "a lot" of eruptions? That's remarkably poor reasoning. Your assertion simply isn't true even if one includes all such emissions of carbon dioxide. Sure, there is a lot of volcanoes. There's also a vast number of vehicles, furnaces and other such human machines producing carbon dioxide. It turns out the latter quantity is a lot bigger than the volcanoes.
How is it cherry picking, if I'm choosing a 20 year period where CO2 has been raising dramatically?
The fact of the matter is that during a 20 year period of the highest CO2 ever experienced by humans, we've had a *slowing* in the rate of sea level rise. If we are to accept the simple notion that CO2 == global warming == sea level rise, it's obvious that we've missed something critically important...and possibly gotten our basic premise wrong.
And that's the real challenge for alarmists - they simply haven't expressed their hypothesis in a way that is both necessary, sufficient, and falsifiable. When 20 years of data can be dismissed as "cherry picking" when it refutes a hypothesis, but some other 20 year set is crowed as "definitive" when it doesn't refute a hypothesis, we call this pseudo-science.
Huh? Is English your second language? You've admitted you've asked a question without being specific enough as to who you're asking about - and somehow that's my problem?
Michael Mann's qualifications are irrelevant to the fact that he has not, and indeed cannot, come up with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Do you really believe that degrees make someone *right*? That science is decided by who has the most degrees?
Really?
Michael Mann is a fraud, and is unable to divorce his desire to be *right* with his responsibility to be *scientific*. Shame on him.
Okay, so here's your challenge - a 100% complete survey of all costal areas, with data points for every year since, oh, say 1900.
At this point, you don't even have any reasonable assurance that *most* costal areas will be amplified by average sea level rise, much less what the magnitude of any amplification would be.
We call this hand waving :)
Put another way, butterflies emit CO2. Butterfly emitted CO2 causes global warming, sea level rise, and costal erosion. All of those assertions are *trivially* true (as in, there is almost undoubtedly a non-zero effect). What matters is the *quantification* of that.
And don't even get me started with the idea of tallying up the benefits of climate change versus the costs :)
No, the question is even deeper than that - I dispute that a warmer world is a worse world. I can stipulate to warming, and even some measurable effect of humanity's CO2 emissions to that warming, but I will assert that this is *not* damage.
1850 was colder than 2012. 1900 was colder than 2012.
Do we really want to return to the population and technology of 1850 or 1900?
Apocalyptic nuts will always find *something* to worry about, I suppose...
Its not really his prediction. Many scientists completely agree. As the surface area increases, along with temp, more storms with more rain will be carried and distributed around the globe. Some portion of that is going to return back to the poles where it will freeze again. The theory is pretty well supported as it seems to be suggested within the geologic record.
Ultimately, the most logical worst case for humans simply means more extreme weather - and likely in places which historically have little to none of these types of events. The earth should do a pretty good job of regulating itself; with some assumptions here. Again, we know this because its done so several times before. The only real question is, how long will the changed climate take to calm over time. Aside from that, rising water isn't likely to be a longer term concern.
"Cherry picking" doesn't involve simply looking at the most recent ten years. There is a clear drop in the average rate of sea level increase. Again, that is in direct conflict with the idea that the current high CO2 concentration is driving temperatures inexorably upwards.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
If you look at the actual data you'll note that the rate of sea level rise has decreased since 2002.
No, he'll see a denialist bufoon trying to split a 20 year graph of noisy data into two distinct sections. He won't see the scientist that actually created that data doing something so dumb.
First of all, genius, the scientists collecting that data apply a linear regression right there on the chart, to the "noisy data". If you do the same thing to the most recent ten years worth (I have) you'll see that there's a significant decrease in the trend. That is all perfectly legitimate analysis.
I'm a realist, and believe in emperical verification of theory. So far the warmist alarmist predictions have been quite poor. They are adept at constant revisionism though.
You tried exactly the same back in 2009, to claim that global warming had stopped in 1998. However, 3 years more data of climing temperatures showed that you were exactly the idiot people said you were. Trying to make patterns out of short term noise.
I guess you're unaware that temperatures have in fact not climbed statistically significantly since 1998. You should know your subject matter better - that will prevent you from making a fool of yourself.
We'll see how the trends go as the Sun continues into the next solar Grand Minimum.
We're currently approaching the weak maximum of Cycle 24, so we're most likely looking at a minimum of twenty years of low solar activity - similar to that during the Little Ice Age. That will be a great empirical test of the dominance of CO2 concentration as a warming influence.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Oh, the irony. 20 years is short term noise, but 150 years is somehow significant in a planet whose climate is measured in eons.
It was Marketing -the Danes wanted people to go there so they didn't call it GlacierLand -and Iceland was already taken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland#Norse_settlement
-I'm just sayin'
FTFY. Most long-inhabited cities are on the coast or at the delta of rivers, for some obscure reason...
Have you ever been to Venice? It's beautiful, but it's a smelly swamp. They invented the word malaria, you know. Mal-aria. Bad air.
We'll continue to get warmer as we recover from that last ice age, until at some point we begin to cool and head into the next one... at which point we'll be in very severe trouble because much of the land people live on and grow crops on will be headed for centuries of being buried deep beneath the ice...
The biggest problem with all this talk, on both sides, is that nobody knows what the planet's ideal temperature is; sure, we can say what mankind's ideal planetary temperature is, but that may not be what's best for the plants, or for the elephants, or the whales, or indeed for the planet itself (which might prefer to be barren and airless like Mercury) Viewed on a large scale, nice comfortable times like man has lived in recently are not the "normal" condition. Perhaps it is our destiny to die-off like the dinosaurs and be replaced by giant bugs... in which case we would be guilty of a great moral crime if we took action to avoid the warming and extent our dominion.
there's simply no possible plausible scenario that is going to turn *millimeters* of change into *meters* of change in 20 years, or even 100 for that matter.
Correct; don't expect meters of sea-level rise in twenty years. Sea levels are rising, but not by half a meter per decade!
A meter in 100 years is within the band of uncertainty, but not necessarily something to bet on-- a hundred-year prediction depends too much on your expectation of the rate of emissions in the future. This paper http://ssi.ucsd.edu/scc/images/Schaeffer%20SLR%20at%20+1.5%20+2%20NatCC%2012.pdf suggests a mean of about 2 feet in a century, but I think their emissions scenario may be conservative.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
For all the deniers out there answer one question, you don't even need to debate the evidence. Why wouldn't a massive release of CO2 caused by industrialization have an affect on climate? We know how much is being released so the assumption is it would have an affect. Yes I know natural processes and all but those take time and all signs are they aren't keeping up. CO2 traditionally has been stored in forests, which we mostly cut down and coral reefs, which are dying. There are many other factors like other forms of biomass, grasses and such, even our own bodies. The point is there's no evidence that these natural processes are able to keep up with the change and a huge amount of evidence they aren't keeping up with the extra CO2. What's happening in the arctic, I'm not talking Greenland, is more than enough to prove there's a change. We can ague until doomsday about ocean level change but most of us in this country won't be affected. Those on the coast should be concerned though. I'm more concerned with things like droughts. Everyone seems to forget that most of the country is in the middle of one of the worst droughts on record and even the Great Lakes are drying up. We keep finding new uses for water like fracking but they aren't making anymore fresh water. If this becomes the norm we're in trouble. The problem is all projections are that it will get far worse. Deniers don't want to change how they live. Well guess what, nature doesn't care and your life style is going to change. How much is up to you. Keep sticking your head in the sand and it'll change a lot. That's the ugly truth.
I'm skeptical that there exists any necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I challenge you to cite the one you believe in.
I don't know what the word "catastrophic" means here. I assert that the global climate models, which suggest that human-induced greenhouse warming has raised global temperatures by approximately 0.5 C and will continue to raise global average temperatures by an amount that is calculatable to within (currently) an error band of about 50%, is supported by the best data we have. Is that what you call "catastrophic" anthropogenic global warming? I would call it "paying attention to the science." If this is what your talking about, the model is falsifiable, and has, so far, passed the tests given to it.
The first good numerical integration with definite, reliable results was done in 1967. That's 45 years ago, which is a long enough run for random variations to be averaged out. What's the slope of the linear least-squares surface temperature data from then to now? Is it upward, or downward? Well, yes, turns out it's upward, as predicted. And, to well within the error bands, the model is quite accurate about the slope.
I'd like to invite you to dig up the paper, do the calculation, and verify this yourself.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Actually an ice age is one of the very possible outcomes of AGW. The process goes like this; Warming melts the ice shields. Fresh water breaks the Haline Cycles and the trade currents die or shift precipitously. Northern latitudes that depend on those currents to maintain temperate climates go into a sudden deep freeze (remember Scotland is at the same latitude as Alaska, and London is at the same latitude as Calgary.) Northern Europe begins the process of going into a hard freeze as does Canada. The earth's albido rises significantly from all that new snow and we have successfully jump started the next ice age.
Of course we could just as easily turn the planet into a sauna unfit for any higher life forms. See that's the problem which playing craps with the global climate. You don't know what the dice are going to roll. One hint though, most of the possible outcomes don't include happy people in them.
Yeah, that could be a problem for the LA area.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Do you really believe that degrees make someone *right*?
I believe that your lack of degrees make you unqualified.
That wouldn't matter much were you not also a crank. For example:
Michael Mann is a fraud, and is unable to divorce his desire to be *right* with his responsibility to be *scientific*. Shame on him.
I repent, please accept my prius as a sign of penance!
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I am talking about general guidelines as opposed to specific predictions.
You made specific predictions about California, Seattle, and the Western US. Stop lying.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The fun part about science is that it doesn't require belief.
Of course, if you can't come up with the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, then you can't even start the science game.
I assert that you can't even *quote* someone else's falsifiable hypothesis statement - I'd even go so far as to assert that one has never existed.
Of course, my hypothesis is falsifiable - all you have to do is show me your statement, or quote someone else's :)
Yeah, I've been to Venice this past summer in fact.
Now, just how many cm of sea level rise have they survived since their inception? :)
No, "catastrophic" would mean that more good than bad happened from anthropogenic global warming. This has been speculated, but not shown.
So what combination of CO2 and global average temperature next year would falsify the model?
My problem is that GCMs are typically addressed as "model means", which asserts that a collection of disagreeing models can be averaged to find truth. None of them are considered "falsified" because they don't specify what observations would falsify them.
Over the full 20 years dummy. 20 years is short, 10 years is stupid.
I guess you're unaware that temperatures have in fact not climbed statistically significantly since 1998.
You just don't learn, do you? 1998 was a local maxima, so in 2009, you thought could say "the last 10 years data shows cooling." But now of course you can't say that, because the last 10 years data doesn't start on a local maxima. The last 10 years data doesn't show cooling at all, but rising.*
So now you want to cherry pick the last 12/13 years, again starting with the local maxima of 1998. Which shows you blatantly to be cherry picking. 12/13 years? What kind of period is that to choose?
You're a cherry picking fraud and you just helped me to made it obvious to everyone. Thanks for playing.
(*Of course no one with shred of integrity would be trying to use 10 years, when for climate trends you need more like 30 years to start to lose the year to year noise. Hence my point about your stupid splitting of a 20 year graph of ocean levels into 2 10 year trends.)
You need to learn what climate is:
"Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)."
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html
Of course, if you can't come up with the necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, then you can't even start the science game.
That phrase is the only scientifically sounding one you know, isn't it. Contrastingly, Michael Mann for example is a real scientist.
Salt water does not.
It most certainly does. Feel free to show a citation to the contrary.
Volume also depends on precipitation. More snow means more volume. Warmer air holds more moisture which can increase precipitation.
Phoenix and Las Vegas too.
Those aren't in California. Las Vegas might be ok, since it gets water from the Colorado river anyway. Not sure about Phoenix, if it's getting water from an aquifer, it won't matter what AGW does, they're still in trouble.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
LA gets a large share of water from the Colorado River too and I think Phoenix as well. The Colorado River flow has been blow normal every year except for 2 since 2000.. Both Lake Mead behind Hoover Dam and Lake Powell behind Glen Canyon Dam are well below capacity. Lake Powell is at 85 feet below full and 54.5% capacity. They keep Powell a little fuller because they can always send it down to Mead if necessary.
The people who will really be hurt by the dry conditions are the farmers in Southern California and Eastern Arizona. They are completely dependent on Colorado River water.
(I pay attention to the Colorado because I'm a whitewater rafter and I got to row a boat through the Grand Canyon last spring. What an incredible journey.)
Somehow I screwed up a link in the previous reply. Before the Lake Powell link I wrote:
Lake Mead is currently 102 feet below full pool and 51.5^ of capacity.
Yeah, well, LA can get their water from the ocean if they need to. Those who are farmers in the central valley feel bitter about them stealing all the water. They take a lot of water.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Wow, did you literally go from one end of the grand canyon to the other? That does sound amazing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
> It most certainly does. Feel free to show a citation to the contrary.
Hi, this is someone else. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
look up the curve yourself. salt water doesn't have the 4 degree C density minimum that fresh water does. Due to the additional ions in the water and what not that part of the curve is shifted beyond the freezing point.
Since I doubt you'll look it up yourself, lmgtfy.com
"...the density maximum is above the freezing point for salinities below 24.7 but below the freezing point for salinities above 24.7."
-- http://www.es.flinders.edu.au/~mattom/IntroOc/lecture03.html
Oceanic salinities are generally in the range of 32-36.
Yes, we launched at Lee's Ferry (about 10 miles below Glen Canyon Dam) on March 27th and 270 miles later we took out at Pearce Ferry on April 18th. If Lake Mead had been at full pool we would have had about 40 miles of lake to cross. Once we got down to where Lake Mead used to be there were silt banks along the river 30-50 feet high in places. I've been whitewater rafting since the mid 70's but that was my first time through the Grand Canyon.
A lesson I learned a long time ago - don't bother discussing climate with hsthompson. He's piling up the lies so fast, it gets exhausting and rather pointless to debunk his bullshit. He's been regurgitating the same tired talking points for years now. Just ignore him.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Is there?
Do we have data with the accuracy and precision to measure annual global temperature differences to a degree where we'd be able to notice a trend of 0.5 degrees over a 100 year span?
No, we don't. We have some data points and statistical smoothing that says over the course of this thousand year period, the average global temperature was X +/- a degree and over that thousand year period, the average global temperature was Y +/- a degree.
There seems to be this fiction that's developed among the "True Believers" that we can actually know whether a swing of 0.5 degrees over a 100 year span is unusual. The fact is, we don't even have accurate measurements of the average global temperature before the late 1970s when we got decent weather satellites into orbit. The data between the 1930s and then came from reasonably well defined standards of measurement, but wasn't wide-spread enough to give us a very clear picture of the average global temperature. So that data gets tinkered with by a rather complex and varied set of statistical models designed to fix the problems. Anything before the 1930s came primarily from people with no formal training in collecting the data. In most of the data points used from before the 1930s, you had individuals with a very limited education checking highly inaccurate instruments in non-standard (quite often completely incorrect) ways, unreliably recording the data that was poorly collected, and collecting it at odd times (whenever they had spare time most likely). The result is a mess of non-standard data that's almost as poor resolution as the proxies used before widespread temperature measurement was available.
This is all a matter of resolution, and quite frankly we don't have it. To this day, we can't even get all the proxies to agree with one another, nor with the observed values. The various proxies will show you very rough trends over time and they'll give you very rough estimates of the temperature at a very roughly estimated period of time, but they all share one thing in common: not a one of them will give you the kind of accuracy and precision necessary to correctly identify a 0.5 degree change in temperature over a 100 year period.
None of this is to say the global temperature is not, on average, rising over the past 100ish years. The overall trend has been upward and we can roughly estimate that change at .5 degrees during that period. The problem is that we have nothing to compare this data to. We didn't have weather satellites or even an army of untrained janitors collecting temperature data in non-standard ways from poorly calibrated devices back 5,000 years ago. We have absolutely no way to know what kinds of temperature swings have happened globally in the past because the ways we determine the global average temperature from that long ago inherently smoothe the data and destroy short-term fluctuations. I cringe whenever I hear/read someone claiming this is unprecedented climate change because that's almost certainly not true and nobody alive today has any way to show scientifically that it is true. It's possible this is unprecedented without a catastrophic global event, but there's absolutely no way available to us today to determine that either.
Before you write me off as another infidel climate denier, understand that I'm not denying anything; merely pointing out the limitations of the data, instruments, models, and techniques we have today. That doesn't mean I think the past 100 years of warming has to be perfectly normal; the truth is I don't know and I don't think anyone else does either. What I think has happened is that over the past 50 years or so, we've gotten our first look at a tiny snapshot of data for the Earth's average temperature and it's been under the microscope ever since. In much the same way you suddenly notice every single tiny noise, bump or vibration your vehicle's engine makes once the "check engine" light comes on, we've been pouring over this data without any real context and it's gotten
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Over the full 20 years dummy. 20 years is short, 10 years is stupid.
You're claiming that ten years worth of sea level data can't show a trend? You're the stupid one.
Whether the trend will continue for the next 10 or more years is certainly a question, but no one can say for sure at the moment.
I guess you're unaware that temperatures have in fact not climbed statistically significantly since 1998.
You just don't learn, do you? 1998 was a local maxima, so in 2009, you thought could say "the last 10 years data shows cooling." But now of course you can't say that, because the last 10 years data doesn't start on a local maxima. The last 10 years data doesn't show cooling at all, but rising.*
Actually, you're wrong again. What a surprise.
If you look at the UAH satellite temperature data, the running average in 2002 was at 0.2 C above the baseline. As of Oct. 2012, it is running about 0.12 C above the baseline. No statistically significant warming - in fact there's been cooling. (Also FYI, in 1998 the running average hit 0.4 C above the baseline.)
Link to UAH temperature chart.
So now you want to cherry pick the last 12/13 years, again starting with the local maxima of 1998. Which shows you blatantly to be cherry picking. 12/13 years? What kind of period is that to choose?
Even NOAA admits that a 15 year pause in warming represents major problems for the climate modelers:
Source: NOAA State of the Climate 2008.
We are right at the threshold of such a fifteen year period now. As I pointed out previously, the Sun is unlikely to play along with the climate alarmists. It will certainly be devastating to them if we get any kind of cooling trend over the next 20-40 years, as I expect we will.
You're a cherry picking fraud and you just helped me to made it obvious to everyone. Thanks for playing.
(*Of course no one with shred of integrity would be trying to use 10 years, when for climate trends you need more like 30 years to start to lose the year to year noise. Hence my point about your stupid splitting of a 20 year graph of ocean levels into 2 10 year trends.)
It's interesting how the warmist alarmists are descending to name calling. It's a sign of desperation.
The beauty of this situation is we'll know soon enough who was right...just a few more years to go. Be patient, and prepared to eat a huge helping of crow.
In the meantime, let's reflect on the actual realities of CO2 concentration. What do you think the peak value will be? It seems to me that it's virtually impossible to get to the point where humanity as a whole is carbon-neutral before 2050, and even that date is very unlikely. China is currently building two large coal electric plants every week. My guess for peak CO2 concentration is between 500-600 PPM, up from the current ~400 PPM. So, you'd better hope I'm right and you're wrong.
Regardless of my thinking on the matter, I'm willing to meet you alarmists halfway. I would welcome a push for a massive buildout of next-generation nuclear for a number of reasons. That, combined with next-generation solar, could make a major difference in CO2 concentration going forward. It seems clear we're going to need a lot of high-density energy generation for the geoengineering necessary if AGW alarmism is in fact correct.
Sadly, despite the demonstrat
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Actually, you're wrong again. What a surprise.
If you look at the UAH satellite temperature data, the running average in 2002 was at 0.2 C above the baseline. As of Oct. 2012, it is running about 0.12 C above the baseline. No statistically significant warming - in fact there's been cooling.
Ah ha ha ha ha ha! You just dig yourself deeper in to the pit of stiupidity don't you. Those dots on that chart are months. From the figures you give, you're comparing the single month of January 2012 with the single month of January 2002.
You are by far the stupidest global warming denier of the day.
It's interesting how the warmist alarmists are descending to name calling.
You're a fraud and an idiot. It would be remiss not to point it out.
Don't worry, I'm not wasting my time on him. Just winding him up. The troller is trolled.
The time when I'd actually spend time digging up the facts to debunk these idiots is long since gone.
No, "catastrophic" would mean that more good than bad happened from anthropogenic global warming. This has been speculated, but not shown.
Ah, OK. That's not science; "good" and "bad" are values, not measurements. At the very most, it's economics.
I suppose that there could be falsifiable hypotheses there-- but that will tell you more, I'd say, on what you chose to define as "good" and "bad" than what the climate does.
I have no fixed opinion on that. I would like people to stop attacking the science when they actually want to influence policy, but, as for economics and values-- as long as you stay away from attacking the science-- go at it.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Krakatoa wasn't even close to being "super" - it only just qualifies as "major". Taupo was 20 times bigger when it blew ~1900 years ago and that was tiny compared to the eruption there ~20k years ago which created the caldera visible today. (The current lake in Taupo's caldera could easily accomodate Singapore Island and it only occupies about 1/3 of the caldera's area).
Rule of thumb: Cone-shaped volcanoes are relatively harmless as long as you're not in the immediate vicinity when they erupt.
Moving back to (A)GW, the reason that there are so many arguments is that the calculated warming from the known inputs don't match observations (what's observed is higher than it should be). Removing all recording stations where heat island effects have happened in the last 70 years (paving runways/aprons near airfield thermometers and rural airfields being swallowed up by suburbia) helps a bit, but the observations still don't match any of the theories closely enough.
It doesn't help that fossil evidence has shown the poles to have gone ice-free several times during the current ice-age cycles (last 12 million years), and the arctic has shown signs of previously going ice-free during cooling trends (Ice extent was believed to be a lot lower 1000 years ago, f'instance). We haven't been observing long enough to know if things are due to AGW or various long-term natural cycles (Atlantic hurricanes were unnaturally low in occurance and intensity for the 60 years up to 2005, f'instance. Is a return to "normal" because of AGW or just business as usual?)
Precautionary moves aren't a bad idea but there are extremists at both ends who end up discrediting the entire field.
Mercury is stealing our ice caps. http://video.imag.foxnews.com/v/2000428748001/nasa-scientists-detect-ice-on-mercury/ We need to militarize space.
The temps to which I'm referring are the running average, which doesn't vary rapidly on a scale of months. You bring nothing of substance to the conversation, and in fact automatically lose the debate by ad hominem.
It's worth noting that you have no worthwhile thoughts regarding the reality we face over the next few decades.
As I said, time will tell. At this moment things aren't looking like they'll conform to your belief system. ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I read somewhere that tidal shifts in the oceans more than accounted for the slight up-and-down at the various sample locations. Anyone remember anything about that?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The temps to which I'm referring are the running average
Not with the numbers you gave it wasn't. You really are as stupid as I pointed out.
Michael Mann is a fraud and a charlatan who uses data upside down and can't even come up with a falsifiable hypothesis statement.
You can falsify my hypothesis by quoting a single falsifiable hypothesis statement from Mr. Mann :)
That is so cool. I didn't even know that was possible. Did you need a guide? Did you nearly get lost?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
ever wonder why its called greenland when its covered with ice and snow
well its because it was once green and lush
so you climate change people are wrong
you are products of mass media hysteria and scientist making jobs for themselves
ever wonder why the climates are changing on other planets in our galaxy?
well heres a hint - its called the SUN and all things revolve around it and all things change as they have done so for millions of years
did you know that once upon a time we had dinosaurs and now we dont = climates change and guess what man was not responsible
WAKE UP PEOPLE
Well, on a river there's really no way of getting lost. You're on it floating downstream. The Colorado in the Grand Canyon is a well known river with lots of famous landmarks (well known in the rafting community) so it's pretty easy to keep track of where you are. We had some good guide books along plus a couple of people who had been down before. After doing this for the past 27 years I have no need to hire a guide. I've run a lot of rivers over the years including the Snake River in Hells Canyon and the Main Salmon river that are similar sized rivers to the Colorado although not nearly as long and not as many rapids. My longest trip before this was 8 or 9 days and around 100 miles. Most years I run 6-12 whitewater trips although most of them are just day trips. 2 or 3 of them will be longer multi-day trips.. Where I live in the Willamette Valley of Oregon there are 7 rivers to run within about 3 hours drive including one that's just 35 minutes from my house so I usually get at least one trip a month from April to October and occasional trips in the other months.
In order to get the permit to run the river I had to enter a lottery where 10,000 people or so compete for around 500 launches per year. I got lucky and got one and was able to invite up to 15 others along (we had 10 people total). The biggest difference between this trip and the other ones I've done it planning the food for 10 people for 23 days on the river. The rest of the equipment was the same as I use all the time (except I rented a larger boat than the one I own because of the extra food we had to carry).
It sounds like you're interested but have no experience. If you'd like to float the Colorado I'd suggest you go with one of the commercial outfitters. They offer a number of options including big motorized rafts that carry 15-20 people and get you through the canyon in 5 or 6 days (too fast in my opinion) or rafts and dories that carry 3 or 4 people and take 13-18 days. Costs per person are a bit under $3000 for the motor trips to around $5000 for the longer trips (the cost for our private trip as around $1500/person). I would recommend O.A.R.S as an outfitter. If you'd like to take it up yourself it helps if you live somewhat near to some whitewater rivers.
If you'd like to take it up yourself it helps if you live somewhat near to some whitewater rivers.
lol very good point. I've canoed down rivers, but only day trips. A multi-day trip might be interesting.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Multi-day is a different world. You live in the moment and forget about the outside world for days at a time. I used to backpack in my younger days but rafting gives you the carrying capacity to bring steaks and beer along. Most of the multi-day whitewater rivers in the US are west of the Rockies. If you're interested in a shorter trip than the Grand Canyon I particularly recommend the Rogue River in Oregon and the Middle Fork of the Salmon River in Idaho. If I don't get a permit for the MF Salmon in 2013 I'll be doing that river with an outfitter that lets me row my own boat. It's as special a river in a different way as the Colorado in the Grand Canyon.
The models for California also predict that the yearly winter Sierra Nevada Mountain snow pack will melt faster due to warmer weather. Assuming the snow pack will be the same, this could mean flooding in the California Central Valley and Sacramento area, and even the San Francisco Bay regions in the spring. The snow melt is also the major source of water for human use. Currently the snow melt lasts into August, and often continuing into fall. If the snow melts faster, the pattern could change to one where there is little or no snow melt supplying water as early as the beginning of summer--when water is nice to have. To make it worse, a lower amount of snow may fall that currently falls.
I original brought up the 4C situation with a thread a few days ago. I wound up looking up how salt water density is affected.
Here is what I found:
1. Salt water freezes at -2C
2. When it freezes, it doesn't freeze with salt in it, so the ice is fresh water
3. Average temp of the ocean is 3.5C (some idiot contested my assumption that the ocean is colder than 4C)
4. Salt water reaches maximum density at -2C.
This all came up when someone said that a warming ocean causes it to expand, since it becomes less dense. I called out that it may become more dense since water does from 0C to 4C. I eventually looked it up and corrected myself.
Michael Mann is a fraud and a charlatan
Michael Mann is the qualified and practicing scientist.
You're the snake oil salesman, operating off the back of a hand-cart. No qualifications and no respect for the facts.
Yes they were, look again.
I'll let you have the last word, since you seem to insist on it...O dim one. ;-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Michael Mann is a fraud, a charlatan, a molester of data, and a protector of the Grand Cult of Global Warming. His qualifications only serve to deepen his shameful lack of scientific principle.
I, on the other hand, am simply asking for the first step of the scientific method - the falsifiable hypothesis statement. Something you, and other alarmists are completely incapable of presenting :)
I, on the other hand, am simply asking for the first step of the scientific method - the falsifiable hypothesis statement.
And once again you show you have no real understanding of science. That isn't the the first step of the scientific method. Never has been, and isn't now. That's the philosophy of Karl Popper.
Once again showing that education and qualifications do matter. And you're the charletan, not the qualified scientists whose work you don't understand.
A grand mind in the refinement of the scientific method, to be sure.
The fact of the matter is that without the falsification demanded by Popper, you have essentially just another appeal to authority religion (as you so charmingly point out with your continuing insistence that degrees and "qualifications" are the hallmark of science, rather than the scientific method).
I'll take your dismissal of Popper as an admission of a complete lack of falsifiability in your particular belief structure. :)
You made specific predictions about California, Seattle, and the Western US.
No I said California and the Western U.S. would likely get drier, that's based on the general rule that drier place will tend to get drier, and that Seattle maybe would get more, because it's wetter because the general rule is also that wetter places will tend to get wetter. Those are predictions based on a general rule.
Stop lying.
Why don't you pull the stick out of your ass? Maybe you could try acting like a person instead of a political asshole.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I just bought at house in an exclusive area at the peak of the economy before the crash. It will take me several lifetimes to pay off my mortgage, so I was banking on price increases. Since then prices have plummeted. Also, I live on a peninsula that is at very high risk of being affected by rising sea levels: I think we are about 1-2m above sea level, and I was 38 when I bought the house.
My options do not look good.
But then again, I don't live in my country of birth, so if the shit hits the fan, it would be relatively easy for me to move back to the The Pennines in England which is where I am originally from, and which also happens to be several hundred metres above sea level. All I need to do, is "go on holiday" permenantly, with the bank being unaware of my departure! ...Profit!
Why don't you pull the stick out of your ass? Maybe you could try acting like a person instead of a political asshole.
Oh, I would, but it's much more fun mocking you because you said something stupid and contradicted yourself. Keep doing that, and I will keep mocking you.
It's not bad to be wrong, it's only a problem if you refuse to change once it's obvious that you're wrong. And it is obvious that you are wrong.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Go away troll.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I didn't dismiss Popper, it's interesting philosophy, but it's not the scientific method. I pointed out your ignorance in not knowing that Popper's philosophy is not the same thing as the scientific method.
A mistake that a scientist, like say Michael Mann, wouldn't have made.
Popper's assertion of falsifiability as a means to distinguish science from pseudo-science was a major milestone in the refinement of the scientific method. The fact that you don't understand his refinement, and the importance of it, is a testament to your misunderstanding, and explains your misguided worship of Mr. Mann :)
To be clear, thus far your implication is that there is no need for falsifiability in order for us to consider the hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming to be true.
Put another way, not matter what we may observe, you will continue to believe in the likes of Mr. Mann and his expert opinion.
Doesn't that sound even the slightest bit to you like religion?
Stable butterfly populations are carbon neutral, fuckwit. Methinks you don't have as great an understanding of AGW as you think you do.
How can you assert that? Butterfly populations (and any animal population), spend their entire lives converting O2 to CO2. They are in *no* way CO2 neutral (unless you think their corpses decay in such a way to re-absorb all the CO2 they created during their lives.
Methinks you don't have a very clear understanding of respiration and photosynthesis.
Popper's assertion of falsifiability as a means to distinguish science from pseudo-science was a major milestone in the refinement of the scientific method. The fact that you don't understand his refinement, and the importance of it, is a testament to your misunderstanding, and explains your misguided worship of Mr. Mann :)
A major refinement now is it? That's odd, you said it was step one earlier. Been doing some reading up on the topic have you? You need to read further. Popper's ideas are not a standard part of the scientific method. You think they are, and you're mistaken.
Doesn't that sound even the slightest bit to you like religion?
Your snake oil salesman appearance seems quite close to religion. I thing the main things in common is the ignorance, and the attempts at deceiving people.
I'm sorry, perhaps you didn't understand me - since the major refinement of Popper's falsifiability qualification to discern between science and pseudo-science, it is *step one* of the scientific method. Perhaps pre-Popper, people didn't realize that it was necessary, but it was still *step one*.
They're more than standard, they're *required*. Any science done before Popper, that did not have a falsifiable hypothesis statement, was just as unscientific as any "science" done today without falsifiability.
Astrology was *always* not scientific - Popper merely put the requirement of falsifiability into clearly statement. His work was at its core one of discovery - the discovery of something that was always true.
Wait, wait, you want me to believe in something that you will insist is true no matter what observations we can possibly make, but *I'm* the snake oil salesman?
Really? :)
I'm the skeptic in the crowd calling out the snake oil salesmen of AGW, like the fraud Michael Mann, for their incompetence and deception :)
Pleased to, wrong person.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."