Slashdot Mirror
International Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty On Warming
mdsolar writes "An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace. The scientists, whose findings are reported in a draft summary of the next big United Nations climate report, largely dismiss a recent slowdown in the pace of warming, which is often cited by climate change doubters, attributing it most likely to short-term factors. The report emphasizes that the basic facts about future climate change are more established than ever, justifying the rise in global concern. It also reiterates that the consequences of escalating emissions are likely to be profound."
This comes alongside news of research into one of those short-term factors: higher than average rainfall over Australia. "Three atmospheric patterns came together above the Indian and Pacific Oceans in 2010 and 2011. When they did, they drove so much precipitation over Australia that the world's ocean levels dropped measurably." According to Phys.org, "A rare combination of two other semi-cyclic climate modes came together to drive such large amounts of rain over Australia that the continent, on average, received almost one foot (300 millimeters) of rain more than average. ... Since 2011, when the atmospheric patterns shifted out of their unusual combination, sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about 10 millimeters (0.4 inches) per year."
It is "near certain" caused by human activity, so slow down.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century
- Only governments have the power to change this.
- If someone is rich enough to have any influence on governments, he probably won't be alive by the end of the century.
- If someone is rich enough to have any influence on governments, he is rich enough to move his beach mansion three feet higher.
- If someone is rich enough to have any influence on governments, he probably doesn't give a fuck about what happens to those who aren't.
DENY!
Are we on 'Yes the globe is warming, and humans are contributing, but it's too expensive/late to do something.' yet, or are we still on 'Humans might be contributing, but it's mostly natural'?
...Is that the weather here in the UK has been particularly mental this year. The coldest first half I can ever remember, followed by a month or 2 of tropical weather including afternoon downpours like a lake is dropping on your head. Something aint right, that's for sure.
Those organizations with the power to do something are steadfastly pretending the problem doesn't exist.
On the upside, the Great Lakes region where I live is likely to become prime real estate, because it will be (A) not underwater, (B) well-supplied with fresh water, (C) relatively safe from hurricanes, (D) not on fire, (E) not a prime tornado target, and (F) less cold.
I am officially gone from
I wish that a similar amount of scientific effort would go into deciding what (if anything) to do about it.
Instead there is a rush to reduce greenhouse gases, without any scientific or economic analysis to ascertain whether this is the optimal response.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
No, they deny ANTHROPOGENIC global warming. That's my biggest beef with IPCC: they started with a conclusion, and the inherent bias of that made their conclusion inevitable.
The BETTER question to have asked is "Why is global climate changing ?", so that all possible causes and inputs could have been considered. . .
Here you go: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/#Stages%20of%20Denial
You are at Stage 2: "We don’t know why it’s happening" and a bit of Stage 5: "Climate change can’t be stopped"
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Bullshit. The greenhouse effect is well understood. So is the amount of CO2/methane/etc. we're putting into the atmosphere.
No sig today...
Islam IS the religion of peace.
First half, when Mohammed was struggling with the then-dominant religion and power base, is all about helping others and the like. The second half, where he's mostly in charge is about enforcing the new religion.
This, however, IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT from the xtians who claim that Christianity is a religion of Love. They edit and elide the monstrosity of both the Old Testament in nearly its entirety, but also much of the New Testament that doesn't gel with the profession of "Jesus Christ Loves You" as the be-all/end-all of Christianity (and therefore the christian suicide bombers like Brevik are Not True Christians).
So quite why you felt you had to single out Islamists for the hypocrisy escapes me.
Only individuals have the power to do anything.
Regardless of the purported effect on climate, we, as individuals, should be using all our resources as efficiently as possible.
Do you hate fossil fuels? Then why do you own an SUV, walk so little, and consume plastic in such abundance?
Do you hate coal-fired power plants/nuclear plants? Then why do you have so many electronic devices, an airconditioner permanently on, and a swimming pool in your backyard?
Do you hate the cutting of forests? Then why do you photocopy everything, print everything, buy a newly built house, and lovingly wrap every Christmas present?
No, the solution is not government or big money. It is bottom up. And frankly, look around you and the evidence is clear: neither you nor your family nor your friends nor your community ... care enough to change.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Isn't the book's argument that in a situation of low knowledge, facing low-probability high-impact events, we should actively prepare by adapting our social and economic structures in such a way that they are more resilient? That sounds a lot like the kind of preparatory work climate science is arguing for.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
You are grossly oversimplifying climate science (and that book) if you think that book is relevant to this issue.
I would consider trying to come up with a solution a form of adapting, since most solutions would involve drastic changes in our behavior.
Water vapor and methane are both greenhouse gases. Both have a => effect on the greenhouse effect when compared to CO2. But the Global Warming crowd only focuses on CO2 because it is politically convenient for them. Meaning they own solar/wind companies and want to profit greatly from government subsidies.
sudo make me a sandwich
Unfortunately when anyone even proposes research into another response - geo-engineering, perhaps - it's branded apocalyptic climate alarmism and shouted down. As long as there's a well-funded lobby arguing that the problem doesn't exist, it's going to be an uphill battle to even test alternatives, much less actually apply them.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
We do know how to wreck things, even when we do not understand the things that we wreck. So the bottom line is we DO know enough to wreck our climate.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
An even better question will be to ask "How will we deal with climate change?" as only a fool blinded by dogma will deny that the earth's climate has changed (sometimes drastically) in the past. For example, let's fix the issue where droughts cause starvations in Africa as more frequent droughts are expected as the climate changes.
Have you tried to walk in a US city lately? Even use public transport in one? The barrier to reducing vehicle use for the individual is enormous, so nobody can do it. Yet if everyone did it, it would suddenly become trivial.
Sometimes collective action is the only way to get over a hump.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I am still trying to figure out was the *disadvantage* is (in terms of climate and environment) to less pollution.
I know some fat blowhard will make less money, but excuse me if that doesn't concern me much.
Water vapor and methane are both greenhouse gases. Both have a => effect on the greenhouse effect when compared to CO2. But the Global Warming crowd only focuses on CO2 because it is politically convenient for them. Meaning they own solar/wind companies and want to profit greatly from government subsidies.
This is mostly incorrect. Sure, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, but its residence time is nothing. Moreover, greenhouse gases are regulated on an equivalency basis, as "CO2e", where each is given a weighted impact. So, methane has a factor of 310 applied to its emissions. The same is true for N2O as well as HFCs / CFCs; those factors are in the ten-to-hundreds of thousands. These actually persist in the atmosphere, hence the reason for their high factors.
Troll harder next time. All of this is available on Wikipedia if you bothered 10 seconds to look.
The greenhouse effect is well understood.
It's not, though - that's basically the crux of the current arguments. The sensitivity of the various variables in the model are unclear because many of the underlying mechanisms and confounding variables (e.g. cloud formation) are poorly understood. Many of the theories are built on models which are built on theories - the assumptions become self-embedding, not built from first-principles.
We'd have a model that makes great predictions if we understood all that stuff. Imagine if a bunch of physicists got together and proposed a grand unification theory that they were confident about, thought we should make policy decisions based on (because, "or else") but they were still unable to use their model to make useful predictions.
Heck, I was showing my grandparents, who lived near the ocean, some simulator models that were published in the late 90's. By those models, the oceans were going to be lapping at their front steps by a year and a half from now. If the ocean level has risen at all, it's in the range of millimeters. They looked at it and told me to be careful to not believe everything somebody who has an agenda says.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
if you're doctor said he is 95% sure that you have cancer, i guess you wouldn't mind your insurance refusing to pay for any health care because there was not 100% certainty.
According to the economic ramblings of those who deny human-caused climate change, the fat blowhard's failure to take advantage of the opportunities that climate change offers is his shortcoming, so even that isn't a disadvantage if you use their logic.
Oh man you are so wrong.
Fact: CO2 is actually a very small contributor to the "greenhouse effect" the main contributor being BY FAR water vapor. Moreover MOST of the CO2 come from NATURAL sources not human.
Fact: The skewed numerical models created to prove global warming through CO2 DO NOT WORK.
Fact: It has been showed that changes in CO2 level in the past was followed by a corresponding change in temperatures with a lag of ~800 years. Therefore it's not a cause... it's a consequence !
Fact: In recent history, temperature did not follow CO2 level.
Fact: Solar activity is much better correlated with temperature on earth.
Fact: IPCC is full of it.
No no no, that's only true when the little people fail to take advantage of something. If you inconvenience our monied overlords in any way, you're either an economy-killing, wealth-redistributing commie or a jackboot-licking statist parasite, depending on which flavor of fiscal conservatism you're up against.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Meaning they own solar/wind companies and want to profit greatly from government subsidies.
I am TIRED of hearing these arguments. If you think that global warming is a serious issue, and do nothing, then you get told that you do not put your money where your mouth is. If you do something, like any good capitalist, then it is all about profiteering. It's like saying Apple is awesome! But don't trust me, because I bought Apple stock, and so clearly I'm biased....
Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean that it isn't well understood.
Climate modellers are well aware of the uncertainty in their parameters. That's why in modern work, they run their model with ranges of parameters determined to be plausible based on empirical observation, and output a range of possible outcomes. Future observation and comparison with the model allows them to refine the parameter range to be more realistic.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Actually, methane is an important area of discussion, in particular with a view to the impact of agriculture (cows) on the climate.
I'm not sure what control we have over our water vapour production, though.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
We are still learning about the climate; we know enough, probably enough to say that pumping CO2 into the air is not a good idea and is likely the cause of climate change, but not enough to consider all the options and determing a geoengineering fix yet. But, people _are_ working on it.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
I am still trying to figure out was the *disadvantage* is (in terms of climate and environment) to less pollution.
I know some fat blowhard will make less money, but excuse me if that doesn't concern me much.
It will cost industry billions and billions of dollars. Of course this is the price they pay for polluting the environment. It has always cost a lot of money to clean up their messes (and there have been many). Rather than thinking ahead and being good stewards of the Earth they act like greedy bastards knowing full well that this won't come back to haunt them in their lifetimes.
The rich guys will still make their money. They'll just have to raise rates on those of us who are dependent on their industries.
For what it's worth, I think geoengineering is a terrible way to solve the problem right now - like you point out, it has a low probability of a very, very bad outcome - but it's hard to engage in any discussion of, say, social solutions, when even the idea of billing someone for their CO2 output is considered utterly unacceptable.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
scientists can calculate the forcing effect of greenhouse gases with certainty. The IPCC convinces people of that (which should be easy since it's true). Then they switch from talk of forcing to talk of feedback which is what "is going to kill us". There is no certainty of feedback and they don't make a significant claim of certainty but they fail to point out that they've made the switch, so people believe that feedback is also certain.
If feedback is so deadly, we need to be talking much more about soot, aerosols, urbanization (not urban heat islands), deforestation, greenhouse gasses other than CO2 and other man-made causes of warming (pro-AWG scientists are no longer denying these and they add up to more warming than CO2). We also need to worry about potential heating of the sun or other natural causes even if we don't expect them because, if feedback is what the models say, ANY cause of warming will kill us and there has been warming before without man-made reasons.
As someone working bottom up, and who drives maybe 2 times a month, this argument is weak, and ignores the basic social structures that have evolved around the implicit incentives to engage in the tragedy of the commons.
Why not link to Michael Chrichton's State of Fear and maybe some conspiracy websites and denialist blogs too?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
NASA does not agree with you. They seem to believe that water vapor is a "major player in climate change".
sudo make me a sandwich
All new ones sold in the US & Canadian markets within roughly the last decade, and some sold in other markets.
But I wonder if the energy saved by DRLs (less need for new cars to replace smashed ones, less fuel used in emergency vehicles) offsets the energy used to run them? A lot of newer cars use LEDs for this so the energy usage is reduced.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Can someone point me to the sums? I'd hate this to be another case of wobbly old expert opinion being touted as something more concrete.
I always answer that with "Yes, but not always a good reason."
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
only a fool blinded by dogma will deny that the earth's climate has changed
Unfortunately, those fools are still in the majority.
Democracy can be tyrannical at times.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
...because it acts as a major positive feedback mechanism for warming caused by CO2:
heat-amplifying effect of water vapor is potent enough to double the climate warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Next time you want to argue that we have an excessive focus on CO2 as a gas, don't use a NASA study that argues that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Microsoft cites near certainty on superiority of Microsoft products.
Creationists cite near certainly on validity of creation science.
Etc.
The whole purpose of the international climate panel is to drum out hysteria about climate change. This isn't news, it's propaganda.
If water rises tomorrow (to put an extreme example) 5 meters, hundreds of millons could die. Adaptation is good, if you are one of the survivors, or the elite with plenty of resources (the one that don't care about this because that reason, and even fund denial campaigns).
Methane is not discussed because it is not politically convenient. It is easier to demonize some power company burning coal making EVIL profits than it is to demonize some rancher in New Mexico whose family has been raising cattle on that land for 150 years and 100% depend on raising cattle to support themselves and their families. Now, if the same man-made global warming crowd had stock or patents in the fields of lab-grown beef or genetically modified cows with reduced methane emissions, they would be clamoring for the end of cattle farming.
sudo make me a sandwich
How many times do we have to tell you? Never go full retard.
Did you notice the "=>" sign? That means greater than or equal too. You have proven my point, by saying that water vapor can double the climate warming caused by CO2. Water vapor is a catalyst to global warming. But I do not see the AGW crowd trying to prevent ocean waves from crashing into the coast, releasing water vapor into the atmosphere.
sudo make me a sandwich
LOL, love your sources.
Like say for this one?
Solar activity is much better correlated with temperature on earth.
So, it's been steadily increasing for the last 100 years?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
You're under the impression that the greenhouse effect involves a cool atmosphere transferring heat to a warm Earth?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
To a large portion of the world, You're the fat blowhard who will have slightly less money. They meanwhile could find themselves facing starvation or freezing in the winter because food and energy prices shot up.
This isn't hyperbole, just look what Bio-diesel did to some of the world's poorest.
Fact: Putting 'Fact:' in front of recycled long-debunked garbage doesn't make it a Fact.
There is no disadvantage to less pollution. It's HOW you go about doing it. Ignoring China's and India's environmental impacts while taxing the hell out of every American and European person to line the pockets of politician and political benefactor's carbon market schemes, not only is pure crap, but is stagnating an already bad economy to certain ruin.
But apparently that is what some folks desire, for some reason.
I am not anti-anti-pollution. I love the outdoors and nature. And I can tell you that even basic laws and ACTUAL enforcement has turned a lot of rivers I could not fish, due to pollution, in the 70s and 80s into thriving ecosystems in the 2000s and 2010s. You don't have to ruin world economies to clear up the pollution, no matter how much certain politically motivated parties would have you think otherwise.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
The earth is a cold place. snow and ice are relatively new things in earths history and on geologic time scales they just started ocurring. The earth has historically had higher levels of CO2, and far warmer temperatures, Did this cause any problems? No it did not.
There were more species, greater plant growth, and more bio diversity than at any other time in earths history. Sea levels were higher but there were no ice caps and far from being a climate disaster, the warmer, higher CO2 earth could support MORE life.
Contrast that with the global cooling that's occurred in the last 20 million years and it's plain to see that having entire continents like Antarctica frozen solid and under miles of ice is not a normal or healthy state for our planet.
The irony is that so called 'green' movements actually seek to keep the global thermostat set on deep freeze, which HURTS plants, limits bio diversity, and we all suffer cold winters, countless deaths caused by incliment winter weather and millions of dollars of damage every year during winter months. Entire continents of our planet are uninhabitable frozen wastelands, and the most fertile soil in the northern and southern hemispheres goes to waste under months of permafrost every year.
There is nothing "green" about climate alarmists. They want to keep the earth cold when the greatest benefit to actual plant and animal life is to let it warm back up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE6Kdo1AQmY
A video worth thinking about.
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
I mean, really, what is your issue here exactly?
If it's genuinely "why aren't we cutting down on spray from the ocean to reduce H2O evaporation", I can tell you that it'd be like trying to trim an entire football field by carefully walking around the very edge, snipping each blade of grass, then walking away. Shoreline spray is an absolutely miniscule contributor to the water evaporated from the ocean as a whole. (Although it does make aerosols, which precipitate cloud formation, so I dare say it'd be massively counterproductive.)
If it's "why aren't we looking at manipulating the hydrological cycle to offset the forcing caused by CO2", well, that is actually an option. It's just a very difficult one.
If it's "why aren't we reducing the amount of H2O we dump into the atmosphere", I'm afraid that our effect on the water cycle is essentially zero on that scale. Our own H2O usage is not a major contributor to warming.
If it's something else, enlighten me.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Good grief. Have you even read the wikipedia page, let alone the book itself?
From the wiki page:
"The philosophical problem is about the decrease in knowledge when it comes to rare events as these are not visible in past samples and therefore require a strong a priori, or an extrapolating theory; accordingly, predictions of events depend more and more on theories when their probability is small. In the fourth quadrant, knowledge is both uncertain and consequences are large, requiring more robustness."
There has never been as rapid a rise of CO2 as is happening now. The rare event that is happening now is not visible in the geological record.
We started to understand the greenhouse effect way back in the 1850s. By the 1920s we had the knowledge to completely understand it and the data was collected to verify it all by the 1950s.
We've built excellent models for predicting the long term behaviour of the climate due to the CO2 forcings we've introduced. Even the early models from the 1970s predictions have held up to scrutiny and later models are better still. If anything, the various models have tended to underestimate the changes to the climate.
When we extrapolate the current models the potential costs are absolutely catastrophic. In the worst cases it's hard to see how civilization can survive and even human extinction isn't inconceivable. If we'd started mitigating strategies in the 80s it might have cost us a tiny fraction of growth but we chose not to and every year we wait the evidence that we must act gets stronger and the costs higher.
And you're saying that "well we don't completely understand absolutely everything so we should continue running headlong to where the majority of scientists say there is a cliff to fall off" and then you quote a book that says that financial experts tend to underestimate the downsides due to incomplete knowledge as support for your inane views.
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Err, no. Even the most cursory examination of the popular or technical literature would have relieved you of this incredible misconception. Methane is an active area of policy, discussion, and research.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=methane+global+warming&hl=en&authuser=0
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=methane+global+warming&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
"these people" are pushing for better (more efficient, sustainable, etc) technology, not less of it. Saying that "these people" are trying to take away your cars is setting up a straw man argument, plain and simple.
Second of all... have you done the math on how long it will take the human population to decrease as a result of the declining birth rate? And compare that to how quickly the carbon footprint of the middle class is rising? Do the math... then talk.
Lastly... if climate change is allowed to continue unabated then the economic impacts will affect our levels of education and technology. Look at new orleans and new york - that's billions in economic effort spent that could have been spent on tech and education.
I believe Mr. Boehner prefers that you refer to this as "job killing."
Yep, I did.
https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years
You just heard someone say 'ice age' and assume it was true. It wasn't. It was just a small decrease in average temperature that someone extrapolated to 'ice age'.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Here's another actual number set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880
Where's your?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
If you're talking about the breathless headlines about how sulfate aerosols were going to cause global cooling and needed to be cut down, the story had as much to do with climate science as the 2012 apocalypse scare had to do with astronomy.
Of course, you seem like the kind of person who gets their science from the National Enquirer rather than Nature.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I am still trying to figure out was the *disadvantage* is (in terms of climate and environment) to less pollution.
I know some fat blowhard will make less money, but excuse me if that doesn't concern me much.
The issue isn't that we're concerned about the über wealthy losing money. The issue is that, unless you can get every single nation in the world to agree on certain environmental and worker health and safety standards, you're fighting an uphill battle. We enact stronger regulations so they just pick up their factories and move them to Burma or some other place. Then they have even less incentive to reduce their emissions. You have to solve the problem of globalization in order to solve the problem of industrial pollution. Otherwise we'll lose the jobs and pollution will likely get worse.
Show me one piece of legislation introduced by any government which seeks to regulate methane emissions.
sudo make me a sandwich
China is heavily investing to reduce carbon output, as its technocratic leadership understands the issue. When they reduce their output to less than that of the US, the US will have to come up with some new avoidance excuse.
Why?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
There's no such thing as absolute certainty in science.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I have genuinely no idea what point you or the blog author are trying to make.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I wish I had modpoints for this. Well said.
China builds a new coal powerplant every week but I'm ruining the environment because I don't ride my bike to work? It makes me wonder if the motivation for these "anti-carbon" scare tactics is to preserve the steady flow of grant money.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Our CO2 emissions have increased significantly these last couple decades, yet warming has been flat for 15+ years. What is the explanation? How can claim to be so certain of this causal link yet have no explanation for the last 15+ years?
Given the choice between forcing China and India to take the idea seriously while doing nothing, and forcing China and India to take the idea seriously while getting our own house in order, I'm going to take the high ground. Of course, if it's a net economic loss, that's bad - the whole idea of carbon taxation and trading is to be economically neutral, with the taxes offset by reduced harms from climate change - but that's a point of debate.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
My issue here is that environmentalists are more concerned with their so-called "proven science" than they are with the impact on people's lives and the actual effects of their "solutions".
I am from the Central Valley in California, where the Delta Smelt has reduced the available water supply to farmers by 90%. The entire region is in the middle of a drought and bordering on dust bowl. Hundreds of thousands of acres sit unused, covered in tumbleweeds, with the families in poverty because there is no water for them to plant anything and make a living. 5,000 lost jobs seems like a small number, until you consider the agricultural area impacted by these insane policies only has a population of ~250,000.
Then to add insult to injuries, the residents of Los Angeles still have water for their finely manicured lawns.
sudo make me a sandwich
China is heavily investing to reduce carbon output, as its technocratic leadership understands the issue. When they reduce their output to less than that of the US, the US will have to come up with some new avoidance excuse.
They talk a good game, but you're apparently willing to ignore the over 350 new large coal-fired power plants they're building over the next few years. China will reign supreme in CO2 generation (per-capita means nothing to the environment BTW) from here on out. India also plans to build over 450 new coal-fired plants.
As to a new "US avoidance excuse", US CO2 production is down to 1994 levels due to fracking and therefore increased use of natural gas, among other factors. Now all we need is a sane nuclear power policy, with nuclear plants replacing almost all coal-fired plants here, and CO2 production would be way down without harm to the economy. In fact, by exporting high-tech thorium generators, the US could make a ton of money.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Oh yea of little faith in California:
http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/UCCTR.cfm
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/landfills/landfills.htm
All part of AB32.
I sympathise, really, but the decision of how many lost jobs a conservation effort is worth is a local policy one, and it really doesn't weigh on global climate change. If the local authorities didn't consider the possibility that a drought might hit around the same time they were reducing water availability, it sounds like they fucked up. What I can tell you is that if the climate changes significantly, you're going to be running into conflicts between conservation and human livelihood more often as people adjust to a changed water table.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
You're sounding more and more daft.
The solar cycle is roughly a 12 year cycle. It doesn't correlate with the 100+ year increase in temperatures.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
That's not the point, though. He didn't say "nobody has enacted legislation about methane", he was claiming that it was a taboo subject and completely off the table because it didn't involve the right kind of actor.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
adapt
If we look at the correct arguments, it's possible. While we quibble about man made vs. natural warming nobody pays attention to what the correct arguments are. Pollution of all kinds is surely a massive contributor to global warming, in addition to causing other more obvious problems. Oceanic dead zones, loss of agriculture, and human illness.
We have fake arguments about why Solar power does not work instead of actually implementing solutions (questionable or not) which would reduce pollution. The same thing can be said about wind power, yet we get clowns like Rush Limbaugh telling you how Wind power kills all the birds.
I think that some of the intentions of the science are good, but unfortunately it's all being used as a sleight of hand trick to keep polluters rolling in money at our expense (and at the expense of the next countless generations).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Would the standard of living dropping for everyone else concern you?
Reading comprehension. His point was that lots of pollution HAS been cleaned up (in this case in local rivers) WITHOUT ruining economies, simply by enacting basic laws and actually enforcing them.
Central Ohio Home Theater Installation - The Theater People
Ah, well sourced info I see.
Perhaps, just perhaps, your 'facts' aren't as factual as you think they are.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
"the world's ocean levels dropped measurably."
"sea levels have been rising at a faster pace of about 10 millimeters (0.4 inches) per year."
So...which is it? Are the sea levels rising or dropping?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
For rich people, such as 90% of Americans, it costs a few thousand per year. For the uber-rich, it doesn't matter much - they just need to invest in fake solar companies rather than energy companies. It's the very poor who are deeply, even fatally affected
Take ethanol fuel, for example, which has tripled the cost of corn. Before, $10 could buy corn for three people. Now that same $10 can only feed one person. That's a big deal if you're poor, or if you're average income by global standards.
It ripples through food prices generally, of course. Most processed food that used to have corn starch is now made with wheat flour, increasing the cost of wheat. An extra $500 / year on food isn't a big deal if you're rich, making $40,000. It's a very big deal if you make $2,000 / year.
It's the same with any non-optimal production. When stuff is more costly to make, less is made, and people have less. Hardest hit are those who can't get by with any less. Any food you burn in your gas tank is food that could have fed a starving person, so in the end the cost is in lives.
Obviously that doesn't mean you shouldn't think about environmental costs. It does mean you better carefully balance them against other costs. You dont want to engage in policies which have as their primary benefit making you feel good because you're "green", at the cost of having people starve to death. Irresponsible use of CFLs are a good example of this. A CFL is great in the bathroom. For the attic or hall closet, it makes far more sense to use a 50 cent non-toxic standard bulb and give the $10 you save to United Way. You'll keep mercury and other toxins out of the environment and help someone who needs the help.
My problem is with the flawed "scientific method" used by environmentalists to justify their actions. They can't get their agenda by popular vote, so they file lawsuits and make an unelected government official enact legislation through judicial diktat. Meanwhile, these same environmentalists have 10,000 square foot mansions, fly in private planes, drive armored Hummers, etc.
sudo make me a sandwich
That's nothing to do with the science, that's a political issue.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
What a lot of disingenous nonsense, any attempted action of this kind could easily be countered with import taxes, the entire framework for doing so is already in place.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Not even two years go, reduced rainfall, drought conditions that led to massive wildfires, were being considered "proof" of AGW. Now the increase of rain, decrease of drought, and reduced risk of wildfire means the same thing?
here's but one example out of dozens found in a microsecond of google search.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/feb/10/australia-bush-fires.
It's like saying people's lives are shortened by a certain activity and using that as proof to regulate or ban that activity. Then when people engaged in that activity actually start living longer, still trying to hold onto what was in fact originally a moral or religiously based decision. Like drinking or MJ use.
Shades of 1920's eugenics- science as a method to justify behavioral control. Again.
"There is only one reason to consider deploying a scheme with even a tiny chance of causing such a catastrophe: if the risks of not deploying it were clearly higher. "
Why does this caution not apply to policies and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Eppur si muove! The greenhouse effect is real, and the phenomenology is well-recreated by the model. Gerlich and Tscheuschner seem to be tilting at a popular misconception in the mistaken belief that it is how the actual physical system is supposed to work.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I am still trying to figure out was the *disadvantage* is (in terms of climate and environment) to less pollution.
I know some fat blowhard will make less money, but excuse me if that doesn't concern me much.
Taxing fuel increases the price of shipping which raises the price of almost everything even for poor people who ride their bike to work. Given how bad the economy is it's understandable that this would be unpopular.
.. as far as the economic analysis? Seriously? We're going to worry about the economic impact of reducing our CO2 emissions...?
Sorry, but yes. It is quite possible that the cure may be worse than the disease. If you feel strongly that something should be done, without weighing the pros and cons carefully, I feel justified in calling you a religious nut.
I'm not saying that reducing emissions should never happen, just that all factors and alternatives should be considered, unintended consequences evaluated.
Hysterical people running around as if the planet is on fire will not make good decisions.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
What a lot of disingenous nonsense, any attempted action of this kind could easily be countered with import taxes, the entire framework for doing so is already in place.
In theory, yes. But in practice, does it really happen? Do we charge import duties on Chinese goods to offset the environmental costs? No, we do not. And if we tried, we could very well run into difficulties due to the ITC and free trade agreements that the US has signed. It's not just a simple matter of adding a tariff to goods. There would have to be a massive overhaul to our trade rules.
Until the government explicitly unbans living efficiently, complaining reform needs to be bottom up is absurd.
I don't drive an SUV, I drive a little Toyota, but I'd rather walk, or use quality public transportation. Unfortunately state and local governments have been exercising a war on walking since the early 1950s, implementing extremist pro-car zoning codes that force businesses to be built far away from the people they serve, and with large spaces between them so they can't be clustered.
There's no evidence that Americans have ever, as a group, wanted to be forced to drive everywhere - they've wanted the option to drive, but nobody outside of a small extreme group actually wants to be forced to drive first thing every morning, or after a hard day's work, or to and from a shop to get a gallon of milk. But with cities deliberately run down until relatively recently, and pro-car nutcases controlling the building of all new developments, that's been the effect.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
anyway people can carry on a conversation without getting emotional about it?!
There are many solutions which do not involve economic destruction, which a quick glance around the world and through history show will be far worse for human life than global warming adaptation would be.
We would decidedly not be better off had people in 1900 slammed the brakes on economic dynamism, leaving us in 2013 with less gw and a 1956 level of technology. History shows the more government burden and intervention, the more Soviet Unionlike you get. Goodbye to not just iPads but integrated circuits, and certainly to any consumer electronics even if not.
Advancememt swamps everything else in increasing quality and length of life. Put together. It doesn't care if the burden is kickbacks or warlords or bribes or legal donations or taxation, any more than evolution cares about why another organism is sucking its blood (and telling it where to step as it walks).
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The point is there are abundant solutions, but your mind is so closed you try to shut them all down. How much willpower would it take to say "Two years from now the sale of any product that is not 100% recyclable is banned"? How quickly do you think factories would retool if adequately motivated?
Laziness and greed isn't an impediment, the only things that should stop us trying to do our best by the planet are the laws of physics.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Well, then you missed the important half of the argument...the part that matters.
No one is arguing against less pollution (and with that phrase, I've lost half the readers...sound bites oversimplify things), they are arguing that the methods that people want to use to 'save the Earth' are backwoods retarded. And they are...the Ethanol mixtures in our gasoline was a giant boondoggle, the Prius hybrids proved to be worse for the environment than many straight gasoline variants, etc. But the only thing the other side hears is "We want to piss in our own bed! Derp!"
So, several years on, and what do we have? Hideous, mind-boggling cost-overruns from poorly designed programs to 'fix the world' because taking an extra moment to get another Engineer's opinion was simply time they didn't have (or perhaps, the Engineer disagreed with their opinion, sorry, 'truth,' and what do they know?). An entire generation of human beings, sold into slavery, because they are unwilling to realize that there is no such as a free lunch, and that contrary to popular media portrayals of a hero shooting from the hip (and getting lucky, because their beliefs were right, so of course, they'd come out ahead), reality requires a ridiculous amount of double-checking (it's a PITA).
I am John Hurt.
Unless, given that the Earth is a dynamic system, we manage to perturb it to such an extent we cause a runaway greenhouse effect such as Venus. Would you like your fries cooked on the sidewalk or just wave them through the air a bit?
Oh, and the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is changing the acidity of the oceans which is helping to destroy biodiversity there. And the oceans are the base of the food chain. It probably wasn't a big problem during the young Earth or when the dinosaurs still roamed, but now that there are billions of people, we rather care about it a bit more. And to listen to the fishermen, the topical and subtropical fish have been moving north and south. Maybe they are just tired of their environment and are moving for a change of scenery, yes?
So take off all your clothes.
Oh, by the end of the century... Pfft! I'll be dead long before that. But I feel sorry for your grandkids. World's gonna be like one great big Louisiana bayou in August.
Exactly! If I had the choice between driving to a neighborhood business and driving to the Walmart 20 miles away, I'd pick the neighborhood business, and on a nice day, I might even walk. Unfortunately, most of the local businesses are long gone.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Don't forget the TAXES! Jiminy-Cricket-on-a-bamboo-skewer-over-hot-coals don't let our monied overlords® have to contribute to the betterment of society & the environment! Unless it directly benefits them personally.
To suggest geo-engineering in response to climate change is like proposing trying to shoot cancer out of your body with a gun, it might work but you're far more likely to cause more problems than you solve.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Unfortunately, all that fracking and natgas usage is increasing the amount of methane being released to the atmosphere and that has a much stronger warming effect than CO2 in the short term.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Correction: I should have said "a much stronger warming effect than the EQUIVALENT amount of CO2".
The amount of methane in the atmosphere is much less than that of CO2
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The answer is no. When we talk about how much rain y' all have, we will use measurements that mean something to us. You are welcome to do the same when y' all talk about our rain, of course.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
What if the laws that regulate pollution within a country also included requirements for import tariffs? The imported goods/commodities must have documentation on their production method. If the methods are polluting, and the pollution can affect the country of destination (e.g. emissions into the atmosphere or water), a calculated tariff is mandated. This might be a bit complex, but maybe better than doing nothing at all and letting developing nations pollute uncontrollably?
The area of NYC is somewhere between 650 sq.km and 950 sq.km, depending on how you measure. There are 44 European countries larger than 1000 sq.km - NYC is only larger than Andorra, Malta, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Monaco and Vatican City. Even the 44th largest on the list, Luxembourg, is more than two and a half times bigger than NYC.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
"China is heavily investing to reduce carbon output" -> "China is spending a lot of money in an attempt to reduce their carbon output, with failure-prone results and outright fraud likely to consume the vast majority of those investments."
"When they reduce their output to less than that of the US, the US will have to come up with some new avoidance excuse." -> "If / when China finds out which technologies work, and which do not, on their dime, I'm sure the US will be perfectly willing to pay the Chinese for their expertise / to export them to the US."
I am John Hurt.
Actually a good bit of effort is going into not releasing natural gas into the atmosphere. I doubt it will be a big problem going forward...
Regardless, moving a good bit of fossil fuel electricity generation to nuclear is an all-around win. We may well need such high-intensity energy sources for geoengineering and we'll definitely need them for space travel.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Thanks for modding me flamebait. How unfortunate that the circumstances parodied above are all very real.
Not anymore, with our phones betraying our location even when 'off', speed trap and traffic cameras, and (coming soon, in the name of 'intelligent traffic) the cars' own black box and/or infotainment systems.
Methane may be a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, but it also breaks down much faster.
unless you can get every single nation in the world to agree on certain environmental and worker health and safety standards, you're fighting an uphill battle
It'll take centuries before humanity has evolved that far, and by then it'll be way too late. But one could fight the battle from a different direction.
I believe that the only viable way is for very wealthy people and organisations to lead the way. When government sees popular support, then perhaps it'll hop on the bandwagon.
For example, imagine a non-profit organisation that isn't about protecting the environment per se, but more about providing energy alternatives and helping people to be more energy efficient. That is more of a positive thing, as compared to the resistance that environmental are known for. Also, the economic benefits (such as due to electrical efficiency in homes and electric cars) may even entice people who don't (or can't afford to) care about climate issues.
I'm not claiming it's a fast track by any means, but I still think it's the only option that currently stands a chance in Hell of working.
We enact stronger regulations so they just pick up their factories and move them to Burma or some other place.
The answer to that is you impose tariffs on imports from those places to the extent that their manufacturing processes don't meet US standards. The US is still the biggest economy in the world so it's difficult to ignore it as a market.
"There is only one reason to consider deploying a scheme with even a tiny chance of causing such a catastrophe: if the risks of not deploying it were clearly higher. "
Why does this caution not apply to policies and regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?
I guess I don't understand why this needs to be explained. The situations are not equivalent: Doing something harmful (to your body, to your car, to your environment) can be reasonably stopped without much concern that the results would be catastrophic. If you are doing something you know is harmful and are trying to mitigate the effects of it, then it's reasonable to consider the relative harm of the original act versus the mitigation.
Yes, the costs associated with reducing CO2 production should be considered, but there is no reason to think that not producing CO2 in itself would be catastrophic, since that's what the status quo was for thousands of years.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
Yeah, and those maps were generally accurate before a lot of current construction, creek re-routing, etc. were done.
IOW, don't trust them at all. They may give a hint, but examine the land as it is now, and be accompanied by a decent hyrorlogist (who will probably refuse to give an opinion without taking sample cores in many places).
FWIW, I currently live on a hilltop that's marked at in the 100 year flood plain. This is because before the creek was re-routed it flowed through a small valley that is now a street. It was rerouted about 200 yards away (at this point) and there's a set of small hills between here and there. And it's in a deep channel. The heaviest of recent (decades) rains hasn't resulted in ANY significant flow down our street, much less any flooding. This is true even when the creek has significantly overflowed it's banks.
So I have reason to doubt those maps, even though they MAY be correct, if there's been no significant local "terraforming".
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
.. as far as the economic analysis? Seriously? We're going to worry about the economic impact of reducing our CO2 emissions...?
Sorry, but yes. It is quite possible that the cure may be worse than the disease. If you feel strongly that something should be done, without weighing the pros and cons carefully, I feel justified in calling you a religious nut.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" -- Benjamin Franklin.
The people / companies / governments that are rapidly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere are 'doing something' and they have not weighed the pros and cons carefully. Not producing CO2 is the default, it's been the case for human history; rapidly changing atmospheric composition is recent and people that want to do that, without weighing the pros and cons carefully, are the religious nuts.
I'm not saying that reducing emissions should never happen, just that all factors and alternatives should be considered, unintended consequences evaluated.
Hysterical people running around as if the planet is on fire will not make good decisions.
Humans are changing the atmosphere, and that change is affecting the climate, the results have already not been good and are expected to become worse. That's the unintended consequence. At this point, I think the people that want to continue doing it are the ones that have to justify themselves, not the 'hysterical people' who want them to stop.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
*over time
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
hahha oh man all no recycleable materials banned in 2 years? I hate to tell you but developing an idea, researching its feasability and bringing it to the market is longer than a 2 year process. no, we need a multi decade process, similar to whats being done in the auto world. Give them 10 15 years to up the MPG numbers and they can do it (sure it costs us 5 grand more per car..... one reason I dont agree with them but I digress)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
That's because it wouldn't affect the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
The key difference is that if you put extra CO2 into the atmosphere it just stays there for a long period of time.
But if you put extra water vapor into the atmosphere, it pretty quickly condenses right back out.
probably for the same reason you used the term "xtian" - something said only by those who hate christians. Im not even religious but i see it all the time on the net when people who hate christians are refering to them
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
What if the laws that regulate pollution within a country also included requirements for import tariffs? The imported goods/commodities must have documentation on their production method. If the methods are polluting, and the pollution can affect the country of destination (e.g. emissions into the atmosphere or water), a calculated tariff is mandated. This might be a bit complex, but maybe better than doing nothing at all and letting developing nations pollute uncontrollably?
I agree that this is a possible solution but due to ITC and free trade agreements that we have signed, this may be very difficult to implement.
We enact stronger regulations so they just pick up their factories and move them to Burma or some other place.
The answer to that is you impose tariffs on imports from those places to the extent that their manufacturing processes don't meet US standards. The US is still the biggest economy in the world so it's difficult to ignore it as a market.
As I've said to other posters, the difficulty here is with the ITC, free trade agreements we've signed, and other legal obstacles. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but it would not be an overnight process and it would be a lot of work to implement and enforce.
That sounds pretty speculative to me. [citation needed]
-Turkey
per-capita means nothing to the environment BTW
Perfect, split China into 10 countries and global warming is solved!
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
If there was alternatives then it could happen, why there isn't any change is because there is no real useful alternative to fossil fuels.
Well for one thing, there is this magic invention called "insulation". It has been around for a decades in civilized countries, but alas, the US and North Korea and similar countries are a bit behind the curve here.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
A few moment's searching will turn up lots of links. Google, Bing, DuckDuckGo, etc "fracking methane warming"
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I would prefer that you back up your own claims. To rely on my doing so will invariably lead to me doing independent research that is likely different than yours; likely leading to a different opinion. A quick Google search using your terms points to a number of articles - some say that natural gas could release an increased amount of methane. There are many articles on politically charged sites that I tend to discount on principle. One more promising one summarizes a Cornell study linking natural gas to increased methane, and the authors state "We do not intend for you to accept what we reported on today as the definitive scientific study with regard to this question. It is clearly not. We have pointed out as many times as we could that we are basing this study on in some cases questionable data". The study was more a commentary on policy than actual science.
Anyway, I can only assume that this is the science that you're referring to. If this is the case, your claims sound (at best) presumptive.
-Turkey
The BETTER question to have asked is "Why is global climate changing ?"/quote?
You're pretty late to the game. Those questions were being asked in the 1950's, 60's, 70's and 80's and enough evidence was accumulated over that time that the IPCC was formed in 1988 to address the issue.
Of course in science questions like that are always open but at this point someone's going to have to come up with something pretty revolutionary to overturn the basics of the current understanding of the climate system.
"Politically charged sites that I tend to discount on principle"
What sites would those be?
It seems to me that an increasing number of people consider those to be any site that doesn't resonate with their preconceived notions.
Far better to let them Google, potentially get sites on both sides of the argument and, possibly reach an informed opinion.
However, I won't be sitting patiently holding my breath.
The issue is not IF fracking will release more methane to the atmosphere but HOW MUCH - and whether it will cause as much or more warming than the CO2 it displaces.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
United States MINIMUM wage, what high school students earn, is far higher than average adult income in the rest of the world.
If you make $200 per week , you are richer than 86% of people. So yes, given that US welfare recipents have more than most workers, Americans are rich -virtually all of us. Not as rich as we were in the 80s and early 90s, but much better off than most.
If you're a nerd on Slashdot, your total gross income including benefits is probably over $31K. Is so, congratulations - you're a 1%er.
The proof is in the pudding and so far very little that's happened climate-wise is outside of the expected range of possibilities as far as climate scientists are concerned. They're smart enough to realize that if they present biased science then sooner or later reality will expose their bias and make fools out of them. I really doubt many of them are willing to expose themselves to ridicule like that.
But it's easier to bitch and moan about it than it is to address the fundamental overpopulation problem.
You think there are too many people? I think you've just voted yourself off the island.
I was specifically referring to (among others) the second result using your search terms. This is exactly why I stated that you need to cite your own research. You're hung up on my reaching a different conclusion than you did - because you didn't cite your sources...even after I had asked for them. This is exactly why I said what I did - please go back and read it, and then please cite your sources next time.
With regard to the (summary of the) single scientific article that I read - the Cornell article, the authors specifically stated that the data was not sound and that it was a commentary on policy rather than actual science.
I have no idea what you're basing your opinion on. I prefer science - it's all I have. I still have no clue where you're coming from, and I don't have any definitive answers - I'm not trying to bullshit you, my friend. However, you've only offered presumption and Google search terms. I would be happy to discuss this with you when we're on even ground. Unfortunately, we're still not speaking the same language.
-Turkey
Oh well, ganjadude says it takes decades the world better sit up and take notice, I'm sure he's a fount of knowledge and efficiency.
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
Seems like my body has been deteriorating all my life so I might as well keep smoking crystal meth and injecting heroin, makes no difference anyway?
If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
per-capita means nothing to the environment BTW
Perfect, split China into 10 countries and global warming is solved!
The reason I brought that up is that "but per-capita the amount of CO2 China generates is lower than the US" is often trotted out as an excuse for why the US should sacrifice itself on the altar of CAGW even though China is a worse offender.
Of course splitting China into many countries (presumably with interesting borders to distribute CO2 production;) would do nothing to address the total CO2 going into the atmosphere, which is the only issue that matters.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Either you have proof or you don't know.
Science by acclamation...
Mundus Vult Decipi
If the total CO2 going into the atmosphere matters, and the average American puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than the average Chinese person, how can you possibly say that China is a worse offender? That kind of thinking lets every small nation (or state or city) off the hook, just because of how borders happen to be drawn.
And no one is asking the US to sacrifice itself. Is the living standard of Northern Europe really all that horrible? That can be done, almost without trying, at half the CO2 emissions per capita of the US. But no, you would rather put the burden on the poor in China rather than having to live like the Dutch or the English or the Swedes.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
He said xtain 'cos crappy slashdot won't let him type a chi.
Do you also get angry when people write Xmas?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Oh man you are so wrong.
Fact: CO2 is actually a very small contributor to the "greenhouse effect" the main contributor being BY FAR water vapor.
True. But you may have noticed these large bodies of water on our planet - we call them oceans. The water vapour in the atmosphere is in equilibrium with the oceans. The only way to increase the water vapour in the atmosphere is to incrase the temperature. (Whoops!)
Moreover MOST of the CO2 come from NATURAL sources not human.
True. However 100% of the increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere is caused by man.
Fact: The skewed numerical models created to prove global warming through CO2 DO NOT WORK.
Your momma is fat.
Fact: It has been showed that changes in CO2 level in the past was followed by a corresponding change in temperatures with a lag of ~800 years. Therefore it's not a cause... it's a consequence !
Welcome to the wacky world of feedback - it's both.
Fact: In recent history, temperature did not follow CO2 level.
Of course not - there are other effets
Fact: Solar activity is much better correlated with temperature on earth.
Totaly untrue - solar activity has not risen as temperature has.
Fact: IPCC is full of it.
Full of truth, unlike you
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
It doesn't rain where he lives so he is unable to undestand that the atmospheric water vapour is in equilibrium with the oceans.
(by the way Sparticus old chap this means that to reduce the green house effect due to water vapour you'll have to drain the oceans. Have fun).
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Huh?
He said:
Show me one piece of legislation introduced by any government which seeks to regulate methane emissions.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The "recent slowdown recent slowdown in the pace of warming" is more accurately written as "the cessation of global warming since 1998." When AGW proponents make accurate but misleading claims, it's not a surprise when the rest of us look on in doubt.
That's funny, people kept telling me warming stopped in 1995. Why the change to 1998?
In fact it just keeps "stopping".
Anthropogenic global warming 'stopped' in 1997... and in 1996, 1995, 1982, 1981, 1980, 1979, 1978 and 1972 /
Watch this Heartland Institute video
frankly I dont get angry about when anyone says anything about religion, I was simply providing an observation I have noticed.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Indeed, in the eye of the beholder. The vast majority of people would say that a guy who can just sit around smoking weed with no worries about food, water, shelter, or basic medicine is rich indeed. Some Americans are so incredibly spoiled. They sit around complaining in their air conditioned homes, having no idea what daily life is like picking coffee in 100 heat with 80% humidity, or 80 hours in a Chinese factory, or living with the explosions of war munitions around you daily.
The eye of the beholder is closed.
New York city IS an expensive place to live. I wonder why so many people choose to go there. What does it have that's worth giving up so much that your income could otherwise buy? For me, I'm happy with my $95K three-bedroom house in Texas. Apparently millions of people find something in NYC that's incredibly awesome, though.
Sure. Thing is, we can't do anything directly about H2O. The amount in the atmosphere is going to be pretty well fixed. If we put more in, there'll be more rain. If we take some out, there'll be more evaporation.* Since the amount in the atmosphere depends on temperature, it will simply reinforce other warming and cooling effects. In particular, with more CO2 in the air, things will warm up and we'll have more H2O in the air, and it'll warm up more. With less CO2 in the air, less H2O, etc.
*Oversimplification. Not to be considered absolutely correct in all details, but generally true.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Billions of people are alive because we use a lot of fossil fuel growing and transporting their food. The people have to die somehow. We can either kill them by starvation and exposure now by cutting off fuel supplies or somehow convince them not to have anymore children and after they die of old age the Earth will be able support a few hundred million environmentalist. Of course the climate will be totally screwed by then so I guess they have to go now. Sucks to be them.
The issue isn't that we're concerned about the über wealthy losing money. The issue is that, unless you can get every single nation in the world to agree on certain environmental and worker health and safety standards, you're fighting an uphill battle. We enact stronger regulations so they just pick up their factories and move them to Burma or some other place. Then they have even less incentive to reduce their emissions. You have to solve the problem of globalization in order to solve the problem of industrial pollution. Otherwise we'll lose the jobs and pollution will likely get worse.
No, the issue is that there are approximately 5 trillion dollars of fossil fuel still in the ground, and there will always be plenty of people willing to kill somebody for a even a small piece of that money; whereas there are not 5 trillion dollars to pay people to NOT do so. That's capitalism for ya, eh?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
You do realize not every environmentalist* is Al Gore, you know?
*I use that term loosely.
I hope you're right about containing natural gas but if fracking continues to grow and in places where regulation and oversight are weak, then the short-term warming may increase.
Moving away from coal to nuclear would be a good thing if only we could get the damnable nuke plants built on time, on budget and stop being sissies about reprocessing.
Moving from coal to natgas is troublesome to quantify. Cleaner air - yes, less pollution - hell yes, less smog - yes, less warming - er, maybe not, since coal's production of aerosols have a cooling effect in the atmosphere but its deposits on glaciers and ice caps speed melting by reducing albedo.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
While I don't object to citing sources and I probably should have, your point about me not doing it is, quite frankly, considerably overblown.
Are you saying that if I DID cite, you would accept those at face value? That's not very scientific of you.
I'm going to make another claim which I'm also not going to provide citations for - are you going to dismiss it out of hand?
Ready?
Even if no extra methane is released from increased production of natural gas, reducing coal consumption in favor of burning natural gas may not significantly reduce the rate of warming and may even increase it because some of the byproducts of burning coal have a significant cooling effect.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
If you had cited a source, I would have read it and our discussion would have been framed around that rather than the lack of basis. My point was that I really had nothing to work with and any discussion was losing proposition from the start (for me).
I won't dismiss your suggestion out of hand. In fact, it's quite a reasonable hypothesis, and I actually think that it warrants serious consideration and/or study.
-Turkey
It's kind of ridiculous, isn't it. Once you include gas taxes, car taxes, etc. the national average is 45% in assorted taxes, so I bet NY is 65%.
Come on down, there are plenty of jobs, etc. Well, if you WANT a job building cool shit, doing cloning, computer tech, etc. come on down. If you want to sit around smoking weed all day and complaining that it's not making you rich, please stay on the coasts.
I'm going off of the UK's Met Office, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259012/Global-warming-Met-Office-releases-revised-global-temperature-predictions-showing-planet-NOT-rapidly-heating-up.html. Also http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/16/2012_temperature_figures/. And http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
I'm going off of the UK's Met Office
No you're not - you're going off the Daily Fail, El Reg and the Daily Torygraph. None of those is exactly a sane source to quote on AGW.
What the Met Office actualy said:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2013/decadal-forecasts
Watch this Heartland Institute video
You might have noticed that the press release was dealing with predictions, not the past record. If I was a serious opponent, I could try pointing out that it states "we will continue to see temperatures like those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in the instrumental record dating back to 1850," but that isn't inconsistent with global warming ending in 1998. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF does argue that global warming stopped, although in 2000, not 1998.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Because I can possibly decide that per capita allocations of resources encourage states to grow their populations, and penalize those who whether by accident of history or design have a smaller population.
Why not carbon emissions per hectare? After all, short of artificial CO2 sequestration, the land available for plant growth/CO2 removal dictates how much carbon you could use while still being carbon neutral.
Do you know why? Because the US and China have comparable land areas, so that whether by total carbon emissions or carbon emissions per hectare, you lose the justification for forcing radical change in the US while ignoring the problems associated with 'developing' countries. Nevermind that the emissions of the 'developing' countries threaten to swamp the problems associated with 'developed' countries in far less time than you think.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF does argue that global warming stopped, although in 2000, not 1998.
No it doesn't. The word "stopped" does not occur in that text.
The phrase used is "The recent pause in global surface temperature rise".
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Because I can possibly decide that per capita allocations of resources encourage states to grow their populations, and penalize those who whether by accident of history or design have a smaller population.
Your excuses for your ridiculous overconsumption (while still maintaining only a second world median living standard) ring increasingly hollow. You just want to avoid shouldering your responsibility and you are looking for any loophole you can find.
China is working on reducing carbon emissions and poverty while doing more than any other country to lower population. The US in comparison has not even discovered insulation.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
That's not a counterargument. It's not quite an ad hominem attack, but it does nothing show that per capita is a better comparison than per hectare.
My blown cellulose insulated attic and walls, triple-paned low-E windows, and high efficiency natural gas furnace beg to differ.
BTW: How do you like that nice contribution North Sea oil is making to your state budget? Planning on cutting that back anytime soon?
Pause[d] and stopped mean the same thing. You're just trolling.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Yes... those 363 new coal plants, fueled with any coal the Chinese can get their hands on, are certainly reducing carbon emissions.
Not.
Pause[d] and stopped mean the same thing. You're just trolling.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
Idiot.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Apause
https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Astop
Watch this Heartland Institute video