Slashdot Mirror
Shrinking Waves May Save Antarctic Sea Ice
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "It's a nagging thorn in the side of climatologists: Even though the world is warming, the average area of the sea ice around Antarctica is increasing. Climate models haven't explained this seeming contradiction to anyone's satisfaction—and climate change deniers tout that failure early and often. But a new paper suggests a possible explanation: Variability in the heights of ocean waves pounding into the sea ice may help control its advance and retreat."
This is just another one of the many, many balancing mechanisms in nature. Another obvious one is that more heat causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which causes less heat. Mother nature I has thousands of such negative feedback cycles that tend to buffer against changes.
... and poorly recorded ones at that.
Look... if its relevant then its relevant... its just inconvenient to have yet more variables complicating the calculations.
Do we have a proxy value for these waves yet? Some correlating calculation like the orbits of the planets/moon/oscillation of the earth somehow boiling down to wave heights in location X? Because that would be useful. Short of that, we're back got square one with our historic calculations and we need to put some buoys out around Antarctica to build up a data set.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
let's say the ice is thinning in shedding a lot of frigid water... that stuff may make new ice at the edges which makes it look bigger in terms of area, but volume has been lost. It's the loss of volume that translates into rising sea levels.
Actually I've never seen a single model assume that there's a positive feedback cycle and no negative feedback cycle. All published climate models have assumed that climate is a complicated system that is stable in some conditions (implying negative feedback) and unstable in others. That's the thing about systems, they change depending on the conditions. Interestingly none of them have suggested we are all going to die next week either.
So thanks for confirming for us something that we already know, that armchair scientists aren't worth the time of day and don't really understand shit.
On any other topic this name calling is derided as an ad hominen attack.
"Climate models haven't explained this seeming contradiction to anyone's satisfaction". /s
But apparently any climate model that shows warming/change is completely reliable and the science is settled.
There's no such beneficent entity as Mother Nature, keeping everything just so. Species go extinct often, because their environment changes.
Wooah there. Lets not forget that the ice mass is decreasing as it thins, even as the expanse increases. The glaciers and Ice-sheets are becoming unstuck from the land as it thins and this allows more warm sea water under the glaciers which increases the thinning and pushes the glaciers upwards (Ice floats remember) causing the seawater to ingress further under the ice sheet. This positive feedback mechanism is now in operation and will lead to irreversible collapse of the glaciers within 200 years. On a geological timescale this is very fast- human timescales are not an appropriate yardstick to benchmark this stuff.
Climate systems are dominated by negative feedback, or else the Earth would long since have turning into an ice ball or another Venus
Thats a complete non-sequitur The earth could have positive feedback systems that make climate unstable and oscillate between extremes. We have good evidence that it has oscillated in the past on a regular basis (the climate change is natural crowd are saying this all the time).
Also clouds- Clouds don't just cool the planet they also warm it. They have a cooling effect during the day when they reflect sunlight and a warming effect at night when they trap radiation. It's complicated- that is no excuse to pick and choose the few effects that back up the hypothesis you are clearly desperate to believe and ignore the rest.
Negative feedback means that changes will be slow, gradual and contained within certain boundaries. Boring but true...
Conclusion not supported by more than hope, prayer and wishful thinking.
Are you paid to post this crap?
Just to drive my point home:
in this article titled 'Shrinking Waves May Save Antarctic Sea Ice' we get
" You may like to read:
Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans As Antarctic Ice Melts "
what is it?! How many fingers am I supposed to be seeing here??
Both.
This article is talking about the increased sea ice extent. Basically the amount of the ocean that's covered ice. It affects the albedo a bit, but mostly it's an interesting mystery because you'd expect it to shrink in a warmer climate.
The other article is talking about the decreasing ice volume. The thickness of multiyear ice on both land and sea is shrinking. This is expected given the warming climate, it's also worrying because it causes sea levels to rise.
I stole this Sig
Wasn't the increase in ice-area attributed to the melt from inland not being salty, and thus having a higher freezing-point?
1. Sea ice is thin and temporary and has no effect on sea level. It grows and shrinks according to SHORT TERM weather.
2. The collapsing glacier is massive and land-based so its melting will raise sea level. It is melting because of LONG TERM climate change.
3. The collapse of the ONCE-PERMANENT glacier is cooling the surrounding water, causing a TEMPORARY increase in surface ice.
If you look at the diagram that they used to describe the collapse of the glaciers, you will see why. http://gph.is/1mWdkPK Warm water at the ocean floor melts the permanent glacier. As the water cools, it rises to the surface, causing it to lower the temperature of the surface water, increasing the amount of surface ice.
In effect, the PERMANENT, LAND-BASED glacier is quickly becoming TEMPORARY, SEA-BASED ice. Even if this sea-based ice remains or even expands, it will have already raised sea-levels.
There is no such balancing effect. Clouds can reduce or can increase heating, both, depending on local climate and time-of-day.
Furthermore, water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. You don't want more of it!
"Because water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this results in further warming and so is a 'positive feedback' that amplifies the original warming."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"On balance, scientists arenâ(TM)t entirely sure what effect clouds will have on global warming. Most climate models predict that clouds will amplify global warming slightly."
http://www.earthobservatory.na...
"Therefore, the overall net effect of contrails is positive, i.e. a warming effect. However, the effect varies daily and annually"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Actually lots of idiots are in total denial.
Beliefs range from "we're actually cooling, not warming" to "of course it's warming, but that's a good thing".
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Well if there is any consolation, its that government command-and-control slamming the brakes on the economy as a"solution" (which would, by process of inaction slowing down development, be far worse for humanity than moving back from the sea over 300 years) is dead in the water.
Other compensatory adaptations will occur instead.
And good. I'd rather live in 200 years with higher seas and 2214-level tech than slightly lower seas and year 2114-level tech.
Proof: How stupid would our ancestors in 1814 have been to grind the economy to a halt to "help" us, leaving us with 1914-level tech to day and peachy-keen seas.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Can we just use the old furnaces in poland? Geez do you even think about what you are saying?
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink
As someone who's seen sea-ice breakups in Antarctica, they don't happen when the temperature warms up, but when there's a storm in certain directions, usually from the north, leading to waves breaking and carrying away the ice quickly. Emperor penguin chicks pay a heavy tribute to those every few years.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
Great! I like that crazy little prehistoric squirrel!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Actually a lot of those 'idiots' are simply looking at the models, the stats, the actual _knowledge_ science has about the Earth and it's climate processes, and the _long_ view of history. If you do that, there is a lot of reason to doubt and question.
The real idiots are those who would buy wholesale what the media promotes or who trust to their own observation (which the long history of 'eyewitness' testimony in the courts will tell you is likely very very flawed).
Best Regards,
An Idiot (who took the time to read the papers, look at the models, and study the stats)
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Nobody make a splash..
Beware that that is a biased source too, as most cities in the US have been growing until very recently, meaning more heat generated meaning larger heat domes.
We're a species too.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
so you are saying the real temperature should be "Corrected"
Negative feedback cycles can still end up stabilizing at a different set-point, if the negative feedback is in the rate of change rather than the absolute value.
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Within the past 3 months we've heard both.
What you have heard within the past three months is that the extent of the ice is increasing, and that the mass of the ice is decreasing. Both of these things can be true at once.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It affects the albedo a bit, but mostly it's an interesting mystery because you'd expect it to shrink in a warmer climate.
Counter intuitive yes, but it ceased being a mystery decades ago (largely due to climate models that would run on a retail video card these days), if anything this paper is a refinement in the details of the accepted explanation - hint fresh water freezes at a slightly higher temp than salt water. Also the sea ice has always completely melted in the Antarctic summer and its dark in winter, so Albedo is not (currently) as important down south as it is up north.
:).
As for the denier angle - this topic is currently ranked #10 on the climate myth list.
It's up at #10 because the physics of collapsing ice sheets is not well understood and thus difficult to model. Deniers depend on conflating sea ice, land ice, ice shelves, ice bergs, permafrost, ice volume, ice coverage, north pole, and south pole. Someone who is not deliberately trying to mis-inform the reader will also attempt the be clear about which particular "ice metric" they are talking about ( which brings us full circle to the main point of your post
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Actually a lot of those 'idiots' are simply looking at the models, the stats, the actual _knowledge_ science has about the Earth and it's climate processes, and the _long_ view of history. If you do that, there is a lot of reason to doubt and question.
Yet, apparently you can't articulate what the actual problem with theory is, and thus, stick to blustering generalities.
Repeatedly shouting "It's Wrong! It's Wrong" is not going to convince anybody.
The summary misses an important point, while at the same time mentioning it: " Climate models haven't explained this seeming contradiction to anyone's satisfaction" The entire idea of AGW is based on climate models, yet these models have repeatedly failed to actually explain certain, specific observed phenomena. This leads people to question basing policy that will cost a large amount of money and freedom on those models. When you want to give bureaucrats authority to determine what I can and cannot do based on models which have with significant frequency failed to predict real-world phenomena, I am going to question the wisdom of such actions.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Lumping everyone together, then painting everyone in your granfalloon with the beliefs of the 99th percentile is pretty fucking assholish there, asshole.
In the industry, we call them "strawmen".
We're a species too.
And some scientists believe that we have been drawn much closer to extinction that one might think. Our close relatives the Neanderthal and Denisovan were not so lucky.
Skeptical Science has a good summary of the science. It looks like there are many contributing factors to the apparent contradiction of warming temperatures, shrinking antarctic ice volume and growing antarctic sea ice area. The new paper referenced in this article is possibly another factor: http://www.skepticalscience.co...
Antarctica is a continent with 98% of the land covered by ice, and is surrounded by ocean that has much of its surface covered by seasonal sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice. Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once evaporated and then fell as precipitation on the land. Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.
Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorbtion of solar energy by the darker oceans.
To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:
Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
Antarctic Land Ice is decreasing
Measuring changes in Antarctic land ice mass has been a difficult process due to the ice sheet's massive size and complexity. However, since the 1990s satellites have been launched that allow us to measure those changes. There are three entirely different approaches, and they all agree within their measurement uncertainties. The most recent estimate of land ice change that combines estimates from these three approaches reported (Shepherd and others, 2012) that between 1992 and 2011, the Antarctic Ice Sheets overall lost 1350 giga-tonnes (Gt) or 1,350,000,000,000 tonnes into the oceans, at an average rate of 70 Gt per year (Gt/yr). Because a reduction in mass of 360 Gt/year represents an annual global-average sea level rise of 1 mm, these estimates equate to an increase in global-average sea levels by 0.19 mm/yr, or 1.9 mm per decade. Together with the land ice loss from Greenland, this represents about 30% of the observed global-average sea level rise over this period.
Examining how this change is spread over time (Figure 1) reveals that the ice sheet as a whole was not losing or gaining ice in the early 1990s. Since then ice loss has begun, and is clearly seen to have accelerated during that time:
Shepherd et al. 2012
Figure 1: Estimates of total Antarctic land ice changes (bottom) and regions within it (top) and approximate sea level contributions using a combination of several different measurement techniques (Shepherd and others, 2012). Shaded areas represent the estimate uncertainty (1-sigma).
The satellite mission that is best suited to measuring land ice mass change is the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). The GRACE satellites measure changes in Earth's gravity and these can be directly related to surface mass variations such as the Antarctic ice sheet. Recent GRACE estimates of mass change show the dramatic mass loss in West Antarctica and mass gain in East Antarctica (King and others, 2012):
King and others, 2012
Figure 2: a, GRACE estimate of ice-mass change (2002-2012), with ice drainage basins numbered (boldface italics where trends are statistically different to zero with 95% confidence). b, c, Basin-specific lower and upper bounds on ice-mass change, respectively, reflecting the potential systematic error in the basin estimates (King and others, 2012).
The East Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing slightly over satellite period (Figures 1&2) but not enough to offset the other losses. It is not yet clear
To an extent, but it is better to use data from remote measuring stations, rather than ones that used to be outside of town, but are now in the middle of town due to urban sprawl.
No, the poster was clearly asking to back a very specific assertion, namely that many scenarios have already been proven wrong, which is the claim that needs to be proven.
I also don't accept your claim that the claim must be bullet proof. The expected costs and values can be a combination of likelihood and significance of the effects. If the effects are dire enough and the likelihood not sufficiently remote then it becomes a bad value to not make those changes even accounting for the costs they incur.
Besides, a lot of the money being spent isn't just being thrown into a hole and buried, it'll have positive effects as well even if they don't completely offset the effects you're concerned about.
> On balance, scientists aren't entirely sure what effect clouds will have on global warming. Most climate models predict that clouds will amplify global warming slightly.
That sentence lumps professional alarmists in with actual scientists. Never been outside on a cloudy day? Those "scientists" (alarmists) who say clouds make it hot are the same ones who you said San Francisco would be underwater by the year 2010. Don't let their silly pseudo-science make you doubt the obvious facts of your experience. You know that when it's cloudy, it's cooler.
What you may not know not know is that islands near San Francisco have recently re-appeared after having been underwater for the last 60 years, the exact opposite of what the alarmists claimed. There is some important science around climate change. Earth HAS warmed a bit more in the last 100 years than the other planets have. There's also a metric ton of snake oil being sold by alarmists whose pseudoscience is nothing more than patter for their act. Confusing one with the other ends up getting you confused and making you look silly. You end up believing things like "it gets hot when it's cloudy", which is of course ridiculous.
Area is possibly more important than volume as changes in area affect planetary albedo. Larger summer ice area means more sunlight is reflected back into space whereas smaller summer ice area means that more energy is absorbed.
There is no contradiction here. The statement in the headline is wrong. In fact, we just recently had this discussion here on Slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Even though the world is warming, the average area of the sea ice around Antarctica is increasing.
True. But the volume is decreasing.
Climate models haven't explained this seeming contradiction
*shrug* I can't say who is or is not satisfied. But my understanding is that the melting ice is freshwater, and that during cold periods a small amount of surface freshwater can freeze again.
This is to be expected: imagine an ice cube sitting on your countertop. As the ice melts, a small amount of freeze will stick to the countertop. From above, an orthogonal view might actually show the area of ice is increasing. There is still a frozen square, but there is also a small amount of ice spread onto the countertop. But of course, we would not say there is *more* ice because the ice cube is now much shorter.
Here is an even better summary of factors that influence arctic sea ice: http://www.skepticalscience.co...:
Here are some of the leading hypotheses currently being explored through a combination of satellite remote sensing, fieldwork in Antarctica and numerical model simulations – to help explain the increasing trend in overall Antarctic sea ice coverage:
Increased westerly winds around the Southern Ocean, linked to changes in the large-scale atmospheric circulation related to ozone depletion, will see greater northward movement of sea ice, and hence extent, of Antarctic sea ice.
Increased precipitation, in the form of either rain or snow, will increase the density stratification between the upper and middle layers of the Southern Ocean. This might reduce the oceanic heat transfer from relatively warm waters at below the surface layer, and therefore enhancing conditions at the surface for sea ice.
Similarly, a freshening of the surface layers from this precipitation would also increase the local freezing point of sea ice formation.
Another potential source of cooling and freshening in the upper ocean around Antarctica is increased melting of Antarctic continental ice, through ocean/ice shelf interaction and iceberg decay.
The observed changes in sea ice extent could be influenced by a combination of all these factors and still fall within the bounds of natural variability.
The take home messages is that while the increase in total Antarctic sea ice area is relatively minor compared to the Arctic, it masks the fact that some regions are in strong decline. Given the complex interactions of winds and currents driving patterns of sea ice variability and change in the Southern Ocean climate system, this is not unexpected.
But it is still fascinating to study.
What makes me nuts about the climate changers is that they seem to believe that humans have more impact than the sun and other natural events and then have built a de facto religion around it. It's another example of scientific dogma where anyone who dares to challenge them becomes something 'other' and put on worldwide notice that they should be shunned. The other thing that makes me nuts is that they use the word 'denier;' it's offensive since the subtle equation is the Holocaust and, as a result, it discourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty for everyone. That's how cults operate, not how scientists should be pursuing science.
Although volume is possibly more important because that is driving sea levels higher.
Both sides of a debate ignore facts that don't match their veiw of the world.
Just one problem. "We don't know why this apparent contradiction exists, but we're researching it" is pretty much the exact opposite of "ignoring facts".
^^ That! ^^
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
This article is just another PRATT. No scientists are not ignoring the increase in sea ice. I think the parent comment reflects the depth of AGW opposition.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Here is the working link for: No scientists are not ignoring increase in sea ice.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
There's no such beneficent entity as Mother Nature, keeping everything just so.
No, but there is a condition of relative homeostasis which has persisted longer than humanity, which our actions have managed to perturb in a way which may not be recoverable on a human timescale. By all means, ramble on about the particulars of nonsense while reality sneaks up on you and prepares to bite you in the ass.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
the amount of money and societal upheaval this incurs means that the level of demonstrable proof required here goes up significantly.
No, no it doesn't. The level of demonstrable proof required to believe the theory doesn't change depending on how much it might cost. That's politics, not science.
You want us to spend all that cash your case better fucking be bulletproof.
You have this shit seriously backwards. You want us to continue to permit you to tear apart the biosystem upon which we all depend, your case had better fucking be bulletproof. "And it isn't."
So fuck you, that's what.
Yes, that's what the denialist argument always boils down to. Fuck you, and fuck everyone else, while they do whatever they were going to do anyway.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
And good. I'd rather live in 200 years with higher seas and 2214-level tech than slightly lower seas and year 2114-level tech.
That's one possible result. It ain't the only one. Wishing won't make it so.
Proof: How stupid would our ancestors in 1814 have been to grind the economy to a halt to "help" us, leaving us with 1914-level tech to day and peachy-keen seas.
Proof: How stupid do you have to be to not understand that it isn't 1814, and we're facing a different situation? Further, what kind of idiot do you have to be to not comprehend that the people on the planet would be better off if we still had forests everywhere instead of having turned them into naval vessels so that we could make war on one another, and/or loot foreign lands for shiny metals?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Somewhat of an oversimplification, but useful as far as a counterpoint example to the AGW crowd claiming that increased sea ice must disprove climate change.
Nice analysis.
The IPCC, normally the bastion of global warming alarmism, disagrees with the simplistic headline that global warming will melt the antarctic ice and cause sea level rise.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/28/ipcc-findings-dispute-abc-cbs-nbc-and-bbc-alarmist-and-flawed-antarctica-sea-level-rise-claims/
Amazingly the UN IPCC AR5 report says this:
“Taking all these considerations together, we have medium confidence in model projections of a future Antarctic SMB increase, implying a negative contribution to GMSL rise (see also Sections 13.4.4.1, 13.5.3 and 14.8.15).”
That’s right – the IPCC says that its Surface Mass Balance (SBM) models for Antarctica show that its projected future climate behavior causes sea level to decline not increase!
Furthermore it explains this finding by saying:
“Projections of Antarctic SMB changes over the 21st century thus indicate a negative contribution to sea level because of the projected widespread increase in snowfall associated with warming air temperatures (Krinner et al., 2007; Uotila et al., 2007; Bracegirdle et al., 2008).” (13.4.4.1)
The IPCC AR5 report acknowledges that Antarctica is losing ice from some of its glaciers in West Antarctica and the Antarctica peninsula with the following findings:
“The Antarctic ice sheet has been losing ice during the last two decades (high confidence). There is very high confidence that these losses are mainly from the northern Antarctic Peninsula and the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica, and high confidence that they result from the acceleration of outlet glaciers. {4.4.2, 4.4.3, Figures 4.14, 4.16, 4.17}”
“There is very high confidence that these losses are mainly from the northern Antarctic Peninsula and the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica. {4.4}”
“The Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica is grounded significantly below sea level and is the region of Antarctica changing most rapidly at present. Pine Island Glacier has sped up 73% since 1974 (Rignot, 2008) and has thinned throughout 1995–2008 at increasing rates (Wingham et al., 2009) due to grounding line retreat. There is medium confidence that retreat was caused by the intrusion of warm ocean water into the sub-ice shelf cavity (Jenkins et al., 2010; Jacobs et al., 2011; Steig et al., 2012).” (4.4.5)
“There is low confidence that the rate of Antarctic ice loss has increased over the last two decades (Chen et al., 2009; Velicogna, 2009; Rignot et al., 2011c; Shepherd et al., 2012); (4.4.2.3)”
“As with Antarctic sea ice, changes in Antarctic ice sheets have complex causes (Section 4.4.3). The observational record of Antarctic mass loss is short and the internal variability of the ice sheet is poorly understood. Due to a low level of scientific understanding there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet since 1993. Possible future instabilities in the west Antarctic ice sheet cannot be ruled out, but projection of future climate changes over West Antarctica remains subject to considerable uncertainty (Steig and Orsi, 2013).” (10.5.2.1)
“Due to a low level of scientific understanding there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet over the past two decades. {4.3, 10.5}”
Most deniers dispute CATASTROPHIC global warming, of the runaway type as espoused by Gore, Hansen, Mann, et al. Most deniers make simple claims about the fundamental claims made by global warming cheerleaders, such as CO2 sensitivity (Arrenhius got it right, the second time), the existence of negative feed backs (really, all feedbacks are positive?), the existence of past warming without a human influence, the existence of mega-cycles (also called ice ages), the lack of any warming for the last X number of years, the perversion of peer review, the lack of error bars, the splicing together of differing data sets, the removal of data that doesn't support the cause, that adjustments are made yearly to the temperature record including adjusting past years multiple times, and on and on and on.
If the world had warmed as predicted by Gore, Hansen and Mann, then I would understand calling your opponents 'deniers'. I don't mind or care about the 'creationist' label, because that is accurate. Deniers aren't claiming God did it. They claim your science is weak and flawed. They claim your models don't match reality. They claim your solutions won't solve the problem.
And your answer is 'neener, neener'.
Yep, thats what they were saying on Venus and Mars just a billion years ago.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
I'd rather live in 200 years with higher seas and 2214-level tech than slightly lower seas and year 2114-level tech.
Why wait for 2214? One solution to the current problem is to go full steam ahead with a technology revolution. Humanity has spent most of its existence getting energy by burning shit. We have an opportunity adopt newer energy technologies that could be disruptive in the same order of magnitude as the internet. This scares the heck out people heavily invested in existing industries who would like to hold us back, but that isn't a good reason to remain stuck with the technologies of the past.
"While solar currently accounts for less than 1% of the energy supply, it is an exponentially improving technology, both in terms of price (14%/year) and pace of construction (60%/year). Already it is approaching parity with other energy sources in the Western US. Assuming this trend continues for another 10 to 20 years, and there’s no reason not to, solar power will become 5 to 10 times more cost effective than it is today. This raises an interesting question. What happens if solar becomes an order of magnitude cheaper than other sources of power?
This is the nature of disruptive technology. It represents such an improvement that it renders existing industries obsolete. We saw waves of disruption take place as the Internet upended entire industries. Expect to see a lot of this in the coming years." - https://medium.com/armchair-ec... .
Until the models are refined to the point that they make useful (and correct) predictions, how can we rely upon them to produce environmental policies with serious economic impacts?
This is one reason why mitigation is a lot cheaper than adaptation. Predicting how climate change will impact each city is more difficult than predicting that temperatures will rise and there will be impacts. Should a city invest in sea walls or desalination plants? That depends on whether you should expect more storms or less precipitation. You would need a high degree of confidence in the models before you could plan for adaptation. Seems like the obvious choice is to mitigate.
Just one problem. "We don't know why this apparent contradiction exists, but we're researching it" is pretty much the exact opposite of "ignoring facts".
Which is fine, as long as this apparent open-minded and scientific approach is not regularly coupled with "The science is settled".
Researching methods to explain away the data that contradicts your forgone conclusion is not good science. Vilifying the science community that continues to probe the validity of that conclusion is even less so.
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi
It's a whole world, almost a separate climate that interacts with ours at the top of the ocean. Ignoring that part just seems a little shortsighted.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
um, that's because we're very good at murdering our close relatives.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Claims need to accurate. So far not one AGW model has been shown to be correct by actual climate. No one needs to prove them wrong, the fact that their predictions aren't accurate prove them wrong.
Is the problem inaccurate projections by climate models or is it poor understanding by people like you of what climate models are capable of in the first place? I really doubt you know enough about how climate models work and what they are expected to do to make a useful judgement about their accuracy.
Here is a comparison of model output to observations to help you understand the situation a little better.
+4 insightful for the burning of a strawman. Welcome to the new slashdot, how low can it go?
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
You have this shit seriously backwards. You want us to continue to permit you to tear apart the biosystem upon which we all depend, your case had better fucking be bulletproof. "And it isn't."
Exactly. Too many people are clueless about just how dependent human life is on the natural world and the ecosystem services it provides to our civilization. One of the great failings of capitalism is the undervaluing of the natural capital of the Earth system. Right now we're spending the principal of that system like there's no tomorrow and sooner or later that will come back to bite us in the butt.
Use of the term "denier" with it's association to "holocaust denier" tells you just how political this debate has become. Politicized science is very, very dangerous. Here is a link to a short excerpt from a book by the philosopher Karl Popper, a man all too aware of how dangerous science in the service of governments can be. He set for himself the question of "What is a scientific theory?" I wish everyone would read the first four pages of this excerpt. It would tone down the rhetoric of the global warming debate and send the creationists back to their pews. http://keck.ucsf.edu/~craig/Ka...
Nothing funnier than a slashdot article on climate where the different camps trot out their defensive evidence that supports their beliefs and then the mud slinging begins.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Try not to draw conclusions before you work on your reading comprehension.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Oh yes? Has it not?
AGW makes a handful of claims. First, that the earth is getting warmer.
Second, that the oceans are getting warmer.
Third, that sea levels will rise
Fourth, that arctic ice will retreat.
Fifth, that Greenland's ice will melt..
Sixth, that antarctic ice will melt.
I could go on, but let's make #7 that man is causing it.
So do tell what's missing here. Again, please use scientific evidence in the peer reviewed literature. Most of the links I've provided above refer you to their sources and extra reading and come from such things as IPCC reports. And again, I'll wait.
I entirely agree. After I posted I thought something along the lines of "just another species" was closer to what I meant.
Surprised nobody's been along to say that we're different because we were created in His image, or somesuch.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"(relatively) sharp" meaning approximately 10,000 years for the transition. The current temperature transition is more on the order of a few hundred years. It's not the change that is the problem so much as the rate of change.
It really is not a problem when you realise there has been no global warming for 17 years.
Oh, really? Name three. Please provide citations of peer reviewed scientific research, not whatever bullshit you read in the popular press.
Don't worry, I'll wait.
I know you're just trying to build a straw man, but I'll bite anyway.
First is this paper, which finds Inspecting commonly used parameterizations for subgrid-fluxes, we find that some of them obey the Second Law of thermodynamics, and some do not. The conforming approaches are the Smagorinsky momentum diffusion, phase changes, and sedimentation fluxes for hydrometeors. Conventional turbulent heat flux parameterizations do not conform with the Second Law.
Next shows that prevalent climate models (CCSM3) cannot accurately model the climate observations influenced by Atlantic sea currents, Hence, although there is some potential climate predictability in CCSM3, it is not realistic.
Finally, a big nail in the coffin is this paper published in Nature, which demonstrates that "semi-arid ecosystems in the Southern Hemisphere may be largely responsible for changes in global concentrations of atmospheric CO2." The authors find links between the land CO2 sink in these semi-arid ecosystems "are currently missing from many major climate models." In addition, they find that land sinks for CO2 are keeping up with the increase in CO2 emissions, thus modeled projections of exponential increases of CO2 in the future are likely exaggerated.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Claims need to accurate. So far not one AGW model has been shown to be correct by actual climate. No one needs to prove them wrong, the fact that their predictions aren't accurate prove them wrong.
Is the problem inaccurate projections by climate models or is it poor understanding by people like you of what climate models are capable of in the first place? I really doubt you know enough about how climate models work and what they are expected to do to make a useful judgement about their accuracy.
Here is a comparison of model output to observations to help you understand the situation a little better.
There is so much confirmation bias in that site (you could have picked something more rational than a shrill propaganda site like Real Climate), I don't even know where to start with it. Instead of pointing out the clear inability of the models to predict anything that someone would be able to rely on, they just sum up with "hey, it's all going along as predicted." WUT?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Real Climate is run by some of the leading climate scientists in the world and that post was written by one of the principals of the NASA/GISS Model E climate model. I trust what they say about the science and how to interpret it far more than some random person on the internet. If you expect climate models to "predict" the current slow down in warming in such a short time period you really don't understand how climate models work and how their projections are made. While individual model runs do show periods of lack of warming similar the the current period when you combine the results of many models and model runs the curve gets smoothed out. No matter how much you expect climate models to predict short term natural variability such as we're experiencing now they are not expected by scientists to be able to do that. It's absurd to call climate models wrong for not doing something they're not expected to do in the first place.
Real Climate is run by some of the leading climate scientists in the world and that post was written by one of the principals of the NASA/GISS Model E climate model.
You mean the visible shrill climate alarmists, Michael Mann included.
I trust what they say about the science and how to interpret it
You might do better not to trust anyone, and look at everything with a critical eye.
If you expect climate models to "predict" the current slow down in warming in such a short time period you really don't understand how climate models work and how their projections are made.
I seem to have a pretty good understanding, for a layman, anyway. And there are major problems with the inputs and assumptions in the prevalent models. You should look into that. It's pointed out in the peer-reviewed literature every month where the issues are, but the shrill alarmist nutjobs seem to want to put more effort into shutting those people up and controlling the mainstream messages than they are addressing those issues.
It's absurd to call climate models wrong for not doing something they're not expected to do in the first place.
The point is they don't do what they are claiming they do - which is predict climate changes and the (all bad, disastrous, something-must-be-done-think-of-the-children) effects of those changes. That makes them BAD science, and screaming for politicians to make expensive and damaging policy changes based on those untenable predictions with major deviations from observation make them REALLY BAD scientists.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Call the other side "deniers" to associate them with holocaust deniers. Surely, that will trigger some useful dialog without triggering a defensive posture.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Isn't the urban sprawl part of the problem? Why should we ignore that?
We know almost nothing about planets outside of our solar system, of course. We do know that the planets in the solar system have gotten warmer recently. We also know that earth has warmed slightly more than other nearby planets. We know that there are no humans on mars, so the warming throughout the solar system is not caused by humans. On the other hand, earth has warmed slightly MORE than neighboring planets have. That could be because a) human-caused greenhouse effect, b) earth's atmosphere is more affected by the increased output of the sun, c) some of each or d) some other cause.
What? How would increasing humidity free up hydrocarbons? You think people are stopping drilling because they are afraid of AGW?
I am in no position to perform a detailed study, and would simply be blacklisted for trying. I'd never be able to get a government grant again. No thanks. Leave the politics to the many parasites.
It is, but you shouldn't overweight that data.
There were a pretty good number. If only you could get the raw data from the gatekeepers.
You mean the visible shrill climate alarmists, Michael Mann included.
They are all scientists who are well respected in their fields. Despite all of the vilification of Michael Mann no one has found any scientific misconduct by him. His original hockey stick graph still holds up as shown by around a dozen similar studies done by different scientists using different proxies and techniques. If you think the past 17 years disproves the graph it's more like a nick in the blade of the hockey stick than anything significant.
You might do better not to trust anyone, and look at everything with a critical eye.
I could say the same thing to you. I'll admit that after over 25 years of following this issue I may tend to give climate scientists the benefit of the doubt but over the years I've found very little evidence that they haven't earned that trust. I've also read papers by such noted climate science contrarians as Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen. Even they admit that more CO2 means more warming. They just disagree on how much. They nibble around the edges but don't get much traction.
I seem to have a pretty good understanding, for a layman, anyway. And there are major problems with the inputs and assumptions in the prevalent models. You should look into that. It's pointed out in the peer-reviewed literature every month where the issues are, but the shrill alarmist nutjobs seem to want to put more effort into shutting those people up and controlling the mainstream messages than they are addressing those issues.
Perhaps you can be more specific about what some of those major problem with inputs and assumptions are so I know what to look for. Climate models are far from perfect but we don't have anything better to do the job. As the Real Climate post pointed out the temperature observations are still within the range predicted by climate models. Climate modelers are well aware of the problems and limitations of their models, no doubt far better than you or I. Here's some more posts from the "shrill alarmist nutjobs" at Real Climate about climate models and some of the issues with them. You may dismiss it as a propaganda site but how can you effectively argue against them if you don't know what they're saying in the first place?
FAQ on Climate Models
FAQ on Climate Models: Part II
On mismatches between models and observations
The point is they don't do what they are claiming they do - which is predict climate changes and the (all bad, disastrous, something-must-be-done-think-of-the-children) effects of those changes. That makes them BAD science, and screaming for politicians to make expensive and damaging policy changes based on those untenable predictions with major deviations from observation make them REALLY BAD scientists.
So far the climate has been changing within the bounds projected by those models or in the case of ice loss faster than most model projections. Just because you want them to predict something other than what they're capable of predicting doesn't make them wrong. If you think it's too costly to respond to the threats of climate change just wait until you see what it's going to cost to not do anything. If you're young enough you certainly will experience that.
If your hypothesis is as good as you think then why hasn't some qualified contrarian climate scientist like Richard Lindzen or Roy Spencer taken it on? If it was as obvious as you think it is someone would have published on it by now.
The IPCC, normally the bastion of global warming alarmism
Bullshit. The IPCC reports are a synthesis of the existing science. If you are alarmed by the findings of the IPCC reports then you are alarmed by the science.
I notice you are being pretty selective on what you quote (Watts is probably the worst place to go for science reporting). For instance, you quote "There is low confidence that the rate of Antarctic ice loss has increased over the last two decades" (BTW, this means that evidence is sparse but indicates that the rate of mass loss has in fact increased over the last two decades.), but you did not quote the next line "however, GRACE data gives medium confidence of increasing loss over the last decade."
So yes, we have observed that it is currently losing mass. All evidence indicates that the rate of mass loss has been accelerating over the last decade or more. Our confidence in this finding is increasing as newer instrumentation is developed and deployed.
You should also understand that SMB can increase (reducing sea level rise), but if outflow also increases then you will still end up losing mass and increasing sea level overall. This is exactly what they find: "Overall, increased snowfall seems set to only partially offset sea level rise caused by increased outflow," Again, Watts doesn't seem to understand that SMB is not total mass balance and somehow glossed over everything else.
They also presciently warn that tipping points could be hit (and that have since been observed): "outflow from an ice sheet resting on bedrock below sea level increases if ice at the grounding line is thicker and, therefore, faster flowing. On bedrock that slopes downward towards the ice-sheet interior, this creates a vicious cycle of increased outflow, causing ice at the grounding line to thin and go afloat. The grounding line then retreats down slope into thicker ice that, in turn, drives further increases in outflow. This feedback could potentially result in the rapid loss of parts of the ice sheet, as grounding lines retreat along troughs and basins that deepen towards the ice sheet’s interior. Future climate forcing could trigger such an unstable collapse, which may then continue independently of climate.
Here is the full report on the cryosphere: http://www.climatechange2013.o...
I apologize for missing a link. #6 was supposed to link to this graph.
Those aren't exactly doomsday predictions, and it is not clear that they have been proven wrong, so I'm not sure they are especially good examples of doomsday scenarios that have been proven wrong. To me they just look like incremental improvements to our understanding of their subject matters.
Well if there is any consolation, its that government command-and-control slamming the brakes on the economy as a"solution" (which would, by process of inaction slowing down development, be far worse for humanity than moving back from the sea over 300 years) is dead in the water.
It's a straw man to say responding to the threat of global warming requires "slamming the brakes on the economy". Most of the economic analyses I've seen say it will be cheaper to do something about it than to adapt after the fact.
A more accurate term would be "climate science denier".
In Antarctica the albedo effect of increased ice is very small because the greatest ice area covered occurs when the least sunlight is hitting it. In the Antarctic summer the sea ice melts out nearly completely every year and there is essentially no carryover from one year to the next.
Interesting. thanks.
What last several years of cooling? From a climatological view there has been no cooling.
However, "Climate Change" has happened many times in the past in relatively recent history (e.g. Maunder Minimum).
The temperature change from the Maunder Minimum and the depths of the Little Ice Age to the mid-20th Century was about 1 degree C. Now we're talking about an increase of several degrees C over the next 100 years or so.
It's actually EASIER to get an average for Venus than it is for earth - an average is just about all we can get from here, measuring the whole planet at once.
Also, the astronomers tend not to do things like take their measurements at the an active volcano and extrapolate that as representative of the whole planet. That's the kind of crap we get from the professional scaremongers on earth. THAT'S why there is "some doubt" about earth - people paid by political organizations come out with the stupidest "studies", then from there develop "scientific models" designed to be scary, but which don't pass the sniff test.
us-cities are not a valid representation of the world average
His original hockey stick graph still holds up as shown by around a dozen similar studies done by different scientists using different proxies and techniques.
LOL! Okay, dude. lol.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
His original hockey stick graph still holds up as shown by around a dozen similar studies done by different scientists using different proxies and techniques.
LOL! Okay, dude. lol.
Laughing instead of thinking when confronted with an uncomfortable fact is a sign of cognitive dissonance employed to defend a view that you know internally to be incorrect. There are numerous analyses that show that the majority of credible climate models support the "hockey stick", they do not conflict with it. If you are unaware of this, it is willful ignorance.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
His original hockey stick graph still holds up as shown by around a dozen similar studies done by different scientists using different proxies and techniques.
LOL! Okay, dude. lol.
You can laugh all you want but that doesn't change the scientific findings.
Wooo! It just keeps getting better. Enjoy your little isolated enclave, dude. The irony of YOU telling ME about ignoring (supposed) "uncomfortable fact" is ... entirely laughable. You're deluded, there's not really any point in reading more of your propaganda-induced fantasy, I couldn't go on after that one.
majority of credible climate models support the "hockey stick"
Sure - if you want to create a hockey stick, it can be easily done, but it's still just a trick. Add that to the complete failure of the climate models to make accurate predictions, and you have a lot of shrill propaganda drowning out the reasoned science.
Here's some "uncomfortable facts" for you: "the models are in significant disagreement when it comes to their SLP, SAT, and precipitation community structure," (2) "none of the models comes close to the community structure of the actual observations," (3) "not only do the models not agree well with each other, they do not agree with reality," (4) "the models are not capable to simulate the spatial structure of the temperature, sea level pressure, and precipitation field in a reliable and consistent way," and (5) "no model or models emerge as superior."
Mann's agenda is a political one, not a scientific one. That's why he had to produce a graph that showed something dramatic, so he manipulated the data, with some statistical errors that have been pointed out and never correct (I won't go into all the shenanigans again), to show "WHOA! IT'S A NEW HORROR!".
The issue is what is the scale of impact that this CO2 warming is having on the overall climate system. Is the effect of the CO2 so big that it can drive the temperature of the whole planet up in a way that is big enough to actually alter the climate? Mann the shrill alarmist publicity hound needed to show something dramatic to demonstrate his own opinion that the answer is "Yes". But this is a much harder question to answer because no one has a model of the total climate system that actually works and which verifiably produces even remotely accurate forecasts about climate trends.
So without a working model of the total climate system the only way to “prove” that CO2 is driving climate change is to prove that something truly unique is happening to the climate, that there is unprecedented warming occurring, and and then propose man made CO2 change as the only candidate as the cause of this ‘unprecedented’ warming.
Between the 1995 second IPCC report and the 2001 third IPCC report there was a complete revision in the way that recent climate history was portrayed. The supporters of the theory that CO2 changes were driving temperatures up had succeeded in their goal of eliminating the Medieval Warm Period. This rewriting of climate history and the elimination of the Medieval Warm Period was achieved through the famous Hockey Stick graph.
Mann completely redrew climate history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events.In the new Hockey Stick diagram the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have disappeared, to be replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate until 1900 AD after which the Mann’s new graph showed the temperature shooting up in the 20th century in an apparently anomalous and accelerating fashion.
Apparently, you've never even tried to read any of the papers about the statistical tricks Mann used to generate "hockey-stick" graphs. You should at least examine Ross McKitrick's analysis.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
No, it does. Check my follow-up below.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Here's some "uncomfortable facts" for you:
HAHAHAHA. Known ExxonMobil hand puppets doing the same job that was done for the tobacco industry. Keep trying.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A wonderfully articulate AC froths:
Bullshit, there is MORE FUCKING ICE NOW, IT IS NOT GETTING WARMER.
Oh, and I remember HOW FUCKING COLD IT WAS LAST WINTER.
Go fuck yourself sideways with a barbed wire wrapped pineapple and keep your fucking hands off of my money you fraud big government nanny state lemming.
An easy (simplistic, and not entirely satisfactory) explanation of increased sea ice in the Antarctic: Increased collapse of land-based ice into the sea contributes both to increased area of sea ice and rising sea level. There are other factors; scientists are indeed working on that.
Weather extremes and unusual seasons are precisely what can be expected in the coming years. Even small regional changes in temperature can lead to considerably increased instability in weather patterns. That can include increased sea ice in Antarctica, as well as a "fucking cold" winter in the US (or at least parts of it).
Regarding your tone, and the rest: it's not even worth going into; you're doing just fine expressing your level of thoughtfulness and social responsibility, and representing the contrarian climatology "science".
Here's some "uncomfortable facts" for you:
HAHAHAHA. Known ExxonMobil hand puppets doing the same job that was done for the tobacco industry. Keep trying.
So the only rebuttal you have to the entire post is an ad-hominem attack on the source? Epic Fail on your part.
There are reams and reams of peer-reviewed papers pointing out substantial flaws with climate models and inputs used in them that assume the opposite of what observations show. Why bother linking to any of those though, since they won't appear on your list of "approved journals" and "approved experts"?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
So the only rebuttal you have to the entire post is an ad-hominem attack on the source? Epic Fail on your part.
They, like you, have consistently said things which are false. I would have to be an idiot if I accepted them as a source.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Balancing shmalancing. It gets hotter (on a planet whose surface is mostly ocean), the atmosphere gets more humid, more ice collects on the surface of whatever remaining pieces are below freezing. The same reason your freezer frosts up in July and August, not in December; that doesn't mean your kitchen has a balancing mechanism to keep it from getting warm in the summer.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
This is just another one of the many, many balancing mechanisms in nature. Another obvious one is that more heat causes more evaporation, which causes more clouds, which causes less heat. Mother nature I has thousands of such negative feedback cycles that tend to buffer against changes.
That's Lindzen's "iris hypothesis", basically (in case you didn't know). Unfortunately, there isn't any evidence for it, http://www.sciencemag.org/cont... http://rain.atmos.colostate.ed... http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... ftp://eos.atmos.washington.edu... http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
> that doesn't mean your kitchen has a balancing mechanism to keep it from getting warm in the summer.
My freezer sure does have a mechanism to keep the temperature stable , regardless of outdoor temperatures. Do you have a freezer made in 1872? It might be time to upgrade.
Regarding McKintrick, here are responses from the Mann himself:
False claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et. al. 1998 reconstruction
On yet another false claim by McIntyre and McKitrick
I'm not going to waste my time with the NIPCC report. I did too much of that with the first one.
What our panic driven media (and too many so-called scientists) willfully ignore: Climate systems are dominated by negative feedback, or else the Earth would long since have turning into an ice ball or another Venus. The computer models showing catastrophe inevitably include positive feedback cycles, because otherwise there is no catastrophe.
The advance and retreat of Antarctic ice turns out to have negative feedback cycles, tied to waves and weather around the Antarctic. So, in fact, we aren't all going to die next week. Who would have guessed?
The continual attempts to get media attention through panic-inducing science are tiresome. The fact that the MSM plays naively along shows just how poorly the MSM itself understands science, or perhaps that headlines are more important than reliable content. No, the planet isn't going to cook in its own juices, nor are increasing sea levels going to drown us all. Negative feedback means that changes will be slow, gradual and contained within certain boundaries. Boring but true...
So, you have a two part hypothesis: 1) no climate models include negative feedback and 2) the models " inevitably include positive feedback cycles", which are hypothetical. Okay......
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Actually lots of idiots are in total denial. Beliefs range from "we're actually cooling, not warming" to "of course it's warming, but that's a good thing".
Often, the same person will make both arguments, in different posts in the same page.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Claims need to accurate. So far not one AGW model has been shown to be correct by actual climate. No one needs to prove them wrong, the fact that their predictions aren't accurate prove them wrong.
Is the problem inaccurate projections by climate models or is it poor understanding by people like you of what climate models are capable of in the first place? I really doubt you know enough about how climate models work and what they are expected to do to make a useful judgement about their accuracy.
Here is a comparison of model output to observations to help you understand the situation a little better.
There is so much confirmation bias in that site (you could have picked something more rational than a shrill propaganda site like Real Climate), I don't even know where to start with it. Instead of pointing out the clear inability of the models to predict anything that someone would be able to rely on, they just sum up with "hey, it's all going along as predicted." WUT?
Let's just start with this, then:
"As discussed in Hargreaves (2010), while this simulation was not perfect, it has shown skill in that it has out-performed any reasonable naive hypothesis that people put forward in 1988 (the most obvious being a forecast of no-change)."
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Real Climate is run by some of the leading climate scientists in the world and that post was written by one of the principals of the NASA/GISS Model E climate model.
You mean the visible shrill climate alarmists, Michael Mann included.
I trust what they say about the science and how to interpret it
You might do better not to trust anyone, and look at everything with a critical eye.
If you expect climate models to "predict" the current slow down in warming in such a short time period you really don't understand how climate models work and how their projections are made.
I seem to have a pretty good understanding, for a layman, anyway. And there are major problems with the inputs and assumptions in the prevalent models. You should look into that. It's pointed out in the peer-reviewed literature every month where the issues are, but the shrill alarmist nutjobs seem to want to put more effort into shutting those people up and controlling the mainstream messages than they are addressing those issues.
It's absurd to call climate models wrong for not doing something they're not expected to do in the first place.
The point is they don't do what they are claiming they do - which is predict climate changes and the (all bad, disastrous, something-must-be-done-think-of-the-children) effects of those changes. That makes them BAD science, and screaming for politicians to make expensive and damaging policy changes based on those untenable predictions with major deviations from observation make them REALLY BAD scientists.
If that's the case, then I assume you believe that the NO-AGW folks, who have no predictions about the climate and presumably would predict no change in anything over the general variability previously seen, and are therefore a lot further off than the worst model, are WORSE science. If not, why not?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
If that's the case, then I assume you believe that the NO-AGW folks, who have no predictions about the climate and presumably would predict no change in anything over the general variability previously seen, and are therefore a lot further off than the worst model, are WORSE science. If not, why not?
There are plenty of real scientists publishing observations and pointing out the flaws in current models, and these things, once confirmed, go back into the system (when they can get around the alarmists' decredentialing program), and improves understanding of ALL the factors of climate changes and the assumptions that need to be adjusted in the models.
The alarmists have created a huge distraction over fear of CO2, which is simply not the issue we should be focusing on. It's part of the life cycle. Instead, we can look to mitigate some of the changes we observe happening (for instance, we know sea levels are rising about 3mm per year - plan for THAT). And there are MANY pollution issues - nitrogen and phosphorous pollution in rivers and bays, sulfur, mercury, and particulates being released into the air, high-density animal farms overusing antibiotics and destroying the surrounding ecology, and many other CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGERS - that we should be focused on reducing or ending.
The alarmism over CO2 has distracted from dealing with these issues, so it makes one wonder exactly who stands to benefit from that. It isn't the middle class and poor, that's certain.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Clearly, I'm not making myself clear. It's not about what I believe or don't believe.
It isn't. That's very clear. It's about what you can prove.
It's about the depth of conviction of those who believe that massive amounts of money must be spent to avoid a disaster due to global warming, because they are quite convinced it is real, and that the models are good predictors of global climate. Other people's money.
And yet I offered a wager and it seems you intend to refuse it. It is YOU who is unwilling to stand by your convictions. It is YOU refusing to stand by the predictive power of the denialist's model. It is YOU, along with others of your party, advocating that we do nothing and thus risk the lives and wellbeing of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren based on a model that you can't describe, demonstrate - a model whose results you do not, yourself, trust.
Why should we believe a word that you say?
But if increased anthropogenic CO2 is reducing wave size and preserving the extent of the Antarctic sea ice, that's a good thing. Perhaps we need more CO2 to save more of the ice which is being melted by the warming caused by increased solar output.
Anthropogenic CO2 production may in fact be saving the planet. Until we know otherwise, we would be foolish to curtail it.
Have gnu, will travel.
Antarctic ice is losing mass. That is what we care about because it causes sea level to rise. Not sure what, if anything is affecting wave size, but you know what causes ice to melt?
you know what causes ice to melt?
Increased surface area, among other things.
Have gnu, will travel.
Increased surface area is causing melting? Possibly the result of melting I would guess, but probably not the cause.