Slashdot Mirror
UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
Figures released Tuesday by a United Nations advisory body reveal that 2013 saw new recorded highs for both carbon dioxide and methane, as well as the largest year-over-year rise in carbon dioxide since 1984, reflecting continuing worldwide emissions from human sources but also the possibility that natural sinks (oceans and vegetation) are near their capacity for absorbing the excess. From the Washington Post's account:
The latest figures from the World Meteorological Organization’s monitoring network are considered particularly significant because they reflect not only the amount of carbon pumped into the air by humans, but also the complex interaction between man-made gases and the natural world. Historically, about half of the pollution from human sources has been absorbed by the oceans and by terrestrial plants, preventing temperatures from rising as quickly as they otherwise would, scientists say.
“If the oceans and the biosphere cannot absorb as much carbon, the effect on the atmosphere could be much worse,” said Oksana Tarasova, a scientist and chief of the WMO’s Global Atmospheric Watch program, which collects data from 125 monitoring stations worldwide. The monitoring network is regarded as the most reliable window on the health of Earth’s atmosphere, drawing on air samples collected near the poles, over the oceans, and in other locations far from cities and other major sources of pollution.
The new figures for carbon dioxide were particularly surprising, showing the biggest year-over-year increase since detailed records were first compiled in the 1980s, Tarasova said in an interview. The jump of nearly three parts per million over 2012 levels was twice as large as the average increase in carbon levels in recent decades, she said.
The diplomacy is already complete for imposing carbon tariffs on China. We should proceed now. http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Turns out that this is a misleading talking point. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
As an anonymous coward with no ties to the oil industry I can tell that this is rubbish. The headline says "atmospheric CO2" that was my first clue. Everyone who brings up this insignificant gas is a commie socialist bent on taking away our god-given right to burn stuff.
Some "hiatus" with 2013 and 2012 and 2010 and 2009 and 2008 and 2007 and 2006 and 2005 and 2004 and 2003 all making the list of top 10 hottest years since we started measuring.
Not that it matters, because you repetitive dolts have exactly zero null hypotheses that you've got any hope of establishing.
You need a global array. Last December-January-February together were the seventh warmest on record globally. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
And, yet, we've seen articles recently which say the ocean may be absorbing some of the heat, and this one saying the levels are at the highest ever and have increased by the most ever.
So, yes, you probably are a denier, because you seem to be wanting to ignore the actual evidence out there.
Do we understand our climate and all of the factors 100%? Nope. Do we have really strong indications we're causing change? Absolutely.
Will we be really screwed if we keep acting like nothing is happening until it's too late? Betcherass we will.
It's mostly the fossil fuel industry and people who own their stocks who have the most stake in saying "not to worry, nothing is happening, you can't prove it, la la la".
It's a mentality of keep levels the same so we can keep profits up, and until we're faced with 100% irrefutable proof we'll keep claiming nothing is happening.
That's either stupidly ignoring the problem, or actively trying to divert attention and making it sound like nothing is happening.
That's pretty much the definition of denial.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
it was cold. once. where i live.
therefore prolonged global warming is a myth.
because we all know anecdotal local data completely disproves long term multidecade global averages and trends.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
saying otherwise makes you a denier.
No it doesn't - it just shows that you really don't give a fuck about any future human beings. It's the kind of selfishness that ignores even the slimmest chance that you are wrong because even if you are you will not have to deal with the consequences.
You're like a screaming child that wants their own way no matter how much someone else has to suffer. You're difficult to ignore and eveyone wants to slap you.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The problem is people are still trying to convince the deniers that there is a problem.
All this does is increase the radicalization of the deniers. The Deniers will not believe any logic or proof that you tell them. Because...
1. They don't want to believe it. Any logic your bring up is part of a conspiracy.
2. It is inconvenient to believe it. AKA they have a lot of money in industry that profits off of releasing global warming gasses.
3. Their religion/philosophy/political view has chosen to not to believe it. Not form any religious text per say but because of a charismatic Person for #1 or #2 who has manipulated the text. It isn't because all these people are just brain dead followers... But because they are in a situation in their lives where they have learned growing up that they are good guys and bad guys. And the bad guys are obviously wrong, or corrupt.
Now there are liberal agenda items that are not backed by science however they will firmly deny them as well, so it isn't that the other group is that stupid, but it is due to the human condition.
To correct climate change, We need to stop trying to convince the deniers about the problem, they won't listen. But you need to create solutions where alternatives are available.
For example don't mention green.
1. It is cheaper.
2. You have more control of your power and you are not as dependent on someone else.
3. Jobs available in a new energy market.
You need to get the tree huger/I HATE AMERICA type cast from the issue. That way you can sneak it into their culture without them having to really believe in global warming.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Of course, we have to define "screwed". It's incautious statements like that that fuel their paranoia and claims of "alarmism". We can quantify that harm, and it's not civilization ending.
But it's way way way way costlier than doing nothing. From lower productivity of farms, to relocation of productive areas near sea level, to the fact the human workers get less done per day in hotter climates, to the diseases that spread better in warmer temperatures(ebola is one such disease), to the fact that warmer temperatures measurably provoke violence.
And anyone who's done a conservative estimate of how much that will "cost" in terms of economic productivity(at 5 C) ends up coming up with much larger number than those generously analyzing the cost of infrastructure conversion.
If climate != weather, then why is there always some global warming advocate on the news attributing every hurricane, tornado, drought, and heat wave to global warming? It seems to me that a more accurate representation of what I'm seeing on the news would be:
If weather = unusually-warm OR chaotic
Then climate = weather
If weather = unusually-cold OR mild
Then climate != weather
Of course, I'm sure you're going to throw some "no true Scotsman" and say that those environmental advocates on the news aren't the REAL scientists. But if that's the case, then why aren't the REAL scientists shouting down all the fake ones?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
because.....why?
what exactly do they get out of doing such a thing?
There are millions of scientists involved in this worldwide.
What do they get out of it? Public funding? Research grants? Cause Lord knows we just lavish scientists with tons of public money in this country.....no wait, thats the exact opposite of what we do. and further, they dont get to pocket what little money they do get. that's illegal.
the ONLY climate "scientists" who get rich from their research and live high on the hog are those in the employ of the fossil fuel industries.
Speaking of motivations...lets look at the fossil fuel industries. unlike those "lying AGW scientists", they actually do recieve tons of money from the government. hundreds of billions a year. and they make even more in profits selling their product. and they spend billions in lobbying every year.
so yes, let's talk motivations and stakes you AC idiot.
the phrase "global million scientist conspiracy exposed by plucky group of oil billionaires" is not reflective of reality.
rather reality illustrates just how mentally deficient your post is.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
If natural systems can sink all supposed manmade change, why could natural systems cause all the change too? If the natural sink capability massively underrated too, what's to say there's really a cause to worry at all?
If we really will be screwed by society being forced to change due to climate, what's to say we won't be equally or greater screwed if we're forced to change due to policy? If natural variability is underrated as suggested by the previous paragraph, what's to say we can't be fucked over twice; first by policy and then by natural climate drift? Unless you're denying ice ages we already know that natural drift have a very wide range.
What about the people with stake in large multinational wind and solar producers claiming we can save ourself with all-renewable society? Are they saints incapable of lying, or could it be that any alarmism and climate hype serves their cause and fills their pockets?
Why should we listen to people like you who claim that we're bound for disaster with certainity, while at the same time IPCC is revising their predictions downwards for every new report released. Why should we suppress the debate by claiming it's all settled when it obviously isn't?
Why is polarizing hardline rethoric constantly used by environmentalists? Why is the pro-agw side always the good side and everything else is universally bad? Could it be that you're not actually seeking facts to improve earth science, but just want to advance your activist agenda and shallow ideological belief?
I guess because it is discussing a peer reviewed study in an unbiased manner.
When you climb to the top of a plateau you are at the highest point AND you are no longer going up.
Both "pause in the increase in warming" and "x of the last y years are the warmest on record" can be true statements AT THE SAME TIME.
you do realize what the hiatus refers to right?
even if the hiatus as denierzs understand it were true (it's not, but just say for the moment)...it still supports the theory of global warming and does nothing to disprove it.
then consider that deniers completely misundersdtand and mischaracterize what the hiatus even is, and their position becomes even more unteneble.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
If climate != weather, then why is there always some global warming advocate on the news attributing every hurricane, tornado, drought, and heat wave to global warming?
Same reason there's always someone blaming God's wrath against immorality for disasters... because it sells.
Of course, I'm sure you're going to throw some "no true Scotsman" and say that those environmental advocates on the news aren't the REAL scientists. But if that's the case, then why aren't the REAL scientists shouting down all the fake ones?
That would be a tautological assertion that "true scientists" are defined as "those who support global warming".
Real scientists can be wrong. They are wrong all the time. But we are not discussing a scientist, nor a group of scientists. We are discussing the entire community of scientists over decades. (We are also discussing easliy accessed data, such as global average temperature).
Climate change will result in weather change (extreme dependence on initial conditions). It will also result in shifts in trends. I don't know what the specific support for, for example, an increase in hurricanes is. I don't know if that specific result is indeed caused by global warming or oother factors (though since hurricanes are powered by heat...).
But that's the point of putting up all the talking heads... so sew confusion and dobt into established science.
I love the global warming debate. You are either an environmentalist nut-job or an anti-science global warming denier. We spend almost no time analyzing reports, comparing data and questioning our preconceived notions (a.k.a. rational thought), and instead dig around the internet for articles supporting our side of the argument and name-calling anyone who has any doubts about the methods or conclusions from our pet article. /. article where global warming is the subject, I can rest assured that at least 95% of the comments will either be by or in response to trolls. It's like I'm on reddit or something.
In any other scientific debate, you never hear about "Higgs Boson Deniers" or "String Theory Fanatics" or "Standard Model dinosaurs". As a matter of fact, this is pretty much the only scientific area where EVERY commentator acts as though they are experts. Whenever I see a
The story below says "US Rust Belt Manufacturing Rebounds Via Fracking Boom" and asks 'do the associated environmental risks of new "tight oil" extraction techniques outweigh the benefits to these depressed economic regions?'
Well, do they?
We don't know what will happen. a 5C drop from the beginning of the industrial revolution would put much of the world under ice. The rise? Could we have a runaway greenhouse (as the Earth has experienced runaway snowballs in the past)? Maybe. We don't truly know where it will end, but it is going to suck
Honestly, this explanation doesn't sit well with me. I'd love to get in their heads, because I don't get them. But this explanation of their behavior doesn't seem to mesh with how they act.
They seem like people who want to imagine cynicism and naive skepticism lets them see further than everyone else. You know, like truther types do.
". We can quantify that harm, and it's not civilization ending.
it most certainly can be if we don't stop emitting greenhouse gasses. The trapped energy will increase with more greenhouse gasses. If we don't stop and work on lowering it, then it won't stop.
Now, we can do it using science, and brains, and engineering and planning. Or we can stop because the earth no longer supports humans.
Cost is irrelevant when dealing with complete collapse. The longer we wait, the more aggressive we must be.
To be clear, I'm not talking about tomorrow or next decade, but it can get too warm for human civilization as we know it in 100 years.
When the heat sink are no longer available, the temp will rise even more dramatically.
Yes, I am raising the alarm. The change we must make will take decades. There isn't a silver bullet, there isn't 1 solution. We must be aggressive in out planning.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's also human nature. We know we're slowly buggering things up, but it'll take a while. To fix it means a large change in the way we run our world, and it will be difficult and may cause mild discomfort in the short term. On the other hand we can simply deny it's happening and continue with the business as usual which is far easier and the path of least resistance. People don't want to feel guilty for driving an SUV either, it's easier and more consistent to deny that anything is happening rather than admitting that you're (an albeit tiny) part of the problem.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
And yet the melting of ice and sea level rise continue to accelerate as predicted by AGW.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
If climate != weather, then why is there always some global warming advocate on the news attributing every hurricane, tornado, drought, and heat wave to global warming? It seems to me that a more accurate representation of what I'm seeing on the news would be:
>
Stop getting your news from shitty sources. On NPR news, this doesn't happen. Though for some reason, I have heard conservatives consider NPR to have a liberal bias.
As to your second question, I have heard the nutty right wing rant of the jews control the media, but never heard that the scientists control the media.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Sure the estimate of what could happen if it warms 4C by 2100 is a large number.
However, we are currently looking at increases in the historical record being around 0.14-0.18 degrees C per decade. Considering there are 8.5 decades left until 2100, the math says we could expect about 1.19-1.53 degrees warming by then if the decadal increase remains constant (ie. the "pause" in increases). These numbers are not 4.
To have an increase in temperature of 4 degrees C by 2100 a positive forcing feedback must take a dominant position it the climate. We have not yet found this forcing to exist. That of course doesn't mean that it doesn't but the models are predicting it and the actuals are not (as yet) showing it.
The thing with CO2 is that increases in temperature are related to doubling of the concentration in the atmosphere. That is to say that as CO2 increases, it takes more CO2 to continue to add on more increases in temperature as concentration goes up.
In the end it all relates to forcing. Is feedback positive and large or do negative feedback loops exist that respond to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere (increased albedo of clouds for example)? There's lots of science and studies we need to do here. What we know now is not correct (the models aren't accurate) that means we need to search for more measures to include in them.
There will be a march for the climate to put pressure on the UN to take action on September 21 in NYC. http://peoplesclimate.org/marc...
There are millions of scientists involved in this worldwide.
Perhaps there are millions of scientists but are they ALL working on AGW research? I think not.
the ONLY climate "scientists" who get rich from their research and live high on the hog are those in the employ of the fossil fuel industries.Speaking of motivations...lets look at the fossil fuel industries. unlike those "lying AGW scientists", they actually do receive tons of money from the government. hundreds of billions a year. and they make even more in profits selling their product. and they spend billions in lobbying every year.
We might need a couple of citations here. I know there are billions of dollars involved but I rather suspect that the fossil fuel industry scientists are not getting "billions a year"
If you tone down the rhetoric just a bit, or restate your premise to be a bit more precise, you might gain some credibility.
Just trying to help.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
That may not be true. It seems group can actual realize the science is true. Below is a link to a graph showing belief in the science over time among the D/I/R political groups.
images.sciencedaily.com/2013/01/130124122934-large.jpg
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
graph showing belief in the science over time among the D/I/R political groups
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
top getting your news from shitty sources. On NPR news, this doesn't happen.
You mean this NPR?:
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/07/11/how-climate-change-exacerbated-the-drought/
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." ~Leo Tolstoy
So, according to the World Meteorological Organization, the entire earths atmosphere increased in CO2 and Methane at a rate of ... 3 parts per million.
Really..
How was this measured? The WMO states that they have measured the atmosphere so accurately that they can account for 2.9 parts per million increase? 2.9 parts in a million.. They somehow measured this, in the entire planet's atmosphere? Really..
There is no chance that this increase is simply a mathematical rounding error? Statistical error? Someone added 2.9 parts to a total of a million parts that were being counted?
This all implies that humans are causing this increase. The article doesn't say why 2.9 parts per million increase (if that is even realistic) is a problem. 396 parts per million is just a number. Nothing happens when it gets to 400 parts per million. Or 4000 parts per million. Unless that change is overnight (which I presume the article was not suggesting), then the problem is not a scientific one - its a political one.
I still find it hard to believe they published this under the guise of global climate change and their evidence is.. 2.9 parts per million. Over the entire planet.
Yeah, that's what I said. A pause in the increase. This means that the decade over decade increases are not becoming larger but staying the same. The rate of increase is not changing, but the temperature is increasing over time.
This. Something like 5-15% of people are immune to logic, and you just have to ignore them if you want to make progress. What it means is that you have to convince more of the people in the "unknown" category. The problem is that of those logic-proof people, some have a strong financial incentive to sway opinions to their side, so it becomes a tough battle.
John
The problem is that those concerned about stopping greenhouse gas emissions don't have a viable plan without substantially increasing nuclear power production and instead those most activist about Global Climate Change are also against nuclear and have been successful at turning back the clock on nuclear power in some places.
There is a direct correlation between the reduction in nuclear in Germany and Japan and the increased use of coal. All the gains in Solar and Wind in those countries have been eaten up by the increased use of coal. You can get rid of nuclear and accept Global Warming, or you can actually head off excessive Global Warming with an expansion of nuclear. It is a direct trade and you can't have both without some new technology that we don't have yet.
I'm going to wager that you didnt watch Cosmos did you? He presented probably the simplest most accessbile explanation posssible.
Here's a good link to the clip: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nei...
That or you still dont understand the concept of averages.
It's not that "climate != weather"
It's that climate = sum(weather) / (time*area)
IE, climate is the average of weather over time or a region or both.
hurricane, tornado, drought, and heat wave to global warming?
Do those thing represent one day of local weather, or large events on large scales that last a long time?
I'll break it down for you again, and ignore your attempt to put words in my mouth, and then tell me how I'm wrong.
-Weather is what's ouside your window. It's what's happening right now. In a very small time scale, in a very small regional-scale. Local, short term observations.
-Climate is a whole bunch of those local observations strung together. It's a very large time scale, on a very large regional-scale.
Hurricanes are a climatological event that produce extreme weather (wind, rain). They are spawned by climatological factors, but grow and self-reinforce on a large scale and themselves grow to affect climate (in a way they give vent to rather large pent up energies). Tornadoes are a weather event, but the supercells that form them are themselves driven by climate trends. A heat wave is a string of related weather events. It may be localized or cover a large area, but being a string of related weather events again points more to the climate side of the scale. Droughts again: large scale, long term, climate.
In the case of AGW those scales are a) global, and b) range from a couple centuries, to several My depending on which line of evidence you're looking at.
It was unusually cold in New England this winter. That's weather. But overall, this winter was still one of the 5 warmest on record. That's climate.
All these things are interwoven together. Ocean currents, the jet stream, warm/cold water layer mixing, warm/cold air mixing, humidity, water/air temperature gradients...all these things combine and interact to create the global climate which you see on a daily basic as weather. If an ocean current shifts it can reduce cloud formation lowering the water content of an air mass and increasing the radiative heating of the land surface immediately inland. these combined factors can lead to a lack of rainfall and/or increase in temperates. IE, drought and/or heat wave. In Cali's case, the Sierra range normally causes some preciptation as the air mass moves eastward, trapping it as snowpack, which then feeds water over the year into the arid region we know as the Central Valley. its what allows an arid region to also be good farmland inspite of its aridity. this year, there wasnt even enough moisture in the air for the mountains to squeeze any out.
The polar vortex happened because something pushed the normal wind pattern out of shape. it allowed a large mass of unusually cool air to penetrate south a long ways. The reverse also happened: a large mass of warm moist air pushed much north than normal, leading to increased temperatures in the North Pacific and Alaska, and parts of western Canada. Some climatalogical event altered the normal roughly stable route of the vortex. The vortex itself then affects large scale climate effects and drives local extreme weather.
See, the mistake here that denier consistently make is in thinking that this is a basic input output machine. It's not. It's a web of interconnected loops. Every output is the input to another stage in the machine, and every stage of the machine is linked to every other stage. Everything is in a feedback loop to something else.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The "hiatus" is nothing more than cherry picking of data.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A plateau is still a hiatus in growth. Your point is nonsense.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
This the change you're referring to. It is explained quite well, and the total change in the data is onl\y 0.2%.
As in, basically nothing. Not that that has stopped deniers from saying 'NOAA IS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Humans need water. If I plunge your head into a tank of water and hold it there for fifteen minutes, you ought to be super healthy, right?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
oblig XKCD: http://www.xkcd.com/1321/
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No, those warm periods we not warmer. Nor were they global in nature.
And news flash: the little ice age was also eurocentric (ie not global), and it ended hundreds of years ago.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
CO2 emissions are probably the easiest part of AGW modeling.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There is no hiatus. It is cherry picking of data, literally cutting of centuries of statistical analysis at 20 years for the purposes of making some sort of rhetorical point. Among the last 20 years are years that are among the hottest on record.
Do you understand anything about statistics? Or are you so cowardly and infantile that you just latch on to any Koch-inspired meme that makes you feel better?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
your post shows you have zero familiarity with how the research funding process actually works.
for starters: they dont get to pocket the grant money as income.
their livelihood is in no way dependent on research funding.
and it has nothing to do with power. you reflect the typical Civics 101 fail of more tea baggers who dont even understand what a government is.
we could end GW today, just by stopping all fossil fuel use. we have the tech today right to do it, be it nuclear or solar or wind. we oculd do it. its just a matter of political will, or the lack thereof (fueled by massive lobbying dollars from the fossil fuel industry). the monies the FFI spends on this makes the little that GW researchers recieve look a pittance. so dont come in here with that same tired trope of the rich scientist. its manure. nothing but.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The math pedant in me would like to point out that, technically, a null hypothesis can never be established. Statistical tests can only "reject" or "fail to reject" a null hypothesis.
And that's the point - the null hypothesis is that there has been no change temperatures, and there is absolutely enough statistical evidence to reject that hypothesis.
Remove science, add emotion - GO!
Erm, sorta. A null hypothesis would be the "fallback" if the main hypothesis failed. What I'm saying is that these people who are so dedicated to denying what's going on, don't have a meaningful alternate prediction.
I'd argue at this point, man-made global warming is the null hypothesis. And the burden of proof has shifted.
Stating that climate change had an impact is neither the same as attributing it as the single cause, nor the same as equating climate with weather. If you expect climate change to never have an impact on weather, then either your definition of weather or your definition of climate is very flawed.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Higher acidity [CO2 dissolved in water forms an acid] in seawater is known to disrupt the life cycles of many marine species — from reef-building corals to shellfish beloved by humans — by interfering with the creatures’ ability to use sea-borne calcium to build their shells.
This bit should be scaring the pants off us. Not because we'll suddenly not be feasting on oysters, but because of zooplankton that form delicate calcium-based shells. If those critters go bye-bye, we will likely see the collapse of more ocean fisheries as food sources dry up.
And, in something of a double-whammy, coastal regions in the tropics are often protected by reefs from the ravages of some tropical storms. If those reefs slow down their growth (that replaces damaged reefs structures), or start dissolving, we're going to be have a tidal wave (bad pun!) of starving refugees.
You don't need to believe in global warming to see those two issues becoming problems. You need enough empathy to see this as being a problem, even if it's not in your own backyard.
If you do believe in global warming, it's a crapshoot as to whether or not the oceans will rise high enough to wipe out their homes before acidification lays a licking on marine ecosystems.
Your quote is reference the Annual Average...which it is set to do, and shows absolutely NO SIGNS of not crossing that milestone.
Your post is one born of ignorance and an attempt to spread confusion.
Technically it was passed by in 2013...several times. But the monthly averages still came out slightly below 400ppm. April 2014 however was the first time the Monthly Average PPM level crossed 400ppm. And it's been theres since.
In fact I really dont see the point of your post. The trendline is quite clear, and is continually up. It has yet to FAIL to increase.
It couldnt be more irrelegent of ignorant if you had said "oh good, they have a testable predictiona bout gravity. but will they still claim gravity is real if hte apple fails to fall to the ground?"
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
http://www.scientificamerican....
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
So if we have *don't* have a drought or heat wave in Texas this year, you'll be cool with this being treated as evidence against global warming in an article?
Or, do you only accept evidence that *supports* your cause, and reject all the rest?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
... but creationism is still the most popular worldview regarding the origin of life among US residents(with deity directed evolution coming in at #2). We won some hard fought court battles to keep it out of science classes, but when it comes to what people believe and vote on, that problem is completely unresolved.
The reefs in the Caribbean have been dying for decades, but not from acidification.
About a quarter of the way down on this page, http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/201... , you can see what happens as the stony corals die off. The branches of the corals break off and no longer supply refuge to small fish from predators. And there's less ... well ... hard stuff in the way to slow down waves. It's kind of depressing to snorkel or dive in Florida since you can see all the old coral skeletons lying on the ocean floor, slowly being covered with silt. While, of the three images, the one on the right looks the most vibrant, most of what you're seeing is soft coral (no calcium carbonate skeleton) and sponges that are, you know, spongy. Soft corals provide little or no protection to juvenile or feeder fish.
You CAN review the data, it IS public, and so are the tools to analyze the data.
There's a thriving skeptic group actively doing just that, so you can still feel you're among your own kind when you look into it.
Of course, there's always the danger that you'll be convinced, like Nobel laureate Muller, after looking at all that publicly available data.
So be careful. You might end up knowing better than you do now, if you bother.
Also didn't click the link.
Good job.
Thing gets predicted.
Thing happens.
Mindless Douchebag says: "Betcha didn't see that coming"
All you can do is roll your eyes.
Or you could look at the IPCC analysis, and see that while it sucks balls, it's not an extinction event
There's a thriving skeptic group actively doing just that, so you can still feel you're among your own kind when you look into it.
A "skeptic" group already did this. The other "skeptics" didn't like the outcome:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Envir...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Or maybe accept ALL the evidence and weigh the overall statistics instead of extrapolating from cherry-picked points. Realizing that the difference between statistical behavior and deterministic behavior is that there's a joke about a statistician who drowned in a lake averaging 2 inches deep. Because statistics are what you use when analyzing things that fluctuate a lot and occasionally do the exact opposite of what is expected. But only occasionally.
Oh please.
Millions is admittedly and obviously an expression.
And the point still stands: to deny the existence of oil and gas subsidies, to deny their massive lobbying power, to promote the myth of the rich scientist, is to deny reality.
the myth of the rich scientist pushing it for his own personal gain is just that: MYTH. much like the supposed "vaccine" or "cancer" conspiracies: the idea that thousands of scientists or doctors or researchers are all complicit in a global conspiracy, with not one person of integrity among them (keeping in mind that science doesnt function without integrity), not one whistleblower in the lot is simply farsical on its face.
and the further idea, that their "stakes" are somehow in any way comparable to that of the oil and gas industries, is just laughable.
From 1950 to 2010 toil, natural gas, and coal received $600 billion in subsidies, or 10 billion annually. From the US alone.
The EU. being similar in size and makeup to the US, is probably similar. Then factor in the other big producers in Russia and hte Middle East and South America...
http://www.misi-net.com/public...
Their profits for last, excluding some Chinese companies as they dont have same reporting requirements, exceeded 270 billion.
And here's their *reported* lobbying ammounts: https://www.opensecrets.org/lo...
So stuff you "credibility" attack.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No, tells me you didn't see the recent data and analysis on Atlantic deep-ocean heat sinks.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Hurricanes are a climatological event that produce extreme weather (wind, rain).
This is the most perfect example of begging the question I have ever seen on /.
The whole point of the GP's argument is that hurricanes are weather, and you have countered by simply declaring hurricanes are climate, or "climatological events", whatever that means.
Here is the problem in the simplest words I can think of:
1) Climate is a set of distributions, and is defined by the parameters of those distributions at any time.
2) Weather is a set of events drawn from those distributions.
Warmist talking heads who attribute every heat wave and extreme weather event to climate change are engaged in exactly the same fallacy as Denialist talking heads who claim every cold snap is proof of no climate change: both groups deny that the distributions in the case of a) climate change and b) no climate change overlap so substantially that only a liar or an idiot would draw any conclusion about the shape of the distribution from a single event.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Odd because, well, most folks (and I mean across the globe) that I know have been lauding some rather cold weather. We've seen hundred and even thousand year old records broken.
Maybe we don't necessarily agree that the temperature recordings are accurate, or rather they're accurate, but that modern satellite records (which are fairly recent and new) have not been properly synced with historical temperature records. A simple fact of which puts all models into question.
The fact that models have largely and universally failed at prediction would cause any respector of science to contemplate whether they have made an incorrect assumption - unless you've got ego or money in the boat.
Well, when you're talking 1-2 degrees over a century. 0.2% is an EXTREMELY significant change.
So let's do something useful.
Anyone with a grass yard should be planting a small forest of actual trees. Carbon sinks. Much better for the environment, also because there is much less energy spent maintaining them.
It's almost as though all the carbon cutting being done in the US and Europe is being rendered completely irrelevant so long as we let china keep fucking everything up.
http://i.cubeupload.com/T6cyLu.png
I believe that the Earth is getting warmer. A lot of people do but where I and most of the "True Believers" differentiate is in the details. Things like how bad it will be and what is actually possible to do about it. So many of the True Believers foam at the mouth while screaming about the end of the world. I'm a little less paranoid. No doubt it will change the world but I'm not so sure about ending our existence. The other side is of course what to do and what it will take to accomplish these goals. Most True Believers talk like we can just wave a magic wand and without any real sacrifice we can reduce carbon output to a fraction of what it is now. Surely they can't really believe something so stupid? How do you force emerging nations to kill their economies for something that may or may not be the ultimate tragedy? The requirements would need force of a draconian nature and probably bring about a war to make WWII look like a scrimmage.
Well, this was the coldest summer in my memory. I don't think I've ever experienced 50 degree weather in July/August (and I used to live further north).
Oh, this is just localized. Except, wow...I've got friends over in Europe experiencing the same. Okay, perhaps it is just the northern hemisphere of Earth. I haven't checked with my Aussie and S. American friends as to whether this year was warmer or colder for them.
But if this is in fact the highest CO2, and one of the warmest global temperature years. Something is very lacking on the observable real anectdotal evidence. And yes, folks dismiss anecdotal evidence. But if anecdotal evidence is in fact in conflict with your theory. You should pause and reconsider. If you say, penguins can't fly, and suddenly see a penguin fly.....it's time to pause and re-analyze and assess whether you've discovered a new type of penguin or whether your premise is not globally valid. Perhaps one must revise to "most penguins" don't fly.
Now granted, we have not discovered any flying penguins. But we've found a lot of equivalent questionables in regards to Global Warming claims. Enough that I think there needs to be some honest re-evaluation.
What he wrote isn't that complicated to understand and only points out the fact that many variables were brought into the equation. As human beings, we love waiting for things to be a problem before dealing with them.
How long did it take for us to decide putting our waste water in our lakes and rivers is a bad idea? The answer is thousands of years. The reason for this is that it was never an issue until enough was being dumped in. What we know is that our planet has worked well without humans for millions of years but in the last 100 we have made our presence more obvious than ever. Is it unreasonable for research to point us towards a path of prevention? I doubt there's any harm in that.
my 2 cents.
No. The article you linked to did not at all state that the drought in Texas was evidence of global warming.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
The little ice age as well ad the medividal warmth periods all where global. ... but it happened all over the world.
Perhaps the effect was stronger in europe
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I like to class myself in the rational crowd, and I think a major blind spot between sides is regarding the degree of warming. The following are further facts I think we can agree must be recognized if someone wants to be taken seriously:
1. The instrumental record over the last 125 years clearly shows things are warming.
2. CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a GHG and causes warming.
3. Human activity is dumping sizable quantities of CO2 into the environment and measurable amounts are accumulating in the atmosphere.
These are all well documented, measured and verifiable facts, not part of any honest debate.
That said, I STILL count myself a skeptic of the 'degree' or 'rate' of warming that we should be anticipating over the next decades. Having all the hottest years on record occurring in the last decade or two doesn't alarm me over much. We only have 100 some years of data, and the trend in it is a relatively linear warming from start to finish.
The point of contention is the question of whether or not we are facing 'catastrophic' change or not. Plenty of reconstructions and climate models argue for exponential warming. Such predictions go back to the very first IPCC report, which current global average temps are nearly cooler than the coolest error bars of predictions from back then. More recent estimates start the 'curve' later and later which has served to keep predictions consistent with measured reality. Despite this though, the best models all still DO recognize the absence of accelerated warming in recent years as a problem. They didn't predict it.
If anyone is still reading and thinks I'm missing important reasons to still anticipate catastrophic results, please let me know, but in all my searching of journals and actual, honest research I am just NOT finding any strong evidence or suggestion that it's time to 'panic'.
Tax complainers are largely a bunch of selfish, ignorant, complaining jerks with character disorders. (some or all of those.)
I've had a millionaire bitch to me how taxes were "killing him" as he picked up the tab for lunch and just after how he was talking about the PAIN of owning 5 (FIVE) houses, one in Hawaii. I pay more taxes than he ever did and that % I pay is felt by me more than the lower % is felt by him! If you are wondering, educating these people is impossible; the behavior is a symptom of psychological problems so fixing an issue of ignorance or whatever just manifests as something else until they get their broken minds fixed. Sadly, my experience is that them having money makes them more mentally healthy and better than normal people; so they are far less likely to ever seek help or take advice. (If you luck your way into money, then you are less likely to think that way; it's a matter of perspective. Entitled superiority vs lucky joe )
Environmental taxes are not a significant problem. Way more tax money is spent on other things we don't need. In the USA, we don't have hardly any environmental taxes. I'm going to assume the poster is thinking of regulations as opposed to taxes but not address that BS to keep the post short.
The LACK of sane environmental policy is indirectly costing me FAR more than the taxes-- in MONEY. Non-monetary things matter too and should be a factor over just numbers. I WANT more environmental taxes!!
My insurance rates are HIGHER and despite shifting companies, the rate of increase is higher than decades ago; business owning friends have had it much worse.
The energy commodity trading market is a sham (Enron like) and adds MORE to the price of gas than gas taxes do; under the guise of stabilizing the market when at least in modern times it has not done so.
You are not being taxed "the hell out of" if you live in the USA. Look at all the other 1st world nations (which might not be fair since the USA arguably is no longer 1st world but in transition backwards with the majority of factors already there... not that all such metrics are equal which is why I'm not concluding it myself at this time.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
And the USA spends, collectively, somewhere around $150B on coal and natural gas annually. Which means that the subsidies you are decrying amount to less than 7% of the annual spending.
Alas, you're not going to produce massive changes in lifestyle if you dump the subsidies and cause the price to go up by ~7% as a result.
Especially since that would be a one-time jump, as opposed to the yearly 7+% increase in medical costs that we live with....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
To have an increase in temperature of 4 degrees C by 2100 a positive forcing feedback must take a dominant position it the climate.
That is nonsense. You only need enough CO2. Do you mean according to current exhaust we won't produce enough CO2 till 2100?
We have not yet found this forcing to exist.
That is double false, or even tripple false.
First of all: there is no such 'special' force. So nothing to detect.
Secondly, we exactly know how the runaway effect is triggered. Melting permafrost in the tundras will release CH4 in absurd amounts.
Thirdly, the greenhouse effect is emphasizing itself anyway via having more water vapour in the atmosphere.
Everything about this is well known and a no brainer. The only open questions are: how much CH4 will be released in what timeframe, and will it really trigger a runaway effect that leaves the planet at +10 or +20 degrees increase of average temperature.
The thing with CO2 is that increases in temperature are related to doubling of the concentration in the atmosphere. That is to say that as CO2 increases, it takes more CO2 to continue to add on more increases in temperature as concentration goes up. /. myth, saw it repeated here the last weeks several times. The relation is linear, add CO2, you get an corresponding absolute increase in temperature (neglecting side effects like increase in water vapour).
That is wrong. Seems to be a
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You've misread the graph.
What it shows is that:
1. Dems are close minded - they believe in AGW
2. Repubs are close minded - they don't believe in AGW
3. Independents are open minded - they believe in AGW if the last two days were warmer than usual.
This research is hilarious.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Simple. The Kochs and their whores can't make money off any of that.
There was no unusually cold weather the last 30 years.
When it was cold, it was 'unusually' cold in relation to the previous 5, 10 or 15 or 20 years you happen to have experienced. Which where unusually warm! So as soon as it is as cold as it ought to be you call it 'unusual' and try to use it as an argument? How short exactly was this cold period around the big lakes last winter? 4 weeks? It used to be 4 months!! And you consider that 'unusually' cold? In relation to what?
Suppose you visit your hometown and get to a cafe you used to be as a boy. They used to serve the coke on ice, but now they have cold cokes from the fridge. After 20 mins the coke is "unusually" warm, so you don't like to drink the rest. ... surprisingly that coke on ice stays longer cold and is colder than the "unusually warm" coke you got before.
Now you ask the waitress to bring you a coke on ice
Wow, looking closely at it you will realize: the unusually cold coke is just as cold as you have been used to it 30 years ago, there is nothing unusual about it at all!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There is certainly no sustained increase in coal usage in Germany.
And I doubt there is any in Japan either. Japan used oil plants as fall back in power production, not coal plants.
And: you simply can not burn more coal in existing plants than you did before. Plants have to follow the mid range or peak load ... and that they did before wind power came a majour contribution and that they do now.
The only way is to de-mothball old plants if you want to burn more coal. None of the countries did that.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Attribution studies are performed to determine whether a specific event can be attributed to climate change.
Aside from that, you need to look at the trends. People will tell you that climate != weather when you use one cold day to dismiss the warming trend. The world is warming. One cold day doesn't change that.
A news caster who finds an event that fits the trend and uses it as an example of that trend it is less wrong than someone who finds meaning in an event that contradicts the trend.
I can't speak to other science denialism, but I spent some time in an Orthodox temple where the rabbi was a strong opponent of Evolution. (I spent time there when I disagreed with the rabbi so much only because my parents belonged there and so I didn't need to pay any dues to join.) The rabbi's argument basically boiled down to "Scientists keep changing their theories. Our 'God did it' theory never changes. Therefore, our theory is stronger and theirs is weaker, ours is right and theirs is wrong."
Religion has a strong reliance on the past and a strong element of momentum. You do X because Very Religious Person Y said you should and therefore your father, his father, and his father did X. X has been done for generations and any changing of X would be against your religion. If a new situation crops up, it must be somehow fit into the most applicable existing situation and made to follow the Old Rules. Any change is bad because it means veering from The Way Things Always Were. Even if they actually weren't always like that, the past will often be retconned to either ignore unsavory events or to re-write what people did. (e.g. The bible says Abraham served milk and meat together. That's not allowed in the Jewish religion but this was before the Kosher laws were given. Still, having that big of a figure ignoring Kosher is icky so that passage is "retconned" by an explanation that he served them in the proper order and separated in time just the right way,
The end result of this is that science, with it's ever-changing theories, is seen as bad - even though the theories change to better suit the data. Meanwhile, religion, with it's never changing rules (or, at least, rules that "have always been" this way once you retcon them) is seen as better.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Where's the hiatus in the warming of the oceans? There's a lot more short term variation in atmospheric warming, but given that the oceans have *not* seen a hiatus, it's clear that that is simply a temporary cooling signal added to the mix. This is what should concern you, because when that cooling signal fades out, the warming in the atmosphere will be back, and possibly at a faster rate than before. In effect, we're getting temporary relief - don't think it's a permanent thing, because if we were really cooling, the oceans would show it unequivocally.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
French - The lingua franca of Europe!
A newscaster who uses a warm event as an example of the warming trend is less wrong than a contrarian blogger or talk radio host who uses a cold event to dismiss the trend.
Reminds me of Asimov: "when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
And news flash: the little ice age was also eurocentric (ie not global), and it ended hundreds of years ago.
The claim that the Little Ice Age was a phenomena local to the north atlantic was completely debunked by the existing data immediately after the claim was made.
"His name was James Damore."
I think the title "How Climate Change Exacerbated the Drought" would beg to differ.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I doubt there's any harm in that.
There's tremendous economic harm.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
That is a huge mistake people keep making. Tomorrow has weather. Predicting the weather and predicting the climate are too very different things.
Predicting the climate is akin to predicting when you will need certain repairs on your car. Climatologists cannot say exactly when the median temperature will increase by 1 K, but they can say it will happen and predict about when it will happen. The engineers at BMW cannot predict exactly when your water pump will fail, but they can tell you that eventually it will fail and that it probably will fail around 150,000 km with about 10% accuracy.
Predicting the weather is akin to predicting whether your water pump will fail tomorrow. It's much harder to do. Maybe it sounds funny, but it might take months to fail. Maybe it sounds fine but develops a sudden unexpected leak.
It amazes me that with all the education we have, people are still confusing climate and weather.
Hot years are not incompatible with a "hiatus" in lower atmosphere warming. Obviously, more recent years are going to be the hottest even if global warming stopped completely, because global cooling would be required to return to where we were in the past.
The Earth has continued to warm the past decade, just at a much more modest rate than it had been warming in the 1990's or even since the 1950's.
The reason is because the bulk of that extra heat is not being stored in the lower atmosphere like it was in the 1990's. More likely it has been absorbed in large part by the oceans.
The hiatus still continues.
And yes there is a hiatus nowdays even in the mainstream pro-agw camp, saying otherwise makes you a denier.
And the climate science deniers continue to believe that if the current theory is correct that temperatures should rise in lockstep with rises in greenhouse gases like the output of a manual transmission in relation to the input.
I live in Canada, and considering the number of articles in recent years which have listed the impacts of global warming on the country, it's looking like a huge win. Even if only some of the permafrost melts, this is a huge increase in arable land and will allow as much as a doubling of agricultural output. Access to additional fresh water also increases significantly, which is notable given how much hoopla is made about water as an ever-more scarce resource. Increasing population density further north, and making the north actually productive. Better access to natural resources in the north, including mining and gas/oil extraction in the arctic. Levying fees on ships going eventually year round through the northwest passage. The boon global warming, if real, will bring to this surpasses by an order of magnitude anything its politicians could bring about. So yes, please, bring it on!
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
You also have to watch these bastards closely.
They've previously been caught treating taxes on gasoline, that are used to maintain roads, as a subsidy on gasoline! WTF? Fucking liars.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Stop capitalizing Groups of People You Don't Like. It looks stupid as hell.
At any rate, honest, scientific analyses* of the costs and harms have been done, and it doesn't really endorse this lukewarm attitude.
*These are just summary versions, the actual details of how all these issues are computed requires more than just a 76 page picture book, and you'd have to peruse to the full version, and not only that, the couple hundred of reference citations of each of the chapters.
Now, if you actually did that, it's more effort than I've put into this particular question, which would actually justify these "You don't know what you mean" rants that are so common.
You're going to have to acknowledge you don't actually have any evidence of what you, personally, and not Some Capitalized Group That's Magically Uniform, are saying.
It doesn't even remotely keep creationists happy.
Who are you kidding? They still engage in organized pushes to teach creationism in science classes sometimes.
I've previously pointed out the 'climate scientists' can learn a lot from engineers. If only to prevent themselves from making foolish statements.
Here is a prefect example. An idiot who doesn't understand feedback and control systems publicly demonstrating the humor of his SIG.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I agree with you entirely, rational debate about the facts and their support is entirely subsumed by the factional rivalry. But, there is a great and similar split in the followers of String Theory - those that assume it to be the only and obvious explanation of the world vs. those that don't even consider it science. The only difference is that because ST doesn't touch upon public policy there is a larger third community - those who don't care.
I think that fundamentally the difficulty with the AGM debate is that it is very hard (i.e. impossible) to separate the policy issues from the science issues.
The next big questions are:
1. How much economy is greater than the future of human kind?
2. What short term benefits do we gain by compromising now?
3. What are the long term benefits?
4. What is a reasonable amount of compromise?
Every time this debate is brought up I get the same answers and it immediately points me towards how selfish our society has become. I know that me personally am willing to help the next generations by making reasonable compromises right now but it seems it's not the general consensus.
". We can quantify that harm, and it's not civilization ending. it most certainly can be if we don't stop emitting greenhouse gasses. The trapped energy will increase with more greenhouse gasses. If we don't stop and work on lowering it, then it won't stop.
Now, we can do it using science, and brains, and engineering and planning. Or we can stop because the earth no longer supports humans.
Cost is irrelevant when dealing with complete collapse. The longer we wait, the more aggressive we must be.
To be clear, I'm not talking about tomorrow or next decade, but it can get too warm for human civilization as we know it in 100 years. When the heat sink are no longer available, the temp will rise even more dramatically.
Yes, I am raising the alarm. The change we must make will take decades. There isn't a silver bullet, there isn't 1 solution. We must be aggressive in out planning.
I'm not sure why you bother. Or why anyone does. The scientific models are incomplete. It will take many decades or even centuries to refine those models until they can reliably represent climate changes. We should wait until we know exactly what's going to happen before doing anything at all. Besides, I need my latest new shiny toy, I don't have time for speculative bullshit. You show me the Empire State building ten floors deep in rising sea levels and I might care. If not, take your science and shove it up your well-reamed asses!
I mean, so what if the AGW folks are right? It's not like any of us will be alive to see one way or another,
Who cares what will happen to our grandchildren anyway? They're just a bunch of useless rugrats taking up space and not contributing to the economy (i.e., making me more money).
If they were worth a damn, they'd be job creators and hard workers, In which case, they'd have the resources to buy their own politicians.
As it is, they just sit around eating and pooping in their diapers and whining about every little thing that annoys them. Or worse, they're sperm and ova eating up the planet's resources without providing anything useful.
It's their responsibility, not ours.
The politicians I own are going to make sure I have what I want. Those lazy fucking babies and their unconceived brethren can bloody well do it themselves. It's no concern of mine. Oh, and fuck you, Jack! I got mine.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
Rave on True Believer. There's plenty of warming evidence I'll admit. What it all means is not exactly so clear and what impact it will have is even less clear. I'm not saying it'll be a good thing, no doubt there will be dire consequences but raving about the end of the world as most True Believers do isn't going to convince anyone. I've seen so many different climate models come and go and it seems like in their struggle to convince people to believe that the scenarios get more and more outlandish every year. And still I haven't heard any real plan to cope with carbon release that addresses reality.
Then you fail at reading comprehension. From the title, a belief in climate change can be assumed, but not that the drought is evidence for it.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
No. No there is not.
The fact you would even say so shows tremendous ignorance and short sightedness.
Your statement is akin to saying "the replacement of horses with cars will lead to tremendous economic harm".
Firstly, just researching something cannot lead to any economic harm. So you must obviously be refering not to research, but to the actual abandonment of fossil fuels. But that leads to number two which is: you are assuming absolutely no new technologies or markets will emerge to replace fossil fuels. News flash: they're already here.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
There is certainly no sustained increase in coal usage in Germany.
That is not what I am reading about Germany. Despite the much hyped gains in renewables, those gains have been offset by the reduction in nuclear and the rise of coal use
And I doubt there is any in Japan either. Japan used oil plants as fall back in power production, not coal plants.
And that is not what I am reading about in Japan either where there are "Plans by Japanese companies to spend billions of dollars on new coal-fired plants"
If the plans all come to fruition, Japan's coal-fired power capacity would increase to around 47 gigawatts over the next decade or so, up 21% from the time right before the Fukushima accident.
So, we have increases in coal in Japan and Germany. China is still using coal like gang busters to power the largest industrial economy in the world, but to their credit they are also making a big investments in nuclear, solar, hydro and wind. The US is basically shifting to more natural gas which is better than coal, but nuclear is pretty much stalled and solar and wind are growing at a fast pace relative to their relatively low percentage of the energy mix, but isn't going to make a real dent in CO2 anytime soon unless those renewable growth rates are sustainable... but those growth rates aren't sustainable because all the easier locations for solar and wind are being built out first which should result in a slowdown in the adoption curve in future years unless solar panel prices really plummet and then the economics of it really changes.
Also, I noticed in one of those articles that Japan was promoting coal for developing economies, which would put us even further into a CO2 hole and undermine progress being made elsewhere as developing economies embrace coal as the lowest cost alternative. If the highly stable and developed economies are embracing coal, the developing world is embracing coal, then the current efforts for renewables look like little more than window dressing on the fact that Global Climate change is really being considered as a fait accompli by the world's decision makers.
I take Climate change seriously. I would rather not have the world experience the worst case scenarios, but I think that if we are going to avoid that worst case scenarios, then most environmentalists need to stop opposing nuclear or we might as well just do nothing now and pray for a technological miracle sometime before it is too late. Personally I would rather put forward a viable plan now that includes government subsidies and incentives for big increases in solar and wind, big increases in nuclear and maybe natural gas for the remaining 20% of the mix. I think that moving away from oil and coal and eventually most natural gas is doable. But not if you think that solar panels and wind turbines are going to provide for all our energy needs alone, not at anywhere near these population levels they won't.
You need to take off your rose-colored glasses when reading.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
the arctic ice has actually increased, the antarctic has abated, but again, within geologic norms.
Interesting. That means that as human emissions have increased, so have the CO2 sinks....so back when we were emitting 2x, the environment magically knew to absorb 1x, and now that we're emitting 20x, it absorbs 10x.
Here's the question - if the CO2 capacity of our sinks is upwards of 10x today, why did it only absorb 1x when we emitted less?
http://theresilientearth.com/?...
Here's an alternative - CO2 levels are driven by something else besides our emissions, and regardless if we emit more, or emit less, the "set point" will be adapted to, either by more absorption, or less absorption.
First of all bloomberg is wrong about germany, and besides a headline on one picture I fail to see on what base they conclude that Germany has increased its coal consumption or CO2 output. Perhaps google for data on fraunhofer.de ... they have nice anually updated background data of power production.
Secondly if Japan is indeed: spending billions of dollars on new coal plants then they are definitely not right now burn more coal. As they lack plants, as I said, which contradicts our parents claim.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Having in the past evaluated proposals for a $100K SBIR, and seeing what lengths a (sometimes not-so) small business will go through to get said contract, I don't see why it would be anything different for a researcher to go through similar hoops for a grant for "whatever-I-believe-in" (or "whatever-keeps-me-employed"), right or wrong.
The impact on CO2 emissions has been immediate. "There has been an increase of between 5%-7% in CO2 in the past two years," says Prof Claudia Kemfert, head of energy at the German Institute for Economic Research.
And on Japan how can you claim that Japan lacks coal plants? Japan has 18 Coal fired power plants and according to that other article they are planning more.
In the case of AGW those scales are a) global, and b) range from a couple centuries, to several My depending on which line of evidence you're looking at.
It was unusually cold in New England this winter. That's weather. But overall, this winter was still one of the 5 warmest on record. That's climate.
Which is the source of a huge part of my skepticism regarding the severity of the 'problem'.
1. Our climate is warming, period. We have almost 125 years of instrumental data to prove it. The but is that, 125 years is not enough data points for phenomena that as you pointed out span centuries and even millenia.
2. CO2 is a GHG and contributes to warming, and we are dumping significant quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. What severity of impact is that causing though? We have just barely been dumping that CO2 for a century, and our best data points don't give us much reference of the 'before' trend.
What pushes me past skepticism though and into outright rejection is graphs like the IPCC published Mann et el graph showing temperature over the last 2k or more years. The work and principle of looking at older proxy records to get a longer reference of climate is vitally important, and a way to extend what we know and can use to improve prediction. The principal is good. The published articles are pure hack jobs though. Data points projected by proxy prior to 1900 are posted and attached to current instrumental records and show an alarming and sudden upward trend in temperature starting at 1900. Now, any sane, skeptical mind would point out the change in data sources as the first and most important cause. Instead, Mann et al claimed a eureka moment, as human CO2 emissions also roughly coincide with that time, so clearly human activity is the cause.
That isn't just bad science, IMO it is deliberately and intentionally bad science. The fact is further proven and demonstrated if you take Mann's oldest and original graphs and just map out what 2014 and 2020 aught to look like if his observed 'trend' is real.
There's plenty of warming evidence I'll admit. What it all means is not exactly so clear and what impact it will have is even less clear.
What exactly do you think I linked, there? A debunking of something you imagined I imagined you said?
That link was a clear and straightforward presentation of the most likely negative consequences of human induced climate change.
I refuse to have one of those arguments where you're arguing with an imagined version of me.
Wouldn't that be exactly the cynicism I'm blaming on others? "Stupidity" is far too reductionist.
They lack coal plants to increaee coal usage significantly, if a coal plant is burning at 100% it certainly can not increase its rate of burning. ... big deal. According to that graph gas usage declined in an equivalent amount. ...
Burning more coal than actual power is consumed makes no sense either.
However, I did not think about that, they can produce base load with coal where they once used nuclear plants.
Nevertheless their main increase (similar bad ofc.) was in oil, not in coal.
Why don't you look at the graph above that 'claim'?
Since 1997 germany has more than halfed!!! its usage of coal! So from 140 'units' we went down to 50. Then we had a short phase where it increased from 50 to roughly 60
But the graph is pretty useless, it does not reflect actual energy production (it should show 25% - 30% share of renewables). Well looking at it snd thinking about it, it seems it is not about electric power production but total energy consumption/production, including house heating etc. The last two winters where cold, obviously people need more coal for heating then.
And finally: the quote about the last two years was made 2012, so it is again two years old
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
All these things are interwoven together. Ocean currents, the jet stream, warm/cold water layer mixing, warm/cold air mixing, humidity, water/air temperature gradients...all these things combine and interact to create the global climate which you see on a daily basic as weather. If an ocean current shifts it can reduce cloud formation lowering the water content of an air mass and increasing the radiative heating of the land surface immediately inland. these combined factors can lead to a lack of rainfall and/or increase in temperates. IE, drought and/or heat wave. In Cali's case, the Sierra range normally causes some preciptation as the air mass moves eastward, trapping it as snowpack, which then feeds water over the year into the arid region we know as the Central Valley. its what allows an arid region to also be good farmland inspite of its aridity. this year, there wasnt even enough moisture in the air for the mountains to squeeze any out..
All these factors you cite pale in comparison to CO2, nay to the human-generated CO2 as opposed to the "good" naturally occurring CO2, without which we would all starve to death. Notwithstanding all these poorly understood interactions, and many more you did not deign to mention like the sun's output, the strength and orientation of the earth's magnetic field, the fact that hotter objects radiate more than cooler ones, etc. the fact is that this massive non-linear partial differential equation all boils down to CO2. The actual math is so trivial that it is left as an exercise for the reader.
If *you* had to choose between more freedom and the promise of a slightly cooler environment, which would you choose? Do you think future human beings would choose freedom or the promise of climate control? Or would you selfishly make that choice for them? Make no mistake, climate legislation is designed to diminish individual freedom.
> or cutting the amount of coal plants which is the worst culprit.
Which is pretty much the exact thing that responsible policymakers have recommended doing, so I don't see your point.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
I don't think they can all be categorized in the same way. There are the "look at me I'm smart because I'm skeptical of everything" types that you mention, plus the crazy conspiracy nut types, the oil industry types, and also the religious types.
By the way, just for the sake of fairness, there are also a lot of nuts in the climate change camp too. But what matters is the science and evidence which firmly points to anthropogenic climate change being true.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
Coal burn is not counted in # of units. Those that do so are obviously lying with statistics.
New coal plants are typically much bigger and usually sit right next to the mine. It being cheaper to transmit power then coal.
For example there are coal fired plants physically in Nevada and Arizona that are in the California control area. Because they are better connected to the CA grid (which they were built to serve) then the local Nevada one.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I think you don't really understand the word, "Exacerbated". Hint: It's not what you do in the shower on Friday nights.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Long term records show the levels have increased and decreased before. What does it mean? Is it bad? Or is it just a distraction. There is a very real issue of toxic pollution that gets ignored in the hype over CO2.
"unfalsifiable ... to me."
Exactly the point.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
In europe or especially germany we have a unit called "Steinkohke equivalent Einheit", SKE.
Energy is often measured in that unit.
So a nuclear power plant might be measured in how much power it produces in comparision with a coal plant. That is easy with SKE (also easy with GW/h of course)
So yes, coal is counted in 'units' of SKE.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Since 1997 germany has more than halfed!!! its usage of coal!
Yes, that was good for them back in the 90s, but now coal usage is going up.
They lack coal plants to increase coal usage significantly, if a coal plant is burning at 100% it certainly can not increase its rate of burning. Burning more coal than actual power is consumed makes no sense either. However, I did not think about that, they can produce base load with coal where they once used nuclear plants.
And all it takes is a simple search to find Germany is building new coal power plants. Which is my point. By eliminating nuclear and moving more production to coal then they are offsetting all the gains they have made in renewables when they should be keeping nuclear and reducing coal and oil instead.
What about the people with stake in large multinational wind and solar producers claiming we can save ourself with all-renewable society?
Where things start getting really daft is that using wind and solar can easily mean that you need to run fossil fuel plants very inefficiently in order to "balance the grid". Thus it's possible for these to have a huge "carbon footprint". Yet nuclear power tends to be dismissed out of hand by the same people demanding "something must be done".
Similarly it's quite easy to produce "bio fuels" which require more petroleum than "petrol fuels".
I know that me personally am willing to help the next generations by making reasonable compromises right now but it seems it's not the general consensus.
You do what you want, but who are you to tell other people how to live their lives? And yet, that's what most environmentalists do. This is why environmentalism really is like a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
A little more critical thinking would be in order. It's not the absolute change which is something life can adapt to but the rate of change which can cause a lot of devastation before life has the time to adapt.
It's not likely that volcanic or tectonic activity has much of anything to do with it. Even the largest volcanic eruption of the past 100 years, Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 emitted only 42 megatonnes of CO2, only 0.2% of the 23 gigatonnes emitted by human activities that year.
because we all know anecdotal local data completely disproves long term multidecade global averages and trends.
More anecdotal data, but data that "proves" the reverse:
When I was a child, there used to be LOTS of snow pretty much all winter long. As an adult, there is not so much snow and it is not all winter long anymore.
Anecdotal data is anecdotal data. It can be useful over long enough timelines or across wide enough areas but it is never proof.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
If *you* had to choose between more freedom and the promise of a slightly cooler environment, which would you choose?
If you think you are free then you are a fool. If you aren't arguing for change in energy policy then you are reinforcing the status quo of oil and coal companies whose manipulation of the media to cast this doubt over the science presented over many years has produced the very state of mind you are in.
They call you "useful idiots".
If someone comes to try and educate you or demonstrate why you are arguing against your own best interests you respond in the hostile aggressive way you have been programmed to.
Do you think future human beings would choose freedom or the promise of climate control?
I think they would choose life over a hidden taxation that they will inherit. They will have no choice but to pay it.
Or would you selfishly make that choice for them?
I will take the responsibility for arguing in their interests because I have analysed the threat and the evidence supports the need for modifying the way our world works.
The difference between my position and yours is that mine gives them a choice and yours denies them a choice. Your position takes away their freedoms whilst mine position grants them their freedom because my position takes responsibility whilst your position forces responsibility onto a later generation for which they have no choice but to deal with our irresponsibility.
Irresponsibility because we don't own the air , oceans or land, we are borrowing them off future generations of humanity. Acknowledging that doesn't mean you're a hippy, it just means that you think humanity deserves a future. If you don't think humanity deserves a future then just let the people concerned with building a future free of oil/coal externalities get on with it.
Make no mistake, climate legislation is designed to diminish individual freedom.
Yes it does. It diminishes our individual freedom because we are choosing to do so. We are choosing to take responsibility when there is still an opportunity to prevent consequences we don't understand. We are acknowledging that we are stewards to future generations of humanity and adult enough to accept that there are burdens that come with it.
You can either choose to be responsible to future generations or not - to take their freedom or not. That is the freedom you have now.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Ah, a rational point of view!
I myself have been accused of being a "global warming denier". I don't deny at all that either average global temperature or CO2 is increasing: what I do deny is that any of these pundits can show that these changes are meaningful to me or anyone else. Yet again we hear the drumbeat of the UN chicken-littles: (from the article)
“We know without any doubt ... our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “...We are running out of time ... The laws of physics are non-negotiable ... Pleading ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not acting,” said Mr Jarraud.
What I have not seen, Mr. Jarraud, is any proof that "extreme" climate changes you shout about are actually going to happen. You can't even point to, with any certainty, a few tenths of a degree at some location on the planet that supports your global warming theories. I don't have beachfront property: if the ocean rises by a few inches I won't care. If my temperature warms by a degree or two, my response will be ... so? Someone will cry out about rainfall change, and I will ask: how are you going to stop that from changing?
There is a wonderful, clean energy source that is available right now with a well-developed and reliable technology. It's called "nuclear power". The generators can be located well away from population centers, and they can be located far underground to shield them from attack. The fuel is practically inexaustible: it's a by-product of mining operations on-going and in the past. The waste product is solid, and will not pollute the environment. The electricity that it provides can be used to generate hydrogen or other hydrogen compounds that can be used as fuel for a fuel-cell or simply burned, which waste products can be easily returned to the environment in the forms they naturally occur. Having such technologies available makes the people using it independent from exporters of coal, oil and natural gas.
Here we read all kinds of rude comments using words beginning with "f", "s" and other words. If we could convince the population that the word that begins with "n" is a good one, then perhaps the stupidity expressed by Mr. Jarraud and his crowd could be silenced.
It baffles me that some people actually believe that those concerned about global warming think that it will cause the end of humanity. It won't. Even if the most catastrophic predictions come true, not only will life on Earth continue on just fine, but human life will also continue. We are a very adaptive species and even in the case of extreme climate change, parts of the Earth will become more hospitable to humans than they are now. It just happens that people concerned about climate change don't think that 20% or more of the human population being wiped out is an acceptable path to take when reasonable alternatives exist.
It is possible for us to reduce CO2 emissions right now, with minimal economic impact, if we are willing. All it would take would be a concentrated push towards nuclear power generation, coupled with electric vehicles for transport and we could reduce emissions in short order without destroying any economies. Of course instead both Germany and Japan are dialing down their nuclear programs in favour of burning more coal.
Of course, there's always the danger that you'll be convinced, like Nobel laureate Muller, after looking at all that publicly available data.
So be careful. You might end up knowing better than you do now, if you bother.
That's pretty usual. It takes a rare individual who can be convinced even by plain facts that he is wrong. Usually he can weasel his way out, like moving the goalposts, or the weird ways in the data is attacked in this very thread. There will always be an excuse for why the other side is always the incorrect one, and as I get older I've come to believe that it's the majority of people who are like this, not just hoax-believers and conspiracy theorists.
Of course, there's always the danger that you'll be convinced, like Nobel laureate Muller, after looking at all that publicly available data.
So be careful. You might end up knowing better than you do now, if you bother.
That's pretty unusual.
Fixed that for me. :-/
No, what it shows is:
1. Democrats believe the science
2. Republicans don't believe the science
3. Independents believe themselves over anything else
The new coal plants are replacing older plants, and this was planned before the "Energiewende". The new plants release far less CO2 than the old ones, so it's still a net reduction.
Well, yes, but my formulation was funnier.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
That's not what I was pointing out. What I was pointing out is the lack of wanting to help further generations. Nobody if forcing anybody but I expect those who don't want to help to stop singing the conspiracy song and calling everybody a liar just because they don't want to be the black sheep. It gets old really quick especially for those educated enough to understand what is reasonable for compromise. The naysayers are just preventing very simple changes from being applied.
It don't find this any different than cigarette propaganda in the 70s. While health groups were trying to save people one cigarette at a time, the manufacturers were putting up advertisement to make people feel at ease that smoking wasn't going to ruin their lives.
How do you emit less CO2 burning more coal? Most or all of these new coal plants are not intended to do underground sequestration as far as I can tell. And the reporting indicates that they expect to increase net coal consumption not just replace older plants. I think cleaner means fewer particulate emissions, which is good for lung diseases and quality of life, but still the plan is to burn more coal and therefore more CO2 which is bad for Global Climate Change.
Let's be very clear here:
1) oceans are *basic* not acidic. Reducing pH of oceans at this point is *neutralization*, not acidification;
2) ocean pH varies orders of magnitude more than any proposed amount of neutralization:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
"It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day."
How can you possibly assert that as an explanation? Let's assume, for the moment, that the missing sink is the oceans (rather than say, increased plant life, or some other part of the carbon cycle we don't understand) - the moderator of how much CO2 they could absorb every year must be the amount of surface area of the oceans, yet without changing the surface area of the oceans, you're asserting that they magically figured out how to absorb *more* CO2 in later years?
Please, *why* would the oceans in 1980 absorb x CO2 from the atmosphere, but then in 2014, they absorb Y > 10x?
Possible suggestion: Absorption of oceans is driven by ocean temperature, and from say, 1980 - 2014, increasing ocean temps absorbed more CO2 from the atmosphere. So then what regulates ocean temperature? Cloud albedo and solar activity primarily, with maybe some minuscule contribution from underwater vulcanism. Sadly, we've got no model linking cloud albedo to CO2, or solar activity to CO2, much less human CO2.
In any case, the fact that natural CO2 absorption has varied so greatly over the years indicates some other moderator than human CO2 emissions on final global CO2 levels.
Blah blah blah, all I'm hearing is "I don't have a remotely scientific explanation for the course of temperature changes through the 20th century, and that's a good reason to dismiss the primary scientific one"
Have you looked at global temperatures? Last winter in Minnesota was very unpleasantly cold, but Minnesota is not the whole world (regardless of what people in neighboring states think we think). The world as a whole was pretty darn hot.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Are oil plants that much better? They're both burning fossil fuels and putting sequestered carbon into the atmosphere.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Thing is, what other people do has a very large effect on my life. If I don't walk around with a firearm taking random potshots, that doesn't necessarily help me if others do. Are you maintaining that that's a valid lifestyle? Or are there limits to what we should allow people to do if it harms others?
If you admit any limits on behavior, we're down to talking about where they should be. In this case, there's a lot of evidence that putting CO2 into the atmosphere is going to harm a whole lot of people. (Yes, I'm guilty too.) It's a very long-range effect compared to firing guns randomly in my neighborhood, but it appears to exist.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There was unusually cold weather last winter where I live, and I go back a lot more than 20 years. Similarly, the summer around here has been unusually cool.
I know perfectly well that this was counterbalanced by unusually warm weather elsewhere, and that this is an exceptionally hot year globally. Doesn't mean I enjoyed the winter and not the summer (summer before this one was exceptionally warm where I live).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That was not the point.
The point was the parent made idiotic, wrong, wild claims. Not only about Japan, but about Germany, too!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You are right. We are not nearly as free as our recent ancestors. The shadow of tyranny grows inexorably because of do-gooders who believe they know what is best for everyone else. This is not new. Plato's Republic, Hobbes Leviathan, More's Utopia, and Marxism all promised security in exchange for liberty. Wannabe master minds can never deliver. Liberty does. As long as there is liberty, people will adapt.
Oki, idiot.
We burned 150 units of coal in 1989!
We burned 52 units in 2012.
We burned 54 units in 2013. INCREASE! INCREASE! INCREASE!
Germany is building new coal plants to phase out inefficient old ones. That got mentioned here on /. minimum 100 times now, at least 20 times by myself.
I don't know why people link bloomberg web pages, even when I read their links besides a headline or a note below a picture there is absolutely noting in the article supporting your claim.
I could now behave like an asshole and say: learn german, read a german web page, learn to google in german.
But I'm only annoyed and don't consider myself an asshole so: for fuck sake stop telling us germans what we do. You are wrong, you don't know what we do!
When my school mates went to school exchange in 1985t the USA some got asked: 'does Hitler still live?', others got asked 'do you have electricity in Germany?' How retarded is that? Most hillarious: one girl got a phone call from another german school boy, but was absent. The guest mother took the call and when the girl came home she told her. The girl shrugged and changed dresses and when she wanted to leave the mother was like: "What? You can not go now, you had that phone call, he will call again". The girl: "Eh? What?" The mother: "He certainly wants to date you, you simply can not go now!" The girl: "To date me (what actually does that mean?)? And why should I need to wait now for him, for his call? If he wants something he will call again. Chance is, I meet him later anyway with my class mates. Certainly I meet him tomorrow in school!"
Worthless to mention: the guest mother "war von den Socken!"
Now you keep telling us: you increase CO2 ... no we don't. You need nuclear plants ... no we don't. Grids will be unstable ... you know noting about grids, so shut up. Solar does not shine at night ... yeah, I noticed. In fact I wondered why it is so dark at night for my first ten years, but then my grandpa told me: it is because of the stars, if it was light we could not see them. What a smart guy.
So again: if you want to know something about german energy production, learn german or ask me or another german and stop repeating stupid ANGST posts from known renewable hater organizations like bloomberg.
Or if you google, look for german sites (Germany the country) in english (english the language).
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Historically, about half of the pollution from human sources has been absorbed by the oceans and by terrestrial plants,
The inability to absorb CO2 may have flipped and acidification may be
generating CO2 from oolitic sands and coral.
If acidification has flipped the oceans from a net sink for CO2 to a source
of CO2 we have issues with acceleration and underlying models in the
science.
Sadly the global warming side may prove to be right for many wrong reasons
and the nonbelievers may be wrong for other reasons.
This is a case where two wrongs does not make a right----.
I find myself at odds in this because I see bad science that puts
me on one side of the issues and then I see observations that make
it clear that as bad as the science is they are getting essentially
the right answer. In this case it may only be necessary to get the
sign correct.
Any that study statistics and the camel will understand.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
It's not likely that volcanic or tectonic activity has much of anything to do with it. Even the largest volcanic eruption of the past 100 years, Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 emitted only 42 megatonnes of CO2, only 0.2% of the 23 gigatonnes emitted by human activities that year.
And Mt Pinatubo was most famous for SO2 not CO2 emissions.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
How do you emit less CO2 burning more coal? Most or all of these new coal plants are not intended to do underground sequestration as far as I can tell. And the reporting indicates that they expect to increase net coal consumption not just replace older plants. I think cleaner means fewer particulate emissions, which is good for lung diseases and quality of life, but still the plan is to burn more coal and therefore more CO2 which is bad for Global Climate Change.
And events that might naturally sequester CO2 are considered evil in the same context.
A large region of an ocean that flips into an anoxic state and starts to rain organics
on the ocean floor would be seen as a global disaster. Yet such disasters may
be necessary to reverse the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have not seen any credible science that shows good analysis for any reversal
strategy. Without reversal strategies those with vast coal reserves might do
well to level mountain tops, mine the coal and terraform the mountain top into
agriculture or homes. Reclamation and terraforming is ill understood... and needs
to be understood.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Of course. They cause a 2 or 3 year dip in temperatures. I was just responding to the GP's implication that volcanoes are a significant factor in the current increase in CO2.
How does that "hiatus" combine with the denialist trope that CO2 rises after temperature, not the other way around, to result in record high CO2 after a pause in warming?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
That's just the selection over time. Everybody started out skeptical about AGW, most were convinced decades ago. The few who were still skeptics recently and eventually announced their change of mind were more stubborn.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
no. 0.2C would be significant.
0.2% of 1-2C is 0.002C - 0.004C.
nothing extreme or significant about it.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
yes, this post absolutely was flamebait.
by using cited csources with actualy data and math to refute a baseless lie it is the textbook defintion of flamebait.
spineless mod cowards.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Nah, people are exhaling pretty much as much as they did 20 years ago. Just that there is quite a few more of them now :)
Do you really believe any study the UN puts out? Not like it's a conflict of interest or anything. Anyone ever hear of Agenda 21 and its world-wide implementation by the UN. Then tell me how anything credible can come out of the UN.