Slashdot Mirror
Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient
An anonymous reader points out that a long held goal of keeping the Earth's average temperature from rising above 2 degrees Celsius might not be good enough. "A long-held benchmark for limiting global warming is 'utterly inadequate,' a leading U.N. climate scientist declared. Keeping the Earth's average temperature from rising past 2 degrees Celsius – a cap established by studies in the early 1970s – is far too loose a goal, Petra Tschakert, a professor at Penn State University and a lead author of an assessment report for the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, said in a commentary published in the journal Climate Change Responses. Already, with an average increase of just 0.8 degrees Celsius, she wrote, 'negative impacts' are 'widespread across the globe.' Tschakert called for lowering the warming target to 1.5 degrees Celsius."
Here is a link to the complete, actual commentary from which all the other stories derive.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Am I giving up my Canyonero. You socialist hippy scum.
Considering that Milankovitch cycles show the earth's recent temperature swings are significantly more than 1.5 degrees WITHOUT impact from man, this seems a bit nutty. Global climate change has been happening for a long time before man started burning fossil fuels. Sure it sucks for some, but then again, it will be sweet for some people who get benefits from such a change. Life goes on, just like it has in the past ice ages, despite 1000 metre thick glaciers covering much of Europe and N. America.
Earth is not a static closed system folks... It changes shitloads more all by itself then any amount attributed to by even the most generous of climate analysts. Get used to it. Buy a vineyard in England.
Less well known perhaps is a critique from feminist social scientists who interrogate what may be deemed ‘acceptable’ and what may be ‘dangerous’, and for whom, and who contest the global community as a homogeneous entity. Joni Seager, for instance, demonstrates how notions of acceptability always mirror ‘a prism of privilege, power, and geography’ [14]. She argues that those for whom a 2C target [are] politicians and economists from the global North deeply entrenched in a masculinized rationality that nature can be controlled and that in the imminent climate race with inevitable winners and losers they will be among the former. Seager rejects the notion of a 2C target as a real geophysical threshold that neatly distinguishes between little and much danger
That is worth a read for educational purposes alone.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Don't be in such a hurry.
Arctic sea ice extent, area and volume have been dropping significantly for over 15 years and we could reach summer ice free conditions by 2020-2025.
The Navy has been doomcasting 2016 as the earliest likely date but that seems overly pessimistic.
In case you missed the memo for the past several years, California has been in severe to exceptional drought conditions and Texas has abnormally dry years, even by the standards of the Southwest, since at least 2000.
Florida's governor has banned the use of the "global warming" & "climate change" and there's some very amusing clips of state officials tying themselves in knots to avoid actually saying the words when answering questions.
Why ban something that is not having any effect? Have you seen the flooding in south Florida over the past few years?
And let's not narrowly focus on America - it's GLOBAL warming, after all.
Most of Europe appears to be getting once-a-lifetime and once-a-century floods every few years to every decade.
Australia has had to add a color for the top end of their weather charts - this is a country ( or continent ) that has a LONG history of heat waves since long before Europeans "discovered" it.
Either 2 degrees or 1.5 it doesn't really matter as we're going to go sailing by both of them and keep on going by a wide margin. We've started to late and done too little to even meet the 2 degree goal. And the commitments that are being proposed for the upcoming summit in France later this year don't look like they are going to be enough.
California is regularly in drought. It's a 500 year cycle for them.
But good of you to bring it up, If the environmentalists hadn't been blocking water management and in general been in the business of creating problems http://naturalresources.house.....
Global Thermonuclear War?
How do you get the entire world to agree on a tax?
If developed countries stop using fossil fuels, it will only encourage their use in poorer countries, as the fuels become cheaper.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
And yet, the people who study this for a living disagree with you. Weird, right?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
And even if we all of the sudden say "Stop everything, we're at 2 degrees!" and somehow manage to do it, it's not going to stop because we want it to just like that. It's not a static system.
The idea behind the 2 degree limit is that we stop sooner, and let the momentum continue to take it up, until it reaches a +2 degree steady state.
A lot, and then, a lot more. How else do you stop fossil fuel usage, ask nicely?
Build more Nuclear power plants, make the licensing easier and less expensive, and pour funding into MSR technology and making Nuclear available more safely and at smaller scales. Create a tax on industrial complexes and power plants based on Net CO2 released.
Tax vehicle owners for the expected Net release of CO2 based on their registered vehicles, and for vehicles that burn fuel: regular emissions check, with mandatory monthly reporting by the vehicle computers, and at least 1 annual check to make sure all emission controls sensors are operational.
These stories are tiring as there is no chance for "settled science fact" in climate change.
All of these estimates are based on elaborate math models and yet the Earth's long term climate ON ITS OWN, has swung widely over recorded history.
And from the geologic history, we know we will again go into another ice age based on the history of the change in the Earth-Sun orbit & precession changes on a regular 110,000 year cycle. And without human intervention, the ice age ends.
They are shoving treaties at us left right and centre, it's a nightmare trying to stop the bad treaties (like TTIP, TPP CETA, NAFTA, ACTA etc).
But all of a sudden when it comes to global warming, we can't agree on anything, funny that.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
But all of a sudden when it comes to global warming, we can't agree on anything, funny that.
Probably the rich people can't find anything that wouldn't impact their own luxury lifestyle.
The sea level rise is approximately 1 to 4 millmeters per year.
Something tells me there aren't a very large number of cities within a few inches of having to relocate.
How do you get the entire world to agree on a tax?
Convince the entire world, that someone else will have to pay the tax, and that the entire world will be exempt from it.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
So in other words
You can't lay California's lack of rainfall at warming's feet.
And Environmentalists created the inability to deal with the problem and are obstructing its solution ?
If you tax fossil fuels you also tax any imports for the fossil fuels that went into making and delivering them. Poorer countries don't use enough fossil fuels to matter much right now.
She's a Geography professor.
So why would I care about her opinion on global warming, either way?
#DeleteChrome
Isn't Florida supposed to be underwater ?
Since you obviously haven't been here for a while, many parts of Florida are underwater at high tide. In Palm Beach and parts of Miami storm drains flow backwards and boat docks are underwater. Just across the inlet, West Palm Beach has a massive project going on to raise sewer lines so toilets will confinue flushing and there are several similar projects in Miami. They're also spending hundreds of millions to reinforce the well casings in the wells Miami gets its freshwater.
Florida is fighting that losing battle quietly. It's not like an area dependent on tourism and investment can announce they're sinking and there's no way to stop it but that's the reality.
Climate deniers are the most ignorant fraction of our society.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
"Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish been caught, and the last stream poisoned, will we realize we cannot eat money." (source).
If AGW is real and the global temperature is to rise unmitigated, the rich (who actually own the planet) will actually start doing something about that only when war comes knocking on their front doors.
Up until then there will be no tangible changes to prevent further warming of the Earth.
I live in Florida, and that has nothing to do with rising sea levels but rising population levels.
Hint: More paving = More drainage in a rainy climate.
From what I've heard scientist in the 80s came up with 1 C before serious changes would kick in. Then some economists decided that the damages could be managed until we reach 2C. So the 2C is an economic goal. Interestingly at ~0.9C we already see permafrost melting and decaying which could leed to some feedback effect that could ultimatley dwarf our contribution. So that article may be overly inconservative with its 1.5C goal.
Je me souviens.
Yeah, that's the funny thing about abundance, people don't know how to share it. We produce way more than we need and would rather throw most of it away because the insane market needs price supports.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Citation needed.
The basic physics of climate change is that increasing levels of gases trap more energy from the sun, increasing the amount of energy in our atmosphere and climate system. We know by and large, most of the energy is stored in the oceans as water holds energy much better than gases in the air.
With such a simple observation, I'd like to make the observation that it seems too few of the IPCC guys pushing for policy stuff are paying any attention to the energy budget. Instead, we have the only basis scientifically being that the average surface temperature is warming, and CO2 levels are rising and we are the ones pushing them up. That's all well and good, and they are important observations. About 30 years ago though we started sending up satellites to measure incoming and outgoing radiation. The ERBS and CERES programs from NASA have given us direct measurements of trends in the overall energy balance at the edge of space. The most direct measurement of global warming that we can have. The summary from each program, has let us find a decade level average energy imbalance, and we've found it is in good or at least general agreement with energy levels measured via Ocean Heat Content observations.
Here's the important bit though. As the IPCC's most recent AR has observed, the satellite measurements show that for the duration of the CERES project, there has been NO TREND in the energy imbalance. The earlier ERBS data showed the same as well. Our satellite measurements have shown significant and very steady trends in energy balance cycling monthly, but the average over the years and decades we've measured is just a steady and consistent average neither shifting noticeably up or down. Meanwhile, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over that same time have climbed like nobody's business. All our models and expectation for X degrees of warming for so much CO2 kinda hinges pretty heavy on CO2 pushing up the energy imbalance. If it's not, and observations suggest that. We may not need to be so worried as some of the panic ridden crowd wants.
Before I get citation needed shoved down my throat, here's a peer reviewed journal article published in Geophysical Research Letters. It is comparing observed atmosphere energy imbalance to the CMIP5 model runs. It finds good agreement, but also makes the very notable observation that the energy imbalance trend is dominated by volcanic activity(ie NOT the CO2 levels that are higher than they've been in millenia). Full abstract:
Observational analyses of running 5 year ocean heat content trends (Ht) and net downward top of atmosphere radiation (N) are significantly correlated (r~0.6) from 1960 to 1999, but a spike in Ht in the early 2000s is likely spurious since it is inconsistent with estimates of N from both satellite observations and climate model simulations. Variations in N between 1960 and 2000 were dominated by volcanic eruptions and are well simulated by the ensemble mean of coupled models from the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). We find an observation-based reduction in N of 0.31±0.21Wm2 between 1999 and 2005 that potentially contributed to the recent warming slowdown, but the relative roles of external forcing and internal variability remain unclear. While present-day anomalies of N in the CMIP5 ensemble mean and observations agree, this may be due to a cancelation of errors in outgoing longwave and absorbed solar radiation.
Of COURSE it isn't sufficient.
When - ever - has an activist said "yeah, well, what's being done is pretty much good, yeah. I'm happy. I guess I don't have much to be upset about any more"?
Here's a hint: if there's one thing I can guarantee the climate won't do, is be static.
-Styopa
Wasn't it supposed to raising 2 degrees/decade yy now ?
Aren't the poles supposed to be ice free by now ?
Isn't Florida supposed to be underwater ?
Isn't the entire east coast supposed to be rubble from super hurricanes ?
Dustbowls that would make the 1930s look like nothing ?
Really enough of the chicken little.
Instead of listening to hyperbole why don't you peruse the actual scientific literature on those subjects? You won't find any of that in the time frames you contemplate.
Reading the reactions I find it amazing how many climate experts there are on slashdot.
-- Cheers!
You can't lay California's lack of rainfall at warming's feet but you can say the drought was exacerbated by record high temperatures that caused the soil to dry out more than previous droughts.
yeah why don't you go tax a volcano because just one small eruption is millions of times larger in volume of CO than the entire world production of hydrocarbon fuels... I AM AN IDIOT..
FTFY. Human emissions of CO2 are about 100 times greater than volcanic emissions.
We have the same thing here in coastal VA. Cut down trees for a new furniture store/Walmart/unused business park, and pave over everything...and then wonder why water is backing up into your garage.
It has no where else to go!
volcano because just one small eruption is millions of times larger in volume of CO than the entire world production of hydrocarbon fuels...
I'm going to need a source here, because https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm says that volcanoes produce about one percent of the world's CO2 emissions.
How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
yeah why don't you go tax a volcano because just one small eruption is millions of times larger in volume of CO than the entire world production of hydrocarbon fuels... [...]
I'm sorry, but that is simply unscientific nonsense. Human emissions are about 2 orders of magnitude greater than all volcanic emissions combined. None of the major volcanic eruptions of the last decades have left a significant blip in the CO2 curves. See e.g. the USGS on the issue.
Stephan
The issue isn't so much the proper temperature but the rate at which temperature is changing. The current rate of change is around 2 orders of magnitude greater than it was coming out of the last ice age.
If you judge the science by the ramblings of fringe lunatics, then you're bound to misunderstand the science. There is no credible prediction (established science) that says any of the things you've suggested. Not even remotely close. If you're interested it learning something, then you will need to stop reading the blogs that make you feel warm righteous indignation, and open your mind.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Some environmentalists will blame anything they can on AGW. That doesn't mean that the science itself is wrong, and that it isn't a pressing problem. It just means that there are partisan hacks (people just like you) on the opposite side of the issue to you. They are stupid. So what.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
happening in part of Florida, and part of Virginia (or Maryland it is hard to keep track).
the aquifers are drained and the land above them sinks down
Heck, I'm going to go our on a limb and predict that we'll see at least seven or eight billion people die within the next century.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Here is an example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... (hunting quotas, protected species, ...)
The Nazis attached a high value to the land, which must be protected from both pollution and "inferior races".
They did think forward, after all, the third reich was supposed to last a full millennium. So yes, maybe some of their ideas were a bit misguided to say the least but they did think long term.
The anti-tobacco movement was another thing the Nazis did right : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
It's funny, but I remember hearing the same sort of comment back in the '70s during the energy crisis.
Oddly enough, it didn't seem to have worked out that way.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
keeping the Earth's average temperature from rising above 2 degrees Celsius
s/above/more than/
And in the 50's they thought nuclear would provide energy "too cheap to meter".
It is curious that those that tend to see climate change as a urgent problem, tend to advocate cultural solutions, whereas those that see climate change as a less urgent problem tend to advocate technological solutions. The irony being that technological solutions are generally reasonably quick to invent and implement, whereas cultural solutions often take a human generation or more to take hold. For the all talk of a climate change apocalypse, technology got us into this mess and technology will get us out of it. Also don't underestimate the inventiveness of capitalism, its not very good at solving problems that will affect the next generation, but is highly focused at solving problems that affect us right now and have a direct monetary cost associated with them.
A recent study which actually looked at the climate concluded that the maximum the climate can change is about 1.45 degrees.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Don't expect it to be quoted in AR6 because it effectively puts a verification now on climate models. If the climate model says >2 degrees, then it's within the 99% error range, therefore the author has some entropy problems with their code ;)
What they're trying to say, using the usual feminist sociology over-loquatiousness is:
For some on the planet, keeping it under 2 degrees will preserve a relatively familiar or at least acceptable quality of life.
For others on the planet, quality of life can only be preserved by keeping it under, say 1.5 degrees, or even one degree.
The first group (that can live with a higher threshold) are those in the upper portions of the global economic scale, and it's an acceptable rise for them because they can also afford technologies and tools (getting crude, say, air conditioners, new home materials, new kinds of agricultural output, etc.) that make a 2 degree rise tolerable.
The second group (that can't live at the 2 degree threshold, and really need a lower one) are going to tend to be in the lower portions of the global economic scale, who won't have access to the technologies and tools that make a 2 degree rise livable for those at the top of the scale.
Policymakers and scientists tend, by virtue of their privileged position, to be in the first group, and have thus set the 2 degree rise in connection with thinking of their own, best-case lifestyles, rather than—say—a member of one of the globe's largely impoverished equatorial populations without access to much in the way of resources, tools, or technologies already.
It's a good point: the effects are not uniform, and if 2 degrees is the upper bound for the people who are the globe's *most* comfortable, then it's probably a bad upper bound in general, because it will "cook" (even more than already occurs) those that are the *least* comfortable.
It was, however, bad language and clarity—which is a sin that social science commits far too often.
Their point is well taken:
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Let's reword that... The people who make a living off this stuff disagree with you(him). Weird, right?
The money is in agreeing with you. Big Oil and the like are happy to pay scientists for studies which say that they can continue raping our ma.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Renewable energy dominance is inevitable, solar energy is forecast to drop to 2c per kwh vs nuclear's 10c. Nuclear is not getting any cheaper. Wind turbines are getting taller and cheaper because there is a more consistent stronger supply of wind higher up and there is ongoing technical innovation. Wind is already going for under 4c per kwh without subsidy.
This is now:
Texas city opts for 100% renewable energy - to save cash, not the planet
Cheapest solar - SunEdison sells solar PV output at 5c/kWh ...
How Low Can Wind Energy Go? 2.5c Per Kilowatt-Hour Is Just
The relentless fall in renewables cost has a long way to go yet.
Battery prices are also continually falling:
EV Battery Prices -- The Disruptive Drop In Prices Will Continue
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
The IPCC has stated that sea level rise this century will likely be in the neighborhood of 2.6 feet or less but that extreme conditions could cause as much as a 6.5 foot rise in sea levels over the next hundred years. Maybe you are referring to Al Gore's propaganda where he stated a bunch of US cities could soon be underwater in the near future. You must remember Al Gore is a politician and as such, if his lips move, he's lying.
Yep, Nuclear Winter should fix things nicely. Good fix for over population as well.
All you have to do is tax it so much no one can afford it anymore. Wonder what the repercussions of that will be?
Well, yes, but you really shouldn't bring up the favorable consequences in order to fight Global Warming.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Come on man, don't hold back. Tell us how you "really" feel.
The IPCC has stated that sea level rise this century will likely be in the neighborhood of 2.6 feet or less but that extreme conditions could cause as much as a 6.5 foot rise in sea levels over the next hundred years. Maybe you are referring to Al Gore's propaganda where he stated a bunch of US cities could soon be underwater in the near future. You must remember Al Gore is a politician and as such, if his lips move, he's lying.
Really ? That's what I must remember ?
It couldn't be James Hansen predicting the West Side Highway would be under water by 2005 ?
http://www.salon.com/2001/10/2...
The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
Actually you just have to tax it enough that no one wants to use it and the alternatives are more appealing.
Or would you prefer we just burn all of the oil and coal? And then what? I wonder what the repercussions of that will be?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Here let me simplify this for you.
Someone says we have global warming, then says sun will rise tomorrow because of global warming.
Or in this case California will suffer water shortage problems.
Both are things that happen anyway and neither can be shown to be the result of global warming.
Hope that helps you.
Warming of the Earth doesn't happen instantaneously. After emitting some CO2 (or other greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere, it takes quite some time before the Earth finishes warming up.
Right now, the Earth has experienced a little more than half of the warming that will eventually result from the present concentration of CO2. That basically means that if we stop emitting all CO2 and other greenhouse gasses tomorrow, the Earth would very likely still hit 1.5C of warming.
But the authors are very much correct that the 2C goal isn't safe by any means. Current model estimates are that the ice sheet of Greenland will destabilize and completely melt at somewhere close to 2C of warming. That would cause approximately 7 meters of sea level rise, in addition to all of the other sources of sea level rise (note: it'd take a few hundred years for Greenland to melt, but even relatively small amounts of sea level rise can be devastating). There's a fair amount of uncertainty here. Greenland might not destabilize until warming of 2.5C. Or it might start occur right at 2C. It would be far, far better to never find out.
2C is primarily a goal just because reasonable and cost-effective but aggressive measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions can (at present) allow us to reach a 2C target. We really wouldn't have to sacrifice much of anything to reach a 2C target (and the extra construction of renewable energy infrastructure would be a boon to many economies who are currently struggling). But we would have to overturn the massive influence of the fossil fuel lobby both on government and on the public discourse.
You can say it -- the question is, can you show it? Take a look at the actual data and you will see that although the average is running a little warm, all of 2012, 2013, 2014 and what we've had thus far of 2015 are just about devoid of record temperature excursions.
My understanding is that it is lack of precipitation -- not high temperatures -- that account for California's current problems. Which you can also see on that same page on the bottom graph. The span from March through October is devoid of precipitation. In the background in the darker color, you can see the "normal" (the average) for the region.
Dustbowl, anyone? Much, much worse than California's problems -- and definitely not attributable to "global warming" in any significant way.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Taxpayer-funded climate worriers wouldn't have a job if they disagreed with him.
Actually, I have seen several reports which indicate that Big Oil gives more money to scientists supporting AGW than they do to scientists opposing it. I do not know if those reports are accurate, but I have not seen ANY which actually quantify the money Big Oil gives to each side which disagree.
Do you have any citations which support your claim?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
But not newly underwater. Sea levels have risen about 200 mm, or about 7.8 inches in the last century (1910 to 2008) (also, the rate of rise hasn't changed much, either -- see linked graph again.) Which time period has to include almost all, or perhaps all, of Florida's sewer infrastructure -- Miami was officially incorporated as a city with a population of just over 300 on July 28, 1896. Fort Lauderdale was incorporated even later -- 1911. This tells us quite handily that region's sewage infrastructure was built during that 7.8 inch rise.
So if Florida's infrastructure is seeing drainage run backwards due to an 8 inch change in levels, that is clearly related to absolutely dismal design and implementation -- not to sea level rise. I mean, good grief. What do you think the design criteria were? "If anything at ALL happens, sewers should overflow?" Please refer to the actual data when making claims. Also: If your public officials have been telling you that this is due to sea level rise, they are lying through their teeth, and you should take them to task for it. Good luck with that.
Yes, no doubt. But they aren't fighting with sea level rise. They're fighting with incompetence.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Not when the change is so slow that you have generations to decide to move away from it, or alter your investments, it isn't. Every generation typically goes into new homes. Somewhere. Eventually, a generation (not this one or any one soon) will go... "y'know honey, instead of moving here in Miami, let's check out Vermont." Or where ever.
And you know what's kind of irritating? I never hear anyone going on about sea level rise mention this little fact: Change is the hottest possible breeding ground for opportunity. Change means employment, undertakings, recovery, rehabilitation, relocation, new methods, new ideas, new crops, new businesses. And so on.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So you believe runoff got so bad it raised the level of the ocean? WOW.
Sounds more like you'll make yourself believe nearly anything to avoid facing the truth.
Did you hit your head with a hammer before you posted that ?
Really I have no idea how you could be such a lackwit without physical damage.
More paved area = more area that needs artificial drainage = needs a larger drainage system so it doesn't back up.
Really I hope that clears things up for you. Now you can go back to people telling you end of the world stories, and how you have to support them to save the planet.
That story gets a lot of play in the denier land but the fault is not Hansen's but Salon's & Reiss'.
Hansen's prediction was for a FORTY year timeline AND doubled CO2 or approx 560 ppm.
Reiss reported it correctly in his book, The Coming Storm (2001) but when speaking to Salon, it became only 20 years and no mention of CO2 level.
Salon really needs to add a disclaimer or editor's note to that article.
Actually, I have seen several reports which indicate that Big Oil gives more money to scientists supporting AGW than they do to scientists opposing it.
Classic all-time backfires; much of the time, even trying to prove that it's okay to pollute is going to show the opposite, because duh.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
They also tried (through genetics as DNA wasn't theorized) to bring back extinct animals - eg the Auroch. They were partially successful.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
"Specifically, H.R. 3964would undermine years of collaboration between local, State, and Federal stakeholders to develop a sound water quality control plan for the Bay-Delta.
That's a joke.....the Bay-Delta water plan is not sound, and no one is happy with it. Everyone agrees it needs to change.....the problem is how to change it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
You are U.S.-centric. Smarter countries are ramping up their nuclear power programs and advanced reactor research. China right now uses almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined, but they have an agressive nuclear plant build-up in progress.
For most the country, solar power can't power the home and the car. But nuclear power can do both.
Nuclear dominance is inevitable, as China sees the limits of the solar panels for which they are the prime producers. So they are massively ramping up nuclear power production
So tell me, how does that put a dock under water? How does it require raising the whole sewer system to keep it working? How does it just happen to synchronize with the tide?
I can see it occasionally reversing the storm drains, of course, but some areas now have floods happen on a sunny day. It just comes up out of the ground.
Now pull your head out of your ass, the gas is making you woozy.
There can only be one explanation for a phenomenon, and it can never have anything to do with climate change. So obviously sea level rise has nothing to do with it. Because, LIBERALS!
There can only be one explanation for a phenomenon, and it is always everything to do with climate change. So obviously falling sea levels has nothing to do with it. Because, CONSERVATIVES!
See how stupid that sounds when the shoe's on the other foot?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
The Canadian government is already quietly jettisoning all manner of climate crapola at the federal level. Firing people, shuttering redundant and idiotic departments, things like that.
That may be true, but the Liberal Ontario government is determined to fuck the province over, even if they can't destroy the economy of the entire country.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Try again the context is quite clear.
Why don't you find me example of a dock under water in Florida from rising sea levels ?
Good luck there aren't any. But hell now you can go around creating a new category Dock Denialists.
Yes, and Ghenkis Khan also had a measurable effect on the environment, as forests regrew in the wake of his conquests:
http://carnegiescience.edu/new...
But really, liberals and conservatives really want the same thing... more wealth by reducing the competition for resources. One proposes using economic market forces, the other proposes reducing the competition with military forces. Either way, we win. Unless you lose. But then, you're dead, so you're part of the solution, so... yay?!
Oh and BTW when do you expect a sewer system to have problems ?
Seriously, is it just that you don't want to admit how completely you have been played ?
Looking forward to next months article "we are actually already dead".
Keep pumping that dogma! You can still squeeze a few more pennies out of the rubes before even they see you for the charlatans you are.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When it is below the new sea level, naturally.
Have a read.
Keep standing there denying, the bubbling sound you make after a while will be really funny.
What's the next excuse? Sunspots? Wind? The dog ate it?
Now troll no more.
I got the feeling he was speaking hypothetically but maybe not. In any case I just repeated what the IPCC had to say on the matter. I've seen one map showing a 300 foot rise in water level but I don't think anyone envisions that happening in the next decade or two. To rise 200-300 feet would require all of the world's ice to melt and that would certainly be a drastic change. 2.6 feet is bad enough and will cause a tremendous amount of problems. I differ with the global warming bunch in what can be done about it. I say nothing can be done to stop it. It's a result of billions of humans living on the planet and their activities and industry. Short of ridding the world of the majority of those people global warming will continue to climb. The changes required to actually do anything to stop the continued rise in warming are too much for people to accept. Too many sacrifices are required and getting most people to commit to that level of drop in lifestyle is impossible. Then we have emerging nations that want their day of prosperity as well. Perhaps technology can save us in the future but somehow I doubt that.
The repercussions of burning oil and coal are long term. Taxing people until they rebel will be much shorter and the repercussions bloody. Go ahead, triple the cost of electricity. I dare you. Make gasoline 8 dollars a gallon. Global warming will be the least of your problems. You'll need all those police drones and SWAT teams. Gulags here we come.
Why would I have to make excuses for something that isn't happening ?
Yeah you got trolled all right, by the guy who told you a story about an environmental disaster in Florida you were stupid enough to believe without checking.
I believe his claim is that pumping out the aquifers is causing land subsidence. This is a VERY reasonable claim. Pumping out oil caued much of Southern California to experience subsidence several decades ago, and aquifers, being closer to the surface, could be expected to have more dramatic (though more focused) effects. And I believe that there are many other cases where that is not in dispute. IIUC it's causing subsidence in California's San Joaquin Valley. Which, in turn, renders the San Joaquin Valley more threatened by sea level rise. I really doubt that the Tethy's Sea will reappear, however, unless much of Antarctica melts.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I guess you didn't read the detailed article I gave you in the other thread?
Of course not, it takes a lot of cool aid to erase that many facts.
Well, you could start by removing subsidies. And special privileges (like having your company offices protected by government troops).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
All IPCC group reports are finalised via political negotiation except for one group. WG1 is the scientific group, all the others refer back to the WG1 report for factual information, the other groups argue about how to present those facts in their own working group(WG). In 25yrs of incredibly intense scrutiny, nobody has ever found a factual error in the final versions of a WG1 report. That really is a very robust outcome and a credit to the scientists involved.
Only nations that donate to the IPCC budget get a vote on the other reports, last I checked there were ~135 nations who together represent pretty much every political view in the rainbow, it takes a long time for them to agree. The IPCC budget is $5-6M/yr, nobody who actually works on the reports is paid a dime by the IPCC, all of the scientists involved DONATE their time. Their financial accounts are on their web site. Try finding the accounts for an anti-science no-think-tank such Senator Inhofe's barking dog - the heartland institute.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Lets Hypothetically ?
https://news.google.com/newspa...
That would be like the "Hypothetically " ice free north pole by 2000 ?
Or would that be the same way the UN spoke of "Hypothetical" climate refugees
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
It's a result of billions of humans living on the planet and their activities and industry. Short of ridding the world of the majority of those people global warming will continue to climb
Real shame people don't take genocide well.
LOL you credit yourself with too much importance
Who are you and why should I care what you said or did someplace else ?
I think you underestimate the effects, though causal proof is going to be lacking. (Can't prove, e.g., that this prediction isn't caused by overfishins.) Fish are dying out. So are all sea animals that depend on a calcium skeleton. This is because increased carbon dioxide dissolved in sea water makes it more energetically expensive to extract calcium for the skeleton from the sea water. So I'm also talking about corals. Jellyfish will do well. So will some small animal (you need a magnifying glass, but not a microscope) that use silicon skeletons. Sharks and rays may do alright, but may need to adapt their diet.
On land many plants will not be able to be grown where they have traditionally been grown, but others will do ok. Many plants will become lower in protein and higher in starches as carbohydrates become energetically easier to build. diseases never before heard of will spread from the tropics. Etc.
(N.B.: Some of these predictions are sure things, because they are already happening.) Weather patterns will become more irregular, causing both more dorughts and more floods, longer heat waves and longer cold spells...and in these last two longer often translates into more extreme. Lots of other effects, mainly small, mainly difficult to causally tie to climate change (i.e., global warming). But whose probability of occurance can be reasonably be believed to be increased by global warming. (Do note that this included cold spells.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Weird how the AGWers cherry pick the Little Ice Age (basically the coldest point in the last 10,000 years) as their "normal" temperature that we should not go above, huh?
http://www.oarval.org/Foster_20k.jpg
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Do you think if we save some of our own DNA, the robots of the future will even want us back?
The reason is that the liberals in the west are allowing all other nations, ESP. CHINA, to continue growing their emissions. Even if America went to ZERO EMISSIONS TODAY, it would not change anything.
The ONLY way to solve this is to have ALL NATIONS STOP growing their emissions, and esp. stop building new coal plants.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
is whether we can figure out a way to avoid it as we go about destroying it through lack of knowledge about biology and planetary science on the part of the average citizen.
Yet at a time, we need even more scientists, republicans are slashing funds for education at all levels from pre-K on the Mississippi Delta to graduate study at the world's most prestigious universities. However, people shouldn't look to the media to educate themselves. After all, whats the point, if you've just enrolled in the School of Hard Knocks.
The current rate of change is around 2 orders of magnitude greater than it was coming out of the last ice age.
I keep hearing AGWers saying that, but it's just not supported by evidence. The end of an ice age is marked by a global increase of 10-15 degrees in a matter of a few decades; maybe 100 years, tops. We're warming at no where near this rate, right now.
http://www.oarval.org/Foster_20k.jpg
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
The problem with global warming is there's really no easy solution. By easy I mean feasible one. Barring a major technological solution it's just going to get warmer and the sea level will rise. Life will go on but it'll sure be a lot different. Maybe someone will come up with a core tap for energy or something like that.
$29 Billion of taxpayer money is given for those supporting AGW. Too bad the temperature has stabilized for the last 18 years.
Again the Central Greenland ice core graph that AC threw at me above. Tell me how that relates to global temperatures. You need to broaden your view.
Gore isn't a politician any more; he's a wannabe carbon-credit billionaire.
Merely taxing CO2 emissions doesn't accomplish anything other than increasing tax revenues. In order to actually limit emissions, you need to tax it so heavily that your administration will be thrown out in the next election.
just taking away their subsidies would make us pay the true cost of fossil fuel
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The person who provided citations to back my position. You would read it if you wanted to be educated. Clearly you are quite happy being a braying ass (how ironic).
But I have to ask, are you paid to spout drivel on /.? Surely nobody could actually believe that runoff from paved surfaces explains flooding on a clear day?!?
Either way, it hardly matters. You have proven yourself ineducable. You have your fingers jammed in your ears all the way up to your metacarpals and you're screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs. probably crying tears of desperation wondering how long until you have to gouge your eyes out in order to keep believing.
I have no more time for that crap.
china is ramping up all forms of power generation and capping coal, not just nuclear
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
i'd love to see those reports where Big Oil gives money to scientists supporting AGW, and as you ask at the bottom of your post, Do you have any citations which support your claim?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Yes, it has stabilized for the last 18 years. At the same time it has become warmer for the both the last 17 and the last 19 years.
Look, we already know that global warming is happening and that it is caused or aggravated by human activities, and whatever we do to mitigate it, we will have to live with the consequences for a long time - thousands of years. So, the sensible thing to do under all circumstances, is to learn to live with it - and another sensible thing to do is to try to predict as best we can, what the consequences will be. There will most likely be huge migrations away from arid countries, for one thing, and unless we want to have all out war against desperate people, who have nothing to lose, we will need to find a way to integrate them. It is not unlikely that we will need to abandon some of the lower-lying areas if the seas-level rises, and so on.
There are still very good reasons to stop doing the things that cause massive disruption of our environment - we have to face up to the fact that we as a species have a huge impact on this planet. We have managed to almost completely cut down natural forest in most of the places we live, we routinely change the course of rivers, build dams, strip mine whole mountains, decimate fish stocks etc. How anybody can imagine that this won't have a serious impact on the way we live at some point is beyound me.
Incredibly, there are still people - intelligent and well-informed people, even - who refuse to accept that our current lifestyle is causing massive issues that can't simply be addressed with a bit of half-hearted recycling; we need to learn to economise our resources. According recent statistics, supermarkets throw out huge amounts of food unsold, and on top of that, people discard about half of what they have bought; to my limited understanding of maths, that means we could save hugely on the environment just by learning not to waste so much - without actually cutting back on our real consumption. In short: we can make a big difference simply by not being idiots.
Which has nothing to do with the science. I'm sure it makes it easy for you to ignore the findings, but that speaks more about you than the science itself.
The money taken from the CO2 tax can be used to research how to fix the problem. So no, it accomplishes far more than just increasing tax revenue.
A literal ad hominem. That's all you have? Try attacking the science, not organisation associated with the group which publishes it. I guess you can't, though, hence that embarrassing post of yours.
Lets Hypothetically ?
https://news.google.com/newspa...
That would be like the "Hypothetically " ice free north pole by 2000 ?
Actually, the full quote is "...and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean..." (emphasis mine). The source of the claim, Berndt Balchen certainly had an interesting biography, but neither was he trained as a scientist, nor what the statement in a scientific publication.
Stephan
Remember this Synthesis report (Summary for Policymakers
It's a 30 page document that is a simple and clear exposé of the current state of climate science on global warming. You can read what the current observations on climate change are, what it's causes are, how this will affect us, what the risks are, how we can mitigate these risks.
On every statement there is a confidence level and every statement refers to a longer more elaborate report that explains the science behind it in more detail. And if that is not enough: this second report (about 100 pages) refers to the reports of the different workgroups (physical evidence, impact of climate change and how to mitigate the impact). These reports of those workgroups are often more than 1000 pages and refer directly to actual publications and scientific studies.
So either you read the first part and you are convinced, or keep reading...
My grilfriend is pregnant, yet we never had any sex, so it must be a mirracle, right? This even tough all doctors disagree with me, they are ALL wrong. Stoopid doctors.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I have seen the reports. I do not know if they are accurate or reliable. I am asked to present citations for this. Yet, I have repeatedly seen people claim that Big Oil supports AGW deniers but no one ever gives any citations to support that stance. It is just accepted as true.
Well here are some citations for what I said. I will repeat that I do not know if they are true, so don't respond by telling me they are biased sources:
http://www.climatedepot.com/20...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/la...
Even that promoter of non-skeptical acceptance of global alarmism "Skeptical Science" admits that Big Oil now supports AGW alarmism:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
There are more. How about some citations supporting the allegation that Big Oil supports AGW skeptics?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
So, I make suggest a valid method to reduce CO2 output and get modded flamebait, doesn't that just say it all.
I still don't hear anyone coming up with a better way.
So we have large agreement that CO2 emissions need to be reduced massively and large agreement that no-one wants to change their lifestyle in order to reduce CO2.
Can someone explain to me how CO2 from transport is going to be reduced if everyone insists on continuing driving fossil fuel vehicles?
Are the majority of the population going to drive less without any incentive to do so?
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
China is slowly down-grading it's nuclear plans. Their solar ambitions are far bigger.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
You naysay but you have no solution, do you have a better idea?
Your post paints humans as being pathetically childish and selfish, unfortunately I think you could be right.
If we don't tax fuel, 2C will be but one of many missed temperature goals.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
True, but the subsidies account for less than 10% of global fossil fuel investment AFAIK.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Completely wrong, you only have to look at the difference between US and EU cars, EU has been driving efficiency.
Doubly wrong, people stopped buying SUVs in the US when fuel prices rose, when the price dropped they started buying again.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
No, the external costs of fossil fuels to health and the environment are huge. Taking away subsidies doesn't change that.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Wrong, simply completely wrong.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
15 years after the prediction date the Arctic is still covered in ice and the and the Antarctic ice is expanding.
And your point is? Because one non-scientist made an ambiguous claim about a possible outcome, all scientific claims are invalid? We've started commercial shipping through the Arctic, and "Antarctic ice" is shrinking, what is growing slightly is maximum Antarctic sea ice extend.
Stephan
play again
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
for instance Morner did a study where he looked for - basically - the world's best historical tide gauge. (geologically stable, no land subsidence, post-glacial rebound, continental shelf issues etc.) that has records going way back.
he identified one in Croatia, I vaguely recall.
Anyway, the oceans have been rising there since the started recording ( in the 19th century) with no acceleration at all.
Advent of fossil fuels? no effect
amazing the number of people that post about this topic without understanding the basics
I tell you that I believe there is no simple solution and anything else is not politically feasible. It's difficult to get people to even accept that there is a problem at all, given that how can you expect people to sacrifice for a solution. Better to just plan and prepare for a warmer planet as that will be challenging enough.
I think I did say Gore is full of shit a few posts back. That is good for a laugh though.
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/...
Solutions don't have to be simple. Is a computer chip simple? No, does it work? Yes.
EU already has high fuel taxes, the trick is to keep ratcheting up the tax when the oil price falls. I'm not saying there should be one massive instant tax hike, that'd never work. Cigarette taxes in the UK have gone up relentlessly year after year. People are also addicted to their cars, the same method should be used.
Now is the perfect time to increase gasoline taxes in the US because the price is low. Then, increase the tax a small amount every 6 months. Use the proceeds to subsidise the purchase of electric cars and put systems in place to encourage people to charge their cars when renewable output is high.
The cost of dealing with global warming will far outweigh the cost of avoiding it.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Wow. The way humanity is going at this is completely wrong, and no one is talking about the real cause of global climate change. The real cause is animal husbandry for the purpose of producing meat. The planet can sustain 10 billion humans, but it cannot support the 80 billion farm animals that go with animal production for human consumption. The numbers are staggering: the transportation sector is responsible for 13% of greenhouse gas emission. The greenhouse gas emission for the meat industry is estimated between 31 and 50%. But Greenpeace and Sierra Club are too busy collecting money from the american public to actually attack the real issue and piss off meat eaters that might mean less donations for them. I did my part and went vegan, setting an example to my family of 4 (my wife and the kids are totally free to eat what they want and I will cook them meat if they ask, but they more and more choose to eat what I prepare for myself). I am not worried, though. The planet can take care of itself, and when we disappear, nature will start again with less selfish creatures like ants or termites. They are as good architects as we are and seem to be able to exist without threatening the entire ecosystem. If you like numbers, check-out http://www.cowspiracy.com/ you'll have a good starting point to understand the issue.
You mean they breed animals to be more like their distance extinct genetic cousins? That is interesting.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Yes, and Ghenkis Khan kicked ass. But there is a difference between a side-effect and a purposeful philosophy with a commitment to making something happen.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Someone needs to move first, and I think China has a pretty good argument that the rise from 320 ppm to 400 ppm from 1960 to 2015 is about 80% attributable to Western society. No wonder they're waiting for the West to stop further increase before they start. Posts like yours give a clear indication that the US will not make this first move.
Suppose you drop a piece of paper in a landfill, and suddenly you get slapped by a bill to clean up 50% of this landfill. Fair?
The funny thing is you just told everyone you don't know what you are talking about, and are just parroting what someone else told you. You didn't even realise you did it, for the very same reason - you don't know. You've been told enough to make you think you know, but when you put this information to the test by proffering it, all it does is say in large letters "This guy doesn't know what he's talking about! He's arguing for someone else!". Hint: Antarctic sea ice extent does not mean the world is not warming, but quite the opposite. The ice actually on Antarctica is not expanding.
If you got that simple fact wrong, what else have you got wrong? Clearly you're not a big believer in fact-checking, so what else have you completely misunderstood? The problem doesn't seem to be with the science, but your lazy attitude towards learning.
It's nutty, but it's worked before. If you can't see two massive examples dangling in front of your eyes like two hairy balls of truth, then there is no help for you, as you've clearly not given any thought to this what-so-ever, and opted to adopt the stance which absolves you from any blame and says you don't have to stop being greedy :)
There you go with your one piece of evidence which you seem to think overturns the mountains of evidence which says you have no clue. You are absolutely terrible at this. Please keep going - it's hilarious!
The Nazis wanted every home to own a car and a television, and of course Hitler ate sugar.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/c...
Are you running an over under on how long it takes you to forget this graph and start repeating the pure B.S. you have been fed ?
Try again
http://www.reportingclimatesci...
Total ice covering antarctica expanding despite Geothermal Melting
Want to explain just how atmospheric CO2 triggers vulcanism ?
But please keep on proving Emily Dickinson correct about the perils of an unexamined life.
This is a political paper quoting the druthers of have-not nations against the more affluent nations, the wishes of feminists and substituting "projected" consequences for real data. The ostensible remedies with 1 degree vs 2 degrees all seem to require massive redistribution of wealth from the US and a clamp on US energy production. There is no mention of such excellent energy solutions a liquid metal thorium reactors.
This is exactly the kind of garbage that passes for climate science.
Try again http://www.reportingclimatesci...
Total ice covering antarctica expanding despite Geothermal Melting
Want to explain just how atmospheric CO2 triggers vulcanism ?
But please keep on proving Emily Dickinson correct about the perils of an unexamined life.
From your source: "Antarctica as a whole has been shrinking in volume by 125 cubic kilometres a year." Do you read those sources, or do you just google for confirmation using bad search terms?
Stephan
I am sorry what is it about ice being melted by volcanoes escaped your notice ?
Despite that the coverage area is still increasing
I am sorry what is it about ice being melted by volcanoes escaped your notice ?
You mean the section that says "It is important to note that none of this research suggests that global warming and climate change are not affecting the ice sheets of Antarctica but they do imply that any melting due to global warming is being exacerbated by geothermal heating from beneath the ice cap"? Yes, I read that. I also read that "A survey of the thickness of the Earth's crust in Antarctica found a particularly thin zone under Marie Byrd Land, where the Thwaites Glacier is located, which is consistent with the presence of a 'major volcanic dome'", which indicates that this is a long-term effect and should not affect the net rate of melting - it would be part of the steady state if we had one.
Despite that the coverage area is still increasing
Again, what is increasing is the maximum sea ice extend. The ice mass balance is strictly negative - i.e. there is more ice melting than water freezing year over year. The amount of ice is going down, by about 70 Gt per year (albeit with large uncertainties), and accelerating.
Stephan
Try reading what you are saying.
Total ice coverage increasing = confirmation of warming
Total Sea ice increasing = confirmation of warming
Active volcano melting ice = confirmation of warming
Prediction no ice on the poles by 2005 = ?????
Sorry, my "his" referred to the "GGP", but your "his" referred to the "GGGP". The guy talking about sewers blackflowing was, as you read, talking about sea level rise. An answering post explained that it was due to land subsidence due to draining the aquifers. (And I may have the number of intervening posts incorrect in my GG..P nomenclature, but I *do* have the order correct.)
And so far the sea level rise is measured in inches, which is only significant in unusual events...such as when a hurricane passes by. Or a Tsunami. Or... well, other really unusual things, not things like tides.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
10% is a HUGE number in this kind of situation. It would probably be safer to do it over a decade at 1%/year decrease, but that would probably get cancelled (if it ever happened in the first place) before it ever went to completion. Huge changes like that are economically dangerous, and should ideally be done slowly. The problem is if you try to do them slowly, those who don't like them have time to get them cancelled before they happen (which is easier than either reinsating them or maintaining control over the entire decade).
The whole system is designed for the benefit of those currently powerful. (Well, actually those who were powerful during the last several decades, but that changes slowly enough that mostly they are the same people.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I think I did say Gore is full of shit
But not nearly so full of shit as the Daily Mail.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
A literal ad hominem.
No it isn't. OP was attacking an organisation. ;)
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
LOL.
First off, the US's output has been dropping for 7 years. Likewise, the west's total output has gone down over the last 10 years, not up. So, the BS about the west not making differences is just that: BS.
Secondly, China's claim is also BS.
Here is the CO2 levels
It took the west from 1959 until 1995 to grow it by 40 PPMs. IOW, it took 36 years to raise it 40, or basically, about 1 PPM / year.
Now, what has happened in the last 20 years? Well, it jumped up by 40 again, which means that we are adding 2 ppm EACH YEAR. However, for the last 5 years, it has increased nearly 3 ppm / year.
The problem is, that the west has cut WAY BACK. ALL OF IT is 1995's level which means that we account for less than 1 ppm (that 1 ppm in 1995, actually included all of the world, but we will simply assume that it was the west).
So, where is the other 2 PPMs coming from? It is coming from the none-western world, of which more than 2/3 of that emissions is China's.
Now, you can continue to make wild claims. You can accept the lies of China's. However, you can NOT change the facts that CO2's massive rise belongs to China, and it is the fact that ppl like yourself do not understand the science or the facts that are happening. Basically, you are no different than the far right wingers that claim that AGW is not occurring. In your case, you refuse to accept the science that shows that the west is not only NOT to blame, but that China's continued growth means that YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CO2's impact on the globe.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Even if America went to ZERO EMISSIONS TODAY, it would not change anything.
Firstly: that's not true. Even though China has a much higher population than the US, the emissions per person in the US are that much higher that the US emits almost as much CO2 as China.
Secondly: The US, as one of the countries with the highest emissions should lead the efforst instead of standing back (or even blocking agreements).
Last but not least: you seem to say: I know climate change is real, I know we caused it. I jus't can't be bothered to actually do something about it. Because that may involve CO2 taxes (OH NO!!), or investing in Solar and Wind power (UGH) or even massively investing in fusion (e.g. the Iter project) (!!!!!)
No. Let's just keep going as we are today. I prefer to close my eyes. When things go wrong we 'll just hope for the best...
Taxpayer-funded climate worriers wouldn't have a job if they disagreed with him.
From the IPCC website "Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva"
So they are not taxpayer-funded...
i was just calling you out on the lack of citations supporting your claim after you called someone else out for the lack of citation for their claim.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Except of course that Big Oil is paying scientists for studies which say that we need to stop using their products. Even the site which opposes skeptical thinking about AGW says so: http://www.skepticalscience.co... [skepticalscience.com]
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Well give it a try then. Don't complain when all the guys that voted the tax increase are out of office next election. Well....you can complain it just wont do you any good. I'm not saying it's a bad thing as I would like to see less fuel consumption myself but I do know human nature. People get tired of someone else reaching into their pocket and helping themselves to their money.
First, emissions per capita is a waste of a measurement. The vast majority of Emissions are NOT tied to ppl. They are tied to GDP. Basically, oil based vehicles combined with coal based electricity is where our emissions come from. What is the majority of vehicles used for? Moving ppl/cargo for business, not personal use. Likewise, where does the majority of electricity go? To Business.
Secondly, America's emissions are ALREADY BELOW WHAT WE HAD IN 1995. IOW, we have have been leading it. However, America is not even CLOSE to the high emissions. CHina is.
When you look at this map and see the MASSIVE AMOUNTS of CO2 from China, you should get a sense of how bad things are, and how foolish ppl like you are.
Third, you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I never said or even thought. I fully support a CO2 tax. In fact, I believe that ALL NATIONS need to be smart about this and put on a tax. Interestingly, America is the one major nation that can force ALL OTHER NATIONS ALONG VIA A SMART TAX:
1) all data should be based on REAL numbers, not the made up shit that your silly groups do based on ASSUMPTIONS and NUMBERS FROM GOV. So, we should take OCO2 data and show the CO2 that flows INTO and OUT of a region (basically nations/states). This would show us how much real CO2 is occurring.
2) we need a SMART normalization. Normalizing based on per capita is stupid and foolish. Instead, it should be emissions per $GDP (real $, not PPP). This is because emissions are tied to GDP, not ppl.
3) finally, we tax all goods at a high level. However, the good can be registered and told where the parts (including the final assembly) are from. The WORST part is the % of tax that is applied.
So, lets say that a good is manufactured in say Sweden. It has one of the LOWEST emissions / $GDP. As such, it would have NO TAX. OTOH, if a part comes from China, it would have a 100% of that tax on the good. However, lets say that the worst part comes from say Massachusetts (an American state). Since their emissions per GDP is below average (closer to sweden than to the rest of America, which is average), it would leave a tax of maybe 33-40% of the full rate.
What that does is reward those that bring down their emissions, while punishing those that continue to raise theirs. This is the ONLY way that we can solve this.
Until ppl like you realize that FACTS can not be denied and that science is real, emissions will continue. And I will blame ppl like you, instead of the far right wingers, since you acknowledge the science of AGW, but then turn around and totally ignore the facts associated with it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well, considering that most professors of geology and such state that various ice cores are quite good proxies for global temperatures, and that they correlate well with other indicators of global temperatures, such as glacier advances and retreats, then I'd say it relates quite well to global temperatures. After all, it's the experts that say that, not just me.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
The Younger Dryas Period noted in the graph is a well defined cooling period in Western Europe and Greenland but not so much for the rest of the globe. No doubt the rest of the globe cooled some too during the period but Greenland was one of the places the Younger Dryas manifested itself most strongly. So again I ask, is that a fair proxy for the whole globe and the rate of temperature change or do you need to look at it in combination with other proxies from around the globe to understand the big picture?
Ok. Then I have misread you. Your first post seemed to suggest that we shouldn't do anything about climate change because it would never work (and reading it back I see some nuance but it still strikes me as such).
The idea that a worldwide CO2 taks could be forced certainly appeals to me. I do not, however, share your revulsion for using CO2 numbers from governments. In fact since CO2 doesn't stop at the borders it will hard to make a model that accurately calculates the CO2 produced in a country (Belgium, e.g. where I live is only about 250 miles from one end to the other and it has the German Ruhr Industrial site, one of the biggers industry concentrations in Europe, close by).
And last but no least: I don't think I ignore the facts around global warming and I am in favor of any measure that could counteract it. Just to be clear: I think we SHOULD make a CO2 taks, that we HAVE to invest in solar and wind power and we MUST massively invest in fusion power. In my Original post I was being sarcastic...
Those are the observations. However AGW says this cannot happen (CO2 rise must result in temperature rise, yet this is not observed). This we must conclude that the AGW hypothesis is falsified. We need better models - because it appears CO2 emitted by humans is not the dominating factor in climate variability.
Here is a better model:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This guy wrote a graduate textbook on atmospheric physics. He knows his stuff.
Note: the IPCC doesn't care about the climate. Those IPCC members who are non-scientists have stated many times that the goal is global wealth redistribution. That is why they don't care what the data say, they are still going to proceed with their goal of immediate socialist wealth confiscation (and since even the poorest Slashdotter is relatively rich compared to the bulk of the World, they intend taking from you).
Actually, OCO2's (and hopefully more sats like it), ability is to see how much CO2 is over an area. We can see the generation and we can see what happens as it moves around. It is far more accurate than numbers from govs.. Keep in mind that it is in govs best interest to lie about local coal production, unless there are measurements. For China, they forbid the importing of such instruments, without direct gov permission. I have friends that work on other pollution for America and they went to China to measure. They were allowed to as long as they gave the numbers directly to the gov. What was not known was that they were also measuring the CO2. It is MUCH higher than is generally known. So much higher that they are emitting even more PER CAPITA than America (4 years ago, they were just under America per capita according to their measures). So no. I do NOT trust gov. or groups measurements. That is why I have been wanting OCO2 for a LONG TIME. China's gov and groups can not deny what is shown in that map. And by next year, the numbers will show up to be much worse, even though China's economy is actually tanking.
Fusion will likely not be the answer for another 40 years. At least if it is by ITER. For now, we NEED fission. In particular, we need it to use up all of the 'spent waste'.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Hansen ventures into Al Gore hyperbole levels when he's talking to the media. However, his science is sound as far as I can tell. I have yet to come across any serious critic of Hansen's scientific papers from a distinguished scientist in the same field.
You spew without facts.
Chicago, IL 3.5 hours of quality sun a day. 612 KWh per month. Not enough.
Your turn.