Global Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach New Monthly Record

mrflash818 writes: For the first time since we began tracking carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere, the monthly global average concentration of carbon dioxide gas surpassed 400 parts per million in March 2015, according to NOAA's latest results. “It was only a matter of time that we would average 400 parts per million globally,” said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. “We first reported 400 ppm when all of our Arctic sites reached that value in the spring of 2012. In 2013 the record at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory first crossed the 400 ppm threshold. Reaching 400 parts per million as a global average is a significant milestone."

Comments

Meh

[Kernel Kurtz]

Just another arbitrary number

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats on getting the first "la la la can't hear you" post.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another arbitrary number that indicates the Earth's atmosphere will adsorb more of the sun's infrared (heat) radiation that reaches us, increasing the average temperature at the Earth's surface. This is how you spell Global Warming!

Re:Meh

[Squiddie]

I guess the amount of money that will be spent dealing with the coming mess, the lives that will be ruined, and ocean levels are just arbitrary numbers as well.

Re:Meh

[riverat1]

Yes, an arbitrary number but humans tend to take note of round numbers more than others. While it's likely that the number will dip slightly below 400 ppm this coming (Northern Hemisphere) autumn and maybe in the autumn of 2016 after that no one currently alive will ever see the CO2 level drop below 400 ppm again.

Re:Meh

[craighansen]

This was predictable based upon the Keeling curve, which has a seasonal oscillation based upon northern hemisphere plant growth. http://www.climatecentral.org/... About two years ago, the peaks of the CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Kea exceeded 400 ppm. Now the average is 400ppm, and in about two years, the trough of the CO2 concentration will exceed 400ppm.

The way things are going that'll be the last point we see 400ppm until the next extinction event.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think, if we were using Base-16, it'd be....

190 per F4240.

That's not bad at all.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I can hear that you are a nigger.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a big deal. Nobody alive will ever see the Cubs win the world series again either. Wake me up if it's carbon monoxide that's increasing, otherwise we'll just let nature grow a few more plants and solve the "problem".

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

ERRRMEGURD

Disaster predicted by scientificators once again.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't absorb more from the Sun, it just traps more of the long wave IR that would radiate back to space. And ... "adsorb"?

Re:Meh

[ASDFnz]

190 per F4240.

Much better number than 110010000 per 11110100001001000000

Still not as good as 7uj per 68GP though (base58)

Re: Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

And what are you doing about it? I mean really doing about it to cut back on co2 emmisions? My guess is absolutly nothing just like the other 99.9% of global warming pushers. Oh you ride your bike to work on occasion? Wow. At least YOU feel comfortable thinking you are at least doing something. That bike riding and your hybrid makes you feel good and you set the bar at such a low level. Go turn on your tv and sit in your house with the lights on and feel good about yourself. Take a nice warm shower in the morning too. You deserve it.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Being the highest number isn't arbitrary

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a typo, but it's a valid word, and a valid chemical process. Unfortunately, capturing molecules on the surface of a material has nothing to do with atmospheric thermal transfer.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

400 parts per million means CO2 is 0.04 % of the atmosphere. Meanwhile, water vapor makes up between 3 and 4%. CO2 remains a trace gas.

Re:Meh

[rossdee]

We shouldnt be measuring levels on Mauna Kea
It might upset the natives and their gods

Re:Meh

[Kernel Kurtz]

Change has always happened and money has always been spent dealing with it. It's not like we are starting from zero and OMG change is suddenly happening. You'd think the world was static before the 70s.......

Yes, it is warming. It's been warming for most of the historic record (short as that is http://woodfortrees.org/plot/h... ) . It is an interglacial so I'd bet on a long term warming trend too.

+ 0.02 ± 0.10 "records" just make it look desperate though. Sorry if I would never bet any actual money on any of their models.

Re:Meh

[pitchpipe]

Meh
Just another arbitrary number

Funny, that's the exact same thing your mom said.

Re:Meh

[binarylarry]

I think what we need to do is genetically engineer some kind of "plant" that can breathe carbon dioxide. Perhaps this "plant" could extract the oxygen component which would solve our problem with increased CO2.

It could then "adsorb" the excess CO2 and make the world a cleaner place.

Re:Meh

[Wonko the Sane]

The way things are going that'll be the last point we see 400ppm until the next extinction event.

CO2 levels below 400 ppm is relatively close to the level at which plants can not survive.

In terms of having healthy land ecosystems, 1000 - 2000 ppm is a far more historically normal range

Re: Meh

[Bruha]

Led lights, fuel efficient cars. We have choices to help fix things. But you fuckers get bent out of shape just trying to get you to use a different light bulb.

Re:Meh

[itzly]

Perhaps this "plant" could extract the oxygen component which would solve our problem with increased CO2.

The CO2 problem is too big to be solved by plants, especially since the viable space would be competing for bigger economic interests.

Re:Meh

[Panspechi]

But where would this 'plant' put it, especially when it dies? Should it have other 'plants' bury it so in 50 million years our dinosaurs mutant children will have clean coal to burn?

Re:Meh

[itzly]

CO2 levels below 400 ppm is relatively close to the level at which plants can not survive.

CO2 has been in the 200-275 ppm range for the last million years, and plants did fine.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Still on the low end of the historic average.

And Look! We are all still here!

Re:Meh

[Jack Griffin]

Those economic interests are only bigger while millions of people aren't dying in the streets. Sooner or later CO2 control will become the biggest economic interest there is.

Re:Meh

[itzly]

Yes, but the people deciding today will be long dead by then.

Re:Meh

[bjwest]

It doesn't absorb more from the Sun...

absorb (verb) take in or soak up (energy, or a liquid or other substance) by chemical or physical action, typically gradually.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you tell mine? They seem to keep dying on me.

Re:Meh

[PatientZero]

1000 - 2000 ppm is a far more historically normal range

According to ice core samples going back 400 thousand years, the historical maximum was 300ppm until 1950.

Re:Meh

[silentcoder]

I think he wants us to invent mats of gigantic flying plankton.
Because... you know, the sky being GREEN would be so much better.

Re:Meh

[silentcoder]

That's only true if you define historic average to include billions of years when we were NOT here (making your second sentence erm... dumb).
We were evolved for a temperate climate, we did not evolve in the carboniferous age, we almost certainly could not have survived then - we have no guarantee we can survive in any climate other than the one we evolved in - and this is far above the average for ANY period in that age.

We merely need to look at the recorded history of much SMALLER climate events in our history to see how badly adapted we are to significant changes in global climate. Krakatoa went off in 1883 - not that long ago and technologically VERY recent. 1884 was Europe's year without a summer - just one year where a major event disrupted the normal climate pattern hugely (dust from the volcano blocked the sun out over Europe).
Go look up the death toll of that... there previous thing to get anywhere close to that many dead bodies in Europe was the black death, more people died from that double-winter than from the Spanish Flu in 1918 and World War 1 combined.
Many killed by the cold itself, many more starved because of the resulting crop failures.

And that was relatively tiny, it only really affected one continent - and only for one year (on the upside: it directly led to the writing of Frankenstein).

Now imagine something like that, on a global scale, lasting decades or centuries... you talk of historic averages but you carefully leave out context. Massive climate changes like that have, historically, been responsible for the largest mass extinctions in the history of our planet. Indeed, far more dinosaurs were made extinct by the nuclear winter CAUSED by the asteroid than were killed by the asteroid impact itself. And COLD is a LOT easier to deal with than hot.
The largest extinction event that ever happened, the Cambrian mass extinction killed 96% of all living organisms at the time - and the most likely cause of it was significant climate change caused by living organisms altering the atmosphere.

In context your trite dismissal is not as convincing as you thought now is it. Also - there is no need for US to die for a climate event to make us extinct, technology could help us cope with a climate change perhaps... but it may not save us, because we are not an independent species, our survival depends on the eco-systems we are a part off, which is made up of ALL the other species alive today. None of which has technology... take too many of them out, and we'll go too. Technology can't provide us with food when none of our crops can grow anymore. It can't protect us when mosquitos grow 1m wingspans (which they have done before and could again in the right climate conditions).

But go ahead, fuck with something you don't understand for a bit of convenience. Since YOU don't understand it you get to dismiss the people who DO understand it without evidence and carry on regardless right ?

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

It snowed last winter. So Global Warming is a hoax! Hur. Hur. Hur.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

It is an interglacial so I'd bet on a long term warming trend too.

Jesus Christ - did you even bother to make sure you understood what interglacial actually means?

And some retard modded you up for this?

Re:Meh

[tmosley]

It really doesn't. The IR peak for CO2 is very, very sharp, meaning it doesn't hold in much of the spectrum t all, no matter what the concentration is. Think of it like laying out in the tundra, freezing to death, having a ten meter tall stack of washrags on your chest. Then you double the height of the washrag stack, only to find you aren't any better off. What you need is a nice, broad, nonsaturated blanket, like water vapor, which, surprise surprise, humans force into the air in an ever increasing amount thanks to construction of non-permeable surfaces that catch rainwater as well as irrigation and even producing more by burning hydrocarbons.

Even explains the "pause" in global warming, as the global economy has slowed, there has been less construction worldwide overall, and some construction has even been torn down (see places like Detroit).

Only difference is that water vapor is in a tight equilibrium, which would mean that any warming is reversible, but of course that doesn't fit the agenda of the socialists in environmentalists clothing, who want to destroy capitalism as an ends unto itself (witness their hatred for nuclear power, which produces no CO2).

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The Climate Scientists understand shit. Otherwise we'd have less than 50 conflicting explanations for the Pause.
2. You prove the point by pointing out that we weren't around when it was 1000ppm. Why was it that high back then? Something else the Climate Scientists don't fucking understand.
3. You don't understand what's happening yet you think you can control it.

What a fucking arrogant cunt.

Re: Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Shelly wrote Frankenstein about a half century before the date you cite. What else in your post is completely wrong?

Re: Meh

[Bob the Super Hamste]

There in lies the problem. The hardcore greenie basically wants to end human civilization as we know it and they are the ones that get a lot of the press. Then you have the look at me greenies who want to appear to be green, these are the ones that typically drive a Prius and have a million social justice bumper stickers on it and will condemn you because you don't appear green. Then on the flip side you have the crazies who just want to stick it to the 2 types of greenies I mentioned and will go hook up a vacuum line to a jug of motor oil in their vehicle. Most Americans don't fall into any of these camps but if you take any action either way you will be painted as being in one of them.

I am not what most would consider an environmentalist as there really aren't any outward signs, but I am probably "greener" than all but the most wacky hardcore ones. While I have a natural gas water heater it was the most efficient one I could find when I had to replace it, and then I added a water heater blanket to it as well as insulated my pipes. All of the lights in my house except 2 or 3 are LED or CFL ones and the few that aren't are the ones that haven't burned out in the 13 years I have been in my house because they are used to infrequently. I added extra insulation up in the rafters and now have 24" of blown in insulation up there. I grow a bunch of my own food each summer and then preserve it, and for meat I get it from a local farmer who actually cares or I hunt. At some point I will be installing a ground source heat pump to replace my furnace and air conditioning when one of them fails, and I eventually I will install 14Kw of solar capacity on my roof with a battery backup. While I don't own a hybrid car I do have a vehicle that gets pretty good gas mileage and meets my needs (about 35mpg) but it is 13 years old and has almost 140,000 miles on it. My wife doesn't drive much and when her 15 year old car dies it will be replaced by an electric one.

None of these actions or planed actions were taken for the sake of saving the planet but instead because over the long run save me money, or because I get a higher quality for the same price. Then again I am willing to look beyond initial purchase price which a lot of people can't seem to do. It is similar to things you see for sale, there are the slightly cheaper items for sale but the quality is substantially lower and in the long run you will spend more going with the cheap option.

Re: Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

The IR absorbance of CO2 may be narrow but it occurs in the region where the rest of the atmosphere's contents are transparent. As such it will absorb the IR which would normally pass through and out into the wider atmosphere, heating the earth surface.

Re:Meh

[pastafazou]

we have no guarantee we can survive in any climate other than the one we evolved in
Seriously? We have cultures living above the arctic circle, in the dense jungles of the rain forests, in the Sahara desert, at extreme altitudes in the Himalayas. In fact, we've demonstrated pretty well that we can survive in every climate that exists.

Re: Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, can anyone now respond with, if you lower carbon dioxide below the projected 200 ppm, what happens? Even less good. Even the steak haters would starve. Or this one, oh,oh,oh, Mr carter! What would you say, if you were told, the volcano, that they make this measurement off of, was venting more often, would that upset the measurement? Or invalidate the program. Last year we didn't have any 100 degree days, where I live. We had a less snow, so there is less moisture in the air. The tempretures used to average, 20 degree difference high/low, now it's 30 degree, showing the relative humidity of old winters. We need global warming to heat the area again.

Re: Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I planted a coconut on the beach in Animal Crossing New Leaf and it died a few days later. Was I supposed ro use the watering can on it?

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

3. You don't understand what's happening yet you think you can control it.

Knowing there is a problem, and knowing the solution, are two different things. Not knowing the latter doesn't mean going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" regarding the former.

Re: Meh

[LWATCDR]

The biggest help is Nuclear power. But the Greens are fighting it.
Germany is a prime example. Sure they have built out a lot of Solar and Wind but they are replacing Nuclear with COAL!
The say in 20 or so years ago they can replace coal with "renewables" which is just pushing it off and pumping out carbon.
Solar will not work because of storage.
And no Tesla has not solved that problem. Vermont Yankee which was a small nuclear plant produced on average 4703 GWh per year. It would take 1,287,612 Tesla power walls to provide a 24 hour reserve. The cost would be 4,506,642,000 and that is just for a 24 hour storage system. In the winter you could have many areas where solar output is close to zero for more than a day but if you want cut that in half and put it at 12 hours. And that is JUST the battery costs. Add in solar and wind turbines to match the 4703 GWhs and the math gets super ugly very quickly.
And Vermont Yankee was a small plant. BTW it is has been replaced with carbon producing fracked natural gas... Yea... Yell the greens!
BTW the Saint Lucie Nuclear power plant in Florida which is far from the largest produces just under 3 times as much power. So figure about 3 million power walls.

Re:Meh

[itzly]

Only difference is that water vapor is in a tight equilibrium

And that equilibrium is determined by air temperature. It doesn't matter how many non-permeable surfaces we use, if the atmosphere doesn't heat up, the vapor will just precipitate back out.

Re:Meh

[johnlcallaway]

And not understanding the problem or it's effects could also result in the wrong solution. Or an ineffective one that just wastes money.

When climate scientists stop throwing darts against a wall, I'll listen to them.

In the meantime, I'll do my best to reduce my carbon footprint. But I'm not about to change my entire way of life (which some of the more fanatical alarmists would like), when they can't come up with anything beyond a computerized guess.

Re: Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

A fucking $20 lightbulb!

Re:Meh

[goodmanj]

Your post has some basis in scientific facts, but misrepresents their implications.

The CO2 peak is a fairly narrow range of infrared, but it's right at the wavelength that the Earth emits most strongly. To say that it's unimportant is like a traffic reporter saying that 99% of the roads in a city are wide open, only the main freeway is gridlocked, so no big deal. What matters is the fraction of total outgoing energy that CO2 prevents from escaping, which is roughly 20%. Keeping in mind that zero blockage would correspond to a global temperature of -18 C / 0 F, and 50% restriction would give a temperature of +30 C / 86 F -- 20% is a big deal. Just going from 20% to 25%, which is what we're looking at, is also a pretty big temperature shift.

Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, but human emissions of it do not change the amount of it in the atmosphere for three reasons. First, the tight feedback you mentioned (the Clausius-Claperyon relation) means that any extra water added immediately falls out as extra rainfall. Second, human emissions of water vapor via combustion amount to 2 gigatons per year, or a global layer or liquid water 4 microns thick -- utterly insignificant next to the natural evaporation and rainfall of about 1 meter per year. Third, you mentioned increase in paved surfaces that would "catch rainwater", but precisely the opposite happens: water drains quickly off pavement and into rivers and sewers, while natural soils remain moist for longer.

That's not to say that water vapor's role as a greenhouse gas is unimportant: if temperature rises for any reason (including from CO2 greenhouse effect), the Clausius-Claperyon relation allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, amplifying the warming.

The upshot: water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, but that doesn't call the role of CO2 into question: instead it amplifies the importance of CO2.

http://climatemodels.uchicago....
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Re: Meh

[tmosley]

That's not true at all, actually. It's right in the middle of the water "peak".

I suspect that you just made that up because it sounds like it would be an argument for your "side". Feel free to prove me wrong, though.

Re:Meh

[tmosley]

Is it always 100% humidity in your world?

A 2% increase in average humidity would account for all observed warming over the last century.

Re:Meh

[goodmanj]

You've got your maunas mixed up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

Re: Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

We have choices and that is good. What is not good is when some one tells others that they know what is best for them and they take away the choices.

Re:Meh

[budgenator]

Humans occupy the Earth's surface from past the Arctic circle to the Sahara desert, humans can handle a couple degrees difference in climate; the reason Enviro-whackoes hate Humans so much is because we're the apex predator that can survive anywhere.

Re: Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't find this thread on my computer so I can't link anything you'll have to Google the image "CO2 IR spectra"

You should notice a whopping big peak at about 4micrometers (=2350cm-1).

The atmosphere is transparent between the ranges of 3-5um and 8-12um which is why these ranges are used for thermal IR imaging (called MWIR and LWIR respectively). The CO2 absorbs at just over 4um which is an issue- it is exactly where the atmosphere should be transparent.

Notre take a look at water IR spectra and compare, cf. 3-5um range and 8-12

Re: Meh

[silentcoder]

There is a huge difference between every climate that exists and every climate that has existed or could exist. All of those examples occurred within a temperate climate age. They seem extreme to our eyes but by earth standards they are just the edges of a very narrow band out of a massive possible one. Good luck having an industrial society on snowball earth (any society at all is unlikely). For that matter good luck surviving in the carboniferous with insects as big as emus around.

Re:Meh

[budgenator]

400Kyr that's nothing

Re: Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh wow, great help. At least you feel good about saving the planet and blaming everyone else for the problem. How about taking cold showers, not heating or cooling your home at all? You don't want to do that. Global warming must not really mean much to you then. You set the bar at some random low level and anyone and everyone else is the problem. Comical.

The answer to the global warming problem people is swap out some lights with LEDs and drive a "fuel efficient" car. At least that is what the parent +5 comment seems to indicate.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankenstein was first published in 1818. I think you might have meant 'Dracula'.

Re: Meh

[pastafazou]

Maybe you want to spend a few months up in Iqaluit before you start spouting off about how all those examples are temperate. And FYI, even during the ice ages, there was plenty of tropical land not buried in snow. I think you'd be surprised at just how adaptable the human race is to new climates. The carboniferous would be no problem for us to adapt to. Big insects? Big deal. We've survived bears, wolves, tigers, lions, alligators, and more.

Re:Meh

[Jack Griffin]

Which is why we need new leaders who have enough vision to think about our children and their children, not just themselves.

Re: Meh

[silentcoder]

Erpingham wrong. But since your replying to things I didn't say. And we have growing evidence of snowball earth : an ice age where the polar caps actually reached the equator and the oceans froze. There may have been no liquid water anywhere on earth for almost a hundred thousand years (which would explain the cambrian mass extinction ). Compared to what an actual non interglacial climate looks like nothing out there today is more than minor statistical variance. But even so how big a population can your little example support? Just because a small number of people can adapt to an extreme case doesn't mean that case can support humanity. Killing billions isn't a good outcome. And cold is easier to adapt to than heat. Adding energy to a system or preserving more is an easy engineering problem to solve. Blankets solve it. Getting rid of excess energy is much harder.

Re: Meh

[pastafazou]

If you can turn the earth into a snowball in a single year, then yes I would think we'd suffer a massive loss in population. But if you want to have a logical discussion, you need to ditch the hyperbole. There's no way our planet is going snowball lightning fast without some sort of catastrophic asteroid or volcanism event. As for which is more survivable, cold versus hot, all evidence points to life flourishing with warmer worldwide temperatures. What we don't know is the optimal temperature, after which increasing heat will begin to hamper life instead. But whatever, you're entitled to your opinion, and I thank you for sharing and defending your wrong opinion.

Re: Meh

[silentcoder]

Life yes. Humans ? No. There is no evidence of that. We've only EVER existed in a temperate interglacial climate era.
Switches in climate are a lot quicker than you think - the average time is a few hundred thousand years, which is NOTHING compared to the age of the earth.

The fact is - even if WE could adapt we'd STILL lose billions - because what we can't do is adapt everything ELSE we depend on just as quickly. The history of the earth is very clear about that - large climate shifts ALWAYS coincide with mass extinction events.
Life is resilient, even bloody minded, it's survived everything the universe (quite literally sometimes) could throw at it, but species - species are not.

The average lifetime to a species is 10 million years, humans are ALREADY there.

And don't assume our technology would save us, it's absolute ignorant arrogance to assume we're the first species to achieve this level of technology. The only thing we have any evidence for is that if there were previous species that achieved similar intelligence they didn't make it to the building-satelites point, but that's just a few decades - an evolutionary blink of an eye, it's meaningless.
Scientists like Jack Cohen will tell you that if we were wiped out tomorrow it's quite likely that in ten million years those satelites will be the ONLY evidence we were ever here - in a billion years... it's almost a guarantee.
The fossil record almost certainly doesn't include more than 1% of the species that have actually existed - any of them could have taken intelligence that one tiny step we took beyond our peers - and become self referrential... and it's likely that SEVERAL did... and left not a shred of evidence.
Of course, it's entirely possible we ARE the first - but we have no evidence for THAT either and statistically, it's the least likely idea since some stone age ancestors of ours figured the world was made by a giant sky fairy and, much like their crazy notion, it's based on arrogant self importance: they believed that because it meant the world was made for them... we believe we're the first to do what we've done, because it would make us special.

We probably aren't.

Re:Meh

[gzuckier]

The way things are going that'll be the last point we see 400ppm until the next extinction event.

CO2 levels below 400 ppm is relatively close to the level at which plants can not survive.

In terms of having healthy land ecosystems, 1000 - 2000 ppm is a far more historically normal range

So, for all those hundreds of years when it was 280 up until the last century, the earth was a desert. Good to know. The liberal textbooks cover it up.

Re:Meh

[gzuckier]

It really doesn't. The IR peak for CO2 is very, very sharp, meaning it doesn't hold in much of the spectrum t all, no matter what the concentration is. Think of it like laying out in the tundra, freezing to death, having a ten meter tall stack of washrags on your chest. Then you double the height of the washrag stack, only to find you aren't any better off. What you need is a nice, broad, nonsaturated blanket, like water vapor, which, surprise surprise, humans force into the air in an ever increasing amount thanks to construction of non-permeable surfaces that catch rainwater as well as irrigation and even producing more by burning hydrocarbons. Even explains the "pause" in global warming, as the global economy has slowed, there has been less construction worldwide overall, and some construction has even been torn down (see places like Detroit). Only difference is that water vapor is in a tight equilibrium, which would mean that any warming is reversible, but of course that doesn't fit the agenda of the socialists in environmentalists clothing, who want to destroy capitalism as an ends unto itself (witness their hatred for nuclear power, which produces no CO2).

And here's the calculated plot of the earth's emission, with that "sharp" absorption, at 100 ppm CO2 and 1000 ppm CO2. http://www.skepticalscience.co... go ahead and repeat with a straight face how insignificant that little hole at wavenumber 667 is.

Re:Meh

[Plumpaquatsch]

We shouldnt be measuring levels on Mauna Kea It might upset the natives and their gods

The Koch Brothers?

Re:Meh

[Plumpaquatsch]

400 parts per million means CO2 is 0.04 % of the atmosphere. Meanwhile, water vapor makes up between 3 and 4%. CO2 remains a trace gas.

Yeah. And the regulations for contaminations in drinking water are ridiculous too, they pretend that concentrations far beyond 1 parts per billion of some agents could be dangerous to humans. Those fools! Nothing below 1% can have even a slight effect.

Re: Meh

[Agripa]

There is a lot of overlap with the absorption of water and a lot more water in the atmosphere; if the absorption in that band is already large, then a change in CO2 will have little effect. I could do the integration but when I look up the data for the absorption of CO2 and water versus wavelength, I get wildly different curves depending on the source.

Re: Meh

[Agripa]

I get bent out of shape when environmentalism results in rent seeking instead of solutions.

Re:Meh

[Plumpaquatsch]

Humans occupy the Earth's surface from past the Arctic circle to the Sahara desert, humans can handle a couple degrees difference in climate;

With heavy protective gear, or inside.

The Debate is Over

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC2rotlX9Js

I shall celebrate this wonderous achievement

[Anonymous Coward]

by turning on my air conditioner.

"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Anonymous Coward]

Freeman Dyson

"Generally speaking, I'm much more of a conformist, but it happens I have strong views about climate because I think the majority is badly wrong, and you have to make sure if the majority is saying something that they're not talking nonsense." - Freeman Dyson (who is smarter and more educated about damn near anything, than any of you fools).

"What I’m convinced of is that we don’t understand climate." - Freeman Dyson

As a general rule, if Freeman Dyson doesn't understand something, you don't, either.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[by (1706743)]

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[53] However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends: ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Freeman Dyson also doesn't understand gravity (no one does). But that doesn't mean some vague claims can't be made about the two -- "heavy objects hurt when they fall on your foot" isn't a rigorous scientific statement, but it is true, as is his (vague) quote above.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[ShanghaiBill]

As a general rule, if Freeman Dyson doesn't understand something, you don't, either.

Freeman Dyson is not a climatologist, and should not be expected to understand it. He also has a strong contrarian streak, and will oppose almost any viewpoint that he perceives as a consensus. He is not a denier, he is a skeptic. But he is a skeptic of pretty much everything.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a term for what you've just said: argument from authority. That's a logical fallacy, and you're the poster child for it. Freeman Dyson suggests that you shave with a chainsaw.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Crashmarik]

Freeman Dyson

"Generally speaking, I'm much more of a conformist, but it happens I have strong views about climate because I think the majority is badly wrong, and you have to make sure if the majority is saying something that they're not talking nonsense." - Freeman Dyson (who is smarter and more educated about damn near anything, than any of you fools).

"What I’m convinced of is that we don’t understand climate." - Freeman Dyson

As a general rule, if Freeman Dyson doesn't understand something, you don't, either.

Oh don't go there.

Dyson is a good guy, and if you point that out, these people are going to organize campaigns to shun him, have what he says banned, make it impossible for him to get work, and likely organize protests at his home.

It's the way tolerance works in the 21st century. Any resemblance to 20th century fascism is purely coincidental.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Crashmarik]

So having unreliable models that don't predict the future is your grounds for moving us ever closer to totalitarian state.

WoW. Insert Ben Franklin Quote about freedom security etc etc

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be so damn deceitful. His quote in Context:

"In a 2014 interview, he said that "What I’m convinced of is that we don’t understand climate ... It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled.""
Hard work involves more studies, and more money.

Dyson, like Muller, believes that the Science isn't settled; it very rarely is. Also, like Muller, Dyson believes that there is Global Warming going on, and (that)
""global warming" (is/)as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change..."
It's Real, and we Dunnit.
His somewhat pessimistic view is that there is no longer anything that we can do about it, except study it, and prepare for the worst, and put more effort into things that we can do something about.

Now before I get crucified, I should like to point out that if you liquified the Atmosphere, it would only be some 30 meters thick, and you could see through it.
The biggest, and least understood, part of modeling Climate Change is the World's Oceans; which are somewhat deeper than 30 meters, and if I remember correctly, is some 40000 times more massive than the Atmosphere.
The Oceans _are_ getting warmer, and because of dissolved CO2, are more acidic. (This may actually be a form of long-term Climate regulating cycles, but it is happening too damn quick.)

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Fwipp]

He's 91 years old. I /really/ hope he doesn't still have to work a day job to put food on his family's plate.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, while I'm on the subject, his famous calculation that growing approximately 1 Trillion new trees, (I'm not sure which ones. Probably Sequoias, and not those miserable Monterey Pines.), we could stabilize the CO2 balance.
Assuming that means roughly 250 trees per Hectare, a reasonable figure, it would take a land area of either both North and South America together, or all of Asia, leaving out a few islands.
I doubt that we could get a consensus on the choice.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Crashmarik]

You seriously think that would stop the mob from having him stripped of any emeritus position he holds ?

Hell the left doesn't let people on it's side so much as talk to people

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Anonymous Coward]

And how does energy independence and decentralized electricity generation (= greater individual freedom) move us closer to a totalitarian state?

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time a denier/skeptic speaks, the quotes/reports from climate scientists come rolling in, but you're saying they can just ignore that because argument from authority fallacy. If you can't even appeal to authority, then you can never properly debate anything that you yourself didn't experiment with.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Wonko the Sane]

Hell the left doesn't let people on it's side so much as talk to people

There's a very good reason for that: periodic internal purges are an essential component of the belief system.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Ferretman]

You know, if that were all Alarmists wanted to do I'd support that totally. Heck I do support that already--I am 100% solar powered and 100% off-grid already.

But that's not where so many Alarmists stop. They want to ban beef because cows make methane. They want to force me to buy light bulbs that cost 10X as much as the ones I had because they use less energy (mox nix in my case since it's my power, but I use LEDs because it's my power). They want me to install showers that are even more low flow than the ones I have now, and it's been seriously proposed that I have to get rid of flush toilets completely in favor of stinky "dry toilets". Some of them want to ban the internal combustion engine, stop flying for pleasure (doesn't apply to their folks of course), cease cruise ships for the same reason, tear up roads in favor of bike paths everywhere.

Yeah. If they stopped at the power thing I'd be with them 100%. Go beyond that and they just get dismissed as seeking power over me. That may or may not be fair, but that's how it comes across.

Ferret

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, 30 years ago he did climate research at the Institute for Energy Analysis at Oak Ridge. So he does have a background...

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Crashmarik]

You will probably be modded down for pointing that out, the same way I was.
Welcome to the future.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Biff Stu]

Linus Pauling was very smart and a good man. He has Nobel prizes in Chemistry and Peace to prove it. As a general rule, if Linus Pauling didn't understand something, you don't, either. Yet, toward the end of his life, he had some odd ideas regarding megadoses of vitamin C that haven't ever been proven in clinical studies. The point is that a great scientist can, at times, be wrong about things--especially when they are outside his field of specialization. The big difference between Linus Pauling and Freeman Dyson is that Linus Pauling's ideas regarding vitamin C were mostly harmless, while Freeman Dyson's claims on climate change can be quite catastrophic if we take them seriously.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[AmiMoJo]

The problem with focusing on the fringe like this is that the fringe rapidly becomes a straw man argument for environmentalists. If you actually go to the Greenpeace web site and read their policies they don't suggest any of the stuff you mention, but every debate on Slashdot about environmental issues claims that they do.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Ferretman]

With all due respect, Greenpeace has its own issues. They damage one-of-a-kind national treasures (the Nazca lines), and are against the single biggest and best carbon-free energy source we've got (unclear).

Don't reckon listening to Greenpeace is high on the list, thanks.

Ferret

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Rockoon]

If you actually go to the Greenpeace web site

Greenpeace.. arent these the callous assholes that fucked up the Nazca site?

Here is the problem:

When your belief is a religion, you end up not giving a fuck what side effects you have while following that belief.

This not-giving-a-fuck goes well beyond the Nazca lines. All the warmers really care about is feeling good about themselves, which is it doesn't matter to them that their agenda is increased poverty. The 22000 children that already die every single day due to poverty doesn't matter. Thats 80 million per decade. 800 million children dead in the next century due to poverty if something isnt done.

The warmers have no concept of scale, and quite clearly there are no shits given by them about the side effects of their anti-co2 efforts.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[itzly]

The warmers have no concept of scale, and quite clearly there are no shits given by them about the side effects of their anti-co2 efforts.

The same side effects are going to happen anyway when you continue business as usual until fossil fuels run out, except they'll be more severe due to lack of preparation, and they'll be combined with a much hotter climate.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[AmiMoJo]

Those are other common arguments that don't really stand up. Yeah, they damaged some Nazca lines by accident. No large organization is absolutely perfect and it was a genuine accident, not their intention. Expecting absolute perfection is ridiculous and has no baring on the quality of their arguments.

As for being against nuclear, if you read their energy policy they are quite clear that even with the fastest possible move to renewables it would be well into the 2050s by the time we can switch those off entirely. They also recognize that no government would be willing to move that quickly. It's a reasonable position to argue for, even if it is unlikely to be implemented, and offers a considered and well researched alternative that policy makers can look at and which demonstrates that a complete move to renewables is practical in the long term, without sacrificing quality of life (improving it, in fact).

You can argue with the specific ideas they have, but just saying "they are against nuclear, therefore we shouldn't listen to them) is ridiculous. It's not even an argument, it's just a knee-jerk reaction.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[CrimsonAvenger]

mox nix

Machts nichts. Which isn't proper German, as I recall, but it's the proper spelling for a phrase that came back with the GI's stationed in Germany all those years....

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[dywolf]

The cost of LEDs is dropping rapidly, and the lifetime costs are already lower than Incandescent. At this point saying they cost "10x more" is no longer factual.

Livestock production, including the animals themselves, ARE a significant portion of human gas emissions and environmental impact, both methane and CO2. Livestock responsible for roughly 10-14% of our CO2 emissions, 35% of our methane, and 65% of the nitrous oxide. In addition they require tremendous amounts of land area and resources. In areas such as the plains, that land is already well adapted to grazers like cows. But of course, that isn't the only place we raise them. We force land into being productive, by siphoning water, by cutting down forests, and other geoengineering methods. Each pound of beef you eat took 500 gallons of water produce. The amount of food provided to cattle alone in this country could feed 800 million people. It takes more than 4 lbs of feed to make a pound of beat. Not to mention changes in water quality and riverbeds from changes in erosion patterns, and the ripple effect that has every critter along the way. And this isnt even touching pigs (even higher methane production) or chickens. (Oblig XKCD)

It's not about seeking power over you. We don't care about you. It has a little more to do with caring about the survival of the species as a whole. Humans aren't very tolerant of higher CO2 concentrations, or higher temperatures. We are still very dependent on the natural world, even if we have rudimentary methods of harnessing it to feed ourselves. And if nature collapses, so do we. But reducing our impact on the planet doesn't require reverting to the stoneage. Civilization can survive just fine. Nor does it require forcing behavior. A tremendous amount of change has already occurred and will continue to occur through simple market forces, as not everyone is as obstinate or blind as you. "OH I have to give up burning dead dinos to drive from my mcmansion to work".... cry me a river. All the free energy humanity could ever want lands on the planet's surface every hour. Transitioning from burning oil to harnessing just a fraction of the sun's power is only a burden if your paycheck depends on the oil industry.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[cbeaudry]

They are a bunch of clowns and you know it.

You are just to intellectually dishonest to admit it. Nuclear is the only long term solution to a growing societies energy needs.
All the time wasted not furthering research is worst than the fake CO2 scare.

They constantly post press releases about killing "deniers", they attack private business in the middle of the sea and except a welcome wagon and warm blankets, and are surprised when they get thrown in jail.

They strut around the world in a giant rusting diesel spewing hunk of metal... all very very green.

400 million dollar budget and they cry for more.

They have become a machine, that needs to feed on more attention, more money just to grow. They ARE the cancer.
I'm sorry. Greenpeace is owed no respect as they respect nothing but themselves and grass.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[cbeaudry]

Look, just because you where brain washed into thinking if we dont spend a gazillion dollars RIGHT NOW and install inefficient solar panels and wind turbines all while sucking the life blood out of civilization with extra taxes and trading that go to the rich, doesnt mean that science (yes, the real one, not the climate religion) wont solve these problems all by itself over the next 20-30 years.

We are well on our way to doing that.

And no, there is NO immediate threat. Show me a threat, I'll show you the propaganda.

THERE IS NOT IMMEDIATE THREAT THAT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

You got it? No, I'm sure you wouldnt.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[cbeaudry]

Who the hell upvoted this shill.

Stop your lying. People actually believe you because they are to lazy to do some research.

Straight from the horses mouth. Freeman Dyson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Plumpaquatsch]

And how does energy independence and decentralized electricity generation (= greater individual freedom) move us closer to a totalitarian state?

Yawn. Yeah its all a big conspiracy. And for some reason they didn't stop when they found out that TERRORISM works so much better for their goals of New World Order. Nobody keeps you from bringing not really large amounts of liquids on board a plane by saying AGW. Nobody taps your phone by because of AGW. They don't even make you use lamps that use one tenth the energy because of AGW - they do because it fucking makes sense.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Plumpaquatsch]

Every time a denier/skeptic speaks, the quotes/reports from climate scientists come rolling in, but you're saying they can just ignore that because argument from authority fallacy. If you can't even appeal to authority, then you can never properly debate anything that you yourself didn't experiment with.

So your argument is that hundreds of authorities are wrong, but the one you follow is right. Because.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[DNS-and-BIND]

That's because their consultants told them to shut up because it was harming their brand image. Greenpeace hasn't changed, it's still full of the same wackos and want-to-end-civilization scary people.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Plumpaquatsch]

Freeman Dyson

Bad example to bring up in this discussion - because he fully believes that humans are the cause of growing CO2 levels (which is something heavily denied in this very discussion), and that this does lead to warming (although he believes its just local). He merely doesn't believe this is a big problem mostly because somebody will find a solution in the future. Which is actually the "solution" he proposed to every problem during his whole career.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[StrangeBrew]

Not to mention things like disproportionate focus on CO2 emission sources that, even if eliminated, would have a negligible effect on overall world emissions (such as Alberta oil[tar]sands). Why? Because they're high profile, polarizing targets that net them more donations than going after high impact targets.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[itzly]

THERE IS NOT IMMEDIATE THREAT

It's like smoking. There's no immediate threat, but if you continue to smoke, there may be a point 30 years in the future where you'll face an immediate threat of dying from lung cancer. At that point, it will be too late to undo the damage. Of course, as you point out, that doesnt mean that science (yes, the real one, not the anti tabacco religion) wont solve these problems all by itself over the next 20-30 years.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[cbeaudry]

Your point is not a bad one, if we where sure about the outcome.
We know for a fact the effect of smoking. I completely agree with that.

However all the fears concerning global warming and CO2 are conjecture.
We do not have enough information.

Being fearful of the unknown, when there is no evidence that it is dangerous, even over time, is harmful to current generations.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[goodmanj]

The people you call "alarmists" are a diverse group, and many of them do not support the in-your-face "you must do XYZ" prescriptive solution to CO2 regulation. Take me for instance. I don't want to force you buy new light bulbs: I don't trust government to pick and choose the right way to lower CO2 emissions. I just want to put a big hefty tax on every ton of fossil fuel carbon as it comes out of the ground. That cost will be passed on through the economy, raising the price of things in proportion to their CO2 consumption; the tax money raised would be returned to the people however you'd like: lower income taxes, free health care, whatever.

I don't want to force you buy new light bulbs. I want to make you *want* to buy new light bulbs to save money. But if you like your light bulbs and would rather save money (and CO2) some other way, that's totally OK with me.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[blue9steel]

Yet, toward the end of his life, he had some odd ideas regarding megadoses of vitamin C that haven't ever been proven in clinical studies.

To be fair, I haven't seen any studies that actually tried levels of vitamin C that Linus would have considered appropriate. Yes, they tried higher than normal levels, but nothing like what he was suggesting. Is there something to what he was saying? I have no idea since as far as I can tell we haven't actually tried it yet.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Ferretman]

But you're taking one thing out of context. They have many flaws besides being anti nuclear, nor did I claim that not being perfect was a disqualifier of anything.

Qutie frankly they disqualified themselves from the conversation decades ago. Alarmists are always willing to throw Skeptics under the bus for the slightest mistake or undisclosed conflict, yet they make excuses when an organization like Greenpeace damages a world treasure or flat rejects a proven, sustainable, dense power source. They specifically are cowards unwilling to actually fight for their beliefs, preferring instead the power of regulation and to skulk around dragging banners across ancient archeological sites.

Ferret

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the A. C. "Shill":
You obviously have no concept of "Nuance". You are also very angry, due to your Political viewpoint, possibly.
Dr. Dyson is _not_ a Denier. He believes that we are in a new period of Climate Change, one that has never been seen before, at least not on this planet, and We are partially responsible for it. He is a Sceptic about our abilities to model it, and to eventually Control it.
He thinks that we will somehow Muddle Through. He is an Optimist. He is also very funny, and he has his little jokes.
Dr. Muller started as a Sceptic, at least as far as the initial data and models went, and researched it, and found AGW to be true. He is not a Denier; he never was, he was a Sceptic. He is also a Pessimist. He thinks that we need to take action _now_, simply because we really don't know the consequence of worst-case predictions. (Disclaimer: I knew Dr. Muller, and had many very interesting conversations with him on the Lab Shuttle Bus.)
Muller's research was initially funded by the Koch's, yes, but they were only interested in the GW part of AGW. They plan to be around a long time, so they were taking precautions.

(My fields of Research are similar to those of Dyson and Muller; Find a Model, set up Experiments, and try to determine if the Model is right, _or_ wrong. My main Field was Nucleosynthesis. I'm retired now, on a meager pension. Very, very few Scientists get rich from Science, any Science.)

Deniers are very much like the Alarmists, in that they know little or nothing about Science; how it is done, and how Consensus is arrived at.
The Consensus among most Scientists involved is that AGW is real. There is still debate about how much it effects our Future. Dyson, for instance, believes that the added CO2 is beneficial to plants. However, we are not plants. Muller is partly concerned with the increasing Acidity and Temperature of the Oceans. However, we are not Fish, although those living in Coastal regions might investigate that possibility.
If, as some theorize and certain Models predict, the Gulf Stream collapses, Coastal Europe as we know it ceases to exist. (There is something Wonky going on with the California Current right now as well...)

I am not a "Shill". I am not paid to have my opinions. I find the whole subject fascinating. I think that we need to deeply Fund Climate Science, unlike most Deniers. We need more Computers, better Code, and a whole bunch of Grad Students, (Who get paid very little...), out there measuring Currents, Temperatures, Salinity, Glacier cores, Polar Bear counts... well, just about everything.
When it comes to Climate Science, we are just at the point where we are beginning to know just how little we really know.
The problem that I have with the Alarmists is the Cherry-Picking that goes on. Yes, the Climate _is_ changing, average temperatures _are_ going up, and Weather is effected. And yes, it is happening rapidly, unlike similar events in the past that took place over hundreds, if not thousands, of years. We will adapt; we will not go extinct, although a lot of other species no doubt will. Yes, the Coasts and low-lying Islands _are_ threatened. People may have to move. Get over it.

Now, when it comes to the Nuclear Option... I'm for it, which horrifies my fellow Tree Huggers. We have come a long way, at least in the Labs, from Fermi's time. But, we need a Pause. The next part will really chap the hides of my fellow Capitalists:
We need a World-Wide non-profit Agency, with one set of Standards for all our future Nukes, because our current generations of Nukes are a disaster happening or waiting to happen.
Irresponsible entities like Bechtel shall not be allowed to participate.
We need a Plan for cradle to grave custody of Fission, and eventually Fusion, fuels and contaminated by-products. Hanford has been a disaster from the very beginning.
We need to be Smart, not greedy. We need to be cautious, but we must go ahead. Perhaps a Global Tax, levied on countries that c

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[budgenator]

Freeman Dyson also doesn't understand gravity (no one does). But that doesn't mean some vague claims can't be made about the two -- "heavy objects hurt when they fall on your foot" isn't a rigorous scientific statement, but it is true, as is his (vague) quote above.

Well to be perfectly honest the heavy object isn't heavy while it's in freefall and it doesn't actually fall on your foot, it merely gets close enough for the repulsion of negative charges of the electrons in the object and negative charges of the electrons in your foot is enough to cancel out the kinectic energy difference between the object and your foot; still hurts though.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Stephan Schulz]

All the warmers really care about is feeling good about themselves, which is it doesn't matter to them that their agenda is increased poverty. The 22000 children that already die every single day due to poverty doesn't matter. Thats 80 million per decade. 800 million children dead in the next century due to poverty if something isnt done.

And of course all those poor nations and their people have done so very well during the last century of unrestricted carbon extraction and burning. "We must keep burning fossil fuels for the poor children" - I've heard that argument before, and it's either dishonest or stupid at a level that I find hard to fathom. Developing nations don't need more oil, they need a fairer economic system.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. And the opposite is true as well because the fallacy cuts both ways.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[volmtech]

Farmers grow corn to sell to ranchers who sell beef to anyone who wants to buy it. Forcing people not to sell beef will not feed anyone, the farmers will simply plant less corn. The gleaming, Apple store solar powered world you envision is impossible. The dirty real horsepower world of 1840 is much more likely.

Not to say climate change isn't happening, it just isn't that much of a problem now. Some have postulated a WW II sized mobilization will be necessary to fight climate change. In 1940 England was in imminent danger of being invaded but the military had to draft people who wouldn't fight otherwise. A climate draft will be necessary. I already live on a farm. I hope you like heat and bugs.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[dywolf]

Ignoring the somewhat incoherence of your post, but responding to the parts were intelligible:

No where did i say the words "force people to not eat/sell beef". The solution to livestock's tremendous environmental impact doesn't automatically slide all the way to "no livestock ever". There is still plenty of room for better practices and better technology to reduce that impact.

Already there are pig farmers who work to capture the released methane, with varying levels of success. But they are working at it. Some sell it, as well as biofuel converted from their manure, for energy production. Others use it on site reducing their own carbon footprint to almost neutral.

But the idea that mankind MUST burn old dead things is foolish.

Again: The amount of energy from the sun that strikes the earth in ONE HOUR is more than all of humanity in all of our activities utilizes in an entire year. Capturing only a small fraction of that is enough to free the entire world of fossil fuels forever.

And it doesn't mean relegating third world countries to that status forever, either.

Some of the biggest and fastest adopters of solar, wind and other green power are the small and poor nations of the world that lack the infrastructure for a completely oil/gasoline powered economy. They are powering schools, connecting them to internet with it, providing educations their children never access to before. Powering hospitals providing higher levels of care than existed before. And so on.

Impossible you say? Only if you lack the imagination and the intestinal fortitude to make it happen. Because make no mistake: it IS happening, right now, around the world.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasting your time explaining things to a shill.

Re:"The Polar Bears will be fine"

[volmtech]

Thank you for your very intelligible reply. I'm a disabled old guy and often try to post things after I have taken my medication. I have multiply sites that I visit every day to see what the newest theories are. At Zero Hedge it's all the Jewish bankers fault. At Finite Earth the oil is going to run out and then all the spent fuel rods at every nuclear power plant are going to catch fire and doom us all. At CommonDreams, ThinkProgress, and the other green sites it's the Republicans fault.

People with nothing think a sq ft solar panel is wonderful. People with 3000 sq ft homes are going to be less impressed. My 85 year old father plowed with mules as a teenager. He was 15 before his family got electricity. Civilization will continue without oil but it's not going to be bright and shiny. The oil is not going to run out quick enough to suit many people. There will be force involved to prevent people from using coal and oil. I'll keep you in mind when I see it.

Milestone my ass

[vandelais]

The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician-Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct, there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation.

The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2.

Re:Milestone my ass

[craighansen]

Refuted: https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

No correlation as in this picture? Denial gets more desperate by the day.

Re:Milestone my ass

[riverat1]

The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician-Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct, there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation.

You can't ignore the fact that the Sun was dimmer back then and the topology of the continents was completely different. CO2 isn't the only factor in the Earth's climate, just the most important greenhouse gas in determining it. (If you want to chime in and claim that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, it's true that WV causes the largest effect of the greenhouse gases but WV is a condensing gas under conditions in the Earth's atmosphere and the level is strictly controlled by temperature. Water vapor can not drive climate change.)

Re:Milestone my ass

[rubycodez]

But that article just shows the concentration for tens of thousands of years of ice age could be THOUSANDS of ppm CO2,

Re:Milestone my ass

[russotto]

Incredible how well temperature predicts changes in CO2 concentration, isn't it? (Temperature is blue, CO2 is red)

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Myth: "Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."
What the science says: "During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels"

The "what the science says" agrees with the "myth" by saying that solar output influences earth temperatures, and thus that other factors besides atmospheric carbon do influence earth temperatures. So the "myth" is in fact true and is backed up by what the science says.

If the science said that the "myth" was is truly a myth, and that atmospheric carbon is only thing that influenced earth temperatures, I'd be very worried.

I'm not disputing the general point, just saying it's really badly written because the "myth" is in fact true.

Re:Milestone my ass

[viperidaenz]

Why does the temperature increase precede the CO2 level increase more often that not in that graph?

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by the fact that CO2 has risen monotonically for the past 18 years, but the earths temperature has not.

The models are diverging farther from measurements because they are designed to overestimate the climate sensitivity and assume the feed backs are positive.
Any stable oscillator must have a negative feedback, as the earths climte oscillating in a relatively narrow range from glacial to interglacial for millions of years.

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been told by countless AGW supporters that the sun's output level has ZERO impact on climate. It was pointed out a few years ago that sun spot activity was lower than normal and could be reason that there has been a pause of nearly 20 years in warming, but many people called me names and told me I was stupid for saying the sun's output could change enough to affect climate.

Now you tell me it can be a major factor, more than CO2?

Sounds like your story changes over and over and keeps contradicting itself.

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

The Sun is a stable G2 dwarf, and over the short term (millenia/eons) its power output is stable to parts per ten thousand.

Over hundreds of millions of years, the accumulation of helium "ash" in the core increases pressure and density and therefore power output; The sun's power output has risen roughly 25% since its formation, so changes on the order of a few percent since the formation of complex life are expected.

It's a shame neither of these facts is researchable...

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

One might note that it's evident that temperature was plotted second (the red line is on top of the areas covered by blue hash). During any sharp increase at the same time, the red line will be on top.

Re:Milestone my ass

[rmdingler]

Every year, it seems more and more like I'm on the planet Krypton and the scientists are arguing with the politicians in a language the pols do not well understand.

Ordovician... Jurassic... at too long an interval, we are all doomed to repeat what we have no chance to remember.

Re:Milestone my ass

[riverat1]

No, if you had paid better attention you would understand what you've been told is that the variations that have been observed in the Sun's output are not enough to account for the changes in climate we've been seeing lately. At most the Sun accounts for 1% or 2% of the change.

Re:Milestone my ass

[riverat1]

When you talk about the Earth's temperature you need to look at the whole geosystem including the atmosphere, the oceans and the land surface. Since about 93% of the accumulating heat from global warming goes into the oceans and they have continued warming the Earth's temperature has continued to increase.

Re:Milestone my ass

[khallow]

The Sun is a stable G2 dwarf, and over the short term (millenia/eons) its power output is stable to parts per ten thousand.

Sure, I really would like that to be true too. But that "fact" doesn't explain the Maunder minimum which appears to be a fluctuation in solar power output considerably greater than the threshold your assertion. I notice that some researchers are actually claiming that a 0.2 W per square meter change in solar output somehow causes climate changes on par with a supposed 2 W per square meter heating today from greenhouse gases (other than water vapor).

I think this is typical of the current silliness in climate research that one can assert without supporting evidence that solar output doesn't change significant on the scale of millennia while ignoring the only known solar fluctuation which correlates with significant climate variations of the time.

Re:Milestone my ass

[BradMajors]

93% of the accumulating heat from global warming goes into the oceans

There does not exist historical deep ocean temperature readings to prove this conjecture.

Re:Milestone my ass

[Namarrgon]

Because it's a feedback loop. Other factors (e.g. orbital variations) can initially trigger warming in the oceans, which then release CO2, which results in further warming. See this article for details.

Re:Milestone my ass

[GrahamCox]

Any stable oscillator must have a negative feedback

If it's an oscillator, it must have positive feedback. That's what causes the oscillation. The oscillation itself may be stable, but that doesn't imply negative feedback.

Re:Milestone my ass

[riverat1]

The current warming period hasn't been going on long enough for the abyssal ocean to notice the warming much yet. But the top 3 meters (10 feet) of the oceans holds as much heat at the whole atmosphere and the average depth of the oceans is around 3,700 meters. The Argo floats have been measuring ocean temperatures down to 2,000 meters since the early 2000s. This chart of ocean heat content shows the oceans down to 2,000 meters have accumulated nearly 10 x 10^22 joules of energy since about 2003. It takes about 5.95 x 10^21 joules to raise the temperature of the atmosphere 1 degree Celsius. 10 x 10^22/5.95 x 10^21 = 16.81. So if the heat that's accumulated in the top 2,000 meters of the oceans since the early 2000's was all in the atmosphere instead the temperature of the atmosphere would have risen about 16.81 degrees Celsius.

Re:Milestone my ass

[itzly]

Higher temperature results in more CO2 (after some delay), higher CO2 results in higher temperature (with much shorter delay). On a long term graph, you only see the first effect clearly.

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

ounds like your story changes over and over and keeps contradicting itself.

No it just sounds like your brain is too small to retain a few simple facts.

Re:Milestone my ass

[Barsteward]

there is evidence of fish around the UK moving north to colder waters and warmer water fishes arriving on our shores which implies the water is getting warmer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/worlds-fish-have-been-moving-to-cooler-waters-for-decades-study-finds/2013/05/15/730292e8-bcd7-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/08/warm-water-species-speading-northwards

Re:Milestone my ass

[Namarrgon]

There are certainly other solar irradiance fluctuations greater than that, of course. GP was only referring to the long-scale growth in solar output.

The sunspot cycle varies output by about 0.1%, and of course there are Milankovitch cycles (orbital variations) which also affect the solar irradiance we get (though not the star's output). The Maunder minimum appears to have been due to an anti-phase correlation between the sunspot cycle and heliospheric current
sheet inclination variations (interesting paper here).

If you think the current climate research is "silly", have you considered that you may be simply misinterpreting it? Perhaps due to an incomplete picture, not having kept up with the vast amount of research in the field, or even by just taking out-of-context statements as meaning more than intended. And as for lack of supporting evidence, I don't think posts on slashdot should be taken as indicative of actual climate research. There's a lot of evidence out there if you look.

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

That's extremely disingenuous. It assumes the atmosphere would have the exact same ability to absorb this energy, which is ludicrous.

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

It never ceases to amaze me that even on slashdot some people have difficulty fitting their heads around the concept of a feedback loop, and without that understanding think that a bit of lag is a sign the obvious and well-supported interpretation is wrong.

Re:Milestone my ass

[Xyrus]

A Maunder or Dalton type minimum would have almost no effect on climate given the current forcings. The Maunder minimum represented about a 0.25% change in overall solar output. Multiple papers have been written on the subject, including what would happen today if such a minimum occurred. The average cooling expected from several papers on the subject would be a cooling of about 0.2C. The most conservative estimate of warming due to increased anthropogenic forcings is about 10 times greater than that.

Scientists are well aware that the sun has very minor variations in solar output. They are also well aware that a Maunder type minimum would do jack to offset the current warming.

Re:Milestone my ass

[khallow]

If you think the current climate research is "silly", have you considered that you may be simply misinterpreting it?

Yes, I have considered that possibility.

I don't think posts on slashdot should be taken as indicative of actual climate research

One can also look at statements by climate researchers and see similar things. I don't believe this particular assertion is echoed by the researcher community, but they do assert a variety of things with an exaggerated level of confidence all the time.

Re:Milestone my ass

[Plumpaquatsch]

The Sun is a stable G2 dwarf, and over the short term (millenia/eons) its power output is stable to parts per ten thousand.

Sure, I really would like that to be true too. But that "fact" doesn't explain the Maunder minimum which appears to be a fluctuation in solar power output considerably greater than the threshold your assertion. I notice that some researchers are actually claiming that a 0.2 W per square meter change in solar output somehow causes climate changes on par with a supposed 2 W per square meter heating today from greenhouse gases (other than water vapor).

Interesting point. According to your theory, it should now be much colder than it was in the 1950s and 60s. Why the fuck isn't it? http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/Zurich_Color_Small.jpg

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Earth did warm before evil man burned the black stuff. Ok-- looks like it did so on a pretty even cycle too.

Re:Milestone my ass

[khallow]

One can also look at statements by climate researchers and see similar things.

For example, in my original post I noted a researcher who claimed that a factor of ten smaller change in solar fluctuation was creating a similar effect to that of AGW. A simpler explanation is that the researcher is simply wrong about the degree of solar radiation decline from the Maunder minimum.

Re:Milestone my ass

[khallow]

One can also look at statements by climate researchers and see similar things.

For example, in my original post I noted a researcher who claimed that a factor of ten smaller change in solar fluctuation was creating a similar effect to that of AGW. A simpler explanation is that the researcher is simply wrong about the degree of solar radiation decline from the Maunder minimum.

I also have noticed that non-climate researchers freely bandy about "climate change" as a contributing factor to whatever thing they're studying.

Re:Milestone my ass

[khallow]

The Maunder minimum represented about a 0.25% change in overall solar output.

Unless, of course, it's higher or lower. Nobody was actually measuring solar output back then so we don't know what the change in solar output would be.

The average cooling expected from several papers on the subject would be a cooling of about 0.2C.

Or higher or lower, depending on how the modelers got it wrong.

Re:Milestone my ass

[khallow]

According to your theory, it should now be much colder than it was in the 1950s and 60s. Why the fuck isn't it? http://solarscience.msfc.nasa....

Does sound like some part of the theory isn't quite right, doesn't it?

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Even when CO2 was static, and not increasing, the temperature varied. All that you're seeing and deliberately misinforming yourself of is that the variations are around an increasing trend.

The trend goes as the log of CO2 concentrations quite well. R2 value of over 0.92.

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

I think many people sub-consciously believe their religion/parents religion and think Earth is all going to hell in a hand-basket no matter what they do. So their demeanor is "Why try?".

Also if this existence is a temporary thing, a bridge to eternity, why does preserving a dying Earth matter so much to people? I think this explains the GOP stance.

Re:Milestone my ass

[goodmanj]

Long term historical ocean temperature readings not needed. Measurements made just in the past decade show energy gain in the ocean of about 10^22 joules per year. If the atmosphere received even half of that, it would be heating up at 1 degree per year and we'd all be dead by now.

Re:Milestone my ass

[russotto]

If it's an oscillator, it must have positive feedback. That's what causes the oscillation. The oscillation itself may be stable, but that doesn't imply negative feedback.

Climate "science" in a nutshell.

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

Refuted: your critical judgment.

Re:Milestone my ass

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record, this is *rough* the definition of Granger causality, which is better formulated then the actual results of applied economics. Within it's appropriate application, it fits Rubin's causal model, which is sufficient to give results equivalent to random assignment: i.e., proof of causality/

Re:Milestone my ass

[dywolf]

If you're going to quote, quote the whole thing. The entire statements are...

Myth:

CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
  "To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2

concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been

exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth

temperatures and global warming." (Monte Hieb)

The myth is not just stating that other things can be factor. It is stating that CO2 is not a factor. The myth is stating that CO2

doesn't influence temperatures. It claims as proof that because CO2 was higher before, and because there was an ice age, that it

couldn't have been CO2. It's a classic straw man. The myth is wrongly implying that the scientific theory is that only CO2 is a factor. It then

"disproves" its faulty assumption, instead of the actua

Re:Milestone my ass

[gzuckier]

Incredible how well temperature predicts changes in CO2 concentration, isn't it? (Temperature is blue, CO2 is red)

See, there are these things called positive feedback loops; mostly, you don't want to get stuck in one.

Re:Milestone my ass

[gzuckier]

Why does the temperature increase precede the CO2 level increase more often that not in that graph?

Because nobody was cranking large quantities of CO2 into the air.
You might as well say that you've disproved the hypothesis that chickens hatch out of eggs because you've seen chickens lay eggs.

Re:Milestone my ass

[gzuckier]

I've been told by countless AGW supporters that the sun's output level has ZERO impact on climate. It was pointed out a few years ago that sun spot activity was lower than normal and could be reason that there has been a pause of nearly 20 years in warming, but many people called me names and told me I was stupid for saying the sun's output could change enough to affect climate.

Now you tell me it can be a major factor, more than CO2?

Sounds like your story changes over and over and keeps contradicting itself.

Who? Where? I've never seen an AGW supporter say anything like that.

Re:Milestone my ass

[dywolf]

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

If you're going to quote, quote the whole thing. The entire statements are...

Myth:

CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
  "To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming." (Monte Hieb)

The myth is not just stating that other things can be factor. It is stating that CO2 is not a factor. The myth is stating that CO2 doesn't influence temperatures. It claims as proof that because CO2 was higher before, and because there was an ice age, that it couldn't have been CO2. It's a classic straw man. The myth is wrongly implying that the scientific theory is that only CO2 is a factor. It then "disproves" its faulty assumption, instead of the actual science.

Science:

During the Ordovician, solar output was much lower than current levels. Consequently, CO2 levels only needed to fall below 3000 parts per million for glaciation to be possible. The latest CO2 data calculated from sediment cores show that CO2 levels fell sharply during the late Ordovician due to high rock weathering removing CO2 from the air. Thus the CO2 record during the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.

So really the science does not state that other things (like the sun) cannot be factors. Rather, it not only agrees that other things can be, but BECAUSE they can be, it alters the expected behavior and relationship and outcomes of the various factors. If solar output were comparable to today's, then YES the higher CO2 would have resulted in warmer temperatures in the LOP. But because solar output was lower the CO2 concentration required to achieve an outcome similar to today's would have been much higher, higher than the concentration was in the LOP, which is why glaciation was possible and occurred.

Re:Milestone my ass

[dywolf]

bah. stupid puter disconnected during post

Wierd

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we were addressing the Co2 problem with all the green energy initiatives and carbon taxes? Oh you mean that no one is really doing that, and it is just business as usual, while the middle class pays for it all? That is what I thought.

Re:Wierd

[XXongo]

We are... slightly. This a big problem. It's nice to start with little measures, like green energy initiatives (and even carbon taxes, which have been proposed but not enacted.) But the problem is measured in the tens of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide. It will take a more than a few half-hearted initiatives to deal with it.

Re:Wierd

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought we were addressing the Co2 problem with all the green energy initiatives and carbon taxes? Oh you mean that no one is really doing that, and it is just business as usual, while the middle class pays for it all? That is what I thought.

I would suggest that first you address the problem with talking to yourself. Then once you have headed off the bad input, you could work on your output.

Re:Wierd

[scsirob]

That was my thought as well. I paid for a better environment, and I'm not getting any. So I want my money back.

Re:Wierd

[Anonymous Coward]

How does one even start to reply to this sort of moronic comment?

Re:Wierd

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. That is what I said:

"Oh you mean that no one is really doing that, and it is just business as usual, while the middle class pays for it all?"

No one is really addressing the issue, just grabbing the money.

Re:Wierd

[blue9steel]

The best solution is to ensure that all energy production is forced to re-internalize its costs. After that you can just let the market sort things out.

One wonders

[amightywind]

NOAA is utterly corrupt and politically compromised. One wonders if the leftists are breathing on the sensors.

Re:One wonders

[craighansen]

So you're in agreement that it's anthropogenic.

Re:One wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the terrestrial temperature series are heavily adjusted. GISS has cooled the past and warmed the present with adjustments to make a bigger trend.
The new USCRN (Climate reference network) is the new gold standard, with pristine rural locations, triple redundant aspirated platinum resistor sensors. It requires no hokey adjustments. In its ten year history, it shows for the USA, on average, NO warming at all.

Re:One wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the political corruption at NOAA is anthropogenic. You're a fucking genius.

Re:One wonders

[riverat1]

The USA = about 3% of the Earth's surface.

Re:One wonders

[itzly]

One wonders if the leftists are breathing on the sensors

If anyone were really wondering, they'd take your own CO2 measurements. Go to a remote area, sample some air in a few bottles, send them to different labs for analysis, and publish the results.

The fact that nobody has done this shows that either a) nobody is really wondering but they just wanted to create some FUD, or b) the results agreed with NOAA's.

Re:One wonders

[Anonymous Coward]

Satellite measurements show the whole planet, and show no warming for the past 18 years.
See the RSS data referenced here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/04/el-nio-has-not-yet-paused-the-pause/

Woohoo!

[Anonymous Coward]

If we all pitch in, we can go for another banner month!

#winning

The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs - with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.
Any time period the warmunists want to "prove" there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter - now they have the perfect example - the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic... Wait, no, it didn't, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!

Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.

Another Cult of the Church of Climatology propaganda piece with High Priest Al Goreleone's nod of approval.

   

Re:The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming

[XXongo]

The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times!

So, you're basically chiming in here to agree with the global climate models. There was more carbon dioxide in the paleozoic, and the climate was warmer. Yep. The climate was warmer, and the dinosaurs lived with it Of course, the planet didn't have any ice caps then, and a lot of what we call "farmland" they called "shallow ocean".

We probably won't get the dinosaurs back, though.

Re:The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming

[Ferretman]

I for one would welcome our dinosaur overlords.

Ferret

Re:The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming

[blue9steel]

We probably won't get the dinosaurs back, though.

Don't worry, thanks to research in genetic engineering we're getting closer to solving that problem. I look forward to my first bronto-burger.

Re:The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

So, you're basically chiming in here to agree with the global climate models.

In the sense that there is anthropogenic warming, yes. However, they seem quantitatively wrong because according to them, the Cretaceous probably should have been hotter.

Of course, the planet didn't have any ice caps then, and a lot of what we call "farmland" they called "shallow ocean".

No, not at all. Sea levels have risen about 120m over the past 20000 years; they can only rise about another 50-60m. Unpleasant, to be sure, but no threat to farmland. If anything, there was more arable land during the Cretaceous, due to warmer and wetter conditions.

If you're concerned about the future, going back to the climate that existed 20000 years ago should be at the top of your list, because it covered much of Europe and North America in thick ice sheets. Compared to a little bit of warming, that would really be a problem. And without anthropogenic warming, we'd be heading back towards colder temperatures.

Re:The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming

[mspohr]

"No, not at all. Sea levels have risen about 120m over the past 20000 years; they can only rise about another 50-60m. Unpleasant, to be sure, but no threat to farmland. If anything, there was more arable land during the Cretaceous, due to warmer and wetter conditions."

Depends on how you define "unpleasant". If you are one of the 80%+ of people on earth who will find their house under water, it is highly "unpleasant"... others may enjoy their new beachfront property.

Re:The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking retard, crawl back to your mom's basement

Re:The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Depends on how you define "unpleasant". If you are one of the 80%+ of people on earth who will find their house under water, it is highly "unpleasant"... others may enjoy their new beachfront property.

A 50-60m sea level rise would take about 1000-2000 years even in the worst case; the polar ice caps simply can't melt any faster than that, no matter how much carbon we emit into the air. And that's the worst case. At current rates, it would take about 15000 years for sea levels to rise that much.

Those time scales are far longer than normal human migration and building patterns. So, nobody would "find their house under water" and adapting to that kind of sea level rise would cost nothing because it would happen as part of normal turnover.

AWESOME!

[Lumpy]

Those of us that live in northern climates above 600 feet and will see our land values skyrocket.... thank the rest of you.

Re:AWESOME!

[Rougement]

That's some weapons-grade assholism.

Re:AWESOME!

[rtb61]

Underwater front property valuations are in for a rather rude and sharp decline. As this increases, denials and attacks will increase (they will become extremely loud, aggressive and distorted, pretty much anything goes), to allow the rich and greedy to dump those properties, into a market of the gullible. Low lying water front at this time is a truly horrible investment and governments who approve construction in low lying coastal areas are corrupt as hell. Yes, developers will be seeking to develop and on sell land with multi-million dollar new buildings on it, knowing full well, they will be flooded out because it is more profitable than just dumping the land alone.

Other bad investments, coastal tourism companies, hotels chains with lots of at risk properties. Port facilities will of course be in major turmoil, needing to either relocate or where higher land is closely accessible shift from fixed dock design to a floating dock design. So no ifs just when, how bad and how fast and a real hold your breath when it comes to major methane releases which could trigger extreme compounding surges (fortunately the methane does readily break down over time, unfortunately, no where near fast enough and as flooding increases so does displaced organic matter and hence more methane is generated).

Never make the mistake to think the deniers are disbelievers, they are not, all they care about is how much they can make and how much power they have and totally disregard the consequences of their actions upon other people. A whole bunch of deniers are actually believers and are simply denying now to continue destructive practices and to be able to off load at risk investments (a whole lot of pension funds are going to be burdened by at risk investments and basically glug, glug, glug).

Re:AWESOME!

[Anonymous Coward]

I’ll keep my beach front poperty, but plan to make sure my house can float 8) Just install longer mooring poles every decade or so.

Re:AWESOME!

[SpaceCommander]

Yep, Northeast PA at 1500 feet here. I'm not fuckin leaving.

Re:AWESOME!

[Obfuscant]

Low lying water front at this time is a truly horrible investment and governments who approve construction in low lying coastal areas are corrupt as hell.

I'm sorry, but if you want to build a house at the beach, why should it be the government's business to stop you? It's your money, you should be able to spend it the way you want. Call 1 877 CASH NOW. Why would a government that doesn't stop you be necessarily corrupt?

knowing full well, they will be flooded out because it is more profitable than just dumping the land alone.

If you buy a house in a known flood zone, whose fault is that? If you don't do due diligence before you buy, well, that's your problem, isn't it? It's not like some car dealer trying to sell you a lemon, the flood zone info is publicly available. And when you LOOK at the property and see that all the houses are built on stilts, you have no excuse.

I go to the Outer Banks on a regular basis. Anyone who goes there (to look at buying a house, e.g.) can see the problem. Who are you to tell them they can't build or buy there?

Other bad investments, coastal tourism companies, hotels chains with lots of at risk properties.

Ok. Don't invest in those companies. Your risk is gone.

Never make the mistake to think the deniers are disbelievers, they are not, all they care about is how much they can make and how much power they have

Unlike the people who get into cap-and-trade and other climate change investments to make a bundle of money from regulations they promote. Generation Investment Management.

Re:AWESOME!

[Anonymous Coward]

what are you smoking you hippy liberal?

Re:AWESOME!

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, brother. I would rather be hot than freeze to death. (Been there, almost done that!). Heat is preferable to cold. Plants seem to agree.

Re:AWESOME!

[Ferretman]

Now I don't care who you are that's funny.

Ferret

Re:AWESOME!

[Ferretman]

That's a pretty dark view sir....."all they care about is how much they can make and how much power they have..."

As I recall the various statements Alarmists have made from Mann to Anan it's the AGW believers who have proposed throwing Skeptics into jail, fining them, firing them, etc. That sounds more like the power thing you're alluding to. Perhaps you're looking at the wrong group for where those who crave power over others reside.

Ferret

Re:AWESOME!

[Wonko the Sane]

it's the AGW believers who have proposed throwing Skeptics into jail, fining them, firing them, etc.

Don't forget mass murder.

Re:AWESOME!

[jader3rd]

I'm sorry, but if you want to build a house at the beach, why should it be the government's business to stop you?

Because when inevitable destruction occurs to the beach property, you'll get an interview on TV and sob and whine about how much you love your house which was just destroyed, and then my tax payer dollars have to be invested in reconstructing the house that's in a dangerous place to build. That's why the government should stop the building of houses in dangerous areas.

Re:AWESOME!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those of us that live in northern climates above 600 feet and will see our land values skyrocket.... thank the rest of you.

Have fun surviving without the products and medicine manufactured and shipped through ports at sea level.

Re:AWESOME!

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, if we adopt the "skeptic" view, and climate change is real, then mass murder will be the result.

Re:AWESOME!

[riverat1]

I'm sorry, but if you want to build a house at the beach, why should it be the government's business to stop you? It's your money, you should be able to spend it the way you want. Call 1 877 CASH NOW. Why would a government that doesn't stop you be necessarily corrupt?

As long as the Federal Government is underwriting flood insurance while not collecting enough to cover the costs it is the government's business. Why should the rest of us pay for other peoples recklessness.

Re:AWESOME!

[Anonymous Coward]

Underwater front property valuations are in for a rather rude and sharp decline.

I may be wrong, but I suspect you underestimate what is possible when well-funded humans can make money due to possessing something.

Re:AWESOME!

[Ferretman]

This is true; thank you for that link.

(And if it wasn't something that didn't represent the beliefs of most Alarmists, how come I never see Alarmists calling out such trash and apologizing for it when it happens? Skeptics sure seem to have to apologize for every nutter who doesn't believe in AGW.)

Ferret

Re:AWESOME!

[Ferretman]

How so?

Ferret

Re:AWESOME!

[rtb61]

There are other considerations as well. Houses require sewers and you do not want sewers filling full of salt water, it tends to cause lots disease when it floods out. Electricity is also problematic when it floods. Not to forget no, good people do not stand by, when people are being ripped off. The whole absurd notion of what business is if of mine when I see people being ripped off, seriously, do unto others and yes I would appreciate being warned when I am about to be ripped off. What the bloody hell, do people not understand about that.

Re:AWESOME!

[CrimsonAvenger]

Underwater front property valuations are in for a rather rude and sharp decline.

Considering that they're expecting Sea Level rise to be maybe two feet (0.6m) over the next 50 years, it's not going to be a big issue.

After all, a two foot floodwall can be built in any given summer, much less 50 years.

Note that I live in a place that's (slightly) below sea level. They have a regular cycle of upgrading and repairing the flood walls around the city, and won't even really notice an extra two feet of water outside (the current flood walls are rather more than two feet above sea level)....

Never make the mistake to think the deniers are disbelievers,

Nah, most of them just don't buy the "IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!1!1!!" hysteria they're hearing. A problem that won't do much until after most of them are dead is hard to get seriously concerned about....

Re:AWESOME!

[Lumpy]

It's all for you. Please Enjoy!

Re:AWESOME!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because ships can't float and go to new ports that are closer. They all will stay out where the old one were and cry... BUT BUT BUT I'm supposed to park here.. I DONT WANNA MOVE THE BOAT CLOSER!

Are you really that stupid? let me check.... Yep, you really are that stupid! Congrats! You should run for a republican congressional seat!

Re:AWESOME!

[the_arrow]

Not that it would be a big problem anyway. Remember that large parts of the Netherlands is below sea level, and they manage it pretty well. Why wouldn't anyone else be able to handle it?

Re:AWESOME!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it will be cheaper to just kill you and take your stuff. After all, I have nothing left so nothing to lose by trying. And everything to gain.

Funny.

Re:AWESOME!

[Anonymous Coward]

Leave it to some dimwit to call AGW skeptics 'deniers'. May I call you a dumb follower?

We're skeptics for very good reasons.

Re:AWESOME!

[Anonymous Coward]

650FT above Sea level... The 950 foot above sea level ridge between me and the devastation will be a nice sound barrier to the chaos...

Re:AWESOME!

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

A much better solution is to stop government bailouts of both individuals and companies making bad decisions.

Given that they are a relatively recent phenomenon, that shouldn't be too hard.

And given that they tend to metastasize into more and more areas, we have to stop them anyway, because we simply can't afford them.

Re:AWESOME!

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

As long as the Federal Government is underwriting flood insurance while not collecting enough to cover the costs it is the government's business. Why should the rest of us pay for other peoples recklessness.

Get rid of the flood insurance. In fact, Congress already tried, but then caved in, as did Obama:

http://www.insurancejournal.co...

Probably the only real solution is to grandfather in existing owners but not provide insurance on sales and new construction.

Re:AWESOME!

[Obfuscant]

Because when inevitable destruction occurs to the beach property, you'll get an interview on TV and sob and whine about how much you love your house which was just destroyed,

So what? Don't they have a right to free speech?

and then my tax payer dollars have to be invested in reconstructing the house that's in a dangerous place to build.

You assume that I think taxpayers should have to rebuild those houses. I've never said anything close to that. You have the right to build a house in a floodplain and the government isn't corrupt just because it doesn't stop you. That's what I said. I also think that the government should not be in the business of insurance -- any insurance.

That's why the government should stop the building of houses in dangerous areas.

No, that's why we should stop the government from being in the business of insurance, not why we should strip freedom of choice from people who want to spend their money stupidly. At best, government should protect its citizens from hidden dangers. Things that you can't see and can't get information about easily. But things that are painfully obvious to an observant person should be left up to that person to choose.

"I'm two feet above sea level here. I see waves coming up above that on the other side of the berm. I look at a map from ten years ago and see that the berm wasn't there then, which means maybe it won't be here in another ten. Maybe the storm I saw the other day that caused even bigger waves might push water over the berm and into my living room. Maybe I should think twice about spending a million bucks on a house here?"

Re:AWESOME!

[Obfuscant]

There are other considerations as well. Houses require sewers and you do not want sewers filling full of salt water, it tends to cause lots disease when it floods out.

An interesting point. What "year" flood-plain would you prohibit building within? My house is just above the 100 year floodplain here. The sewer in front is below ground and below the floodplain. Should the person who built the house I live in have been prevented from doing so?

The entire southern part of the city I live in floods every few years. Should the city have prohibited building anything there? Or is it sufficient for the lenders to tell the buyers that they're in a flood zone and they're going to need to buy flood insurance to go with that mortgage?

Electricity is also problematic when it floods.

Electricity for the people who built a house in a flood area is problematic, but probably the least of their problems when it does flood. For others, if the grid is designed well, not so much of a problem. The fuses blow, limiting damage to the flood area.

Not to forget no, good people do not stand by, when people are being ripped off.

You are 1) assuming that someone who chooses to build in a flood area is being ripped off and not making a willful decision, and 2) that "people" and "government" are synonymous when it comes to authority to act. You are free to offer your advice to the guy who wants a million dollar house on stilts, but that doesn't mean the government should step in to prohibit his freedom to choose one.

The whole absurd notion of what business is if of mine

Freedom to do stupid things is not an absurd notion, and it really isn't any business of yours if someone you don't own chooses freely to knowingly do something stupid. What difference is there in the long run if that stupid person with a spare million bucks builds a house that is washed into the ocean or he stands on the streetcorner handing out hundred dollar bills to everyone who walks by?

and yes I would appreciate being warned when I am about to be ripped off.

There is about a three orders of magnitude difference between warning someone who wants to build a house next to the ocean and the government prohibiting it. The statement that any government that allows it is corrupt implies that the government should prohibit it, and that's not the same thing as a warning.

Re:AWESOME!

[jader3rd]

You assume that I think taxpayers should have to rebuild those houses.

I'm not assuming that. Regardless of what you think about the issue that's the reality on the ground. A location gets hit by a hurricane, news stories float around about people who have lost everything, there's a public swelling of support, and before we know it the government is in the insurance business. It's happened with coast lines, it happened with fire insurance in LA/Hollywood, it happens in many, many places. Most people can't be cold hearted basterds enough to realize that in certain situations, helping people rebuild their lives creates dependency problems. And since we're in a democracy, that's the reality on the ground.

Re:AWESOME!

[Obfuscant]

I'm not assuming that. Regardless of what you think about the issue that's the reality on the ground.

So argue to change that, not that governments should prohibit free people from doing stupid things with their own money.

And since we're in a democracy, that's the reality on the ground.

So you bring up a good point here. Governments do this because the people want it. It is a democracy. And yet the governments are corrupt if they allow people to build where they want. Therefore the standing argument is that government of, by, and for the people is inherently corrupt. I disagree.

Re:AWESOME!

[eric_harris_76]

Never make the mistake to think the deniers are disbelievers, they are not, all they care about is how much they can make and how much power they have and totally disregard the consequences of their actions upon other people.

You should get your money back on those mind-reading lessons.

Some think that the science is flawed, and have either specific or general reasons for thinking so.

Half a century from now, or less, we may find out that AGW is as incorrect and supportable as the "scientific" proof of white supremacy.

Science marches on -- sometimes after being off-course for a while.

Re:AWESOME!

[eric_harris_76]

Speaking of making money: if the climate models are right (or right enough) to make major economic policy changes that affect literally billions of people, a savvy person could make money off those denier rubes.

Just apply Allison's Precept, and bet them about near-future climate changes. They'll think the models are hooey, bet against them being right, be wrong (of course) and you'll not only win money, but they'll lose money. http://duckduckgo.com/?q=allis...

You ever try that?

So far, I've not found a believer in AGW who is willing to risk their own money on the validity of those climate models, but is perfectly willing to risk the chances of increased prosperity for the poorest of the world's people on their validity.

Maybe today will be different.

Re:AWESOME!

[gzuckier]

I'm sorry, but if you want to build a house at the beach, why should it be the government's business to stop you? It's your money, you should be able to spend it the way you want. Call 1 877 CASH NOW. Why would a government that doesn't stop you be necessarily corrupt?

As long as the Federal Government is underwriting flood insurance while not collecting enough to cover the costs it is the government's business. Why should the rest of us pay for other peoples recklessness.

Imagine my surprise when, 6 months after buying a house 10 miles from the coast and miles from the nearest lake, river, creek, or pond, I get notified that the altitude of my property means I'm in a CoE determined flood zone and the mortgage company requires me to take out flood insurance, even though there's never been anything resembling a flood here. They failed to inform me before purchase, because across the street is out of the flood zone, and they were confused. So now I'm out $5700 this year (been going up every year) because the feds are in fact stopping the subsidies. This is not "a house at the beach" this is a crummy 1950s 3 bedroom in a run of the mill working class neighborhood that's never flooded; I've lived here through a few hurricanes and a lot of rainstorms.

Milestones

[bbands]

Why do scientists, who really ought to know better, confuse rounds numbers with significant milestones? Have we lost our command of even elementary statistics? John

Re:Milestones

[Anonymous Coward]

The funniest thing about that article in particular is that they totally cropped off the x-axis, so all you can really do is guess that points represent months? Or not. It just highlights the entire pointlessness of it all.

Re:Milestones

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists are very, very aware of that. Why would you even expect that people who have been studying climate for several decades would think of round numbers as particularly importante?

It's the public that needs to be fed round numbers because that's what makes the news, and it's what allows such a tremendously complicated topic as climate change to be more easily digestible to the public.

Re:Milestones

[Anonymous Coward]

Poorly presented statistics and fallacious arguments in the headlines may score a lot of 'subliminal-inundation' points but most modestly-intelligent readers get extremely turned-off by them. Cue the ever-increasing number of what were at one point 'fringe' political groups (although the Tea Party has been roundly decimated in the media, to the point where if nothing else they've won my sympathy)

Re:Milestones

[Plumpaquatsch]

The funniest thing about that article in particular is that they totally cropped off the x-axis, so all you can really do is guess that points represent months?

Not half as funny as you not being able to find the non-cropped version at the bottom of the article.

Re:Milestones

[Plumpaquatsch]

Why do scientists, who really ought to know better, confuse rounds numbers with significant milestones? Have we lost our command of even elementary statistics? John

You are right, of course. They really should post a new monthly record every month for 5 or 6 months in a row each year instead . That will tell people. And Wazuppwitdat.com will point out the other 6 months as proof of cooling.

Re:Milestones

[goodmanj]

They're not confused, they just understand that the media and public get excited about big round numbers, and if "CO2 at 400 ppm!" gets as much attention as "Dow Jones at 18,000!", it's a win.

Explains why my lawn and garden are doing well

[Crashmarik]

Huzzah for free plant food.

Re:Explains why my lawn and garden are doing well

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that air contains 0.038% carbon dioxide vs 20.95% oxygen, plants still have a long way before they achieve parity.

Bull. Shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Have these numbers been INDEPENDENTLY verified? As in from organizations that don't have an agenda?

Not enough CO2 yet

[Grand Facade]

Lets clear some more trees.

So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

So when will all of this destruction and devastation actually happen?

I distinctly recall hearing about how major cities along the U.S. eastern seaboard would be under water "within a decade" back in the mid 1970s. It didn't happen.

Then we were supposed to be completely out of oil by 1990. It didn't happen.

The next prediction was that the ozone layer would be almost completely depleted by 2002. It didn't happen.

Then we were told global warming would spiral out of control by 2011. It didn't happen.

It gets harder and harder to take these claims from environmentalists, scientists and politicians seriously, when they're so wrong again and again and again.

It's not even a case of efforts to mitigate the problems actually having any effect.

Most of the time these efforts haven't even started by the time the problem has either resolved itself, or been shown to have been a load of bullshit in the first place.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you are confusion sensationalist media reports with the actual science. As far as the science is concerned, we're on the same track we've been on for 20 years..

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as the science is concerned, we're on the same track we've been on for 20 years..

So absolutely nothing is going to happen? That's a relief!

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

And it hurts so bad, Cause it’s all in my head, I think about it over and over again, I replay it over and over again. And I can’t take it yeah I can’t shake it

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Applehu Akbar]

Sensationalist media reports are not actual science, unless they're about climate.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Mashiki]

Many of those things that the poster stated came from scientists, not the media until they picked it up. Much like that poster, I also remember "all the rainforests will be gone by 2000," "Canada will be a desert because we're cutting down all the trees." And if I go get my grade school notes from the 1980's I can find more. Including the source of them. Usually out of some scientific journal.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who moderated this fucking idiot up? Other idiots?

Ozone is still here, because of Montreal Protocol. Read up about it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

You know why we no longer have Acid Rain? Cap and trade. Read up about it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

It does not take a few years to cause noticeable change in Global Warming. It takes centuries. Maybe your great-great-great-grandkids will intent a timemachine and shoot you for your own stupidity, because it will be them that will be affected. It will also be them that will not be able to do anything about it, except to invent a time machine.

Nothing resolved itself. People took action, and you fucking idiot don't even bother to figure out that someone else saved your sorry ass.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did those predictions work out for Tim Flannery?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannery_fibs_excuses_for_his_dud_predictions/

His place must be flooded by now, no?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannery_admits_no_chance_of_that_flooding_he_claimed_after_all

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[pitchpipe]

Nothing resolved itself. People took action, and you fucking idiot don't even bother to figure out that someone else saved your sorry ass.

Just like Y2K, It's the same shit over and over again: society expends resources to head off disaster, because of said expenditures disaster is averted, fucking morons baffled because disaster that everyone was talking about didn't happen.

Fucking morons believe disaster scenario was made up to expend resources.

REALITY FUCKING BAFFLING TO MORONS! FILM AT 11

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[unimacs]

The ozone was being depleted by chlorofluorocarbons. International efforts were able to largely phase them out, and the Ozone layer has recovered.

One of the first predictions of running out of oil was made in 1914 by the Bureau of Mines. They thought the world would run out in 10 years. There have been similar predictions since then. Why haven't they come true? Because huge sums of money have been invested in making sure we don't run out or at least to put it off as long as possible. Billions and billions have been spent on locating more oil, and figuring out how to extract the relatively small amounts of oil that are in places we already know about. Think about some the crazy stuff we do to get oil out of the ground even in the middle of the ocean.

One of the consequences has been that the price of oil has gone up over time. It's slumped back down for now, just like it did in the 90's but it rose after that and you can bet it will again. If in the early 90's you had told somebody that gas would cost almost $4.00 a gallon in a decade, they would have thought armageddon was coming.

In both the case of the ozone layer and oil supplies, the dire predictions didn't happen in large part because we did what was necessary to keep them from happening. Same thing with Y2K. A ton of money was spent updating computers and software.

And we could avoid the problems being predicted as consequences of global warming if we take action and be willing to spend some money. But for some reason, we'd rather just argue about it whether it's really a problem or not and in the meantime the solutions just get more expensive and likelihood of widespread consequences increase.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[penguinoid]

It gets harder and harder to take these claims from environmentalists, scientists and politicians seriously, when they're so wrong again and again and again.

Someday, you'll realize that everything said by a politician, and most things said by a journalist, are misleading exaggerated gibberish. Try talking to someone with a science degree about your science-related concerns.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Ferretman]

The Alarmists hate it when you throw their own predictions back at them!

(I liked it mind you. Good list.)

Ferret

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[unimacs]

Note: Fortunately the world as a whole is making substantial investments in renewable energy while the US drags its feet. Of course the problem is that we will largely have to import solutions developed elsewhere. We are wasting an opportunity for more energy independence. While renewable/nuclear energy will be produced locally, we will have to import the technology from places that were smart enough to make the investment.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Jack Griffin]

The funny thing about peak oil, is that the concept is still correct even if the timing is wrong. We've heard the rebuttals "oh they said that 20 years ago". Sure peak oil might not be this year or next, or even int he next decade or two. But conceptually it has to happen at some point, so the sooner we deal with it the better (and cheaper and easier) it will be.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

and the Ozone layer has recovered.

No it has NOT. It has only stopped getting clobbered faster than it is produced and that only happened very recently. It will not be recovered for at least a few decades.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Stephan Schulz]

So when will all of this destruction and devastation actually happen?

The next prediction was that the ozone layer would be almost completely depleted by 2002. It didn't happen.

Then we were told global warming would spiral out of control by 2011. It didn't happen.

Apart from the fact that you "distinct memory" seem to be highly selective and not quite reliable, this seems to be a very weird example. Yes, we were destroying the Ozone layer with (primarily) CFCs. Scientists were warning that things would get worse if nothing was done about it. But for once, the world did something. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol banned most releases of CFCs worldwide. And about now we can see the Ozone hole slowly recovering. This is not a failed prediction, it's an example of regulation working and predictions coming true.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[monkeyxpress]

It's just because the world is not dominated by engineers/scientists anymore. History has shown that if you sit down and try to constructively solve a problem rather than argue about it, you can achieve some pretty incredible things. But the world has never been dominated by problem solvers. It is generally dominated by bullies who realise it is easier to steal someone else's lunch than figure out how to make more sandwiches. The world wars showed the folly of this sort of destructive, zero-sums thinking, and for a while after people worked on solving problems and creating new stuff. Now we are just quickly heading back to our old (and normal) ways.

This is why companies like Tesla are so interesting. I really hope that Musk can prove that a market led solution can bring about positive technological change. If he fails then it pretty much means we should all go re-train as lawyers. It isn't anywhere near as hard as you might think, you just have to lose hope in humanity first.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[johanw]

"It does not take a few years to cause noticeable change in Global Warming. It takes centuries. Maybe your great-great-great-grandkids will intent a timemachine and shoot you for your own stupidity,"

Those idiots, if they just would have continued pumping up the CO2 levels we wouldn't have this ice age now.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Bongo]

And the big one, population growth. But another big one is also this:

An environmentalist who had travelled the world to find a job in carbon trading, explained to me that, "it doesn't matter if CO2 isn't really a problem, because by cutting CO2 you force a reduction in production and consumption; it is about reducing GREED."

As far as I know she wasn't religious, but it seems the West has inherited a monotheistic dogma about man being full of original sin, and sometimes it shows up in environmentalism.

Humans are creative intelligent creatures full of potential for empathy and freedom. But rather than champion our better qualities, some think we should persecute starving Africans for being born.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[HangingChad]

>I distinctly recall hearing about how major cities along the U.S. eastern seaboard would be under water "within a decade" back in the mid 1970s. It didn't happen.

That's good to know because, right now, parts of Miami are flooding at high tide and larger areas flood during king tides. There are huge projects going on all along the coastal areas of southern Florida to raise sewer lines and lift stations so toilets will continue flushing. We are spending tens of millions to try and protect the well casings that supply freshwater to Miami.

There are trails in Palm Beach we grew up rollerblading when we were kids that flood twice a day now; the storm drains start flowing backwards. Then there are the underwater boat docks and places where the waves lap over the tide wall.

That doesn't even touch beach erosion. It's funny as hell to watch cities pump sand back up on the beach.

The next big hurricane that comes in from the wrong direction and you're going to see boats washed up on I-95. Miami's going to be dead long before the waters claim it for the last time but the water is coming and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Conservative Mantra:

All Life is Sacred - until it's born. Then we can execute it or let it starve or whatever.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

This sounds like a good reason to continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere if it means we can finally be rid of Florida.

Re: So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

And "Dealing with it" always involves flexing the muscle of the Big State.

Oh, what would we do without people advocating an ever larger and more powerful government to save us from ourselves???

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only that, but it will be hard to recognize that you are "at" peak oil until some time after, probably a few years, and it's expected that there will be plenty of wiggling around near that peak, with supply, demand and prices fluctuating significantly, before you'll be able to confidently say we are on the downhill side and not going back.

Despite that additional uncertainty, it *is* going to happen.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[drinkypoo]

While renewable/nuclear energy will be produced locally, we will have to import the technology from places that were smart enough to make the investment.

That's okay, we'll just export some military technology to them and they'll be happy to give us their fusion generators or whatever, like always. But seriously, you can buy science.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[stjobe]

So when will all of this destruction and devastation actually happen?

I distinctly recall hearing about how major cities along the U.S. eastern seaboard would be under water "within a decade" back in the mid 1970s. It didn't happen.

Then we were supposed to be completely out of oil by 1990. It didn't happen.

The next prediction was that the ozone layer would be almost completely depleted by 2002. It didn't happen.

Then we were told global warming would spiral out of control by 2011. It didn't happen.

It gets harder and harder to take these claims from environmentalists, scientists and politicians seriously, when they're so wrong again and again and again.

It's not even a case of efforts to mitigate the problems actually having any effect.

Most of the time these efforts haven't even started by the time the problem has either resolved itself, or been shown to have been a load of bullshit in the first place.

When a scientist says "if the current trend continues, X will happen", media reports it as "X will happen".

What they don't report - and what people like you seem unable to understand - is that the current trend DIDN'T continue because people, governments, nations, actually DID something about it.

So the ozone layer is still here (slowly recovering) because we stopped spewing CFCs into the atmosphere. We MADE SURE the trend didn't continue.

We still have oil because we go to silly lengths and spend ridiculous amounts of money to find and extract more. Fracking, anyone? Oil sands? Deep-sea drilling?

The point many scientists - and more and more regular people, and even some politicians in some countries - are making is that unless we DO something, if we allow the current trend of climate change to continue, it is - sooner or later, but most assuredly - going to make this planet a worse place to live than it already is.

It's not going to fix itself, much like the ozone layer wouldn't have just fixed itself. We're going to have to fix it, and a good start is to stop making it worse.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Renewable Energy = 98% of New Electricity Generation Capacity in February (US) | CleanTechnica

February isn't just a one off, coal power stations are closing, most new installations are renewable, solar is doubling every 2-3 years, it's at 1.6%, if that continued for 15 years the US would end up with 48% solar by 2030.

Re: So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like Innocent Until Proven Guilty. Don't execute a baby before it's born. It's pretty safe to assume the baby's innocent.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for sharing these frightening details.

I've been bothered for a long time by people ignoring the sea level problem because they think it isn't happening. Your stories drive the point home that this is really happening, not on the scale of centuries but on the scale of a few years.

It's too bad it takes years for the evidence to accumulate....the slowness is what lulls people into thinking there's no disaster happening around them.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Straif]

A large part of the additional flooding is because Florida land management is terrible. Due to high demand for real estate flood plains and swamps are being converted to new developments and surprise, when you take away the natural areas for water to flow in an area completely surrounded by water other areas will suddenly see flooding.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[budgenator]

The funny thing about the Ozone hole is the hole was discovered by satellites, the first satellites to measure for it so we really don't know if the hole was "caused" by something, was a hole that was always there or if it was an always there but we made bigger.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[budgenator]

I fail to see how decreasing productivity and make poor people even more energy impoverished will benefit them. Do you have any idea of how many women are kidnapped into slavery, raped and/or murdered while foraging for firewood to cook food to feed their family each year?

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? The US has more renewable energy than any country in the world. How does this drivel get marked Insightful?

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[budgenator]

Sure that's not from ground subsistence from the ever increasing populations pumping fresh water out of the ground?

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's okay, they'll appreciate sacrificing themselves so I can have another Apple iWatch.

Re:So when will this actually happen?

[gzuckier]

This sounds like a good reason to continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere if it means we can finally be rid of Florida.

Save Mia Mifla!

Chicken Little

[Anonymous Coward]

The sky is falling... again.

Meh.

Woohoo

[Anonymous Coward]

Woohoo people !!! We did it !!! We finally reached that milestone... Let keep going, we can do better !!!

Bit to belabor the obvious

[Crashmarik]

Who in their right mind situates an atmospheric sampling site in the middle of a chain of active volcanoes ?

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Obfuscant]

The same organization who has, in the past, used the wrong paint on or miss-sited the instruments used for the surface observations.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I'm 100% sure that they just walked up there, plopped it down, and it didn't even *occur* to anyone at NOAA to consider the volcano thing.

Jesus fucking fuck, what the hell IS it with you people on slashdot who think that the first "insight" you have five seconds after thinking of something for the first time in your life hasn't occurred to people who do it for a living? Here's a hint: If you were *that* smart you wouldn't be talking shit on Slashdot.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, them silly scientists, I bet they feel foolish now that they have noticed them volcanoes.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Kernel Kurtz]

Doesn't matter.

All climate data is corrected.

Multiple times.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[penguinoid]

Who in their right mind situates an atmospheric sampling site in the middle of a chain of active volcanoes ?

Probably someone who wants some sort of warning before a volcano erupts, wants to measure volcanic contributions to CO2, or wants to sample at high altitudes in that particular region.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[phantomfive]

It doesn't matter, the numbers have been independently verified from other stations. They are accurate.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[itzly]

More importantly, it's a sampling site in the middle of the ocean, far away from human influences. When the wind is coming from the ocean, it is very clean. When the wind is coming from the direction of an active volcanic vent, they throw out the data.

Of course, anybody who's in doubt could take a sample of air at a location of their own choice, and send it to a lab for CO2 analysis.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Crashmarik]

Did I also mention it's an island chain that gets most of it's power from burning oil ? 72% 14% coal and 4% garbage

Be willing to bet that 4% garbage yields truly funky data points.

http://www.hawaiianelectric.co...

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[itzly]

You would be willing to bet that a bunch of experts who have been doing this for 50 years missed things that you find obvious ?

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Crashmarik]

You are willing to bet your life this is actually a good representation ?

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[riverat1]

Who in their right mind situates an atmospheric sampling site in the middle of a chain of active volcanoes ?

The Mauna Loa CO2 series is often cited because it is the longest continuous record of CO2 in the atmosphere (since 1958). The occasional times that local CO2 from the volcano affects the measurement is obvious and they exclude those measurements from the record. But since then CO2 is also being measured at dozens of other locations around the globe and they all show relatively the same thing as Mauna Loa.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[itzly]

Depends. What do I get when I win ? And who will be the referee ?

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Rockoon]

New corrections are done monthly. Literally.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[jandersen]

Who in their right mind situates an atmospheric sampling site in the middle of a chain of active volcanoes ?

Someone who wants sample the air in that location, perhaps? To get a statistically useful dataset, you have to sample from as many, diverse locations as possible, including some where you would expect the readings to be higher than in other places. Otherwise you would get biased data; they were looking for the true average value across the globe, not the least scary number. I'm sure there will be samples that were taken from locations poor in CO2 as well.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's see:
1) No one is ever allowed to question a person acting from a position of authority unless they also hold such a position.
2) The only people allowed on Slashdot are people nerdy enough to care about these topics but apparently not smart enough to be involved in any such topics.
Yeah, I can see where you get the 'blindly trust people who have Dr. in front of their names' mentality.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[mystuff]

And here's the explanation:

Isolated in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and at over 11,000 feet above sea level, the upper north face of Mauna Loa volcano is an ideal location to make measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide that reflect global trends, not local influences such as factories or forests that might boost or drop carbon dioxide within their vicinity. The CO2 sensors at Mauna Loa are positioned such that they sample an incoming breeze direct from the ocean, unaffected by human activities, vegetation or other factors on the island. (The Mauna Loa Observatory is high enough that the incoming breeze rides above the thermal inversion layer.)

Volcanoes are considerable sources of carbon dioxide themselves. However, the sampling location was chosen to be normally upwind of Mauna Loa's vent, and Keeling perfected methods for detecting and correcting intervals when the wind blew the wrong way.

Measurements at about 100 other sites have confirmed the long-term trend shown by the Keeling Curve, although no sites have a record as long as Mauna Loa.

Source: http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/keeling_curve

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, tongue in cheek, sounds like that's representative of what's being burned around the world anyway.

Leaving your silly rationale aside for neglecting the data from Mauna Loa, there are monitoring stations world-wide that show the same increase in CO2, so grasp at some other straws.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not an insight, that's tired old denial tropes.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Plumpaquatsch]

Doesn't matter.

All climate data is corrected.

Multiple times.

Yeah, I have seen the men that make it seem like plants are blooming earlier than some years ago myself, spraying lots of pollen in the air. Not to mention preventing the plants from spitting them out when they actually would. The allergics are easily fooled, but not us two!

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, people ignore the truth or purposely lie to progress their agenda. Peoples' general morality levels aren't getting better. It makes me think things are going to get worse, not better, in this regard (win at all cost, lie to get your way, fuck family, cheat and deny it when caught, produce false data to get what you want, etc.)

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, when a so called scientist (warmer) at Harvard gets $32 million in grants over 10 years and writes pro CAGW studies, I DO KINDA THINK SOMETHING IS UP.

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[goodmanj]

Who in their right mind situates an atmospheric sampling site in the middle of a chain of active volcanoes ?

People who understand CO2 better than you. Kilauea volcano emits a fair amount of it, but much less than the seasonal uptake and release of an entire continent's worth of trees growing in the summer and dying off in the winter. To minimize the effect of plant seasonal cycles, you want to be as far away from deciduous forests as you can get. In the middle of a giant lava field in the middle of the biggest ocean on the planet is a pretty good choice. South Pole would be a better choice, but Hawaii is cheaper to get to. Plus they serve mai tais.

http://www.geology.iastate.edu...

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[quantaman]

Yes, I'm 100% sure that they just walked up there, plopped it down, and it didn't even *occur* to anyone at NOAA to consider the volcano thing.

Jesus fucking fuck, what the hell IS it with you people on slashdot who think that the first "insight" you have five seconds after thinking of something for the first time in your life hasn't occurred to people who do it for a living? Here's a hint: If you were *that* smart you wouldn't be talking shit on Slashdot.

Ahah! But you fail to realize I have a vague memory of a blog post validating my position!

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear they're altruistic and work for free! Scientists for sainthood!

Re:Bit to belabor the obvious

[gzuckier]

Yes, I'm 100% sure that they just walked up there, plopped it down, and it didn't even *occur* to anyone at NOAA to consider the volcano thing.

Jesus fucking fuck, what the hell IS it with you people on slashdot who think that the first "insight" you have five seconds after thinking of something for the first time in your life hasn't occurred to people who do it for a living? Here's a hint: If you were *that* smart you wouldn't be talking shit on Slashdot.

Half of them were told too often by their parents how brilliant they were so they believe they can figure things out in five minutes that others spend lifetimes on, and the other half were told by their parents that they weren't smart enough and in order to get their parents' love they desperately have to show that they can figure things out in five minutes that others spend lifetimes on.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, so /. is going to post monthly updates to CO2 but not monthly updates on the 18 years and 5 months of flat temperatures? The latter is news worthy, CO2 concentrations if you've been watching it, are jumping up and down as if life is consuming it. Like it was food for something which isnt human...

Meanwhile someone discovers a link between Sun pollution, magnatism, heat transfer between planets and the 'void' which may explain away "Dark Energy" as simply being sun pollution. Unspent electrons. Energy for star ships.

Yet /. is more focused on cutting off it's nose to spite its face?

What kind of future does /. want to see? One where we're all accountable for creating food to feed plants and be chastised for it based upon "green" ideology? "Green" ideology which says food for plants is making the planet hotter because CO2 is a "greenhouse gas"? *ALL GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE ARE GREENHOUSE GASES * because they all absorb some energy vs not having an atmosphere at all!

Re:Hmm

[david_bonn]

Wow, so /. is going to post monthly updates to CO2 but not monthly updates on the 18 years and 5 months of flat temperatures? The latter is news worthy, CO2 concentrations if you've been watching it, are jumping up and down as if life is consuming it. Like it was food for something which isnt human...

Meanwhile someone discovers a link between Sun pollution, magnatism, heat transfer between planets and the 'void' which may explain away "Dark Energy" as simply being sun pollution. Unspent electrons. Energy for star ships.

Yet /. is more focused on cutting off it's nose to spite its face?

What kind of future does /. want to see? One where we're all accountable for creating food to feed plants and be chastised for it based upon "green" ideology? "Green" ideology which says food for plants is making the planet hotter because CO2 is a "greenhouse gas"? *ALL GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE ARE GREENHOUSE GASES * because they all absorb some energy vs not having an atmosphere at all!

Oh gosh, where does on start.

I guess I'll take a simple approach.

Svante Arrhenius showed in 1896 that CO2 absorbs much more infrared radiation than Nitrogen or Oxygen, which is nice because it keeps our planet from being an ice ball. CO2 levels then were around 300 ppm.

CO2 levels today are about 400ppm, that is the highest they have been in 800,000 years. And no, CO2 levels weren't this high 800,000 years ago. That is just how far back we can go with ice cores.

Human activity, mostly burning fossil fuels, is pumping 36 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

If you don't buy human-caused climate change, explain to me which one of those facts you disagree with. Or explain to me how you interpret them.
Reference: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...

Re:Hmm

[itzly]

Wow, so /. is going to post monthly updates to CO2 but not monthly updates on the 18 years and 5 months of flat temperatures?

Check for yourself. The temperatures for the last 18 years are still around the same rising trend line as before.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com

"Ice Age At 2000+ PPM CO2: ‘Earth experienced an ice age 450 million years ago, with CO2 somewhere between 2000 and 8000 ppm’ "

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/

Is that good enough for you? Why are you spreading what are obviously lies?

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 levels today are about 400ppm, that is the highest they have been in 800,000 years. And no, CO2 levels weren't this high 800,000 years ago. That is just how far back we can go with ice cores.

but..but..but... the earth is only 6,000 years old. my texas-blessed public education says so.

Re:Hmm

[cbeaudry]

Congrats to Svante, and obviously smart man for his discoveries, now, that about 125 years ago.
I think science has progressed since then, or it did until climate science came along and it started regressing.. but I digress.

We put 36 gigatons of CO2... ok, so? Half of that is scrubed. The half life of the rest is MUCH shorter than 1980s and 90s chicken littles where predicting with their crystal balls. And the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are logarithmic, most of the IR rays being trapped are already being trapped... the extra does have an effect, but its almost nothing compared to the first 30-50ppms.

Latest sensitivity for doubling of CO2 is in the range of 1 to 1.2c. The fact that many alarmists still cling to their untenable bullshit claims of 3-4 or even 5C is irrelevant. Real science adjusts itself. Climate science desperately tries to make models, data and fake research fit with their pre-determined notion of WHAT climate should be doing.

None of the facts that you stated above mean CO2 is the main driver of the increase in temperatures we have observed, the palsy .85c over the last 100-125 years.
None of the facts above demonstrated that 1-2c average increase would be bad.
None of those demonstrate that there currenly is observed catastrophe happening.

I could go on. But as usual you will find a way to try to destroy my character, point to propaganda at SKS.
Tell me I'm an idiot because I state stuff that are in blogs.

Go ahead. The blogs report what scientists are researching. Not what the IPCC and their handlers cherry pick to show.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Good summary.
Right ON !

A little warming is good.
The models are running way too hot based on a tendentious too high climate sensitivity.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

You're talking gibberish.

36 Gt of CO2 into the atmosphere, 'half of that is scrubbed'? If it was scrubbed, it wouldn't be going into the atmosphere.

And the rest has a half-life? Newsflash, CO2 is not radioactive, it doesn't have an automatic decay process built into it. The closest there is is its absorption by plant life (which extract the carbon and return the oxygen to the atmosphere), but guess what? deforestation, desertification, over-development, and the conversion of rainforest to agricultural use are reducing the total amount of space for plants, on land at least. Which leaves the oceans, but it turns out that significantly increasing the mass of plant life there has its own effects (google "algal bloom").

And will the effects be bad? Look, bud: in the past 100 years, human population has increased from under 2 billion to over 7 billion. At enormous cost in lives and effort, we kinda-sorta have found space for those people to live, although the subject is still the cause of frequent wars. Displace a significant number of those people from where they have, finally, managed to settle and eke out an existence, and what follows will make World War Two look like a mild hangover. You think there are a lot of migrants in the world today? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Re:Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually latest IPCC v5 admitted that most CO2 on this planet contains in the oceans and they have no reliable data to estimate it. They also have admitted, I think, the limited areas of their data measurements.

Green Plants Everywhere Thank You

[rssrss]

Speaking on behalf of green plants everywhere, we would like to thank you for making it easier for us to breathe and grow. Keep up the good work.

Re:Green Plants Everywhere Thank You

[Plumpaquatsch]

Speaking on behalf of green plants everywhere, we would like to thank you for making it easier for us to breathe and grow. Keep up the good work.

Dear plants,

What the fuck is up with you? Why don't you grow more? We give you more CO2 and instead of you gobbling it all up, the levels in the atmosphere are still rising. Is it somehow too much for you?

Re:Bull. Shit.

[Fwipp]

When it comes to climate science, there are only have two types of studies: Those with an obvious agenda, and those that show that we're cooking the earth.

climate sensitivity estimate-good news

[ishmaelflood]

Actually that's some nice numbers, roughly 2.5 doublings of CO2 content, and a 3 degree C temperature rise, give about 1.2 deg C per doubling, in line with the 1.0 deg C per doubling you'd actually expect from CO2's measured properties, and a far cry from the IPCC publicised figures of 2-4.5 generated from GCMs of dubious accuracy.

So what does this tell us? The feedbacks are NOT strong, and not very positive.

So, with a climate sensitivity of 1.2 we can look forward to a slightly warmer climate for the next couple of centuries, which as the IPCC agrees, will be good for humankind. Good news if you like people, bad news if you are trying to impose a global government or whatever the climate crybabies want.

Re:climate sensitivity estimate-good news

[XXongo]

If you get your data from what anonymous cowards posting on the internet, a factor of three is pretty good agreement.

Re:climate sensitivity estimate-good news

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it would be temperature rise was in any way in line with CO2 rise, but we can see from the last 20 years that a massive increase in CO2 does not bring with it an equivalent increase in temperature. As a causation, the link is tenuous at best. It's easy enough to check the graphs and see that CO2 and temperature only bear a middling correlation. A third factor is involved, but until the scientists are willing to suss out what that factor may be, they'll always be stuck with failing models and failed predictions.

Re:climate sensitivity estimate-good news

[itzly]

but we can see from the last 20 years that a massive increase in CO2 does not bring with it an equivalent increase in temperature

That's because it takes the temperature some time to catch up. There's a lot of water in the oceans.

Re:climate sensitivity estimate-good news

[riverat1]

You can't ignore the that's accumulating in the oceans. As I calculated above if all of the heat the oceans have accumulated since the Argo floats went online in the early 2000s had gone into the atmosphere only it would have meant over 16 degrees Celsius rise in atmospheric temperatures.

Re:climate sensitivity estimate-good news

[smaddox]

I am not a climatologist, but it seems that even if the GP is correct, and 1950 ppm of CO2 results in only 3 C heating over modern times, the loss of the polar ice caps (which is likely for such a temperature rise) would significantly destabilize the climate (phase changes dampen temperature swings), possibly resulting far more extreme storms. Again, I am not a climatologist, so this is pure conjecture, but the loss of our coastlines to constant hurricanes and tropical storms would be extremely expensive, if nothing else.

Perhaps we shouldn't scoff at efforts to internalize the external costs associated with fossil fuels (or fission, for that matter). If external costs were internalized, then market dynamics would eventually solve our energy problems, at least as best as they can be solved.

Obama's friends don't believe him about sea levels

[ishmaelflood]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/1025232...

Way to go!

[PopeRatzo]

Carbon Dioxide. It's got what plants crave.

Now if we could just raise the level of electrolytes in the atmosphere, we'll have a veritable paradise.

Thus showing CO2 is hardly related to warming

[SuperKendall]

Warming is obviously a lot more complex than CO2 levels, because warming has continued to basically flatline as it has for decades now. So why are we still so concerned about CO2 emissions when the runaway effect predicted is simply not occurring?

There are simply too many natural processes in the earths climate that deal with variances in heat, most variances from other causes are vastly greater than the current minuscule levels of CO2 we see (they are historically high but factor in very little in terms of atmospheric mix).

If we're lucky, we'll get a nice 2C boost for a few hundred years out of all combined warming effects, before sliding into yet another ice age. Sadly I do not think we will be that lucky.

Re:Thus showing CO2 is hardly related to warming

[riverat1]

Warming is obviously a lot more complex than CO2 levels, because warming has continued to basically flatline as it has for decades now.

You can only say that if you only look at the atmosphere and cherry pick the extremely hot year of 1998 (that was 2 sigmas above the temperature curve). As I calculated above if all of the heat that accumulated in the oceans between 2003 and 2012 were in the atmosphere instead we would have had over 16 degrees Celsius of temperature rise.

Not only that but if you do a statistical analysis of surface temperatures it's not possible to even show there's even been a slowdown in temperature rise. Tamino, a statistician by trade tried a number of different methods to show a slowdown statistically and failed. You can read about it here.

There is obviously plenty of complexity in the system but the underlying accumulation of heat energy continues unabated.

Re:Thus showing CO2 is hardly related to warming

[SuperKendall]

You can only say that if you only look at the atmosphere and cherry pick the extremely hot year of 1998

No - you can say that if you simply observe ANY measure of temperature rise over the last two decades. CO2 has skyrocketed - temperature did not (it has gone up some but is now far below the most conservative estimates of warming, even though CO2 has risen as predicted). Thus, no correlation and certainly no indication a runaway effect is going to occur.

It's crazy that people are still treating a gas that the entire biosphere of the Earth was built to process as a danger, when there are real threats to the environment aplenty. Guess we'll all just ignore those while we go wackoid over nothing.

Re:Thus showing CO2 is hardly related to warming

[itzly]

No - you can say that if you simply observe ANY measure of temperature rise over the last two decades. CO2 has skyrocketed - temperature did not

Temperature is still following the same rising trend. Nothing has changed in the last two decades.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

Re:Thus showing CO2 is hardly related to warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Just that the next time there is an El Nino event, that the spike will be that much worse because we are starting off hotter already.

Re:Thus showing CO2 is hardly related to warming

[cbeaudry]

Please cherry pick the beginning of the hill. (1970s)
Also making a line between 2 points obviously will show 1 trend and only one.
You think people are idiots don't you?

Why so scared to admit it has flatlined in the last 18 years?

Even if you are right and its just a pause... IT IS A PAUSE.

You take todays date, you go back in time until you can no longer find a flat line.
That currently brings us to 18 years 4 months.

1998 is offset pretty much by 2010, so your point is moot.

There is no cherry picking, its just an observation. If you start today and go back 18 years 4 months, the trend is DEAD FLAT.

However.... CO2 is most definitely NOT flat.

Explain.

Re:Thus showing CO2 is hardly related to warming

[itzly]

You take todays date, you go back in time until you can no longer find a flat line

Here's the same graph, but now with extra trend line between 1997 and 2015:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...

As you can see, it's still going up. It's not going up as steep, but that's because the starting date was hotter than the trend. Keep in mind that 1998 was an extremely hot 2-sigma outlier year, whereas 2014 was a normal year, even though 2014 was hotter than 1998.

Re:Thus showing CO2 is hardly related to warming

[riverat1]

Why so scared to admit it has flatlined in the last 18 years?

Even if you are right and its just a pause... IT IS A PAUSE.

Statistically speaking it's not even a pause.

There is no cherry picking, its just an observation. If you start today and go back 18 years 4 months, the trend is DEAD FLAT.

However.... CO2 is most definitely NOT flat.

That argument only makes sense if you're claiming the high temperatures in 1998 were caused by CO2 rather than mostly the most extreme El Nino ever measured. In any rigorous statistical analysis you never start from an extreme point like 1998.

Re:Thus showing CO2 is hardly related to warming

[cbeaudry]

I did not start at 1998 and I did not end at 1998.

Start Today
End Jan. 1997.

I didint choose that date, you just have to go back until there is no more flat line.

About the most extreme El Nino ever measured, that's true... however the data pool is ridiculously small wouldn't you say?

Re:Thus showing CO2 is hardly related to warming

[riverat1]

What temperature series are you using to make that claim from? I went to WoodForTrees and plotted the different temperature series from 1997.0 to present and none of them showed 0 temperature rise in that period. The only one that was even close was the RSS Land Only global mean.

Since the minimum length for climatological analysis is 30 years I don't think 18 years is significant and as the statistical analysis I cited showed there is no statistically significant slowdown to the warming curve since 1970.

Re: Thus showing CO2 is hardly related to warming

[cbeaudry]

Both your questions answered here.
And BTW RSS global mean shows a flat line.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Re: Thus showing CO2 is hardly related to warming

[riverat1]

So RSS must be the only temperature record that is right because it shows what you want them to show. I won't claim it's wrong but it's still statistically insignificant.

When Will The Nazi Era Gas Chambers Return

[Anonymous Coward]

The IPCC Founding Statements #2 declares that Humans are the cause of Climate Change.

Therefore to stop Climate Change, Humans must die.

The UN under the Papacy of Bon Ki Moon, a half-breed Korean-Japanese who hates both Korea and Japan as much as he hates Caucasians (his Bit Whitie and the Bomb) will order all nations to kill-off a portion of their population to appease and give Honor to his Excellency General Pope Bon Ki Moon.

Under the orders of His Excellency USA must cull its population by 62% a figure of 142.6 million citizens.

Whether the USA starts with Barak Obama and works its way down, or starts with the Prison Population and then works up is no matter for His Excellency.

His Excellency recommends, Kil Them and Quick!

Perhaps His Excellency was in a bit of tight mood. He had been informed minutes earlier that his petition to the Stockholm Academy for the award of "Emperor Of Earth And All Realms and Territories" was not approved given that the Stockholm Academy does not recognize Emperor's. The prestigious Academy did try to quell any anger from His Excellency buy advising a revision to the application in that replacing "Emperor" with "God and King of Asgard" just might tip the balance in his favor given the Stockholm's members fondness of the Legends and Myths of the Realm of Asgard in their folklore.

The motion as put before the Stockholm Academy engender one crusty old crab of a member to stand up and give the following words, "For Bon Ki Moon to do this, he would by necessity need the assistance of DemiGod Loki. In the application as stands I find no reference to the DemiGod Loki."

After a brief and dramatic pause, the Academy members laughed a mighty laugh and then voted one and all to deny His Excellency Bon Ki Moon to be made Emperor of Earth and All Realms and Territories Therein.

In the Forever of the Great Hall the delegates assembled and joked and talked amongst themselves.

A particularly elders Gentlemen Delegate walked up to me and said, "This Loki Thing is a blemish on our Society! After all it is just Myth!".

The Gentleman's gase then changed from me to something behind me and up.

As I looked at the Gentleman he began peeing and shitting out the legs of his trousers and very soon ran off down the hall to the stairs to the lower level.

I turned around and saw, nothing.

That is not to mean "nothing" was there, but I did not see what the Gentleman saw.

In Science, situations like this happen all the time given our inability to measure and observe in space and time, a tricky business.

That is all as I fly back to the USA on a Delta Airlines aircraft.

I do hope it will arrive as I will be asleep.

Cheers

Re:When Will The Nazi Era Gas Chambers Return

[thephydes]

You Sir/Mam are a fucking moron read some real science instead of the crap that comes from Fox/other Murdoch idiots or out of your own ass.

Re:When Will The Nazi Era Gas Chambers Return

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh noes, the fucking progressive moron invoked Fox news. Oh Lordy. Run and hide!

NOAA Caught Rewriting US Temperature (again)

[Anonymous Coward]

No-one could possibly be manipulating CO2 data as well could they?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...

Re:NOAA Caught Rewriting US Temperature (again)

[riverat1]

For a couple hundred bucks you can get your own meter and start measuring it yourself. You won't get exactly the same numbers as they get at Mauna Loa but if you keep a record of it over a period of time you will see the same amount of rise as they get.

Re:NOAA Caught Rewriting US Temperature (again)

[goodmanj]

Yes, please do! Just be aware that if you live in a place with winter and trees, you will see a much bigger seasonal cycle than they see at Mauna Loa.

500! 500! 500!

[Ferretman]

We can do it guys!

Ferret

Article in foxnews.com

[myid]

I was surprised but happy to see that foxnews.com had an article called "Levels of carbon dioxide in air hits milestone". (news.google.com had a link to it.) The article says pretty much what the research.noaa.gov article says. Hopefully some people reading the foxnews article will be convinced that global warming is real.

Re:Article in foxnews.com

[drinkypoo]

Hopefully some people reading the foxnews article will be convinced that global warming is real.

If it just convinces them that we need carbon caps (trades I think are bullshit, but anyway) that will be a step in the right direction. We do not require belief, just limits on CO2 emissions.

Re:Article in foxnews.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Very few people deny that the earth has undergone periods of warming and cooling. And that we are currently in a period of rising temperatures (although the rising has been stalled for about 20 years). What so-called deniers ARE denying is that man is responsible for more than a small percent of this increase.

green hysteria

[paul mafinga]

The California Democrats were all high-fiving when they finally killed off the SONGS nuclear powerplant, increasing California's CO2 emissions by around 12%.

Total Chernobyl deaths are around 65-75 people, many of whom did not receive proper medical treatment.

If the green hysteria industry and the modern democrats can frighten their way into our wallets again, they will do so, gleefully.

Re:green hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm assuming you don't believe that radiation exposure can cause cancer, which is why you're discounting the other 1000s of people?

I'm not against nuclear energy, but when you trivialize the disasters they can create, you become the reason why people distrust nuclear energy advocates.

Dipshit.

Short memories, repeated freak out.

[Anonanonaon]

May 9, 2013 400 PPM: Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Reaches Prehistoric Levels

But wait!

May 26, 2014 CO2 concentrations top 400 parts per million throughout northern hemisphere

But this is different! Yes, it's two years late, but it's March of 2015. So that means... What does that mean exactly?

It means that Batman v.s. Superman will be the top-grossing film of 2015! (For July 18th only. From 8PM to 10:30PM. In New Jersey.)

Aside from the hysteria button being pushed enough to have rubbed off the "H" from its now highly polished surface, can we consider two things?

1. There has been a huge uptick in volcanic activity in the first half of this year. Seriously; there's been more eruptions than in any previous year on record, and the year isn't even half-way over. -Aside from the inherent weirdness alarm *that* should set off (in conjunction with solar changes and the continuing rise in comet activity), can we please pause to wonder if maybe all that extra ash in the atmosphere might possibly be related?

No? Of course not. Check out the level of spin required to make the problem of too many exploding mountains go away. https://earthtrembling.wordpre...

Bravo. That's insane.

But who am I to get in the way somebody's well-crafted delusions?

Nevermind.

Re:Short memories, repeated freak out.

[Anonymous Coward]

But who am I to get in the way somebody's well-crafted delusions?

You're an idiot and a Koch brother fanboi. So get out of the way of the facts. Let me school you, even if you're too dumb to learn. Volcanoes are estimated to emit 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Yes, that includes undersea volcanos. I'll assume 320 million, just to show how much of a kochsucker you are. And this increase in volcanic activity this year? Well, there hasn't been any - just a massive increase in media hype. I wonder which fossil fuel industry paid for that. Ok, call it a 100% increase, again, to show how much of a deluded industry "useful idiot" you are. So absolute, know-to-be industry FUD, say volcanic activity has gone from 320 million to 640 million tonnes CO2 per annum. Well anthropogenic CO2 is about 30 billion tonnes per annum +- 10%. That's billion with a "b" compared to million with an "m". A billion is bigger than a million. By a factor of 1000. 1000 is a lot. And no a brazillion is not a real number. So the extra amount of CO2 you've lied about "exploding mountains" (nice loaded emotive phrase) emitting this year is still about the error bars of what humans did THIS YEAR and every other year! Kochsucker.

Re:Short memories, repeated freak out.

[mvdwege]

Of course, the first article talks about the first time the Mauna Loa location hit 400ppm, while the article, as specifically pointed out in the Slashdot summary is about the global average hitting 400ppm.

Why don't you go fuck off and shut up until you've learned to read?

Re:Short memories, repeated freak out.

[WindBourne]

You seem to have a comprehension issue.
The SA article was that in 2013, 1 sensor in the northern hemisphere recorded 400 for a day. THen it dropped.
The next article is that ALL sensors in the northern hemisphere records 400 and above for the month of April.

And if you think that ANY of those earthquakes has produced a single TICK in the total CO2 levels, well, it is obvious that you have not just reading comprehension issues, but logic as well.

Re:Short memories, repeated freak out.

[Anonanonaon]

I think you're missing the point.

The point, which should be jumping out at anybody reading this stuff, isn't the C02 levels. I really am not interested in C02 levels. I don't think they have much to do with anything.

What stands out for me is that the Earth and the Solar System are currently doing a *lot* of strange, big and noisy things. -Things which have nothing to do with SUVs or exhaust pipes.

The fact that *those* things are occurring right at the same time our climate is changing should strike people as significant. Don't you think?

You should.

But most people really don't want to go there. Because we can pretend that we're in control if we believe we're to blame for the climate changes via exhaust pipes. If it's something bigger, then.., well, we're just powerless bugs scurrying for cover.

This has happened many times before. Cyclical disaster is a real thing, and we're here again.

Re:Short memories, repeated freak out.

[Anonanonaon]

I know this is very upsetting for you, and you're probably a good person because you care about your planet. That's a good thing.

But you're missing the point.

We're being hystericized into ignoring the real issue.

The planet is entering another extinction cycle, and like all the others before it, it has nothing to do with automotive exhaust. The uptick in seismic activity and solar system changes indicates the beginning of another series of major cataclysms due to much larger changes than we little humans can claim responsibility for or have any control over.

The hysteria around carbon emissions, to make us think it's all our fault, is to prevent us from killing our leaders. -It always happens. With these events, throughout history, when the appointed fail to appease the gods, we kill them and appoint new leaders. It seems to be baked into our DNA and herd thinking. The 1% knows this on an instinctive level and they are trying to distract us.

In conjunction with this, the planet is coming under a global police lockdown; it's happening right now. We've got the first stages of a home-grown color revolution being crafted before our eyes. -Designed to render an excuse to lock us up before we kill our leaders. We have Walmarts being quietly recommissioned by the military for use as command centers in anticipation of some serious problems right around the corner.

This is the real story.

You're strong enough to swear at me and point out nonsense numbers, but are you strong enough to pause and to look at the problem from the perspective I'm suggesting?

Not that it matters.

Ice ages and comet impacts are indiscriminate killers. You can be wrong and self-righteous and still get flattened. Personally, I'd like to have my eyes open and my brain clear of lies when that happens. A little dignity goes a long way.

Good luck.

Re:Short memories, repeated freak out.

[mvdwege]

This is a level of tin-foil hattery I am not going to touch with even a ten-foot pole.

'Climatedot'

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just rename the site and have done with it?

There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', which is why the SCAMMERS behind it renamed it 'climate change', which means nothing, but is ALWAYS meant to be taken to mean "catastrophic man-made global warming"...

www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com

man

[dkman]

They keep arguing about what causes high CO2 levels. Let me clear it up.

The world population is larger than it's ever been, and only projected to rise. People exhale CO2. The problem isn't man-made, the problem IS man.

Re:man

[itzly]

The exhaled CO2 comes from carbon in the food, and the food took that carbon from the air. It's a short cycle with no net CO2 effect.

Re:man

[dkman]

I was just being a wise-ass, but that is a good argument.

Then I would point out how we produce that food. Cattle standing shoulder to shoulder and pigs in cages, round-up ready corn, then all of that trucked around. Shipments of peaches from Chile in the off season (don't get me wrong - I like that part).

Honestly, I think our highway rush hour every car has 1 person and we're all going under 10 miles an hour bullshit has more to do with it.

Temperature is rising

[XXongo]

but we can see from the last 20 years that a massive increase in CO2 does not bring with it an equivalent increase in temperature

Looks rising to me: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...

If you pick just the part of the curve where the temperature isn't rising, you can find data that looks like temperature isn't rising.

But, as of this year, actually it is rising: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea...

Significant Milestone!!

[Anonymous Coward]

TIME TO CELEBRATE

Eat More Pastured Meat

[pubwvj]

Want to reduce carbon levels in the atmosphere?

Support your local pasture based farming. Raising livestock on pasture soaks up carbon, and nitrogen (legumes for free fertilizer), far better than crop land and provides a diverse ecosystem for wildlife. Best of all, get your pasture raised meat from small, local, family operations. Many small producers means better food security and helps keep your money in your local economy - an extra bonus.

Support your local sustainable forestry. Forests that are regularly harvested suck up a lot more carbon than those that go into maturity stagnation. Cutting trees and planting new trees, or just letting the regen do it, is a huge way to sequester carbon.

Both of these are things that sequester enormous amounts of carbon long term.

While you're at it, reduce your carbon footprint. Attack the problem at both ends.

No more government

[moeinvt]

I can't help but compare this current "climate change" hysteria to the whole terrorist scare. Instill the public with this sense of fear and impending disaster and then use it as an excuse for more and bigger government and less personal freedom.

If you're "solution" to the "problem" of CO2 in the atmosphere is granting the U.S. federal government broad powers to regulate our energy use, forget it! Isn't this just the the socialist grand plan of having a central authority micro-managing everyone's lives? Government will tell you how many cubic feet of living space you're allowed to have, how much electricity you're allowed to use, how much fuel you can consume, how much food you need, etc. etc.?

I do my part to be an environmentally responsible citizen, but I'd rather be incinerated by this alleged "global warming" disaster than live with any more government micro-management of my life.

Cause: FRACKING

[Anonymous Coward]

Fracking consumes enormous amounts of water and it lowers the water table, and contaminates the water used.

These chemicals contribute to the gas problems.

"will be convinced that global warming is real..."

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would this evidence of CO2 accumulation convince them that global warming is real? On the contrary, the continued rise in CO2 correlates appalling badly with the *lack* of global warming (nothing lower troposphere in 18 years according to both satellite data sets).

Further supports natural change!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is great news! It further supports real, fact based science that human CO2 contribution has a negligible effect on the climate. Now that the real science is out, and the pseudo science of the alarmists and financial opportunists like Gore is all but completely diminished and debunked, we can get back to more pressing issues.

The sun was colder then

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't go and forget the SUN, did you? ROFL!!!!

More Amish pushing

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the answer to the CO2 going up is simple, we outlaw all CO2 generating technology. No cars. No electricity. No internal combustion engine.

We live like it is 1699.

This is the environMENTAL movement pushing the Amish religion.

Um, that's what YOU did.

[Anonymous Coward]

You picked two dates that gave you a "no trend" value.

Makes your whine (which isn't correct, see the other poster) really ironic.

Deniers. Deny the words they say if it's convenient at the time...

Where has the absence of C13 gone?

[Latent Heat]

Take a look at the comparison of C13/C12 ratio with total atmospheric CO2.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/o...

The carbon in plants and in fossil fuels is depleted in the C13 isotope by about 1.8 percent (18 mils). The annual wiggles in the C13 ratio are accounted for by the complementary wiggles in the total CO2 being the update and reemission of CO2 depleted in C13 at that level.

The multi-decade slope of the C13 curve is much more shallow in comparison to the annual wiggles in relation to the same comparison for total CO2. Any number of debunk-the-skeptics Web sites points out that as we emit CO2 depleted in C13, the C13 ratio declines. But not one of these sites offers even a rough quantitative analysis, which would show that CO2 depleted at the fossil level can account for no more than a third of the increase in atmospheric CO2 that is the source of much anxiety.

Is anyone else noticing this?

Again? Who is sending these out each month?

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost every 14 days, like there was a schedule, some alarmist environmental news arrives in the media. It is almost like the stock market report. Almost as if there were some group directing this continuous series of fearful news factoids. It makes one wonder if what Michael Crichton was right. Of course he mysteriously died soon after his last book, "State of Fear" which depicted Big Enviro as a bloodthirsty industry became a best seller. Funny, that book is very hard to find these days, as is his once-famous essay "Aliens cause Global Warming" but perhaps this is all coincidence.

well, grass also absorbes CO2

[Anonymous Coward]

and California is anti-lawn these days.. :)

that's a lot of absorbtive power offline.

we've had a few more volcanoes adding gigatons of particulates and gasses to the atmosphere as well.

Life has been determined to be hazardous to the Environment.

What a joke

[WindBourne]

more than 33% of all CO2 comes from 1 nation. Later this year, it will move into the nation that has emitted the most CO2 since mid 1800s. Note that if we were REALLY serious about CO2, then we would go back at least 1000 years ago, in which case, China ALONE has emitted more than 1/2 of all CO2 that man has EVER emitted.

Now, we have far left freaks that scream about America which currently emits less than 15% of all CO2. In addition, it is DROPPING fast.
OTOH, China's continues to grow unabated. By 2020, China will account for more than 50% of all CO2 that is emitted yearly.
Not sure about this? Then look at the OBJECTIVE map of this as shown by OCO2 satellite.

CO2 will continue to climb until the far left and politicians will look OBJECTIVELY at the issue and quit trying to use it for their own purposes.

And... This is why I moved on to Quora

[InsertCleverUsername]

There are still a lot of really smart people on /. with informed opinions --but it seems like there just as many weak-minded idiots, too emotionally committed to their beliefs to think rationally. And they have mod points. Why can't they stay on FoxNews.com or Yahoo Answers?

Thus proving my point

[SuperKendall]

Well the IPCC thinks warming has paused, but I guess you know more than they do.

The funny thing is, you fell right into the trap. Like the sun rising each morning, telling a warming alarmist there is any kind of pause brings about the same result every time. "yes it is" "here's a graph showing a steady rise".

Only you forgot one important thing - what is under discussion is NOT warming itself, but warming in relation to CO2 levels.

So the best you can do even hunting for the most data-twisted cherry-picked range you could find, was that there's an ongoing linear increase. Let's pretend that's true!

Your problem then is that it simply proves what I originally said - warming is unrelated to CO2 increases. The whole POINT of your ilk trying to scare everyone with CO2 is that it's supposed to trap heat and amplify warming levels. You show endless scary graphs about exponential increases in CO2 levels of the atmosphere...

OOPS. Because if CO2 is increasing exponentially, and has been for some time - why is there not an even GREATER increase in temperature, or anything even resembling the same increase? Instead it just chugs along at roughly whatever rate it was going, instead of reacting at all to CO2 spiking at all.

As I said, there's no reason to be afraid of CO2 because the Earth has a lot of systems built to deal with CO2. The warming we are seeing isn't looking to even be a problem for several generations, and there's no sign the upper limit is at all an issue - and as we know from historical data, a 2C rise in temperature (if we are that lucky) will lead to massive boosts in agriculture (which the CO2 rise only assists with).

Stop your fear peddling for just a moment and THINK.

How long?

[Anonymous Coward]

A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?

All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 15 and 18+ years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.

Humans will survive

[GPS Pilot]

we have no guarantee we can survive in any climate other than the one we evolved in

Except historical precedent. Even low-tech humans have adapted to a huge range of climates. Think Inuit living on the edge of Baffin Bay, and Bedouins living in the deserts of Sudan.

Technology can't provide us with food when none of our crops can grow anymore.

Think veggies growing in greenhouses that are either cooled or heated -- depending on which way climate change goes -- by nuclear power plants. Is that not an example of technology providing us with food?

(Nevermind that global warming will cause the amount of arable land to increase. There are huge tracts of land in Canada, Siberia and Alaska that will be farmed if the growing season gets a little longer.)

I'm not saying mucking with the climate is a good idea. But your dire predictions of possible human extinction are right out; they're the kind of alarmism that destroys credibility.

Re:Humans will survive

[silentcoder]

>Except historical precedent. Even low-tech humans have adapted to a huge range of climates. Think Inuit living on the edge of Baffin Bay, and Bedouins living in the deserts of Sudan.

Except that doesn't prove what you think it does. You're conflating regional climate with global climate.
Those are all part of the SAME global climate: a temperate interglacial period. They are merely the minor variations within the average.
More-over this was never about whether the SPECIES would survive (unlikely) but about whether our industrial civilization can survive - definitely not.

>. Is that not an example of technology providing us with food?
You want to build nuclear green houses to feed 7 billion people with ? You do REALIZE that this would cost about a hundred billion times more than even the least economic green energy solutions would right ?
Why exactly do you want to go for the expensive, hard-to-maintain and impossible to guarantee option ? Just because it would be somebody else's problem ?

Your claim about arable land is simple false. Farmiing will get a lot less effective when we're dealing with massive flooding, unpredictable seasons, frequent extreme weather and a massive increase in pests (one side effect of global warming is that insects breed faster and grow bigger - faster breeding also means faster adaptation so pesticides get less effective).

>. But your dire predictions of possible human extinction are right out
I didn't make any predictions at all. I merely stated the facts: we evolved in a specific global climate. In all of earth history only 3 or 4 species have EVER survived a significant change in global climate and we'd be arrogant to assume we would be one of those (especially since nearly all of them were marine species - which is relatively sheltered).
Now I don't think we're likely to go extinct from this - I do know that it's ALREADY costing us billions a year in damages, which will get a lot worse, that it's already killing people - and will kill millions, perhaps billions, more.
Right now we should base our policies on the likely outcomes - extinction levels would be an edge-case, they just aren't impossible.
Be sure though - we WILL go extinct on earth. EVERYTHING does and we will NOT be an exception. It's not an if but a how and when. Our only chance to avoid full extinction is to be living on more than one planet before that happens.
One thing the history of this planet makes clear is - extinction is a guarantee. 97% of all species that ever evolved are extinct.

The very fatal flaw in your argument is obvious

[GPS Pilot]

TFA says CO2 levels are at an all-time high. That means the predicted disasters were not averted because anybody did anything to reduce CO2 emissions. The predicted disasters were averted because the predictions were wrong. Predictions such as...
* "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” -- U.N. official Noel Brown, in 1989
* We have only “50 days to save the world from global warming” -- UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in 2009