Slashdot Mirror
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."
Congrats on getting the first "la la la can't hear you" post.
by turning on my air conditioner.
Refuted: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
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.
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.
No correlation as in this picture? Denial gets more desperate by the day.
Those of us that live in northern climates above 600 feet and will see our land values skyrocket.... thank the rest of you.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.
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.
So you're in agreement that it's anthropogenic.
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.)
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
But that article just shows the concentration for tens of thousands of years of ice age could be THOUSANDS of ppm CO2,
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.
Incredible how well temperature predicts changes in CO2 concentration, isn't it? (Temperature is blue, CO2 is red)
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.
Huzzah for free plant food.
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.
Lets clear some more trees.
Rick B.
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.
Why does the temperature increase precede the CO2 level increase more often that not in that graph?
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"?
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.
190 per F4240.
Much better number than 110010000 per 11110100001001000000
Still not as good as 7uj per 68GP though (base58)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
The same organization who has, in the past, used the wrong paint on or miss-sited the instruments used for the surface observations.
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.
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.
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.
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...
We shouldnt be measuring levels on Mauna Kea
It might upset the natives and their gods
Ordovician... Jurassic... at too long an interval, we are all doomed to repeat what we have no chance to remember.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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...
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.
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.
Yeah, them silly scientists, I bet they feel foolish now that they have noticed them volcanoes.
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.
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.
Doesn't matter.
All climate data is corrected.
Multiple times.
Meh
Just another arbitrary number
Funny, that's the exact same thing your mom said.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
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.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
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.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
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.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
There's a very good reason for that: periodic internal purges are an essential component of the belief system.
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
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Actually, 30 years ago he did climate research at the Institute for Energy Analysis at Oak Ridge. So he does have a background...
It doesn't matter, the numbers have been independently verified from other stations. They are accurate.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I for one would welcome our dinosaur overlords.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
We can do it guys!
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
You will probably be modded down for pointing that out, the same way I was.
Welcome to the future.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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...
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...
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.
The USA = about 3% of the Earth's surface.
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.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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...
You are willing to bet your life this is actually a good representation ?
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.
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.
That was my thought as well. I paid for a better environment, and I'm not getting any. So I want my money back.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
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.
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.
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.
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.
Depends. What do I get when I win ? And who will be the referee ?
Yes, but the people deciding today will be long dead by then.
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
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
New corrections are done monthly. Literally.
"His name was James Damore."
Can you tell mine? They seem to keep dying on me.
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...
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.
"His name was James Damore."
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.
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.
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
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
According to ice core samples going back 400 thousand years, the historical maximum was 300ppm until 1950.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
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.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
I think he wants us to invent mats of gigantic flying plankton.
Because... you know, the sky being GREEN would be so much better.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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 ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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
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?
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
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).
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.
I refuse to sign
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...
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.
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.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
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?...
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.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
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.
Time to offend someone
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.
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.
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.
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.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
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.
~X~
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.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
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.
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.
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.
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
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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.
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.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
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.
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...
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.
Is it always 100% humidity in your world?
A 2% increase in average humidity would account for all observed warming over the last century.
You've got your maunas mixed up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
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...
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!
I stole this Sig
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.
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
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
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.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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?
Climate "science" in a nutshell.
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.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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.
400Kyr that's nothing
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
Stephan
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?
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.
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?
Ask me about my sig!
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.
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.
Both your questions answered here.
And BTW RSS global mean shows a flat line.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...
Which is why we need new leaders who have enough vision to think about our children and their children, not just themselves.
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.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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.
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.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
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.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
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
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
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.
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.
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.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
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.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
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.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
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.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
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.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
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.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
bah. stupid puter disconnected during post
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
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.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
We shouldnt be measuring levels on Mauna Kea It might upset the natives and their gods
The Koch Brothers?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
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.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
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.
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.
I get bent out of shape when environmentalism results in rent seeking instead of solutions.
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.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
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.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
This is a level of tin-foil hattery I am not going to touch with even a ten-foot pole.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?