Slashdot Mirror
The Science Behind the Paris Climate Accords (thebulletin.org)
Lasrick writes: The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists offers a pretty thorough run-down of the pros and cons of the Paris climate accords. William Sweet examines not only the political machinations behind the agreement but much of what the agreement entails and how it got there after 21 years of COP meetings. "As for the tighter 1.5-degree standard, this is a complicated issue that the Paris accords fudge a bit. The difference between impacts expected from a 1.5-degree world and a 2-degree world are not trivial. The Greenland ice sheet, for example, is expected to melt in its entirely in the 2-degree scenario, while in a 1.5-degree world the odds of a complete melt are only 70 percent... But at the same time the scientific consensus is that it would be virtually impossible to meet the 1.5-degree goal because on top of the 0.8–0.9 degrees of warming that already has occurred, another half-degree is already in the pipeline, 'hidden away in the oceans,' as Schellnhuber put it." In an additional audio recording of a teleconference briefing given to the Bulletin's Science and Security Board and other leading scientists and policy makers, Sivan Kartha and Richard Somerville (both on the S & S Board) explain what was accomplished (and not accomplished).
"I suspect he means this current trend where no woman can take a self picture that's not from about 45 degrees above them so you can't see the triple chin as clearly and their eyes look twice their actual size because they're looking upward like they're on their knees giving you fellatio.
OP, I'm less disturbed by the fact that the majority of them outweigh me by well over 100 lbs (while being about 6 inches to a foot shorter than I am to boot) than I am by the fact that women's profiles on dating sites all read like hostage demand lists for their vagina.
Seriously, nearly EVERY profile lists how you must have this, must do that, must not do this or that ... while not taking even a single line to describe what they have to offer. Like the thought never once crossed their mind that perhaps ... they might not be an amazing catch and might actually have to put in effort."
- http://www.givemegossip.com/fo... - Sir Phydeau
Lol.
Hasn't this rag been discredited enough already?
These so-called "Atomic Scientists" don't actually do any "Atomic Science" (whatever the fuck that is), because they're staunchly anti-nuclear, so this would preclude any type of "Atomic Science".
Captcha: NIMBY.
...another half-degree is already in the pipeline, 'hidden away in the oceans,' as Schellnhuber put it.
To the contrary.
Is that a real journal? Because it sounds like something that would give me +5% radiation resistance perk in Fallout 4.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
I'm willing to pay $10 per mod point. Maybe up to $1024.
politics ahead.
Luckily for us all, the world is about to enter an age of massive barbarism, with islamic states taking over much of the globe - happily barbaric civilizations will generally emit less carbon as there will be a lot fewer people. Win-Win!
The one bright spot in climate change is that Miami, Florida is about to be wiped off the face of the Earth. The high-water levels there have been going up by an inch per year. Water is already seeping up through the limestone and flooding the place on a regular basis.
http://www.newyorker.com/magaz...
Why else would LeBron move back to Cleveland? He knew what was up.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Considering how none of the new "agreements" are binding, what real difference does it make? Show and no go, feel good BS.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Where is the science and economics that tells us that the agreement is the optimal solution? That reducing CO2 emissions is the only possible response to the problem? That the cure won't be worse than the disease?
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
That contained absolutely no science, it was just political debate on a subject. I think someone needs to tell Slashdot what science is.
I was overseas near the Persian Gulf when the accord came together and the local newspapers were lauding Obama for helping their country water down the "shall" to "should." In other words the final version was considered a huge win for countries that want to continue to sell or use as much oil or natural gas as they can.
“I’m skeptical because I don’t think the science is at all clear, and unfortunately a lot of the experts really believe they understand it, and maybe have the wrong answer." -- Freeman Dyson
If Freeman Dyson says your science is rubbish, it is.
And drive it around all you want.
But I get to shoot you, in that oh-so-unlikely event that every scientist is a moron and every corporate asshole with a vested interest in not having to pay to clean up the mess he makes is right, and you want to escape the water by climbing onto my hill.
Deal?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming'.
And likely a Satellite Records Denier, too.
Don't frustrate yourselves good people of Slashdot. Dice has burned the carcas of a once great site. Escape to http://lobste.rs and never again suffer at the hands of Dice staff
Bullshit.
The Paris Climate Accords = politics, pure and simple
Nothing more, nothing less.
The science got left at the door.
That was looking at the very deepest ocean. Since greenhouse effect influences warming at the surface, that's where you should look.
The 0-700m and 0-2000m ocean heat content measurements are barreling straight up.
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
So the outcome could in fact be much WORSE than the current IPCC projections?
Yep. That's what keeps climate scientists awake at night. Most particularly, the long-term feedback of methane released from permafrost and other cold traps as the temperature warms. The emphasize-the-uncertainty community (previously called deniers) doesn't like to emphasize that aspect of the uncertainty.
Warming is WYSIWYG. What is baked in is more emissions. But it we magically stopped emissions today, warming would stop and slight cooling would begin within a decade or so.
It's hegemony. The U.S. dollar is the enforced currency tendered for oil purchases. Since the U.S. has confiscated all the oil in the world to enforce this hegemony, all the world must support the U.S. dollar if they want to buy oil. The U.S. will never allow any replacement for oil or its diminished use as this would reveal that their currency is bankrupt and their money worthless. The U.S. electorate will never elect any government that would allow their currency to vaporize.
Hey I can play that game too!
Cue the usual conga line of Useful Idiots who drank the Kool-Aid and have nothing but bad science and ad-hominem attacks to back up their politically-motivated wish to create their socialist Utopia which in effect will render everyone - except a few elite who Know What's Good For Us Or Else - into grey serfdom.
So easy.
Leftist Caused Climate Hysteria is a HOAX to Control and Steal from YOU. That is all it has ever been.
Leftist Caused Climate Hysteria is a HOAX to Control and Steal from YOU. That is all it has ever been.
I think you need to renew your medication, you're talking bollocks out loud in public again.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
You are a disgusting thing who should be dragged out into the streets by dogs and devoured.
nt
"Heat hiding in the oceans" ??? ROTFLMAO
Where is the proof of that statement? NONE. The measurements that have been taken show the ocean depths not having any stored heat.
If reality and your theory disagree, your theory is WRONG. It doesn't matter how nice the theory is or who you are or how many other people agree with you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
Both of the satellite datasets (RSS, UAH) show no warming for over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%.
Why do I use the 2 satellite measurements?
First they have the greatest coverage. RSS goes from 82.5N to 82.5 S and UAH, 85N to 85S.
Second they are the least adjusted. Unlike NOAA which makes completely unjustified adjustments by raising good data (ARGO bouy temps) to match what they themselves admit is bad, corrupted data (ship engine intake temps).
Lastly they are run by 2 scientists with good credentials (Dr Mears & Dr Spencer respectively) and despite looking at what is almost the same data come to different conclusions. Dr Mears thinks CO2 does control the climate and Dr Spencer does not. I like that. Not only does it keep them honest it makes me think and read both sides to see why they are so different in their conclusions despite almost identical data. So far I side with the position of Dr Spencer.
Sadly typical of the Alarmist -- wanting to see the dissenter killed rather than actually consider he might be right.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Oh, let's see, all the credible science is on my side, yes, I'm happy to admit drinking the kook aid of real science.
It's most amusing to see the same old delusional paranoia of the flat earthers who deny reality.
Sadly typical of the denialist, unable to read and comprehend. Where did I say anything about killing anybody?
Lmao.
You didn't, the AC he replied to did.
Now, what was that about reading and comprehension?