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).
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.
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.
The only thing clear about climate change is that every day we learn that we know less and less about the Climate.
Climate Scientists are like ants on a tree trunk trying to infer the shape of the Forrest. All they know is what little they see.
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's not from the 3-5 mm/year sea level rise. That's from overpumping of groundwater. Once you suck the fresh water out, the silt compacts and the land subsides. You can fairly blame that on overdevelopment, but it doesn't have the slightest connection to climate.
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.
wow. posting is undoing my moderation and my apologies but I don't think my lone positive moderation is having any impact anyway. I just can't believe that your post is being bottomed out as a troll. Apparently the climate change deniers are even stronger here than I thought.
To anyone reading this: just because you don't believe in climate change and the fact that Florida is facing real consequences doesn't make PopeRatzo's post a troll.
To the person who replied with "3-5mm/year" and "flooding is caused by compaction resulting from pumping water out" -- care to explain how the limestone is compacting? Or do you really think that building houses, roads, etc., on silt actually works?
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.
The oceans are not only composed of the deepest "abyss".
The article you cite is about the abyssal ocean below about 7,000 feet. There's a lot of water between 7,000 feet and the surface. As per usual simple analyses like yours are usually wrong.
FWIW, the highstand of the ocean during the last interglacial period roughly 120,000 years ago was probably about 8 meters (25 feet for speakers of American) above current sea level at Miami. That's without any help from human CO2 emissions.
On the bright side, sea level rise is slow and anyway South Florida will likely eventually make a magnificent coral reef. Many people would consider that to be an improvement.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Want lies?
Here you go:
NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public. A recent study by NOAA, published in the journal Science, made “adjustments” to historical temperature records and NOAA trumpeted the findings as refuting the nearly two-decade pause in global warming. The study’s authors claimed these adjustments were supposedly based on new data and new methodology. But the study failed to include satellite data.
“We have little doubt that our lawsuit helped to pry these scandalous climate change report documents from the Obama administration.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-sues-for-documents-withheld-from-congress-in-new-climate-data-scandal/
THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS
Not yet, give it another few decades. Of course after all the nukes go off everything should cool down nicely.
It has to be the deep ocean because measurements of shallow ocean temperatures have not shown any excess warming.
What are you talking about? There has been lots of warming in the upper ocean. It is clearly shown at this NOAA page on ocean heat content.
Since heat only moves from a warmer object to a cooler object, the heat will never exit from the ocean until the atmospheric temperature drops.
Since over 90% of the heat energy from global warming goes into the oceans it only takes a slight change in how much goes into the ocean for major changes in atmospheric temperatures. For example 2015 is about to set a new temperature record because El Nino has reduced the amount of heat going into the ocean leaving more of it in the atmosphere.
I doubt it was much warmer during the Holocene Thermal Optimum than it is now. Most of the science I've seen says the temperatures may have been similar.
Silt is compacting and land subsiding in California's central valley from groundwater pumping but that isn't the case in Florida where the underlying bedrock is limestone. What groundwater pumping does in Florida is allow the ocean saltwater to intrude further inland contaminating existing freshwater supplied. Subsidence is not the issue in southern Florida.
The only thing clear about climate change is that every day we learn that we know less and less about the Climate.
So the outcome could in fact be much WORSE than the current IPCC projections?
FWIW, the highstand of the ocean during the last interglacial period roughly 120,000 years ago was probably about 8 meters (25 feet for speakers of American) above current sea level at Miami. That's without any help from human CO2 emissions.
It might be worth looking at the state of Milankovitch Cycles then and now to understand the difference. Since the different components of Milankovitch aren't in harmony with each other each glacial/interglacial cycle is different from others.
Don't worry about Miami. They'll get their product, come hell or high water
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
All true. And the cycles have time scales that aren't too dissimilar to glaciation cycles.
A lot of people are looking at Milankovic cycles and trying to reconcile astronomical information which is probably very good with polar ice core temperature data that is maybe less so. So far, the results are kind of underwhelming. But maybe that'll change. Or maybe Milankovic is one component of whatever triggers and terminates glaciations and we don't have the other factor(s) well worked out yet.
You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
Bullshit.
The Paris Climate Accords = politics, pure and simple
Nothing more, nothing less.
The science got left at the door.
Nothing wrong with Florida that a few feet of global warming won't fix.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
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/
It's not just NOAA who thinks that we have a problem and it isn't something made up by the Obama administration. Climate scientists across the world have come to the same conclusion.
Besides, look who is behind the funding of judicialwatch.org and I think you'll know how seriously to take their accusations.
That's my point! I guess the Scrooge mods are out tonight.
Oh well, Merry Christmas everyone. Hold tight to the ones you love.
https://youtu.be/TBJLhOB8O0A
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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
So the outcome could in fact be much WORSE than the current IPCC projections?
Oh definitely. In a worse case scenario we get huge methane clathrate releases that result in MASSIVE temperature increases, possibly large enough for a global extinction event. It's a low probability scenario, but certainly scary.
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.