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).
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.
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
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.
Before parent post gets modded to oblivion, it should be noted that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (home of the 'Doomsday Clock' if I'm not mistaken), does tend to run a bit activist in its public statements. Now as to whether or not the science they print is sound/skewed/whatever, I'll leave to the reader.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
We will all move to the moon and Mars in order to escape the catastrophic heating. In the far future, we will escape out to other star systems. /sci-fi
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
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 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.
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
This article is a good one, anyway. It's one of the best reports of what happened at the Paris accords. It talks about the different factions (the island nation coalition, the group of 77, etc), and discusses what negotiations went on, compromises made, and how it managed to come to something that looked like an agreement.
It's worth a read if you're interested in what goes on at these conferences.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
Bullshit.
The Paris Climate Accords = politics, pure and simple
Nothing more, nothing less.
The science got left at the door.
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.
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.
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.