Slashdot Mirror
Scientists: What We're Doing To The Earth Has No Parallel In 66 Million Years (washingtonpost.com)
mspohr writes from an article on The Washington Post: We haven't seen this much CO2 added to the atmosphere in 66 million years: "If you look over the entire Cenozoic, the last 66 million years, the only event that we know of at the moment, that has a massive carbon release, and happens over a relatively short period of time, is the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)," says Zeebe. "We actually have to go back to relatively old periods, because in the more recent past, we don't see anything comparable to what humans are currently doing." [New research suggests, even the drama of the PETM falls short of our current period, in at least one key respect: We're putting carbon into the atmosphere at an even faster rate than happened back then.] "The anthropogenic release outpaces carbon release during the most extreme global warming event of the past 66 million years, by at least an order of magnitude," writes Peter Stassen, an Earth and environmental scientist at KU Leuven, in Belgium, in an accompanying commentary on the new study. "Given that the current rate of carbon release is unprecedented throughout the Cenozoic, we have effectively entered an era of a no-analogue state, which represents a fundamental challenge to constraining future climate projections," the study concludes.
Some will say "That's just, like, your opinion, man. You have no proof humans are causing this."
Some will say "God gave us the Earth, and the end is near anyway so what does it matter?"
Some will say "So it gets warmer, so what? I hate cold weather anyway."
Some will just say "Gee, that's interesting" and get into their SUV and drive off, leaving all the lights and heater running in their house, and they DGAF.
Only 60 million years?
Any living thing on Earth produce Plastic before human beings?
Or Open Pit Mining??
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Only 4% of global CO2 is attributable to humans. 96% of it is naturally occurring, and we couldn't do anything about it if we tried.
Instead of just saying they're misleading so just "trust" us. That isn't science. So what if the numbers show a cooling trend. There still could eventually be a warming trend so we need to shutdown as much industry and manufacturing as we can as soon as we can.
66.6 million years, a nice roundly-evil number to celebrate the deliberate destruction of the planet.
Bwuhahahahahaha
#BlameChina.
just goes to show those dinosaurs really weren't that great, all the wasted effort on museums and such not to mention the captain planets.
6000 years, and they won't need any pay to say it. Get it straight, Mr. Human from Chimps.
Obviously God created with the world with a record of comparable CO2 66 million years ago to fool the weak minded unbelievers such as yourself.
You keep using that word, but the word you look for is "aspect".
nt
There haven't been humans for 66 million years either.
We'll just 3D print our way to Mars while privately mining asteroids so that the makers can thrive on the gig economy that the economic overlords allow us to have!
Many people wrongly labeled as "deniers" aren't denying anything. They're merely taking a far more stringent and critical look at the data than those who have political agendas to push do. The wrongly-accused "deniers" are just doing science as it's meant to be done. Science inherently involves questioning absolutely everything, in every way possible. Science isn't about creating "evidence" that can be used to blame humans for naturally-occurring environmental phenomena so that they can be subjected to carbon taxes and other shenanigans. Science is about looking at the observations and evidence from all angles, without preconceived notions and without goals revolving around forcing a leftist philosophy on others. Science isn't about politics. Science is about the truth, regardless of how we may interpret that truth.
The author of the paper is Richard Zeebe, his main focus is drilling ocean cores. Here is a nice video of the guy, he seems like a straight-shooter and a reasonable scientist.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Science doesn't advance because people agree with the status quo. No, they point out where current theories are wrong. That's when science really advances. In most fields, dissenting views are welcome debate because it benefits science. But that doesn't happen with global warming. Dissenting views are silenced just like you see happening here. Not only can science be wrong, but it often is. Can you imagine if opponents to String Theory or General Relativity were silenced in this manner? Thankfully most branches of science don't act like this. When you silence criticism as is happening here, it ceases to be science. It's a religion. Remember, about five decades ago, scientists were concerned about global cooling. Before then, cigarettes were considered healthy. People twirled paintbrushes that were used with paint containing radium, blissfully unaware of the dangers. Diet and exercise science is far from settled, with new guidelines being released frequently. We shouldn't censor dissenting views; it's bad for science.
Oye vey muh 66million!
In geological time, 66 million years isn't really all that long after all.
We are screwed, blued, and tattooed.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
You have no fucking idea how science works. Science advances as data is gathered, theories are refined or new ones are proposed. It isn't some game of topplng windmills. If a theory is invalid, yes it will be rejected, but that is not the sole activity of science, nor, really is it the main activity of science.
Do you seriously think there are scientists in any great numbers running around trying to disprove QM or tectonic plate theories? Is that what you think physicists and geologists are doing? If that is what you think, then you are an ignoramus.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You know what also has had no parallel in 66 million years? The shit I've just done to my toilet. It's unseen.
Yes, during the PETM, temperatures rose rapidly by 5-8C. Mind you, this temperature increase was on top of temperatures that were already a lot higher than today. There were lots of changes during that period, but no generalized mass extinction. Corals suffered but didn't die out. Land animals didn't see any significant extinction. Mammals did very well.
In addition, just to drive the point home, the carbon was then rapidly absorbed again and the temperature fell again, before slowly rising to the same level again during the Eocene optimum. So we have examples of both fast and slow, long duration and short duration increases in atmospheric carbon from the Eocene, and no massive global catastrophes.
The PETM to me always suggested that the concerns about climate change were overblown. Even if there are some negative short term effects, much higher temperatures and melting ice caps don't spell doom for the world. In fact, if anything, the Eocene climate may have been nicer than what we have today.
(Note also that when people claim that carbon release during the PETM "was" slower than today, that's based on various assumptions, not direct measurement. All we can say is that carbon release was very fast and took less than 20ka.)
...will make us stronger! All this worry over climate change is really silly. Adapt or die is the phrase for the day.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
It's the sun
The only problem with that theory is that solar output and temperature have been going in opposite directions for the last 40 years: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
Ah, the denying fucktards with mod points are out in force. Imagine being so fucking childish and retarded that you think the laws of physics should give your preferred ideology a leg up.
The Universe doesn't fucking care about your SUV or whether the fucking Koch Brothers make a profit this year. It will fuck up our climate quite happily, particularly when we help it fucking trap huge amounts of solar radiation in the fucking atmosphere because we're barfing out long-sequestered CO2, at least half a billion years worth, in the space of three fucking centuries.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As in, we are all doomed, and that in fairly short order.
You're a fucking moron.
You use the word Fuck a lot.
Do you need some alone time or maybe a hooker?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Yes, science advances as data is gathered. But it doesn't do any good to stick to hypotheses that aren't supported by new data. There are recent experiments testing whether the universe is governed by quantum mechanics or relativity. While there's constantly new data being collected by seismographs and GPS monitoring of plate movements, those data don't call plate tectonics into question.
Like seismology, weather observations are constantly being collected. It should be noted that much of the warming that's been observed is with stations located in urban areas; rural stations don't show the same level of warming. NOAA USHCN data is adjusted to account for the relocation of stations from urban to rural areas; the overall impact of these adjustments is essentially equal to the overall warming in the data. This supports the warming being local in nature, caused by expansion of urban heat islands, and not global warming.
There are also many emission scenarios, ranging from business as usual (high end of emissions) to almost cutting off carbon emissions now (low end). These emission scenarios are used as conditions for climate model simulations that predict things like global average temperature (and many other things). The observed emissions are near the high end of possible scenarios, up around business as usual. But the observed temperatures are near the low end of the range predicted by models. It really should be alarming that the observations are so far off the model predictions. Normally when the observations don't support a hypothesis, the hypothesis is changed. That's not what's going on with climate science, though.
There are many respected scientists who question global warming. Take Dr. Bill Gray, for example. He's an expert in tropical meteorology and long range forecasting. He pioneered the seasonal forecasts of hurricane activity. His views may be right or wrong, but they should not simply be dismissed. He's a global warming skeptic and has called into question the models. See http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf for some of his writing on the matter. Whether he's right or wrong, he deserves to be taken seriously.
The NOAA adjustments have REDUCED the warming trend evident in the raw data. Here's a comparison of the two: https://criticalangleblog.file... .
Here's the NASA land based measurements compared to the satellite temperature reconstruction by skeptics Spencer and Christy: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u...
He is also NOT a millennial.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It is literally impossible to claim that our rate of CO2 change over the past 100 years is unprecedented in the historical record because we have no proxy with that kind of resolution. We see the world today in the equivalent of 4k UHDTV in full color, our records from the past are equivalent to cave paintings, and we're claiming that the color of deer is unprecedented.
But don't let that get in the way of a good, scary, apocalyptic tale of warning!
Can you imagine if opponents to String Theory or General Relativity were silenced in this manner?
Don't conflate the theory of relativity with the string idea.
Remember, about five decades ago, scientists were concerned about global cooling.
That's a myth.
Before then, cigarettes were considered healthy.
That's also a myth. The tobacco industry did find some shills, though.
People twirled paintbrushes that were used with paint containing radium, blissfully unaware of the dangers.
Right, but science didn't say it was safe. It hadn't said jack on the subject yet.
We shouldn't censor dissenting views; it's bad for science.
That's OK, nobody is censoring the view that AGW doesn't exist. Nobody credible is putting it forward, either.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I am pretty sure that in the last 4 BILLION years Earth or GIA, has had some similar gaseous traits.
CYCLICAL people sheep CYCLICAL stop thinking your so special cuz u think your the first your not.
Ahh, the no true scotsman fallacy, saying that nobody credible is putting forth the view that AGW doesn't exist. How about Dr. Bill Gray, an expert in hurricane prediction and long range forecasting? Whether he's right or wrong about this, he's an expert. He's the guy who pioneered seasonal forecasts of hurricane activity. He's also a global warming skeptic: http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Notice how all dissenting views get modded to -1
Frankly I think it's wrong even trying to divide the world into "dissenting" and "assenting." At least, it's not a very scientific way of looking at it. The author of the paper has a good discussion at the beginning of this paper.
You shouldn't mod people up based on whether you 'agree' or 'disagree' with them. Rather, mod them based on whether they've read the paper or not, and the quality of their analysis. Scientific thought should be respected.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Millions of years ago, the Silurians did everything we've done and more. Shows what you guys know.
and maybe, just maybe, this ONE OUTLIER is wrong?
hasn't occurred to you?
... People twirled paintbrushes that were used with paint containing radium, blissfully unaware of the dangers. . .
They also licked their brushes' bristle-tips to keep them shaped into a fine point. That is, the watch-dial painters licked radium.
We learned from that. . . the hard way.
I can't wait for essentially unlimited energy. It might be wind+solar but I'm betting on safe forms of nuclear power within a century of now.
The gating factor will be the amount of investment into R&D and that depends on total wealth created, to enable the excess available foe investment. Right now that's roughly proportinal to total fossil fuel burned (productively, of course).
The very best that could be done for the environment would be to get rid of all the punitive energy taxes, all the free trade barriers, the migration barriers, and all the economic regulations that stifle wealth creation and create a massive wealth surge that will power the R&D we need to get over that hump.
The incentives are and will always exist for less expensive energy, so as long as the science isn't suppressed, and we don't think everything that will be invented has been, the path is clear.
But go ahead and tax the hell out of everything, crush progress, and act all surprised when people are still burning dung in huts in a hundred years. That's not the future most of us want, except for these whacky arch-conservatives who want to freeze time at 1970.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Yes, let the people have their say in the vetting of science. This is a democracy! So long as brother John down the road is unconvinced, and so long as local channel 8 (sponsored in part by Exxon Mobile) gives him a mic to debate these important issues, it's unsettled and there's no cause for alarm. Keep doing what you're doing. No one has to adjust. Nothing is wrong. Everything is fine.
I know you're joking, but it occurs to me that there are currently practiced religions thousands of years older than that. Hinduism is the first one to come to mind, starting 11,000 years ago. Anyone who actually believes the earth is younger than Hinduism, probably believes their God did that (condemned a billion souls to damnation), specifically to challenge our personal belief here in God's country, (formerly the land of Native American nature spirits.)
Because we know what we're talking about and use facts, empiricism, and non-ideological approaches to reality?
What do I win?
Science doesn't advance because people agree with the status quo. No, they point out where current theories are wrong. That's when science really advances. In most fields, dissenting views are welcome debate because it benefits science. But that doesn't happen with global warming. Dissenting views are silenced just like you see happening here.
You must spend very little time around scientists. There is a tremendous amount of discussion and argument. Often the argument technique is used to work out the theory.
The problem with your thesis is that while there isn't a tremendous amount of argument today about AGW, it is not because of your odd conflation with religion, but it's because Scientists do not argue much about evolution or the idea that the earth is ony 6 thousand years old either. Or gravity, or nuclear fission and fusion for that matter. There aren't any scientists arguing for the Phlogiston theory, and that's a fact. There comes a point where someone who wants to claim that man and the dinosaurs lived at the same time, or that the sun is a lump of burning coal, are going to have a hard time being listened to.
As I've told many, put together a hypothesis, an experimental plan and look for funding. And if you are worried about the so called conspiracy of scientists, you could probably get the Koch brothers to fund the experiments at maybe Liberty University. Then after proving AGW wrong, the scientist who does will be in line for a Nobel prize.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You use the word Fuck a lot.
Do you need some alone time or maybe a hooker?
I can haz hoooker? I don't swear as much, but I can haz one?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The world is filled with skeptics, nihilists, and ideologues. There is no point to these discussions anymore. The presentation of scientific data to most people is now considered to be the same kind of data that Malcolm Gladwell or Michael Lewis publishes. Basically, just opinions and fun facts. Scientists, climatologists, and the (minority of) people who believe in global warming need to just give up, already. You are not being listened to, anymore.
I definitely understand the impact that global warming is having. I see the data. I know it is there. But get real. We are a world who still allows genocides to occur unchecked unless there is profit to be made. We are a world who still straps dynamite to our bodies and runs into buildings. We are a world who grows and creates enough food for the whole planet to eat... but allow millions of people to die each year of starvation and illnesses related to malnourishment.
Given those things... somehow this world is supposed to give two fucks about a gradual global increase in temperature that will result in a severe climate shift and cause extinctions, deaths, and population relocation? Since when did the world at large give a shit about anything outside their own backyard? Since NEVER.
Here's reality. Climate shift and global warming will not be dealt with until it starts costing rich people a lot of money. When that happens, you'll see action. Until then, you aren't going to see shit.
As the saying goes, "Money makes the world go round".
another propaganda piece by the rotting asshole called slashdot
I use it a lot to express my complete contempt for pseudo-science.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There are small handful of scientists who question AGW, and of those, only a smaller group are even working scientists.
And if you think weather station data can't be calibrated, why don't you publish your scathing indictment of AGW?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I agree with you on just about everything (less strong of an opinion on the Koch brothers conspiracy stuff than the rest of it), but you really are a total asshole in this thread and you seem to be doing your level best to get everybody to disagree with you.
"Anyone who actually believes the earth is younger than Hinduism"
Of course, Hinduism is a wrong faith that will throw its observants to Hell for the whole Eternity, so that doesn't say much.
"probably believes their God did that (condemned a billion souls to damnation), specifically to challenge our personal belief here in God's country"
Of course not. It's their own evil nature that makes them deaf to God Worship. Of course, God, being infinitely wise, has given us free will to choose. Bad luck they chose wrongly.
Of course, that there seems to be a strong correlation in having the "right" believings and Geography is just... well, I don't know, but it doesn't matter, as God knows better.
The Kochs wouldn't fund the experiment because they know what the answer would be. Heartland Institute cash is much better spent funding Frank Spencer's WSJ articles and speaking tours, or the even more delightful Judith Curry, who denies both evolution and AGW. The one time they did fund an actual study, Richard Muller's study, the result was a confirmation that climatological research was going in the right direction. They won't make that mistake twice.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm dubious of this claim that Hinduism is 11,000 years old. While there may be "native" (as in pre-Indo-Iranian) elements in Hinduism, much of it seems to be based on the Indo-Iranian, and ultimately Indo-European religion, neither of which could be said to be more than about 4,000 to 5,000 years old.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
All true but there are some things which only humans have ever done to the Earth: CFCs which damage the ozone layer and thermonuclear weapons (there is evidence of a natural fission reactor about 1.7 billion years ago but natural nuclear fusion only occurs in the sun, not on Earth)
I take that pessimistic view, to a point. I think at some point the effects will become so pronounced that political forces will push governments to severe solutions.
And who do you want to bet will be selling those very expensive solutions to nations whose rainbelts just shifted several degrees out of their national boundaries. Believe me, we'll have Exxon tidal turbines and Royal Duct Mr. Fusion reactors.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Seriously.
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
Okay. Stop fucking screaming about it already. We get it, atmospheric carbon is ridiculous now.
But that simply isn't important.
How do we address the problem in a way that doesn't destroy modern civilization, kill off a large percentage of the world population and send us back to the Stone Age?
And how do we get universal buy-in from other governments?
That's the important part.
What we have now are a bunch of armchair "research scientists" competing for funding so they can continue to bleat on about how "bad" things are. Like nobody else in the world can read automatically collected data. It's like a bunch of bazaar vendors scrambling over a lucky "first customer of the day".
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
There are small handful of scientists who question AGW
Most of those scientists also believe in a god. So if we are basing truth on the percentage of scientists who believe in it then I guess God is also real and anyone who doubts it is an irrational, unscientific, nutjob who does not need to be taken seriously, right?
I will never understand people who base their beliefs on popularity contests. I base my beliefs on evidence. Direct empirical evidence. Not computer simulations (gigo) or opinion polls. I will accept that climate warming is linked to human action as soon as evidence shows that. All I have seen so far in terms of evidence is that CO2 is rising and that the temperature of the earth seems to be slowly rising as well. I have not seen any direct evidence connecting the two. We know that higher CO2 levels leads to higher atmospheric temperatures of course, but what we don't know is exactly how much CO2 is required for how much of a rise in temperature on planetary scales. We also don't know if human beings are really the cause of the higher CO2 levels. Maybe we are, but it hasn't been proven beyond any doubt.
Also even if it is proven, and it may be at some point, it does not mean that everyone is going to agree about what if anything should be done about it. There are good arguments for nuclear power generation and highway electrification based on clean nuclear power from one of the newer, safer types of nuclear reactor designs even if it turns out that the amount of CO2 we are currently producing is not warming the climate to a dangerous degree as so many seem to believe at the moment. We are going to run out of fossil fuels eventually anyway and switching to fission (fusion is always 10 years away) power generation may be our only choice. Use of nuclear, hydro, wind, and photovoltaics is inevitable as soon as we run out of things to burn. The only problem with switching to those methods now if it isn't necessary yet is that nuclear, solar, and to a lesser extent wind power all are generally more expensive than coal. So poor people are often left not being able to afford to use much of it. Particularly in countries where almost everyone is poor this can be a big problem.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's just that the 10-12% who don't have a larger number of the very wealty and connected, who get the morons a voice the "equal to" actually informed knowledge.
Just becuase they have an actual scientist and a pseudoscientist proclaiming AGW is a fib doesn't mean it's 50-50 and then add YOUR uninformed opinion to make it a majority two-against-one..
Regardless, the CAGW hypothesis has never been elevated to theory since none of the models have ever been validated and that is because the climate operates on a geological time scale and not decadal.
Sorry but the science isn't 'settled' on anything and everything including plate tectonics since we have yet to actually see the core of our planet.
I'm sure the Military Industrial Complex likes it just fine. What better way to keep worldwide warfare blossoming? It means PROFITS!
We also don't know if human beings are really the cause of the higher CO2 levels. Maybe we are, but it hasn't been proven beyond any doubt.
Whut!!!??? We know approximately how much CO2 we are emitting. It's pretty easy to calculate based on fossil fuel usage. We know that the year to year rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is a bit less than half of year to year anthropogenic emissions of CO2 (most of the rest is absorbed by the oceans). Given that, how can human beings not be the cause of higher CO2 levels?
"96% of it is naturally occurring, and we couldn't do anything about it if we tried."
The net change from nature is zero. Lots of closed loops that produce and consume CO2.
The net change from man, is ALL OF IT.
In essence we're digging up hydrocarbons that were trapped, and turning them into atmospheric CO2.
No, most of them do not believe in a god. Not even in the USA which is pretty much the ISIS of the Christian world.
Slashdotter gets old, discovers kids seem dumb when he's old, but fails to maintain historical perspective. Ironic!
Play Command HQ online
What do you know about the Stone Age? Your primary source the Flintstones?
I seriously get pissed off when "changing ways of life" gets equated to the "Stone Age". Bah.
To your original question: increase energy prices. Slowly but predictably. Raise energy tax, as much as is necessary to achieve that. Using energy more intelligently has to pay off while giving societies time to adapt.
In periods of low primary prices (like currently) resist temptation to let go and compensate with taxes.
Use income of those taxes to (a) develop alternatives (1: more efficient use; 2: alternative sources of energy) and to absorb the shocks produced by falling primary prices (those are the wars of tomorrow -- remember, better an ounce of prevention yadda yadda).
Actually all pretty common sense. Not necessarily easy, but common sense.
But who said survival is easy?
And how much snow did you shovel in December, January & February? I'll bet it was a shit ton less than you normally do in those months.
You know there are a couple of pretty good natural thermometers on Earth, sea level and ice volume. Both of those metrics both are pretty definitively pointed toward a warming world.
"Slashdotter unsure if climate scientists have heard of the Sun."
Thanks for letting them know, just in case.
Play Command HQ online
Translation: Stage 5 of climate change denialsim: okay, climate change was a hoax, and no it's not being caused by the sun, or volcanoes, or whatever stupid bullshit you guys drag up to deflect from your own responsibility. Now we're at, okay, AGW is happening, but it's toooo haaaard to do anything about it!
Problem: the costs of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it.
We could have solved this problem decades ago, by moving to renewable energy sources. But nooooooo, we had to listen to the apologists for Philip Morris first. Sorry, that autocorrected from Exxon for some reason.
Listening to climate change deniers now makes as much sense as listening to people who were chickenhawk warmongers on Iraq for what to do about ISIS or Syria.
How do we fix it?
We need a multiple prong approach. There are a number of major CO2 emission sources. At the top of the program heap we need facts to reasonably answer questions about fairness, equity and economic benefit and cost. This means instrumentation and observation. for instance if an oil refinery reduces operations to 1/3, then who needs extended unemployment insurance and can the operator continue to pay off the facilities bonds?
For each reduction program we need a matching CO2 measurement instrument program so we can do classic cybenetic feedback observations.
Programs:
1 How about cutting San Francisco regional commute traffic (California) in half with ride sharing? From the Statewide global warming gas tables, a program like this could cut regional greenhouse gas emissions by 15% (Vehicle emissions are about 1/3 of regional emissions. The table data is easy to find. Since it mainly involves not spending cash buying gasoline, ride sharing has the really sweet upside of causing an immediate blast of retained wealth.
2. Do a two week global air line holiday. One week of 50% fewer takeoffs and miles. One week of 95% fewer takeoffs and miles. Observations from the 9/11 air travel holiday in the USA showed a tantalizing and measurable temperature reduction.
3. Begin prototyping a national day without gas and electricity for helping everybody to learn how to enjoy a day off the grid. I mean, not just getting everybody to fire up their generators, but get by with a few solar panels and some warm quilts on the bed. This means also recognize and reckon with the edge cases like hospitals, research facilities, and persons with medical equipment who need continuous utility service.
"I'll build a fantastic carbon wall, and make the dinosaurs pay for it!"
Table-ized A.I.
the calibration certificates for the instruments that gathered that data so we can verify the accuracy and precision of the numbers and can avoid violating the cardinal rule of honest data - putting numbers from dissimilar instruments lacking common calibration onto the same graph.
As a general rule of thumb, people who make-up data and/or manipulate data and processes contrary to best-practices, and who urge immediate action to address an emergency should be treated like used car salesmen urging the consumer to hurry-up an bug NOW! There is usually a reason why they want you to act quickly and rashly before you have time to think it through. There's a REASON why the climate activists had to rig the scientific paper publishing process relative to AGW (as exposed in the "climate gate" e-mails). There's a REASON why the climate activists had to rig the peer review process for papers related to global warming (also exposed by the content of the "climate gate" e-mails). There are REASONS why huge volumes of raw climate data are unavailable (and in a number of cases were destroyed, preserving only the "processed" data) and why you only discover in the fine print that a lot of what is frequently presented on the web as "raw data" is actually the manipulated numbers from the limited sets that have been released. You do not do ANY of this if the raw data and honest policies and practices support your arguments.
"unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return" - Al Gore,2006
"The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis." - Al Gore, July 2008
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." - Senator Tim Wirth (D-CO)
“We had to destroy Ben Tre in order to save it.” - Major Booris
"you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs." - Walter Duranty (New York Times reporter who wrote glowing reports about Stalin's 5 year plan and lied to the American public about the deaths of millions of innocents)
When people become so committed to a cause that they switch to ends-justify-the-means anti-ethics, the most insane statements and actions will be used and many actual individual people will suffer "for the greater good" of "the people".
The AGW industry is worth $29 Billion / annum. If you want to play Quo Bono? then you should start there.
The AGW hypothesis makes the specific prediction that the Tropical Lower Troposphere (TLT) will warm faster than the Earth's surface. The opposite is seen in reality. Thus, the Scientific Method REQUIRES you to accept the Null Hypothesis instead. Will you use the Scientific Method or are you anti-scientific ?
Furthermore the observed TCS and ECS are of the order of 4 -7 C / doubling of CO2 according to the IPCC. This is based on guestimates of the effect of water vapor. The observed reality is that the TCS is around 1.2 C, which means water vapor has little effect over CO2's direct effect (which itself is quite small at the current concentration of CO2 - the effect diminishes logarithmically). Again, will you accept observational reality over a hypothesis whose predictions are not only not true, but the opposite is seen?
In no way am I denying the effects of CO2 in the lower atmosphere or the effects on ocean acidity, those are simple and obvious science facts. However, what should ring some alarm bells in your head is the fact less money and energy has been spent on the entire history of climate research than a single year of the global shoe market or even a single year of a single popular sport. For a problem of this magnitude it is insane more effort has not been put forth, our whole species is insane.
What we critically need are better scientific instruments both in space and here on earth to vastly improve our data for the computer models. We need far far more bright and unfettered minds helping to work out what will likely happen on a regional basis. If you have been following the research for the last 20-30 years what is extremely disturbing is how many changes have been made as our understanding grows, it is my personal opinion the error bars are not well defined in the models which, while likely accurate for what mechanisms they do model, leave out too many variables to be very reliable regionally and that is where a major push has been lately. For the last 15 years I've been of the mindset it may actually be far far worse than predicted.
Further I see this as easily being an apocalypse worthy event for the simple reason it will shift sea levels a bit and play around with regional weather. What will happen if regions of the Middle East go from near 0% humidity (or quite low) to near saturation as some predict - what will happen to Iran or Pakistan if nearly the entire country is 120F and 100% humidity and no longer livable by humans? Will they roll over and take it or launch nukes in an attempt to claim new habitable land? This is exactly the kind of destabilization that will likely result in mass wars, perhaps even a World War III. The real risk of climate change is the change part, and while it's obvious there will be areas of the planet well suited to habitation and argiculture, those regions will change and humans are very very bad at accepting this without a fight.
they also have the adjusted ones. Ones adjusted for a warming bias like UHI, which you whine about being the source of the warming trend, but whine about seeing data with that effect removed, too. But just looking at the second set and pretending that the first doesn't exist there is called LYING YOUR WEASEL ARSE OFF.
And, no, the "AGW hypothesis" doesn't make that prediction Further more, the claim ".Furthermore the observed TCS and ECS are of the order of 4 -7 C / doubling of CO2 according to the IPCC" is patently ridiculous. Maybe you would have been right if you'd said 4-7F per doubling, but you didn't. Additionally, "The observed reality is that the TCS is around 1.2 C" is patently false because we cannot observe TCS around 1.2C, THAT figure is the calculated FROM MODEL TCS of CO2 without feedbacks. We have observed 1.3-1.7C and have slightly less than a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 400ppm in that time, indicating that TCS is 2.6-3.4C per doubling by our observation. Moreover, " the effect diminishes logarithmically" means that it produces the same increase per doubling at all stages, linear in log scale. Hence your claim "which itself is quite small at the current concentration of CO2" unsupported by all your earlier data. Wrong as it was.
"which means water vapor has little effect over CO2's direct effect" is additionally completely wrong.
I ask you, will you accept observational reality over a hypothesis whose predictions are not only not true, but the opposite is seen? Your denial machine has made predictions, you have parroted themas far as your extremely limited understanding comprehended them, and they are observed to be absolutely wrong. Will you drop them?
Nice.
So everyone, please stop asking for the accuracy of the models. We have now 'proven' that nothing like now has ever happened so whatever our models of climate change say, they can't be refuted. Of course the models can't accurately model past events because, hey, nothing like this has ever happened.
So there you have it. The models are completely correct:
- the climate will be very bad in future (ie. not like it is now); and
- humans are the problem
Thank you for blindly accepting these pronouncements.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
If so, what is the asumptote of log(n),and at what n does log(n) reach, say,95% of that asymptote, presuming that the remaining 5% is too small to be measured?
It it doesn't asymptote, then your claim "it's logarithmic" disproves your assertion that it eventually becomes too small to measure. So either you don't believe it is logarithmic, or you can't believe it becomes too small to mention.
the only one round here typing with any sort of religious fervor... ... is you
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Clinton is a square shooter. Clinton 2016!
I'm willing to listen, but I don't like reading just people's conclusions, I want to see an authority and how they came to that conclusion.
Source?
Source?
Source?
Source?
Hasn't Earth always had climate change?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Well I did a bit more research on the CO2 issue, and I find the evidence convincing enough that the rise in CO2 is caused by humans through combustion, but not due the logic you've just presented. I read that the human contribution to the carbon cycle is less than 4% of the total amount however it seems that the total amount of CO2 in the cycle is generally quite steady except on geologic time scales. So the rise in CO2 levels coinciding with the industrial revolution and rising continuously until now is pretty convincing evidence that we are the cause. It is 'circumstantial' evidence, but it does seem to be by far the most likely cause.
Having said that the question still remains as to how much CO2 is too much. At an increase of say 4ppm per year how long will it take before we start to see a significant warming effect? There have been large variations in CO2 in the past. Do we know how temperatures fluctuated in response to those much larger variations? That would be at least some evidence.
Because, aside from that sort of analysis it seems that the only way to be certain is to wait and see what happens. So far the warming, if it has indeed all been caused by the increase in CO2 levels, does not seem particularly worrisome. Certainly not catastrophic. If it continues at less than 1 degree celsius per century I think we can probably handle that for another millennium by which time we probably wouldn't be still burning coal or oil or natural gas for electricity.
We might not even have any fossil fuels left to burn in as little as a century according to some estimates. We'll have to mostly be using nuclear (ideally fusion) generated electricity and electric ground transportation. In terms of politics I would support a gradual phasing out of oil and natural gas in favor of nuclear or hydro or wind generation in the few places they are appropriate. I think coal, where economically feasible is just too cost effective to abandon without some very clear evidence of immediate harm. Perhaps it could be justified based on other forms of pollution which are easier to show as being harmful. Heavy metals perhaps. Hopefully, given a century or two, one of those miracle improvements to photovoltaic cells will actually make it to market at a reasonable cost.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
more warmth and CO2 means more plant life, faster crop growth, more food. What is wrong with that ?
Yes, please eradicate CO2 from the atmosphere, so all life on earth can disappear.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/15/greenpeace-founder-lets-celebrate-co2/
"... fundamental challenge to constraining future climate projections"
I'd think they'd be celebrating?
I mean, they essentially are saying there's no reason to temper the FUD. All projections of panic, fear, misery, and terror are hereby justified.
-Styopa
Pretty much every point is summed up here
All of the above climate info in the op is extremely basic. I'm surprised you haven't seen any sources of this. And no the earth has never seen this rapid climate change except perhaps from extinction event impacts, basically the entire point of this article. I know, no one reads these.
Yes. We must immediately create a huge bureaucratic government agency (filled with cronies) and give exemptions to cronies, and enrich tons of cronies. If the environment actually is saved that's a bonus but not really needed.
Quick, we must make Al Gore a billionaire, as well as other cronies.
Looking on the web for journals written 66 million years ago about measured CO2 levels, couldn't find any.
I'm open minded, I'm willing to accept another 'truth' if people can provide the source data, I don't push my own view on to others.
In a world where everyone gives you conclusions instead of data, it becomes hard to believe any one side.
Given there has been warming for 300 years, are you saying in the last 25 years, we have done something that really changes the climate?
I've been previously told there was unusual melting of ice at the poles. But I then checked the data directly, in the last ten years global temperatures have decreased 0.05 degrees. I know that from plotting the least squares regression trend using satellite data. It showed in the last decade, there had been no significant increase in temperature at all. Given that we haven't had any for the last decade and we've had cooling for the last 15 years, what data are you actually looking at?
When I look at data from say, the University if Illinois, which takes the arctic and antarctic ice movements and it plots a global sea ice extent, which shows no change in the last 35 years.
Every time I check the data instead of trusting conclusions, I find it's simply not true. Perhaps you could show me your data that shows otherwise?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
check the science of ulcers, you will then understand why dissenters are important!.
Go back to the day when all the co2 in the ground now was in the atmosphere and then find some life to study.
Data please, I know how to plot my own least squares regression trend graphs and how to account for anomalies in data etc.
I always ask for source data because then I understand what that conclusion is based on. I've done my own investigations into claims before and they've not held up to scrutinity and all I had were a few conclusions to go on. These days I can't be bothered to search out the data anymore.
But... I didn't see anything in article about less money and energy has been spent on the entire history of climate research than a single year of the global shoe market or even a single year of a single popular sport?
I didn't see the article speak about what we critically need?
I didn't see how that article spoke about how many changes have been made as our understanding grows?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
We shouldn't censor dissenting views; it's bad for science.
Climate Science does welcome dissenting views, but we're getting sick and tired of people who flunked their high school science classes spouting off nonsensical opinions and then trying to pass it off as some kind of valid argument.
Go write a rebuttal to a research paper. Come up with an alternate analysis or theory. DO some fucking science.
So... 66 million years ago, the record shows something very similar. Can't blame that one on human induced change. What else ya got?
The Kochs wouldn't fund the experiment because they know what the answer would be. Heartland Institute cash is much better spent funding Frank Spencer's WSJ articles and speaking tours, or the even more delightful Judith Curry, who denies both evolution and AGW.
Its the same tactics as used by Creationists and ID'ers.
Cerry picking, false dillemmas, like there were some discrepencies between balloon tropospher measurements and satellite measurements so AGW has to be false right? Then even though the data has long since been reconciled, parroting the long discredited discrepency.
It was hilarious (or sad) that while doing my research on the matter, finding the paper bringing all that into agreement was buried in the midst of hundreds of websites citing the original issue. Not a one cited the later research bring the two together - by the way one that the author of the original paper said was true and correct after the reconciliation.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated... -- José Ortega y Gasset
I know how science works. It's the search for truth. Once truth has been found, it speaks for itself.
What science doesn't need are religious zealots, such as yourself, demeaning, belittling, groupthinking, coercing, and demanding everything like the brainwashed idiots that you are.
People would be more accepting of "AGW research" as a "Science" if it played ball like other sciences. It doesn't. It makes demands. It pushes agendas. It screams fowl. Then, new evidence comes in that shows the last 30 years of tantrums were based on 40% bullshit, and instead of changing their tune, offering apologies, correcting and scaling things back, they pick up a fucking megaphone.
Fuck them and Fuck you.
Only if you can guarantee that she (or he) has chosen that profession in an open and non-coerced decision, has full autonomy in how their actions and has no constraints beyond the usual governmental ones on what they do with the money you pay them.
Oh, and if you have the money to pay them.
That aside, sure, go for it. Might as well get laid before the world ends.
Science has become so politicized, it may be decades before we know what is truly correct.
For those here that are unaware please be advised that in the near future the term climate change,formerly global warming will be dropped in favor of yet another PC correct phrase,"Climate Disruption". http://www.scientific-alliance... You heard it here first.
"People" have provided the source data. If you don't agree with the data or the context that it is placed in, then the discussion is over and completely useless. Back when scientists were saying that the world was a globe and not flat... there was a TON of data provided to support that theory. The ideologues and skeptics at the time simply would not believe it. It took suicide ship voyages across the ocean to prove it. Nobody believed the data because they didn't trust the source of the data. It wasn't until these ships didn't fall off the edge of the earth that the skeptics and doubters believed the earth was spherical.
This is no different. The skeptics and ideologues will believe in the causes, effects, and presence of global warming/climate shift when they see it happen with their own eyes. When they truly have to deal with it. Not one minute before.
The problem with scientists is that they are too idealistic and believe that merely producing a hypothesis, supporting data, and conclusions are enough. Even if thousands of scientists do independent studies confirming the same hypothesis, producing the same data, and coming to the same conclusions... it is not enough. Scientists have not learned their lesson. The world cannot be saved until the world is ready to be saved. A country cannot have freedom until its people are ready to have it.
To me, scientists really just need to stick with near-term science. Research for advances in technology or the treatment of disease. Research for advances in farming. This kind of research produces simple, immediate results that are visible to skeptical non-scientists. But long-term global science is pretty useless. It doesn't matter how much data is produced. Skeptics believe what they see with their own eyes... and models are not enough.
Oh Slashdot, et tu brutus? Carbon issues are ALL part of Agenda 21. This is ALL junk pseudo science. And altho we are a CARBON BASED LIFE, of course too much of it is bad, but has NOTHING to do with men made carbon. The Sun, yes, the Sun is the major factor here. As temperatures rise, oceans release more of it, and the rates gets higher... and NOT the other way around, as it was "exposed" by Mr. Al 'Nefarious' Gore.
lololol, exposing the Rothchilds will cause this to happen
So what? You can predict all the "stuff" you want to, but as to how the planet will react, no one has any idea whatsoever.
Well, in the case of CO2, the de facto asymptote is simple - 100% CO2 atmosphere, or 1,000,000 parts per million.
Or do you think we can have more than 100% atmosphere? :)
Here, as an exercise, calculate the temperature increase due to the last 500 ppm from 999,500 ppm to 1,000,000 ppm, assuming a sensitivity of 1C per doubling. Does your calculator even have enough digits for that? :)
The reason for having a nick is not e-peen waving about how many likes you have on Slashdot. It's about being accountable for what you say and giving people the ability to hold rational dialogue with another person. If it was an e-prickle waving contest it would be real names, not nicknames. If there was no desire to hold dialogue there would be no login at all and everyone would be anonymous.
Anonymous has a purpose too, but it used to be advertised as "Anonymous Coward" very intentionally.
You don't want to own up to what you say that's fine, but don't try and belittle people who do.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
And this is you who talks about the quality of analysis?
These people are pro-industry just like you are pro-nazi. They "forget" what they do not like ("Poles heroically saved a great number of jews", "One of the few european countries without state nazism"), are selective ("Hey look, Danish people heroically saved a great number of jews!"), and exagerate what they like ("There were anti-jew mobs, and thus it was Poland who was killing jews"). And they see themselves as positive, despite what they do ("Derogatory talk about a country is not nazist", "The anti-jew mobs like that were not incited by nazism-spawning people like me").
I guess that you should in fact very well understand the anti-global warming people. Just look at yourself.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming ( "CAGW" ) and science rarely intersect. Vulgarity is unnecessary, and counter-productive. MM clearly doesn't understand how science works, either. CAGW is not a "theory" it is a "hyopthesis" - which, so far, as zero evidence to support it. ALL - and I mean **ALL** the predictions made by the various computer models in the 1990s have failed to materialize. As Richard Feynman said, in the 1960s ( paraphrased ), "No matter how pretty your theory is, if the evidence doesn't back it up, throw it away."
By the way, here's a good explanation about the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, which indicates that CAGW is not a theory at all:
"A theory replaces the hypothesis after testing confirms the hypothesis, or the hypothesis is modified and tested again until predictable results occur."
I repeat, the CAGW has failed all predictive tests to date.
Seriously? Is your knowledge base so small that you can't possibly think of another analogy other than Nazis? I cry for your inanity.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Optimism is dead.
We, humans, don't allow genocide, we commit genocide for profit.
If global warming doesn't wipe us out, destruction of the ocean ecosystem due to pollution and over-fishing will.
But I'm guessing that we're going to find a way of bring about an even that makes the P–Tr extinction event look gentle. Most likely due to us firing the clathrate gun due to rising ocean temperatures.
Enjoy the greatest time of human existence, because we're fucked and will be lucky to be around much more than another 200 years.
And yeah, I'm pretty sure we're past the point of no-return; because scientists tend to be very conservative about models and estimates so in reality things are probably much worse than the scientists would have us believe.
Just as an example, the talk about the extents of Ice in the Antarctic actually being greater over the past few years is due to the fact that fresh water had a higher freezing point than salt water; which means that there's a shit load of water melting from Antarctica, which may not have a measurable effect on global water levels yet; but you better believe the fucker's melting like crazy.
When they are quick to call you a name.
I don't have it, yet again.
What data? I don't have it.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
That noone seems to want to talk about is that every geological record of a massive CO2 release is accompanied by evidence of a simultaneous oceanic anoxic event and large scale dieback of megafauna (which includes animals our size)
There's evidence that this may have already started and started spreading.
You got it exactly right....well done.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
wait, you have evidence of Hinduism before 5500 B.C.? do tell
Seriously, how much do you or your consulting company make from this courageous "Anonymous Coward" commenting?
Are you paid by the hour?
By the post?
By the word?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Last I heard (and I could easily be wrong) about half of all scientists believed in a God or something similar. The believers know that their beliefs are unscientific, and they do not claim they are or try to advance them in that way.
As far as AGW goes, there is a vast amount of raw evidence and published papers to look through, and it basically points to AGW happening. Look through as much as you like. You can do this in pretty much any science. Since you can't do it for all science, either you don't believe in things like the Standard Model in quantum physics or General Relativity or evolution or a whole lot of other things, or you accept stuff on authority.
What to do about AGW is of course a political and economic decision, but if we don't use the best approach to the truth we can find our decisions will be worse than they need to be.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
People have given you links to follow up. Do you expect them to hack into your computer and enter the URLs into your browser themselves?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Dissent is meaningless without data.
No analogue state? Seriously, we're talking 66 Million years, or under 1.5% of the earth's 'life'...suggesting we're entering a 'no analogue state' is bullshit, otherwise the statement would have been 'this hasn't happened in 4.5 billion years'...O well, guess we can't actually have a reasonable scientific observation be made without someone pumping it up beyond all proof...
Your comment history is fascinating. You comment on few stories, but on the ones you do comment on you're *everywhere* with "there's no proof of climate change causes and we can't do anything about it anyway" and "gun grabbers" and straw man arguments.
I saw a few places where you seem to take an approach of "we can't fully fix this, so let's not even try to do anything" which seems to me like a rather defeatist attitude.
Anyway, regarding tipping points and whether they'd have happened in the past, it's entirely possible that they did happen and that over time things worked their way back down. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to mitigate the impacts of those, because the interim time period may REALLY SUCK in a "be glad the wars will kill you or your children before starvation" kind of way that lasts for thousands of years while natural selection selects for algae and plankton that thrive in the new conditions.
fencepost
just a little off
They didn't answer the specifics things I asked for which I clarified in a follow up post.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I should also add, that it was on a completely different thread that wasn't even referring to the points I am talking about here.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
So we're adding CO2 like no other time in history, let's believe that. We have had a period for over 15 years where we haven't seen an increase in temperatures. The UN simply admitted it and said they didn't know why. Well this is a classic case of the scientific method. Their hypothesis is CO2 causes GW. Since it didn't, and isn't based on the numbers it's time to admit they're wrong and CO2 isn't the cause. It's not even a contributor. What the history record tells us is CO2 always follows warming events, not causing them. What a lot of us scientists have said for decades. It's just those trying to profit off of us say co2 causes GW because man makes CO2. Not hard people. Admit it or reject science.
Yeah, come to think of it I might be mistaken. It's exactly 5999.9 years old. Damn, you got me.
On a serious note, Hinduism claims to be 111.5 trillion years old, and that the Earth is even older than that at 155 trillion. Seems we have a disagreement brewing on the origin and the age of this rock. Rather than have our greatest scientific minds look into it, lets just pull everyone together from various religions for a friendly debate and exchange of information.
I find evil as defined by certain camps of Christianity fascinating. It enables an annoying self-righteous attitude... yet the same people are supposedly born damned because of something an ancestor did, and the same people who needed someone innocent to die for them just to have a chance at avoiding Hell.
I don't know for sure, but I think the rules that govern the religious world you live in are evil - not all the other people.
Yeah you're probably right. What I read didn't have any sources cited.
Short of kidnapping people, owning a spaceship and a radio telescope, and flying them all 6001 light years away to look back on the Earth, - assuming we didn't hit a massive ceiling mural of the galaxy - I probably couldn't prove to them that the Earth is older than that.
Waste of time is a waste. But it doesn't matter, in 6000 years we won't exist anymore because these people will have forgotten the actual year the Earth was supposed to have been created, and they will still be citing that factoid of theirs.
We're causing previously unseen conditions because we are engaged in previously unseen activities.
Never in the 4.5 billion year history of this planet has a species done any of the things we're doing (to the best of our knowledge). Driving cars, farming, surfing a massively interconnected network of computers while pooping. It's all uncharted territory for our dear planet Terra. So I'm not terribly surprised to hear that these events are causing some changes.
The real question is whether or not these changes will make the planet inhospitable to life.
This signature is false.
One other piece of evidence for the rise in CO2 being caused by humans is the ratio of carbon13 to carbon12 in the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are higher in carbon12 than the atmosphere because life prefers the lighter isotope. There has been a measurable decrease in the C13/C12 ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere as you would expect from fossil fuels being burned.
The carbon cycle is the key to it all. The carbon is distributed through the carbon cycle but the ratio between the various sinks remains about the same. So as you add carbon it increases in all of the sinks, the main ones being the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere.
There have been large variations of CO2 in the past but little evidence of it changing as fast as it is at the present time. I think there has already been significant warming and it's just going to get worse as long as CO2 continues to increase.
Ok Alarmists. As a denialist I propose a wager. I will bet you that in 100 years the global temperature will have increased by less than 1 degree celsuis and that in 1000 years temperature will have increased by no more than 10 degrees celsuis.
Here is what there is actually evidence for:
1) The rise in CO2 since industrialization is due to human activities: basically burning stuff, making cement, and cutting down (killing) vegetation. Lots of evidence for that. No problem.
2) The earth has warmed by less than 1 degree celsuis since industrialization. The evidence for this isn't as strong and some sources are inconsistent, but there is a significant amount of evidence to support this view.
Maybe there is a causal relationship between the CO2 and the warming. There probably is. To say any more than that you will have to find evidence. Empirical, experimental data which I have not seen presented. Computer simulations are not science. You cannot prove anything with them. You need actual experiments for that and that's fine, because what we are doing is an experiment. Let's all sit back and see what happens.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
One other piece of evidence for the rise in CO2 being caused by humans is the ratio of carbon13 to carbon12 in the atmosphere.
Yeah I saw that too. Thanks. The evidence for the CO2 increase being caused by us seems pretty solid. It's the rest that is shaky. As in how much warming will an additional x ppm of CO2 cause. That's what we really need to know and I don't see any way for us to determine that accurately except by waiting to see what happens next. I guess the next best thing would be looking into the past when CO2 levels were as high as 7000ppm and try to see how much that warmed the atmosphere. I don't know if we have methods for plotting temperature vs CO2 with enough accuracy going back so far.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
In 2009 Richard Alley gave the Bjerknes Lecture at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting. Its title was "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History". In it he explains how you can't understand temperatures in Earth's history even going back over 4 billion years without understanding carbon dioxide. The video is 57 minutes long but it's well worth watching.
"The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History"
Stop discussing numbers and who's a scientist and who's a denier, or even who causes what, and start thinking about solutions, for our own sake.
I'm not worried about the planet, that will survive, I'm worried about humanity.
I think the solution is rather simple: 1. have the planet breakdown more CO2 and 2. make our footprint more efficient.
or just carry on as usual and let nature find it's way. Which will undoubtedly work, just not to everyones liking.
And, of course, it's up to everyone else to FTP massive amounts of data to you? The obvious null hypothesis is that the scientists know what they're talking about that, and if you reject that you're not going to be convinced by anything.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I think that for anyone that claims to have seen the data, it shouldn't be a problem to provide the data they've seen so I can come to a similar hypothesis instead of just relying on their comment
I have no idea if Javabandit is a scientist, all I see is him saying "I definitely understand the impact that global warming is having. I see the data. I know it is there." and for me to come to a similar conclusion, I should see the same data he's seen, no?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Perhaps "inflection point" where the slope of a line changes direction rapidly would be more accurate, but tipping point is more widely comprehended in conversation. In any case, I'm not necessarily talking about a permanent change when we talk about massive time scales, I have no idea what the environment of the planet is going to look like after millions of years of evolution particularly by short-lived organisms. In fact, I'm also not talking about an inflection point in CO2 concentrations - I'm talking about inflection points in other things affected by CO2 (among other things).
Bill McKibben actually has an interesting take on it in Eaarth - it's not that the world will end or that humanity will die off, it's that the world will no longer have the conditions that humanity and many other plants and animals have evolved with, and we and the rest of the ecosystem may have problems adapting as fast as the changes are happening.
fencepost
just a little off
that only works if you have a spaceship that goes c or a transporter that converts or scans humans to rest-mass zero particles for reassembly or duplication at that place. Then when you get there, 6001 years from now, you ask them what they saw 6001 years ago from the light that left earth 12,0002 years before.
As far as AGW goes, there is a vast amount of raw evidence and published papers to look through
As far as the 'raw evidence' perhaps you could link to just a single example. Since the data is so overwhelming. As for reading papers excuse me if I don't find a lot of interest in climate scientists preaching to the choir of other true believers. They tend to treat AGW as if it is fully settled.
You don't tend to find a lot of religious people arguing with each other over whether their beloved god really exists. Their arguments are more about disagreements about the details about what their god actually wants. For climate scientists what they generally want represents a political agenda of some kind.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Well I'll give them that usually the rhetoric is something like "OMG, coldest/hottest day/year in the last 100 years!"... At least with 66 million they are starting to talk a bit more in geologic time scales... However, for perspective, life on earth has been around producing CO2 for approximately 3.5 to 4 BILLION years. For the numerically challenged that is 3500-4000 million years. So the last 66 million is about 1.5% of that period of time.
Not trying to downplay what they are trying to say, only trying to give some perspective as to what that 66 million number actually means, Also CO2 levels are also influenced by other geologic events such as active periods of vulcanization (not sure if I am using that word correctly), would obviously spew out large amounts of CO2, just like periods of glaciation which likely involve large die backs of life would certainly limit CO2 production.
I have no doubt that human industrialization has certainly had an impact, perhaps even a very large one, however the big question I thing we struggle with is what does this all mean really, and it isn't helped by dealing with scales of time we usually don't deal with and many have a hard time conceptualizing.
Hourly?
It appears the parrot persona you have put on for laughs does not have a grade school geography education and know the difference between weather and climate. I very much doubt that you are so stupid and ignorant as you are pretending to be.
Scientists are so cute and adorably fun with how much they fear unpredictable change and disguise it under "sky is falling" purportedly unbiased studies.
> Right, but science didn't say it was safe. It hadn't said jack on the subject yet.
Um actually, the Curies and others had died, by then they knew it was "toxic" but they didn't know the dose.