Slashdot Mirror
NASA: Global Warming Is Now Changing How Earth Wobbles (go.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A new study from NASA finds global warming is shifting the way the Earth wobbles on its polar axis. Melting ice sheets are changing the distribution of weight on Earth, which has caused both the North Pole and the wobble, called polar motion, to change course. Since 1899, scientists and navigators have been accurately measuring the true pole and polar motion and for almost the entire 20th century they migrated a bit toward Canada. That migration has changed with this century -- now they're moving toward England, said study lead author Surendra Adhikari at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab. "The recent shift from the 20th-century direction is very dramatic," Adhikari said. NASA scientist and the study's co-author Eirk Ivins said, Greenland has lost on average more than 600 trillion pounds of ice a year since 2003 and that affects the way the Earth wobbles in a manner similar to a figure skater lifting one leg while spinning.
I alway felt that oil extraction would have the same affect.
About turning the world upside down.
Because there were only roughly 400 million people on Earth in the 1500's, up to over 7 billion now. At roughly 140 pounds a piece (a lot more in western countries), well, we've added a huge amount of weight to the planet. We would have spun the Earth out of control either way.
Just setup massive garbage dumps and prisons on Greenland.
Move all our garbage and prisoners there. The extra mass should rebalance things.
Nothing will make the pseudo-skeptics change their minds. But it's irrelevant, when even major oil producers like Saudi Arabia are setting the stage for the post-oil world, they, like pseudo-skeptics in other areas, will just fade to background noise.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Actually, if he pulled together data and published a research paper, he'd get chucked in the kook bin. Welcome to climate science.
We chuck a lot of people in the kook bin, from vaccines-cause-autism whackjobs right up to those people who... well, invented vaccination. We've got a pretty bad track record for figuring out whose science is bullshit and whose is valid.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I think some pseudoskeptics think that if they type any kind of a response, somehow, that invalidates the science. Yesterday, I had a guy somehow asserting that because plate tectonic theory was developed, that this meant AGW was on uncertain footing; as in "hey, they developed this new theory, so any day now, AGW is going to be falsified!" My retort, as it ever is these days, is to ask "Where the hell is all that energy that the growing concentrations of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is trapping going?" At the end of the day, when you boil it down, AGW is about creating an energy sink. If AGW is false, it either means our understanding of the physics of carbon dioxide is wrong, or it means there's some as yet undiscovered means that the lower atmosphere eliminates heat into space. They've been clinging to the lack of cloud data, but new research is now taking that away from them, so I'm not sure what's left.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
They've been clinging to the lack of cloud data, but new research is now taking that away from them, so I'm not sure what's left.
It's the god of the gaps.
--
BMO
How, precisely, does this change in the Earth's dynamics affect things like weather, seasons, etc?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
In what world does believing humans are causing climate change automatically mean I'm going to start buying green-washed products?
On the other hand, I suppose you're probably still using lead paint and lead lined cookware, because science is just a scam to get you to buy new stuff.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
I guess they can always go back to mumbling about "chaotic systems".
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
How is it a strawman? Particularly the latter point, that climatologists are compromised because they work by and large with government grants is brought up all the time as a counter to AGW research. For chrissakes, that claim is trotted by pseudo-skeptics in fields like geology, evolution, and cancer research.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
By wobbling the earth, governments can cause all the loose change from our wallets to fall into the treasuries' pockets.
We encourage the cost-effective development of renewable energy, but the taxpayers should not serve as venture capitalists for risky endeavors. It is important to create a pathway toward a market-based approach for renewable energy sources and to aggressively develop alternative sources for electricity generation such as wind, hydro, solar, biomass, geothermal, and tidal energy. Partnerships between traditional energy industries and emerging renewable industries can be a central component in meeting the nation’s long-term needs. Alternative forms of energy are part of our action agenda to power the homes and workplaces of the nation.
- GOP 2012 Platform
Oh those terrible, terrible Republicans and their hatred towards renewable energy! Oh wait...
As far as your other strawmen, they're not even addressed in the 2012 platform. Don't know where you got the GOP position - for or against - on any of those. Other than projection, or perhaps some left-wing whacko website?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The planet is going to lose its balance and fall over. And then you'll be sorry.
Of course that is what a lot of us that are being called "denialist", which just FYI is an regressive term designed to shut down discussion by comparing anybody that doesn't buy magic beans to Holocaust deniers, ...
It's the climate science deniers that are trying hard to make the link between denial in general and Holocaust denial specifically so they can look like a persecuted minority.
Even chaotic systems don't make energy disappear. They will create an inherent degree of randomness and unpredictability, but even in really chaotic systems, as physicists deal with in Quantum Mechanics, you can still apply statistical methods and come up with models that resemble reality well enough. Essentially, pseudo-skeptics invoke "chaotic systems" as a gaps argument, but they never really describe what they think a chaotic system is supposed to do in the case of trapping heat. Vortexes dumping heat into space? Quantum teleportation of excited molecules? It's just a magical invocation.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
- GOP 2012 Platform
Ask and ye shall receive! From the 2008 Republican Party platform. Addressing Climate Change Responsibly
The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.
Oh those terrible, terrible Republicans and their hatred towards renewable energy! Oh wait...
I'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaiting , nah - no more.
Tell me, you really have to hate the Internet. It is most inconvenient for you. If you want to argue with me, I will give citations, and I check them out before I post, most of the time. Oh yeah, Here's the 2008 Republican party platform link http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
As far as your other strawmen, they're not even addressed in the 2012 platform. Don't know where you got the GOP position - for or against - on any of those.
ahem... this microphone on? You in the back I said the 2007 platform.
Tell me, it's gonna be Trump, or Dominionist Cruz as your chosen representative. Which one acknowledges AGW? or GW? Your Presidential Candidate Donald Trump says about Global warming
"“This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice”
"Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it'"
"It's really cold outside, they are calling it a major freeze, weeks ahead of normal. Man, we could use a big fat dose of global warming!"
"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
He's your presidential Candidate, and he wil control the party platfom
And dear reader, is a straw man when a person uses verifiable quotes? Take your stupid "left winger" pejoritives and spend spome time doing research instead of lockstepping.
The bubble and the echo chamber is your home, and no doubt.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The article says it's nothing to worry about. Well that's what they said to Jor-El, and you know how that turned out.
The shift in mass distribution caused by melting ice will cross the boundaries of tectonic plates, changing the relative pressure on adjacent plates. This will likely lead to increased earthquake and volcanic activity. On the bright side, the ash from the volcanoes may limit global warming (maybe even trigger an ice age), and deformations of the sea floor may reduce sea level rise (or make it worse). Another possible impact is the triggering of a geomagnetic reversal.
The political debates about climate change are futile. What we should be discussing is whether we know enough about how this planet works (and have the technology) to attempt some kind of active intervention, such as carbon sequestration or actually blocking sunlight from space. But we'll probably just end up fighting over whatever habitable parts of the planet remain. Maybe the survivors will be wiser.
The Creationists have tried similar tactics.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Which leg and how high? Straight or bent?
Your description of the pseudo-skeptic nattering on about chaotic systems is bewildering, but I guess that they don't really know what a chaotic system actually is. Are they really using it to say "you can't predict the future" or some such nonsense?
--
BMO
I mean really... That said, it would be interesting to see how this "wobble" effects the distribution of thermal energy on the planet. I suspect that we're going to get a few people saying "look at the climate change!'... ignoring that maybe the earth has tilted one way or the other slightly which could account for changes in climate in parts of the world.
Whatever... everything is climate change and everything would be improved if we just put the Marxists in power... just ask the Marxists. *rolls eyes*.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
But CO2 is both a heat sink in the lower atmosphere AND a heat reflector in the upper atmosphere. So it's a zero-sum game.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
And by "endorse", I assume you mean, "doing everything they can to kill renewable energy".
http://usuncut.com/news/solarc...
http://www.scholarsstrategynet...
https://newrepublic.com/articl...
http://mic.com/articles/130336...
Plus, both of the leading GOP candidates for president, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, are climate deniers.
https://youtu.be/J_xVWfGjk0o
https://youtu.be/KyulquUwi1Q
You are welcome on my lawn.
> tipping point You could impress a lot of easily impressed people by sounding all sciency if you started calling it a bifurcation point.
Of course that is what a lot of us that are being called "denialist", which just FYI is an regressive term designed to shut down discussion by comparing anybody that doesn't buy magic beans to Holocaust deniers, ...
It's the climate science deniers that are trying hard to make the link between denial in general and Holocaust denial specifically so they can look like a persecuted minority.
Really? What are you on? I want some...
Well, I live in Oregon where weed is legal now. ;)
But seriously denial is a perfectly good word and to try and associate it only with Holocaust denial takes away from its meaning. As Mark Twain said before there was ever a Holocaust "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."
No, water is denser than ice.
Depends on what you're measuring. If you're measuring rainfall, it's climate change. If you're measuring temperature it's global warming. And, of course, newspapers are notorious for abusing the language. Consider the term "hacker".
Actually, it could always be climate change, but calling it global warming when you're talking about rainfall is just confusing.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled." -- R.P. Feynman
Show me proof that humans are the cause of global warming. So far, there has been no evidence and a lot of speculation.
Mankind is tiny and insignificant. We couldn't effect global-scale change like that even if we tried our hardest to do so. Stop being so naive and arrogant. Climate change is a natural phenomenon that has been happening throughout the Earth's history, long before humans existed.
Bzzzzzzt.
The Sun dumps visible light on Earth, which is absorbed, and re-radiated at a lower wavelength. The atmosphere is mostly transparent to visible light, and CO2 does squat to it. The atmosphere is opaque to IR pretty much to the edge of space; the "top of atmosphere" is where a given photon has a higher chance of being released to space instead of being captured and re-radiated. The effect of CO2 is not to increase the opacity of the lower atmosphere, which is already saturated with H2O and CO2, but to push the CO2-rich layer further out into space.
You clearly know fuck-all about atmospheric physics. Why are you commenting?
Sure, just as soon as we use a "market-based approach" to fossil fuels, instead of providing taxpayer subsidies that dwarf those for renewables.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The Bible only describes the shape of the Earth in one place, and it says that the Earth is round. This is also where the Bible contradicts the other religions of the day by stating that the Earth hangs from nothing (while other religions claimed it was perched atop giand pillars, or riding on the back of a giant tortoise, etc)
If you are going to pretend to be smarter than the supposedly ignorant "Bible thumpers" you should start by demonstrating (a) that you are actually literate, and (b) that you have actually studied the book you are criticizing.
I will further note that the Bible should be read, as any other book is read, COMPLETELY so you get it all in context and therefor the obvious expressions like "ends of the Earth" are understood as the obvious expressions they are (just as they would be in any other book) and without pretending that if you properly understand such an expression then you must imagine the entire rest of the book to be similarly not literal (a bizarre form of literary interpretation not generally applied to other books).
The Earth's wobble has long been known, it was in old dusty textbooks.
Anybody who has ever worked with or studies spinning objects knows that they wobble if the mass distribution changes while they are spinning.
Anybody with any slight exposure to history or geology (no actual degree in either field required) knows that there have been times in the past when huge parts of the planet have been under huge thick ice sheets, and other periods when those ice sheets are gone or nearly gone. It's also astoundingly obvious that the water is not destroyed during inter-glacial periods - it's redistributed as liquid water in oceans lakes and rivers and as water vapor in the atmosphere NONE of which are the same mass distribution as when in glacier form atop continents. As a result, anybody with a brain knows that the Earth's wobble has over time been affected by the climate cycles as the planet goes down into a deep cold ice age and then warms into a very warm inter-glacial period and then goes back into another deep cold ice age. All of recent human history has been in a warm inter-glacial period, with the only real question being have we hit the peak of the warming before we dive towards the next ice age, or are we going to get a bit warmer yet before the next slide down into another ice age.
The only real headline here is that there are people in NASA willing to hype ANYTHING to push AGW. Next month somebody at Goddard will spill coffee on himself, discover that it's WET and HOT and will announce that hot coffee is somehow wrapped-up in AGW. I had personally hoped that the agency would return to honesty and sanity after Jim Hansen retired, but sadly that appears not to be the case and his influence appears to have been more like an infectious disease whose primary symptoms are fanatacism and anxiety attacks.
In that case, stop the subsidies to oil companies in the form of production and exploration tax subsidies. That would save the USA tax payer $37.5 billion a year. The argument that it saves jobs can't be used if it can't be used with renewable energy sources.
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Is the sky still falling? Hadn't noticed. Al Gore said we'd be 4 meters under water by now.
Citation?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Well, it wasn't Al Gore, it was Dr. James Hansen who, in 1988, claimed the NY West Side Highway would be underwater by now. Of course, rather than the 10 foot change he predicted, we've had exactly 2.5" of sea level change. Came up a bit short on that one!
Gore whiffed the Arctic ice prediction that it would be gone by now - which is clearly not the case.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
This went from 'dumb as fuck' to politics in .00314 seconds.
If it's not Godwins Law it's this whenever the weather is mentioned anymore.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
A little late for April Fools.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Climate change denial will not yield to logic, proofs, measurements or facts. Cowardly personalities fear change and fighting global warming and rising seas mean that many things in our lives must change. But cowards reason that they will surely be dead anyway before total calamity takes place. They could care less about their children or future generations. To then it is better that their children perish than they might be forced to pay a bit more in taxes.
It's the climate science deniers that are trying hard to make the link between denial in general and Holocaust denial specifically so they can look like a persecuted minority.
Well, I bet it's better than the reason you're doing it.
taxpayers shouldn't play the role of venture capitalist
Some projects don't lend themselves to market capital funding. Take the interstate freeway system, for example. Clearly, the network offers a good profit to the economy and to the taxpayers who funded it, but it's not something that the free market can do well.
Wait....isn't it climate change now?
It's been climate change for a while now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
it was Dr. James Hansen who, in 1988, claimed the NY West Side Highway would be underwater by now
No, he didn't. https://www.skepticalscience.c...
That's because this was political from the start almost. Back in the 80s when the activist wanted to warn congress, then senator Timothy Wirth (or is it Worth ) set out to find the historically hottest day in Washington D.C. and scheduled the hearing to coincide. He then had staffers flip the breakers on the AC the night before for effect when activist James Hansen and friends made their presentation.
Fast forward to the Kyoto protocol. This was in the works when there were groups like Jubilee2000 who were arguing for the first world countries to forgive the third world debt created in the 80s to develop their oil infrastructure after the opec embargo caused havoc. Along comes the Kyoto protocol and out of 157 original countries, only 37 had any carbon limits and 2 or 3 of them had limits well above their then values so they could build up to the limits in the future. But here is the real political story, a country could avoid their limits by moving production and infrastructure off shore to countries without the limits. They could also purchase carbon credits from countries that have managed to be under their limits. But furthermore it set requirements for technology transfers to many of these third world countries. It was as if carbon emissions was not the issue but lack of development in these third world countries. Now this Kyoto protocol was born in 1997 (actually it started birth two years prior but was a final draft to be ratified in 97) and almost as soon as it was being offered, the third world debt cries almost became invisible. Groups like Jubilee2000 stopped having large rallies and all but disappear by 99.
There has been politics and conspiracy associated with climate change since the beginnings. There is no real reason why that would disappear just because the evidence is more strong today or that more people are believers today. Most modern believers don't know the background of this and those who do want to forget it.
Wait, are you really arguing that we shouldn't pay attention to what they do, we should pay attention to what they say?
That explains a lot, actually.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm not sure what surprises you here. The amount of CO2 that is claiming to be the problem is about 120 parts per million. (The difference between current levels of 400ppm and the levels at the beginning of the industrial revolution at 280ppm) That would be 0.012% or .0012 units that make up the atmosphere. It gets even smaller if you consider the 1990 baseline used for most of the countries that had limits under the Kyoto protocol.
The change matches with the rise of Dubstep.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/in...
Result:
2.722×10^14 kg (kilograms)
2.722×10^11 t (metric tons)
Volume V of water from V = m/rho_(H_2O):
| 2.722×10^14 L (liters)
| 272 km^3 (cubic kilometers)
| (assuming maximum water density ~~ 1000 kg/m^3)
By highlighting the symptoms, they may spur more people into doing something to 'cure the desease'.
Otherwise the masses will do nothing and the issue will continue to escalate.
I'm still trying to work out if Adam and Eve had bellybuttons.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Well, at least you accept the data. That's a start. However if your plan is to kill billions of people, we don't have to do anything except sit and wait.
I'm not sure what surprises you here. The amount of CO2 that is claiming to be the problem is about 120 parts per million. (The difference between current levels of 400ppm and the levels at the beginning of the industrial revolution at 280ppm) That would be 0.012% or .0012 units that make up the atmosphere. It gets even smaller if you consider the 1990 baseline used for most of the countries that had limits under the Kyoto protocol.
And the amount of radiative forcing is a mere 1.6 Watts per Square meter, hardly enough to be worried about. Until you figure that is 800 Terawatts of radiative forcing. You figure the atmosher is a black hole, where all goes in, and none comes out?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Well, it wasn't Al Gore, it was Dr. James Hansen who, in 1988, claimed the NY West Side Highway would be underwater by now.
I've been looking for the specific statement. What I do know is that the White house censored and altered what he testified to>
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/05...
Regardless, the only place I've found that testimonial quote is on a denialist website. You deniers have to have the cite from a transcript don't you?
I'll search the Government transcripts later today
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Instead of looking at percentages, which look rather small and innocent, there's a better way to interpret the data. Imagine we put all the CO2 of the atmosphere in a solid layer of CO2 at standard atmospheric pressure. Pre-industrial age, that layer would be about 3 meters thick. Since then, we've added an extra meter, which has a pretty significant effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Sorry, but you just can't fix stupid.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
How is this insightful? We have an excellent track record for determining the correct theories. Look at all the new technologies that have been developed since the beginning of the 20th century. That is the result of engineering based on the scientific discoveries that have been made.
The public's opinion is vulnerable to greedy assholes with huge media corporations pushing their agenda to the detriment of every person on earth and especially to those not even yet born. It is sad that such large swaths of people can be turned into shills against their own interest and be totally ignorant of the fact for so long.
The oil and gas industry's tactics are the same as when they perpetrated the leaded gas abomination.
From Hansen's own website, see note 1 where he confirms the basic statement, with the clarification it was 40 years, not 20. So he still have 12 years maximum to have a flooded West Side Highway - which I think we can all agree simply won't happen (9 feet, 10 inches of sea level rise in 12 years).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yes, he did. That's his own website by the way... See note 1 of the paper - he confirms his prediction with a 40 year span.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount
But CO2 isn't near doubling yet. Also, we don't know what exactly was meant by that. Are we talking about a doubling near the beginning, during, or near the end of the 40 year time span ?
Precisely! He's prone to spouting off scary things (WEST SIDE HIGHWAY UNDERWATER IN 40 YEARS!) to garner attention and push an agenda, rather than behaving like a rational scientist who would lay out things (if the CO2 in the atmosphere doubles, it may cause a sea level increase of 10 feet; however, it would probably take XXX years to double the atmospheric content of CO2).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The problem is that only scientists are interested in the carefully worded science. The rest of the world wants short and dramatic headlines, and the journalist will keep asking the scientists for juicy quotes, or will just reword the original themselves. Even in this case where the scientist is talking about a 40 year period and a doubling of CO2, and I showed a link where this is all explained, you still come back with the idea that he claimed that the West Side Highway would be underwater by now. If you're interested in rational science, you should read popular press with suspicion. Always. And before you argue about it, you should find the original source, and read that.
That's because they tell you yahoos one thing and do another for themselves. The corporations, like Exxon, who have spent the most time and money trying to discredit climate scientists are the very ones who are planning their corporate future based on climate change being real.
Face it, you're being had.
You are welcome on my lawn.
But the point is that it is an objection. It doesn't matter that it's ludicrous and essentially denies physics All that matters is that it sounds like a scientific objection. Of course is a load of shit, and maybe even the poster knows that (but I doubt it), but it's part of the "CO2 is totally harmless" counterargument which has been around for decades now. Like Creationists, psuedo-skeptics just keep repeating the same lies over and over and over again, no matter how many times they have been falsified.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The only attention it gets is 'You're just like Holocaust deniers, and all these other scientists can't possibly be wrong'. Any journal publishing it would get tossed into the discredited journals leaving only discredited journals as my only publishing option. If you personally want to see the data I can point you at it. But I'm not impressed with science breaking Godwin's law whenever it gets brought up.
If you are not comparing the amount of Co2 to the entire atmosphere you are not comparing the same things. Granted it is more dramatic but it is not the same. You could just as easily say the amount of Co2 has increased by a third but it doesn't illustrate how small changes have big effects so other claims of big effects from small changes shouldn't be surprising.
NASA is trying to distance themselves from these crackpots - https://www.rt.com/news/338810...
There you have it. Anything to do with weather and climate, etc and it's from NASA, it's an opinion at best. It's a shame that it takes a third world country with one satellite to call bullshit for us to actually admit NASA doesn't do climate.
Should be clear. Bad hurricane - MMGW. IT's too hot - MMGW. It's too cold - MMGW. Nothing happened for 15 years - Still have MMGW. Anything happens - MMGW. Nothing is natural anymore.
When a paper uses terms like "link" and "clue" it means they don't have proof for their hypothesis. So the report didn't "find global warming is shifting the way the Earth wobbles." It found some correlations between various data sets. And as every scientist knows, and most lay persons should learn, correlations are a time a dozen and prove nothing.
So this is just more AGW Chicken Little alarmism.
You really are a crackpot. Every argument you've made has been based on a faulty understanding of basic science.
You really are a crackpot. Every argument you've made has been based on a faulty understanding of basic science.
Worded poorly, perhaps, but not based on "faulty understanding". CO2 absorbs heat not just reflected off the earth, but also as it enters the atmosphere and warms the air and clouds BEFORE it reaches the earth. And it radiates that heat in all directions, including back to the upper atmosphere and eventually back into space.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
From your source: "Finally, some of the highest estimates include a portion of defense spending (more info on defense subsidies to oil here and here). It should be noted that while the estimate of $53 billion in fossil fuel subsidies annually does include some of the cost of U.S. military “defense” of the Persian Gulf region..."
"Subsidies" when referring to oil companies and fossil fuels in general include anything and everything under the sun that might be related to energy production, transportation, or usage in the slightest. Those huge numbers are highly misleading. As far as "tax breaks" which most people are against, it should be noted that most of them are tax breaks available to construction and mining in general and just happen to apply to fossil fuel companies that do construction and resource extraction.
If you want to say oil companies shouldn't be eligible for those because "AGW" then why not eliminate tax loopholes for employees of fossil fuel companies? Aren't those "subsidizing" fossil fuel production too?
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Well in some cases, the government is actively shutting down privately funded transportation projects... Like the Keystone XL or Palmetto pipelines.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Underwater volcanoes would be hard to quantify, but seriously ship tonnage? Literally a drop in the ocean. I'm a "denier" by most standards and even I know that 2.5" of sea level rise would probably be more than all cargo ever produced by mankind.
Assuming 2.5" of sea level rise (we'll call it 65mm) and a 360 million square kilometer surface area of oceans on earth, that's 2.34x10^13 cubic meters of water which would mass approximately 2.34x10^16 kg (conservative since salt water is more dense than pure water). Shipping units are a weird "TEU." According to wikipedia, the maximum mass for a TEU is 30,480 kilograms (TEUs are volume measurements). So for cargo ships, the amount of shipping containers needing to be on the ocean AT THE SAME TIME to displace that 2.5" is conservatively 7.68x10^11 TEU. The estimate for worldwide shipping in all of 2009 (not all at the same time) is a mere 465,597,537 TEU.
Of course I didn't include bulk cargo ships, but unless we are shipping a few million times as much mass by bulk shipping, it still isn't factoring in.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
The ice expansion is miniscule, is only extent of sea ice and is despite the massive reduction of ice MASS at that pole. All in all a great big whopper of a lie from a denier of reality.
No, it's not a lie. It seems more likely that YOUR comment is a lie. There is NO evidence that I can find anywhere that supports a "massive reduction" of the mass of ice in Antarctica, land or sea. I'll leave this right here for your edification.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
That's some pretty impressive figures there. Did you include oil tankers, super-sized passenger liners, buoys ( I know ) drilling rigs and of course erosion / sediment build up from the rivers dumping into the ocean?
There's not only the volcano's under the surface of the ocean, but there's also the land mass being added to the ocean from the volcanos above ground too. Hawaii is the first example that comes to mind. Also the sand that's blown off of Africa and Australia just for starters.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
I referenced not including bulk cargo which would include oil tankers. I didn't include passenger liners which are very few in number compared with cargo ships as well. Buoys would have to be an incredibly tiny amount of displacement... All buoys on earth is probably less than a single tanker. Drilling rigs displace only the legs below the surface as they are typically rigidly mounted to the sea-floor.
As for your erosion, volcanoes (no apostrophe for plurals by the way), continental thrust, and other natural sources, I briefly mentioned neglecting them as there is no real way to quantify that easily. Increase in sea level due to changes of the sea floor itself would be a full academic paper on its own.
But man-made displacement? I was merely trying to point out that there are orders of magnitude difference between ship displacement and sea level rise. I wouldn't be surprised if all ships of all types, buoys, and any other man made structural displacement represents less than 1mm of sea level rise.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Increase in sea level due to changes of the sea floor itself would be a full academic paper on its own.
It would certainly be an interesting read.
Drilling rigs displace only the legs below the surface as they are typically rigidly mounted to the sea-floor.
I know of a few examples where this is not true. Most famously the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. But I agree that the quantity of these rigs is probably negligible.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Read the platform: taxpayers shouldn't play the role of venture capitalist. Use a market-based approach to developing renewables rather than throwing billions at unproven technologies and solutions.
Use a market based approach - you mean like the fully market funded approach for oil and natgas?
Quickly folks, mod me as flame bait.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
taxpayers shouldn't play the role of venture capitalist
Some projects don't lend themselves to market capital funding. Take the interstate freeway system, for example. Clearly, the network offers a good profit to the economy and to the taxpayers who funded it, but it's not something that the free market can do well.
Or nuclear reactors.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
You are an idiot. Enough said.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Brilliant rebuttal!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
A zero sum game implies that all effects bottom line cancel each other out.
In your example we only have one effect: CO2 trapping IR light.
It does not matter in what layer. On what physical basis should it "reflect" IR in the upper atmosphere but trap it in the lower? And even if it would: by what magic should it be in both cases the exyctly same amount?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Particularly the latter point, that climatologists are compromised because they work by and large with government grants
Perhaps in the states. In most countries there is no "grants" program.
Universities and research institutions perform research. Tax money is diverted to those institutions every year, same amount. No one is going to change money distribution on any "agenda". In particular: the parliament decides how much money they put into universities, see below. And it does not decide what the universities are doing with the money, that is their own business.
In other words: if you come up with a new research program and want funds, you won't get any. No idea where your stupid "grand" idea comes from. The only way to get your new research idea founded is to convince the higher ranks in your university to put money into your field and subtract it from other fields.
The real only way to get "funds" is to get employed by an university, be a student or doctorate and work in what ever the university or the particular department is doing. In your case you have to join a climate research department. Which implies you are either a student of weather and/or climate or: you are a software developer working on the software or data which is processed in that research.
To get into an research institute as a researcher on the other hand, you basically always need a diploma or a PhD.
So: are are no mythical grants.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Economic growth does not imply more energy usage.
More energy usage does not imply more CO2.
No one needs to die to restrict CO2 emissions.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.