Rise In CO2 Has 'Greened Planet Earth' (bbc.com)

schwit1 quotes a report from BBC: Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants. A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA. Climate skeptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet. But the researchers say the fertilization effect diminishes over time. They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives. The lead author, Professor Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms. The new study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change by a team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries. A new study has also shown that ever since Americans first heard the term global warming in the 1970's, the weather has actually improved for most people living in the U.S. The study published in the journal Nature found that 80% of the U.S. population lives in counties experiencing more pleasant weather than they did four decades ago.

Comments

More "pleasant" weather

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, if prefer mud and slush to nice powdery snow

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[EmeraldBot]

Yeah, if prefer mud and slush to nice powdery snow

Same. California used to be nice and warm, but some parts have become unbearably hot during the summer, and the drought devestated the area I lived in after I moved away. Furthermore, many of us quite like the rain and snow - you'd be suprised how many people leave Hawaii or Arizona after the weather gets old.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[phantomfive]

Same. California used to be nice and warm, but some parts have become unbearably hot during the summer,

What part of California is now unbearably hot that wasn't unbearably hot before?

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

You're confusing a cyclical drought with global warming. We had a drought in California like that in the 1970s. It happens every 40 years or so. The water planners drew up a plan for how to deal with it last time. The plan presupposed that people would actually do it. They half assed the project and as a result the shortages were painful though not fatal.

Look... you can't understand climate unless you make an effort to understand climate. To do that you have to look at the history of climates to see what the patterns are in the first place.

Saying "oh california didn't have bad droughts before" is ignorant. You'd have a hard time finding anything in Cali that has remarkably changed from a climate stand point.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[adolf]

The part of California that he moved away from before it became unbearably hot. (which, thereby, means that he had no idea if it was unbearable or not, because he chose to vacate before it came to bear.)

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[Troed]

But scientists say that in the more ancient past, California and the Southwest occasionally had even worse droughts — so-called megadroughts — that lasted decades. At least in parts of California, in two cases in the last 1,200 years, these dry spells lingered for up to two centuries.

The new normal, scientists say, may in fact be an old one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[WarJolt]

These are minor droughts. We know they have lasted well over a decade in the past.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

California suffers cyclical droughts roughly every 40 years. They tend to last about 5 years and to sustain the population, reserves of water must last through the drought.

There are two ways to make sure the reserves are enough.

1. Build reserves to match consumption for roughly 5 years.
2. Limit consumption to match 5 year reserve capacity.

If Cali does that, then its fine.

Our problem in the Golden State is that we didn't build reserves to keep pace with population growth... or we didn't limit development and zoning to what could be sustained through droughts.

To blame the whole thing on Global Warming when it was spelled out very clearly in the fucking 70s with blueprints, time tables, budget forecasts... Its fucking comical.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[DarkOx]

The part that is almost all of it before massive amounts of water were diverted there by man made projects, which had devastating ecological consequences for the places the water was redirected from.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, having grown up in southern California, what I think people seem to forget is that southern California is what's typically classified as a desert. The fact that they have some 10 million people living there (probably closer to 20 if you count San Diego) just shows how stupid people can be. Are people next going to start complaining about drought conditions in Las Vegas? Southern California was only ever able to support life because of the Colorado River, and there's just too damn many people living there no and the might Colorado barely even makes it to the pacific any more.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[LWATCDR]

"California used to be nice and warm, but some parts have become unbearably hot during the summer, and the drought devestated the area I lived in after I moved away. "
That is called weather not climate. I doubt that you can find any data that backs up your claim that parts of California have become unbearably hot hat have never been unbearably hot in the past.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

Except it hasn't because in the case of California the cycle is entirely predictable.

We have droughts like this... they told us in the 70s we'd have another one in another forty years... and they gave us what they thought was the best solution so the next time it was no big deal.

People didn't do that so we got a shit show.

Number of people that died as a result of government incompetence in this case? Zero.

However, they did have to steal water from the agricultural sector to keep the cities going. Not cool. Not just crops failed but orchards died.

So I can't say this enough fucking times...

No. Wrong. Incorrect. The cycle has held. We have droughts like this... this is normal. Its unusual but so are tidal waves hitting little Japanese villages. However... it happens. You either prepare for it or you get surprised like a chump.

Choose.

Be prepared or be a chump.

I personally would like to be prepared. But all the people saying "oh there was nothing we could do about it"... they are chumps.

That is what you're saying. Don't be that guy.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[angel'o'sphere]

Except it hasn't because in the case of California the cycle is entirely predictable.

It definitely is not.

Just because "you see a cycle" does not make it predictable. At least not in the sense you wrote above.

As soon as you know why you have a drought, in other words: know what recent weather/climate patterns are leading to it, then you can say: we have those patterns now, likely we get a drought again.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[Applehu Akbar]

In lowland Arizona when it's 40C, we call it "Thursday."

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[angel'o'sphere]

That is called weather not climate.
Actually, if a specific part of the world has a specific weather pattern: it is called climate.
And when those weather patterns change: it is safe to say, the climate has changed in that area.

E.g. most of Germany was used to be covered in snow during January and February, now we barely have snow on the middle high mountains. That is not weather: that is climate.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[pr0fessor]

In Kansas if we don't like the weather we just wait ten minutes it'll change.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[rgbatduke]

To do that you have to look at the history of climates to see what the patterns are in the first place.

I fully agree.

http://www.mercurynews.com/sci...

And the last drought was due to a strong La Nina, as they often are. California has had horrendous droughts, some of which have lasted for centuries, over the last 2000 years. Climates always are changing, and California's has actually been comparatively benign (for California) for most of the last 160 years, with the exception of the Great Dust Bowl years and a few other minidroughts that are more or less identical to the one just ended, or at least paused, by the strong El Nino.

The problem with the AGW assertions -- a problem so severe that they changed the entire assertion to ACC ("climate change", not "global warming") is that it is very, very difficult to separate anecdotes from statistically meaningful evidence. Indeed, the only other human discipline that seems to incorporate a worse rate of anecdotal assertion as statistical truth is -- maybe -- health care. Maybe not! A second, closely related problem is the near impossibility of separating out causal factors for any statistically meaningful change that is observed. Is the CA drought caused by or part of -- note the separate assertions:

a) Anthropogenic (specifically, caused by anthropogenic CO2, not other anthropogenic silliness like land use change or oversubscribing the water supply ten times over)
b) Global (not local -- part of a global, statistically discernible pattern and not a local anecdote)
c) Warming and/or Climate Change?

How can one even begin to answer this question? Is the drought different in magnitude, duration, timing, from any of the ten odd droughts that have occurred over the period of scientific records? Is it exceptional on the basis of e.g. tree ring data? Even if "exceptional", is it truly a statistical outlier or just at the level of statistical noise and the imperfection of records, truly indistinguishable from many of the past droughts? Is it part of a pattern of increasing drought? And even if it is exceptional, part of a pattern, an outlier, is it caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the specific sense that if humans had done everything else that they did to California -- tap the available water to support far more people than the land should support, plant huge farms, cover vast stretches of countryside with roads and malls and houses -- but done it without burning anything so CO2 was still order of 300 ppm, there would be no La Nina associated droughts, or those droughts would not be so severe?

We have answers to some of these questions. The drought was not particularly exceptional, and its impact was greatly enhanced by non-CO2 (but anthropogenic) factors, specifically the fact that California is carrying far more people than it should given its history of being mostly desert for most of the last 2000 years. We have no possible way to answer others, specifically the attribution to anthropogenic CO2.

But that never stops the media, politicians, and even some scientists who should know better from doing it anyway. The study in the top article is remarkable in that it states something that most people have long since observed and noted even without the help of "Science". The climate today is far better than it was 60 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 150 years ago. It is much closer to a climate "optimum" that the Earth was during the Little Ice Age. It isn't just humans that have benefited, either. The entire biosphere is -- on average -- far better off. The planet was starved for CO2 in the middle of the Wisconsin glaciation -- levels dropped to the edge of mass extinction for certain classes of respiring plants.

Here's a thought for the day. Of the world's seven billion people, one billion will dine today courtesy of the additional plant growth d

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

http://www.sfgate.com/science/...

I'm sorry the burden of proof is on you people. You want to say this is all global warming? Have fun substantiating that.

This is my state. I know it and I know its history. Most of the chumps commenting on this are either out of state hacks that are just bandwagoning an issue they don't understand. And the rest are mostly millennial twinks that don't know what happened yesterday much less the historic climate patterns of anywhere... even the fucking state they reside within.

http://articles.latimes.com/19...
http://news.sky.com/story/1193...
http://www.californiadrought.o...

The AGW hissy fit has gotten old. Shouldn't we be getting MORE water if your chicken little bullshit were right? After all, more heat, more humidity, more precipitation?

We brought water to the desert. Our cities do not thrive on the rain that falls on our land. It thrives on the water we bring to our land.

No part of the country has as elaborate a water transport system as California. That is what made our cities possible and is what allowed them to grow. Men that moved the water. Our population has grown and all we have to replace those old lions of the past are a bunch of head up their ass hippies that do very little besides whine and waste money.

That is why we have a problem. There is plenty of water. The old city fathers of Los Angeles would have already taken care of this bullshit. They would have gone to any of the many places in the north that have loads of fucking water and they would have made a deal. What is more, Our water system is not well designed to share water within itself. It is frequently compartmentalized. Simply by bringing water into the top of the system and then allowing reserves in the north to spill into reserves in the south... the problem solves itself.

Here someone will say "but every place needs every drop of their water". Bullshit. Oregon and Washington state are loaded with it. You talk to them and work out an arrangement. Buy it. Move it.

Here someone will say "but its hard to do things because we're so fucking incompetent!!!"... you have to imagine that with a really whiny voice to get the statement in its proper context. The Romans moved water hundreds of miles. This is the 21st century and we're talking about a major population center that is a huge economy and huge food producer... so... The fuck? Did we lose the ability to make pipes and concrete? I was unaware that level of incompetence had been reached. Because that's straight up Idiocracy levels of fuckwittery.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[shaitand]

That may be true of California. Having lived in Florida, Texas, and New Mexico over the last decade and a half I can tell you the biggest consistent differences I've seen is an increased incidence of the extremes. More storms and more intense storms, record lows and highs, etc.

There is this misconception that because many refer to it as "global warming" that the changes you should see in the weather are that it is hotter. The increases in temps are slight, it's how those changes impacts currents, winds, and evaporation compounded across the surface area of the oceans that has a much bigger immediate impact in the weather. I also suspect for the same reason we'll start to see increased fault activity eventually as the crust temperatures adjust and the earth slightly expands but I doubt we are there yet the more recent activity is likely all down to fraking,

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[drinkypoo]

That is why we have a problem. There is plenty of water. The old city fathers of Los Angeles would have already taken care of this bullshit. They would have gone to any of the many places in the north that have loads of fucking water and they would have made a deal.

Yes. And that proves what stupid fuckheads they are. Guess how much rainfall falls on Los Angeles every year? Enough to meet over 90% of its needs. Guess what happens to that water? It runs off directly into the ocean, carrying surface litter with it. Instead of improving the area's ability to hold water, it has been diminished by overcrowding and the end result is that even though it gets enough water for free, it still has to buy almost 100% of its water from elsewhere because it can't hold on to it. What a pathetic shit show.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Anonymous Coward]

The AGW hissy fit has gotten old. Shouldn't we be getting MORE water if your chicken little bullshit were right? After all, more heat, more humidity, more precipitation?

Bad reasoning. First you're assuming that more heat build-up in the atmosphere will necessarily result in more water evaporation, or IOW an increase in the water cycle rate, which you could prove, but you haven't.

Then you have the problem of the net effect being more precipitation for your local area. Doesn't do you a lot of good if somebody else is getting the increase in rain, it might even have a net reduction in your over all precipitation amount, depending on the flow of weather.

We brought water to the desert. Our cities do not thrive on the rain that falls on our land. It thrives on the water we bring to our land.

Yes, that has had consequences to it. Much like say, the folks who moved to certain Western Prairie states (many of them in turn moving out to California when circumstances changed), you may find them difficult to bear.

Men that moved the water. Our population has grown and all we have to replace those old lions of the past are a bunch of head up their ass hippies that do very little besides whine and waste money.

Ah, that's cute, you should rise up and become the great leader your people need, to save them from themselves!

If only they appreciated you for it.

Here someone will say "but every place needs every drop of their water". Bullshit. Oregon and Washington state are loaded with it. You talk to them and work out an arrangement. Buy it. Move it.

They don't want to do it. For some reason, they just won't. Maybe they see the consequences of selling as higher than they want to pay.

Perhaps you should contemplate some other options. Though you are right to note that the system's own interexchange of water could be improved, that would likely be step one.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[shaitand]

It's kind of stretch to call something that happened at least twice in the last 1200 years the ancient past. Especially a condition which lasted for 1/6th of that timeframe. That isn't ancient history, it's just history.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[shaitand]

Agreed. And as much as I love New Orleans, those people should have moved too.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

Why would I speak in a manner other than what gets your attention? What is the point if it won't get your fat neckbeard layers of cognitive dissonance?

As to speaking logically, I did. As to speaking about science? I did.

What I did on top of that was slap someone around for being wrong. And while you might think that is unscientific, science actually doesn't care if your feelings get hurt. Science isn't a moral, ethical, or ideological system. Science is a tool for ferreting out truth from bullshit. And there's no reason you can't smack talk AND do that at the same time.

As to your presumption to censor someone by telling them to go somewhere else... I could very easily say the same thing. Perhaps you should go back to Tumblr or Facebook to talk about which character in the Harry Potter series you'd rather have sex with...

Eh? See how effective your sad little argument was? You're just another asshat AC angry that your pathetic feelings are yet again completely irrelevant.

People like you didn't build cities like Los Angeles. And people like you are fucking poison for the future California. We can't afford to let you whiny tools ruin it with your incompetent dithering. The solution was rather obvious to past generations that dealt with similar problems. They had these problems and they solved them in their time. Are you telling me that in all these years we've gotten worse at solving a problem like this? Get the fuck out. No really.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[ComputerGeek01]

I love how you Generation X and Baby Boomer monkeys always blame a lack of knowledge and motivation in millennial's for problems that are clearly a result of your generations unwillingness to pay for anything or care about anyone else. Your entire state has been on the verge of bankruptcy because for the past two generations your idea of financial planning has been to die before the bill is due. So now you fall back on this mantra about millennial's being useless and lazy because we won't bend over backwards to accommodate you worthless parasites. Go ahead and keep repeating it to yourself if it makes you feel better. But those kids you were preaching to ten years ago are old enough now to realize that your just a generation full of deadbeats and thieves trying to justify your own greed while downplaying the fact that every issue that we face for the next 50 years will be because of your apathy and outright nihilism. Where was this need for preparation 20 years ago when we were in school and the economy was riding on two or three bubbles at the same time? Let me guess, it was too expensive and too far away to worry about.

You want to talk about incompetence? It never occurred to anyone in either of your generations to use that precious sunlight of yours to desalinize any part of the giant body of water sitting south-west of your wonderful city. Just like any other vermin, instead of producing what you need with the resources on hand, your solution is to steal it away from another location. Because in your rodent like mind that's how the world has always worked.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[number6x]

70's PSA from California:

If it's yellow let it mellow.

If it's Brown, flush it down.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[angel'o'sphere]

I did not say it is global warming.

I said your idea that the droughts are "predictable" is wrong.

The AGW hissy fit has gotten old. Shouldn't we be getting MORE water if your chicken little bullshit were right? After all, more heat, more humidity, more precipitation?
In some places yes, but why in general?
Central north america depends on the water that comes from the Rockies ... so no. Regardless how hot it gets, it can only be less water east of the Rocky Mountains. That is a no brainer. Try to figure why.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[pastafazou]

"Bad reasoning. First you're assuming that more heat build-up in the atmosphere will necessarily result in more water evaporation, or IOW an increase in the water cycle rate, which you could prove, but you haven't." Just need to comment and tell you you're wrong. The entire AGW theory as presented by the IPCC is that increased temperatures from CO2 causes increased evaporation, which in turn causes even more heat to be trapped. CO2 on it's own isn't capable of producing the predicted temperature increases the IPCC has repeatedly warned will occur. It NEEDS more water evaporation, otherwise we're only looking at an increase of less than 2 degrees from a doubling of CO2. In order to double CO2 in the atmosphere, we need to completely burn all known oil reserves.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

Which is why its a democrat city and state.

If the republicans run a place then you blame the republicans. If the republicans don't run the place then you blame them anyway.

It doesn't matter what anyone does. You've come to a tribal affiliation and you'll just hold to it indifferent to any external reality.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Khashishi]

What kind of processes act on a 40 year timescale? Does this have something to do with sunspots?

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

https://youtu.be/qeNCp6KhiTI?t...

The NOAA maps show a general reduction in rainfall west of the rockies as well.

Cali has droughts and they are predictable in that they come in cycles. We can put them on a time line. You know that right after you have one you're unlikely to have another right away... right?

So... why is that if its unpredictable? If there is no pattern then you chances of getting a drought are the same every day. In fact, the droughts should end unpredictably as well. Just there one day and gone the next. That one persists for any amount of time and you know it is going to at LEAST last a certain amount of time implies a pattern. That you know you're not going to get one right after you had the last one implies a pattern.

As the saying goes, we're just arguing price now. A reference to the joke where a young woman is offered a lot of money to sleep with a man... and she accepts... he then offers a much lower price and she protests that she's not a whore. He responds that her offer of sex for money is already on record... they're just negotiating price.

That there is a pattern is beyond your ability to refute. Even within the confines of this argument without doing any research you'd have to concede a pattern. Really, all we're arguing is accuracy. And my accuracy claims had margins of error that went into about a decade give or take. That's a lot of flexibility for timing there.

What is more, making your east of the rockies argument doubly silly is that water conservation efforts east of the rockies are currently imposing much less extreme consequences on residents and farmers. Why? They have the infrastructure to deal with it.

California has over built housing and under built water infrastructure. That was my point.

Please... prove my point by being pedantic. That is exactly why things don't get fixed. That is an attitude which solves nothing. There's a reason you don't see that sort of attitude tolerated in places that require quick responses in a goal oriented environment. I mean... your every rebuttal is just an unintentional argument in my favor. See it.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[shaitand]

I said incidents of extremes.

Florida Hurricane records:

2000–2009 55 - More than any recorded decade
2010s 3 - The lowest count since 1800-1809 and it's unlikely we actually recorded all the hurricanes accurate during that period as there was no radar and Florida was not densly populated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Florida_hurricanes

Texas is a big state and it's a little more challenging but there have been many record settings lows and hail damage estimates, including this year with over 1.5 billion in hail damage with more expected tonight.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[FatdogHaiku]

In lowland Arizona when it's 40C, we call it "Thursday."

in early May...

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

... So I should not expect 21st century infrastructure and engineering to be more sophisticated and capable than engineering from a two thousand year old dead civilization?

You're a silly person.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

Oh, I don't blame them for not paying or for voting. I blame them for tweeting and upvoting and the other things they personally do.

As to the failures of past generations... I think I was quite clear about citing other groups as creating the problem as well. So... you can blow the entire rebuttal out your ass since it was predicated on a strawman in the first place.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[angel'o'sphere]

The lack of rain west of the Rockies is claimed to be an El Ninho result.

However I did not dig into it, so have no idea. El Ninho is usually confined to farer south and the south pacific to the far west (or actually "east"), west of south america.

Regarding your points about water management, no one objects I think. Except of course that the typical us citizen hates his government ... so governments have a problem to do something meaningful.

My point in previous posts simply was: there is no real rhythm in in the droughts. Bottom line they are random. However if one would look deeper into it might be possible to find clear indications that show a few years ahead how the climate will change to a drought.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[LunaticTippy]

How to store the water? Much of the rain falls seaward of the foothills, there aren't any good places to build a reservoir. You'd need some truly astonishing pumps to get the water up somewhere easy to store it.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[thinkwaitfast]

Not after July 7 when the monsoon hits and its 39 at 2am.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Agripa]

Neighboring Orange County gets their water from wells instead of the California Aqueduct like Los Angeles so instead of paving their rivers and flood control channels, they leave them open and where practical bulldoze earthen mazes along the bottoms of the channels so the water takes longer to reach the ocean. Los Angeles has no need to conserve water like this since they get their water from the California Aqueduct and have the political power to continue to do so.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[npslider]

In Alaska we consider anything on the thermometer without a negative sign reason to break out the shorts and sandals.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[khallow]

That may be true of California. Having lived in Florida, Texas, and New Mexico over the last decade and a half I can tell you the biggest consistent differences I've seen is an increased incidence of the extremes. More storms and more intense storms, record lows and highs, etc.

Over in scienceland, we call this confirmation bias. You're not going to get more arbitrary weather records just because there's global warming. Record highs sure. Record lows except in the few areas of regional cooling, no. But we will get more record extremes, just because weather varies and extremes happen sooner or later.

There is this misconception that because many refer to it as "global warming" that the changes you should see in the weather are that it is hotter. The increases in temps are slight, it's how those changes impacts currents, winds, and evaporation compounded across the surface area of the oceans that has a much bigger immediate impact in the weather.

Then where is the evidence for your assertion? My view is that these other effects are just as slight as the change in temperature.

I also have something to say about your response to Karmashock where you respond to his observation about fewer hurricanes:

I said incidents of extremes.

There were fewer incidents of an important sort of extreme, hurricanes and you just blew it off despite claiming there would be "more storms" above. This is exactly what confirmation bias is about: ignoring or distorting facts that don't fit.

I also suspect for the same reason we'll start to see increased fault activity eventually as the crust temperatures adjust and the earth slightly expands but I doubt we are there yet the more recent activity is likely all down to fraking,

You ignore here that we already see no change in earthquake activity from lunar and solar tidal forces which affect a global scale; the thermal expansion of dirt and rock is pretty low; it takes a long time for heat to permeate dirt and rock several km down where the faults lie; generally there will be no change in stresses on a fault because both sides will heat near equally; and there just isn't that much temperature change in the first place.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[budgenator]

Actually water evaporation is much more likely to occur because of wind and wave action than due to a few tenths of a degree in temperature increase. It's very common to have thunder storms on the solar equator between noon and 14:00 solar time. Winds tend to blow from the solar terminators toward solar noon, whipping up water mists and waves which evaporates into lighter than air water vapor which then accelerates the process. This carries tremendous amounts of energy above the CO2 saturation layer.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[budgenator]

... So I should not expect 21st century infrastructure and engineering to be more sophisticated and capable than engineering from a two thousand year old dead civilization?

You're a silly person.

Dude, Roman Roads and Aqueduct still stand and function after 2,000 years, our highways have to be repaved every twenty years and how many bridges last a century?

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually,most of the Roman architecture has been ruined over time. Some of it due to war and scavenging true, but plenty to disaster and simple aging.

What remains functional has had to be maintained and rehabilitated.

In any case, the needs of today far outstrip that of the Romans. Our highways have multiton trucks tearing at them, which is far more strain than a few legions. And water? Yeah, we use a lot more than they did.

Rome itself has had to spend large sums on its own water supply.

But go ahead, believe the myths you have been told. That'll let you have even more in common with them.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[hucker75]

The changes they've quoted are 1 or 2C, I doubt you'd notice that and call it unbearable.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[david_thornley]

Global warming can produce more extreme weather, due to more energy in the atmosphere.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[khallow]

Global warming can produce more extreme weather, due to more energy in the atmosphere.

So what? Not extreme cold. And it didn't produce more hurricanes this decade which was another such prediction. My view is that moderate global warming is occurring and there may well be a slight increase in the incidence of heat waves due to global warming, but the rest is exaggerated a lot.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

You so dumb you don't realize you agreed with my second of two options.

I gave two things that we should have done.

1. Meet demand by increasing water infrastructure.
2. Limit demand to what infrastructure can handle.

Oh look you're an AC and an idiot at the same time... when does that happen? Oh that's right... basically every time.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

Cite anything that came out of your stupid drooling mouth that wouldn't be addressed by either building additional water infrastructure or limiting growth to what could be supplied from water infrastructure under crisis conditions?

Do me a favor and slap yourself... I'm temporarily out of range.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

Ever heard of Hoover Dam?

This political tribalism isn't helpful, kitten.

So the City of Los Angeles has a water problem... its the Republicans fault even though they weren't running anything. I point this out... then you come in and say "because the democrats are such amazing builders!"... even though though that role is relatively recent and when most of our infrastructure was built... it was by republicans.

seriously... do you ever get tired for being wrong or have you just gone numb?

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

The federal drought map counts half of Oregon in the drought... the other half is apparently not in drought conditions... and Washington is clean.

Look, I'm not expecting YOU to be reasonable. You're not even informed as to which states are or are not in drought. I do expect deals to be made by adults when things get serious.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

Without a doubt, the old city fathers wouldn't have squandered water like that in a drought either.

Gets worse when your look at how much water the City Hall building in SF uses all by itself. Bit of a scandal on that one.

They're idiots as you know.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

So... your entire position collapses in a pile of its own stupidity.

You were wrong repeatedly. Your credibility = 0.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[shaitand]

"I also have something to say about your response to Karmashock where you respond to his observation about fewer hurricanes:

I said incidents of extremes.

There were fewer incidents of an important sort of extreme, hurricanes and you just blew it off despite claiming there would be "more storms" above. This is exactly what confirmation bias is about: ignoring or distorting facts that don't fit."

Karmashock didn't provide any sort of data regarding hurricanes or anything else. He simply claimed he checked and my claims were false. I provided the hurricane data.

A record lack of hurricanes is just as extreme as a record number of them. I didn't ignore this, I highlighted it.

"I also suspect for the same reason we'll start to see increased fault activity eventually as the crust temperatures adjust and the earth slightly expands but I doubt we are there yet the more recent activity is likely all down to fraking,

You ignore here that we already see no change in earthquake activity from lunar and solar tidal forces which affect a global scale; the thermal expansion of dirt and rock is pretty low; it takes a long time for heat to permeate dirt and rock several km down where the faults lie; generally there will be no change in stresses on a fault because both sides will heat near equally; and there just isn't that much temperature change in the first place."

I'm sorry but all I can say is your reading comprehension is poor here. I indicated we would likely see this activity at some point in the future, eventually. Indicating we don't see this now and pointed out why it would take time is merely consistent with my remark and not with me ignoring anything.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[shaitand]

On a global scale sure there is more heat, on a local scale, this absolutely could result in colder temps. More heat that builds more quickly can form a current in air or water that more efficiently siphons that heat away from adjacent areas. Just because on a global scale things are warmer doesn't mean in a given place it won't actually be much colder than norm.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[khallow]

On a global scale sure there is more heat, on a local scale, this absolutely could result in colder temps.

Not everywhere. The local scale cooling has a reason, such as disruption of the Gulf Stream, to explain it. Not some vague catch-all "there's more energy in the system".

More heat that builds more quickly can form a current in air or water that more efficiently siphons that heat away from adjacent areas.

The thing is, you still are starting from a warmer Earth. I still think that means fewer not more cool weather extremes.

These alleged siphons of heat would also radiate that heat more efficiently to space. When will these be accounted for in temperature forcing models?

There is an interesting cognitive dissonance deployed here probably for propaganda purposes. Somehow we have a cooling mechanism which can selectively explain cool weather extremes without impacting on the aggressive (and so far unmatched by reality) predictions of the heating effects of CO2.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[shaitand]

Let's operate a simpler smaller scale for a moment. It is winter and the heat is on, now I light a fire for the first time ever introducing additional extreme heat into my home? What is the result? The fire creates hot air which rises out the chimney, pulling more air from within the room faster than I am able to heat that air from the original source. The fire generates a glow of heat in it's immediate vicinity but it isn't enough to offset the heat it pulls from the house and across the rest of the house the temperature drops to a record low for that time period.

We focus on the major streams like the gulf stream but there are small eddies and currents in weather everywhere that can have a channel effect akin to the chimney in the fireplace and cause localized extremes. The well documented melting at the poles is also essentially a massive air condition cooling the hot air but is definitely a diminishing cycle as there is less ice to melt year on year.

You seem to be pushing an denial agenda. I'm not pushing any agenda. The warming trend itself is well documented over time in historical records. The disputed portions are in the cause, whether it will accelerate going forward, and what exactly the result will be. I'm not taking a position on any of those things, simply pointing out there have been weather extremes, hot, cold, storms, drought, and even lack of storms where we normally expect them.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[khallow]

The fire creates hot air which rises out the chimney, pulling more air from within the room faster than I am able to heat that air from the original source. The fire generates a glow of heat in it's immediate vicinity but it isn't enough to offset the heat it pulls from the house and across the rest of the house the temperature drops to a record low for that time period.

It's not a good analogue because the outside and the rest of the house are being heated as well in the global warming scenario. And there was a huge draft up that chimney even before you lit the fire. Sure, it could be that the house is overall cooler than it would otherwise be, but that's not a given. You have to show it would happen, no merely assume it.

You seem to be pushing an denial agenda. I'm not pushing any agenda. The warming trend itself is well documented over time in historical records. The disputed portions are in the cause, whether it will accelerate going forward, and what exactly the result will be. I'm not taking a position on any of those things, simply pointing out there have been weather extremes, hot, cold, storms, drought, and even lack of storms where we normally expect them.

Did I claim you were pushing a denialist agenda? This is what confirmation bias looks like. I "seem" a denialist because you're looking for any excuse to ignore good argument. Just because there is a warming trend or even an extreme weather trend (which needs more evidence to establish BTW), doesn't mean that there is more extreme cold.

And there are long tails to extreme weather events, including extreme cold. We would expect to see those weather extremes you mention even in the absence of a significant global warming effect.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

Fuckwit AC doesn't notice fuckwitted comments when they're pointed out in black and white?

Shocking. Just fucking shocking.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

... no where in your idiotic attempt at condescension did you redeem your stupid comment.

Its the 21st century... I have every reason to expect that we can top the engineering achievements of ancient civilizations.

Do not contradict the obvious.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

Actually you're counting "Number of recorded storms affecting Florida" as hurricanes unless you want to claim that Florida suffered 55 hurricanes in that period. Read the chart properly please.

What is more, the data collection is not the same throughout the chart. Anyone that understands data analysis knows that you can't conflate charts that have different collection methodologies into a single charge without introducing speculative error.

Old charts were largely based on reports from ships or whatever various towns wrote down.

Today we have satellites as well as a more densely populated area. So large storms are very likely to be detected from space. And even if they weren't, you'd also be more likely to see and be effected by them today because more of Florida is inhabited than was in the past.

Once you understand this, it renders such a chart largely meaningless. The chart you're citing is mostly an admission of ignorance as to how to properly handle data.

Scientifically, you could only cite this chart if you could show that the methodological distinctions were not relevant. Which would not be merely "saying" that... you'd have prove it. And that's probably impossible which means you just can't do it.

A more reasonable chart would be something that had a very limited scope. For example, take a particular town that existed at the beginning of the data collection. And chart all the storms that that town specifically reported over time. If you saw an increase in storm activity that might suggest you have something there.

But I rather doubt you'd see any change.

Your graph is almost certainly a product of methodological changes. Much like the "global increasing incidents of cancer"... a meaningless graph as well because many places were not screening for cancer at all so any notion of what caner was like before is pure speculation. And as to increases now... much of that is due to increasing screening from NOTHING to what we have now... which if you had a consistent cancer rate throughout the test period would show an increase in cancer rates as the test screening became more comprehensive.

You have to filter for these things. And if you are neither aware of the problems methodology introduces into data collection nor are you able to factor for it... then you really have no ability to cite information like this... you can't read it.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

The droughts tend to last a year or so if they come within ten years of each other and can last about 5 years if they are spaced out by 40 or so years. What is and is not declared a drought is arbitrary. It varies depending on our use and infrastructure, and reserves.

If we have droughts in places where it doesn't matter then a drought will not be declared. Droughts that happen in places where it matters get flagged officially.

To get a bad drought like what we just went through is a perfect storm of unfortunate weather.

http://www.thestormking.com/We...

You can see the pattern there. Its not random.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[khallow]

A record lack of hurricanes is just as extreme as a record number of them. I didn't ignore this, I highlighted it.

As I said earlier, this is confirmation bias. And since such a viewpoint can never be falsified (since everything is extreme weather with the right contortion of thought and statistics) ,it's profoundly unscientific. Real scientists at least make predictions that can be tested.

I'm sorry but all I can say is your reading comprehension is poor here. I indicated we would likely see this activity at some point in the future, eventually. Indicating we don't see this now and pointed out why it would take time is merely consistent with my remark and not with me ignoring anything.

And I explained what was wrong with that indication. Just say "thank you" and think about something else.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry, there is no pattern.
Or you would know two years in advance: next drought is coming. But you don't.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[shaitand]

There were 55 tropical cyclones from 2000-2009 and thus were the same type of storm. 18 of them had the arbitrary wind level at which we label it "Hurricane" instead of tropical storm. If this were a list of storms that hit Florida the counts would be dramatically higher with Miami alone being hit by short incidents of what constitutes a "storm" elsewhere almost daily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Florida_hurricanes_%282000%E2%80%93present%29

As for the differences in technology and methodology... it's a little disingenuous to point out something I myself pointed out in the first place. The current decade has the lowest count of tropical cyclones since before there was significant population in Florida. Radar is useful for seeing hurricanes early but not needed for detecting them, Florida is populated enough that these massive storms hit population centers and there is no missing a tropical storm.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[dl_sledding]

Breadwinner? In what way?

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[dl_sledding]

Try not to feed the trolls... It just encourages them to continue poking the bear. If they don't have the balls to post non-AC, then their comments should hold no weight at all. Fuck 'em and their weak comments.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

None of which is relevant to my point. As to major engineering projects having problems that have to be over come... No shit.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

No, you're trying to change the subject from one where I'm obviously right to another where I've made no argument at all. You're then attempting to show you've "won" or even have a point by attacking a position that was not even taken.

This is otherwise known as a strawman.

Let me ask YOU the question again... because apparently you're having a hard time being on topic.

Should "I" in the 21st century expect MY civilization which is vastly more technically sophisticated and wealthy to be able to build and maintain a more powerful and elaborate water transport system than was produced by ancient civilizations?

Yes I'm right or no, I should not expect 21st century America to be able to top ancient infrastructure accomplishments.

You keep thinking you can strawman me. I'm not susceptible to it.

Re:More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

This has already been cited... the methodology over time would predispose this data to look like this with a consistent number of hurricanes.

People that don't understand statistics shouldn't presume to cite them. And if you don't understand the relevance of data collection methods and methodology then you don't understand statistics.

Just saying.

Re: More "pleasant" weather

[Karmashock]

If you're pulling a global temperature trend of a degree from thousands of temperature records... and you can't see the pattern in that one chart... then really you're too blind to be talking about charts period.

Ca we trust Slashdot to remain objective

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the recent change of ownership of slasdot.org does not mean we will now see pro fossil ideas fed to its fans.

Re:Ca we trust Slashdot to remain objective

[Crashmarik]

Ca we trust Slashdot to remain objective

I hope the recent change of ownership of slasdot.org does not mean we will now see pro fossil ideas fed to its fans.

HAHAHAHA , that's me really laughing.

The lack of self examination. Yes lets hope slashdot remains objective and doesn't promote any views you disagree with.

Re: Ca we trust Slashdot to remain objective

[TheRealHocusLocus]

Don't worry... everything is still not going to be alright.

deja vu
deja vu
deja vu

Re: Ca we trust Slashdot to remain objective

[Maritz]

How dare people suggest that there may be some positive effects of AGW! Let's make sure to only talk about doom and gloom so people will agree to our massive plans for wealth redistribution!

What plans for wealth redistribution?

Seriously - details. Put up or shut up.

Re: Ca we trust Slashdot to remain objective

[khallow]

Climate reparations.

Re:Slashdot is being spammed with climate stories

[Ichijo]

Predictably, anyone who questions if humans are causing global warming will be modded down to -1.

As will be anyone who questions if the moon landings actually happened.

As long as the weather gets more pleasant in most

[patrick.kursawe]

.... who cares if some island nations are wiped off the map or a few thousand people drown in Bangladesh?

Everything we do is right

[axewolf]

That's right! We, your leaders; the wealthy; the elite, can't fuck anything up. It's impossible.
Keep trusting us forever. Because our system WILL last forever!
Relax, sit back, and enjoy. Your input is barely required. Do your job for a few years and your spot in heaven is assured.
If anything seems to go wrong it is but an illusion. If it bothers you simply divert your attention!

Re:Everything we do is right

[DarkOx]

When the elites start leading by example I'll get on board not before. Until then it reeks of "some animals are a little more equal." I am solidly convinced that reducing carbon emissions globally would be a good thing. You don't even need to buy into climate change to accept that, after all it can't be good manipulate the carbon cycle in closed system upon which we all depend that we barely understand.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Its a simple fact that flying first or business class has a terribly higher carbon foot print. If Obama cares so much about climate change he would set an example the new airforce one would have been a 737ER with all coach seats! Set up that way there would be plenty of room for his entourage and the press core, it would just be way less comfortable. Ah but you see sacrifices are for the rest of us to make.

Re:Everything we do is right

[Foobar of Borg]

When the elites start leading by example I'll get on board not before. Until then it reeks of "some animals are a little more equal." I am solidly convinced that reducing carbon emissions globally would be a good thing. You don't even need to buy into climate change to accept that, after all it can't be good manipulate the carbon cycle in closed system upon which we all depend that we barely understand.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Its a simple fact that flying first or business class has a terribly higher carbon foot print. If Obama cares so much about climate change he would set an example the new airforce one would have been a 737ER with all coach seats! Set up that way there would be plenty of room for his entourage and the press core, it would just be way less comfortable. Ah but you see sacrifices are for the rest of us to make.

The elites don't need to lead by example. They can simply pick up and move to wherever things are pleasant, while all the "little people" die off. What, you actually thought they give a damn about you? If billions of us "little people" died off, all they would do is move somewhere until the bodies were done decomposing, so they wouldn't have to deal with all that annoying stench.

Re:Everything we do is right

[Alomex]

If Obama cares so much about climate change he would set an example

This is a ridiculous way of thinking put forward by large polluters in an attempt to shut down concerned citizens by making them feel guilty about their minor contribution to the problem.

Outside of a few ecoloonies no one is proposing we do without all CO2 pollution. We simply ask that we remove as much as is reasonable and practicable. The president needs for his job a big mama plain full of secrete service agents, weapons, long range fuel tanks, advisors, cabinet members, etc. So a 747 is fine with any sensible environment minded person in this specific case.

Re:Everything we do is right

[DarkOx]

The president needs for his job a big mama plain full of secrete service agents, weapons, long range fuel tanks, advisors, cabinet members, etc. So a 747 is fine with any sensible environment minded person in this specific case.

Yes he need to carry lots of people, he does not need all the amenities, I have seen lots of pictures that thing is a party barge. There would be room to efficiently pack a smaller plane, the VP traveled on a DC9 until quite recently.

Its not a ridiculous way of thinking. Concern is concern. Either we should be free to do whatever we like or if we have to give up freedom/natural rights we should do so as whole society where everyone sacrifices. Being a member of the political class isn't supposed to make you a special person in the USofA, this isn't soviet Russia and if the politicians want collective cooperation they should start leading by example. Obama and his family should be the FIRST to sacrifice their safety and comfort not the last, if he is going to push this agenda. Otherwise I'll have my wife and kids ridding around in the heaviest stolid steel safety frame I can afford thank you very much.

Re:Everything we do is right

[Alomex]

As I said, one expects people to do the right thing within reason. This is why carbon taxes are so effective. They place a big incentive for you not to pollute, but if for whatever reason you must, you are still free to do it, provided you pay the carbon tax penalty.

Re: Slashdot is being spammed with climate stories

[Ichijo]

No, I'm not okay with anyone being modded down with a good argument one way or the other, whether it's about climate change or moon landings.

Is it not a natural cycle?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the melting of the ice etc not just part of a very long natural cycle. Consider the location of oil and gas wells - many under arctic ice and in desert areas. How do people think that it got there? Its mere presence indicates that at one time - and for a very long time - that these areas had considerable tree and other vegetation cover.

Re:Is it not a natural cycle?

[dbIII]

Is the melting of the ice etc not just part of a very long natural cycle

Not this time according to reports compiled since before Nixon was President.
In geological time we are of course utterly screwed, but this is about speeding up the problems.

Re:Is it not a natural cycle?

[Khashishi]

Change happens, but that doesn't mean we can't make more change happen faster.

Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[mentil]

I get that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it seems like nearly all of the "society ought to do X" suggestions for combating climate change equate to "reduce CO2 emissions." However, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas; methane is barely mentioned except in reference to livestock emissions, particularly from ruminants; and water vapor is practically ignored. Why isn't anyone suggesting interfering with the water cycle? Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas. Alternatively, since clouds cause global cooling, why not a plan to increase cloud formation? It's known that decreased albedo in the poles will lead to them getting warmer, why not a plan to artificially increase albedo? White paint or whatever. When it comes to "plans that require decades, cooperation between most of the world, and trillions of dollars", why are we so laser-focused on this one plan to decrease CO2 emissions?* It seems to me that big problems tend to be solved with dozens of smaller solutions, rather than one big "hurray, it worked!" solution; true, there are many ways of producing energy aside from burning carbonaceous materials, but as I've mentioned above that's just attacking the issue from one angle.

*I imagine a big part of the reason is "don't spend $billions on that, spend $billions on this (which I have a stake in) instead." But that doesn't fully explain the issue either, I think the 'call to arms' to rally scientists to consensus has caused a little too much groupthink, and bluesky ideas which should be seriously considered are being dismissed out of hand.

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[religionofpeas]

Methane is barely mentioned because it's overall greenhouse effect is much smaller than CO2. Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, but hard to control, except by reducing global temperature.

It's known that decreased albedo in the poles will lead to them getting warmer, why not a plan to artificially increase albedo? White paint or whatever

Maybe, but it requires a credible plan. How do you intend for the paint to stick on the Arctic ocean ?

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[WalksOnDirt]

...methane is barely mentioned except in reference to livestock emissions...

Methane is causing much less warming than carbon dioxide. It is a big worry for the future, though, and much attentions is being paid to it.

Why isn't anyone suggesting interfering with the water cycle?

Water vapor falls back to land very quickly. It can only cause local warming.

...since clouds cause global cooling...

Clouds cause cooling by day but warming by night. The net effect varies by type of cloud. Too many clouds can interfere with growing crops.

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[mentil]

So you're saying we need moisture farmers to harvest humidity from the air? Preferably over the ocean where it won't affect crop growth?

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[jbolden]

Water vapor stays in the atmosphere on average for 9 days. The CO2 cycle is decades to centuries. CO2 by itself doesn't create heat, rather CO2 increases water vapor which increases heat. Vapor is the effect not the cause.

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[Anonymous Coward]

Water vapour is a "feedback" not a "forcing".

In other words, yes water vapour is a green house gas, but it responds to the effects of other gasses eg CO2 (which is a forcing). Take away the effect of the forcing and the water vapour will rain out of the atmosphere and back to the oceans pretty quickly

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[BCGlorfindel]

I get that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it seems like nearly all of the "society ought to do X" suggestions for combating climate change equate to "reduce CO2 emissions." However, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas; methane is barely mentioned except in reference to livestock emissions, particularly from ruminants; and water vapor is practically ignored. Why isn't anyone suggesting interfering with the water cycle? Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas. Alternatively, since clouds cause global cooling, why not a plan to increase cloud formation? It's known that decreased albedo in the poles will lead to them getting warmer, why not a plan to artificially increase albedo? White paint or whatever. When it comes to "plans that require decades, cooperation between most of the world, and trillions of dollars", why are we so laser-focused on this one plan to decrease CO2 emissions?* It seems to me that big problems tend to be solved with dozens of smaller solutions, rather than one big "hurray, it worked!" solution; true, there are many ways of producing energy aside from burning carbonaceous materials, but as I've mentioned above that's just attacking the issue from one angle.

*I imagine a big part of the reason is "don't spend $billions on that, spend $billions on this (which I have a stake in) instead." But that doesn't fully explain the issue either, I think the 'call to arms' to rally scientists to consensus has caused a little too much groupthink, and bluesky ideas which should be seriously considered are being dismissed out of hand.

There are a lot of legitimate reasons that CO2 is more important to climate change over time than your alternatives. Water vapor stays in the air a short time, so taking it out of the atmosphere costs a lot of energy forever on. Clouds performance for climate change is still very nuanced and our modelling on it still isn't even entirely in agreement on whether they are a net positive of negative feedback. Albedo changes are easy to go overboard on.

However, the truth is NOT that global leaders and policy advocates are looking at the nuances of science to come to any such rational decision on CO2 alone as a policy concern. The truth, IMO, is that the oil and coal industries are two of the largest pools of money in the global economy, and whomever gets to tax them stands to control mountains of money. The overwhelming emphasis on CO2 over mitigation or complementary methods for offsetting climate change is ultimately about control and the folks that hope to gain that control.

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[Applehu Akbar]

Methane also breaks down quickly in the atmosphere. CO2 is highly stable.

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[WalksOnDirt]

No. The amount of water in the atmosphere is mostly independent of what we put there. It goes away on its own in a few days.

The main reason for the increase in the water in the air is the warming of the Earth, which is mostly caused by carbon dioxide. If we want less moisture in the air we need to reduce long lived greenhouse gases.

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[AnAlchemist]

Reducing methane emissions would make the greatest impact. In 2014, methane made up about 11% of GHG emissions (https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html), but methane traps 20x more heat than CO2.

The only "plus" is that it doesn't survive long in the atmosphere (https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gwps.html), so it's effect is muted over time, which also means that if we stop emitting so much methane, we'd see a quick payback period.

N2O is the other huge culprit. It's warming effect is hundreds of times stronger than CO2, and sticks around for 100 years in the atmosphere.

TLDR: STOP EATING BEEF! between cow burps (CH4) and manure (N2O) have huge direct impacts on the environment, not to mention the indirect effects (fertilizer for growing food for cattle, cutting down trees for grazing, etc.).

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[religionofpeas]

CO2 by itself doesn't create heat, rather CO2 increases water vapor which increases heat

CO2 by itself does increase heat, which then increases water vapor, which amplifies it.

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[Bartles]

No it doesn't. CO2 is whatever temperature it's surroundings happen to be.

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[Bartles]

Methane comes from compost piles owned by save the earth hippies, and all the wetlands we are trying so desperately to preserve.

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[budgenator]

Clouds performance for climate change is still very nuanced and our modelling on it still isn't even entirely in agreement on whether they are a net positive of negative feedback.

So in other words we don't know what the fuck we are talking about, but we still claim the science is settled so we can push our hidden agenda? Yeah right we can't model the oceans, the ocean/atmospheric interface or the clouds but we can model the planets climate.

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[dave420]

You do realise all you're achieving here is telling everyone just how shitty your education was, right? "I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THESE FANCY WORDS! LET ME LASH OUT AT SOMETHING TO DISTRACT MYSELF AND ANYONE READING THIS!"

It's not flattering, and it can be rectified.

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[budgenator]

My education, no I'm just pointing out that on a planet that's 70% covered with water, if you don't understand how clouds effect climate, as you said "Clouds performance for climate change is still very nuanced and our modelling on it still isn't even entirely in agreement on whether they are a net positive of negative feedback.", you don't understand anything. ENSO , Pacific Decadal Oscillation, AMO are all quasi-periodic ocean cycles, all of which have dramatic effects on air temperature, cloud cover and rain fall world wide. If you can't model them, you can't model the climate.

Right now you are sounding like those Christians and Muslims, who tell you What they believe, and 75% of it is old pagan superstitions because they have never ever actually read the Bible or Quran.

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[ebvwfbw]

Methane is barely mentioned because it's not something they can tax people on. Doesn't fit into their get rich scheme. If they couldn't make money on CO2 emissions, they wouldn't care about it either. This isn't that hard to understand. If they could make it so nobody can get rich over carbon credits and such, I think a lot more people would be listening.

Please show me where methane is much less of an effect than CO2. Everything I've read shows me it is MUCH worse. Much much worse. CO2 is in parts per million, methane is in parts per billion. It's a major contributor to warming.

Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases?

[Layzej]

Please show me where methane is much less of an effect than CO2.

Methane has about 28 times the global warming potential. The rest of what you've said is conspiracy nuttery though. "Once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years. Methane, by contrast, is mostly removed from the atmosphere by chemical reaction, persisting for about 12 years. Thus although methane is a potent greenhouse gas, its effect is relatively short-lived." Even still, CH4 is hardly ignored.

By the way, guess which one of us this scientist is backing on our global warming bet. You may be surprised!

yeah, it is beneficial

[someone1234]

First it didn't exist. Now, it is benefitting the planet.
We are slowly getting there.
Some plant growth won't stop the global warming, though.
Plants don't reflect the sunlight, and the growth is likely balanced by increased forest burnings, ice is still melting, sea level still rising. Obviously, it will be beneficial to the planet as a whole if shore cities are washed away.

Re:yeah, it is beneficial

[drinkypoo]

To your comment that the growth is balanced by increased forest burning, you're aware that's not likely, right? You're aware that most plant life on earth isn't land based but ocean based, right? You're aware that likely if plants are doing better on ground, then they're probably doing much better in water (there's evidence of this as well because of problems we've been having with algae blooms).

Alas, you are wrong. Too bad, because it would be convenient if you were right. But the algaes are being driven subsurface (by UV exposure) where they do less respiration.

Environmentalism

[monkeyxpress]

The reason is that there are really two issues rolled into the climate change debate. The first is man-made warming itself. The second is environmental conservatism in general. What many climate campaigners would like is for humans to stop destroying our natural environment - cutting down forests, polluting rivers and lakes, that sort of thing. Many of the same people/organisations who were drumming on about environmental conservatism since before the climate change debate, simply used climate change as their latest vehicle to get their message out. Nothing wrong with that.

However, the reason they don't want to talk about geo-engineering, is that if this is seen as a viable option, then the two issues separate again. In other words many people will see a much simpler third way which involves technology preventing global warming, while they continue burning oil and buying endless junk they don't really need.

Sadly, humans being humans, it is likely that this third way will be the one we take. However, the biggest risk I see is that while us rich westerners just buy a few more air conditioners and argue about whether climate change is a thing or not, some country that is bearing the brunt of the problem decides to setup an aerosol plant and begin feeding something into the atmosphere that they think might fix the problem for them. I mean, if your country is starving due to drought, or sea level rise threatens to wipe you out, and the rich western countries are busy arguing about whether they should be able to have enormous cars or giant cars, you might just get desperate and do something risky for the planet.

Re:Environmentalism

[Electricity Likes Me]

Geo-engineeing is vastly more expensive then almost any proposed level of emissions reduction. No one talks about it because of that.

Re:Environmentalism

[Gavagai80]

Geo-engineering also has substantially more unknowns -- a risk of unintended consequences which could be worse than global warming.

Re:Environmentalism

[religionofpeas]

Geo engineering also does nothing to wean us off fossil fuels.

Re:Environmentalism

[iONiUM]

You talk about geo-engineering like we *haven't* already been doing it for a hundred years. Climate change itself is geo-engineering, by humans. It wasn't intentional, but it happened.

It is certainly do-able, and there are many ways to approach it. It doesn't have to be a sci-fi CO2 sucking machine that flies in the clouds.

Interesting Spin

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Is this the new spin from conservatives and the oil industry now? They realized they can no longer refute climate change in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, so now they are trying to sell it as being good for us?

Re:Interesting Spin

[TheGratefulNet]

yeah, some of us caught that, too.

pretty sly approach, and I bet they have pulled the wool over many eyes with this.

Re:Interesting Spin

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Even if the plant growth bonus were to be true, we are destroying hundreds of football fields worth of forests every day for palm oil production and other crops. So if the extra plant growth will help grow palms and crops faster it will be great for the businesses involved, but I don't see that solving our climate problems while we are actively destroying the enviroments where that extra plant growth could take place.

Re:Interesting Spin

[allcoolnameswheretak]

It's fun to watch my "politically sensitive" posts move up and down as the earth rotates. As the east coast of the US wakes up, my posts are moderated up, then when the sun shines on the bible belt, they generally move downward again, and finally there is some more upward potential as the west coast starts to wake up, if my god-fearing friends have not already modded it into oblivion. :)

Re:Interesting Spin

[allcoolnameswheretak]

I won't believe your numbers unless I see some facts.

Other than that... chill bro. You're getting overly excited about this and your increased body temperature is contributing to global warming.

Re:Interesting Spin

[KeensMustard]

Perhaps the problem is that you are too stupid or lazy to understand what the OP meant, which is that minor positives don't cancel out the major negatives.

We know it is "greener" (it's not actually green) in some areas because of science. The same science tells us that it is browner in others. Also, the same science gives us other observed effects that are detrimental, and others are projected which we have yet to see (some beneficial, but in the whole detrimental).

You can't accept part of the science and ignore the rest.

At a few mm per year, they're rather slow to run

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when was the sea level predicted to rise so fast people would drown from it?

How does it go again? First they laugh at you

[dbIII]

Yet another bit of PR in the spin cycle when the old PR was shown to be bullshit.

Terraforming

[mentil]

Once you're finished terraforming Earth, it will become habitable for intelligent life.
Sincerely, Your Neptunian Overlords

Re:Terraforming

[AC-x]

Sincerely, Your Venusian Overlords

Thus solving the problem once and for all!

[AC-x]

Fortunately plants are a cheap way to combat global warming, they simply absorb more CO2 to grow bigger!

Of course, since the greenhouse gasses are still building up, it takes more and more plant growth to keep up...

Thus solving the problem once and for all! ...

ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

Re:Thus solving the problem once and for all!

[angel'o'sphere]

Fortunately plants are a cheap way to combat global warming, they simply absorb more CO2 to grow bigger!

And then they rot or get eaten and the same amount of CO2 is released that they used in growing ...

Re:As long as the weather gets more pleasant in mo

[Qwertie]

I always thought it was dumb that certain Canadian politicians would talk about global warming as though it were a bad thing for Canada. Huh? I like warmer weather - in Canada.

But now I've moved to the Philippines. We recently had a high of 37 degrees in the shade - the temperature when fans stop cooling you and start warming you up. And the thing is, most people in this town can't afford air conditioning. Many of them don't have electricity. And among those with AC and electricity, some of them have to work outdoors in the daytime.

That's why we need to reduce GHG emissions. Not for the Canada or the U.S. - well, maybe for Florida, a little. But mostly it's for low-lying islands that will be flooded, for people that already live with weather that is too hot, and since global warming is not uniform, for certain other victims that have yet to be identified.

But yes, let's stop global warming. It's the right thing to do, and that should be enough.

all a plot to bring back the dinosaurs

[Locutus]

You know you can't bring back a herd of triceratops and apatosaurus's without enough greens for them to eat. It's best to green up the planet and warm it up a bit too before inseminating a few elephants to kick the process off.

Does Obama have a Mini-Me?

LoB

Re:At a few mm per year, they're rather slow to ru

[Feral Nerd]

Since when was the sea level predicted to rise so fast people would drown from it?

Sea levels rise, storm floods now start flooding areas that were previously farther from the coast and relatively safe, people cannot afford to just abandon their property and buy new land and build a new hose/farm in a safer place elsewhere because they are so poor they can hardly afford food, the government is to corrupt/apathetic/incompetent or just plain too poor to build flood defences which in many cases may even be a futile effort... result? Lots of people drown in storm floods in places like Bangladesh.

Re:As long as the weather gets more pleasant in mo

[sg_oneill]

But now I've moved to the Philippines. We recently had a high of 37 degrees in the shade - the temperature when fans stop cooling you and start warming you up. And the thing is, most people in this town can't afford air conditioning. Many of them don't have electricity. And among those with AC and electricity, some of them have to work outdoors in the daytime.

Try a month of 40c+ like we had a few years back in west australia. That was hellish.

And the fun part is some of the areas in the north of australia had regular 50c days. Thats the point where people start dying without some sort of cooling.

I should note the article states "Since we started talking about global warning in the 1970s" or something to that effect. No, we've been talking about it since the late 1800s when the greenhouse effect was first discovered and worried scientist started wondering if all the coal being sooted into the air from the industrial revolution might have unintended consequences. The science was always fairly solid. CO2 (and other gases like methane) absorb gases at various spectra, which then becomes either heat (warming) or disipates into kinetic energy (storms and general chaos). There has never really been any proposed new physics that would prevent this happening, nor reliable observations that it isn't, yet unfortunately a large population still thinks its this whacky idea invented by environmentalists in the 70s and then adopted by some spooky lizard people cartel looking to lie about physics for some reason nobody seems to be able to explain.So I still call it the greenhouse effect, because thats what it is.

Re:At a few mm per year, they're rather slow to ru

[Godwin O'Hitler]

Since when was it possible for 156 million mostly penniless people to move elsewhere?

What could possibly go wrong?

[amiga3D]

Yes. Let us play God with a system we barely comprehend. What we're doing now isn't bad enough so let's screw with the system deliberately.

Re:As long as the weather gets more pleasant in mo

[Anonymous Coward]

A few thousand people are always being drowned in Bangladesh. It's basically a river delta. Stop building fucking houses there.

Global Warming and the (Planetary) Flywheel Effect

[IHTFISP]

Flywheel effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The flywheel effect is the continuation of oscillations in an oscillator circuit after the control stimulus has been removed. This is usually caused by interacting inductive and capacitive elements in the oscillator. Circuits undergoing such oscillations are said to be flywheeling.

To my mind, clouds and UV-reflective/absorbent foliage and ice caps and oceans all act as capacitors/inductors of temperature change. They cover land, sea and air. Duh!

Re:A question I rarely see asked...

[Mr D from 63]

What would be the real long-term downside of global warming?

There are a lot of guesses, but aside from sea level rise there are few certainties.

Climate skeptics??

[angel'o'sphere]

Climate skeptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet.
I thought if they were "skeptics" they would argue there is no CO2 increase or there is no temperature increase ... so they admit an increase but argue it is good? Confused ...

Obviously you've not heard of plate tectonics

[Viol8]

The oil and gas under the artic probably formed at or near the equator and got taken north as the plates moved around.

Try again...

Oh FFS

[BlindRobin]

Yeah, the homeless guy wakes to notice that it is suddenly comfortably warm in the shelter he built from cartons just before he realises that it actually on fire from a discarded fag end...

"Greened" - gah

[wonkey_monkey]

Rise In CO2 Has 'Greened Planet Earth'

Gah. Stop verbing adjectives. It really infuriationates me.

Re:"Greened" - gah

[angel'o'sphere]

In plenty of languages that is an allowed "construction" :D

Re:"Greened" - gah

[PPH]

Stop verbing nouns. It weirds the language.

Re:"Greened" - gah

[phantomfive]

The dictionary lists 'green' as a verb as well, so that seems to be an old usage (consider also, "browning" as a term used while cooking).

Re:"Greened" - gah

[caffiend2049]

"verbing" nouns is the one true faith!

Re:"Greened" - gah

[shawn2772]

The dictionary lists 'green' as a verb as well, so that seems to be an old usage (consider also, "browning" as a term used while cooking).

Many common color words can be used as verbs. In addition to green and brown:

Ed's cheeks purpled.
He had put on weight and grayed somewhat.
The paint yellowed with age.

We use "redden", rather than "red", probably because of the potential for confusion with "read". "Black" is often verbed as "blacken", but I've also seen it used as a verb without the "en" suffix, or alternatively as "blacking". "Blue" is less common as a verb, except in reference to the bluing of metal, but it's not so rare as to be considered incorrect.

There's definitely nothing wrong or unusual about "greened".

Re:"Greened" - gah

[phantomfive]

Bluing for whitening.

Re:"Greened" - gah

[shawn2772]

Ah, right. I'd forgotten about that old use of "bluing". I've also come across sentences like "Her lips blued from the cold", but I'm not sure if that's poetic license or uncommon usage.

"twice the continental USA"

[CurryCamel]

"twice the continental USA" doesn't say anything beyond lots and lots.
Could we have that in standard units, please?
Such as american football fields or Rhode Islands. Or leaves per tree.

It's good for the planet

[skovnymfe]

It's good for the planet. But not for us. It's going to suck for us. Planet will survive though, no doubt about it.

Re:It's good for the planet

[Khashishi]

We keep launching off bits of planet into space, which is presumably bad. Ergo, anything bad for us is good for the planet.

rip it up

[bigtreeman]

That's ok, here in Queensland we're ripping up more trees than ever before, just to keep the balance.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...

Earth shifts

[mi]

Sea levels rise, storm floods now start flooding areas

And it used to happen all the time. There are entire cities, that went under water long before the infamous "hockey stick". Tasmania and Kodiak Island used to be connected to mainland until very recently.

Did shamans of those days blame the sins of the humans — such as burning too many fires — for it? Probably...

Re:Earth shifts

[Maritz]

Did shamans of those days blame the sins of the humans — such as burning too many fires — for it? Probably...

Oh, I get it. Climate scientists are the same as "shamans" because you, on an emotional level, do not like their conclusions. How intellectually brave of you.

It's gotta hurt when you're literally stealing tactics of creationists.

Re:Earth shifts

[mi]

Climate scientists are the same as "shamans" because you, on an emotional level, do not like their conclusions.

No, they are the same as shamans, because they seem unable to make a successful scientific predictions. Try to find and cite any — you'll see for yourself.

Here are the rules:

1. Each citation must contain two links: one to a prediction, the second — to the prediction coming true within, say, 80% of the predicted value (if it were quantifiable).
2. The two links must be several years apart from each other — lauding a prediction after it came true is not acceptable.
3. Each prediction needs to be marginally useful: things like "temperature will rise or fall" does not qualify.

I've been challenging various alarmists with the above and got nothing interesting back (except name-calling and down-modding)...

It's gotta hurt when you're literally stealing tactics of creationists.

Huh? Darling, it is you and yours doing it — using religious arguments to promote "action on global warming" — not me.

Re:Earth shifts

[Tenebrousedge]

Did shamans of those days blame the sins of the humans â" such as burning too many fires â" for it? Probably...

The idea that humans could affect the global climate was one of the most difficult concepts to accept. The default position was that the Earth was too large for human activity to have any effect. That shift in scientific thinking happened about a century ago. Presumably you are late to the party.

Incidentally, while I note speculation that Kodiak may have been connected by glaciation to the mainland during the last ice age, I'm not finding any information about the last time there was a land bridge. Perhaps you can oblige me with a source?

Re:Earth shifts

[Tenebrousedge]

Maybe â" and first they thought, we are dangerously cooling the Earth.

No, Arrhenius was pretty clear about the warming effects. Frankly I don't know why you would mention these cooling papers, they were a minority view at the time they were published, and have been refuted since then. We can find relatively recent papers denying plate tectonics as well.

...because the ancient disappearance of the ice would've been blamed on human sins by the same shamans just as well.

I understand it's useful to some argument of yours that this would be the case, but natural forces have consistently been depicted as being unreasoning and not subject to human influence across all cultures. Catastrophe was "the will of the gods", which humans could appease, but not direct; they very obviously happened regardless of whether people were wicked or holy.

As far as the citations you want, I'd ask you to read the latest IPCC report, or if you want historical predictions, any of the past reports. However, you're also reversing the burden of proof. Basic physical laws suggest that a higher partial pressure of CO2 will warm the Earth, and simple laboratory experiments show a strong positive feedback from H2O. What is your competing theory which accounts for these observations, yet results in no warming?

Re:Earth shifts

[mi]

No, Arrhenius was pretty clear about the warming effects.

Citations, please — a link to his prediction(s) followed by a link to their confirmation(s).

Frankly I don't know why you would mention these cooling papers

To illustrate, that we've seen both kinds of predictions, and that the climate science has a long way to go to establish its credibility. These cooling papers came after Arrhenius, did not they?

As far as the citations you want, I'd ask you to read the latest IPCC report ...

Links, please. The format I described is perfectly reasonable.

However, you're also reversing the burden of proof. Basic physical laws suggest that a higher partial pressure of CO2 will warm the Earth, and simple laboratory experiments show a strong positive feedback from H2O.

Great! And this was all known this for decades (if not centuries), right? How come you have not offered the citations I asked for yet?

What is your competing theory ... ?

I don't have to offer my own theory — because I do not seek to convince and/or compel you to alter your way of life. You seek to do that to me, so the burden of proof is on you.

Once again, if you wish to further explore this topic, you'll have to offer citations in the format I described. Any follow-ups not containing that will be returned unopened. Thank you.

Re:Earth shifts

[Bartles]

Not a single one of those cities are submerged because of rising sea levels due to warming.

Re:Earth shifts

[mi]

Not a single one of those cities are submerged because of rising sea levels due to warming [emphasis mine -mi].

You are most likely correct!! Which means, that it is not enough to simply point at a sinking island today either. One has to prove, the island is, indeed, submerging due to warming.

But Patrick Kursawe above does not offer any such proof. He simply implies "island nations" will be wiped out — to the applause of the moderators. Do we agree, that they are wrong?

Re:Earth shifts

[dave420]

You appear to be under the impression there is only ever one possible reason for peninsulas to become full islands. Either that or you are trying to make a point, and failing massively. You really need to go back to school.

Re:Earth shifts

[dave420]

You really are lost. Are you engaging in this desperate struggle to make yourself feel better about the terrible way you lead your life? Is this more for you than anyone else? It sure seems like it from here, as you are arguing against some very basic concepts which have been demonstrated time and time again, screaming for evidence, when the evidence is a heartbeat away, and any sane adult seriously interested in educating themselves would have crossed paths with it a long time ago.

Re:Earth shifts

[Tenebrousedge]

Your demands for citations are cute. If they're not in the right format, you won't read them. I'm sure that will make them go away.

To illustrate, that we've seen both kinds of predictions, and that the climate science has a long way to go to establish its credibility. These cooling papers came after Arrhenius, did not they?

Again, we can find contrarian research published about plate tectonics decades after it was accepted science. The existence of papers is not an argument for their credibility.

Arrhenius' first paper on the subject of warming is here. His prediction was about 4-6 degrees per doubling of CO2, with greater effects at the poles. That's on the high end of current estimates, but given the amount of hand-calculation he had to do, it's still a pretty impressive result.

Most of the early work on climate change was proving that it was possible for the climate to change at all, and as you can see in Arrhenius' paper, they mostly deal with the planet in an equilibrium state, and don't account for ever-increasing levels of CO2. One early attempt at modeling the globe in order to make these sorts of predictions was Hansen et al, 1988. He overestimated warming by about 15-25%; this article gives a post-mortem on his predictions. Essentially, using the same model with one slightly different physical constant reproduces the temperature trend far more precisely. An earlier study (Plass 1956) predicted a rise of 1.1 degrees C per century, assuming 1950s emissions levels. Warming since the 1950s has been on the order of .8C, so his prediction was something of an underestimate. Sawyer's prediction in 1972 was .6C by the year 2000, which was much nearer the mark.

However, you're also reversing the burden of proof. Basic physical laws suggest that a higher partial pressure of CO2 will warm the Earth, and simple laboratory experiments show a strong positive feedback from H2O.

Great! And this was all known this for decades (if not centuries), right?

The laboratory experiments on the infrared absorption of various gases date back to Tyndall (1859), and general radiative laws derived by Boltzmann (1884). A more specific overview of radiative forcing effects can be found in Myhre et al, 1998, if you're interested. So for the general idea that CO2 affects the temperature on Earth, you can look to any of the above for confirmation, or grab an IR camera and take a photograph.

So if CO2 affects the global temperature, and CO2 is measured to be increasing (which presumably you do not dispute), then wouldn't it be obvious that temperature must also increase? Not so fast! The absorption bands of CO2 and H2O overlap, and the atmosphere is so full of water vapor that it periodically precipitates. Clearly anything CO2 could do, H2O must already be doing, right? Bzzt. The flaw in this thinking is that because H2O precipitates out before it reaches the upper atmosphere and CO2 does not, allowing the latter to build up in the upper atmosphere (Kaplan 1952). Specifically, it extends the CO2-rich layer further out into space. There are a couple more details about where emission happens at what probability for a given photon of a given energy, and how many times it can expect to hit something on its way up, but again, your IR photograph should tell you that the mean free path is pretty short. This paper gives an overview of Earth's radiative balance.

I don't have to offer my own theory — because I do not seek to convince and/or compel you to alter your way of life. You seek to do that t

Re:Earth shifts

[mi]

Your demands for citations are cute. If they're not in the right format, you won't read them. I'm sure that will make them go away.

The format is perfectly reasonable — you do not disagree. And yet, despite replying here yet again — and putting a considerable amount of effort in crafting the reply too — you are unable to complete the challenge.

The challenge, which would've been trivial, if Climate Science were a reputable scientific discipline with notable achievements.

The burden of proof is on those who are challenging the accepted facts.

Begging the question — are these facts really accepted? By who? By scientists? Who are they and what successful predictions have they made? Go back to square one...

You have your predictions

No, I do not. You listed some failed ones — and offered reasons (and excuses) for the failures. That's all. If I missed something — sorry. Would you mind listing them in the format I asked for?

Re:Earth shifts

[Tenebrousedge]

The format is perfectly reasonable — you do not disagree. And yet, despite replying here yet again — and putting a considerable amount of effort in crafting the reply too — you are unable to complete the challenge.

If you are more concerned with formatting than content, that's your own issue. Various studies have predicted warming which has occurred, to the detail specified in their error bounds. Namely, Hansen, Plass, and Sawyer. They published in different years, and the period their predictions covered were generally through to the year 2000. It would be harder to find a model that did not show warming, in point of fact.

Mostly though we're just recently getting to the point of being able to make specific temperature forecasts; it's been an intensive task trying to replicate the historical data. And even today, we can only guess at what emissions levels are going to be -- those don't follow physical laws. If you're only going to be satisfied with exact answers, you're going to have to look somewhere other than science -- error is inherent to empiricism. Demanding an arbitrary level of precision allows you to disregard any theory you like, from gravity to evolution.

Begging the question — are these facts really accepted? By who? By scientists? Who are they and what successful predictions have they made? Go back to square one...

Tyndall, Boltzmann, Arrhenius, and various other scientists since then. Many people predicted warming, which has since then occurred. If you'd care to specify what part of the theory you find insufficiently well supported, I can try to find you a citation.

And In An Unrelated News Story

[LifesABeach]

A study conducted in California's San Joaquin valley has shown that the rising temperature increased cattle's digestive system activity; causing an increase in the level of scat.

Re:At a few mm per year, they're rather slow to ru

[Anonymous Coward]

facebook has that many employees?

Rising CO2

[fsagx]

Increased concentrations of CO2 has lead to an increase in duplicate stories and comments on slashdot.

Re: Slashdot is being spammed with climate stories

[Applehu Akbar]

"So you're okay with censorship when it silences views you don't like? "

Today this is called 'academia'.

Re:As long as the weather gets more pleasant in mo

[pr0fessor]

Why does everyone forget that regardless of man made global warming we are still exiting a glacial period, the the earth will warm up on it's own, and we will eventually have to deal with that change even if we reduce our emissions to 0.

Now on the other hand cheaper, cleaner, renewable resources should be our goal anyway.

Re: Slashdot is being spammed with climate stories

[rickb928]

Questioning the evidence with other equally credible evidence isn't lying.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/cl...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Re: Slashdot is being spammed with climate stories

[religionofpeas]

Since when does wattsupwiththat have credible evidence ?

Re:At a few mm per year, they're rather slow to ru

[Feral Nerd]

Should we be all upset that some storm wipes out a bunch of people we don't know on the other side of the planet, probably not. We should care for the planet because we need it, we should want to leave a rich fertile world for our children, but we should look out for our own. If Nature acts to reduce massively over populated regions of the world we should probably just be thankful it was not us.

Generally I agree with that except the part about not giving a shit when people I don't know are drowning. "Thou shalt do unto others as thou would have others do unto you.... etc..." I'm an atheist but I will still freely acknowledge that the Christians have some words to live by in their ancient scrolls.

Water Vapor

[Tenebrousedge]

Water vapor is not ignored; if it were not for the water vapor feedback cycle CO2 would be a non-issue. The issue with water vapor is that there are vast reservoirs of it all around the planet, which we are not able to do much about. Also, your statement that clouds cause cooling is not quite correct: clouds contribute to both warming and cooling.

Right now we are engaging in a massive uncontrolled geoengineering experiment: using CO2 to add energy to the Earth's atmosphere. Modeling the effects of this are very difficult. I'm not interested in additional experiments without a great deal of study to their effects.

Re:As long as the weather gets more pleasant in mo

[ChromaticDragon]

Quick point of clarification...

35 degrees in the shade is considered the temperature beyond which humans are likely to die from hyperthermia if exposed to the heat for several hours.

However, this is 35C of wet-bulb temperature. This depends on dry-bulb temperature (what we normally use), relative humidity and air pressure.

So it's not that 37C is the threshold. That'd require almost 90% relative humidity in the Phillipines where the norm seems to be between 60 and 80. At 80%, a dry temp of 38.5C would yield a web-bulb temp of 35C.

Nonetheless, you're not far off.

Likely?

[Roodvlees]

"They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives."
Like the negatives of CO2 are permanent. The increased green will mean more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere.
I never understood this panic about CO2, it's harmless, there are so many pollutants that are obviously harmful.

Re:Likely?

[religionofpeas]

The increased green will mean more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere.

Yet, CO2 concentration is showing no signs of slowing down. http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/sit...

Re:At a few mm per year, they're rather slow to ru

[avandesande]

Probably that many people die in a week there due to disease and lack of sanitation.

Picking Cherries

[Anonymous Coward]

My cherry picked data is better than your cherry picked data.

This just in

[RghtHndSd]

Cutting off your hands and legs will make you lose weight.

Re:Gullibility is the true global catastrophe

[religionofpeas]

Hint if they don't melt that is really, really bad. Both for run off that feeds our waterways and the fact that if they are growing continuously means we are entering an other ice age, which means that most everyone north of the equator is going to starve/freeze to death.

You forgot the third option: they stay about the same. Same for sea ice. The Arctic has lost 75% of its ice, and it has not come back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:A question I rarely see asked...

[Khashishi]

Massive extinctions, in oceans and on land.

Re:At a few mm per year, they're rather slow to ru

[BCGlorfindel]

Since when was the sea level predicted to rise so fast people would drown from it?

Sea levels rise, storm floods now start flooding areas that were previously farther from the coast and relatively safe, people cannot afford to just abandon their property and buy new land and build a new hose/farm in a safer place elsewhere because they are so poor they can hardly afford food, the government is to corrupt/apathetic/incompetent or just plain too poor to build flood defences which in many cases may even be a futile effort... result? Lots of people drown in storm floods in places like Bangladesh.

Let me rank the problems facing these people you are so worried about by some manner of importance to the quality of their lives:
1.So poor they can hardly afford food
2.Corrupt/incompetent government
3.today's storms and floods
4.The increased severity and spread of floods after decades of warming

If we are going to propose the solution to these people's problems is cutting CO2 emissions sufficiently to stave off problem number 4, don't ignore problems 1 through 3. Cheap power for their homes via coal and cheap fertilizer and gasoline for agriculture are what they need to afford food and get past their poverty. Placing a carbon tax on those commodities makes food and basic living more expensive for those poor people that can already barely afford food. Worse yet, that carbon tax is being collected and returned to the hands of the corrupt government that's also causing them problems, strengthening it's control over those people.

When we propose solutions to global problems like climate change, we've absolutely got to keep a global focus on what things like a carbon tax mean to different peoples of the world. There is a whole lot more to the challenges in people's lives than sea level and temperature.

Tac the poor to save them!

[BCGlorfindel]

Since when was it possible for 156 million mostly penniless people to move elsewhere?

Right, the most important thing those penniless people need is a carbon tax making the basic necessities they can already barely afford more expensive. As an added bonus, the corrupt and oppressive government helping hold them back gains even more control over them too through the extra revenues.

The fastest way to bring millions out of poverty is cheap energy through things like coal and oil. Increasing their ag production and ability to feed themselves for less money requires cheap fertilizers. This all amounts to more CO2 being dumped out, and yes, it contributes to a future for them with more flooding. I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume they all want to choose cutting emissions versus getting out of poverty,

OKAY GENIUS

[PortHaven]

Let's use that argument.... what affect does tectonics have on air and ocean currents?

Hmm???

Re:OKAY GENIUS

[Viol8]

Excuse me? Wtf have air and ocean currents got to do with oil thats 200 million years old and 2 miles under the seabed? Moron.

East Coast, we move water like the Romans did

[Anonymous Coward]

New York City's water travels through hundreds of miles of aqueducts and is some of the cleanest, safest water in the world.

Y'all in the left coast are too busy suckling at the federal teat and complaining about taxes to get anything done that requires cooperation. Well, you can cooperate to corrupt legislatures and deregulate the economy, I'll give you that. And push bigotry and wastefulness, that too.

Over here we pay more taxes and get less federal aid. Face it; y'all westerners are crybabies who can't get anything done.

Re:East Coast, we move water like the Romans did

[Karmashock]

First, everyone suckles at that tit because that's how congress likes it. Everyone suckles so that they can overstep their constitutional authority. They tell you do something... and the authority they use to compel you is not the law but rather the threat of cutting the money off. Its a flaw in the constitution that the federal government exploits nationally.

Second, Los Angeles largely bankrolled Hoover Dam. So you know nothing about the West.

Third, I'd be very happy not have the federal money if it meant we got less federal control. The reality is that you pay us more than we pay because you're buying control. If you don't like what you're paying for... then stop paying. I'd be very happy to stop having my state blackmailed into stupid federal programs as fiscal gunpoint.

THE BIGGER CLIMATE QUESTION

[PortHaven]

Why is the Arctic melting, while the Antarctic is accumulating ice?

That's actually a far more odd and puzzling phenomenon that is yet unexplained. And it shows just how little we actually know about climate science. Now, I've got a postulation. The orbit of the Earth has declined. Thus, the upper pole is being melted, while the southern pole is accumulating ice.

Oh wait, I know....that's impossible, sure the earth's orbit may have a variance of inclination. But that would mean if the elevation was lower, that it would be higher for the second half of the orbit. Because the planets orbit on a plane of the sun.

Okay, let me throw a loop out there for you. How big is the Earth compared to the sun? What is the internal make up and distribution of the sun? Is it solid? fluid? gas? If the latter two....is it fixed? We've seen some big solar flares, odd spots, etc. It's very possible to theorize that the distribution of the mass of the sun could in fact change. If solar storms shifted internal mass just the earths orbit would adjust. How much affect would such a variation have on Earth's climate? Do we know? It would explain why we are seeing one of Earth's poles losing ice while the other is accumulating.

Re:THE BIGGER CLIMATE QUESTION

[religionofpeas]

Both Arctic and Antarctic are losing ice, at least when you look at the total masses. The only thing that's been growing is Antarctic sea ice during the southern hemisphere winter (it melts away in the summer). One factor in the increased sea ice is likely the influx of fresh water from the melting land ice. Fresh water freezes quicker than salt water.

Re:THE BIGGER CLIMATE QUESTION

[dargaud]

Why is the Arctic melting, while the Antarctic is accumulating ice? That's actually a far more odd and puzzling phenomenon that is yet unexplained

It's not and the explanation is very simple. It's for the same reason that the summit of Mt Blanc is accumulating ice (and thus raising) while the surrounding summits do not: Antarctica as well as the summit of Mt Blanc are too cold to melt, even with global warming. But since because of the warming there's more evaporation and thus more humidity in the atmosphere, this humidity will condense more than before in those two cold places, and since it's never warm enough thus more snow accumulates there. The north pole and lower mountains get warm enough in summer for melting to occur, so they are losing ice. Antarctica and the highest mountains do not (yet).

Re: Slashdot is being spammed with climate stories

[Khashishi]

Except it kinda is, since the score is mostly used to filter what messages are shown. You aren't supposed to mod down something just because you disagree with it.

Re:As long as the weather gets more pleasant in mo

[Bartles]

37 degrees celsius? You think that's hot for a tropical island? I looked at the temperature record in the 60's and there were plenty of 37 degree days then as well. Were you expecting it to be like Canada?

Re:As long as the weather gets more pleasant in mo

[KeensMustard]

What's more, the idea was not controversial until it was revealed that some powerful industries might need to change their ways and that the money trough of coal and oil extraction would have to be fenced off.

When I was a child (in the 70s) I was fascinated by discoveries in the solar system and our neighbouring planets. Why was Venus hotter than Mercury, despite the latter being closer to the Sun? Well, it turns out the Venusian atmosphere has large concentrations of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, and this made it much hotter on the surface of Venus than on Mercury. This was known, and nobody blinked an eye. There was no mention in any of the literature of that era about the idea being controversial when applied to Venus.

Facts don't cease to be facts because they later turn out to be inconvenient.

Re: Slashdot is being spammed with climate stories

[AK Marc]

So because some people use a filter that will reduce their visibility, any tags or actions that reduce visibility are censorship? The car dealership being out of red cars, so my choice is black or dark blue is censorship, as that reduces my visibility! Nope, that logic doesn't work when applied in any other situation.

Re: Slashdot is being spammed with climate stories

[AK Marc]

So someone who claims the moon landing was a hoax should be given the same attention as someone who documents the maximum size of trees based on the capillary effect, and the predictions of that in maximum height.

You can waste your time treating every new conspiracy theorist as a unique claimant with a valid point.

Living in Alaska

[npslider]

Winters here in the interior of Alaska have been more mild the last several years, something everyone is thankful for - not saying this is due to increased CO2, but if it is, no complaints here. This may spell misery for folks in warmer climates, and I do not wish for that. I for one welcome our new Warm Alaskan Winter CO2 Overlords!

Re:Gullibility is the true global catastrophe

[Charcharodon]

75%......Your math is off by quite a bit.

http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/c...

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...

Re:Not news; it is mostly natural.

[dave420]

The scientific data shows that climate change is entirely man-made. You might want to work on your learning a bit, as you still have quite a way to go.

Re: Slashdot is being spammed with climate stories

[dave420]

wattsupwiththat.com has lost its credibility, unfortunately. In their zeal to debunk climate change they stooped to giving a voice to non-experts giving their opinions, rendering the editorial indistinguishable from factual reporting. I don't have the time to wade through those links and try to figure out if they are even pretending to tell the truth or not, and I doubt you have done so.

So with that, can you cite some peer-reviewed sources which have not pissed their credibility up a rope?

Re: Slashdot is being spammed with climate storie

[rickb928]

And there is the problem. Much of what is accepted as fact proving climate change is man caused is truly opinion, and based on data either flawed or altered. Asking for peer-reviewed denials is clever - the majority both suppresses dissent and trivializes it.

If you can't be bothered to sort through the fact and opinion on one side, then the argument is lost, isn't it?

Re:There are adverse effects from this

[hucker75]

So things change a bit, cool. I like change.

not to mention his grant

[carbonates]

"Professor Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms."

He failed to mention the worst consequence of admitting that this might be a positive factor. It would not compensate for his loss of grant funding from NASA (he has three grants) that pays for his salary and graduate students.

This Happens....

[Ferretman]

...when you're coming out of an Ice Age.

Ferret

Re:As long as the weather gets more pleasant in mo

[Ferretman]

Good thing that's not happening....

Ferret

Re:As long as the weather gets more pleasant in mo

[Ferretman]

Ummm....

Venus also happens to receive just under twice as much sunlight as Earth (http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2476.html), has an atmosphere that is about 96% CO2 vs Earth's .04% (http://sci.esa.int/venus-express/34067-venus-vs-earth/), and its atmospheric pressure is 90 times ours here on our little blue marble (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Venus_compared_to_Earth).

Suspect those all together have rather more of an influence.....

Ferret

Slashdot has been bought by goddamn multinationals

[previewlounge]

You dirty scumbags. Whomever recently bought Slashdot is subtly fucked up in the head and has fossil fuel mining companies in their pockets. The tenor has changed, ever so slightly. The headlines that head up the email header. It is changing. This is a travesty.

Credibility of Climate Science

[mi]

If you are more concerned with formatting than content, that's your own issue.

Ah, but it is not. If the formatting is reasonable, but you still can not satisfy it — and not for lack of time, obviously — then you have a problem.

I insist on these rules, because without them I can demonstrate ultimate predictive powers too — by writing down multiple contradictory predictions today, and only publishing successful ones tomorrow. Having posted aplenty, you never objected to the format — because it is reasonable. You just can't satisfy it.

We see scary predictions published — even on Slashdot — about once a week. With decades of this behind us, some — most! — of them should've come true already. Evidently, none have...

They published in different years, and the period their predictions covered were generally through to the year 2000. It would be harder to find a model that did not show warming, in point of fact.

Excellent! Year 2000 is well behind us. Where are their successful predictions? If they published before the Internet age, you can satisfy my challenge by posting links to the later scientists citing those pre-Internet ones — before those predictions happened to come true.

Mostly though we're just recently getting to the point of being able to make specific temperature forecasts

Khmm, does this mean, you admit, no predictions I seek have been made until "just recently"? Would be an awesome admission on your part...

Many people predicted warming, which has since then occurred.

Again, you are appealing to the authority of experts — begging the question of whether they really are experts. If they are, where are their successful predictions?

If you'd care to specify what part of the theory you find insufficiently well supported

I find the entire discipline of "Climate Science" to be insufficiently established for any governmental policy-changes to be based on it. My evidence for this is the inability of the discipline's adherents — such as yourself — to cite any successful predictions. Lack of time is, obviously, not the reason. Nor is ignorance. The most reasonable explanation is, none have been made.

You mentioned Newton's vs. Einstein's theories — but the former did give us verifiable predictions anyway. You need to approach a considerable fraction of the c for Einstein's corrections to become necessary. Should not Climate Science, its first practitioners working in 19th century, have something remotely similar to offer? The challenge I put forth asked for correctness of just 80% for any cited prediction — a Physicist would've had no problem coming up with citations even before Einstein. But you do...

Re:Credibility of Climate Science

[Tenebrousedge]

Successful predictions include surface warming and stratospheric cooling coincident with a rise in CO2 levels, and stronger warming effects at the poles. Are you under the misapprehension that producing fine-grained projections of global temperature is the only thing that climate scientists do?

The challenge I put forth asked for correctness of just 80% for any cited prediction

Studies usually already include their error margins. If a prediction comes in within its own error margin, that is a successful test. Surely you don't apply your own arbitrary standards to other physical sciences? As it happens, results within the error margins of prediction are true for Hansen et all (1988), linked previously, for Plass (1956), Arrhenius (linked previously), and most accurately by Sawyer (1972), who managed to get both the magnitude of increased emissions and the resulting temperature increase exactly correct. I apparently wasn't clear when I gave you the temperature predictions earlier for Sawyer, Plass, and Hansen. I assumed that you would be able to find a graph of global temperatures for the 20th Century. Here's a graph for you, which corroborates their findings. I hope it's not too much trouble to be able to look at my previous posts for the numbers.

Also, Arrhenius (1896) and Callendar (30s-40s) were confirmed in the mid-50s with CO2 and temperature measurements. You could also consider Plass and Kaplan (1952) to be confirmation of the previous work on the matter. Also, you will note that Hansen's spacial distribution of the temperature anomaly was very accurate. Looking at graphs in the 1995 IPCC report their prediction (p40) of the warming trend matches the observed warming through to the present quite well.

We see scary predictions published — even on Slashdot — about once a week.

If you're getting your scientific information from the popular press, you're probably being misinformed in some manner. In my experience newspaper articles are rarely peer reviewed, and I don't think I've seen very many cited, or that have citations. As it happens, I believe most of the articles on Slashdot are concerned with weather events and annual records.

does this mean, you admit, no predictions I seek have been made until "just recently"?

What you want isn't actually a test of the science in the way you think it is. Global climate models cannot be used to disprove AGW any more than epidemiological models can be used to disprove the germ theory of disease, and Kerbal Space Program is similarly not a test of relativity. Economists can construct models to show that rapid expansions of the monetary supply cause harmful inflation, and there is empirical evidence to support this idea. Constructing a model to predict the exact effects of the Fed's Quantitative Easing program would be something of a challenge. Failure to model something accurately means that your model is inaccurate, not that the theory is wrong. Are climate models inaccurate? Of course they are! Every model is inaccurate. All of science is inaccurate, it's inherent to empirical observation. The question is to what degree they are useful, and to begin to be able to answer that, I would suggest you start here or

Re:Credibility of Climate Science

[mi]

Are you under the misapprehension that producing fine-grained projections of global temperature is the only thing that climate scientists do?

I have no idea, what "climate scientists" do. But I note, that, yet again, you are unable to list successful predictions made by them.

If a prediction comes in within its own error margin, that is a successful test

Hysterical... Is not it wonderful, when one can set his own criteria for success? If only real life worked that way. How about, I "predict", Donald Trump will live from 1 to 1000 more years? Is it a prediction usable to prove my scientific prowess (or psychic abilities)?

See? This is why being "marginally useful" is another requirement I placed into my challenge. You failed.

For the rest of your post — TLDR. It is not in the requested format and I've already spent too much time convincing you, an "A" is an "A".

Re:Credibility of Climate Science

[Tenebrousedge]

Hysterical... Is not it wonderful, when one can set his own criteria for success?

Well, it's less silly than arbitrarily declaring what someone else's margin of error is. Especially if you have no idea what "80%" refers to. Relative temperature? Absolute temperature? Heat content in megajoules? Watts per square meter of forcing?

I'm not really terribly concerned with your "format requirements". The data is presented above, and your ignoring it only harms your own position. But let's have you quit dodging around for a minute. What part of the theory of AGW do you think is inaccurate? "The whole thing" would imply, e.g. that CO2 does not absorb IR, that it does not build up in the atmosphere, that the Earth is not warming, and many other things. Given how easy some of these things are to measure, I don't think you're making that argument. If, as I said a minute ago, you can't identify any part of the theory you think is unsound, we are forced to conclude that you think the theory is sound. So what exactly is your disagreement?

Re:As long as the weather gets more pleasant in mo

[KeensMustard]

How do any of those facts have an influence on the temperature difference between Venus and Mercury?