Slashdot Mirror
CO2 Levels Likely To Stay Above 400PPM For The Rest of Our Lives, Study Shows (inhabitat.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A new study from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere are likely to remain above 400 parts per million (ppm) for many years. Specifically, scientists forecasted that levels would not dip below 400pm in "our lifetimes." The CO2 concentrations of "about 450ppm or lower are likely to maintain warming below 2 degrees Celsius over the 21st century relative to pre-industrial levels." However, lead author on the paper Richard Betts said we could pass that number in 20 years or less. In an article on The Guardian, he said even if we reduce emissions immediately, we might be able to delay reaching 450ppm but "it is still looking like a challenge to stay below 450ppm." El Nino has played a significant role in climbing carbon dioxide levels, but it's likely we'll see higher CO2 levels than the last large El Nino storm during 1997 and 1998 because "manmade emissions" have risen by 25 percent since that storm, according to The Guardian. Met Office experts predicted in November 2015 that in May 2016 "mean concentrations of atmospheric CO2" would hit 407.57ppm -- the actual figure was 407.7ppm. The NOAA reported during 2015 that the "annual growth rate" of CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 3.05ppm. NOAA lead scientist Pieter Tans said, "Carbon dioxide levels are increasing faster than they have in hundreds of thousands of years. It's explosive compared to the natural processes."
The science is in, the numbers are not fake, this is not a hoax. This is going to have serious global repercussions and it will never go away. We can't even yet stop contributing to the acceleration of emissions, they CONTINUE to grow year by year despite much-touted international accords. The science community agrees this will not be enough, and we are failing at this course correction necessity.
At some point, the people being paid and those paying millions to put out the unreasonable position that this all is "no big deal" or "not certain to be a problem" or "not caused by human industry" etc, those people have to be dealt with. I make no suggestions beyond that general observation, that this is untenable.
I think it's pretty clear at this point that Trump will win the presidency. He isn't facing any real competition, and even many Democrats can't bring themselves to vote for either of the potential Democratic candidates. So at least a portion of them will be voting for Trump, in addition to nearly all Republicans who do support Trump. Much of America has become tired and disillusioned after 8 years of leftist rule, and want something different. That gives Trump a win that is nearly guaranteed at this point.
LOL, keep dreaming. There's an awful lot of Republicans who won't be voting for Trump.
Actually the holy book would be the IPCC reports. The nice thing about anthropogenic global warming as a religion is that it has actual scientific evidence to back it up. If you want to suggest that the primary cause is something other than human activity you need to come up with some actual scientific evidence of your own that holds up under scrutiny.
Of course it has been under 1,000 ppm for the entire existence of humans.
But the real problem isn't the level of CO2 but how fast it is changing. If it slowly rose to 1,000 ppm over 10,000 years or more then life would have time to adapt. At the rate it's going it could hit 1,000 in less than 200 years and that's going to cause lots of disruption. It remains to be seen how well our civilization will cope with it.
I think Mussolini is a more apt comparison.
I'm Donald Trump, and I approved this message.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Now I know why. Oh god!
we need LEARN FUCKIN ENGLISH
Well you obviously need to.
The first post nailed it. Just take a look through the comments to see how incapable the /. crowd is at having a reasonable, intelligent discussion anymore. Off topic instantly, into political chest pounding immediately. Nothing about how burning fossil fuels is responsible for the constant rise in CO2 and the subsequent impacts on the biosphere and polar ice. Coral bleaching is reaching levels never seen before due to ocean acidification, which will get much worse as the CO2 level continues to rise. I understand it is the job of the corporate shills here to "muddy the waters" and manufacture doubt and insult everyone, but I just wish everyone else would stop taking the bait, and don't even respond to them anymore, no matter how obnoxious they are.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
Only if the end of the story is a lifeless corpse swinging from a meat hook.
Trump's post-election fate is likely a fade into obscurity. He's destroyed his TV career, unless it's as a Fox News comedy set piece, and with all the Republicans walking away, I doubt even Fox is going to have much to do with him.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why are you bringing in facts to a political discussion?
You are right! Falsifiable science. Let's see how those disaster scenarios played out from 30 years ago... Hmm, looks like the effect of CO2 isn't as bad as we thought.
You mean the cooked reports that were "adjusted" to produce a specific trend out of a flat line?
Who denies that life will find a way? Life found a way even when the cyanobacteria started belching toxic levels of oxygen.
And really, no one even questions that humans will survive, but it's a question of how much do we want it to cost us? Act now, and it's a lot less than if we wait fifty or sixty years, or really even twenty.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
CO2 Levels Likely to Stay Above 400PPM for the Rest of Our Lives
Umm, but Ray Kurzweil told me if I take 200 pills per day and survive to the Singularity (which, apparently, is coming soon to a neocortex near you), then I'll live forever. And so will you.
Does that mean CO2 levels will stay that high forever? Just wonderin'...
you're confusing a situation where Hillary had nothing to gain from viciously fighting Sanders head-on
Only the US Presidency. Let's review your post here. By your own words, we have Clinton struggling against a "non-entity".
Let us remember that she lost a number of states and didn't get enough votes for a definitive win until the California primary.
Nope. The Democrat nominee will be selected by the superdelegates and the superdelegates don't want any change.
Nice to see that someone hates me :) I think value is in the eye of the beholder. I guess some folks with mod points liked what I said. If you don't like what I'm saying then come up with some credible evidence to counter it.
When it comes to CO2 and its role in global warming no one has come up with any credible evidence to counter it. Lots of people try to claim it's the Sun or it's just natural cycles but the never present any solid evidence for their claims. Science is all about being able to back up your hypotheses with real evidence.
Why don't you go back to Europe?
ROTHFLMAO! The "leaked" emails were an exercise in quote mining and taking things out of context. The more you try to make them into something significant the more you look like a fool yourself.
At 0% body water content, you are dead. but at 100% immersion in water, you are dead as well. All signs point to there being a very narrow range of "optimal". Comparing the low-end of the scale and extrapolating well beyond where that data is valid just makes you look like a moron. Or a liar. Which is it, do you not know basic statistics, despite quoting them, or do you understand, and are lying to further your political agenda? Bonus points for lying, then accusing the other side of lying.
Learn to love Alaska
Everyone who doesn't believe in our global warming religion is going to get cooked by it just as bad as those who do believe. It's an equal opportunity phenomenon.
The IPCC reports are basically a compilation and review of the current literature in the field of climate science. When they come out they are already a year or two behind the most current science.
Right now you're costing ME a lot, in the form of your retarded carbon taxes and other assorted annoyances.So why don't you sod off and start financing your religion with your own money?
The phrase for your attitude is "Penny wise and pound foolish". What is as several economic analyses have indicated it costs you twice as much to wait as it does to do something about it now?
That works well for CO2 concentrations from about 50 years ago back to around 800,000 years ago. Before that you have to use proxies that are less exact.
For the entirety of Human History up until the industrial revolution atmospheric CO2 level has fluctuated between 280 to 220 ppm. This planet hasn't seen 400pm of C02 in the atmosphere for millions of years. Long before the oldest Human ancestor species even existed. Our species was born of the ice ages that came about due to some of the lowest C02 levels the planet ever saw.
We are pushing C02 levels up to range that existed when dinosaurs were alive and there were tropical swamps in the arctic circle.
You realize how much like a doomsday religious preacher that sounded right?
So you like to pretend.
However, its just not true.
Speculate much?
You see, thats why reasonable people dont buy into your scaremongering. These made up bullshit numbers like 1000 in less than 200 years...
This, a million times this. Humans cannot think logarithmically, they are linear creatures. We always aim too high in the short term, and too low in the long term, since that is how nature lets us convert logarithms to linear problems.
In two hundred years we will be terraforming Mars, not worried about the paradise park called Earth. And we will be using 0.0001% of our resources to keep the entire planet "perfect", or whatever the guys in charge think is perfect. "Rain is on Tuesdays, people, close your dang windows!"
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Most of the current coral bleaching seems to be more caused by high ocean temperatures than acidification. Acidification may become important for bleaching coral in the future.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
You are right! Falsifiable science. Let's see how those disaster scenarios played out from 30 years ago...
Quoting that article, "But is that the whole story? I dove into the WABAC Machine known as Nexis and dredged up a couple of other news reports recounting Hansen's testimony. A longer June 1986 UPI story reported, "Unless steps are taken to control the problem, temperatures in the United States in the next decade will range from 0.5 degrees Celsius to 2 degrees higher than they were in 1958, said James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies." "
["0.5 degrees to 2 degrees" translates to 1.25 degrees plus or minus 0.75 degrees.]
the article continues:
So how did the average U.S. temperature change in the 50 years after 1958? According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program report in 2009, "U.S. average temperature has risen more than 2F over the past 50 years." Two degrees Fahrenheit is just over 1.1 degrees Celsius, which is within the spread of increased temperatures predicted by Hansen.
So, as I read what that article says, Hansen predicted 1.25 plus or minus 0.75 degrees temperature rise, and according to the article you just quoted, the data showed 1.1 degrees temperature rise.
I can't see how you conclude "Hmm, looks like the effect of CO2 isn't as bad as we thought." Looks like his prediction was right on the target.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Targeting CO2 emissions has always had a very long-term scope and we should continue to find ways to reduce them. However, in such urgent circumstances, we need to find greenhouse gas emissions that respond quickly to reducing their output. According to a UN report, 51% of greenhouse gases comes from animal agriculture, i.e. meat and dairy production. We don't all need to go vegan but we do need to stop eating such unhealthy and unsustainable amounts of meat.
I'm not a vegetarian or vegan BTW.
Of course I was just being snarky. But if you're not an old fart like me the reality of global warming and the concomitant climate change it causes will have a significant effect on your life whether you like it or not.
The only people who think the climategate emails were all that significant are the climate science deniers who have motivation to think so. They have nothing to combat science with actual science so the have to attack the practitioners of science instead.
Don't get hyperbolic about it. Things will continue to change slowly and some years will be better than others but in 20 or 30 years you can look back and see that things have changed.
Do you have any idea how big and long lasting the conspiracy would have to be to sustain your assertion? If they're good enough to keep it going for over 30 years for all scientists around the world you might as well give up.
And regarding bureaucrats the WG1 which is about the scientific basis for AGW is done by scientists, not bureaucrats.
You don't have to take my word for it. But you ignore the scientists word at your own peril.
No, it's just not verifiable on the short time scale you want to use. Tell me how nothing has changed in 30 years. (Actually you'll have to tell someone else, I'm old enough it's unlikely I'll be alive then.)
"The ignorance chemistry, biology, and natural history required to fall for the histrionics of climate change/global warming is ill becoming of nerds. "
Well considering the overwhelming consensus by professional chemists, biologists, and natural historians -- all who know more about the subject than you -- why should we take your word over theirs?
1000 ppm in less than 200 years assumes we continue BAU and don't do anything to curb our CO2 emissions. I actually expect we will come to our senses about it and will curb emissions. Maybe we can stop it around 600 ppm. But then you have to consider the emissions from melting permafrost and methane clathrates which we don't have a good handle on yet so it's hard to say what the maximum will be. The ice sheets on Antarctica and Greenland didn't start forming until CO2 levels dropped below about 700 ppm.
You have yet to bring any scientific evidence to the argument. I will say that my 50 years comment may have been optimistic.
But here are some links to ice core research with scientific data:
800,000-year Ice-Core Records of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core
Data for Historical CO2 Record from the Vostok Ice Core
Doesn't a warmer climate equal more women in bikinis? Doesn't more CO2 equal more plants? I always thought that planting groves of giant sequoias would be a good way to sequestering CO2. I think I remember reading that each sequoia is capable of sequestering like 2,000 tons of CO2 for 3,000 years.
I came to ask the same question. One side affect of more CO2 is that some plants will grow a lot more easily, and hence absorb some of the CO2.
I also hear more energy more more moisture in the air, so more rain and yet again more plants.
So yeah, some humans might cop a raw deal, but it sounds like AGW could be a net win for a lot of other species. The hippies should be all for this.
If he gets two terms, I don't think he could possibly resist pressing the red button at least one, just to make sure it worked.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Yes.
But your cooling bill is about to go through the roof.
All you said is "I don't understand this!". Thanks for trying to play.
We are pushing C02 levels up to range that existed when dinosaurs were alive and there were tropical swamps in the arctic circle.
In the summer perhaps. But I doubt it. In winter it is dark there, and cold. Regardless of CO2 levels. Perhaps not _that_ cold, but still freezing.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Wrong. Hilary would have won if there were no superdelegates.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
To quote Dan Aykroyd as Jimmy Carter: "We are screwed, blued, and tattooed."
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Now take the opposite of everything the AC said, and you'll have a statement much closer to reality.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Cause the Clinton years were just sooo bad.
what with that economic growth, budgetary surplus, a relatively stable economy, no wars....
That was just soo much worse than the years under Bush Jr....
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Not how funding or science works.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
What happens when you remove the subsides and exemptions for non-fossil fuels?
BTW which exemptions and subsides are you taking about? The ones everyone quotes are generic ones every business gets so why should energy companies not get them?
El Nino has played a significant role in climbing carbon dioxide levels
Wow, just when I thought I had heard global warming blamed on absolutely everything, and absolutely everything blamed on El Nino. But I never even considered blaming El Nino for carbon emissions.
The medical term for what you're doing is called "projection".
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/...
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/C...
The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
The "trick," which was used in a paper published in 1998 in the science journal Nature, is to combine the older tree ring data with thermometer data. Combining the two data sets can be difficult, and scientists are always interested in new ways to make temperature records more accurate.
Tree rings are a largely consistent source of data for the past 2,000 years. But since the 1960s, scientists have noticed there are a handful of tree species in certain areas that appear to indicate temperatures that are warmer or colder than we actually know they are from direct thermometer measurement at weather stations.
"Hiding the decline" in this email refers to omitting data from some Siberian trees after 1960. This omission was openly discussed in the latest climate science update in 2007 from the IPCC, so it is not "hidden" at all.
Why Siberian trees? In the Yamal region of Siberia, there is a small set of trees with rings that are thinner than expected after 1960 when compared with actual thermometer measurements there. Scientists are still trying to figure out why these trees are outliers. Some analyses have left out the data from these trees after 1960 and have used thermometer temperatures instead.
Techniques like this help scientists reconstruct past climate temperature records based on the best available data.
Much has been made about emails regarding a certain paper that some scientists did not think should have been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. These emails focus on a paper on solar variability in the climate over time. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Climate Research, but under unusual circumstances. Half of the editorial board of Climate Research resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process. The paper, which argued that current warming was unexceptional, was disputed by scientists whose work was cited in the paper. Many subsequent publications set the record straight, which demonstrates how the peer review process over time tends to correct such lapses. Scientists later discovered that the paper was funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
In a later e-mail, Phil Jones references two other papers he didn't hold in high esteem. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Yet, the papers in question made it into the IPCC report, indicating that no restrictions on their incorporation were made. The IPCC process contains hundreds of authors and reviewers, with an e
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
You read it again, and this time pay attention to which part is actual data.
The text I quoted in italics is verbatim from the link you posted: According to the article, the prediction was 1.25 degrees; the measurement 1.1 degrees.
The 0.6 number is a different number, extrapolated from data that can't be directly compared to the prediction (in fact, it doesn't even include 1958.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Cause the Clinton years were just sooo bad.
Bill Clinton was thwarted by a Republican congress. He wanted to tax, borrow and spend as much as any other Democrat.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The "hiatus" has been debunked over and over and over. That you would claim otherwise shows you either don't know what you're talking about, or that you're more than willing to lie to make a point. Neither is attractive. Pick one.
You actually think we really understand physics? You are a moron.
You forgot "and the continents were joined and the ocean currents were vastly different, so you can't compare the two"
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Translation: I pretend to be aloof and objective, but will surely find a way to insult the speaker.
Did the grandparent have anything insightful to say? If someone responds with OMG manbearpig, it's pretty clear they have little interest in making an insightful argument.
CO2 Emissions have been flat for the last two years, Decoupling of global emissions and economic growth confirmed, BAU is now less than the Modellers foresaw.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Cause the Clinton years were just sooo bad.
Bill Clinton was thwarted by a Republican congress. He wanted to tax, borrow and spend as much as any other Democrat.
-jcr
And Hillary Clinton will likely be in the same situation. I'm sure what the downside is yet.
Renewables are already cheaper than fossil fuels, especially once you remove all fossil fuel subsidies and exemptions.
If that was really the case then all of the Evil(tm) Capitalist RobberBarons would be jumping like lemmings off of a cliff into the renewables markets, better to get in early and erect artificial barriers to entry!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Plants will do better and it'll be a greener world.
Win win.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
there hasn't been any warming for a little over 18 years now.
That's been debunked over and over again. Why does it keep getting reposted? Why do you actually believe this?
You can't cherry-pick a single unusually hot year, claim it's the average, then say temperatures are still hovering around average. That's not how statistics work.
So go grow some Redwoods.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Um...your definition of a "reasonable, intelligent discussion" seems to assume the person you're talking with agrees with the Alarmism. That's pretty blindered of you.
Many of us don't.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
So look at what happened when we had a Republican President with the same Republican Congress. We found a lot of new ways to spend trillions of dollars, and the deficit went way up.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
What's happening is a scientific issue, and what it means is that we're warming up the surface of the planet very fast and we'll have very serious problems stemming from that. What we're gong to do about it is a political issue, but it's very unlikely to be helpful as long as so many politicians (at least in the US) deny the science.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I notice that you and dave420 both say it is debunked, but without any links to a debunking. That is very interesting...
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Huh?
You do know that the "greenhouse effect" is a radiative physics effect, and the physical mechanism of the atmospheric greenhouse effect is not identical to the way a glass greenhouse works (which is by allowing energy in the form of light in, but suppressing convection).
On a greenhouse on the surface of the Earth, heat transfer is in the form of convection and radiation (and to a small extent, conduction). For the Eartt radiating to space, of course, convection stops at the top of the atmosphere.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Let me guess it's one of these
1) Low solar activity
2) Oceans ate the global warming
3) Chinese coal use
4) Montreal Protocol
5) What ‘pause’?
6) Volcanic aerosols
7) Stratospheric Water Vapor
8) Faster Pacific trade winds
9) Stadium Waves
10) ‘Coincidence!’
11) Pine aerosols
12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”
13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data”
14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere
15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability
16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation
17) AMOC ocean oscillation
18) “Global brightening” has stopped
19) “Ahistorical media”
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’
21) Few El Ninos since 1999
22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”
23) “Not scientifically relevant”
24) The wrong type of El Ninos
25) Slower trade winds
26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought
27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here
28) ENSO
29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations
30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific
31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”
32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important
33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”
36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]
37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?
38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”
40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”
41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:
42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:
43) Ocean Variability:
44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:
45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:
46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:
47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both
48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:
49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:
50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway
51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then”
52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend
Save time just pick a number.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Is the NOAA good enough? Why Did Earth's Surface Temperature Stop Rising in the Past Decade?
1998 was an exceptionally warm El Nino year, which brought up temperatures in late 1997 and 1998, and once the El Nino subsided, temperatures trended back more closely with 1996-1997 levels. The ocean is a massive heat-sink and has been absorbing much of the additional heat generated, and the El Nino's altered currents bring some of that heat back to the surface during those years.
Thank you, I will take a look.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Well the inverse is true as well, there really is no evidence that that the past warming will continue to dangerous levels a century from now as there hasn't been any warming for a little over 18 years now. There are some computer simulations that didn't predict the current warming hiatus, and none of those simulations have demonstrated any predictive ability.
Except that with 2014, 2015 and 2016* we will have 3 years in a row of the hottest year on record. How does that fit in with your "18 years of no warming"?
That you think the global climate models should be able to predict a warming hiatus just shows you don't understand what climate models are capable of. The effects of natural variability are currently impossible to predict ahead of time. Things like the dominance of La Ninas, a slightly higher rate of volcanic aerosols being produced and a slight drop in solar insolation combined to slightly reduce the rate of warming during the so called hiatus. If you pick out individual model runs that by coincidence happened to better match the natural variability of those 18 years (mostly matching the pattern of La Ninas) they match the evolution of temperatures over that period pretty well.
But in the long run the effects of natural variability tend to average out to a net effect of zero and that's what climate models do, model the climate effects over the long run. That's what climate models should be judged on, their projections over the long run. Since the classical climate period as defined by the World Meteorological Organization is 30 years that would be an appropriate period for them to be judged on.
One other comment on the so called hiatus, there has not been a significant change in the temperature trend by standard statistical tests. Here is an analysis by a statistician who used several different statistical techniques to try an find a statistically significant change in temperature trends. None of them showed a significant change.
*Yes, I know that 2016 isn't over yet but January through May of 2016 have been so hot globally (around 1.15 C anomaly) that the rest of the year would have to average a temperature anomaly below 0.66 C for it not to set a new record. That's extremely unlikely.
The people speaking out against the science behind the IPCC reports are doing bad science, since the evidence is on the side of the IPCC. Bad scientists should not be funded. There is no global scientific conspiracy, and anyone familiar with scientists will realize that. There is no way to keep people from publishing papers somewhere or other. If some scientists made the earthshaking discovery that the IPCC's conclusions are wrong, and could back it up with evidence and reasoning, they couldn't be silenced, and they'd be famous.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We're not nearly at dinosaur-era CO2 levels yet. However, the Sun is significantly brighter than it was back then (and will keep getting brighter - unless we do something about it, all the water will be boiled off Earth within a billion years), so it takes less carbon dioxide to hit a given temperature.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Assuming you're using the same source khallow used, and khallow quoted it properly, we're putting about 32 billion tons of CO2 into the air each year. That's enough to raise the atmospheric content by 4 ppm. There are absorbing mechanisms, but I don't know how they're going to work. They're not doing a great job, as is shown by the current rise.
Assuming no significant loss of CO2 by other means, 4 ppm a year for 200 years is 800 ppm. Add that to the current 400 and you get 1200 ppm, So, keeping emissions what they are now for 200 years, we've got a good shot at 1000 ppm.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In a spherical economy of uniform density in a frictionless vacuum, we would see a rapid movement of capital into renewables (and, to be honest, we are). In the real world, things move more slowly.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Trees are good. However, there's matters of scale. If we're going to produce 30 billion tons of CO2 per year, we need to plant 15 million sequoias a year. Unfortunately, the things are climate-sensitive, and we don't have good growing conditions for that many.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I didn't offer a definition of anything. Obviously, you didn't read through the thread to see how many off topic and unrelated political comments there were on an article about CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And saying that discussions of atmospheric CO2 levels and ocean acidification are "Alarmism" makes you sound quite silly.
A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
Point to accurate modeling (with reasonable error bars) of cloud feedback that supports your point. (source)
A good place to start would be the IPCC report. The quick summary: cloud feedback is, indeed, the largest single source of uncertainty in the models. But that is incorporated in the error bars.
Again: the fact that we don't know everything doesn't mean that we don't know anything. The way science progresses is by increasingly more accurate models.
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... if you're interested.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Thanks for saving the planet. Have another toke!
What is as several economic analyses have indicated it costs you twice as much to wait as it does to do something about it now?
Unless, of course, that analysis is wrong. My view is that it's probably about an order of magnitude cheaper to just wait than it is to go through a hardcore climate mitigation effort right now to allegedly stabilize global mean temperature below 2 C since 1850 with most of the cost of the latter due to opportunity cost of poor economics decisions and ignoring time value. The cost of moving human civilization over the span of centuries is grossly exaggerated while the cost of restructuring humanity's energy infrastructure when there's still cheap oil and coal in the ground is understated, for example.
And if solar power gets a lot cheaper relative to the cost of petroleum in the next few decades, then we don't have to do a thing to prevent dangerous global warming.
It hasn't been debunked, 1997 - 1998 was an El Niño event, which causes increased air temperatures, 2014-2016 was also an El Niño event, which causes increased air temperatures. and It's an area of frenzied research. The warming hiatus is real, unpredicted and it's unclear if it end or continue. All you have to do is look at Google Scholar and it's 35,500 results to see it's an area of emerging research.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Of course you're betting that thousands of scientists are wrong and things won't be that bad. In a world where science has brought us most of the progress we've made that's probably a bad bet. You think scientists are in it for money or some socialist agenda but they're smart enough to know if they are purposely distorting the science for aims like that someone will eventually show that and destroy their scientific reputations. I doubt many scientists are willing to do that when they know reality can't be changed to fit some agenda (even your agenda).
Of course you're betting that thousands of scientists are wrong and things won't be that bad.
Of course not. We need to keep in mind that my views are consistent with actual evidence in climate research. For example, a very low temperature forcing of a doubling of CO2 remains consistent with the IPCC's reports.
You think scientists are in it for money or some socialist agenda but they're smart enough to know if they are purposely distorting the science for aims like that someone will eventually show that and destroy their scientific reputations.
"Eventually" is many decades.
I doubt many scientists are willing to do that when they know reality can't be changed to fit some agenda (even your agenda).
And my belief is that many scientists are that cheap. Let us keep in mind the nearest analogy, that of economics, which is one of the few fields of science which actually has similar order of magnitude stakes. There you have quite a few economists prostituting themselves to the rich and powerful.
Of course not. We need to keep in mind that my views are consistent with actual evidence in climate research. For example, a very low temperature forcing of a doubling of CO2 remains consistent with the IPCC's reports.
From the latest IPCC report:
As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely less than 1C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5C and 4.5C and very unlikely greater than 6C."
You appear to be assuming the low end of the range is most likely. That's probably a bad bet too. Even 1.5C of warming is significant.
"Eventually" is many decades.
Eventually was probably the wrong word to use. It could happen at any time if someone comes up with scientific evidence that overturns the current theory. Of course in a decade or two it will likely be obvious that they current science is mostly correct and we missed a chance to reduce the future disruption of climate by that much more.
And my belief is that many scientists are that cheap. Let us keep in mind the nearest analogy, that of economics, which is one of the few fields of science which actually has similar order of magnitude stakes. There you have quite a few economists prostituting themselves to the rich and powerful.
Your analogy is BS. Economics is dependent to a large degree on human actions which aren't always that predictable. Some economists may be prostituting themselves to the rich and powerful but I don't see that they have been successful at predicting the future. For example the austerity mavens were predicting runaway inflation due to the Fed shoveling money into the economy but it never happened.
The hard sciences are dependent on the real world which has predictable reactions. The science has to conform to the real world or it is soon found to be wanting. The basic things that climate science has predicted are coming true. The world is getting warmer, ice is melting, sea level is rising and the oceans are acidifying. All this appears to be happening at a rate that is many times the rate of any period in the past (except maybe asteroid strikes). What will happen in the future is uncertain because we don't have any good examples from the past for this kind of change. You can assume it won't be that bad but what do you base that on, some personal feelings. I'd rather listen to the scientists.
You claim that scientists can be bought but show me some climate scientist who has got filthy rich. Many of them at the top of their field make low six figure incomes but that's kind of the standard for that level of scientist. They are merely well off. Yes they get grant funding but none of that money gets turned into personal gain. Instead it is spent on doing science.
You appear to be assuming the low end of the range is most likely. That's probably a bad bet too. Even 1.5C of warming is significant.
It's dishonest to imply that such a large difference in this parameter doesn't change much. For example, if this parameter is 1.5 C per doubling instead of 3 C per doubling as claimed by the IPCC, then that's 30 years that we have just to get to the point where IPCC claims we are now (at current growth rate in CO2 emissions).
Even if we ignore that all of the predictions are similarly pushed back by many decades and that the IPCC consistently exaggerates how harmful climate change is supposed to be, that means we can grow human societies to become far more wealthy just in those three decades before adverse problems happen. For example, in the 1988-2008 period, two thirds of humanity had 30% or better improvement in net income, adjusted for inflation. This is a huge improvement in human well-being, unrivaled in human history.
We have an opportunity to end almost all global poverty. But that requires prioritizing other things over the climate. And that requires generating a realistic picture of the climate.
And my belief is that many scientists are that cheap. Let us keep in mind the nearest analogy, that of economics, which is one of the few fields of science which actually has similar order of magnitude stakes. There you have quite a few economists prostituting themselves to the rich and powerful. Your analogy is BS. Economics is dependent to a large degree on human actions which aren't always that predictable. Some economists may be prostituting themselves to the rich and powerful but I don't see that they have been successful at predicting the future. For example the austerity mavens were predicting runaway inflation due to the Fed shoveling money into the economy but it never happened.
The hard sciences are dependent on the real world which has predictable reactions. The science has to conform to the real world or it is soon found to be wanting. The basic things that climate science has predicted are coming true. The world is getting warmer, ice is melting, sea level is rising and the oceans are acidifying. All this appears to be happening at a rate that is many times the rate of any period in the past (except maybe asteroid strikes). What will happen in the future is uncertain because we don't have any good examples from the past for this kind of change. You can assume it won't be that bad but what do you base that on, some personal feelings. I'd rather listen to the scientists.
I'll just note here that a) climate research also is failing to predict the future, b) it is also based on human behavior, and c) as I noted before, has similar stakes to economics which has these same problems. There's a reason a lot of us aren't buying in.
I'll just note here that a) climate research also is failing to predict the future, ...
Or you just don't know enough to properly judge how well predictions by climate scientists are doing. (That's probably mostly because you fail to understand the time scales the scientists put on their predictions.) So far from my perspective most of the predictions are pretty good.
Or you just don't know enough to properly judge how well predictions by climate scientists are doing. (That's probably mostly because you fail to understand the time scales the scientists put on their predictions.) So far from my perspective most of the predictions are pretty good.
1) These are the same sort of rationalizations you see in economics and many other fields where people are wrong, but not so wrong that they are ignored forever.
2) The time scales are conveniently far enough out that one doesn't have to be embarrassed by being that degree of wrong.
Temperature rises have been within the 2 sigma range of temperature predictions, sea level rise has generally been greater than predicted. Maybe you can give some specific examples.
Temperature rises have been within the 2 sigma range of temperature predictions, sea level rise has generally been greater than predicted.
Temperature rise is at the low end of those "2 sigma" predictions, consistent with a lower than hyped temperature forcing from CO2.
As to sea level rise, I don't buy that it is "greater than predicted". For example, we have this prediction from James Hansen:
The studyâ"written by James Hansen, NASAâ(TM)s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fieldsâ"concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years. The study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, brings new importance to a feedback loop in the ocean near Antarctica that results in cooler freshwater from melting glaciers forcing warmer, saltier water underneath the ice sheets, speeding up the melting rate. Hansen, who is known for being alarmist and also right, acknowledges that his study implies change far beyond previous consensus estimates. In a conference call with reporters, he said he hoped the new findings would be âoesubstantially more persuasive than anything previously published.â I certainly find them to be.
Temperature rise is at the low end of those "2 sigma" predictions, consistent with a lower than hyped temperature forcing from CO2.
2015 and 2016 (once the final numbers are in) are solidly in the middle of the 2 sigma predictions. Over short time periods natural variability can overwhelm the signal of global warming but in the long run (30 years or longer) the signal of global warming wins.
As to sea level rise, I don't buy that it is "greater than predicted". For example, we have this prediction [slate.com] from James Hansen:
My perception of the Hansen paper was that it's impossible to rule out large non-linear changes in sea level rise due to ice sheet dynamics that we don't understand too well, not that it would absolutely happen. Many other scientists have made more linear predictions. The future will tell. Meanwhile sea level is rising faster than earlier linear predictions so far.
2015 and 2016 (once the final numbers are in) are solidly in the middle of the 2 sigma predictions. Over short time periods natural variability can overwhelm the signal of global warming but in the long run (30 years or longer) the signal of global warming wins.
In other words, current extreme years. There will be more years than just 2015 and 2016.
My perception of the Hansen paper was that it's impossible to rule out large non-linear changes in sea level rise due to ice sheet dynamics that we don't understand too well, not that it would absolutely happen. Many other scientists have made more linear predictions. The future will tell. Meanwhile sea level is rising faster than earlier linear predictions so far.
Anything can be true when you're ignorant. I note that sea level may be rising faster than some predictions, but not faster than other predictions.
In other words, current extreme years. There will be more years than just 2015 and 2016.
Yes, and with the PDO returning to a positive phase there's a chance we will see warming like we had in the 1980s and 1990s rather than the warming of the 2000s.
Anything can be true when you're ignorant. I note that sea level may be rising faster than some predictions, but not faster than other predictions.
James Hansen's possibility of large sea level rises is predicated on the possibility of a sudden collapse of a large area of ice, probably in the West Antarctic. The instability there is well documented. There are several places such as the Pine Island Glacier where the land drops away as you go inland where ocean water can get under the ice and undermine it. That doesn't mean it's going to happen but it's also not something you can say won't happen.
You need to take "Anything can be true when you're ignorant" and apply it to yourself.
Yes, and with the PDO returning to a positive phase there's a chance we will see warming like we had in the 1980s and 1990s rather than the warming of the 2000s.
Which will still be below those predictions, let us note.
The instability there is well documented.
It might even exist too.
That doesn't mean it's going to happen but it's also not something you can say won't happen.
This is what we call the argument from ignorance fallacy. Why does what you're ignorant of matter less than what I'm ignorant of?
All I have to say on this matter is that if there really is something that needs to be done about global warming in the near future, they will soon have actual evidence of this urgency rather than decade after decade of these games.
Here's a paper on the potential instability of several glaciers in West Antarctica: Widespread, rapid grounding line retreat of Pine Island, Thwaites, Smith, and Kohler glaciers, West Antarctica, from 1992 to 2011.
So it sounds we might have evidence for your assertions in a few decades? Fine.
All the king's horses and and all the king's men won't be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
So what? There are several levels at which your arguments don't make sense. It's not just lack of evidence to support your claimed degree of impact from climate change. It's also that objectively any given climate is a sunk cost. Putting Humpty Dumpty back together again would be just as harmful climate change as what it took to get to that point. And that ignores that current mitigation efforts to date have been remarkably ineffective at mitigating climate change while generating a considerable amount of economic harm.
You're pretty confident about your conclusions. I think scientists have a better chance of being right. Time will tell.
You're pretty confident about your conclusions. I think scientists have a better chance of being right.
Back at you. I at least allow for the possibility I am wrong.
Time will tell.
Indeed.
What I'm quite confident about is that as long as anthropogenic CO2 emissions continue to increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, temperatures will continue to rise, ice will continue to melt, sea level will continue to rise and the oceans will continue to acidify. That's just basic physics. After that it gets more murky because we don't have any good analog to look to to understand what will happen.