Slashdot Mirror
Study Links Human Actions To Specific Arctic Ice Melt (sciencemag.org)
sciencehabit writes from a report via Science Magazine: Since at least the 1960s, the shrinkage of the ice cap over the Arctic Ocean has advanced in lockstep with the amount of greenhouse gases humans have sent into the atmosphere, according to a study published this week in Science. Every additional metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) puffed into the atmosphere appears to cost the Arctic another 3 square meters of summer sea ice -- a simple and direct observational link that has been sitting under scientists' noses. If current emission trends hold, the study suggests the Arctic will be ice free by 2045 -- far sooner than some climate models predict. The study suggests that those models are underestimating how warm the Arctic has already become and how fast that melting will proceed. And it gives the public and policymakers a concrete illustration of the consequences of burning fossil fuels. For instance, a U.S. family of four would claim nearly 200 square meters of sea ice, based on U.S. emissions in 2013. Over 3 decades, that family would be responsible for destroying more than an American football field's worth of ice.
The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs - with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.
Any time period the warmunists want to "prove" there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter - now they have the perfect example - the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming) that destroyed the Jurassic... Wait, no, it didn't, it was the best time for life on earth with 1950 ppm atmospheric CO2!
Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.
Another Cult of the Church of Climatology propaganda piece with High Priest Al Goreleone's nod of approval.
The problem with the Titanic is that it failed because of an engineering failure. Something didn't work as planned. Reactors such as pebble bed reactors and molten salt reactors do what they do because of the laws of physics (vs the laws of engineering where everything gets screwed up if a valve breaks.). For example, with both pebble bed and molten salt reactors, they have run tests where they have turned off all coolant. Yea, they get hot but they self modulate because of how they are designed. For them to not work would require the laws of physics to stop working as well. To dive further into the example, pebble bed reactors are basically a giant tub of balls. Each ball has a specific amount of nuclear material in the center and are surrounded by an outside shell. As the reactor runs, they get hot as you'd expect. However, as the balls heat up, they also expand and when they expand, they push the neighboring balls away which slows the reaction. For pebble bed reactors to overheat, the laws of physics that cause hot items to expand would have to cease working. Molten salt reactors work a bit differently though not that much differently.
I like solar. It is great. I'm considering installing it on my house. It just doesn't have the energy density needed to drive modern societies. How many solar panels will it take to power a steel mill? The solar projects in the Nevada desert have been a failure by and large and are more a kickback for Harry Reid than anything else. Wind it cool too. Not many places where you can install it. My brother works for the company that fixes windmills. He says they are far from environmental and are frequently abandoned as soon as the federal funding runs out. The fiberglass blades need to be constantly repaired and then replaced while the old ones go to the landfill as there isn't any way to recycle fiberglass. They leak oil like a sieve and the gearing breaks down due to the immense torque needed to ramp up the RPMs. (They gear up the RPMs from approximately 6 RPM to 1,000 RPM to get the generators to work.) I'm all for alternative sources of power. In fact, I think that most new houses should have passive solar as a matter of course. I've always been puzzled why people don't do this as it is basically free power / lower energy bills. Even so, nuclear is the only power source that can power a modern society.
It's not that Koch pays so well, it's that Soros is overextended with the election.
So which model is the accurate one?
You don't understand how modelling works.
As a professional statistician, I say: "Right back at you".
Models make assumptions. They contain errors, which is to say, variance (Some climate scientists deny their models have 'errors' - ignore these). Thus, the models have what is frequently called a confidence interval, or margin of error.
As long as you made the correct assumptions, and those assumptions hold true for the entire predictive interval, then the predicted confidence interval is likely to contain the true value (dependent on the alpha chosen).
But the assumptions made by most predictive climate scientists aren't justified. They aren't verified, and frequently are proved incorrect in just a few years. Take the ever-changing value over the CO2 forcing value. Is it 1.1 W/m^2? Is it 8.5 W/m^2?
Many times, scientists manipulate data to make it easier to work with - rounding, eliminating outliers, ignoring measurement or proxy model errors, smoothing or averaging the data, even applying data from one location to other places hundreds or thousands of miles away. This violates your assumptions, and reduces the accuracy of your models.
In addition, some of the most famous predictions are based on pure bunk 'science' - such as producing a data set with mean and variance from just one observation.
Each model needs to have the methodology clearly explained, the data made available for everyone to access, and any supposed conclusions need to include accurate error bounds. If a released report doesn't include these, it isn't science - its PR.