Slashdot Mirror
'Extreme and Unusual' Climate Trends Continue After Record 2016 (bbc.com)
From a report on BBC: In the atmosphere, the seas and around the poles, climate change is reaching disturbing new levels across the Earth. That's according to a detailed global analysis from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It says that 2016 was not only the warmest year on record, but it saw atmospheric CO2 rise to a new high, while Arctic sea ice recorded a new winter low. The "extreme and unusual" conditions have continued in 2017, it says. Reports earlier this year from major scientific bodies - including the UK's Met Office, Nasa and NOAA -- indicated that 2016 was the warmest year on record. The WMO's State of the Global Climate 2016 report builds on this research with information from 80 national weather services to provide a deeper and more complete picture of the year's climate data.
When you visit 99 doctors who say you have cancer and one who says your lump is natural, and besides you just don't believe in medical science be cause religion/ideology/economics... whatever. That's pretty much the situation were in with climate science and climate change deniers. WAKE UP! Start treatment!
Until they can show peer reviewed research showing climate change, I'm not believing it.
It's a Chinese hoax.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If it's happening more often then it's not unusual any more, and it's not extreme either - it's just normal.
Get in your Hummers and drive, folks. It'll be awesome.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
but what aboot Pingu ? does no-one care about Penguins??
I think they're more concerned with Pengwings.
So are mass extinctions.
For the flood of angry invective from the guys living in their Mom's basement who all know better than the scientists with PhDs.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicen...
And I have a really good feeling that this will be the year that humanity finally gains the upper hand in our millennial struggle against the Arctic ice cap. Once the ice cap melts completely, even temporally, it will shift the equilibrium of seasonal oscillations. Every winter it will freeze a little less; every summer it will thaw a little sooner. Until our final victory is inevitable. Congratulations everyone. And keep up the good work.
All that matters is short term success. Fuck the future, fuck the brown people, fuck everything but the next six minutes.
We're dealing with a generation of navel-gazing halfwits whose entire life can be described in 140 characters. And of course, because any aspect of US monitoring of climate is going to be defunded, for the next five to ten years the virginal unwashed basement dwellers and all the angry Rust Belters can continue to pretend that a lack of solid action on CO2 emissions isn't going to cause any problems whatsoever.
Well, at least the Kochs will keep making money, and after all, that's all that really counts.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Are Parker and Stone even contesting AGW anymore?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
True... Earth has been warmer and cooler before today....
But not at the same time.
You slew not just one straw man but a whole field of them. Bravo!
He got so much straw because it is warmer there now. And the grass died and dried out.
This thread started with a guy saying "Well its warm where I am so its all good" and this is the post you complain about?
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
OH fucking bullshit. No, the skeptics aren't just asking for evidence, they spend pretty much the entirety of any diatribe attacking scientists, denying evidence, and promoting completely ludicrous an unscientific claims.
CO2 has been known to have the properties it does for over one hundred fucking years. There is absolutely nothing fucking controversial about increasing PPM of CO2 leading to increased trapping of energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere and surface of the planet.
And you're right, I have a particularly loathing for anyone, either out of ignorance or malice, who attacks science. Such people are vile.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
But on a human scale, this is a long term effect: things will change slowly. If this keeps up for a century, the world of the 2100s may be very different from the world we see now. But that's a century away.
On a geological scale that is quite fast, but that's not the scales humans deal with. We're not doomed (or, at least, no more doomed now than we ever were.
If it keeps happening for a few years in a row, THEN one might be able to start making that argumen
The last 16 years have all ended up in the top-17 of hottest years. That good enough for you ?
Yes, it's been warmer and cooler than this before but the rate and scale of change is unprecedented:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
Here is my Climate Theory.
It will get warmer.
It will get cooler.
Repeat.
It is irrefutable!
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Which has what to do with what? Scientists say "If we don't cut back significantly on CO2 emissions, we're going to be crossing some pretty important red lines."
Options are offered by various economists, and each and every one is in turned attacked. Yes, there are fruitcakes out there, but so what? The fact remains that if we do not end the fossil fuel economy soon, we're going to fuck things up badly. Enough to kill off humanity? Well no, but it will effect people in vulnerable areas or in poorer countries bad, and will eat into the economies of wealthier countries.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That's true. The problem is climate is a complicated system, and nobody knows how dominant that effect is, or even if it's dominant. Comparing predictive results of climate models to actual measurements shouldn't give anybody the warm fuzzies that climate scientists have any idea what's going on.
lol you are currently enjoying Mr Obama's stock market, wait about 6 months for trump's to kick in
They're just gonna hitch up their Hummer to that goalpost and move it again, because that's easier than taking the lifestyle hit that change would require.
Humans only live ~80 years anyway, and most people talking about this (and with money to do something about it) will be in their late 30s at least. None of them will really see significant change in the remainder of their life, so it's not real to them. Hell, most of them don't even plan for the next decade.
Because that's not what they're asking for. Even your "unmodified data" statement demonstrates that you're just aping a talking point.
I will fucking repeat, because you appear to be either a fucking moron or out and out malicious. The radiation absorption properties of CO2 have been known for over a century. There is ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING, let me repeat that, because you appear to be a fucking idiot, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOT ONE FUCKING THING controversial about increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gas amounts in the atmosphere that will lead to increase trapping of energy,
For fuck's sake, the Arctic was some thirty degrees above normal seasonal temperatures for most of this winter. Most of the last twenty years have been the hottest on record. Increased absorption of CO2 in the world's oceans is changing ocean pH levels. Do you think making spurious demands based largely on bullshit you read on denier sites somehow overrides the laws of physics? Are you really that fucking stupid? Were you dropped on your head as a child?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Climate != Weather.... Weather != Climate.... Just because it's warmer today or this year, doesn't mean the climate is doing the same thing. If it keeps happening for a few years in a row, THEN one might be able to start making that argument
Correct. One warm year is weather. Two warm years is happenstance. A series of warm years, globally averaged, though, and you start thinking it's climate. A series of warm years is what has been happening.
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/august-2016-global-temperature-record
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/jan/23/were-now-breaking-global-temperature-records-once-every-three-years
https://www.ft.com/content/9962f3c0-dda2-11e6-86ac-f253db7791c6
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def...
The problem is climate is a complicated system, and nobody knows how dominant that effect is, or even if it's dominant.
Name one other factor in climate change that's even close to CO2.
Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.
How many red lines have we crossed? More than Obama drew, and that's quite a few.
But there always seems to be some Envirowackos standing there saying, "THIS is the final red line. Cross this and we are DOOMED!"
You people are like the Doomsday cults who keep pushing back the end of the world when it doesn't happen.
What a foul crock of denialist horseshit you just spewed. Shame on you.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
No, we're not solving climate change, we're just going to cut funding to the people telling us about it more and more until they stop telling us about it. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Sarcasm is invisible on the internet, because the background of cluelessness camouflages it. You should know that by now.
This is the 2nd winter in a row with less than average snow and higher than average temps. I certainly don't mind.
The best part is that it extends boating season by a month, another month when I get to run twin 350s and burn 20 gallons an hour!
If I can keep it up I may be able to warm it up to get another month!
You slew not just one straw man but a whole field of them. Bravo!
To be fair, you can hardly string a coherent sentence together without knocking two or three of you scarecrows off your feet.
Honestly, I've never seen such outright hatred displayed by the skeptics.
Yes, I've never before seen such outright hatred as that displayed by the "skeptics", either. It's pretty frightening. But the thing of it is, they're not skeptics: they claim that they're skeptics, but this is a peculiar one-sided "skepticism": no matter how much evidence you show them that the scientists know what they're doing, or how patiently you answer their arguments, they ignore it, but even the most absurd attacks on the science they jump on and believe absolutely, saying "look! It's all a hoax! It's a fraud! Lock them up!"
They're usually just asking for evidence and unmodified data, like good scientists strive to do.
That would be science. But when they then don't pay the slightest attention to the reply-- because they're trying to spread doubt, not actually asking for answers-- that's not skepticism: that's denial.
How many red lines have we crossed? More than Obama drew, and that's quite a few. But there always seems to be some Envirowackos standing there saying, "THIS is the final red line. Cross this and we are DOOMED!"
We're not doomed. The anthropogenic component of the greenhouse effect is warming the world slowly. This is real, and the science is getting to be well understood, but quit saying we're "doomed". We're not "doomed."
Give me a citation to one of these purported "red lines" that you are talking about, specifically what the line was, what the predicted consequences of crossing it was, and when the predicted consequences would occur.
one - drop the racism, its off topic and makes you look pathetic
two, even if the US stops funding something others are not banned from funding it are they? Let those who believe put their money where their mouth is.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Source Not sure if source is valid, but numbers are close to what I have seen before.
Equal to CO2? No
Methane 25x
N2O 298x
Yes, but that's the effect per unit mass emitted. The effect on climate change will be the warming potential multiplied by the amount emitted, and in that respect, carbon dioxide-- from fuel burned in billion ton quantities-- is the clear leader. Amounts emitted are there a different tab on the site you linked as your source: https://climatechangeconnectio...
Or, look here: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissio...
But you can't tax cows,
Sure you could.
and farmers are a big lobby for Congress, so you ignore the methane. If you really cared you would be working on methane more than CO2.
methane emissions are also important, and people looking at responses to greenhouse emissions do, in fact, also look at how to reduce methane emissions.
The fact that you go after CO2 gives away your political agenda and shows that you don't really care about the science.
No it doesn't. It shows that people are looking most closely at the largest effect.
In fact I bet you didn't even know about methane. Gotta wonder when a "denier" knows more about the science than you do. According to you all I haven't ever looked at the science even half as much as you, but here I am giving facts you didn't know about.
Wrong on all counts. If you would actually read some of the literature, you'd see methane discussed in great detail. Including in the sites you list.
One. Gets warmer
Two. Too hot to think
Three. Elect global-warming-denier-leader
Four. Cancel science and science-based regulation
Five. Unshackle and incentivize fossil-fuel industry and consumption
Six. Goto One.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
There are alternative hypothesis if you wanted to search for it (solar cycles, plate tectonics/volcanoes, cosmoclimatology, etc.).
Indeed there are. And these have all been examined in great depth, and shown to not explain the data.
Read the literature. Or if you don't want to read the literature, read a popular summary. This one, maybe: www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
Apt
You do know that all of the adjustments to data are documented, and the source code is public, right? https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
You do know that all of the previous data is still archived, and you can look at it, right? https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
You do know that the much-vaunted changes are small, and make no difference to the ultimate conclusion, right? http://berkeleyearth.org/under...
You do know that many different groups have looked at the data independently and gotten the same result, right? https://www.skepticalscience.c...
the people throwing out insults are the ones out of ammo. always a sure sign that one has lost is when they start going ad hom
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
if i had mod points you would have them
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Last year, everyone talking about the seven year long drought in California. This was due to global warming. Now with even more global warming, California has dams at record levels and one of the largest snow packs on record.
Just because a giant storm system finally hit the upper-west coast doesn't discount global warming. The drought is still in effect for the bottom half of California:
http://www.kcra.com/article/50...
Your argument is invalid.
Sure it might be nice when your winter is 37 instead of 27, but its gonna suck when summer is 107 instead of 97.
Of course the local temperature in the particular few square miles you care about is pretty much entirely irrelevant to these discussions anyway.
Artic sea ice is not all sea ice. Antarctic ice was increasing last I checked
Yes, it is. At approximately 1 tenth the rate of ice loss in the arctic, by volume.
OH fucking bullshit. No, the skeptics aren't just asking for evidence, they spend pretty much the entirety of any diatribe attacking scientists, denying evidence, and promoting completely ludicrous an unscientific claims.
CO2 has been known to have the properties it does for over one hundred fucking years. There is absolutely nothing fucking controversial about increasing PPM of CO2 leading to increased trapping of energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere and surface of the planet.
And you're right, I have a particularly loathing for anyone, either out of ignorance or malice, who attacks science. Such people are vile.
Are you finished? Do you feel better? All I see is irrational histrionics and name calling. You are not making your case very well.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
two, even if the US stops funding something others are not banned from funding it are they? Let those who believe put their money where their mouth is.
No, but lets not allow politicians who refuse to take scientific experts seriously --mostly because they receive donations from oil companies that lobby to them -- remove us from the front line of Global Warming research. The various branches of the US military, along with NASA (you know.. the people smart enough to send rockets and satellites to the moon and other planets..), undoubtedly believe that Global Warming is real, and that's because their scientists have found the evidence showing it's real.
Taking us out of Global Warming research would severely cripple the effectiveness of said research.
The Salem Hypothesis neatly describes the sort of delusional belief that many engineering types have in their own abilities, and confusing engineering with science. Not that some engineers can't be scientists, but it's not something that just automatically comes with the qualification. The Salem Hypothesis original applied only to Creationism, but seeing as how much of the anti-science rhetoric first developed by Creationists is basically being recycled for the AGW pseudo-skeptic movement, I think it's fair to extend the hypothesis to most engineering types who somehow assume that they have some special insight into fairly complex and specific areas of science.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You forgot:
- Loss of approx. 50% of all living species substantially over next few hundred years.
- Ocean acidification and loss of shellfish and reefs.
- Movement of Earth's desert zones by 5 or 10 degrees in latitude due to expanded thermal energy and size of the north and south hemispheric atmosphere cycles by which hot equatorial air rises, dries out in upper atmosphere, moves north (or south respectively) then moves down to dry out the land below at a certain latitude range.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
On a related note, you scumbag shills have gotten lazy; you don't bother with multiple user accounts as much as you used to.
I don't give a crap if you take me seriously. I consider you on the same level as a Creationist or an anti-vaxxer. You're just an idiot who is too infantile and too cowardly and too ideologically driven to see that the laws of physics don't give a fuck about ideology. CO2's properties are not bounded by what you would like CO2 to do when concentrations increase. The laws of physics make it inevitable that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, there is an unavoidable increase in solar radiation being trapped. That's just the way the Universe works, so the fact that it's going to mean either accepting significant climactic changes or changes in the way we produce energy is irrelevant to said laws of physics. The Universe doesn't care that you're upset about greenhouse gas effects. How you feel is irrelevant, and just as irrelevant are vain attempts to create faux critiques of physical laws.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Here is my Climate Theory.
It will get warmer. It will get cooler. Repeat.
It is irrefutable!
In the grand scheme of things, it will get warmer, a lot warmer, then it will get cooler, a whole lot cooler, and then it will slowly dwindle away.
Timeframe? Roughly 10^99 years with the warm blip at the very beginning.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
OH fucking bullshit. No, the skeptics aren't just asking for evidence, they spend pretty much the entirety of any diatribe attacking scientists, denying evidence, and promoting completely ludicrous an unscientific claims
I'm sorry, that just is not true. The people who claim to be skeptics, on the other hand...
Something that determines how much water you'll get, and when you can plant crops should not be taken lightly.
Because, of course, the effects of AGW will touch you in no way. Clearly, being an AC in a wealthy developed nation makes you immune to physics.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Others make the case better. I'm just here to call out pseudo-skeptics for what they are; liars and morons. Do you think, say, anti-vaxxers, Creationists and the whole "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" crowd deserve some sort of continued decent respect. At some point, people who make false and absurd claims should simply be treated like the intellectual midgets they really are.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Antarctic sea is is NOT increasing. Every single person that says this has no fucking idea what they are talking about. Much like the rest of the world Antarctica has winters and summers and ice increases in the winter and decreases in the summer. The winter limits of Antarctic sea ice (ice floating on the ocean which contributes nothing to sea level in either melted or frozen state) are increasing and the summer limits are ever smaller every year with some of the largest calving off of major floating glaciers ever seen in recorded history. In fact we're on the verge of losing an ice shelf that's as big as Rhode island that's been there for 4000 years.
Winter sea ice is increasing because the increased melt water coming off Antarctica has decreased local salinity making it easier for it to freeze. The large winter ice limits are in fact an indication in SUPPORT of global climate change. 99% of people that quote this winter ice limit think it's contradictory evidence to global climate change and they are so misinformed they think they are making some sort of point. The reality is they are actually showing evidence that support it.
This is what scientists deal with, ignorant people with out even the most basic understanding of any of the science let along scientific basics quoting things they heard on talk radio as if it's proof and a valid point of discussion.
I swear I see this argument every time: "There are extremists shouting DOOM! so that invalidates the scientists presenting measured arguments." It's a poor argument.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Enough to kill off humanity? Well no
Well yes, actually. Killing the oceans and the pollinators will kill off humanity.
I know global warming is true because Trump says it's not. Everything that piece of shit says is a lie, so I just believe the opposite of whatever he says.
I have a particularly loathing for anyone who hasn't learned grammar
How's that working out for you?
The problem with ".less than average snow" is that you have less snowpack. Snow is needed to melt in the summer to resupply water for drinking and fire fighting. With less snow, you're going to have really nasty problems this summer.
you sir, are brilliant.
You're wasting your time. It might be sincerely stupid or proudly ignorant or paid to fake it, but that doesn't matter. Actually, it might matter in the third case if it gets bonus payments for replies such as yours.
My working hypothesis is that the mechanized propaganda efforts are working. I believe the Russians are the leaders, but I'm not sure why they would care so much on this issue. Even if the risk of detection is low, the possible benefits seems too far away to justify the effort. Yeah, tropical Siberia would be great for them, but it might not work out that way (unless they are also leading in climate modeling). In contrast, the extractionists certainly have short-term concerns that could justify their propaganda investments, even if they aren't as good at it as the Russians are.
I recommend This Changes Everything on the general climate change topic, thought it's flawed in some ways. On the cyber-warfare topic, I'm just about to start The Shadow Factory . I read Cyber War back in 2015, and it was rather disturbing, especially regarding the Chinese capabilities on both offense and defense, but I think the Chinese are quite worried about climate change.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Of course. That's what WP:NPOV is all about.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Did you know you are a little behind the times. CO2 is no longer the big threat (yes, man made global warming is real), methane has become an extreme threat due to global warming. No longer just melting permafrost from Russia to Greenland but the Arctic sea itself http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci....
Peaks in weather reflect changes over time as the ocean absorb heat and warmer seas impact weather.
Now the interesting period starts, where peak weather events, can now become extremely dangerous. A extreme high temperature weather event can trigger a mass release of methane, which will feed into that event hugely exacerbating it. Will it occur and when will it occur, have fun with dice because it is a far more complex event than simple climate modelling, in comparison.
How bad could it be, how about a decades worth of melting in a season due to the location and the impact of methane on heat retention. That weather event could trigger a climate event that could last quite a few years, and a century of sea level rise could occur in those years. Cheer up, after the even is over the methane would start breaking down and the planet would start cooling due to ocean absorption of heat and mass cloud formation, reflecting sunlight. Of course reasons to celebrate might be a bit muted with coastal areas under more than a metre of sea water (that metre could well be a huge low ball guess). Time to panic, well I would genuinely recommend not investing in likely underwater properties. So places in the world in far more danger than others. For the US retiring in Florida right now would be a pretty stupid idea.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I would say that predictions matching later measurements is a pretty good sign that the climate scientists are on to something.
They are not skeptics, they're deniers. Skeptics can change their mind once presented evidence. Deniers refuse to acknowledge evidence as meaningful.
That is naturally infuriating to someone who hasn't yet caught on to their game and written them off.
Further, it's hardly surprising to see wild swings in a feedback system destabilized by a large input of energy.
What we do know is that Saudi Arabia is spinning off the largest sovereign wealth fund in history. The Saudis know full well that petroleum's reckoning is coming soon, so they're making what they can of it while they can. Like I say elsewhere, in a hundred years I bet large swathes of the Arabian desert will be salt reactors and solar collector arrays. I'll wager they have every intention of being energy titans, whether that be in the form of fossil fuels or solar.
And really, who the hell would want to invest in oil right now? It's clear that OPEC has lost any power to manipulate the price. Every time it looks like supply is going to be restricted, boom the price gets knocked again. Up here in Canada we're watching investment in the oil sands fall simply because production costs are so high, and oil prices so low, that there's little point to even bothering. Shell has sold off 1.3 billion dollars in assets in Canada, so when the big guys begin to act like the end game is coming, you know it isn't far off.
Of course, for the petroeconomies this is a disaster. Whether it's the extreme case like Venezuela, or the more moderate economic contractions of Alberta or North Dakota, a lot of jurisdictions who have basically lived off the oil teat are facing long-term woes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No, deserts heat up and expand, and you have hundreds of millions of people trying to move into your back yard, meaning you have to pay a fuck ton more in taxes to support border patrols, armies, all the while you're facing food and water supply problems because your bread basket regions suddenly are less productive, and you become more reliant on foreign sources of agriculture. Meanwhile many other costs, like insurance, start skyrocketing, or many climate-related problems simply aren't covered. Oh yes, and as mentioned elsewhere collapse of many major fisheries, which will lead to huge pressures on coastal populations in many parts of the world where those fisheries are a significant, if not primary source of protein.
Will it happen in your lifetime? If you're under thirty, very likely yes. I'm in my mid-40s, so hopefully I'll miss some of the nastier effects. My kids and grandchldren won't, sadly. But the West is pretty wealthy, so doubtless will pull through relatively alright, though tens of millions of refugees fleeing regions far more vulnerable and far less economically capable of weathering the worst of it, will start showing up, as I mention above, and the costs of keeping them out or integrating them will be huge. Some areas will simply become unlivable by even the hardier animals, and people have this habit of not just sitting down and dying when survival where they are becomes impossible.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Indeed. My son-in-law's best friend fights wildfires, and he's expecting a bumper summer, because despite lots of snow in Coastal British Columbia, interior regions have had far less snow, which means there's a high expectation that this is going to be a very bad year for forest fires. The costs of those fires are monumental, and many of those costs are spread fire and wide by insurance companies who will need to jack up premiums across the entire pool to make up for the costs. Insurance rates are literally the canary in the coal mine here, and actuaries have been factoring the numerous effects of climate change for some time now.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Hey, I live in the cold parts of the world, but in the future when I'm 80 y/o I would like to be able to have something else than soylent green for dinner every night.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
If we could get people to agree on some very basic facts then catastrophic anthropogenic global warming would no longer be a threat.
Of all the energy sources we have available to us right now only one of them is inexpensive, does not rely on favorable geography, reliable, carbon free, and is plentiful. That is nuclear power. It's not without it's problems but if CAGW is a real threat then any problems with nuclear power should pale in comparison. We know how to deal with nuclear waste. We have plenty of nuclear fuel. To those people that think nuclear weapons are a threat I must ask, what do you propose we do with the weapons we already have? Would not destroying the fissile material be preferable to keeping them under guard forever? The only way we have to destroy fissile material is in a nuclear reactor. It not like we haven't turned nuclear weapons into electricity before, the term "megatons to megawatts" should be familiar to some reading this.
Nuclear reactors alone won't solve the problem since we cannot power automobiles and aircraft with nuclear reactors, we need a fuel like we get from petroleum for that. Good thing the US Navy solved that problem. They have a device capable of extracting CO2 from the environment and turning that into hydrocarbons. This is a fuel that is a direct replacement for fuels derived from petroleum and natural gas. All powered by nuclear reactors, of course. This synthetic fuel, when burned, will release the CO2 back into the air which can then be recaptured by the fuel synthesis devices, closing the carbon cycle. No additional CO2 would be added to the environment. If carbon sequestration is something people want then we can take these hydrocarbons and pump them back into the ground.
This gets to why I don't believe that CAGW is a real threat. There are people in Congress that know the US Navy has built these hydrocarbon synthesis devices. These people also know that the US Navy has an impeccable record operating nuclear reactors. When the US Navy went to Congress asking for more nuclear powered ships, and additional funding for their fuel synthesis research, it was denied. The cries for something to be done about CAGW largely comes from the Democrats. The denial for more nuclear powered Navy ships, and more civilian nuclear reactors, largely comes from the Democrats.
We know what the problem is. We know where to find the solution to the problem. Why haven't we solved the problem already? Democrats.
If there are Democrats wondering why they got an ass kicking in the last election then I propose they look at their policies on how to deal with CAGW. If Democrats want to start winning elections again then I propose they look at making some small compromises on how they deal with nuclear power. To keep up with the rate at which we are retiring coal fired power plants, and account for future growth in energy needs, then we need a new gigawatt scale nuclear reactor in the US every month. If Democrats are not willing to allow that to happen then I propose they start to get used to losing elections.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
We're getting too far from Mars... Therefore I think that all I want to say is that I doubt the Saudis will use their sovereign fund is such wise and benevolent ways. I think the ruling family will just take the money and run, perhaps to Denmark where I think their sovereign wealth fund will be invested well. The extractionists are already committed to releasing way too much carbon and the end game doesn't matter if you are only thinking about dying with the most toys.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
But there always seems to be some Envirowackos standing there saying, "THIS is the final red line. Cross this and we are DOOMED!"
The trouble with points of no return, is that generally nothing of note happens when you pass it. It's half a mile down the track, where the bridge is out, that the train plunges into the gorge. For that half mile, the engineers who scoffed at the warning sign can mock and laugh at the engineer who was outvoted on pulling the brake, but then they all crash and burn. Or, in other words, you're ignoring the long tail. The effects of what's done today will be felt decades down the line. The big problem environmentalists have is that when their predictions actually are completely right, people like you still call them things like "envirowackos" and ignore or deny away the problem. In the real world, the bees are dying, the water table in many agricultural regions has been spoiled for water collection for the next thousand years at least, mercury levels in fish are unsafe, meat hunted in the wild in large parts of Europe that were downwind of Chernobyl still has to be checked for radioactivity before consumption, half the bloody fish are gone and their numbers are still decreasing, the mercury levels in the ones that are left are getting unsafe, the oceans are acidifying, the great barrier reef is dying, the Gulf of Mexico is still basically poisoned, sea levels are really rising and promise to rise more, global climate change is really happening, the dead sea is drying up, Lake Chad and the Aral sea and others are now effectively gone and are now just wastelands, the Sahara and many other deserts are expanding, etc. etc. The reality is that we're accumulating nicks and cuts and deep gouges to the environment far faster than they can remedy themselves while our population and industry is still growing. There's a point where we just can't go any further.
it will effect people in vulnerable areas or in poorer countries bad
I don't think it will be as mild as you put it to be. I think it'll mean basically the end of society as we know it and we will most likely have the biggest wars we've ever had. A simple - but rather harsh - drought in Syria brought us ISIS and arguably brexit and Trump all in one swipe.
12k years ago, England was under 3 to 6 meters of solid ice. The temperature was just 5 degrees C below the average temp in the 80s. That's not a mild change that will affect people in vulnerable areas. That's fucking apocalypse. And that's a 5 degrees change in temp.
We're pretty much "en route" for a +2 degree change if we divide by three all of our emissions by 2100. Which will not happen, let's be realistic. We're not talking 20% reduction here, but 70%. So we're most likely en route for a much bigger change. This will disrupt all life as we know it on earth.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Well yes, actually.
No, I doubt it. I mean I don't think we'd last quite as long as the cockroaches, but humans are up there with rats as "hard to kill". The species as a whole surviving and 7 billion people living (many in good conditions) are quite different things.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Why do you keep resorting to these angry attacks and outbursts full of swearing and insults?
Any moron who can draw a line will instantly realise that the outcome of your behaviour is that increasingly larger proportions of people will get increasingly angry at you. It's self evident that your sudden denial of 150 year old science needs solid data to be believable, and 20 years after we started asking you politely to explain your assertion that increasing the concentration of CO2 in the troposphere will not lead to changes in the levels of stored energy in the atmosphere, and evidence that explanation with observations, you still haven't done so. Did you lose that data? Or: are you just lying? What did you think would happen once people realised that you were lying about this? Draw the line. Is the forecast good? Does this end well for you, and the other liars like you?
The skeptics don't do that. They civily ask for unmodified data and evidence so that they may apply the scientific method.
Nobody owes you an explanation, you drooling imbecile. YOU owe US an explanation. Why are you claiming that CO2 induced climate change does not exist, and failing to produce any observational data to that effect?
True. But back then there wasn't a few billion homo sapiens trying to survive on it.
But hey, the planet will survive. And it's better off without that parasite, too.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Calling assholes assholes does not invalidate arguments. Ignoring everything else said in favour of pointing out ad hominems is some bullshit tone policing.
And of course, because any aspect of US monitoring of climate is going to be defunded, for the next five to ten years the virginal unwashed basement dwellers and all the angry Rust Belters can continue to pretend that a lack of solid action on CO2 emissions isn't going to cause any problems whatsoever.
That might hold water if it wasn't for the fact that both China and India are increasing CO2 emissions while the rest of the world is decreasing their's. If the United States had Zero Emissions it would make no difference on a Global Scale.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
No Real Scientist uses the term "law" any more; even Newton's "Laws" of Motion only yield correct solutions under limited conditions.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
FYI, Iceberg calving is caused by growing ice/glaciers.
Water Vapor.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Give me a citation to one of these purported "red lines" that you are talking about, specifically what the line was, what the predicted consequences of crossing it was, and when the predicted consequences would occur.
400PPM is the most recent one that passed
Precisely what was predicted to happen when 400 was passed? Citation needed.
400 ppm is clearly a number that was picked because it is a multiple of 100. It's milestone, not an example of "this is a final red line. Cross this and we are DOOMED".
Ok angry Martian man, I'll bite. What is the total direct atmospheric increase in temperature caused by a doubling of CO2 concentration? Please show me the science experiment and math that calculates this value. I want to see the actual science that you keep spouting off about. Don't show me the IPCC reports, or the outputs from climate simulations.
Seriously, using The Union of Concerned Scientists as a reference isn't going to advance your point with your targeted audience.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
But this is not the science we're talking about when we say there's scientific consensus about the greenhouse effect.
Runaway effects like melting perma frost, CH4 release and other stuff, that is exactly the science we are talking about. Hence we have no real clue and no way to estimate if we might experience a dramatical effect/result/disaster in 10 or 30 years.
If everything proceeds like it does now, it might take 100 years till mankind is in trouble, however one thing is certain: not everything will proceed like now.
If your main point here is "there may be even worst effects that we don't yet fully understand, and some of these effects could be triggered on short time scales," I won't disagree with that.
but its gonna suck when summer is 107 instead of 97.
Cool, too hot to fuck, population crisis averted, Malthus bitch slapped again!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I live in Montreal. We used to sky in the winter within the city. It has not been possible in recent years. We are now having a winter season that is two months shorter than when I was born some 70 years ago. Two months less winter, one month extra summer and the other month shared between spring and fall.
I am in Canada, so we are benefiting from global warming. The USA north-south mid-country is not. You are having tornadoes the likes of which you have not seen before. Ditto for flooding and for hurricanes. Nah, its just imagination that one year is worse than the year before.
Enjoy the doubling of your foodbill for agricultural products (grains, fruit, cattle). Look at your living in A/C home, since you will find it too hot to remain outside in mid-summer.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
The science is pretty solid: the average temperature of the world is getting warmer, we know what it causing it, and there will be effects, some of which will be negative.
Meh. Blowing away mod points for this but statements like this is what keeps keeps the deniers in business. No. We do NOT know what is causing it.
Well, except that you're wrong. We do know what is causing the temperature rise. We know this for multiple reasons, not the least of which is by analyzing and ruling out alternate causes based on data. There are no proposed alternate explanations that fit the data. None. This is the way science is done: a hypothesis is accepted when you can rule out the competing hypotheses based on evidence. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere fits the data. No other hypothesis does.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html
To fit just one of the many many data sets, the measured global temperature data (and you do know that heating has to fit data such as diurnal variations and measured downwelling infrared, not just global temperature, right?), let me remind you of the constraints a hypothetical alternate hypothesis would have to fit:
(1) It would have to explain why the greenhouse gasses are not heating the atmosphere,
(2) It would have to propose a different mechanism to explain the measured temperature rise that just coincidentally fits the models
(3) It would have to come up with an explanation for why the amplifier required in step (2) does not apply to the greenhouse effect.
*footnote 1: and the measured temperature rise fits the model very well. The denier community repeatedly claims it does not, but this denial is done by cherry picking of either the data or the models.
*footnote 2: item 2 will require an amplification mechanism, because we measure the input to the climate (solar energy, etc.) and know that the unamplified input can't explain the rise.
Many people have been looking for such an alternate hypothesis for several decades now. None have been found that haven't been quickly ruled out be measurements.
If we did, we could model it accurately.
No, if you mean "if we knew what caused it the error bars on the prediction would be zero," that's an assertion going one step too far. You can know the cause of something and nevertheless still have error bars on predictions. The remainder of your post is accurate:
What we do know for certain is that CO2 keeps heat trapped in the atmosphere. We are adding LOTS of CO2 to the atmosphere. The atmosphere is part of a chaotic and finely balanced system. CO2 is adding heat to that system (so we do actually know some of what is causing the heating). In summary: We know that we are altering a system and by how much. We are unsure of other factors, some are even still unknown (how does the ocean absorb heat, distribute it, and eventually release it). Regardless of the unknowns, the facts that we do know indicate that our current practices are affecting the heat status of the planet.
Is heating of the planet a problem? That is not for Science to say. Science deals with facts and theory, not judgements. My personal opinion in all of this is that we need to be concerned about our "waste" products to ensure that the planet (the only place we can currently live) remains a livable location.
Killing the oceans? Maybe you should take a Geology 101 course. If anything, a slightly warmer climate will result in life thriving. It's already been proven from satellite readings that increased CO2 is resulting in increased vegetation cover. The oceans will likewise benefit from an increase in CO2. CO2 is a necessity for plant life, and plant life is a necessity for the multitude of creatures on this planet.
Fossil Fuel isn't running out in your or your children's lifetime. There's now enough proven reserves of oil and gas to keep us going for 50+ years. That doesn't include any new finds in 2016 or 2017, of which there were several significant large finds. Technology will also continue to improve, increasing our ability to find new reserves and extract reserves from previously uneconomical formations. There's also over 100 years worth known reserves of coal. There's also enough Uranium to power the world for a thousand years if the fossil fuels actually do look like they're getting close to end of life.
Looks like somebody "triggered" the "snowflake".
Fanatically anti-fanatical
What else except CO2 increase by burning fossile fuels is going on?
I'm not aware of anything else, please enlighten me.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
They're usually just asking for evidence and unmodified data ... world wide.
The data can usually be downloaded at the agency that gathered it, for free.
We have since over 30 years a world wide contract/agreement between research institutes/governments that every meteorologic data and climate research date is published and free to download
If anyone was a "skeptics" instead of a fraudster, he would sit in his basement, silent, and analyze or play how ever he wants with that data.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Much like the rest of the world Antarctica has winters and summers and ice increases in the winter and decreases in the summer. The winter limits of Antarctic sea ice (ice floating on the ocean which contributes nothing to sea level in either melted or frozen state) are increasing and the summer limits are ever smaller every year with some of the largest calving off of major floating glaciers ever seen in recorded history.
Yes, yes. We have summer and winter in both hemispheres. If you want me to elaborate on the point I made in response to the comment I was replying to, the growth of annual maximum antarctic sea ice volume is far smaller than the shrinkage in the annual minimum arctic ice volume. Happy now?
Where do you live?
I would like to experience a real winter again.
For me it is like 35 or 40 years in a row that we had no real winter. But well, I live in central Germany, not in the Alps or close to the pole.
When I was 8 - 15 we had like -30 degrees around Christmas, usually a bit later in mid January, but when I got my Apendix removed it started already around Christmas. 31th of december 1976 I believe, -33 degrees at midnight. Could have been 1977 ... not sure. A clear sky, Orion standing hight, the air as dry as in a desert, cold, the breath blown to a window froze immediately. A superb night ... I miss it.
Now we have +25 degrees (CELSIUS!) around Christmas ... it is just a chance that in late January or early february the scale goes below zero during daytime.
Snow? Sometimes the last years I woke up early and saw a glimpse of snow on the sidewalk ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Move to Asia.
Thailand or Vietnam.
Against popular believe the living standard is extremely high and cost of living extremely low. Well, you can not compare the standard of living with Norway or Denmark, but instead of cold winters you have just a rain season and a "hot season" and "cool season" ... cool means it is like may or june in germany.
On the other hand the standard of living, health care, food, infrastructure, internet, mobile phones beats most parts of Europe easily ... and the US ... well, never was there, but I guess there is a reason why my health insurance does not cover the US.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Killing the oceans? Maybe you should take a Geology 101 course.
Maybe you should read up on Ocean Acidification, before you make a bigger fool out of yourself.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
My working hypothesis is that the mechanized propaganda efforts are working. I believe the Russians are the leaders, but I'm not sure why they would care so much on this issue. Even if the risk of detection is low, the possible benefits seems too far away to justify the effort. Yeah, tropical Siberia would be great for them, but it might not work out that way (unless they are also leading in climate modeling). In contrast, the extractionists certainly have short-term concerns that could justify their propaganda investments, even if they aren't as good at it as the Russians are.
There would be a much shorter term reason for Russia to support climate change denial, they export a lot of natural gas to Europe. The less Europe depends on fossil fuels, the less influence and power Russia can exert on Europe.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Once again we are told the sky is falling, great, so now what do we do? Obviously we stop burning fossil fuels and problem solved, right? This is not just a US problem but most Progressives act like it is. Millions of man hours of observations by thousands of researchers have proven that man made climate change is real. Unfortunately very little research has been done of the ramifications of banning fossil fuels. The utopia of small organic farms and electric cars and mass transportation is unrealistic and no thought at all is giving to the unimaginably complicated and enormous transition cost.
Hmm... I'm largely inclined to agree, but the European situation is complicated. I think my largest caveats are that many of the European countries are moving strongly towards renewable energy and they also want to reduce their dependence upon Russia.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
That's all great in theory, but in actual real world examples, (i.e. Geology - the past is the key to the present), the Eocene had CO2 levels double, triple or even more than what today's levels are, and life was thriving. At one point, CO2 concentrations hit 4000ppm during the Eocene. Oddly, this high concentration didn't trigger an extinction event! Care to explain that? Google the Azolla Event. It may have been what led to the initial formation of our polar caps. Massive plant growth in the Arctic ocean led to the sequestering of large amounts of CO2 in the bottom of the Arctic ocean.
But they don't match. All we can say for sure is the earth is warming. But it's been both warmer and cooler in the past.
The earth has been warmer (and cooler) in the past, before humans even existed. If it takes fossil fuels to make it this warm, who was burning coal back then?
Just google the period you are interested in.
Different atmosphere composition is the main reason.
Perhaps you find this interesting: http://news.nationalgeographic...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Actually, they do. They predicted warming and the Earth is warming. They were even reasonably close in the degree of warming predicted. If the counter "theory" that they just got lucky over and over again held any water, the Caymans would be full of retired climate scientists and Vegas would be bankrupt by now.
Do you also claim that the theory of gravity is a hoax because when you drop a rubber ball, it bounces up after it falls?
Perhaps powered flight is a hoax because those airplanes inevitably end up back on the ground?
Exactly.
Different atmosphere composition... without human intervention, right?
No, that's just not true.
The rest of your post is just nonsense. Well, I guess that makes the whole thing nonsense. You're projecting your idea of what you think I believe onto me.
Actually, yes, it is true.
The rest is just analogies/parodies of the more common denier arguments. There's no honest way to sugar coat it, the deniers are the 21st century version of flat earthers.
Obviously, smart ass.
So, what exactly is your question or problem?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.