Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Is Altering Global Air Currents (independent.co.uk)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Independent: One of the scientists who demonstrated conclusively that global warming was an unnatural event with the famous "hockey stick" graph is now warning that giant jetstreams which circle the planet are being altered by climate change. Jetstreams are influenced by the difference in temperatures between the Arctic and the equator. But the Arctic has been warming much faster than tropical climates -- the island of Svalbard, for example was 6.5 degrees celsius warmer last year compared to the average between 1961 and 1990. The land has also been warming faster than the sea. Both of those factors were changing the flow of these major air currents to create "extreme meanders" which were helping to cause "extreme weather events", Professor Michael Mann said. In a paper in the journal Scientific Reports, Professor Mann and other researchers wrote that evidence of the effect of climate change on the jetstreams had "only recently emerged from the background noise of natural variability." They said that projections of the effect on the jetstreams in "state-of-the-art" climate models were "mirrored" in "multiple" actual temperature measurements. The jetstream normally flows reasonably consistently around the planet, but can develop loops extending north and south. The researchers, who studied temperature records going back to 1870 as well as satellite data, said these loops could grow "very large" or even "grind to a halt" rather than moving from west to east. The effect has been most pronounced during the past 40 years, they found.
Those air currents are playing hell with my golf score!
Around the "extreme meander" and "extreme weather events."
There is tons of it.
How did this story make /. news?
Didn't read the study, did you.
Maybe you can explain to us how that's going to happen.
Slashdot fails at unicode, you think it's going to pass your irony tags?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Your house is on fire. Do you:
A. Call the fire department?
B. Accuse the neighbor of telling you your house is on fire that "Fire is just somebody's religion!"
C. Convene a study to determine if the house really is on fire, and if so, if it was due to spontaneous combustion or if there's a arsonist about?
D. "Blame Liberals!"
E. Post to Facebook or instagram?
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
As the climate is always changing, and Mr. Hockey Stick says it's man doing it.
Women have to take their share of the blame too.
how much is man [sic] doing it and how did he prove that? If climate change is accelerating because of what man [sic] is doing, how much acceleration can they account for? In what way did they come up with their numbers? Rather than telling me all about the end of days, tell me about real science and hard numbers please.
I see that you have very recently arrived on our planet. All this is quantified to the nth degree, and has been reviewed and published in a highly digestible manner (allowing you to go whatever depth you can understand). You can start here.
No, there's not.
Some compelling evidence, yes, but I've seen nothing that's convincing.
Of course some probably are more easily convinced than others.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
This will simply amaze you!
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
If you don't want to be convinced, not even a shot in the face will convince you that firearms can be dangerous. So it goes with anything else.
here's the thing. If Global Warming/Climate Science suddenly was disproven...that same research money would plow into figuring out what/how/where the science went wrong.
It's all science like!
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
The article is years old, the "hard numbers" are completely missing and the source material has vanished. Since this topic (CO2 levels) is so critical to the AGW argument, why isn't there more recent material published showing the proven change? I would think that such a studies would be abundant and plentiful since the "best guess" at this point is that CO2 is the cause.
Obviously D, E, B, followed by the calling the cops and reporting that a suspicious hippie was seen in the neighborhood last week and is probably responsible, followed by A. C is for librals.
No, there's not.
Some compelling evidence, yes, but I've seen nothing that's convincing.
Peer reviewed research? There is oodles of it, check out TFA for one of them.
Of course some probably are more easily convinced than others.
I can't argue with that, you conspiricy theory types are the most gullible people on the planet, all you need is a badly written website, a few poorly researched facts and people like you will believe anything.
As the climate is always changing, and Mr. Hockey Stick says it's man doing it. how much is man doing it and how did he prove that?
If climate change is accelerating because of what man is doing, how much acceleration can they account for? In what way did they come up with their numbers?
Rather than telling me all about the end of days, tell me about real science and hard numbers please.
This is an interesting question that a lot of the evangelists don't know. In interviews and debates, it's a good question to ask.
The answer is: about 1/3 of the noted increase in temperature is directly due to humans, about 1/3 is the result of natural variation, and 1/3 is unaccounted for.
Of course this is a statistical measure, sort of like trying to determine whether throwing 4 heads in a row was a fluke or an indication of a trend, but it's the best answer we have with our current understanding and datasets.
It's interesting to point out the differences between science and, for example, religion.
How does religion typically deal with sceptics and dissenters? Usually with scorn, derision, excommunication, and occasionally death. In the bible it says "shall not suffer a witch to live", and so on.
Science is the complete opposite of religion. Scientists would never ostracise, belittle, or spew hatred on sceptics, would never blackball, blackmail, or threaten other scientists, would never cause them to lose income or hold an undergraduates' opinions hostage as a condition for getting a degree.
So when you read that 97% of scientists believe in global warming, you can tell that they come to that opinion honestly, and without coercion from other scientists.
Science is completely unlike religion.
Of course some probably are more easily convinced than others.
While others are fatally slow to appreciate danger and take evasive action ... In this particular case, however, so well publicised and so overwhelming is the evidence that a failure to be convinced more likely reflects a studied ignorance than any natural lack of perspicuity.
Your house is on fire. Do you:
A. Call the fire department?
B. Accuse the neighbor of telling you your house is on fire that "Fire is just somebody's religion!"
C. Convene a study to determine if the house really is on fire, and if so, if it was due to spontaneous combustion or if there's a arsonist about?
D. "Blame Liberals!"
E. Post to Facebook or instagram?
F. Call the police to report a drunk/delusional hippie running around the neighbourhood who thinks the houses are on fire?
on-point
Added to that the all too common cognitive failure which causes people not to look too carefully at the sources of information which confirm their bias.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Who would listen to that nutcase? Read Mark Steyn's book to see that bit of scientific nonsense totally eviscerated
Because political commentators are the best source of reliable scientific information.
I stole this Sig
Eastern Standard time is a hoax that needs to die in a fire. Fuck people are dumb.
why isn't there more recent material published showing the proven change?
For the same reason physics journals are not filled with recent papers investigating whether falling objects move towards or away from Earth. The human contribution (established not only by the C12/C13 ratios but also by estimates of rates of fossil fuel consumption) is no longer a matter of serious dispute. The argument has moved on to issues of climate sensitivity; just what the actual effect will be on tropical storm formation &c. If you want to see the original work establishing the human fingerprint you would need to look at papers from last century, when this was still a live issue. You are better off going to the most recent IPCC summation of the science (which will link you through to original papers), which in this case would be Chapter 8 and Chapter 10 of the 2015 WG1 report of AR5.
In the meantime that link provided gives a very nice concise summary of one of the lines of evidence by which the human fingerprint was established.
I would think that ...
... you would have thanked OP for that informative link. Or were you not the AC who wanted to know how we know about the anthropogenic contribution to observed warming?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
so whats your field of excellence that makes you smarter than the scientists in evaluating the evidence?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
how do you equate this to "leftist morons"? there is no left or right, its either correct or incorrect. and being a moron has no boundaries when it claims someone.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
"It is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice," he said. - from the same BBC report.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
maybe he's also going to bring back steam powered vehicles....
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Uhh, yeah lots of climatologists driving around in Ferraris... Those guys are way too smart to use their brains in the financial or military sectors. The real money is in siphoning pennies from government grants. Good thing Trump sees through the lies.
And the soil around Fukushima was always radioactive, but somehow we managed to make it worse...
Using that logic, then I should be covered in passenger pigeon shit while being gored by a buffalo (denying that mankind can and does change his environment.) I remember visiting Los Angeles in the late 1970's. I was struck by how polluted and gray the sunset was conspired to a sunset off the Seychelles or in the Arctic. Beijing was so polluted and the air so thick with exhaust that I was ill for the 5 hours I was there. (in the 2010's.)
Thus observe the legions of people willing to succumb to TV preachers, EST, "Mindfulness", and "global warming".
Except that TV preachers and ESP (I assume that's what you were going for) doesn't have the numbers of scientists saying it's true than climate change does. The trick of the question here is that "common" people, EG:those without training in the various sciences involved in climate change, simply lack the facility to derive the facts for themselves. They are not equipped to do so, they do not have the training to interpret the evidence if they did, and they have an invested interest in ignoring or denying those facts that require them to expend more money, more effort, or bestir themselves from the drooling, slack jawed existence of watching those self same TV Evangelists or to go get that that one lottery ticket that is their path to fame and fortune. (to turn your metaphor back on you.)
Not that I am knocking spirituality of most sorts, it is only to show that your assertion is arrant non-sense. I'm all for a path for folks to try to make themselves and their society better, even if it's a spiritual one that I can't prove. I can, with my limited science and available technology, prove that O2 is down, that CO2 CO, Ozone, and nitrogen oxides are up over the past three decades. I will grant that "parts per billion" seem infinitesimal, but it only takes a little of the wrong poison to result in mortality.
One question the climate scientists are not in agreement on his how much more will constitute a cascade point. There is one, that is known. What is not known is if it will be reached in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, or if it's already past the point of no return.
It is comforting and familiar to keep on this path. So is shooting up heroin, but no one doubts the ultimate outcome of that.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Why does it even take convincing? Everything humans do destroys some part of the planet. Let's just be totally crazy and assume that pumping billions of tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year for the past 100 years isn't going to break that pattern...
Your house is on fire. Do you:
A. Call the fire department?
B. Accuse the neighbor of telling you your house is on fire that "Fire is just somebody's religion!"
C. Convene a study to determine if the house really is on fire, and if so, if it was due to spontaneous combustion or if there's a arsonist about?
D. "Blame Liberals!"
E. Post to Facebook or instagram?
Or, you could do what Fullofshiticus, the new emperor of America, is doing and call it a Chinese hoax.
took two reads, but lol
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
I think the peeps forgot Erhard.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Trump is legit, and Al Gore is the huckster. What dimension am I in?
The time scale to get an ice age really rolling would be on the order of thousands of years. But don't worry, CO2 levels would have to drop well below 300 ppm before a new ice age could commence. However if the Gulf Stream shuts down it could cause northern Europe to cool down quite a bit.
And unemployment is like 60%
Sheesh! "Hide the decline" had nothing to do with statistics. It had to do with the fact that some tree ring series started showing declines in temperatures that weren't matched in observations by actual thermometers so they didn't use the data from them after they started showing the discrepancies.
In other words, if tree rings don't accurately match modern thermometer readings, how can we expect to rely on them for historical temperature measurements?
Because they did match modern thermometer readings until they started to diverge in the 1960s and other tree ring series continued to match the thermometer readings.
I've been modded down already
Well it wasn't one of your more accurate contributions was it? Oooops.
Beside the confusion between Penn State and the University of East Anglia, to say Dr Mann is "really really bad at statistics" is perhaps to overstate the actual criticism leveled at his now infamous 1998 paper. In any case subsequent reconstructions, --and the last word, I presume, goes to Marcott et al. 2013 --more or less confirm the original conclusions of Mann et al.. I'm would assume you (and I genuinely respect your intelligence and erudition phantom) are already aware of that.
it's also worth mentioning that this paper is using computer models
And, invaluable though they may be, we would certainly exercise caution when considering the findings of simulations. In any case, we would naturally be sceptical of any only recently published paper. It's the weight of the extant literature of course, including the examination and perhaps replication by the entire profession of newly published work, that forms the best available science.
I realise that the plural of anecdote is not data, and I realise that warming here in Australia is occurring at a faster rate than globally, but this summer just gone has been truly alarming. Driving my family through 46C heat on the NSW South Coast in Feb was the first time I was literally scared of the temperature (not just uncomfortable but frightened that the vehicle and air-con might give out).
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
EST is Erhard Seminars Training, a California cult.
Blocking sunlight is one way of slowing down the warming but reducing the sunlight will also reduce the productivity of photosynthesis which will reduce crop yields among other things. Also it doesn't do a thing to stop ocean acidification.
I guess Michael Mann is just lucky then because all of the similar studies done since his original hockey stick graph by different researchers on different proxy data have shown the same thing as his original graph.
If climate change is real, why is there no peer-reviewed research that shows it?
Why would your ignorance of the evidence convince us that there is none? Quite the opposite : you are one of the leading denialists on slashdot, and when I read that I think "this guy hasn't even looked at the evidence" and convinces me, all the more, that your movement is just the corrupt leading the blind.
Sounds legit.
We are currently in a period of temporary warming due to the high amount of mid-20th century solar activity. Our conditions in the current period are identical to the temporary warming known as the Medieval Warming Now just as then, global temperatures are controlled by the sun and solar activity.
Our current conditions are not identical to the MWP. The current rate of warming is much faster than during the MWP and it's likely that globally temperatures are warmer now than they were back then.
We are now entering a era of minimal solar activity, identical to the Maunder Minimum which brought about the horrible period of death, disease, and famine known as the Little Ice Age. If history and science has anything to say in the matter, we should be consuming more carbon fuels, and engaging in an expansion of carbon emissions in order to stave off another ice age, another epoch frozen crops, famine, disease, and plague.
There has been some recent research that indicates the main cause of the Little Ice Age was a series of large volcanic eruptions in the 1200s. The Maunder Minimum may have exacerbated the LIA some but probably wasn't a primary cause.
What do you make of the consistent failure of the denialist community to come up with any explanation for the recent warming trend that wasn't trivially debunked ? What about the dismal failure of every theory that they have wanted us to believe: e.g. ther is no warming, it's warming due to the sun, it's gravitational lensing, it's warming but there's some problem with some model blah blah so somehow the theory is invalid etc. etc. and for every dismal failure, they've failed to admit they were wrong and next time through, just expected us, to believe them again?
Any comments?
F. Patiently sit in your house and yell at anyone "making a big fuss over an imaginary problem" then when you personally catch fire, panic and later claim it was impossible to have foreseen such a turn of events.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Yes. It is. And a few million years ago it was WAY warmer than it is today.
A few million years ago, though, humans didn't want to survive on this marble.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ok, then it's just getting warmer and warmer in your house, do you try to find out whether there's a fire burning in your basement or are you just happy that you can save on the heating bill?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't give a fuck about being a good person, what I want is to survive and preferably without unwashed masses storming the hill I live on to escape the rising sea levels.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He has an MBA (Multiple Blog-reader Award) and a PHD (Plentiful Hogwash and Disinformation)
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Did you actually ever read a peer reviewed article?
And did you grasp its contents?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You and I see this: here is a theory with a lot of evidence. The deniers make a claim, it gets debunked so they make another claim and the cycle repeats endlessly as one bullshit claim after the other gets debunked.
But the people who believe the deniers don't see that. They see "For everything the scientist say the deniers make a counter-argument that sounds convincing to me".
At least part of the reason they see it so differently is that it's a helluva lot easier to sound convincing when you don't try to be accurate. Explaining complex science so laymen can understand it is hard - to do it convincingly as well is very hard. Reality doesn't care about your individual biases. It's the same reason people are scared of investing in long-term proven ways to grow your money - but will give their life savings to a conman after one meeting.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
We are currently in a period of temporary warming due to the high amount of mid-20th century solar activity
That is wrong. We have no increase of solar activity. In fact it decreasing since over a decade.
Our conditions in the current period are identical to the temporary warming known as the Medieval Warming
This is wrong, too.
For starters: we have no clue at all what caused the Medieval Warming.
On top of that: we had three such periods, which do you refer to?
We are now entering a era of minimal solar activity, identical to the Maunder Minimum
Possible, But we have no real evidence for that. And somehow you are contradicting yourself, did you not say we have a high solar activity?
brought about the horrible period of death, disease, and famine known as the Little Ice Age.
Historically correct, but irrelevant for today, as with our CO2 levels we hardly would notice a new "Maunder Minimum"
The rest of your post is just nonsense. With current CO2 levels there won't be any "ice ages" anymore.
stave off another ice age, another epoch frozen crops, famine, disease, and plague.
We live now in a gloabl world, were food can be brought from everywhere to everywhere.
Against diseases we have medicine and hospitals.
Against plagues we have sanitation and hygine and other means, including medicine and vaccination.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Remember most deniers are also fans of austerity: the economic equivalent of saving on your heating bill by burning your paycheck for warmth.
With that in mind, perhaps we should try a different metaphor:
You are developing third degree burns on your asshole. Do you
1) Deny the existence of assholes
2) Deny the existence of burns
3) Stop sitting on the fucking stove - or at least turn the plate down ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
I can't really explain it, but it's at least interesting to ponder. Take a look at Climate change opinion by country.
Awareness that there is something like this is pretty much as one would expect: People in countries with a free or mostly free press and open and affordable access to the internet are way more informed about it than people in countries where information is scarce, hard to come by or government controlled. Also, the more spare time people have to waste, the more informed they claim to be.
The map on whether it's caused by humans is interesting. Why is practically all of South America convinced that humans are the source of global warming? There is also an interesting difference between Western/Middle Europe and Eastern Europe/Russia, with the former being more convinced of human caused global warming than the latter. It's not quite the divide the Iron Curtain formed, rather it seems to be more a matter between former USSR countries being less convinced than the Rest of Europe, with some noteworthy exceptions in the BeNeLux states and England. And Japan being a real puzzle, being absolutely convinced of human-caused global warming and it being a threat.
Really interesting is now, though, when you compare that map (human caused yes/no) with the last map that deals with the question whether people think that global warming is a threat. It looks like whether people consider climate change a threat is more dependent on the country having a free press than whether they think it's human made. It's also interesting that in Western Europe more people think it's a threat than people think it's caused by humans.
All in all, pretty interesting.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We don't refer to it as "global warming" any more, but as "climate change".
Yeah, why work for oil corporations and say everything's great when you can get a fraction of the money predicting doom.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If it means they don't have to stop driving around in their SUVs and not change their way of life, people are quite ready to believe anything you throw at them.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
But CO2 is what plants crave!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In order to keep it from falling to earth it has to be orbiting. That means it has to orbit SOMETHING. Close to earth a relatively small sail could work (the moon can eclipse the entire sun and it's much smaller than earth) - but it only does that now and then - and eclipses don't happen over the whole planet.
So what are the options ? Well firstly - what should it orbit ? Orbitting the earth is easiest - but you have the moon problem - it doesn't stay put. if you make it fairly big - you could have it block out the sun on whichever part of the earth it's over at the moment as it moves around - while the earth rotates as well of course, and possibly cut down on solar radiation a bit, but that would mean making it a lot bigger. Bigger sail needs more energy to get to orbit and even more energy to keep in orbit. Getting pricy. ... oh wait, that would be the same orbit as earth since orbital periods are a factor of distance and shape. In the same orbit as earth - it is going to be REALLY hard to get it BETWEEN earth and the sun.
Alternatively we could make it orbit the sun - that's easier as we just need to put it in an orbit with the same period as earth's
And even if you solve all that and figure out a way to get a sufficiently large sail in a position where it blocks a significant portion of the sun from hitting earth consistently (no mean feat - it may not even be possible) you now have new problems. If your sail is not absolutely reflective it's going to get hot (and nothing is absolutely 100% reflective at every frequency - even a mirror gets hot if you leave it in the sun) so you need some way to cool it or that heat will build up and eventually it will burn up. Vaccuums are terrible radiators and you're going to be bombarding this thing with radiation 24/7 for years and decades and centuries. So let's say you solve that... hey you know what we CALL a large sail being hit by the sun ? A solar sail. Photons reflecting off of an object pushes against it. Generally the force is too small to have any impact but a large lightweight object will measurably move from it. There are active plans to design space-craft that can use this for orbital thrust - and currently a project trying to build one. It's slow as all hell and you get very little thrust but you get it constantly and at almost no cost once you get that big cumbersome sail in place.
But that's going to be a problem for this "sun-blocking" sail - because it's going to be getting a constant thrust - thrust on anything in orbit changes it's orbit. To stay in orbit, it would therefore need a compensating thrust... a rocket isn't practical, it will run out of fuel long before the sun stops pushing. Maybe if the EM-drive works you can use that, and stick some solar-panels on the sail to generate power for it, but even if the whole sail is photo-electric basic physics suggest that you can never generate as much thrust from converting that to electricity and back into thrust as you are getting from the same photons in the opposite direction.
Sooner or later, that constant push away from the sun will break the sail's alignment so it no longer works (that's the best case scenario).
Basically the idea is not just complicated and difficult - it's utterly impractical to the point where one would have to say that even it's possible it wouldn't be worth the investment. It would cost a LOT less to just reduce CO2 emissions to a level the earth's natural balancing forces can compensate for and avoid the problem in the first place.
Oh - and of course, it would not, actually, solve the problem unless we also reduce CO2 anyway. It would slow it down (less heat arriving means less heat being trapped) but unless you block ALL the sunlight it would STILL be warming up (just slower). And if you block ALL the sunlight we all freeze to death.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Post a picture of the house burning under a Facebook poll on the fire dept Facebook page with a caption stating liberal neighbors did this.
Welcome to Bizarro world. But be happy, for what happens in Bizarro world stays in Bizarro world.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh it can be done - and if Trump was actually smart he would do it in a way that the democrats, liberals and environments would all be cheering him on right until it's too late.
1) Ban fracking. ...
2) Ban oil imports and domestic oil drilling
3) Build coal-to-oil-to-fuel conversion plants.
4) Lots of coal miners employed
5)
6) Profit... no wait the other thing, what's it called again ? Oh right, LOSSES. Massive losses.
You need to ban fracking because that's where the competition for coal in power generation is from. That still won't be enough though - you need to create a new market, the only really viable one is to coal based petrol and diesel. This can be done in a pinch - South Africa did it right throughout the 1980s to keep their cars running during the oil sanctions, but it's expensive and not very efficient (which is good for the coal miners - inefficient conversion means you need more coal), that would put all the coal miners back to work (oil riggers would be PISSED though).
And yeah, it would be the most expensive and expansive government intervention in the economy in history - and make all sorts of polution problems (not just global warming) a lot worse, which would add even more cost.
A brutal dictator could do it - a president in a democracy who has, thus far, proven completely inept at actually getting things done in politics, has no skill at whipping votes, and couldn't even get republicans to repeal Obamacare ? Nah... never gonna happen.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Jesus, I would have thought that putting the name of the peer-reviewed journal in the subject line would have been enough of an indication that I was kidding.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Fingers in the ears, singing "la la la, I can't hear you" didn't work when you were little and had to go to bed, why do you think it works with grownup problems?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Jesus, I would have thought that putting the name of the peer-reviewed journal in the subject line would have been enough of an indication that I was kidding.
Welcome to Slashdot. You must be new here.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
What can't it do? If I buy now will you throw in it's effect on the radius of gopher holes, all for the low, low price of a carbon tax?
High global CO2 no doubt caused your inexplicable use of an apostrophe in the wrong place. It's affecting your grammar.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So... in case it's real, the ones to blame are the ones that tried to warn you that it's real?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
At least part of the reason they see it so differently is that it's a helluva lot easier to sound convincing when you don't try to be accurate.
That is simply not the reason. It's a helluva lot easier to be convinced when someone tells you what you want to hear. THAT is the reason. These people are running almost entirely on cognitive dissonance, day in and day out. They beg the question all day, every day. Everyone is driving an SUV, so I have to drive an SUV to be safe! But wait, does driving an SUV actually make you safer? (No.) I'm just one little person whose output is minuscule so I can't possibly be harming the climate! But wait, is their output actually minuscule? (Not when you add up all their economic activity.) etc etc.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Exactly. And since I have no kids, I decided to hell with it, grab a bowl of popcorn and enjoy the catfight.
Quite frankly, I actually once cared about "humanity". But when you stop worrying and simply accept that you can't save the world, life gets a lot easier.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Blocking sunlight is one way of slowing down the warming but reducing the sunlight will also reduce the productivity of photosynthesis which will reduce crop yields among other things.
It doesn't matter if you do it at times when plants are getting too much sunlight, which already happens. You can tell they are getting too much sunlight because either a) it is over 100 degrees when virtually all plants close down their stomata and just try not to lose all their water and die or b) the plants are literally getting sunburned, which is also a thing which happens.
Also it doesn't do a thing to stop ocean acidification.
That's true. Also, we have to breathe whatever comes down, and there's basically nothing whatsoever which is actually safe to spray up there which will also do the job.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Some of your objections are legitimate, but some of them are not. Let's talk about them. First, let's just save anyone who doesn't actually care the trouble by agreeing that since it doesn't deal with the CO2, and CO2 causes more problems than warming, it's a non-starter.
In order to keep it from falling to earth it has to be orbiting. That means it has to orbit SOMETHING.
You put it at L1. This takes care of your entire first paragraph. You will still need some PV solar and some ion engines for stationkeeping but you do not need to combat the solar wind, it is its own solution.
If your sail is not absolutely reflective it's going to get hot (and nothing is absolutely 100% reflective at every frequency - even a mirror gets hot if you leave it in the sun) so you need some way to cool it or that heat will build up and eventually it will burn up.
This is a real problem. I don't have the solution because of the solution to the next problem.
So let's say you solve that... hey you know what we CALL a large sail being hit by the sun ? A solar sail.
You solve that by reflecting the light through the reflector at all times. It's a series of cone-shaped rings. The light reflected from the face of one ring is reflected from the back face of the next ring.
So, how do we solve the cooling problem?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Your Neighbor told you your house is on fire because he saw the fireplace was lit through the window.Do you:
A. Call the fire department?
B. Accuse the neighbor of telling you your house is on fire that "Fire is just somebody's religion!"
C. Convene a study to determine if the house really is on fire, and if so, if it was due to spontaneous combustion or if there's a arsonist about?
D. "Blame Liberals!"
E. Post to Facebook or instagram?
There I fixed it for you.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Dr. Mann worked at the University of Virginia in the United States, It was Dr Jones at the CRU, Climatic Research Unit, in the University of East Anglia in England. Dr. Mann has a degree in mathematics and presumably took one or more courses in statistics. Dr. Jones supposedly can't even use an excell spreadsheet.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It's all true. I've seen countless prominent Trump supporters on Slashdor give PopeRatzo full credit for Trump's victory... Clearly without his support, Trump would be just another billionaire presidential wannabe...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I don't think what you said and what I said are different. You can't tell people what they want to hear if you are trying to be accurate. Reality very rarely conforms to our desires.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
...some tree ring series started showing declines in temperatures that weren't matched in observations by actual thermometers...
Slow down there, cowboy!
Tree ring data is used to estimate temperature changes occurring during the past before there were thermometers (or humans for much of Earth's past history for which tree-ring data is used, for that matter).
Can't be comparisons between two data sets when one set does not exist!
Now that is just ignorant, we still have trees, we have thermometer, Mann could easily plotted the tree proxy data, and the thermometer data as two coexisting dataset and an observer could visual judge thee correlation between the two plots. Instead he spliced the two and presented them as if they were one; many people interpret this as an act of wilful deception.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"One of the scientists who demonstrated conclusively that global warming was an unnatural event with the famous "hockey stick" graph..."
If by "demonstrated conclusively" you mean: ....then yeah, he's the guy.
- used sketchy, statistically dubious 'smoothing', omitted the Medieval warm period, and cherry picked data to 'prove' an already-supposed conclusion, and
- then when called to produce his data, "lost it"
-Styopa
The ocean is not acidic, it is moving toward being minutely less corrosive.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
correlation is not causation
It's a little more complicated than that. The underlying mechanism involves the relationship between changing zonal mean temperatures and the strength and position of maxima in the mid-latitude westerly jet. The main condition for resonance is the formation of a zonally-directed waveguide for a particular zonal wavenumber k, which depends only on the wavenumber and the shape of the zonal-mean zonal wind (U) profile. Such a waveguide is present when a mid-latitude region of positive squared meridional wavenumber l2 is bounded by latitudes both north and south where l2 vanishes, inhibiting the dispersion of wave energy and trapping excited planetary waves in the upper troposphere (300–500mb). This can occur for zonal wavenumbers k=6–81,2, with the waveguide found at the equatorward flank of the subtropical jet at latitudes around 30–45N.
Such conditions are typically associated with a profile for U characterized by two maxima in the Northern Hemisphere, i.e. a double jet latitudinal structure. In contrast to a single jet, a double jet regime associated with a profile for U is characterized by a confined sub-tropical jet with sharp edges wherein wind speeds change rapidly with latitude3. Such sharp sub-tropical jets are highly effective waveguides30,31, a central requirement for QRA (quasi-resonant amplification).
The team here has isolated a specific fingerprint in the zonal mean surface temperature profile that is associated with QRA-favorable conditions. State-of-the-art (“CMIP5”) historical climate model simulations subject to anthropogenic forcing display an increase in the projection of this fingerprint that is mirrored in multiple observational surface temperature datasets.
People are never going to realize that inanimate objects are not evil, but can be used to perform evil deeds by individuals.
If your work for an oil company produces too many dry wells, you're fired and/or the company fails. Competence is valued.
If your work in climate prediction is accurate or wildly wrong, nobody knows in your lifetime, but if panicked pronouncements bring in lots of funding you get a promotion. Competence is irrelevant.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I'll get modded down for this, but reason is not the way to convince people like that to act. Money is.
That's why taxes on pollution and CO2 emissions are so effective. Of course, deniers will claim it's a conspiracy by LED lightbulb manufacturers and the mighty wind power lobby that seems to have completely eclipsed the underfunded, ineffective oil lobby.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Two types of climate change: man-made climate change and natural climate change. What % of the change in air currents is caused by each?
From now on, I only trust peer-reviewed Slashdot comments.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Competence is also irrelevant if you have a prestigious name and say what someone with deep pockets wants to hear.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is just ONE researcher, folks.
As long as we're going to continue this silly discussion, it should be noted that if the proper materials are used overheating is not a problem. Iron, for instance, melts at 1538 C, and at well below that temperature it is radiating far more energy than it is receiving from the sun.
In fact, black body radiation in the Earth's orbit is temperate.
http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/7827/whats-the-typical-temperature-of-a-satellite-orbiting-the-earth
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If your work in climate prediction is accurate or wildly wrong, nobody knows in your lifetime
I see you've never looked into climate science, research or peer reviews before.
but I've seen nothing that's convincing.
That has more to do with your ability to read and think than anything related to the peer reviewed science.
I'd read somewhere that the Eastern Seabord was a few meters lower than other areas and North America due to prevalent trade winds.
If the trade winds suddenly stop or reverse course, that's going to, in the short term, have a more meaningful effect than just an increase of melt water.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
CO2 levels would have to drop well below 300 ppm before a new ice age could commence
That's BS. We have no idea what causes ice ages, all we have are hypotheses.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Offtopic uh? I thought this article was about climate change.
with any sort of granularity you could indeed be a billionaire.
That scientists are not driving Ferraris is telling.
I think its interesting that Greenpeace is dismissing one of its founders. He advocates for nuclear power. So what? So does James Lovelock and other well known environmentalists.
Then maybe he was malicious, because his "hide the decline" was totally unethical if he knew what he was doing.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I realise that the plural of anecdote is not data, and I realise that warming here in Australia is occurring at a faster rate than globally, but this summer just gone has been truly alarming. Driving my family through 46C heat on the NSW South Coast in Feb was the first time I was literally scared of the temperature
Yeah, you don't realize weather is not climate.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What leveling off?
From Marcott's own FAQ:
You mean the idiot who did NOT do the math correctly in the infamous "hockey stick" graph; has another idea. Any reason to think they now know how to do the math, now? Tim S.
You've heavily discounted the value of being a crusader, savior, the first and, more importantly, *being right!* (assuming you believe your own screed).
Apparently you and I view 2-3C differently.
And just as apparently, you're discounting the fact that our ancestors *did* survive on this marble and did so well enough to become us.
We used to think it was quite warm in the medieval warm period and quite cold in the little ice age.
But then we suddenly learned the global temperature was as flat as the handle of a hockey stick.
What do you make of the consistent failure of the denialist community to come up with any explanation for the recent warming trend that wasn't trivially debunked ?
I can't speak for the denialist community, because I don't care who they are or what they believe. However, I can tell you what high-quality scientists like John Christy and Richard Lindzen tend to say.
.7-.9 degrees. And that's not enough for anyone to worry about. Alarmist scientists say, "but there are feedbacks that will in addition cause temperature to rise 5-9 degrees with a doubling of CO2!" This hypothesis is that feedbacks will affect temperature far beyond what CO2 would do by itself, and is not well supported. Certainly the computer models that gave the worst predictions have been disproven by now.
First, they don't deny that CO2 has an affect on the atmospheric temperatures. You can discount anyone who denies that as ignorant (or possibly they have a new and fascinating hypothesis backed by data for how that could happen, but I haven't seen anyone like that. Up to now they're all ignorant). The main question is, "how much warming will be caused by CO2?"
Briefly, practically every scientist agrees that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a change in temperature of
Then there are scientists like John Christy, who goes around testing scientific claims, because that's what scientists do. When he heard claims that the global temperature was rising, he devised a secondary way to measure the temperature, to test that (essentially using satellites), which has more-or-less matched the terrestrial record. He's also gone to Africa to create temperature datasets to test claims such as "the snows of Kilimanjaro are melting due to climate change." He investigated claims of temperature rise in the California central valley and found that irrigation has caused a lot of it, not AGW. This makes alarmists look really bad.
So in the end it's not that "temperature is not rising" it's that "temperature rise is minimal enough to not worry about." Lindzen likes to show this graph, where the red line is the entire range of the global temperature anomaly.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'll admit I was somewhat frustrated by CFL light bulbs (and tried them off and on before traditional bulbs were outlawed), but LED lightbulbs have been nothing but great. They last forever and give off a good light color.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Which bolsters the belief that tree ring interpretation (to degrees, mind you) is accurate how?
Why did it start to diverge? You can't answer that question. Here's why, I'll tell you why: because starting in the 1950s, the number of thermometers in the world increased dramatically, and we were able to make much more accurate readings of world temperature. Once our temperature readings became accurate, we could see that they didn't match the tree record.
When Mann saw that the tree record diverged from the temperature record, he should have begun an investigation into why not. That's what a good scientist would have done. Mann didn't do that, he published as was. Ergo he is not a good scientist.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
F. A billion years ago, there was an active volcano where my house is, so why should I worry about a fire ?
Tree ring data matches well with other proxies, until about 1960 when they started to diverge.
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Briefly, practically every scientist agrees that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a change in temperature of .7-.9 degrees. And that's not enough for anyone to worry about. Alarmist scientists say, "but there are feedbacks that will in addition cause temperature to rise 5-9 degrees with a doubling of CO2!"
Current consensus is about 3 degrees C per doubling. We haven't even doubled since industrial revolution, but temperature has already increased 1 degree C, and temperatures haven't even caught up with CO2 rise so far. Clearly, we're going to be way higher than 0.7-0.9 degrees.
No they didn't. Jet streams have undergone unprecedented changes that have never before been recorded. How is this crap modded informative?
Because he's 70 years old and won't be around when the real damage starts happening? Nothing wrong with that. His seaside CA residence is also on a 50 ft cliff...So no danger from rising seas.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Unless you're a sea shell, or another piece of calcium carbonate, then the ocean is becoming more corrosive.
His mansion uses less energy than your house does.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Not interesting or surprising at all. Moore stepped off the hysterical enviro platform. For GP, message trumps rationality.
If it means they don't have to stop driving around in their SUVs and not change their way of life, people are quite ready to believe anything you throw at them.
You know, that's a very valid point. It's so freaking simple to listen/read/see anything you want about impending doom as long as you don't have to do anything yourself to prevent yourself from being harmed. Psychological basics!
I'd love to see, just for kicks, what would happen if a governmental panel forced a law through that made SUVs and Pickup trucks illegal for anyone who doesn't have an investigated and licensed need for one. God, that would be hilarious to see how many tables would turn.
The hockey stick graph? Please point to the Medieval Warm Period when it was 2C or so warmer than now.
He has an MBA (Multiple Blog-reader Award) and a PHD (Plentiful Hogwash and Disinformation)
I thought a PHD was a *Provider* of Hogwash and Disinformation. Where's your peer-reviewed source of the definition? /snark :)
"The current rate of warming is much faster than during the MWP"
Except in Europe ... and in China and Japan and Russia. But of course the civilized areas of the world with the best historical records are the outliers and all those other areas pull the handle of the hockey stick flat. It's kinda funny how Trump accused China of being behind a climate change conspiracy, when their science is mostly anti hockey stick.
The conclusion remains the same when more appropriate statistical methods are used.
Professor Hand said that the CRU scientists did not use "the best statistical tools for their studies" but that this had made not significant difference to their conclusions.
The nice thing about science is that other people can duplicate the research if necessary. In this case, it was necessary to lay those methodological concerns to rest.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
The conclusion remains the same when more appropriate statistical methods are used.
No, any proper application of statistics would have recognized the divergence in the tree record reconstruction, and not tried to cover it. Any high-quality scientist would have tried to investigate the divergence instead of publishing it.
There was bad science done here one way or another, although it wasn't outright fraud as some people claim.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I doubt that.
so you've got nothing to offer then
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
I knew I smelled a rat, and when I saw the Rat Pope it all made sense, even the time traveling but incompetent federal agents!
You would doubt it as anyone would without gathering the details. linky
*After* finishing the upgrades, despite being 4 times the size of the average Nashville house and functioning as both home and office, average houses in Nashville used 20-30% more energy during a heatwave. (Last paragraph of article)
so yes he's putting his money where his mouth is.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
A kernel of truth surrounded by lies is still a heaping pile of lies.
If you doubled the amount of truthiness it contained, it would still be entirely a lie.
If God needs to wipe out a city using a plague or disaster you didn't expect to happen, how does that teach a bible-thumper not to drive an SUV? Isn't he just going to drive around to pray with all his friends and relations?
...or are altered air currents changing global warming? Hmm.
That's what I did:
http://buildblock.com/
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
What I like is how Alarmists immediately dub Skeptics as "conspiracy theorists"--basically anything they can do to try to belittle people who don't believe their stuff.
I'm a scientist. I know precisely how science works, how CO2 works, how warming works, how energy is radiated/re-reradiated, etc. If you are finding the back of a cereal box has enough details for you to think you're an expert, that's more on you than me.
I'm a scientist--so prove your assertion. Don't throw Wikipedia pages and Alarmist blogs at me; I probably know them better than you do. Show me an actual ten or so studies that say something like, "here is the direct link between the CO2 that came out of my car and the temperature in Great Britain". You can't. You're more easily swayed than that.
It boils down to simply that you are more easily convinced than I, and I am less easily convinced than you. Is that a bad thing or a good thing? I dunno....the only to figure it out is more facts. But it's pretty clear that the only conspiracy is on the part of the one making the charge when they ran out of actual facts, and so decided to start name-calling.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Did their models accurately predict that there would be a leveling off of global temperatures throughout most of the '2000's?
How did YOUR predictive model perform?
Don't have one? In that case, what you are saying is you don't know what is going to happen - and the results could be worse than the models predict. Is that your argument?
I googled "Lindzen climate model source code" and couldn't find the source code for his model: nor indeed, any peer reviewed article in which either the function of the model itself is described nor the predictions versus actuals.
Sounds like a snake oil model to me at first glance. Do you have a cite for this claim?
The last time we spoke you were quoting an article that claimed that climate model predictions did not correlate to actual temperature (and therefore the results of CO2 induced warming could be worse than the models predict). Now you say that Richard Lindzen has a model that's accurate.
What are you talking about, where did you get that? I didn't say anything about Richard Lindzen having a model, learn to read, no wonder science gives you so much trouble, your reading comprehension sucks. Holy fuck I swear you didn't understand a word I said.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Not sure. Not saying one way or the other, but higher CO2 does not necessarily mean higher temperatures, eg: https://www.sciencedaily.com/r.... But yeah, the most recent ice ages _ended_ when atmospheric CO2 elevated to 300 ppm from way lower. Today we're at 400.
The article you cite says the glaciation at the end of the Ordovician was likely because of rock weathering drawing down the levels of CO2 from the high levels they started out as.
Do you have any evidence that any glaciation (ice age) in the last several million years occurred when CO2 levels were above 300 ppm?
The current hypotheses on the cycle of glaciation and interglacial periods is that they are kicked off by Milankovitch cycle changes and then pushed along one way or the other by feedback changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. Do you have anything that fits the evidence better?
That's why taxes on pollution and CO2 emissions are so effective.
So you want to take my money at the threat of violence to accommodate your political needs?
I see, you are evil...
...some tree ring series started showing declines in temperatures that weren't matched in observations by actual thermometers...
Slow down there, cowboy!
Tree ring data is used to estimate temperature changes occurring during the past before there were thermometers (or humans for much of Earth's past history for which tree-ring data is used, for that matter).
Can't be comparisons between two data sets when one set does not exist!
There is an overlap in thermometer readings and tree rings since about the mid-1800s that can be used to calibrate the tree ring estimations. It isn't ideal but it does provide information.
There's plenty to be done about climate change without taking away pickup trucks and SUVs. Substantive action costs far less than Iraq II, and has the benefit of actually creating jobs in America.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
You could make the same argument about the "climate scientists". Did their models accurately predict that there would be a leveling off of global temperatures throughout most of the '2000's? No. Did they admit that they were wrong? No, but they did have to revise their models in light of the fact that the observations did not match the predictions of their original models. Why should we take them seriously now in light of their failure?
You shouldn't "believe" ANYONE ... alarmists or skeptics ... when it comes to explanations and predictions about something as complicated as the climate.
Climate models make projections based on the expected progression of factors that affect climate. Most of those factors are not predictable in advance. Such factors as changes in solar insolation, the cycle of El Nino/La Nina, volcanic eruptions and some others. But most of them are fairly predictable over longer time periods. So climate models aren't necessarily supposed to be accurate for short term projections but should be more accurate on the longer term. A decade or 15 years is short term for climate models. 30 years or more is the longer term.
I think you probably meant to say "it is moving toward being minutely more corrosive. It is true that the ocean is not acidic but the term acidification just means that the pH value is dropping, not that the pH is below 7.
Please point to your evidence that it was 2C or warmer globally in the MWP than it is now. Also Mann's original hockey stick graph started in 1400, well after the end of the MWP.
So...this is an ice age?
Go back to Breitbart
Reality seems to have a liberal bias
If they HAD a rational explanation, there is a Nobel waiting for them
Just publish in a formal academic peer reviewed journal of Climatology
And get your ass shot off.
That's why you have no excuse for "other views"
CO2 is a trailing indicator, in other words CO2 starts rising after temperature rises. In fact, (excluding the last hundred years), every time CO2 levels were above 300ppm in the last 400,000 years we were in an ice age.
There is no time in the past 400,000 years that CO2 was above 300 ppm until around 1960.
Also CO2 is not an either/or situation. Just because it's a feedback of warming temperatures doesn't mean it can't also be a forcing when it increases for reasons other than warming temperatures.
Indeed, no one is denying that CO2 warms the earth (ok, probably someone does), the question is how much. It seems unlikely to be the trigger for the ice ages because it's a trailing indicator.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Wow, I didn't know does slashdot too! :O
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I don't think what you said and what I said are different. You can't tell people what they want to hear if you are trying to be accurate.
Some people would like to hear the truth. You can reach those people. You can also reach a percentage of people who would like to hear lies, but it's a pretty small one. It's a variation of the saying about it being difficult to teach a man something if his paycheck depends on him not learning it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
[Y]ou don't realize weather is not climate.
Don't be an ass mate. The unprecedented weather events we are witnessing with improbably regularity are likely the outcome to changes in climate.
Using tree rings to reconstruct historical temperature was demonstrably a mistake at the time, because they don't match thermometers. Mann knew that at the time
That does not go to the assertion that he was "really really bad at statistics." Which is not to say I accept that statement (from memory, and I'm not minded to go to the effort and check, the problem was with a particular sub-sample of tree-ring data).
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
"...and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record."
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Here is everything peer reviewed.
But that might not indicate that it is reviewed by "your peers".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Carbon footprint of construction is EXACTLY equal to the construction footprint of the equivalent houses. Amazing isn't it? You do realize this wasn't new construction right? It's an existing home as evidenced by the article
“Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don’t know how it could have been rated any higher,” said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.
Average house is....the average. it's the only comparison that matters. 'Should compare to an avg house using all the same techniques"* we'll come back to this in a sec
Nobody said anything about 'airtight', except of course for the Bush administration fear mongering. You're just making stuff up at this point.
Back to 'living the ascetic lifestyle'. He's doing just that by living within a smaller footprint than the average person...which is exactly what the OP doubted.
You can use TERRAWATTS of energy and still be quite frugal when that energy is produced with carbon free sources. The Gores made a point to pay significantly more for their energy needs to purchase from renewable sources.
They are heads and tails above you, me and the average joe.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
I have no peers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Well when the political commentator cites actual climate scientists (not the 99 out of 100 selected by climate alarmists) to back up their claims, there's a kernel of reliability present.
So your definition of "actual climate scientist" is the 1 person out of 100 who is willing to agree with you?
I stole this Sig
I'm not saying that CO2 is a trigger for the current interglacial. The trigger appears to be Milankovitch cycles. But once the planet started warming up feedback from increased water vapor and CO2 make it warmer than it would get from Milankovitch cycles alone.
I suggest you read the published papers of the scientists who study those sorts of things. They don't just use any old tree rings. The tree ring samples they use for temperature studies are carefully selected from places where temperature will be a major factor in their growth.
The speculation is that in the tree rings that diverged (not all did) it had to do with pollution.
Mann is not a tree ring specialist. He used tree ring data from scientists who are. He followed the recommendation from the scientists who produced the data he used to not use the divergent data.
In any case there have been more than a dozen temperature reconstructions done since Mann's 1998 and 1999 hockey stick graphs and they all show the same thing as Mann. So even if you throw out all of Mann's work it doesn't change a thing.
Ahh, you again, the village idiot... I remember you...
You're sucking up that BS like no tomorrow I see... go crawl back under a rock, fool...
Ahh, yes. The famous ocean-side villa...3 kilometres inland and 150 metres above sea level...
I wonder what he knows that you don't...?
Because he didn't - it's 3 kilometers away from the ocean horizotally and 150 metres away vertically.
http://i.imgur.com/txrhwsu.png
In other words, they weren't able to establish that their measurements were proxies for temperatures.
Don't be disingenuous. They were not able to make, as you quoted, any "statistically robust" reading based on the both the parcity of data and the fact that the C20th is too shorter a period to make any meaningful statement under their methodology. You know this because, once again, it lies adjacent to the cherry-picked verbiage you misquoted:
Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used.
Sad
What is sad, is someone is so wedded to untruth that they find it necessary to hide the substantive portion of a quote they muster.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Don't be an ass mate........Which is not to say I accept that statement (from memory, and I'm not minded to go to the effort and check, the problem was with a particular sub-sample of tree-ring data)
It's hard to not be an ass towards someone who is willfully ignorant. I'm willing to forgive a lot of things.
The only saving grace you can grant Mann here is that he didn't hide what he did in his paper. His error bars should have taken into account the fact that tree rings don't match thermometers, but well, apparently he missed the topic of error bars in his statistics class or something. Oh well.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
But once the planet started warming up feedback from increased water vapor and CO2 make it warmer than it would get from Milankovitch cycles alone.
That is true.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The speculation is that in the tree rings that diverged (not all did) it had to do with pollution. Mann is not a tree ring specialist. He used tree ring data from scientists who are. He followed the recommendation from the scientists who produced the data he used to not use the divergent data.
I think that's an explanation I read on real-climate somewhere once. There are actually a number of hypotheses, but it's not really clear.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It's hard to not be an ass towards someone who is willfully ignorant.
Tell me about it!
The only saving grace you can grant Mann here ...
Are you still talking about that 20 year old paper or the present one? And if the 1998 paper, then why? Have I defended that paper in this thread? Beyond foregrounding the fact that the work which has superseded it has "more or less" confirmed the original findings? I merely noted that calling Dr Mann "really really bad at statistics" was "perhaps" to overstate matters. (No really, look back at what I've written).
(Off topic, I did hint at the fact that I don't accept the view science can simply ignore data sources which are subject to difficulties of interpretation, which seems a form of the nirvana fallacy). But it being not strictly germane, and this being an old discussion, I'll decline any invitation to go down that line of argument here. Which nicely segues ...
The only time, I trust, that I am ever willfully ignorant, is in my refusal to "hear" statements clearly irrelevant to the point under discussion ... a perverse outcome of my legal training, you will understand.
The intention of my anecdote, OTOH, was to ask that you try to be sensitive to the fact that those of us already suffering the putative effects on weather of changes to our climate are likely to find an overzealous adherence to the heterodoxy on this topic to be ... hmm ... unusually my vocabulary fails me.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
And if the 1998 paper, then why? Have I defended that paper in this thread? Beyond foregrounding the fact that the work which has superseded it has "more or less" confirmed the original findings? I merely noted that calling Dr Mann "really really bad at statistics" was "perhaps" to overstate matters.
Why? Mainly because it most clearly demonstrates the issue.
And maybe you are right about his statistical skill, but saying he is really really bad at statistics is actually being generous to him. If he knew what he was doing, then he was actively trying to deceive people, which is far worse.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Why? Mainly because it most clearly demonstrates the issue.
It's not clear to me, especially in light of the faux pas about CRU, just what issue that is. My intervention, as you will see if you refer to my original post, as well as pointing out that you had the wrong Man(n) (you had Jones) and taking issue with the hyperbolic attack on the statistical failings, such as they were, of the good Professor: was that the original hockey stick paper has long been superseded.
In any case, it is my (limited) understanding of Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998, is that it is generally accepted both that better statistical methodology could have been applied; and that the methodology actually used contained identifiable mistakes (however minor they may have been). I believe Dr Mann himself concedes as much. "Really really bad," however, probably tends towards hyperbole.
If he knew what he was doing, then he was actively trying to deceive people, which is far worse.
That's a reading the "hide the decline" [of correlation between tree-ring and other proxy data relating to the sub-set of Russian trees after mid C20th, was that it?] comment might naturally lead someone to form. But really isn't it just the that the blow-tourch of criticism on this particular subject matter renders good-enough methodology not nearly good enough? Scepticism, where it is informed, is a great boon to science.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
I agree that it's not that clear why the tree rings diverged. I'm not sure how much effort scientists are willing to put into finding out at this point. It's not that important in a sea of other information that shows the divergence is an anomaly in one tree series, not a wide spread phenomenon.
Cool a video by a Scientist who when having something pointed out to him using modern and novel visualization technique, assumes it's unprecedented because He has never seen it before; and otherwise completely supports my point.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Then maybe he was malicious, because his "hide the decline" was totally unethical if he knew what he was doing.
That's the way I assumed it, but I was trying to maintain a neutral voice and let the facts speak for themselves. Dr Mann is a bit thin skinned and has demonstrated a tendency to be litigious.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
oh for fucks sake, how many times "A tree is NOT a thermometer!", Too many interdependant variables to extract fucking temperature.
here's a few: .and even more.......
Amount of animal piss/shit around tree - changes growth (non linear)
Water too much - changes growth (non linear)
Water too little - changes growth (non linear)
Cloud cover - changes growth (non linear)
Amount of light - changes growth (non linear)
Cold - changes growth (non linear)
Heat - changes growth (non linear)
Amount of Co2 - changes growth (non linear)
Oxygen levels - changes growth (non linear)
So how exactly do you find the exact reading of all the rest, just to pull temperature?
I don't disagree, but you have to assume that if Dr Mann thought the tree rings were a valid proxy for thermometers, then plotting both tree ring data and thermometer data would lend support to that; by splicing without notice Dr. Mann shows even he had doubts and may have obscured the change for political reasons rather than scientific.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Sorry wrong word substitute Caustic for Corrosive. Still the ocean has numerous powerful buffer systems involving sodium bicarbonate, sodium carbonate, sodium sulphate, Calcium Carbonate, calcium sulphate, magnesium carbonate and magnesium sulphate; any pH changes from CO2 are going to be minuscule and buried in natural diurnal variations. Corals and mullusks have survived much higher and much lower CO2 levels over the millions of years they've been on this planet.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I'm not sure how much effort scientists are willing to put into finding out at this point.
Seriously? I hope you die in a fire then. Scientists are always trying to get better data. See Feynman's point about the Millikan electron charge error.
If you look at reconstructions, you'll see there's still a huge uncertainty, and the good reconstructions will at least attempt to calculate the error bars. Shaun Marcott (author of a study you may recognize) says, "We cannot say whether this [modern temperature] change is unique across the entire Holocene because of the resolution (i.e., the sampling of temperature per unit time) of the entire dataset is about 120 years"
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
ok, let's leave the past in the past then. Let's talk about the current paper: what do you think of the way Mann calculated error bars and uncertainty?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Coming soon: "Trump announces, 'Nobody knew climate is complicated'"
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Much as eggs are trailing indicators of chickens.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
And some people have the remarkable ability to say "Nope, I'm not convinced" every time you show then something, no matter what. Such people are highly prized as spouses by adulterers.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Considering the initial observation that 1) atmospheric CO2 should cause the atmospheric temperature proportional to the log of its concentration and 2) therefore humans burning fossil fuels should cause the global temperature to rise was made by Svante Arrhenius in Sweden around 1900, the CIA must have some seriously long reach to have created it as a hoax like you say Snowden says.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
If warming caused CO2 and CO2 caused warming the way eggs cause chickens and chickens cause eggs, then the world would be unbearably warm right now.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Sure, people in Calgary who see the unlikely spectacle of their downtown flooded were heard to say, hooray, it's about time, this should have happened sooner. Just for 1 example of how terrific it is to have the climate changing. Except of course, the climate is not changing, it's a hoax, like the whole hockey stick thing. Although nobody is denying that the climate is changing, just that humans are causing it. That should cover several bases.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Just like everyone else scientists have to prioritize their limited resources. In this case there doesn't appear to be that much value to figure that out given that it's not an obvious problem across a wide range of proxies.
Improving historical data would have been a better use of resources than this sad current paper. But maybe Mann isn't capable of more difficult research. That's too bad for him.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What are you talking about, where did you get that?
I guess I made an assumption that you weren't saying the alternative, which is that Lindzen was postulating theories without evidence - guess that a lesson that I should have learnt from the 'gravitational lensing' nonsense he peddled prior.
I didn't say anything about Richard Lindzen having a model, learn to read, no wonder science gives you so much trouble, your reading comprehension sucks. Holy fuck I swear you didn't understand a word I said.
You seem upset. Emotions get the better of all of us from time to time, but just be conscious of the fact that insulting me is unlikely to be a helpful step toward your goal of convincing me that your (or Lindzens) alternate hypothesis to explain the recent warming and the impacts of secondary feedbacks is correct and the consensus view is incorrect.
ok, look at this graph again. It's temperature for some random city, it doesn't matter, probably in the month of March or something. Can you see what the blue lines represent? Can you see that the red line is the thickness of the entire global temperature anomaly?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Regulation that detailed is almost always counterproductive. A carbon tax will discourage people from buying fuel-inefficient vehicles.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Most of the evidence is statistical, which doesn't make it invalid. Further, if you were a semi-competent scientist, you'd realize that the CO2 you produce is way below the noise level, and doesn't affect anything in a measurable way. The CO2 produced by every car in the US probably does have a measurable impact.
The basic principles can be explained on the back of a cereal box, although not in enough detail to prove that CO2 is causing global warming. You need a lot more data for that, and as it happens scientists have collected far more data than that.
You could try reading some peer-reviewed publications and writing a paper showing why they're all bunk. Then get that published, and you'll be famous. So far, nobody has managed to do that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you want to complain about that, you're a bit late. It's been going on since we formed governments.
It's also irrelevant, since that isn't what a carbon tax is. It's an attempt to internalize a market externality, and has nothing itself to do with politics (although setting it is a political process). The planet is warming up, and that's true regardless of your politics.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The temperature readings of a given city for a month are insignificant. We're looking at global temperature changes over years or decades.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Trees are actually pretty complicated things, and it shouldn't surprise us if some change in their environment would change their behavior. Thermometers are simple things, well understood, and we know the relevant environmental effects. When you've got thermometer readings, use them. If you want temperatures before then, you need to find and use proxies, and they can get complicated. Best to rely on people who study the proxies.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The planet will still be here. Humanity is not going to die out. That doesn't mean the results won't be extremely unpleasant.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I don't see what's sad about the current paper. The possibility that declining Arctic sea ice and the warming Arctic may be having an effect on the jet stream was first hypothesized by Jennifer Francis about 5 years ago and it appears that support for it has increased over time.
Let's talk about the current paper: what do you think of the way Mann calculated error bars and uncertainty?
LOL, you mean you are not going to let me get away with being "sceptical of any only recently published paper" while the actual experts in the field boot it around for a year or so; you want me to read beyond the abstract?! I really ought not allow you to draw me here ...
To be frank I lack the expertise to form any reasonable opinion (which is why I defer to the orthodox position). My own science degree (and it was a mere BSc) was in Pharmacology & Psych, where papers were altogether an easier beast methodologically to pull apart. Moreover, there's a lot of water under the bridge and my NY resolution finally to learn 'R' and revivify my stats is yet to come to fruition ...
Sooooo you'll forgive me if I'm very slow on the uptake here ... but unless you are pointing to the fact that there are no error bars on the graphs per se, the uncertainly expressed (in Table 1) is +/- 1 SD. That would be a fairly common measure of uncertainty. You find that inadequate to the task?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
The planet is warming up, and that's true regardless of your politics.
I dispute that it is AGW... maybe it is, but there is no convincing case so far that it is...
That is where the politics comes into play, your belief that it is...
In other words, you're disputing the science without providing reasons. The science looks pretty solid to me.
Also, no matter what's warming us up, it would be nice if it stopped and even reversed some. If we can slow it down by producing less CO2, that's a win.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The science looks really flaky to me, so there we are...
The Earth is round, we agree, AGW we do not, it is far from settled...
As for "Earth is warming is bad" that is just your ego talking, you have no idea if that is good or bad, and neither does anyone else.
If the science looks really flaky to you, then presumably you have some good explanation as to why smart people who study the subject hard are in agreement, and why this conclusion is supported by many other scientists of varying fields. Perhaps you also have explanations as to why Exxon suppressed its climate change conclusions, rather than discarding them, and why the military and insurance companies are interested. Personally, I think your perception is flaky, but I can't know that for sure without some pretty extensive explanations.
AGW is settled science. Like any other settled science, it can become unsettled again, but approximately nobody's researching whether it's actually happening anymore.
If you read the IPCC report, you will find numerous accounts of bad things that are likely to happen, with degrees of certainty attached. These scientists may in fact be wrong, but they do have ideas. I'm going with the actual scientists rather than a pseudonymous person on the net.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Let me repeat, since clearly you missed it
Is this an ice age, given that CO2 is at 1 million year highs and you said CO2 LAGS heating?
Thank you for playing "Stupid".
Would you like to try again?
Heh, your reading comprehension is bad, but I'll give you a hint:
The earlier comment you replied to included the words "excluding...." You obviously didn't read that sentence to see what was excluded.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If the science looks really flaky to you, then presumably you have some good explanation as to why smart people who study the subject hard are in agreement
They are not in agreement, that you believe that are indicates that you're buying the powers that be story line...
AGW is settled science.
No, it isn't... you saying it is, the media saying it is, doesn't make it so...
Yes, I read it
Immediately noted his "argument" about lagging can NOT apply to this case given there is no ice age, and rebutted
All the evasion did was demonstrate that he knows the argument is fallacious but chooses to use it anyway.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The scientists seem to agree on this. Everywhere scientific I check out, there's general agreement. Where does one find evidence of disagreement?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
One of the scientists who demonstrated conclusively that global warming was an unnatural event with the famous "hockey stick" graph
Trying to teach the controversy of a falsified graph?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The scientists seem to agree on this.
No, they really don't... or are you going to trot out that completely debunked and nonsense 97% number again?
Really, just stop, you have no idea what you're talking about...