Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Federal Climate Report Finds Link Between Climate Change, Human Activity (washingtonpost.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report from The New York Times (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source): The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration. The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited. "Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans," a draft of the report states. A copy of it was obtained by The New York Times. The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air. "Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change," they wrote. The report was completed this year and is a special science section of the National Climate Assessment, which is congressionally mandated every four years. The National Academy of Sciences has signed off on the draft report, and the authors are awaiting permission from the Trump administration to release it. "The report concludes that even if humans immediately stopped emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the world would still feel at least an additional 0.50 degrees Fahrenheit (0.30 degrees Celsius) of warming over this century compared with today," reports The New York Times. "The projected actual rise, scientists say, will be as much as 2 degrees Celsius." Given the Trump administration's stance on climate change, some of the scientists who worked on the report are concerned that the report will be suppressed.
The press keeps calling it "leaked," but it's been freely available for months, if you were paying attention.
They're still working on it, which is why it hasn't been released.
No, the new title will be: Make America Sweat Again
Nullius in verba
The globe gets warmer and cooler and has since it formed, life goes on.
So prove that the current warming is natural. You've made a statement that can be proven, but it never is. You can't just say the earth has been warmer therefore it's natural. That's like if my car breaks down with smoke pouring from under the hood I think it's just out of gas, because it's happened before. I could check gauges and see, but I'm relying not on current data but instead an historical anecdote. Really, the only evidence you have is that the earth was warmer at periods before. Yeah, no shit, no scientist has ever said it wasn't. What the research shows is that this warming is unprecedented in the earth's history. So your statement is nothing but an unproven guess with no evidence of support. What natural processes are at work here that do account for the warming?
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Actually, while I'm not some rabid environmentalist (not that they are all like that), I think there's a lot to both sides of the equation, here - the earth has trends - it's been a lot warmer than it is now (without humankind), and it's been a lot colder. But I certainly do think we're at least acting as a catalyst, and that our presence is certainly having some effect, even if the overall temperature increases are not entirely human made.
But here's the rub - as the article points out, we can completely stop emitting greenhouse gasses (no we can't, but as the story goes) and we're still getting a 0.5c increase in temperature. What do people want? They are talking about 10% here, maybe 20% there... in other words, you're still talking like 1.75c increase in temperature. Instead of inflicting trillions of dollars in economic damage making the world stop producing, stop progressing, putting millions, if not billions out of work, we should be focusing on dealing with it rather than stopping it, because it's coming even if we cut emissions in half.
I'm not saying we shouldn't pursue "green" technology, I'm all for it. I'm certainly not for companies getting government grants of our tax dollars, then having the CEOs cut and run and the company goes bankrupt, but there's definitely the need for research, and the practical application of that research. I cannot afford to cover my roof with solar panels even though I wish I could. I can't afford it, and I wouldn't recoup my investment because I certainly won't own the house long enough. Maybe there should be more incentives there... .too bad we let the monopolies manipulate legislation that makes it harder for homeowners to do things like that instead of easier (In Sunshine State, Big Energy Blocks Solar Power).
Anyway, people need to get a grip on this subject and meet in the middle instead of allowing the politicians and media divide and conquer us. Anyone with a brain can admit humans have an impact on their environment; anyone with a brain can admit that we can't completely stop greenhouse emissions (unless you can "cure" farting, or the need to eat in general). So let's stop the hyperbole and have some reasonable discourse about how to deal with it instead of pointing fingers and name calling.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
No. In the natural course of things, CO2 follows warming. Now, for the first time in the record, CO2 is leading temperature while temperature changes faster then ever recorded, AND in the opposite direction from the trend prior to the use of fossil fuels.. So this is literally unprecedented, Perhaps you should pay attention to the people who actually gather the data instead of the people who deliberately misstate it?
Because the earth has been hotter than now prior to the industrial age.
QED
Every time I see this, I want to reply, "And during the Hadean, it was hot enough that most of the Earth's surface was molten lava..."
This time, I did.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I hate to break this to you, bro, but actual scientists are also a little bit ashamed when you call yourself a "scientist" with your associate's degree in CS from DeVry.
You could take everything "average people" know and understand about science and fit it in a Fox & Friends chyron. Don't believe me? When you're on the bus going to the call center tomorrow morning, ask them the difference between "average" and "mean" and see what the average answers are. If we're going to start using "average people's" knowing and understanding as any kind of metric in science, we might as well just give up as a species and elect a reality TV host as president.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Well yes, during epochs like when the dinosaurs roamed the Earth. But the issue here isn't that the Earth has been hotter, the issue is that it has never been so hot and supported human civilization. You understand the patterns of where civilizations have developed over the last 10,000 is intrinsically tied to post-glacial climate, and now that we're seriously fucking that up, there are going to be significant impacts on the descendants of those civilizations. In other words, pretty much everyone alive today, and over the next century.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Isn't climate change more-or-less a solved problem now?
Non-carbon energy sources are trending towards being cheaper than fossil fuels sources before 2040. Maybe long before. Until then, cheap natural gas is displacing coal.
Gasoline usage in the developed world has largely leveled off and a large percentage of future vehicles will be electric. The majority of local trips may be electric long before 2040. More cities in developing countries are pushing electric vehicles to solve air quality problems.
Measured rates or warming are coming in at or below the low end of predictions.
So it will warm slowly for a couple decades, carbon emissions will peak and then start falling faster than they rose. It should all add up to a very limited amount of warming.
Out of all the forces of nature we have first-hand experience of, not necessarily of all the forces we have seen evidence of, the greenhouse gas theory is the most likely.
This is the best argument that can be made for human-caused climate change.
We aren't talking about some simple system here. We can't just jump to conclusions. This is the ENTIRE WORLD weather system. It may be governed by forces we are not totally aware of or are totally ignorant of.
What exactly is the proof that global warming is due to human carbon emissions rather than a natural warming cycle with all the fermentation products in the soil and water from the beginning of the last ice age to present that are being released?
"Climate change" theorists do not seem to be able to answer this question, but it is the crux of the validity of their point of view.
Do they realize that the ice age literally just happened on a geological time-scale? That geological science just sprouted out of nowhere in the last 150 years and it's mostly been used to exploit coal, gas, oil, and minerals? There is only so much we have experience with, and only so much our theories can tell us. We simply do not know much about the planet's long-term weather/climate cycles, there is only so much the geological record has told us, it has only been looked into for so much.
Just everybody chill out.
There are much bigger and more immediate problems related to human presence that are objectively proven in cause and effect that are ravaging our not only our planet's natural state, but our own lives.
Honestly this "climate change" issue seems like a distraction from these issues, manipulating people into guilt over something that they have a very indirect influence on. Sorry but your efforts to 'go green' mean absolutely nothing in the face of industrial pollution, the most immediate and terrible effects of which would not be climate change even if that were proven to be the cause.
We need to worry about our society, the centralization of power: mass surveillance, automation, wealth disparity, human rights (especially freedom of speech and quality of education), the list goes on.
You cannot do ANYTHING about climate change until you deal with these problems. Stop kidding yourself.
You're not a scientist. You're a victim of the Salem Hypothesis.
If you have some special knowledge of climatology, then perhaps, just perhaps, you can pontificate, otherwise, you're just another fucking engineer (and a software engineer at that, so some might not even consider you an engineer in any meaningful sense) on a topic for which you have no fucking qualifications whatsoever. What you're trying to do is assert a fallacious appeal to authority, asserting because you had training in "computer science" that that makes you a scientist, and further that that allows you to lecture on the nature of a specific science.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You're either a liar or an fucking moron . CO2's absorption properties and the consequences of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been known for over a century. And your "20 year claim" is nothing more than cherry picked nonsense that is, on the face of it false. So I'm leaning towards lying troll, but low IQ moron is also possible.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Absent proof of man's forcing of warming - we're left with only one conclusion: it's natural.
Nonsense. Lack of proof for X does not mean "not X" must be true. It just means that X is unproven.
Also, outside of mathematics, there is no such thing as "proof". Just evidence.
In some areas better food production, in other ways much worse. While in the medium term you could see more precipitation in the American Midwest, in the long term it will mean higher precipitation in winter and much less in summer, with much higher temperatures. In other words, one of North America's major bread baskets will become less conducive to agriculture. So yes, while they may be growing wheat in the Northwest Territories, for the US it could, in a hundred years mean less food security and more reliance on imports. Rinse and repeat for several grain-growing regions around the world. And understand that the patterns of civilization are still largely based on climactic conditions that came into place at the end of the last glacial period, so we're talking about billions of people living in regions that may, in a century, be far less capable of sustaining those populations.
Oh, and let's talk about the collapse of fisheries because the other really bad side effect of higher concentrations of CO2 is significant alterations of pH levels in the oceans, meaning more dead zones and large algal blooms which are going to choke out a lot of ocean life.
I'd say we can't really handle getting warmer any better than we can handle getting colder. In either case, there are a whole lot of people who are going to find food costs rising, and while the developed world may be able to absorb those higher costs, more marginal populations may have a harder time. The other thing to factor in is that people just don't sit on their chunk of land now being turned into an inhospitable desert where they can't grow crops or raise livestock, or where rising sea levels and more powerful storm systems wipe out their crops. They get up and move, so you'll see more large scale migrations, so if you think Syria's disintegration is bad, wait fifty years.
Trying to extol some modest benefits to climate change without mentioning the significant economic and social costs seems at best naive, and at worst disingenuous to me.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Explain the temperature pause from 1998 to 2015.
The explanation is that you cherry-picked the singularly hot year of 1998 as a basis.
Try running the same analysis from 1997 or 1999, or nearly any other year in recorded history.
That would be a Richard Simmons campaign promise
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You wouldn't want to live inside your refrigerator, but I'm betting that you'd prefer that it stay cold in there.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Pretty simple - there WASN'T a "pause" from 1998 to 2015. 1998 was well above the trend - an outlier, with both 1997 and 1999 significantly lower. 2015 was the first year that was higher than 1998, but the preceding and following years were not much lower - so the 3 year (or 5 year, or 10 year) average for the late 90s was significantly lower than the average for the last few years.
So at best you could say "There was a huge drop from 1998 to 1999, then steady warming, temperatures have been rising since 1999." Which sounds pretty odd, but is much more accurate than any so-called "pause".
If you are on this page, you probably understand something about signal processing and statistics -ask yourself why people have been saying there was a "pause" when the data - whether statistically analysed or just plain eyeballed - shows no such thing.
No one is claiming that greenhouse gasses trap all the heat, only that they reduce the heat flow. The term "heat trap" is not intended to imply that all heat is trapped, it is neither insightful not useful to pretend to be confused on the subject.
No one is making a criminal accusation; there is no innocence or guilt to be presumed.
However, a preponderance of evidence according to the scientific community, and the governments of nearly every country on Earth, is that humans are causing global warming and that it has the potential to do catastrophic harm to civilization.
If you were genuinely interested in the truth on this subject you would have found it out rather than raising spurious, discredited arguments on an internet forum for casual geeks, and thinking that the rhetorical turd you have dropped has an intimidating perfection because people would rather step around it than sweep it up.
You have chosen to be wrong on the internet, and more damning, chosen to be proud of it. You have a great future in politics or the 'chan. But the quality of your future IRL still depends largely on remaining above sea level.
Anyway, people need to get a grip on this subject and meet in the middle...
Silly attempts to look "fair & balanced" on the climate is a big part of the problem--as soon as you start doing that, you've caved to the anti-science crowd who think that, if they tell themselves enough fairy tales, they'll become true.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Someone who criticizes an unproven hypothesis, or data integrity issues, or propietary data practices is not anti-science. If anything they are the opposite.
You provided absolutely zero arguments in your fisking of the ops post. Just attacks. I'm inclined to believe op is correct, and you feel threatened that maybe the "consensus" isn't really as stong as you first thought.
"The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years"
Ok, and there were glaciers down to what like Ohio less than 10,000 years ago. Pretty sure humans had nothing to do with the warming of the last 9900 years, where is the evidence that we affected the last 100 years of warming?
It's in the report. And in many other reports. You're simply saying that because there's natural warming, there can't be man-made warming. Are you also saying that because there's natural fires, there can't be man-made fires?
While in the medium term you could see more precipitation in the American Midwest, in the long term it will mean higher precipitation in winter and much less in summer, with much higher temperatures. In other words, one of North America's major bread baskets will become less conducive to agriculture.
The climate issue has a lot of actual problems, and here's the one that counter's your position.
Climate prediction is based on mathematical models which are trained on historical data and then carried forward to predict the future.
This process has never worked in any other human endeavour.
For example, the same process is used by many people in an attempt to predict the stock market. Does that ever work out?
The same process is used to predict the effect of changes in the economy, such as raising the interest rates. Has that ever gone horribly wrong(*)?
The same process is used to predict disease outbreaks, product viability, and the effect of importing cane toads in Australia.
There is no instance where a mathematical model with the complexity of Earth's climate has made reliable predictions in any way.
Furthermore, there are a multitude of models, scientists discount out the ones that don't seem right, and hand-tune some of the parameters to make the outcomes more reasonable.
So saying that "such-and-so" will happen is simply the output of an elaborate random generator, tuned and selected for the outcome that fits the narrative.
This is one of the real problems with the climate science debate: no model of that complexity has ever been accurate, therefore it's incorrect to be making decisions based on their results.
(*) It was used as a justification for the bank bailouts, offshoring, free trade, and easy immigration. All of these were predicted to make our economy stronger.
What I don't understand overall is that warming isn't necessarily bad. Higher temps and higher CO2 levels? Better food production. Humans at current population and technology levels can handle getting warmer a lot better that we can handle getting colder.
And looking down the road at technology mitigating it, pretty sure it's easier to cool the earth on a global scale than it is warming it up.
Nuclear winter FTW!
We're kinda adapted to current temperature levels. For example, we've built our coastal cities where the coasts are currently, not where they would be if sea levels were a few meters higher.
Oblig xkcd for you: https://xkcd.com/1732/
--
Dc (posting from mobile and didn't want to login..)
It's hilarious that this is still considered 'news' on an American website.
ALL THE MODELS ARE WRONG
THAT MEANS THE THEORY IS WRONG
This is known as an Argument from Fallacy, and it is illogical. You should try to learn the basics of critical thinking.
You don't need to be on any side of the fence to understand that, of course, humans have an effect on so called "global warming". After all, we live in a very small sandbox. Nevertheless, the real hard problem to solve is exactly what effect we have and what is the importance of it compared to the completely hypothetical scenario where we wouldn't be present.
Of course, this is not a justification for not doing our best to reduce potentially unwanted impacts we have on our environment.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Great! Well then, let's look at 1200 to current time? Oh, is that cherry picking again? Then why do we start in 1970, instead of 1930? Oh wait - cherry picking?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
> What I don't understand overall is that warming isn't necessarily bad. Higher temps and higher CO2 levels?
That means sea levels rising ever higher as well. For example over a hundred million people in Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest countries, live in a river delta that is barely knee height over the level of Indian Ocean. They will either drown or have to mass migrate to survive. Where exactly do you migrate them, considering that Asia is already the most populated continent?
Consider that they are the world's poorest people, most of them lack electricity and survive on the equivalent of a dollar or two per day, so they are NOT the people who caused AGW by either consuming or producing excessive amounts of commercial goods and energy for hedonism. They are victims the world has forgotten. Similarly, many atoll islands in the Polynesia-Micronesia region will sink like Titanic, as the Pacific ocean levels rise. Florida will also face huge problems, so kiss US pensioners goodbye!
Ahh, so "cherry picking". What about the Medieval Warm Period? It was global, and it was warmer than today. What caused the warming from 1910 to 1940 (warming that is greater than 1980 to today)? What caused the global cooling from 1945 to 1975? Perhaps using 1980 to today is the cherry pick as well?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You apparently don't understand that the patterns where civilizations developed over the last 10000 years have radically shifted over the past 10000 years. Your ignorance of this fact alone illustrates how irrelevant climate change is to human civilization.
And how do you believe we are "seriously fucking that up"? Do you even understand what the effects of climate change are going to be? You don't add 2C uniformly to every temperature on the globe. Before you spread such FUD, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the facts.
I was on a sinking ship. We had two holes. Some people said it was punishment from God and we should die. Others said it was because the ship hit some rocks.
Now I am not a rabid religious (not that they are all like that), I think there's a lot to both sides of the equation, here.
[snip a lot that could be compared]
Anyway, people need to get a grip on this subject and meet in the middle. So we should just leave one hole open and close the other one.
So let's stop the hyperbole and have some reasonable discourse about how to deal with it instead of pointing fingers and name calling.
That way we will all be happy.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Instead of inflicting trillions of dollars in economic damage making the world stop producing, stop progressing, putting millions, if not billions out of work, we should be focusing on dealing with it rather than stopping it,
You're using a straw man here. Most people aren't advocating anything like that.
If anything, combating climate change means more work (creating and building new technology), not less. And yes, that's worthwhile. One extra degree of warming (if we don't do anything vs. if we do try to stop climate change) may not sound so much, but it translates to a lot of sea level rise, putting hundreds of millions of people at risk. It means weather extremes get more extreme.
Stopping the increase in emissions has other advantages. Cleaner air means fewer people die. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels means less power to those who produce the fossil fuels.
And we're going to have to transition to other fuels anyway as coal, gas and oil run out, so why not now?
meet in the middle
There is no middle. One one side you have science, on the other you have people denying the science while not backing up their assertions with facts.
I'd say we can't really handle getting warmer any better than we can handle getting colder.
In a certain fundamental sense, it is much easier to handle getting colder. Heat is easily generated by various processes, but it cannot be destroyed. It can be moved around, but that won't help if it's hot everywhere.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Anyway, people need to get a grip on this subject and meet in the middle...
Silly attempts to look "fair & balanced" on the climate is a big part of the problem--as soon as you start doing that, you've caved to the anti-science crowd who think that, if they tell themselves enough fairy tales, they'll become true.
For a practical example, let's meet in the middle with the Flat Earth crowd, and agree that the Earth is a very oblate spheroid.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Interesting article, and graphs, for all that they're 4 to 5 years old now, but so much wrong with what you wrote...
So the theory has no proof
So the graphs* you're citing as evidence (or lack of evidence, w/e), which clearly show a trend of warming over the last 30 years, albeit not in line with the climate models of the time, aren't evidence of warming? I'm puzzled, how is a graph showing warming not evidence of warming?
ALL THE MODELS ARE WRONG
THAT MEANS THE THEORY IS WRONG
I have a model of the solar system, an orrery. It shows the relative position of the planets and moons as they orbit. The strange thing is, over time the position of the planets and moons in the model cease to exactly mirror their positions in reality. Does this mean the theory of gravity, or general relativity, is wrong**? Or is it that the solar system is complex, while the orrery is a simple model, and over time errors will accumulate?
That aside, your premise does not support your conclusion. The model being wrong doesn't, in itself, say anything about the underlying theory. Even the article you linked to doesn't say that, merely that (the NASA scientist quoted suspects that) some of the feedback effects, specifically that of water vapour, are being incorrectly modeled.
IF GLOBAL WARMING WAS CAUSED BY HUMAN INDUCED CO2 EMISSIONS THE MODELS WOULDN'T BE COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG
If only the atmosphere were as 'simple' as your arguments, I suspect the models would match recorded data (even those data that disagree with each other) perfectly.
retards
Does a retard know he's a retard? I don't feel particularly stupid, not in isolation nor in comparison to most people I meet. Projection? Pfft, not important, and not particularly nice, either way!
*Graphs show tropospheric temperatures for an area to 20 degrees either side of the equator. They don't show warming for the rest of the atmosphere, nor sea temperatures.
**Yeah, so some scientific theories aren't 'right' (Newtonian gravity for example) per se, but they do provide us with a 'good enough to be getting on with' idea, that mirrors reality closely enough for most purposes. Knowing it's not the entire story doesn't stop us not falling off the planet...
You're still incorrect. There was no pause. You seem to not really understand this.
Humans aren't the only, or most important things, on the planet. We're fucking up ecosystems that have taken millions of years to stabilize and balance, and cannot react fast enough to survive the rapid changes we are causing.
The New York Times has added a correction to their article. At the end of the article, a paragraph now states
Correction: August 9, 2017
An article on Tuesday about a sweeping federal climate change report referred incorrectly to the availability of the report. While it was not widely publicized, the report was uploaded by the nonprofit Internet Archive in January; it was not first made public by The New York Times.
What about the Medieval Warm Period? /. myth.
Which of them? There where three.
It was global, and it was warmer than today.
How global they were is still depabet. None of them was warmer thn today. That is a
What caused the warming from 1910 to 1940
I'm mot aware about a particular warming, besides the warming caused by CO2 during that period. Compared to today it was actually relatively cold, at least in winters.
What caused the global cooling from 1945 to 1975?
The sulfur emmissions from coal power plants. Don't you learn anything in school at your place?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The climate scientists I know have diploma, master or PhDs in meteology or physics, some in chemistry.
Many in the other hand are mathematicians.
You must hang out with pretty weird climate scientists if you believe they are no scientists.
I studied computer science, too. Btw.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Climate science is about as settled as a generalized closed form of navier stokes or quantum mechanics. There is something there in finite conditions, but the number of assumptions and approximations make specific generalizations with a high degree of accuracy seemingly impossible. Just because you want it to be true doesnt make it so.
And you are fortunately smart enough to have figured that.
Thank you!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
This is a problem, and it indicates there's a huge problem in the Federal bureaucracy with paper-pushers deciding for themselves how to run the government. If the administration was hiding something, that would be one thing, but if nobody gives them the chance to do the right thing then that sets up a self-fulfilling prophesy.
All real slashdot readers browse at -1 so as to avoid the political bullshit that has taken over the moderation system.
Hmm... I'd call myself a real Slashdot reader. Until recently I've always browsed exclusively at -1, and I often upmodded -1 posts even when I disagreed with them, because I felt that they contributed something to the discussion. But just within the last few days I stopped doing so, because now the overwhelming majority of -1 comments are racist, or sexist, or childish name calling, or Trump non-sequiturs, or other toxic crap that have made this place like a birdcage in which the newspaper never gets replaced. I totally get your desire to "avoid the political bullshit" - but for me, satisfying that desire currently requires that I don't browse at -1.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
I can't afford it, and I wouldn't recoup my investment because I certainly won't own the house long enough.
Why? Having just sold my house the solar panels paid for themselves in the added house value. Additionally while renting it out for a year I jacked up the rent by the average cost of electricity for people so even while not living there I was getting the rewards.
If you find it valuable, chances are other people will as well and pay accordingly.
So prove that the current warming is natural.
Because the earth has been hotter than now prior to the industrial age.
QED
Try telling a judge that you can't possible have committed this crime because such crimes have been committed long before you were born.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
What I don't understand overall is that warming isn't necessarily bad. Higher temps and higher CO2 levels? Better food production.
If you would have said warming isn't necessarily *all* bad, you'd be a lot more accurate. There will be some benefits, for sure. But overall the bad is expected to outweigh the good. It's easier to measure the impact in terms of costs, rather than "cans" and "can'ts". Because yes, of course we *can* survive it all and do all sorts of technological wonders combating the negative effects, but what is it going to cost? We're going to having rebuild/retrofit/move our coastal areas which encompass many major cities. We're going to have to shift our agricultural production regions, not just crops but livestock too. "Hot spots" might become quite inhospitable where susceptible people may not leave the house for more than a few hours (infants/elderly) or impede outdoor day jobs for everyone else. Then the oceans, oh the oceans. Don't know where to start on that one, let's just leave it at wild seafood may become a delicacy.
I'm going to throw a dart and say we're talking about not 10's but 100's of trillions of pure USD. Not counting the impact in human costs. That's the problem.
"... we might as well just give up as a species and elect a reality TV host as president."
"We" elected a cartoon from the 80s. And in the 80s we had a movie actor from the 30's. My kingdom for a fiddle...
That is unwisely reductionist.
In a very practical sense, Snowball Earth is a harder scenario to escape than Greenhouse Earth. Both have high albedos (due to snow and clouds, respectively), which helps reduce temperature. It's pretty impractical to replace much of the energy contribution of solar loading by burning terrestrial sources of energy: sunlight is too bright, and the Earth has too big a cross-section.
we should be focusing on dealing with it rather than stopping it, because it's coming even if we cut emissions in half.
There is no "dealing with it". The chart goes all hockey stick for a reason. The last time CO2 levels were this high, we couldn't have lived here. The only way to deal with it is to stop the runaway condition before it goes that way again. It might even be possible, if we not only stopped CO2 release but also did everything humanly possible to fix CO2. And even then, thanks to the warming of the ocean, we're still going to have a lot to do. We'll still need to artificially institute some kind of global cooling to make up for what we've already done.
Anyway, people need to get a grip on this subject and meet in the middle instead of allowing the politicians and media divide and conquer us.
You are nowhere near the middle. You are way the hell off in "rape the corpse" territory.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
No one is claiming that greenhouse gasses trap all the heat, only that they reduce the heat flow. The term "heat trap" is not intended to imply that all heat is trapped, it is neither insightful not useful to pretend to be confused on the subject.
Easy, he's just ignorant on the topic. He wasn't pretending to be confused, he was confused! Instead, attack his real mistakes which was not only his ignorance of the topic, followed up by arrogance to spontaneously know the topic better than the original authors (because of course he didn't know enough to know he didn't know). Classic Dunning Kruger stuff, which effects us all lol.
What I don't understand overall is that warming isn't necessarily bad. Higher temps and higher CO2 levels? Better food production.
Better food production in limited areas. However, the land will be devastated in many regions that are currently relied upon. More volatile weather will result in extreme drought followed by extreme rainfalls. Some plants will do well but many will not.
So what is the real effect of this? Mass extinctions of wildlife both on land and the ocean. Untold millions will perish from die from famine while others will migrated. It won't always be migrating for refuge either, wars will be fought over land for food production.
But hey, if you like mass extinctions, mass migration, war, genocide and famine, the future is looking rosy.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
I am quite certain global warming isn't occurring, and even if it were, humans couldn't make it occur.
And you're so sure about that, you needed to post anonymously to a website that allows you to use a psuedonym, because these ideas are so damaging to credibility that they are not worth associating with even a throwaway identity.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
vs.
Funny, how these guys never argue with each other...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
it is neither insightful not useful to pretend to be confused on the subject.
Unless, of course, your goal is to troll.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I fully agree that humans influence the environment but the uncertainty in models is larger than the supposed influence.
Even if you fully accept that all climate warming is due to human influence you still have to answer two important questions.
1. Is a warmer planet bad?
2. Can government do something without destroying the economy
It's clear the establishment assumes yes to both answers by default but they haven't even asked the supposed 97% about this.
On the first question they do fear mongering all the time, predicting distopian futures that turn out to be false every time and blaming every negative weather event on human influence.
On the second question; their beloved Paris accord only promises to reduce the increase in temperature by a tiny amount.
But then they'll say it's only the first step, basically admitting there will be an endless stream of agreements that do almost nothing.
It's important to keep the economy intact because in a bad economy people care less for the environment.
All of this reveals a distinct anti-human attitude.
It's like asking a termite: Q: Does termite behavior change the environment? A: Yes. Conclusion: The termite hill should be destroyed.
Fossil fuels are what make our quality of life possible, without it we would degrade 100 years.
"Renewable energy" is shit. Because it's unreliable and too expensive.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
How a generally pro-science forum like slashdot can have a good chunk of its posters revert to fox news talking points on politically charged issues.
The same, tired, debunked, denier arguments again and again..
anyone with a brain can admit that we can't completely stop greenhouse emissions (unless you can "cure" farting, or the need to eat in general)
We need to emit less than the amount that plant life can absorb and process. We can also extract greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere.
There is one thing you need to remember more than anything though: the laws of physics will never yield regardless of how much you beg and plead.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
If we can use some gas to trap heat, can we use it to maintain extremely hot conditions? Sun-level temperatures? Not questioning the report here (not agreeing with it). But the way summary was posited is dumb. Neither CO2, nor methane trap heat. they slightly increase the drag on the outflow of the heat from the planet surface.
Yes you can actually, *if* you have enough of it and keep adding enough energy going fast enough to keep accumulating heat. Is it going to happen? No, not unless you're God playing minecraft. But yes, you're exactly right that we're talking about *slowing* heat escape, so are the authors. What's essentially happening on almost every planetary bodies in the solar system is balance of energy between multiple sources. While heat is escaping from the planet's core, which warms the surface a little as the body core cools, additional heat is being added to the planet via the sun. The temperate of the planet, or more importantly for us the *surface* temperature of the Earth, is essentially the balance between the two. However this is further complicated by atmospheres, which many but not all planetary bodies have, whose effects work in both directions. Atmospheres mute the drastic changes and also help trap heat, slowing its escape. Our moon doesn't have an atmosphere which is why it sees such extreme variations in temperature. Just another interesting note, the Earth's core temperature is about the same as the surface of the sun (but not the sun's core, which is much hotter). However we don't burn up alive because all that stuff between us and our sweltering core is also trapping heat, i.e. slowing its escape before it reaches us.
If you're picking a bone over the "trap" terminology you can supply your own term but that is already a commonly used term by most people in the community to describe exactly that process. It almost seems like you were accusing experts of making a trivial mistake, but really it was the other way around.
No one's proposing we destroy millions of jobs. We're proposing we replace millions of jobs, say coal mining to lithium mining for batteries. Oil and gas production to solar panel/wind turbine production and installation. ICE vehicle manufacturing to EV manufacturing. And we still need a truckload of infrastructure improvements: decaying bridges, new power lines for the increase in renewable electricity demand due to EVs.
As for the question of "who pays for all of that?", the answer is the rich people and corporations. They've made their billions because they got to dump their waste into the atmosphere. Now it's time for them to clean it up.
"The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years"
Ok, and there were glaciers down to what like Ohio less than 10,000 years ago. Pretty sure humans had nothing to do with the warming of the last 9900 years, where is the evidence that we affected the last 100 years of warming? (Hint: CO2 levels are flat if you don't cherry pick the historical data).
Hint, no they are not
That, at least, is the story told by a new paper published in Nature on April 5 that reconstructs the end of the last ice age. Researchers examined sediment cores collected from deep beneath the sea and from lakes as well as the tiny bubbles of ancient air trapped inside ice cores taken from Antarctica, Greenland and elsewhere. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) The research suggests that—contrary to some prior findings—CO2 led the prior round of global warming rather than vice versa, just as it continues to do today thanks to rising emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
"We find that global temperature lags a bit behind the CO2 [levels]," explains paleoclimatologist Jeremy Shakun, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fellow at Harvard and Columbia universities, who led the research charting ancient CO2 concentrations and global temperatures. "CO2 was the big driver of global warming at the end of the Ice Age."
IOW (non-anthropogenic) CO2 played a major role in the end of the last Ice Age, but in the 10,00 years before your cherry picked 10,000 years-ago starting date for that end.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The real doomsday scenario for climate change isn't some places becoming dryer, or wetter, or hotter, or colder, or fish and coral dying off, or sea levels rising and displacing coastal communities - it's changes in the composition of our atmosphere. 50 to 80% of the oxygen we breathe comes from oceanic phytoplankton. Imagine a scenario driven by climate change where increasing carbon dioxide dissolved into the oceans and creates carbonic acid, increasing the oceanic acidity level; then increased temperatures cause ice melts that mess up salinity levels of the ocean and disrupt the great conveyer belt; finally due to these disruptions the phytoplankton experiences a massive die-off and the atmospheric oxygen levels are reduced to levels similar to, say, the top of Everest today. NYC and London and Hong Kong being under meters of water would be a disaster, but wouldn't be unsurmountable. Humanity being unable to breathe could make us extinct. (Disclosure - I'm not climate or biology scientist. This is all just person supposition.)
It's astounding to me how short sighted climate alarmists are. The only people who should be concerned about warming is land developers in Russia and Canada. There's a whole lot of Earth's surface which is about to become prime real estate for agriculture and growth.
I'm astounded how generous you far sighted climate "laissez-faire"-ists are - because obviously you must be willing to pay for the means to let every single human on this planet (and of course outside of it) to "survive in the vacuum of space, underwater aboard submarines, as well as in some of the most inhospitable places on Earth". But please pay your dues before you turn Earth into a vacuum under-water inhospitable world.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
This report wasn't leaked, it is a near verbatim copy of a DRAFT report put out for public comment in Dec. 2016 and pulled from the site at the end of the review period, as is normal. We know this because several of the authors of the report said so on Twitter after the 'explosive leak of this blockbuster report.'
See, this is fake news, taking something no one noticed, and then pretending like it never happened before.
The NYT didn't bother to do a basic fact-check before publishing it's 'leaked' gov't report.
Ken
As well, it may be that the earth has been hotter at times in the past but never has the temperature risen at such an alarming rate. It's not just the temperature rising, it's the rate that it's changing.
And we just had a big pause from 1998 to 2015
Nope
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
To date there is ZERO proof climate change is affected by humans. And yet the scientific community which keeps reminding us that "correlation does not imply causation" keep saying the "evidence" is overwhelming (again there is none). Is the climate rising? There is evidence to support that claim but it is hardly overwhelming and there is also research that seems to contradict (no I'm not talking about THAT "research") these findings. So without any factual research to tie humans to the research supporters of the theory turn to name calling anyone who calls them on their BS "climate-deniers". While there are a select few who simply deny climate is changing the vast majority do not. We simply refute the CONCLUSION that it is caused by human action. And rightly so. Show me some proof and I'll listen. When there is money to be made and politicians involved take everything you hear with a ton of sodium. Take a look at how much money Al Gore made buying and selling carbon credits which weren't even a thing in the US until his inconvenient lie prompted congress and the EPA to create them.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
You have to start somewhere. But unsurprisingly, deniers usually prefer to start at the top of this one random spike that sticks out like a sore thumb to even the most casual observer.
I still don't see how humans and CO2 are causing warming on Mars. https://www.space.com/33001-ma...
But that's not what I'm talking about -I'm talking about that, even if you accept AGW, what do you do about it? If humans completely disappeared from the planet this very second, the temperature still rises (according to the article) 0.5c. They also say if we do nothing it rises 2.0c. So what do you do? They suggest future emissions are going to cause an additional 1.5c rise, so even if you cut our emissions in half, we still rise a total of 1.25c (maybe - I'm doing math using a direct correlation, but that may not be how it works). What people are discussing now is like 10 or 20% reductions... even 25%... that means we STILL need to prepare for what's coming, because you can't stop it.
As far as "deniers" go - first of all, questioning the science isn't "denying." But take the first step - admit that animals influence the environment they live in, and move on from there. If they can't acknowledge that, then it is pointless.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
To date there is ZERO proof climate change is affected by humans.
Oh, god, this is so boring.
1. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising.
2. All of this rise is due to human activity.
3. All things being equal a rise in atmospheric CO2 will cause a rise in temperatures.
4. The temperature is rising.
If you think the temperature rise is not being caused by human activity you have to find two unknown effects, one that prevents the CO2 rise from causing a temperature rise and another that is causing the temperature to rise despite the first unknown effect.
Or, you could pull your head out of your arse.
[1. Keeling curve
2. rise in CO2 is less than human emissions, as established by simple book keeping and chemistry-- we know how much concrete we're pouring and how much fossil fuel we're burning.
3. Tyndal, Arrhenius, Fourier.
4. BEST, NOOA, HADCRUT, UAH, RSS]
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Neither CO2, nor methane trap heat.
So in your universe the average temperature of the Earth is -18 Celcius?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Exactly... step 1: get people to admit animals impact their environments. If you can't get that, then you've got a flat earther, so move on and skip the fringe.
The way I see, both sides have valid points: the earth is in a warming trend, and would be with or without us. But this warming trend is accelerated because of the impact of humankind - our emissions are acting as a catalyst. People like simple explanations.... why did some guy shoot up a daycare center? The answers are not simple, they are complicated and intricately woven through myriads of factors... so when one side shouts "the earth is in a warming trend," the other side turns their brains off and says "no, it's humankind!" And when that side says "but the warming trend in unprecedented," the former side says "no! It's all natural!" If you can admit that both may true, you can start to move on from there.
The bulk of us won't agree entirely, but you can at least nudge people together... like most politics, on most important issues, we actually largely agree on what we want: we don't want homeless people, we don't want people to go without necessary healthcare, we don't want people to without food/shelter/clothing, we don't want people to go without education. The disagreement is on how to solve these issues. Instead, we let the politicians and the media divide us to keep the conflict going... maybe it's human nature? After all, Christians, Jews, and Muslims have been killing each other over the "right way" to worship God for thousands of years.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
You people and you Rube Goldberg Disaster scenarios.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Reminds me of another one: "Scientists" say the ship is sinking. Then why is my end 200 feet in the air?
ask them the difference between "average" and "mean" and see what the average answers are
I see what you did there.
You are a good argument for euthanasia.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I believe it was a Nobel Winning Physicist who said, "if your data doesn't agree with your theory, it's your theory that is wrong, not the data. " (paraphrased)
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
To date there is ZERO proof climate change is affected by humans. And yet the scientific community which keeps reminding us that "correlation does not imply causation" keep saying the "evidence" is overwhelming (again there is none). Is the climate rising? There is evidence to support that claim but it is hardly overwhelming and there is also research that seems to contradict (no I'm not talking about THAT "research") these findings. So without any factual research to tie humans to the research supporters of the theory turn to name calling anyone who calls them on their BS "climate-deniers". While there are a select few who simply deny climate is changing the vast majority do not. We simply refute the CONCLUSION that it is caused by human action. And rightly so. Show me some proof and I'll listen. When there is money to be made and politicians involved take everything you hear with a ton of sodium. Take a look at how much money Al Gore made buying and selling carbon credits which weren't even a thing in the US until his inconvenient lie prompted congress and the EPA to create them.
You're an idiotic partisan hack. Do you really think that the people working on these studies don't know the stats 101 meme you're using as a crutch?
The effects of CO2 etc. are very well understood.
Pretty sure humans had nothing to do with the warming of the last 9900 years
Not necessarily, land use changes were still a thing even before the industrial revolution.
Hint: CO2 levels are flat
Flat where? Surely not in the last century. Not to mention that CO2 is not the only possible cause of temperature changes. Different instances of such change can have different causes.
The globe gets warmer and cooler and has since it formed, life goes on.
It does. At what rate, though? Fast changes in a short period of time are problematic for adaptation of settled peoples.
Ezekiel 23:20
At some level, one doesn't have to care if global warming is human-induced or natural. If a given area is too hot and too humid, like places in the Persian Gulf are now, people will die without air conditioning fed by electric power. If either the air conditioner or its power source fails, they're equally dead, whether the environmental conditions were caused by nature or man.
It doesn't matter the slightest whether the planet has survived the conditions we're now heading into. The fact is, our civilization hasn't been through this before, and it's not clear that we'll make it through now.
So what if warming is natural. It's going to be hard on us, and if there are things we can do to mitigate its effects, we should be doing so. Here's the issue - if we accept AGW, then we accept that we should be doing something about it. Then saying that because it's natural we don't have to do anything is like saying that you have to dodge a truck heading at you, but don't have to dodge a charging bear - because the charging bear is natural.
If the "natural warming" crowd were to propose mitigating actions, that might be one thing, but so far they haven't. Hot is hot, storms are storms, droughts are droughts, floods, are floods, whether AGW or natural.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
You have no idea what is or is not proven about AGW and you've actively avoided that information. The scientific debate has been over for decades, essentially since Keeling. The best part about debating deniers is that they have no idea what they're even saying. That's also the worst part.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
You clearly don't live in the Northern Midwest.
Handling cold is FAR more difficult than heat for humans.
There is a reason the DOT talks about winter survival kits and not summer survival kits.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
Notice, the speed of change, when it is not natural.
Natural changes are glacially slow.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
That Kevin Costner movies was NOT a documentary, you know.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
It doesn't work that way.
Try telling the jury that I committed this crime. You'll need actual proof that I committed it. Not just that it happened.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
"The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years"
Ok, and there were glaciers down to what like Ohio less than 10,000 years ago. Pretty sure humans had nothing to do with the warming of the last 9900 years, where is the evidence that we affected the last 100 years of warming? (Hint: CO2 levels are flat if you don't cherry pick the historical data). What would the temperature rise be without humanity? Unless you can show me the science that explains the non AGW of the last 10,000 years, you don't really have a case for AGW at all. The globe gets warmer and cooler and has since it formed, life goes on.
Downmodding or calling me names does not validate AGW, just an FYI to all my friends in the pro AGW side of the fence.
a) None of that means it's OK to dump billions of tonnes of CO2 into the air.
b) CO2 levels are NOT flat - check your facts.
c) Greenhouse gases aren't difficult to understand, it's basic science.
d) WRT point c, human greenhouse gas production ties nicely with both the predicted and the observed sharp temperature rise in the last few decades.
No sig today...
From human records, that is false - the earth has not be hotter than it is now. It may be hotter prior to human civilization, but all the records we have (and proxies) indicate that today it's the hottest it's ever been. And it will be even if we halt all activity right now.
Granted, it USED TO BE hotter in the past, but we've already beat that record (recently).
In fact, XKCD has a very nice graph of the earth's temperature through history. The 0 degree mark is chosen as the 1961-1990 average temperature, but it's arbitrary. There was a period where it was about a half a degree warmer than that line, but at the very end, you can see we've exceeded that. It only happened about 5 years ago, at that.
I think the point there was that it has been hotter and CO2 levels have been higher and there was no runaway global warming during those times.
Hint: CO2 levels are flat if you don't cherry pick the historical data
So what cherry picking is producing this non-flat graph? What should the graph look like and what is the basis for your answer? Include your citations.
soylentnews.org
The fridge analogy is actually pretty good. But calling something a "trap" does not create the same impression as calling it a "drag". Anyone who doesn't understand the topic (and most people who discuss it don't) would be much more frightened at the idea of gasses completely disallowing heat to escape rather than slowing it down. And you do have to understand that popular audience has zero understand of these subtleties so they take these words at their value.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Do we know what the perfect climate would be for everywhere and how that could be achieved and maintained?
You clearly don't live in the Northern Midwest.
I live in central Finland, I'm pretty sure it gets roughly as cold here, and I think the winters are longer here. For a nice example, during my military service we had a two-week camp in the North, living in tents with temperatures around -30 C (-22 F). The record lowest temperature from that time was -45 C (-49 F).
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
That is unwisely reductionist.
In a very practical sense, Snowball Earth is a harder scenario to escape than Greenhouse Earth. Both have high albedos (due to snow and clouds, respectively), which helps reduce temperature. It's pretty impractical to replace much of the energy contribution of solar loading by burning terrestrial sources of energy: sunlight is too bright, and the Earth has too big a cross-section.
Agreed. I guess I was thinking of a more local scenario and heat engines; in a Snowball Earth, you have a very nice cold reservoir for running your power plants. With a larger temperature delta they are more efficient.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
It's true, I admit it.... I'm addicted to food. I've tried to quit cold turkey, but the withdrawal symptoms are terrible.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
While scientists may not realize what's going on, or may not want to admit it, the reality is that average people do see and understand what has happened. They've come to associate "science" with "political agendas". Average people are rapidly losing trust in scientists and science in general.
That statement is generally correct, but not because scientists have politicized science. It's correct because politicians have politicized science, for some reason. Some politicians think that if you get enough votes, then pi equals exactly 3. Thankfully, the scientific method doesn't require specific political beliefs.
Let's talk about "average people", though. 77% of Americans believe that angels literally exist. 55% of Americans believe that the founders of the United States founded it as a Christian nation in the Constitution. 25% of Americans think that the sun revolves around the earth (I'll also point out that those 25% of people also probably don't trust scientists, which is not the fault of scientists). 40% of Americans don't believe in evolution, which is something so trivially obvious that I don't understand how someone can't find it to be self-evident. 51% of Americans were not confident that the Big Bang happened, and only 27% of Americans think the earth is 4.5 billion years old. 44% of Americans - that's less than half - are confident that vaccines do not cause autism. I'll take this opportunity to point out that the study which showed a link between vaccines and autism was retracted for fraudulent data, and its author lost his medical license because of it. Still, that retracted study causes confusion among your "average people". For some reason they'll believe a fraudulent study, but not believe that it's fraudulent, and you're trying to suggest that the problem is scientists with a political agenda. 36% of Americans think that Donald Trump is honest. A disturbing amount of people think the planet is flat, using "logic" leaps where I can't even understand the mental gymnastics they used to get from point A to point B.
Anyway, those are your "average people", probably the same kind of people who seem really impressed when you tell them you're a "computer scientist."
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Do we know what the perfect climate would be for everywhere and how that could be achieved and maintained?
Pretty sure that answer wouldn't fit into slashdot post lol. Actually I lied, yes it would. How's this?
It depends.
I believe it was a Nobel Winning Physicist who said, "if your data doesn't agree with your theory, it's your theory that is wrong, not the data. " (paraphrased)
1. Models are not "data". If the model is wrong, that means the model is wrong. But it doesn't disprove the underlying theory.
2. It was Richard Feynman.
Bullshit. Provide your citation.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I browse at 3 or above to get the best arguments, which keeps the top-level view manageable, but I always browse at -1 when looking at the replies.
I don't know what it is for everywhere, but I can tell you what it is for a farm that is producing well. That would be "whatever it currently is." I'm pretty sure the answer will never be hotter. In fact, in my neck of the woods, the peach crop was ruined this year because we didn't get enough cold hours. Provided this is a trend, it will destroy the entire industry here. Take that, and multiply it times every field everywhere, and then you can see the true "cost" of global climate change.
In some areas better food production, in other ways much worse.
Yep. And in the several maps that I've seen so far, the only places that have widespread better production will be the US and Canada. Pretty much everything else is hit hard (along with Texas to Kansas of the US). I always wonder if that has something to do with the US's denial of global warming.
Professor Quansheng Ge of the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, did a reconstruction of the past 2000 years of temperatures in China. Prof. Ge’s team found that the most rapid warming in China occurred over AD 1870-2000, at a rate of 0.56 ± 0.42C (100 yr); however, temperatures recorded in the 20th century may not be unprecedented in the last 2000 years, as reconstruction showed records for the period from 981 to 1100, and again from 1201 to 1270, were comparable to those of the present warm period, but with an uncertainty of ±0.28C to ±0.42C at the 95% confidence interval. Since 1000 CE–the period covering the Medieval Climate Anomaly, Little Ice Age, and the present warm period–temperature variations over China have typically been in phase with those of the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.
The study is published in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. https://link.springer.com/arti...
Drown? In knee high levels of water? You need an instant, catastrophic rise in water to have people drown. There have been those people living in boats for all other situations.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Yup! And in 2016 the polar votex broke up and now we have chaotic weather. They can kind of predict it.
Thank you!!!!
Most agree on the facts, the question is what do you do about it. Scenario 1: Let nature take its course, many will die off and/or find technological solutions to the problems that do arise. Scenario 2: Massive changes now in the way we live by benevolent governments which may or may not help the cause, worst case you end up with gorillas freezing to death in winter after they ate the mongooses that ate the snakes, best case is still questionable and you end up in scenario 1 again. Scenario 3 which is most likely is governments like the US and China eradicating the most "problematic" areas of the world in order for their populations to survive, that will quickly halt the growth of the problem, not sure if everyone will agree with that especially if they end up being wrong anyway.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I follow your statements...it is all a hoax invented by the Chinese. OK, I bite: By the time reliable temperature data was collected industrialization was already in full swing. I can understand that some might consider any measurements of the past 150 years as tainted. Sure, there were glaciers in Ohio, but over the past thousands of years the climate and ice sheets were stable. That can be clearly shown with examination of rocks, earth, trees, fossils, etc. In the past 100 years temperature rise has significantly accelerated and the only real change is indeed human activity. While there might not be a hard linked cause and effect to be demonstrated (that would require stopping pollution and waiting another 200 years) a strong correlation is clearly there. It is quite naive to burn oil and coal and think it has absolutely no impact on anything. Cause or not, I think we can agree that burning less fossil fuels is generally better. It might or might not do anything about the climate, but we surely will have cleaner air and less sour rain. So let's ditch the latest crazy talk about opening more coal mines and hurry up with becoming a leader in renewable energy. Currently, the Chinese are leading, they make money with renewables and close their coal mines at a rapid pace.
I'm smart enough to realize that the effect of data corrections should be more or less random. In the case of climate science it is nowhere near random.
And you know that: how? ... you are not as smart as you think but just repeating stupid myths.
Can you point out two data points? The originally recorded one and the 'corrected' one?
You see
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Sure I could, but you'll just attack the source and ignore it.
Fine. Earth has been hotter during times of flourishing life than it has now.
Advertising posters notwithstanding, do you really think polar bears just put on shades and pour themselves an ice-cold Coca-Cola when it's 45C?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I'm sorry, I forgot I was responding to a likely idiot, so let me give you that in Fahrenheit: 113.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
They will move south and mix with brown bears. They have already started doing so. I think they call them growler or groler bears. Grizzlies are brown bears, it's the same species.
The truth is, life will go on. Life will adapt.
It's going to suck, but many species will survive. Life is amazingly adept at finding a way to survive, some life will even thrive.
However, it's gonna suck.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
More people, globally, die from cold, as opposed to death by heat.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Innocent until proven guilty, right? Until you can prove, my car is killing the life on planet, kindly keep the screeching to the confines of your safe space. Thank you.
You are playing semantic games and build straw men. First, the standard of "proof" in law is very different in law, science, and logic. In criminal law, it's "beyond reasonable doubt". In civil law it's "preponderance of evidence".In logic, its "undeniable in all imaginable worlds". I don't want you to go to prison, I want you to stop polluting the planet. That's a civil matter. That standard was met long before. The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard was met, arguably, 15 years or so ago. The logic standard will never be met (see Descartes' Evil Demon), so demanding that just means you are a useless obstructionist. If you were serious about that, you would demand "logical proof" that breathing is worth the effort, and then die a quick death when our reality reasserts itself over hypothetical ones.
Stephan
Thats odd, why does this timeline start only at 20000 bc when earth and therefore weather is billions of years old (well, granted weather might be a bit younger).
We know of multiple ice ages and of multiple "hot periods", some of which were indeed hotter than today, fruit trees were found near the arctic circle for example. Those would not have grown there if it had not been much, much warmer than today.
Yes, the warming in our time is almost surely man-made, nonetheless this graphic reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
I don't know what it is for everywhere, but I can tell you what it is for a farm that is producing well. That would be "whatever it currently is." I'm pretty sure the answer will never be hotter. In fact, in my neck of the woods, the peach crop was ruined this year because we didn't get enough cold hours. Provided this is a trend, it will destroy the entire industry here. Take that, and multiply it times every field everywhere, and then you can see the true "cost" of global climate change.
This was a better response than mine!
It doesn't work that way.
Try telling the jury that I committed this crime. You'll need actual proof that I committed it. Not just that it happened.
And then I prove it and and then we are at the point this thread started. And then you'l plead insanity.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
That Kevin Costner movies was NOT a documentary, you know.
And this isn't Rotten Tomatoes, so stay on topic.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
More people, globally, die from cold, as opposed to death by heat.
And even more people die from exposure to the bullshit you keep posting without evidence.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
however, temperatures recorded in the 20th century may not be unprecedented in the last 2000 years
You may not be aware, but we are living in the 21st century, and so far that has been warmer than the 20th.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Not a hoax invented by the Chinese (nice strawman though), a hoax invented by the climate "scientists" to drum up funding. Look at US governmental funding of climate studies from the 1960s vs today (hint: we spend over $2,000,000,000 per year on AGW research and another $4,000,000,000 per year on climate technology research. That is a shit ton of cash and a business that extorts about the same amount of money from the American people as Comcast; at least Comcast provides a semi-useful service... It is exponentially larger because these "scientists" have convinced a decent segment of the population (mostly liberals lacking in a hard science education who are looking to virtue signal their fellow liberals) and enough politicians (also looking to virtue signal) that there is a crisis...
We should already be dead and the earth a ball of fire based on their computer models, which were wildly wrong, but the AGW crowd still call it "science" and keep believing because they have no clue and no background in hard science. I am one of those mythical scientists who do not accept AGW (another lie pushed hard by the AGW crowd, the 97% number is a joke and only surveyed 160 "climate scientists". http://www.nationalreview.com/...
Everyone is a "genius" on the internet, but as background, I hold a PhD in applied thermodynamics and have worked in applied thermodynamics for nearly twenty years, along with teaching for several years at university. I work/design with the underlying physics every day and have thoroughly investigated the AGW claims and the so called "science" and most of it is hand waving, computer modeling with thousands of fudge factors not based on first principles and flat out speculation by PhDs who have never done anything in the real world (100% theoretical work). If they were in any of my Thermo classes, most of the jokers would fail outright.
Let me lay out a few facts for you. If you are truly interested in science, they should be informative:
Fact: there were higher measured CO2 levels 150 years ago before the ICE and the industrial revolution: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
Fact: current global CO2 levels are a myth, "global" CO2 levels are measured at a single recording station in Hawaii where levels can vary 600PPM or more in a single day (the smooth graphs you see are computer generated lies created by averaging and smoothing algorithms.
Fact: global temperature is a myth. Temperature on the planet varies dramatically from the equator to the poles, day and night, season to season, elevation, ocean depth, surface temperature, atmospheric temperature, cloud cover, vegetation type, rainfall levels, regional geography, etc. Any of those factors plus others can cause the local temperature to vary 20-40C. Global temperature is an estimate based on fallible computer models that try to compensate and calculate using many local measurements and a bunch of fudge factors (numbers pulled out of someone's ass). Satellite measurements are also factored in to this model, but again, at a single site, temperatures can swing 20C in a single day night cycle, and easily double that from season to season. However, somehow we are supposed to believe them when they assure us that the planet has warmed 0.1C in the last 17 years (well within the margin of error, which has never been well defined, let alone validated for their global temperature model). http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/i...
Far too many people worship "science" instead of understanding it and practicing it, probably because they are too emotional and not intelligent enough to do the later, so my posts get mod-bombed by ignorant, self righteous idiots looking to virtue signal with mod points... Regardless how accurate they are.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
The ice age CO2 levels (i.e. not directly measured) contain assumptions (AKA educated guesses or SWAGs). Those assumptions can easily be wrong and there is no science to support those assumptions, they are just out there, yet to be proven or disproved. Thus, at best they are very weak and speculative evidence of historic CO2 levels.
Our best evidence for or against AGW is direct measurements made by real scientists before the industrial revolution. If AGW is real, and CO2 is the culprit, then CO2 must substantially rise from pre industrial revolution levels. However, if you look at the historical and non-smoothed data, CO2 levels haven't risen from what we observed pre-industrial revolution. http://drtimball.com/wp-conten...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
So you're saying that all the warming of the 20th century was NOT unprecedented, but the little bit of extra warmth in the 21st century IS?
Pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels measured by real scientists. http://drtimball.com/wp-conten... The circles are the values cherry picked by "climate scientists" to support their AGW farce.
You are factually incorrect that CO2 levels are higher today than they were pre-industrial revolution. The ONLY reason that CO2 levels fit nicely into the predicted and observed temperature changes is because the data has been cherry picked to support the hypothesis, which is flat out bad science. I failed more than one student for cherry picking data like this. I am sorry, but you have been mislead. It might be worth you while to listen to a real scientist and update your knowledge and undo some of the brainwashing.
CO2 is plant food. Many scientists, myself included, believe there is strong evidence that plant growth is limited by CO2 levels, and CO2 levels are limited by plant growth (mostly plants in the ocean, but on land as well to a lesser degree) in a self balancing relationship (living and dead organic mater captures something like 99% of carbon on the planet). CO2 is a critical component for life on earth.
AGW nuts point to Venus as a cautionary tale of greenhouse effects, but FFS Venus atmosphere is like 90% CO2. CO2 in earths atmosphere is around 400PPM or 0.04% or 1/2,500 the concentration on Venus (not to mention the higher radiative intensity of the sun on Venus due to being closer. Try asking a climate "scientist" what the temperature of the planet should be right now without their supposed AGW and watch them flop around with no evidence or science. http://insider.foxnews.com/201... How can you say AGW is a real thing if you don't know where the baseline should be?
The greenhouse effect is basic science, but only one small part of the radiation equation, which is the basic physics that drives the radiative losses of the planet into space. CO2 already blocks 100% of the IR bands where it comes into play, so adding more CO2 has no demonstrable effect on global warming. Additionally CO2 only blocks small bands of IR, not the entire spectrum and blocks less radiation losses than cloud cover (FYI).
You give a bunch of people with no background in hard science a 5th grade level explanation of greenhouse gasses and suddenly they think they have all the answers. You mix in some good old fashioned virtue signaling and anyone who disagrees with them is not only wrong, but evil...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Realize that your "scientific" argument is a comic strip, regardless of how popular on slashdot. Also note that everything before around 1850 is a dotted line because it is not scientific evidence, but pull it out of your ass guesswork based on secondary or even tertiary factors with a lot of built in assumptions. An educated guess by a PhD is still a guess.
Beyond the problems above, global temperature is a myth as you think of it. Temperature on the planet varies dramatically from the equator to the poles, day and night, season to season, elevation, ocean depth, surface temperature, atmospheric temperature, cloud cover, vegetation type, rainfall levels, regional geography, etc. Any of those factors plus others can cause the local temperature to vary 20-40C or more. Global temperature is an estimate based on fallible computer models that try to compensate and calculate using many local measurements and a bunch of fudge factors (numbers pulled out of someone's ass). Satellite measurements are also factored in to this model, but again, at a single site, temperatures can swing 20C in a single day night cycle, and easily double that from season to season. However, somehow we are supposed to believe them when they assure us that the planet has warmed 0.1C in the last 17 years (well within the margin of error, which has never been well defined, let alone validated for their global temperature model). http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/i...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
It makes a huge difference. If global warming is a natural phenomena, all the "green" solutions are wrong, and a huge, massive mistake and we should immediately stop pissing away hundreds of billions of dollars globally on "green" projects, products, etc. and start doing what is most economical, efficient and safe for humanity (Teraforming, local climate control, backup power generation, inherently human safe buildings, etc.)
There have always been un-livable regions of the world, and those regions have grown/shrunk/started/stopped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... We used to call them deserts and this is nothing new. If it is too inhospitable where you live, move.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
CO2 levels have been flat since we have been scientifically measuring the atmospheric gas (within the ranges that have been observed pre-industrial revolution). The AGW climate scientists have lied to you by cherry picking historical values to fit their agenda. The circled data in the first graph are the values that the AGW cherry picked as historical CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
Beyond that, global CO2 levels are a lie. "Global" CO2 levels are actually just a single measurement station in Hawaii where levels can CHANGE 600PPM in a single day.
Land use 200 years ago and back was literally less than 1% of the planet's land mass surface area, and that doesn't even factor in that 95% plus of plant mass on the planet is in the ocean. So you are talking about 1% of at best 5% or 0.05% impact on plant mass, assuming other plants didn't grow 0.1% more due to the ever so slightly greater availability of CO2, totally wiping out any effect.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Sorry, you have been lied to. CO2 levels have been the same since we started to scientifically measure them pre-industrial revolution. The AGW liars cherry picked the data to support their lie, and you have swallowed it hook line and sinker. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
And apparently if we stop all industrial activity immediately the Earth will get even hotter than it is now.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/l...
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Palentologists are the ones who can best prove that climate change is not sinusoidal or repetative over long periods of time. ....
So enjoy the 120 heat in Texas and Arizona, and he parched land in Navada and the melting ice in Alaska and the flooding in Florida and
All that must be the will of nature. Its like saying, put on a coat. Do you feel warmer? Its not your body, its nature that is making you warmer.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
True, but conversely, we have already dealt with nearly all real pollution in the US (we have clean air and clean water and real laws to protect against real pollution), and now we are faced with some minor temperature fluctuations; about 0.1C in the last 17 years) http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/i... and the radical AWG crowd are trying to convince us to spend massive amounts of money on ineffective mitigation of a natural phenomenon, go back to the stone age and live in mud huts like the third world, or kill ourselves to "save the planet"...
Alternatively, the rational person asks first why we should spend 20% of our GDP on ineffective mitigation when AGW based on rising CO2 levels is demonstrably false (historical SCIENTIFICALLY MEASURED CO2 levels pre-industrial revolution) are on par with what we see today http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... and global warming is much more easily, economically and effectively countered with technology (climate control systems, sea walls, better building designs, etc.)
The earth is a massive sandbox, and we occupy only 10% of the land mass with everything that we do (farming, dwellings, dwellings, etc.) The rest is wild. Land only makes up 30% of the total area. All the humans on the planet could fit inside the county of Jacksonville, Florida. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... If you are crowded where you are, you should move.
Regardless of the SJW AGW crusaders here on slashdot, AGW is on the ropes in the collective consciousness of society because they have been wrong far too often and been caught violating scientific methods and ethics (faking and cherry picking data, etc.) to be taken seriously anymore. The era of "feeling" that something is right and virtue signaling is in it's death throes, welcome to a new age of enlightenment.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I'm saying if you find a fire burning the forest, you can't assume that it was man made. I don't exclude the possibility, but the AGW "climate scientists" have yet to show anyone real proof that the 0.1C rise in the last 17 years was man caused or indicative of a coming apocalypse. If it wasn't, we are pissing away $7,000,000,000 a year in the US alone that could be better spent on health care for the poor, job training for the unemployed (literally just about anything). And that doesn't even consider all of the private sector spending that could be better spent elsewhere...
AGW crowd: "CO2 levels are increasing" Nope, they lied and the cat is out of the bag. They cherry picked the scientific measurements made pre-industrial revolution to fit their narraive instead of including all the data, which agrees well with what we see today regarding CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
AGW crowd: "CO2 blocks IR from escaping, more is bad!" Nope, CO2 in the atmosphere already blocks 100% of the IR in the bands that it reflects IR and the 100% reflection happens well below 100PPM (current levels are maybe 440PPM with historic SCIENTIFIC pre-industrial measurements between 250-550PPM)...
AGW crowd: "All scientists believe in AGW!" Nope, that lie was based on a survey of 160 climate scientists, of which 77 responded. That is hardly all scientists.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
AGW crowd: "You are evil and you want everyone to drown from sea level rise!" Nope, sea levels are projected to rise between 0.5 feet and 6 feet. It is trivial for us to build 20 ft sea walls, and they could already be built around all endangered, inhabited coastline for what we have spent on AGW research and development in the last 5 years in the US alone ($35,000,000,000). If global warming really will continue as AGW nuts project and they really were concerned, then they should encourage the redirection of their funding to start building the sea walls.... but it is not real, it is just a cash cow for the AGW green industries and research grant industry.
AGW crowd: "But, but, it feel AGW is real, and I'm terrified!" The rest of society: STFU already http://insider.foxnews.com/201...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
I got down modded by trolls who masquerade as actual humans. I have excellent karma, regardless of a few shitstorms like this caused by ignorant SJW libtards who can't formulate a coherent response due to excessive froth in their mouths so they just downmod instead. Feel free to check out my replies to other thoughtful humans who posted to this thread. You might learn something beyond your echo chamber.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
In general I also browse at higher levels, but I also add modifiers to other intelligent slashdoters that I come across so that when reasonable posts are made and get immediately nuked by some jackass SJW, I can see them and upmod them back. There are a lot of butt hurt little fascist libtards looking to dish out some "justice" to anyone who doesn't conform to their narrative, now that they have completely lost their shit over the last election.
Feel free to check out all of the detailed, sourced replies that I have made to other non-troll posts on this thread and tell me again how wrong my original post was and how it was a troll exactly. This is the same shit that just got that guy fired over at Google. Fascist little SJW can't tolerate opposition because they don't have the facts on their side, so they must silence all outside their groupthink.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
And there are the SJW mod points. I get blasted to -1 and you have +4 for for your facist little screed. Your display name is well suited.
Meanwhile AGW has cherry picked the CO2 data to justify their lies: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
AGW fraudsters have falsified data to support their lies: https://science.house.gov/news...
So I agree, no more fair and balanced hearing of both sides. We know that the AGW "climate scientists" lied their asses off to "prove" AGW. Defund all AGW research, development, mandates, etc. and anything related to AGW. If it is really a thing, the SJW can fund it out of their own pockets and we will see how long that lasts.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Thank you
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Or to further your analogy, I have 20 years experience in applied Thermodynamics and a PhD in the field. The science is far from settled. I have done a lot of research on the topic and there is good, hard science that CO2 levels are not rising from historic, pre-industrial levels: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
Since that is the main argument of AGW, I (and a lot of other scientists) are saying that there is only one hole, from natural causes not yet well understood, and rather than throwing our engine overboard, which will do nothing but cost us our engine, we should use our scientific knowledge and our engineering skills to wall/seal off the affected parts of the ship, pump the water out and patch the hole from the outside. Some people will have their rooms flooded, but that's tough shit, at least the ship doesn't go down and we can relocate the affected people or reclaim those rooms if we want (we are only talking about between 6 inches and 6 feet of sea level rise... the 1000% margin of error tells you just how inexact climate "science" really is, if it is to be believed at all, remember, these guys can't predict if it will rain a week from today with any reasonable accuracy.)
Once we remove the AGW facet of global warming, it becomes a much simpler engineering problem to solve by mitigation until the earth enters its next cooling phase. And you also remove the moralistic virtue signaling BS the SJW have been swinging around for the last 20 years.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
The US has just had 8 years of "green jobs" which turned out to be BS. https://www.bloomberg.com/news... AGW mitigation work is the same as bureaucracy, not only does it waste the life energy of the worker trying to solve the wrong problem, it places an unnecessary burden on the rest of us.
We already have clean air and clean water, and those were as you say valuable improvements, but that is not the topic at hand. Trying to mitigate CO2 in the atmosphere is like removing Nitrogen from the atmosphere, there is no benefit because there is no problem. CO2 levels measured scientifically pre-industrial revolution are the same as today: http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
The expected sea level rise is somewhere between 6 inches and 2 feet IF warming continues. The wildest projections have it at 6 feet. That is not millions of people displaced. In the modern world, we will just build seawalls, in the third world, people will just move, as this change is not like a tidal wave, it is gradual. There is a lot of evidence that sea levels have been rising for millennia: http://thechive.com/2016/11/03... Those people didn't have gills, they built on dry land and as the sea levels rose, they moved and the stuff they didn't take went under, that's just historical fact and a part of our world.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
You might what to stop making a fool out of yourself and read the facts about pre-industrial revolution CO2 levels measured by real scientists and how they stack up with current CO2 levels. http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
So lets take the $6,000,000,000 we piss away each year on AGW research and pipe water from rivers to the biggest deserts on the planet and start terraforming them, first with more desert species and eventually more biodense species of plants. Lets have a true green initiative for everyone who lives in the desert or high desert and start paying them to grow trees, grass and other plants. We could probably capture all of the CO2 we are generating within a few decades. Let me know how the AGW industry likes that idea.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
First of all, $6B is very little in the scheme of things. Consider the $500B we piss away on the military. Second, it's geoengineering, not terraforming. We already live on Earth (Terra). Third, diverting large amounts of water to sustain deserts is a poor plan, just ask California how it's working out for them. Fourth, the sheer volume of CO2 being emitted is far beyond what a few new forests could absorb even if we could sustain them (which we cannot). Thus far we have put 400 years worth of what trees can absorb into the atmosphere. Fifth, even if we so how managed to remove it, it's only being sequestered within the tree until the tree dies at which point it's released. This wouldn't actually solve the problem.
The only way to solve this is to use a lot of machines to extract the hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 that we've already put into their air.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
If you stop reading the MSM and get some real news you'd see it - http://www.washingtontimes.com... . Look at pictures of any planet from 30 years ago and today and you can see changes with your own eyes. They are actually visible and show warming.
Not man, nature. Only the brainwashed still think Man is causing it.
Depends on the source.
And actually, I would be to lazy to attack anyone.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Sorry, you have been lied to. CO2 levels have been the same since we started to scientifically measure them pre-industrial revolution.
Bullshit. One retired geologist claims thousands of sites measuring CO2 levels are faked. What are the chances you fell for "it", swallowing the whole trawler?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
So you're saying that all the warming of the 20th century was NOT unprecedented,
Nope. Learn to read, that might help with your life problems.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
You posted that jerkoff link as a citation and you think I need to worry about credibility? Remove the log from your own eye, sir.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I assumed his main point was the sudden change in the rate of how fast the temperature is changing rather than the absolute numbers. That is what is unprecedented (except for perhaps events like Chicxulub), and going back further isn't going to change that. Also I doubt the data we have past 20000BC is that granular anyway.
Please feel free to discredit the pre-industrial revolution scientists who created the data that I linked to, if you have an actual evidence to back them up. If CO2 levels were measured between 250 and 550PPM at that time, and we see the same levels today (which we do) then you cannot rationally argue that CO2 levels are rising because of human industrialization. Sorry.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Prolific troll is prolific. Do you give lead painted toys, asbestos mittens and DDT spray bottles to kids as Christmas stocking stuffers, to stick it to those librul scientists who are just making shit up? If not, why not?
Please feel free to discredit the pre-industrial revolution scientists who created the data that I linked to,
I'd gladly do. Too bad you and Ballsy don't actual provide the data you "use" your graph. Do you have anything to hide? Like what and how was actually measured? Maybe because those measurements not only include the gaseous CO2 that is actually greenhouse effect relevant, but also CO2 soluted in the air humidity, which isn't relevant, and ignored today? Heck, the huge variation for data from the same time should show you something is wrong with the data.
But others digged up the facts and already debunked that graph from your link years ago: http://www.somesnarksareboojum...
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
If you stop reading the MSM and get some real news you'd see it - http://www.washingtontimes.com... . Look at pictures of any planet from 30 years ago and today and you can see changes with your own eyes
Errm, the news you linked to talks about "larger variations over thousands of years", not 30.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The way I see, both sides have valid points: the earth is in a warming trend, and would be with or without us.
That's an odd claim considering that one side predominantly proclaims there is no warming trend. Even if what you claimed were true, it would obviously not be a compromise position.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
That's right. We're seeing some big changes in our planet in the past 30 years. So big that you could see it from another planet. The point I'm making is we see these same type of changes on other planets from our own planet. No "evil" humans there destroying those planets. The point I'm making is it's not us doing it. It's nature. We just happen to be at a point where it's noticeable. Sky is not falling, we've been here before and not that long ago really. Romans grew grapes in England when they occupied it and that's just right around 2000 years ago. You can look that up, it's a fact that they can't lie to you about. Had to be warmer to grow grapes. The sea was at least 30' higher than it is today, though that's a lot tougher to find. I also found that while researching English/Roman history. So we're returning to where we were. No need to pay guys like Al Gore a bunch of money. Al has made over 500 million on his global warming crusade, some people would say scam.
Have to know when you're being lied to. Something a large part of the US doesn't know about. Google Debbie Wasserman Shultz. That's not fake news. That's probably the biggest story since Watergate, probably the biggest since the Tea Pot Dome scandal. The MSM is barely covering it at all. That should be front and center, talked about and investigated like crazy. They don't want to because it'll expose them. Their lies. The press corp in general aren't that bright either. When I was in college, anyone could be a journalist. Dumbest of the dumb and were still in college.
All the humans on the planet could fit inside the county of Jacksonville, Florida. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And they'd all get wet feet in a few years.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
That's right. We're seeing some big changes in our planet in the past 30 years. So big that you could see it from another planet. The point I'm making is we see these same type of changes on other planets from our own planet.
That's not what your article says. You need to read it again, and again, and again, until you understand that.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
That was a start. I see I have to supply the supplemental material. Fair enough.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci...
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
Physics behind it - http://www.earth-climate.com/
A site that has put together a whole lot of research - https://realclimatescience.com...
How did we get here? A D science student from Harvard -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Once you look at this stuff, it's hard to not see he fraud that has been put upon us at great expense. So the question is - will you allow yourself to be fooled again by guys like Al Gore?
Let's pretend for the moment that you're right, and global warming IS a natural phenomenon. That doesn't immediately indicate that all of the "green" solutions are wrong - except in one respect - and that is if CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Except in that scenario, the "green" solutions are good ones, and are actually the least intervention.
I've read of scientists talking of "geoforming", with various proposals, notably aerosols to reflect more light. But universally they're afraid of trying that kind of thing, and want to try the lesser interventions of CO2 reduction first. They consider "active geoforming" to be a last-ditch measure.
Your assertion that "green solutions are wrong" is likely based on the assertion that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Most of the scientific community asserts that it is. Since you don't trust them, who are you trusting for your geoforming science, and why the heck should I trust them?
Or try something else... Since you say global warming is part of a natural cycle, then PREDICT! So far the global warming side is doing a decent job of predicting - each of at least the past four years has been the warmest year on record, each surpassing the last. On the global warming side, the prediction is that that will continue for some years, even with intervention.
What does you natural cycle "theory" predict?
Make a prediction, let's TEST.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I don't trust any scientists. I have a PhD in applied science, and am fully capable of reviewing the data myself, which I have been doing for over 20 years. I believe and trust hard facts, and have a very low opinion of climate "scientists" who have been shilling for grant money and wildly wrong for the last 20 plus years with their computer models and predictions, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp... AGW "scientists" have been caught repeatedly faking numbers, http://www.washingtontimes.com... and even they will agree that the science is far from settled (the only people arguing that the science is settled and all scientists believe in AGW are Bill Nye and the idiot politicians and those who worship at their feet). Further, your assertion that being right that the temperature is going up somehow validates the AGW "scientists" is ludicrous. Is it rational, as the AGW "scientists" argue, to destroy our civilization, and kill millions of people (even unintentionally, they are still dead, and rolling back civilization in favor of nature always costs lives, just ask the 45 million Africans who have died of Malaria to "save the birds" after we stopped using DDT http://www.discoverthenetworks... http://www.who.int/malaria/med... )
If the global temperature will rise another 0.3C in the next 100 years before falling 2C in the following 500 years is it in any way rational to divert funds from the most efficient and economical solutions to problems like energy, transportation, heating and AC? I will answer for you: No, it is not. Is there any moral, legal or rational justification for redistributing by force natural resources or money to countries more affected by global warming if AGW is not real? No there is not. There are some very key results if AGW is real or not that come into play.
Scientific fact says CO2 levels pre-industrial revolution were measured between 250 and 550 PPM. Therefore, our measurements today do not indicate much, if any, change in CO2 concentrations globally. The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that plant growth is limited primarily by CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and that is where all the CO2 has been going as we produce it. This theory has been thoroughly tested and proven scientifically (if you increase CO2 concentrations locally, keeping other factors constant, plant growth is more rapid, more dense and the overall carbon capture rate increases.) This is scientific fact, not pull it out of your ass speculation.
Furthermore, hard science says that the earth's atmosphere is already 100% opaque in the 3 IR bands that CO2 absorbs. Thus, arguing more CO2 in the atmosphere contributes to global warming is wild speculation at best and at worst irrational/disingenuous.
Unlike your (incorrect) assertions, I do not follow others, I have and will continue to evaluate the evidence myself. I am happy to make a prediction for you: The climate will change. It will be either hotter or cooler than it is today. Glaciers will either grow or shrink. Sea levels will either rise or fall. The one constant that we know is that the climate is never constant. To assert that what we see today is atypical and caused by humans based on the last 300 years of observation is irrational and completely ignores the facts at hand. https://static.skepticalscienc...
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like