Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Pollution Touched 800,000 Year Record in 2016, WMO Says (bloomberg.com)
Carbon dioxide levels surged to their highest level in at least 800,000 years because of pollution caused by humans and a strong El Nino event, according to the World Meteorological Organization. From a report: Concentrations of the greenhouse gas increased at a record speed in 2016 to reach an average of 403.3 parts per million, up from 400 parts per million a year earlier, the WMO said in a statement on Monday warning of "severe ecological and economic disruptions." The WMO said the last time the Earth had a comparable concentration of CO2s, the temperature of the planet was 2 degrees to 3 degrees Celsius warmer and sea levels were 10 meters to 20 meters higher than now.
You mean the world already had these CO2 levels 800,000 years ago and yet life is still thriving? Color me unamused.
they did something called "Carbon Credits" and it worked
The way you can tell CO2 doesn't have the effect on the climate the fear-mongers want you to think it does, is that as CO2 continues to climb climate changes do not track with CO2 increases, much less exhibit any kind of runaway effect which is the whole reason you were supposed to fear CO2 to begin with.
Luckily even for those of you that continue to fear irrationally, CO2 production will inevitably decline in the coming decades as solar and other forms of renewable energy take over for real, now that that are close to actually making more sense than fossil fuels.
I don't think that you understand the meaning of the word rational.
CO2's effect has been demonstrated conclusively.
That "El Nino" needs to be taxed so this doesn't happen again.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Face it: Whether or not it's human-caused, there is literally no downside to our species ceasing to dump unnecessary waste gasses and pollutants into our environment. Saying "it costs too much, it's too much of an economic burden!" is about as short-sighted as you can get. We, as a species, keep shitting all over the planet we live on, and through the magic of denial, expect there's going to be no consequences -- or worse, don't care because the consequences won't affect us, immediately, it'll affect future generations ("that's their problem, not ours, why should we care?"); reprehensible. We have the technology to move away from 100-year-old energy sources, why not use it?
Luckily even for those of you that continue to fear irrationally, CO2 production will inevitably decline in the coming decades as solar and other forms of renewable energy take over for real, now that that are close to actually making more sense than fossil fuels.
Luck is the key word there, because despite huge increase in solar and wind, we are see NO improvement in CO2 emissions. As long as so many cling to the oversimplified dream that simply adding solar and wind and EVs will make enough of a difference, we will fail.
We need all the tools in the toolbox, particularly nuclear, to stand a chance. We can't hope for breakthroughs as a strategy. We must consider the socioeconomic aspects of solutions as well. But, unfortunately we'll just hear more of the same 'more solar, more wind, hope for battery storage' mantra... the definition of insanity.
Hmm, an El Nino event + human pollution combined? It's like that time that Michael Jordon and Stacey King combined for 70 points.
You will see real change when Al Gore gives up his private jet and three vacation homes.
I thought it was CO2 pollution, not Carbon.
Carbon = life.
Oh, right, I get it now...
At the same time, what exactly do we have to lose by finding cleaner and potentially more efficient ways to do things? Surely 100+ years later there are better alternatives.
Why did everything not die then?
Just a guess, but the lack of 7 billion people and their concomitant industrial output probably had something to do with it.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Climate Change is a Threat...
But apparently not enough of a threat to convince the anti-nukes to abandon their irrational fears.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Idiot.
When you attack somebody for asking questions, you aren't doing science. You're doing religion.
don't you just love being the armchair expert....
"as solar and other forms of renewable energy take over for real, now that that are close to actually making more sense than fossil fuels" good to see someone actually seeing the point of scientific progress and finally seeing that things do not happen overnight as most deniers seem to think it should happen (same problem for evolution deniers too, expecting to see things happen overnight). Imagine if they listened to the climate deniers and didn't do all that work on renewable energy solutions.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Yes he is.
Insofar as he understands anything, he knows the desires of political hacks who will use this for massive control of the economy so they can get huge kickbacks to ease off a bit.
Follow the money.
We should no more be throwing brakes on the economy than people in 1900 should have to "help" us today...leaving us with 1970 level tech (if that) in 2017.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
CO2 provides raw material for plant photosynthesis, which helps to grow food. Global warming = more food.
There's lots of effects that you generally wouldn't think of. For example, as someone who's working on engineering a house to last many hundreds of years, one thing that's key to avoid is the key longevity limitation of traditional concrete: carbon dioxide slowly seeps into the concrete, turning calcium hydroxide to calcium carbonate (limestone) and thus lowering its pH; when the pH drops too much at the steel rebar, it no longer protects it, it rusts, increases greatly in volume, and the concrete spalls out. So I have to avoid steel rebar.
Now, most buildings aren't engineered for such long lifespans, and so they include steel rebar, with standard calculations on how long it will last relative to how deep it is within the concrete, local climactic conditions, and so forth, to meet a preset target lifespan. But as the CO2 level in the atmosphere rises, the rate at which CO2 reacts with concrete increases; this affects every concrete structure on Earth. The average building can expect its lifespan to be cut short 15-20 years in a "business as usual" CO2 scenario.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
Yeah, we wouldn't want to challenge assumptions in order to form a better understanding of the physical world. Everyone that doesn't agree with you should just shut up and go away I guess.
How can you embrace science and fact when you aren't willing to challenge hypotheses and theories? That's the whole basis of science.
Here's an idea: instead of being a smug douchebag throwing around ad hominem, why don't you actually refute his / her claims? Or, if your claim of repetition is to be believed at all, link to previous refutations. You say there's many, so be lazy and link to them.
Or else maybe you should "just shut the actual fuck up already" yourself.
Move to Mars!!!
Pick up a "Get In Loser This Planet Blows" shirt to commemorate your stay on Earth.
Yes, there is more solar and wind generation.
There is also more energy use in general.
For the huge increases in solar and wind to matter, we need to actually TURN OFF the fossil fuel based generation. Installation of renewables need to outpace demand increase to the degree of replacing existing generation. That's when CO2 output goes down.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Carbon is not pollution. If you think it is, then you should kill yourself because you are a carbon-based life-form.
That effect is what we're already supposed to be measuring. What are you talking about? You have not in any real way answered the poster's question above about why the planet didn't fry, nor why 2C higher matters to us at all.
I'm actually in favor of global warming. Climate change will have very little negative impact on the planet as a whole. Ecosystems will adapt, life will go on.
Humanity, however, is another mater. The coastal cities, where most of the human population reside, will become flodded and inhabitable. Entire countries, harbouring hundreds of millions of people, like Bengladesh, will completely disapear under the oceans. Global agriculture will be so profondly perturbated that millions of people will starve. Economy will collapse, countries will be flodded will millions of climatic refugies, wars, genocide, and blodshed will ensue. Basically, human civilization, as we know it, will be completely wiped off the face of the earth.
It's like a cancerous tumor producing its own chimotherapy. Please, stop interfering.
That depends on long term ramifications. Hard to predict, but unless the cost of electricity, oil, gas etc is lower than it is now, economically we lose out.
The runaway effect needs something like 3000ppm of CO2. This is not going to happen. What you need to fear is the sea level rise, desertification, extreme weather and your neighbors who will gladly kill you once they have nothing to eat.
The parent comment really shows how awful the discussion, and especially the modding, has become here. Kendall, who has long been one of the most positive contributors to this site, is downmodded and punished for making a sensible, high-quality comment. At the same time the attacker, whose comments amounts to nothing more than baseless accusations and vulgarities, is modded up. Every day the quality of this site decreases because of the awful modding. I can't imagine why anyone would waste their money advertising here. Anyone worth advertising to sees the awful modding here and they leave right away.
Care to present a scientific article which pretended earth would end up like venus in a run away effect ? There is quite a few fear that there is a potential run effect with methane clathrate and a few fear about permafrost earth melting dumping a lot of carbon in the atmosphere, but none are about a venus end effect, all are more about going back to pre-cambrian or similar climate, which would be hell for all our coast , agricultural area, and various very negative effect on the food supply of a majority of the earth population, not counting that this would be so quick many species would not be able to adapt. Some *dumb* lay people may have told that, end effect venus, but then it is your fault to believe lay source rather than hard science.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Let's start with your local power plant.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
> Really, in what way?
> How do you "demonstrate" the whole planet will warm into an
> unstoppable Venus like unlivable atmosphere? Because that's why we
> were told to fear CO2.
You don't *demonstrate*. You set up models and calculate. And for all we know, we're going to see the effects (heck, one could argue we are seeing the effects already). It'll take some time.
Keep to your denial and -- enjoy the party while it lasts.
Don't tell that to the plants. Carbon dioxide helps plants grow. That's why in times past when CO2 levels were high we had bracken ferns that were 60 feet tall. Increased carbon will certainly change things, but the planet has changed before. Seas have risen and fallen. Continents have merged and separated, the climate has warmed and cooled--all with no help from us.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
It's impossible to have discussions about technology that can offset our carbon emissions because everyone ends up replying to the same tired old logical fallacies from the same willfully obtuse deniers like yourself. Your logical fallacy of choice for this post is the straw man fallacy. No one except you claimed that everything would die off. That's intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you'll return with another denial attempt from your bag of tricks such as a false dichotomy, the ad hominem fallacy, the false equivalency, dodging the question, or any number of other logical fallacies that you and other deniers love to trot out. It's a tired act that needs to stop.
The greenhouse effect is established science. Its basic physics than can be demonstrated in a laboratory. Adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere makes the greenhouse effect stronger. This is obvious. As for why the warmer temperatures in the past didn't have more dramatic effects on life, it's because the worst effects were probably in the oceans, plus the relatively gradual nature of the changes allowed life more time to adapt. The present day greenhouse gas increases are much more abrupt compared with what's been observed in the past, and thus there's far less time for life to evolve and adapt to the changes. An abrupt change is almost certainly much more dangerous than a gradual one, and on geologic time scales, what we're witnessing in the present day is incredibly abrupt.
U seem rational. Where online can i find your blog?
I see you purposely left out nuclear from the supply side increase. If that was intentional, it tells me you hold an anti-nuclear stance as more important that emissions reduction, and are willing to throw out the one scale-able solution that is presently generating the most CO2 emission free electricity. In other words, not really that serious about pursuing all solutions. If it was inadvertent, then so be it, but expecting dramatic demand reduction is to ignore socioeconomic factors.
Actually I heard Venus is pretty nice around this time of year...
(for the humor impaired, look up the Marching Morons)
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Nobody sane has been saying that scenario is likely. If that's what people you are listening to are either saying or claiming that other people are saying, then you should consider listening to other people.
Not that it isn't possible. You mentioned the incontrovertible evidence yourself: Venus. It's just that the climate models don't predict it. Of course, if you believe the climate models are unreliable and untrustworthy, then a Venusian scenario is back on the table, and you really should worry about it.
But when sane people talk about runaway effects, they are talking about scenarios that merely kill hundreds of millions of people and ruin the lives of billions more. Nothing really to worry about from a species extinction point of view, but personally I'd like to avoid that.
There is NO form of energy that can provide the base power load requirements that is not fossil based, other than nuclear.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Admission up front that there was ever a period of time when the Earth had higher overall temperatures and higher sea levels? This does not meet the acceptable narrative and does nothing to promote rabid fear mongering. It will be removed from the collective memory post-haste.
Slash Dot new name is politically dot.
The runaway effect needs something like 3000ppm of CO2. This is not going to happen.
Could you please provide some additional reading/sources for this?
Hydroelectric begs to differ.
The worst carbon pollution is not from CO_2, and it is worse than it has ever been in the history of the planet earth. It is from a host of other organic compounds that have clumped together in literally billions of clumps all over the world, and are destroying the earth much like a metastasizing cancer. These are carbon-based clumps of the two-legged variety.
The slashdot link is really useless. Further rant: I really hate sites that highlight a word/organisation/site and then when you click on that link will show all articles on that subject in their own site (Looking at you, engadget! )That's what bloomberg seems to do.
Here's the original link
https://public.wmo.int/en/medi...
and the actual bulletin:
https://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-we...
I see you purposely left out nuclear from the supply side increase.
Probably because that wasn't what the post he was responding to was talking about.
If that was intentional, it tells me
If that was intentional, it tells you nothing other than that he was responding on topic.
you hold an anti-nuclear stance as more important that emissions reduction,
It tells you nothing of the sort. For a post to be anti-nuclear it has to express opinions against nuclear power. A post is not "anti" something merely if it doesn't mention something.
There are plenty of people who actually are anti-nuclear. Save your outrage for replying to them, and don't go inserting an anti-nuclear opinions into the posts of people who expressed nothing of the sort.
Why did everything not die then?
Just a guess, but the lack of 7 billion people and their concomitant industrial output probably had something to do with it.
I'll have to say this slowly, so even the Greens will understand.
Parent's question is about the effect on the overall environment last time the CO2 level hit 403 ppm before human existence. Right now, the industrial output of those 7 billion humans have brought us to 403 ppm again. It was not apocalypse then, so why should it be apocalypse, other than for Malibu realtors, now?
Luck is the key word there, because despite huge increase in solar and wind, we are see NO improvement in CO2 emissions. As long as so many cling to the oversimplified dream that simply adding solar and wind and EVs will make enough of a difference, we will fail.
To get to zero carbon, we have to eliminate the fossil baseload. Greens can dream of wind-powered unicorns all they want, but any country that has heavy industries and large cities will need a carbon-free baseload to replace the fossil baseload.
[The Russia collusion investigation will get Trump] eventually and so we go back to having a President that understands the perils of global warming.
If Trump is removed, Pence will become president. Pence very reluctantly says that human activities may have "some impact on climate", but says that doing anything to address it would be "the kind of restrictions on our economy that are putting Americans out of work and, frankly, are driving jobs out of this country."
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/pences-stance-on-climate-change/
And he goes on to say climate change is "just an issue for the left."
This tired old nonsense again?
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Bring a fresh argument next time. If the climate conspiracy blogs can cook up any.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I'm here for the CReimer posts.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
I've met a number of climate scientists. They welcome genuine questions. They'd also would rather global warming wasn't happening.
There's a simple and logical answer to why the current increase in CO2 might well be worse. When 403 ppm was reached previously, the change in CO2 and the effects on temperature were much more gradual than what we're experiencing now. Life is very resilient. Give it time to adapt to changing climate and it will. However, the present increase in CO2 and the associated warming is much more abrupt, leaving far less time for life to adapt and evolve.
I'll have to say this slowly, so even the Greens will understand.
You should try thinking more quickly, being obtuse and dumb isn't going to help you with anybody.
Parent's question is about the effect on the overall environment last time the CO2 level hit 403 ppm before human existence. Right now, the industrial output of those 7 billion humans have brought us to 403 ppm again. It was not apocalypse then, so why should it be apocalypse, other than for Malibu realtors, now?
Ah, you're thinking of religion? Sorry, that's got nothing to do with science.
Well, I suppose you could be thinking of the actual meaning of the phrase, which would be a revelation, but that's exceedingly unlikely.
My suggestion is that you improve your thinking instead.
It'll benefit you.
Insofar as he understands anything, he knows the desires of political hacks who will use this for massive control of the economy so they can get huge kickbacks to ease off a bit.
Ooh, libertarian-tainted conspiracy thinkings! The global illuminati/socialist/masonic/Rothschild conspiracy is making its bid for global control, and they're using solar power as their tool! Everybody organize to stop it!
Follow the money.
OK. The fossil fuel industry is a trillion dollar a year industry. Everything else is trivial compared to that number. Money followed: the fossil fuel industry is driving everything.
We should no more be throwing brakes on the economy
OK. To not brake the economy, the best thing to do would be to go rapidly into new energy technologies, which are economic growth areas, and quit supporting antique fossil-fuel plants that haven't been updates since Ford was in office.
than people in 1900 should have to "help" us today...leaving us with 1970 level tech (if that) in 2017.
Coal power is 1920s decade technology. Wind is 1990s decade technology. Low cost solar is 2000s decade technology. High capacity battery night storage is 2010 decade technology. If you're worried about 1970 level tech, that was fossil fuel, allright.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
How about "moderation -1 stupid" instead?
I think the Mossi g here is actually pretty good. I appreciate the fact that they donâ(TM)t just delete everything and hellban everybody like they do on other websites.
The number of remaining viable un-dammed hydro sites, begs to begs to differ to differ.
Time to evolve? For 2C?
The high/low temperature spread today is more than 10C.
The summer winter spread is at least 50C.
And now you tell me that 2C over a century is going to cause species to die out. I smell a bit of alarmism in that claim.
About as much as I smell in the claim that the ice at the poles is going to melt (up from -40C) while the equator becomes unlivably hot . . . again, with a 2C overall increase. I could swallow the "average" claim, IF they said the poles would melt OR the equator would become unlivable. But, the alarmist want to claim both, with only a 2C increase.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Even the IPCC say there is virtually no chance of anthropogenic activities causing a runaway greenhouse effect a la Venus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A runaway greenhouse effect is a process in which a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away.[1][2] An example of this is believed to have happened in the early history of Venus. On the Earth, the IPCC states that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'â"analogous to [that of] Venusâ"appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."
https://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/s... page 11
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Maybe we will not have a "venus effect", but you should still fear CO2.
FYI: professional safety limits for CO2 exposition, 8 hrs/day, are 5000 ppm (italian laws). Check your country's laws, probably your values aren't too different. Considering a 24/7/365 exposition, I figure we end up with numbers even closer to the current 400 ppm level.
Let me know when the world population actually starts going *down* from the current 7 billion then. Until then...meh.
FUD about climate change comes from many supposedly authoritative sources:
Stephen Hawking: Earth Could Turn Into Hothouse Planet Like Venus
NASA scientist warns of runaway global warming
How much cooler was the Earth on average during the Little Ice Age?
2C makes a huge difference in the timing of spring & fall weather, in the elevations at which certain plants can live (and they can't simply move) and in the ability of pests to survive in different locations.
Whether changes are limited to 2C average remains to be seen, especially as CO2 changes have been happening very quickly (in geological terms) and the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 and heat has left the atmospheric climate changes to lag, so far.
True, but the effects are diminishing with increasing concentrations. That's because CO2 acts like an optical filter, and most of the radiation is already absorbed. So, if that basic physics was all there was to the science, we clearly wouldn't have to worry about carbon emissions at all.
In order to conclude that there is any significant danger from greenhouse gases, you have to run climate models that make various assumptions about positive feedback loops; those feedback loops are not "basic physics", can't be "demonstrated in a laboratory", and are largely speculative and unproven at this point. You also have to assume that there are no additional negative feedback loops to counteract the effects, again something we don't know.
It's dishonest for you and others to conflate the basic physics of the greenhouse effect with the speculative models involving assumptions about feedback that are used to argue for the need to reduce carbon emissions.
There is no way of determining how rapid changes were in the past, the record isn't detailed enough, so that statement has no scientific basis.
What we do know is that mammals and primates thrived at much higher CO2 concentrations than today, and that the climate was generally milder and wetter. So if you want to argue that high carbon concentrations are a problem, you need to address that issue as well, and you need to address it better than through fabrications ("more abrupt") and handwaving ("allowed life more time to adapt"), because that is neither scientific nor rational.
These sperm lickers are blowing smoke out their ass. In an equitable world, each and every one of them would be stripped to the waist and flogged to within an inch of his life for perpetuating this hysterical nonesense.
If you really want to limit CO2 output, you need to find a better way to make concrete, or outlaw portland cement.
The way you can tell CO2 doesn't have the effect on the climate the fear-mongers want you to think it does, is that as CO2 continues to climb climate changes do not track with CO2 increases, much less exhibit any kind of runaway effect which is the whole reason you were supposed to fear CO2 to begin with.
Luckily even for those of you that continue to fear irrationally, CO2 production will inevitably decline in the coming decades as solar and other forms of renewable energy take over for real, now that that are close to actually making more sense than fossil fuels.
I don't think that you understand the meaning of the word rational.
CO2's effect has been demonstrated conclusively.
Global Warming Explained
http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2010/11/global-warming-capt-ajit-vadakayil.html
OK...You and the Anti-Hydro nuts, that are tearing down dams all across the US, are going into a cage fight.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
PR should just forget about fixing the power and let people die..reduced the surplus population.
Who knew that today's Greenies would would be channeling Scrooge.
Ooooh Climate Change/Carbon pollution fight! Pass the popcorn!!!! Because we all know just how many minds will be changed in the next few hours, right? :)
That's a very misleading term to describe carbon dioxide emissions...
To all the people who have nothing more immediate to worry about. How great your life must be. No concern about where the money for food or the rent is coming from. Not even worried about all the other forms of pollution. Personally speaking, carbon pollution is way down my list of worries. Here's a problem, over population. Fix that and most of the other things will take care of themselves. This planet can't hold ten billion people. We're projected to hit that level in the 2050s.
Case in Point:
Colorado Springs refuses to spend money to clean up a storm water problem because that dirty storm water just flows downstream to Pueblo via Fountain Creek. The attitude of Colorado Springs voters is it costs too much money and not my problem because it all washes downstream to somewhere else (Pueblo).
Pueblo sued and won but C\S continues to ignore the problem. The state ignores the problem because of 500,000 voter versus 50,000 voters. Look up TABOR to see how that matters to Colorado politics.
Colorado Springs needs water from the reservoir in Pueblo but Pueblo has the water rights via Federal Law so Pueblo says NO unless you clean up Fountain Creek and the storm water issue. See the Federal Hammer. Now C/S voters are ignoring the contract they approved with Pueblo to spend 460M over 20yrs to clean up the creed but that is another story.
Does it require you to give up your rights, expand government control, and take an even larger portion of your paycheck?
Then it is false.
The old No true Al Gore Scottsman is modded UP?
News for morons and trolls.
When someone talks about The CO2 Apocalypse, and out of the other side of their mouth chants "No Nukes Shut 'em All Down Now"...
I know that they don't believe it. Not really. It's a smokescreen for other agendas.
(Advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear for something like 40 years now...)
...if they expect to run their electric smelters on windless nights in cities without hydroelectric power without paying more. But that's a lot of loopholes they can exploit!
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Money wasted trying to change the weather is money not available to invest in actual solution to the actual problem of pollution. Especially in developing countries.
Work Safe Porn
Nukes is hoping for breakthroughs. Nukes are not economically competitive and without some miracle breakthrough never will be. Solar + Wind + Batteries is the practical, pragmatic, and scalable solution, not 1950's fantasies of nuclear power.
CO2's effect has been demonstrated conclusively.
As have far higher concentrations of it, and notably higher average temps, in ancient times. And what else has been demonstrated, is that life thrived in those periods. :(
Trying to sweep these facts under the rug, only advertises intellectual dishonesty. Bad.
Just because the modding here isn't as bad as at Reddit or Hacker News doesn't mean that the modding here is good! The modding here is atrocious, even if it's not as unbelievably terrible as it at some other places.
For my house I'm looking at pozzolonic cement. You still have to use a lot of portland cement, but not as much.
From my view, though, the most "green" way you can build is to build to last. The difference between environmental footprints of a house that needs to be rebuilt every 50 years and one that needs to be rebuilt every 500 - only "refurbished" inside every few decades - is immense. While carbonation spells the doom of steel rebar, it's actually good for alternatives, such as FRP rebar. All of that CO2 emitted during the creation of portland cement will end up recaptured, back to limestone, for most of the house's lifespan. And that's nothing but a good thing.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
Really, in what way? How do you "demonstrate" the whole planet will warm into an unstoppable Venus like unlivable atmosphere? Because that's why we were told to fear CO2.
No, you weren't. That's a straw man.
Meanwhile in real life even though CO2 increases exponentially, we see only the same slow warming trend we have been seeing for a while.
I'd say that's perfectly in line with the fact, actually known even to the 19th century scientists, that CO2's effect is supposed to be logarithmic, wouldn't you say?
Ezekiel 23:20
The high/low temperature spread today is more than 10C. The summer winter spread is at least 50C.
2C of temperature is also the difference between a healthy man and someone having a fever.
Ezekiel 23:20
Bullshit.
Nukes are expensive due to...
1. Shitty and unpredictable regulatory environment.
2. Incessant lawsuits.
Nuclear has only realized a fraction of it's potential
...claims to be rational...
...claim rationality...
...rational thought process...
...bringing rational thought...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
True, but the effects are diminishing with increasing concentrations. That's because CO2 acts like an optical filter, and most of the radiation is already absorbed.
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding what you're getting at, this is almost completely wrong. The reduction in effect with increasing CO2 concentrations is trivial. Why? Because Carbon dioxide (only) absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (M). In other words incoming sunlight is barely filtered by CO2 at all, it's the light that's reflected from Earth that's 'trapped' by the CO2 in the atmosphere.
those feedback loops are not "basic physics", can't be "demonstrated in a laboratory"
And wrong again! Increased CO2 --> Increased temperature --> Increased evaporation --> Increased temperature (due to water vapour also trapping heat) --> Increased evaporation... Pretty basic, if you ask me.
You also have to assume that there are no additional negative feedback loops to counteract the effects, again something we don't know.
Are you suggesting the burden of proof here (for postulating, and proving these hypothetical negative feedback loops) lies with the people saying Global Warming is a problem?
It's dishonest for you and others to conflate the basic physics of the greenhouse effect with the speculative models involving assumptions about feedback that are used to argue for the need to reduce carbon emissions.
Since there's no need to invoke speculative feedback loops to say increasing CO2 concentrations are, for want of a better way of phrasing it, fucking up the future standard of life for everyone on the planet I'm not sure we're the ones being dishonest. We're certainly not the ones telling ourselves the biggest porkies!
The way you can tell CO2 doesn't have the effect on the climate the fear-mongers want you to think it does, is that as CO2 continues to climb climate changes do not track with CO2 increases,
The very first numerical integration of the greenhouse effect incorporating real-world IR aborption and convective/radiative heat transfer, Manabe and Wetherald 1967, predicted a 2.4C temperature rise per doubling. (The same as the current IPCC estimate: "in the range 2 to 4.5 C, with a most likely value of about 3 C.") Since then the CO2 has risen by a factor of 1.25 (from 322 ppm to 404 ppm), and the temperature by 0.98 degrees C. Looking at the correlation, yes the temperature has very well tracked with CO2-- the temperature is actually slightly higher than predicted (applying Arrhenius' logarithmic relationship)-- but well within error bars.
So, basically: you're wrong. Temperature does track CO2 increases.
much less exhibit any kind of runaway effect which is the whole reason you were supposed to fear CO2 to begin with.
Citation needed. What "runaway"?
CO2's effect has been demonstrated conclusively.
Really, in what way? How do you "demonstrate" the whole planet will warm into an unstoppable Venus like unlivable atmosphere? Because that's why we were told to fear CO2.
Strawman.. I suppose somebody, somewhere, some time might have talked about a scenario where Earth warms to Venus temperatures, but I don't know who and I've never heard that argument put forth. Actual scientists talk about: 3 degrees per doubling. How has it been "demonstrated conclusively"? Well, by measurements, for one.
Meanwhile in real life even though CO2 increases exponentially, we see only the same slow warming trend we have been seeing for a while.
Yes: carbon dioxide is increasing and the temperature is warming in the exact amount predicted. Your point is?
Even the IPCC now forecasts MAYBE 2C warming over 100 years.
And, remarkably, the IPCC hasn't changed that prediction at all. The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report estimated that equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling lay between 1.5 and 4.5 C, with a "best guess in the light of current knowledge" of 2.5 C. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: "Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 C to 4.5 C (high confidence)".
Your comment subject is "Re:Runaway effect? Nope." That's correct. Nope. It's not happening, because it wasn't predicted in the first place. That's a strawman.
It would seem that the average estimate is "about 0.5C cooler".
Ezekiel 23:20
CO2's effect has been demonstrated conclusively.
Really, in what way?
How do you "demonstrate" the whole planet will warm into an unstoppable Venus like unlivable atmosphere? Because that's why we were told to fear CO2.
Meanwhile in real life even though CO2 increases exponentially, we see only the same slow warming trend we have been seeing for a while. Even the IPCC now forecasts MAYBE 2C warming over 100 years. So what? There's not any reason to fear that; unless you fear more livable landmass and better crop production the world over.
What makes you think 2C would give us more livable landmass and better crop production? The majority of studies project the exact opposite (and regardless, those are far from the only consequence).
Even the article says CO2 was at this level 800,000 years ago, and the temperatures were 2-3C warmer - so what happened to that runway effect then? Why did everything not die then? Apparently it was all fine and everything carried on, so why are you worried NOW when humans have the technology to overcome even drastic climate shifts, much less the mild climate shifts we are actually getting.
Your post claims to be rational, yet you seem to fear something that we already no happened to no ill effect.
So the fact that 800K years ago we had a functioning (though radically different) ecosystem is something you cite as evidence as there being nothing to worry about.
But you don't even mention the 10-20 difference in sea levels.
I'm not trying to hold you to the standard of peer reviewed literature... but can you at least stop cherry picking evidence from the summary?
How can you claim rationality when you deny such conclusive evidence to the contrary?
Indeed, if you had any kind of rational thought process to climate you would be down on your knees crying with gratitude that we may have held off the next ice age cycle a little while longer.
I'll let you all have the last word, because as I have seen in the past bringing rational thought to a discussion on climate sadly doesn't seem to have any effect - fear seems to be a lot stronger than intellect, so only time will heal the self-inflicted wounds you are causing.
Yes, carrying out a massive experiment on the global climate is the "rational" course of action. Excuse me while we all bow to your super-duper amazing intellect.
I stole this Sig
True, but the effects are diminishing with increasing concentrations. That's because CO2 acts like an optical filter, and most of the radiation is already absorbed.
Yes, the effect is logarithmic. This has been known since Arrhenius calculated it in 1896 [ref]. And it is incorporated into every single greenhouse model that is run.
It's why the anthropogenic greenhouse effect-- about 1 degree C so far-- is so vastly smaller than the natural greenhouse effect, about 33 degrees C.[ref].
Really. This is already part of the science. You're not telling us anything that the scientists aren't already incorporating into their models.
So, if that basic physics was all there was to the science, we clearly wouldn't have to worry about carbon emissions at all.
That's not true. Again: all of the current models already incorporate the effect you notice.
In order to conclude that there is any significant danger from greenhouse gases, you have to run climate models that make various assumptions about positive feedback loops;
The main feedback effect is known as "constant humidity." If you want to turn this feedback off, you need to come up with a mechanism that decreases the humidity as the temperature rises. I'm not saying that such a model is impossible... but it's hard to come up with a realistic mechanism.
those feedback loops are not "basic physics",
They most certainly are.
can't be "demonstrated in a laboratory",
Humidity can't be measured in a laboratory? I beg to differ.
and are largely speculative and unproven at this point.
They are not.
You also have to assume that there are no additional negative feedback loops to counteract the effects, again something we don't know.
People have been searching for such a negative feedback loop for several decades. So far all of the ones proposed have been disproven by measurements.
Uh, you do know that people measure the properties of the atmosphere, right? And that climate models are baselined against measured values?
It's dishonest for you and others to conflate the basic physics of the greenhouse effect with the speculative models involving assumptions about feedback that are used to argue for the need to reduce carbon emissions.
Except for the most part these aren't speculative models. They're well-tested models that are checked against measurements. And, there are many thousands of models run-- by independent groups on all five continents-- and cross-checked against each other to see which effects dominate. That's why the climate study outputs have error bars, because one of the things we do know is how much we don't know.
Yes, that's right: the actual science includes error bars. That's one of the ways you can tell the science from the speculation, like yours.
When you attack somebody for asking questions, you aren't doing science. You're doing religion.
It's not so much attacking people for asking questions, it's people getting annoyed and frustrated at anonymous cowards making assertions and raising objections that have been answered over and over and over and over again. The people doing this aren't actually asking questions, because they don't actually care about getting answers.
There are thousands of rich people with private jets and multiple vacation homes. If you want to encourage them to live more sustainable lives, there is a very direct way to do it: use incentives that they care about, that is: money. AKA Carbon tax.
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
The parent comment really shows how awful the discussion, and especially the modding, has become here. Kendall, who has long been one of the most positive contributors to this site, is downmodded and punished for making a sensible, high-quality comment.
To the contrary; the parent comment shows how good the discussion, and the moderation, is. Kendall made a strawman assertion, one of the well-known logical fallacies (demolishing a position that nobody had asserted in the first place), and got called out for it, with several of the responders pointing out his fallacy in detail.
Unfortunately there isn't a "-1, strawman argument" moderation (there should be), but nevertheless, his argument didn't stand up, and he was quite correctly criticized for it.
I thought scientists were supposed to be smart. Clearly the priests of the climate religion aren't because they have an agenda to push and funding to fraudulently grab for themselves and for their masters in the form of carbon taxes.
What a joke.
Climate Change is a Threat... But apparently not enough of a threat to convince the anti-nukes to abandon their irrational fears.
To the contrary: it is indeed enough of a threat to make the anti-nukes abandon their irrational fears. Pay attention.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nuclear-power-is-the-greenest-option-say-top-scientists-9955997.html
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/07/nuclear-power-renewables-climate-change
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pro-nuclear_environmentalists
http://www.ecomodernism.org/readings/2015/6/17/why-a-green-future-needs-nuclear-power
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/
http://grist.org/news/more-nukes-james-hansen-leads-call-for-safer-nuclear-power-to-save-climate/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-must-make-a-comeback-for-climate-s-sake/
If you really want to limit CO2 output, you need to find a better way to make concrete, or outlaw portland cement.
Yes, people are in fact looking at that: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or....
Cement is only about 5% of global carbon dioxide emissions, though, so at the moment it's not the driver. ( http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2... )
People are looking at alternatives: https://phys.org/news/2015-09-...
No, renewables do not "save $500 in other ways" for every "$5/year added to a bill". If they did, they would already be widely adopted.
False understanding of economics. If $5 that you spend means that 10,000,000 people each save 0.005 cents (for a total savings of $500), then no, the solution wouldn't be "already widely implemented"-- even if you are one of those 10,000,000 people.
That's the generic problem when a cost is something that can be attributed to specific individuals, but the savings are distributed. You should have learned that in basic economics 101.
Correct. And that heat trapping effect, the greenhouse effect, is nearly saturated already. Hence, if the greenhouse effect is all there is, large increases in CO2 concentrations only lead to small temperature increases (the dependence of temperature on CO2 concentrations is logarithmic).
Even CO2 and water vapor wouldn't be sufficient cause for concern. Note that water vapor, like CO2, has a logarithmic relationship between temperature and concentration. Furthermore, water vapor leads to increased cloud cover, which provides negative feedback.
Simplistic would be a better description. In fact, to get serious climate change out of the models, climate models tend to replace "basic physics" with empirical short-term relations between carbon concentrations and temperature and assume unbounded exponential growth of carbon emissions, both wildly unrealistic assumptions.
You're pulling that "gradual" out of your butt. We can determine to some accuracy that levels were higher at times past but we cannot determine just how fast that increase was because we don't get a year to year graph from the measurements.
And all without any laws or government intervention.
Yeah, anonymous coward above actually has it right (for a change): there were tremendous government incentives and government development programs and government demonstration projects that, over the course of decades, led to today's low-cost solar panels.
This just may end up being the poster-child example of the one time that government actions were done right.
There has NEVER been "runaway global warming". And there won't be, no matter how hard people try to scare you.
For the huge increases in solar and wind to matter, we need to actually TURN OFF the fossil fuel based generation. Installation of renewables need to outpace demand increase to the degree of replacing existing generation. That's when CO2 output goes down.
I can't believe the discussion took this long for someone to say "turn it off." If you are truly concerned about excessive CO2, sell your cars, trucks, SUVs, airplanes, RVs, powered boats and any other devices that require fossil fuel to move them. Buy a bicycle and commute with it. Never use airlines, trains, buses, taxis, etc. Call up your utility company and tell them to turn off the gas and electricity. Get rid of your computers, cell phones, stereos, TVs, and everything else that consumes electricity. Grow your own food, but don't use commercial fertilizers.
If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
When someone talks about The CO2 Apocalypse, and out of the other side of their mouth chants "No Nukes Shut 'em All Down Now"...
Strawman argument. Who are those people?
Certainly none of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or these http://www.independent.co.uk/n... or these http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/...
We must have them all cut down to prevent CO2 pollution. More and more scientific papers are showing that the alarmist man made climate change stuff was a total hoax, now not having temperature to whine about...they choose whatever is high right at the moment: CO2. Tree breath.
Bullshit. Climate science hasn't even been around for very long. There is no way in hell I'm trusting some crackpot when they claim to know what the climate was like a million years ago. If they weren't there, they can't know, period.
On the offchance that you're for real and not just a troll, I'll type this slowly to give you a chance to understand:
7 billion people have positioned themselves on the globe, to take advantage of the resources - particularly food, water, building materials and land - where they are now.
If climate change causes those resources to move, a substantial number of those people are going to need to move, too.
What do you think is going to happen when 10 million Bangladeshis up sticks and try to migrate inland from where they are? The world might be able to absorb that many refugees, but it would certainly lead to a crisis - a similar influx from Syria has already shown that in Europe (even though only a fraction of that number ever set foot in Europe). Now consider that *at the same time*, the world will also be trying to resettle 50 million Chinese, 23 million Vietnamese, 12 million Japanese, 12 million Indians, 10 million Indonesians, 8 million Thais - and that's just in Asia. There'll be another 12-plus million in Europe, millions in North America... every continent will face the same crisis, at - approximately, give or take a decade or so - the same time. (Source.)
He doesn't hear CO, he is paid to post about it being harmless. Why else paste so many willfully ignorant things?
Anywhere from 0.6 deg C to 1.2 deg C cooler. So about what's been claimed over the last 150 years...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
When the population starts downward, then it will way to late.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We should learn to enjoy eating toxic jellyfish on our bagels instead of salmon. Surely our people will adapt after a few generations die from poison and starvation. Maybe we'll evolve to not need food at all, won't that be great?
Joking aside, there are a substantial number of Christians that wish for the end of the world. They hold a cult-like belief that destruction of the Earth will result in the return of their deity in physical form, and the carrying up of all the faithful to Heaven. It's a seductive and dangerous cult and we really can't let these monsters run things any longer.
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but not much. The general idiocy level and ignorance of logic and science while using it as a religion in uninspiring to say the least. But don't worry, your betters will take care of you, as they always have.
You keep focusing on INDIVIDUALS 'giving up things', like that's going to affect anything at all. I say to you again, sir: our entire SPECIES needs to change the way we do things. EVERYONE, ALL 7 BILLION OF US. It's not up to one person, or one class of people, or one community, or one country, or one continent, or one hemisphere; it has to be the entire planet full of humans . So stop asking me or any individual to do irrational things like 'stop driving your car' or 'stop using electricity' or 'go live in a cave and forrage for nuts and berries' or whatever silly thing you want to say. We need to change what EVERYONE is using to generate power and move themselves around. It may take a generation to get it done, but it NEEDS TO BE DONE. Oh and by the way we'll manage to clean up your 'local pollution' problems along the way, too, so don't bother bringing that up again. It's ALL POSSIBLE and talking about the reasons why it CAN'T isn't helping.
Except it is not pollution. It is plant food. Greenhouse farmers pay big bucks to buy CO2 generators.
When the population starts downward, then it will way to late.
Nice grammar. I totally believe what you say because your undoubted mastery and unique extension of an elementary subject, such as the English language, has convinced me.
You missed the part of: the temperature was 2 - 3 degrees higher -- I guess that will adjust over the next 100 or os years -- and sea level was 10 - 20 meters higher -- that will adjust sooner or later as well. ... well, take your pick.
If you think 10m - 20m higher sea levels are not a apocalypse
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Nothing convinces people with irrational fears. How did you think Trump got elected in the first place? By appealing to people's intelligence?
Regardless, "nuclear" has been branded as a bad word (unless you want to use it on North Korea, then apparently it's now a good word). No amount of facts or reasoning is going to work until things get bad enough that there's no real alternative.
~X~
The summer winter spread is at least 50C. ... far less than 50C, it used to by about 65C so.
Not in Germany
But, the alarmist want to claim both, with only a 2C increase. ... you seem to like that word. Funny that it is only used in the US it seems.
Alarmists
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You'll see real change when people like you crack open a physics book and realize the universe doesn't run on your ideology.
~X~
You also have to assume that there are no additional negative feedback loops to counteract the effects
And which would that be? Genius?
those feedback loops are not "basic physics", can't be "demonstrated in a laboratory", ... perma frost melting, released CH4 ... warmer oceans, release of methane hydride. Idiot!
Of course they are pure physics
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And that heat trapping effect, the greenhouse effect, is nearly saturated already ... Idiot.
It is not, otherwise the temperature would already be on the level the article points out
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
climate models tend to replace "basic physics" with empirical short-term relations between carbon concentrations
Which modle are you referring to? Ah the one that is haunting you in your sleep?
and assume unbounded exponential growth of carbon emissions ... idiot.
Why would a climate model assume growth of carbon emissions? What has that to do with modeling climate? Oh, nothing
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
OK. Now what? My PC is still sitting here running. Next issue!
The Venus atmosphere is mainly CO2.
The Venus is much closer to the sun.
Of course earth could have a short (in cosmic terms) period of a Venus like hell. Until all water has evaporated. The water will be split at the edge of the atmosphere and hydrogen will bleed away. No ieda how and when it stabelizes.
Anyway, the mechanisms on Earth would be different than those on Venus.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Fucknuts up there also talks about Hillary constantly even though she lost. Arguing with them is useless.
Sentences that put "fear" and "irrational" together usually contain a lie.
Especially considering that most "anti-nukes" are rather rational anyway ... unlike the pro-nukes (which usually have no clue about basic physics).
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Playing the idiot again?
How long does it take to build a nuclear plant and get it on the grid?
How much wind power or solar power can you build up during that time and connect part by part to the grid?
and are willing to throw out the one scale-able solution that is presently generating the most CO2 emission free electricity
In Germany wind and solar generate more power than nuclear. So is it in many countries as plenty of countries have not a single nuclear reactor.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If that doesn't disturb you, then maybe you're actually a lizard who will do better in warmer weather and who doesn't care if humans die off.
Another idiot who does not know what "base load" actually means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Could you post one scientific authoritative source instead of those...problematic websites?
In which part of the world do you live that nights are windless? Probably in the center of a desert? Hm, even there it is hard to imagine a windless night.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
He isn't. If he was not once a presidental candidate, no one in the world would know him. /. rather funny.
I find all those Al Gore references on
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The house I live in is over 100 years old. So are most houses in my street ... just saying. They luckily survived the last bombings in WWII. The center of the city got destroyed, but the "walls" of the houses survived, they got basically rebuild with the material laying around.
This is Darmstadt, after the bombings, did not find a picture of Karlsruhe (where I live): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Oh, another idiot that does not know what "base load" actually means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(Did I not make the exact same post a few minutes ago ... (*scratch head*) )
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yeah,
and when you put your stove on maximum, and put a 5l (a bit more than a gallon), obviously the water boils immediately.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Stupid questions. There are many nuclear plants running today, the time it took to build them is now irrelevant. That fact that they were built gives us the largest source of emission free generation from a scalable source. Neither solar nor wind generates as much yet, so call me when they catch up.
Once the infrastructure and experience is in place, no reason large plants cannot be built and operational in under 3 years. Since new plants are expected to last 80 to 100 years, they will serve is well for a long time.
In Germany, wind generated more than nuclear, solar less than nuclear. Unfortunately, their CO2 emissions have no dropped significantly due to need to back up intermittent wind and solar, and due to cutback in nuclear. You seem to agree with them, that cutting nuclear is more important than cutting CO2 emissions.
Globally, nuclear generates much more than either.
Well they do. And it should be pretty obvious why: if you want to predict temperatures in 2050 or 2100, you need to model atmospheric carbon concentrations between now and then, and those depend on carbon emissions and their growth. That’s kind of the whole point of these kinds of models after all.
I guess that settles it! Your beliefs are correct therefore facts that contradict your beliefs must be incorrect!
I usually think SuperKendoll is annoying and stupid, but I agree with her this one time.
Too little question, too late. The original article included observed CO2 increase, and cited the World Meteorological Organization.
Observation, in science, is the authoritative source.
And that heat trapping effect, the greenhouse effect, is nearly saturated already.
Your understanding clearly differs from mine, and you seem to be basing your understanding on information I've either not seen, or overlooked in my researches. Could you provide a reference to back up, and possibly expand upon, the highlighted section above, please?
Furthermore, water vapor leads to increased cloud cover, which provides negative feedback.
Well, it would be more accurate to say increased humidity can lead to increased cloud cover, which would certainly self limit the positive feedback. That's not the same as saying it's a negative feedback loop, merely that the positive feedback does indeed 'suffer' from diminishing returns, and hence will, likely, not lead to runaway warming. It's also not entirely clear, as far as I know, exactly what effects this will have on rainfall intensities or location, other than there is an assumption (based on reasonable, if unproven, projections) of increased localised flood risks.
Pretty basic, if you ask me.
Simplistic would be a better description. In fact, to get serious climate change out of the models, climate models tend to replace "basic physics" with empirical short-term relations between carbon concentrations and temperature and assume unbounded exponential growth of carbon emissions, both wildly unrealistic assumptions.
In response to a challenge by a 'denier' 5 years or so ago I made a prediction, which has since turned out to be true. I have, on several occasions, asked 'deniers' what would change their minds, and what (if predictions turned out to be true, or if their minds were changed) they would do differently. In mathematical terms however what I have witnessed is "A & !B". So, please forgive me if I've been reduced to 'simplistic' reasoning. Being simplistic doesn't, however, make it any less true.
As to the latter part of your statement, I dispute both assertions, although this somewhat depends on what you mean by "short term" or "serious climate change". Perhaps you'd care to define the terms of what looks suspiciously like a strawman.
Anyway, firstly the relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature is clear, but there's a, in human lifespan terms, long lag between peak CO2 and peak temperature. This is basic physics backed up by empirical observation. Odd that you'd find something to complain about in this. As an aside, it's partly this lag which is vexing politicians and climate scientists. The very real concern is that since we won't feel the full climatic effects of the CO2 we've already added to the atmosphere (for many decades yet) we feel like there really isn't a problem, and we keep on adding more CO2, which will magnify those climatic effects further.
Secondly, any serious climate model, of which there are a number, has been run for a number of carbon emission scenarios. A model does not assume 'unbounded exponential growth' it merely tells us what the likely effects (on global temperatures) will be given particular inputs. No sensible person has argued, that I'm aware of anyway, that humanity is even capable of producing 'unbounded exponential carbon emissions', let alone that this is the most likely scenario for the future.
I'd like to finish on a positive note: It's beginning to look like this year will be the first year since roughly the start of the industrial revolution (there may be the odd momentary vale in the landscape) in which our carbon emissions haven't risen from the previous year. In addition, last year over half of all the power generation capacity that was added, globally, was based on renewable resources. Despite all the denial, despite all the entrenched interests, we many finally be making positive steps towards dealing with the problem.
In which part of the world do you live that nights are windless? Probably in the center of a desert? Hm, even there it is hard to imagine a windless night.
See http://blog.ucsusa.org/john-rogers/usgs-map-of-wind-turbine-locations-in-us-434. Excluding Texas, there are almost no wind turbines in the old Confederacy. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine the technical reason.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
I.e., you continue to fabricate data.
I bought my last car from a friend.
You're telling me I FABRICATED my car?? Personally?
No.
There are plenty of countries with negative population growth. Is it too late for them? Or if the world ok as long as poor people keep expanding?
We're number 1! We're number 1! We're number 1!
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Oh, I should have written: in which part of the world do you live that morons put up windmills in areas that have bad wind conditions ;)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Nothing to see here folks. Just another fake news story by the Sino-Liberal America haters.
Now, let's fire up some more coal plants so I can get re-elected.
#maga
One answer is that, last time, it was much more gradual. Life had a much better chance to adapt. This time around, we've got concerns that aren't just species survival.
Another is that we haven't stopped putting more CO2 into the air, so it's not going to stay 403ppm for long.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The original statement was that climate change wasn't enough to turn anti-nuclear people into pro-nuclear (or at least neutral) people. Websites that cater to people concerned about nuclear power are a very good place to look. I don't trust everything that comes from some of these sites, but the fact that they're advocating nuclear power is telling.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It was not intentional, and I would like to see more nuclear if they could get a new reactor started in the next 20 years and not have a cost-cutting company that throws safety out when the quarterly earnings start to look a little thin.
The reality of the situation in the US is that nuclear isn't an option right now, due to political nonsense and litigious filibustering causing the schedule of any potential project to double or more, and increase the budget beyond what would ever pay itself off.
I didn't expect demand reduction, though there is an amount of that happening through efficiency investment - replacing age-old appliances with more efficient version, adding insulation to homes, etc. I would just like to see a more rapid scale-out of renewables so that we can actually replace coal, rather than just add to existing fossil-fuel generation.
But thanks for not outright assuming I'm some NIMBY-ist; others around here wouldn't have paid that consideration.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I live in the US. In the region I live in, that is many a summer night, and people are very aware of it. There might be a slight, sporadic breeze, but you'd be able to move a hydroelectric turbine better with your piss than these light breezes are to move a wind turbine's blade. They're pretty much all you will get when you don't have a storm thinking about dropping rain (which will cool things off) during certain points of the summer.
Oh, and we also occasionally get windstorms, which will include such pleasures as hurricane-force winds, and tornadoes are also a Thing. As a result, you might have an mean windspeed of a respectable speed...and an example of why the mean is not an all-purpose average.
Travel some.
Nuclear can easilty be an option in the US, it just takes some commitment, funding, and educated people such as yourself to help fend off the FUD that is at the heart of political issues. We have reactors being built, they are difficult FOAK projects but once completed replication can go much faster.
As for "cost cutting company's throwing safety out the window", you'd better be more specific because US nuclear safety and operational record is pretty impressive. You say you want more nuclear, but you find excuses and spread cost cutting safety FUD.
Sustained 2C is also the difference that can trigger bleaching events in marine corals, such as what has been devastating the great barrier reef off the coast of Australia and other reefs around the world. Many species depend on these corals, and the situation only seems to be getting worse.
I have no idea why you drag "deniers" into this. The fact that temperatures are slowly increasing is obvious, as is the fact that humans are contributing to it. What we are discussing is which parts of climate change models are basic physics and which parts are not. That's important because "basic physics" is clear, solid, and accepted science, while empirical models with fitted parameters, economic predictions, etc. are not.
Look, stop waving your hands and read the literature. The "basic physics" model is described by Manabe and Wetherald (1967), a widely accepted and respected paper. It models both water and carbon dioxide and calculates that every doubling of carbon in the atmosphere leads to a 2C increase in global average temperatures, i.e., a logarithmic dependence. It's consistent with measurements so far. When you extrapolate that to 1000 ppm, that means a temperature increase of about 2.6C.
Of course, 1000 ppm is not realistically achievable even if we wanted to reach it. I believe there is 3x10^12 t of CO2 in the atmosphere and about 1x10^12 t of known fossil fuel reserves (not all of them recoverable; I leave it to you to convert carbon to CO2).
So, that's what basic physics tells us: if we even could burn all of our fossil fuels, global average temperatures would go up maybe 2.6C, and most of that increase occurs at high latitudes. Pardon me for not panicking. You're welcome to propose more complex models, but if you assert that people should believe those more complex models because they are "basic physics", you are misrepresenting them.
You're misattributing decreases in carbon emission growth to government action. In fact, government action is the reason why carbon emissions haven't decreased faster; it's just that finally technology, markets, and economics are winning out over government obstacles.
Only until you stop peddling.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
What we are discussing is which parts of climate change models are basic physics and which parts are not.
Consider me suitably admonished, and back on track.
That's important because "basic physics" is clear, solid, and accepted science, while empirical models with fitted parameters, economic predictions, etc. are not.
Um, correct me if I'm wrong but aren't empirical observations how we test the validity of our theories. Short of trivial contradictions or logical inconsistencies they're how we disprove the stuff that's incorrect. I do agree that an empirical model, while displaying the current state of affairs very accurately, would probably be of limited use in making predictions, but I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of today's climate models are not empirical, in this sense. That they also include additional calculations, involving other greenhouse gasses such as methane, or changes in surface albedo, not to mention the role of the oceans in absorbing both CO2 and heat, doesn't make them empirical, it just makes them more complete, and increases their margin of error (or the size of the error bars in their results, if you prefer).
The "basic physics" model is described by Manabe and Wetherald (1967), a widely accepted and respected paper. It models both water and carbon dioxide and calculates that every doubling of carbon in the atmosphere leads to a 2C increase in global average temperatures, i.e., a logarithmic dependence.
Thanks for the reference, and yes, that was a very interesting paper. In particular it does make me question my assertion that "there's a ... long lag between peak CO2 and peak temperature", as Fig. 6 from that paper seems to suggest that the lag is actually only about 300 days (assuming their relative humidity model). I suspect that over the years I conflated persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere with lag. Oops! I can, at least, rid myself of that misconception now, so thanks again.
However, it is clear, based on accumulated evidence gathered in the 50 years since that paper was published, that there's something more going on...
It's consistent with measurements so far. When you extrapolate that to 1000 ppm, that means a temperature increase of about 2.6C.
That would rather depend upon your starting point of course. The most widely quoted figure for pre-industrial times is 280 ppm. Doubling to 560 ppm gives, assuming average cloudiness, an increase of 2.36 degrees (Table 5), increasing further to 1000 ppm would give a total increase of 4.2 degrees (v roughly). Given the current concentration of about 380 ppm we should be seeing an increase of about 0.8 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. In this we agree, it's consistent with measurements so far.
Of course, 1000 ppm is not realistically achievable even if we wanted to reach it. I believe there is 3x10^12 t of CO2 in the atmosphere and about 1x10^12 t of known fossil fuel reserves (not all of them recoverable; I leave it to you to convert carbon to CO2).
Given what I've seen of human nature, all I can say to that is "Good!". For what it's worth, based on those figures, and assuming no other factors, the absolute worst case scenario (all recoverable and used, none sequestered or stored) would be atmospheric concentrations of about 840 ppm, leading to an increase in temperature of maybe 3.5 degrees (again, v roughly).
So, that's what basic physics tells us: if we even could burn all of our fossil fuels, global average temperatures would go up maybe 2.6C, and most of that increase occurs at high latitudes. Pardon me for not panicking. You're welcome to propose more complex models, but if you assert that people should believe those more complex models because they are "basic physics", you are misrepresenting them.
The effects of methane as a greenhou
Look, stop waving your hands and read the literature. The "basic physics" model is described by Manabe and Wetherald (1967), a widely accepted and respected paper. It models both water and carbon dioxide and calculates that every doubling of carbon in the atmosphere leads to a 2C increase in global average temperatures, i.e., a logarithmic dependence.
Right. That logarithmic dependence is what the earlier comments in this thread labelled "saturation". The effect doesn't actually saturate, but additional increases have very much less effect per amount added (2.4 degrees C per doubling, for the constant-humidity model of Manabe and Wetherald, turns out to be within the error bars of the current IPCC "best estimate" of 3 plus or minus 1.5 degrees C per doubling. Remarkably good job by Manabe and Wetherald over fifty years ago!)
It's consistent with measurements so far. When you extrapolate that to 1000 ppm, that means a temperature increase of about 2.6C. Of course, 1000 ppm is not realistically achievable even if we wanted to reach it. I believe there is 3x10^12 t of CO2 in the atmosphere
Looks about right.
and about 1x10^12 t of known fossil fuel reserves (not all of them recoverable;
Right on the number, wrong on the "not all of them recoverable". That number is the "proven reserves" of coal. Proven reserves are by definition extractable with today's technology; if they weren't believed to be extractable, they wouldn't be counted as reserves. (oil and natural gas add some to that, but not all that much-- there's a lot more coal known than oil and natural gas. Here's a link. https://knoema.com/smsfgud/bp-...)
The wild card, however, is that proven reserves refers to coal that's already been found and geologically mapped. (That's the "proven" part).
Here's a start, though, for an estimate of how much fossil fuel there is that we haven't found and mapped, if you like basic physics. According to what we know about planetary atmospheres, all of the oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere was produce by reduction of carbon dioxide. So, somewhere below the surface or sequestered in biomass, there's enough carbon to convert all of the oxygen in the atmosphere back into carbon dioxide.
I leave it to you to convert carbon to CO2).
multiply by 44/12. Carbon dioxide is 27% carbon by mass.
So, that's what basic physics tells us: if we even could burn all of our fossil fuels, global average temperatures would go up maybe 2.6C,
Again: all of the proven reserves. The amount of proven reserves increases as more geological prospecting is done. (Here's a nice graph of how the proven oil reserves changs with time: http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-co... . Coal has a much shallower slope, though, since coal is less valuable than oil.)
and most of that increase occurs at high latitudes.
Careful there. That number is average over the surface. What you mean to say is "with more increase at high latitudes".
Pardon me for not panicking.
Panicking is unnecessary. It is nice, however, to understand the basic science.
You're welcome to propose more complex models, but if you assert that people should believe those more complex models because they are "basic physics", you are misrepresenting them.
No, more complex models give you some error bars, but the basic constant-humidity model is pretty close to the current best guess.
You're misattributing decreases in carbon emission growth to governmen
You can take a model based on physical laws, make predictions, and compare those with reality. That's not an empirical model. That's what a "model derived from basic physics" is and it's what Manabe and Wetherald do.
An empirical model is where you take measurements, fit a graph, and then make predictions by extrapolating from that graph. Those models are not derived from "basic science", they are statistical constructs. They are very useful in areas of science where you have lots of data and independent replication, but if you use such models as part of climate models, you can't use predictions from the climate model to test its validity anymore.
Yes, the effects of methane are basic physics, but the amount of methane being released (either anthropogenic or through feedback) is speculation. That makes the entire prediction of the model speculative.
Yet, IPCC has scenarios of close to 1000 ppm by 2100. Getting there requires extrapolating 20th century emissions growth until 2100. That's economically completely unrealistic, because no matter what the remaining reserves may be, the cost of mining grows as we use them up, meaning demand will drop. So, 840 ppm or 1000 ppm by 2100 just isn't in the cards.
It's kind of implicit in "despite all the denial, despite all the entrenched interests", factors that are only relevant to government intervention, not free markets.
In any case, I'm perfectly happy with people speculating about emissions growth, looking at worst case scenarios, building empirical models, and all that. What I object to is when speculative models, empirical models, or models making strong economic assumptions are presented as having been derived from "basic science" and (by implication) that everybody must therefore accept their conclusions and predictions.
As far as I can tell, climate change according to "basic science" combined with reasonable future emissions scenarios predicts modest warming that is within the targets that IPCC already effectively says we can live with.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future," according to Niels Bohr.
However, they don't label this a prediction, they label this as "here is the high emissions scenario." The question "what happens if current trends continue" seems like a reasonable thing to ask. If I were looking for something to call their prediction, I'd look at the middle of their many scenarios, not the most extreme one.
But, by the way, why should "current trends continue" be "economically utterly implausible"? It's not economically implausible now, why does it suddenly switch to being implausible?
No, the bottom line is that people keep misrepresenting IPCC predictions as being "established science", when they are a mix of a core of "basic science", and (I quote you) "feedback loops that are much more complex and less understood",
As you pointed out very clearly in your previous post, the current IPCC best estimate of climate sensitivity, 3 plus or minus 1.5 degrees per doubling, is pretty much identical to the one-dimensional constant-humidity model of Manabe and Wetherald. The only "feedback loop" is the assumption of constant humidity, which I don't think is particularly "complex and less understood."
predictions about poorly understood "effects of government action", and economic forecasts that assume that by 2100 we extract and burn the equivalent of all known fossil fuel reserves.
There needs to be a name for this logical fallacy; it's similar to strawman, but not quite identical. Basically, you took a whole array of different scenarios put forth by IPCC to look at the effect of all sorts of different possible things that could happen, you took the most extreme one, and you say "look at their prediction! It is absurd!". That wasn't their "prediction". That was their analysis "here is the result if this one particular scenario takes place."
On top of that misrepresentation comes even more fear mongering by famous scientists warning of runaway greenhouse effects (examples of which I quoted).
The one famous scientist you quoted was Stephen Hawking. He's not a climate scientist. He has said all sorts of silly things, among them that we should be afraid of aliens, AI, robots and nuclear war. What Stephen Hawking is afraid of is not really terribly relevant to climate science; if you want to know about climate, I'd listen to climate scientists.
The "slow but real increase" that you refer to and that basic physics tells us about is of sufficiently small magnitude not to warrant concern or intervention
That's a judgement call. I don't even disagree. I'm annoyed at people attacking the science beca
20th century patterns aren't "current trends". Current trends suggest constant or declining carbon emissions.
The data shows otherwise: http://www.energytrendsinsider...
But that's irrelevant: the question what if current trends continue is still an interesting one to ask, even if the answer is "current trends won't continue."
Because the price of fossil fuels goes up as they are exhausted
Historical data shows that fossil fuels don't get exhausted, because new supplies are found.
and the price of carbon neutral sources are steadily falling. Not taking that into account is absurd.
And that's why they also looked at the effect of substitution of other sources.
I gave this as an example of their use of economic predictions; they use economic predictions in all their analyses, as well as predictions about the effects of government policies. Their other scenarios suffer from analogous problems, it's just not worth going through every one of them to get my main point across, namely that their conclusions are not just rooted in "basic physics" but require lots of other assumptions that are far more speculative and not rooted in any science.
My objection stands. They gave a wide variety of different possible scenarios but you chose to point out only the most extreme what-if scenario and ignore the fact that this was only one of many different scenarios. If they hadn't looked at a "what if current trends continue" scenario, then that would have been dishonest.
No, their most likely prediction of 3C is not the same as 2C, it's 50% larger.
If you're quibbiling, Manabe and Wetherald's calculated climate sensitivity was 2.4, not 2.0. That is 25%, not 50%. And within error bounds of the current best estimate. You do know about error bounds? This is how science works.
Stop pretending that there is something like "the science". People attack some of the science in the report because some of the science is in fact weak. Scientific conclusions and arguments are only as strong as the weakest link, that's why many people consider the overall conclusion of the report to be weak even if they (like me) agree that parts of it are strong.
You've been asserting that some of the science is weak, but you haven't shown that-- you've just said it over and over again, on the assumption that repeating something enough times is as good as actual evidence.
Nevertheless, paradoxically, you seem to actually agree with the conclusions of the report, since (with your rounding of "2.4" down to "2" corrected), you quote a climate sensitivity within the error bars of the current best estimate.
Your graph cuts off in 2010.
I notice you don't bother to cite any data supporting your claim of a trend of "constant or declining carbon emissions". Unless you have some data showing such a trend-- and a trend long enough to be meaningful-- I stand by my statement.
I didn't round, that's what the paper says: "According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2C". You really need to read the paper, instead of random blog posts.
I'd actually checked the number out of a textbook that I happen to have near my desk (Liou, An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, 1980, if it matters-- my usual go-to book on atmospheric light scattering) instead of digging up the original paper. But turns out it's not hard to dig up the paper, it is on the web several places, so it's easy enough to check: http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/ThermalEqu.pdf
And, how about that?-- you're almost right. "About 2C" is indeed what is says... in the abstract.
In the body of the paper, though, they give the calculated result to more than one figure. Table 4 and table 5 shows their calculated results. The increase from 300 to 600 gives an effect of 2.36C (for fixed relative humidity and "average cloudiness;" slightly higher for clear skies).
So, I withdraw my statement that you rounded their result down. In fact, it wasn't you: they did the rounding. Nevertheless: the number was 2.36 (but the parts after the decimal point are probably not significant.)
For what it's worth, their 1975 paper, calculating with a three-dimensional model instead of the 1967 2D model (which means that they have both oceans and continents, instead of an average of ocean and continent), came up with 2.39 degrees per doubling-- nearly the same.
I don't see much real information in the rest of your post, you're arguing your opinion and policy, and not significantly disputing facts. You're saying you don't like the models because you don't understand the feedbacks, but you're more or less ok with the results to the first significant figure, although to a second significant figure you prefer a number slightly on the lower side but still within the error bars, but you think that existing societal trends will reduce CO2 emissions anyway so the predicted warming will be lower than the highest value of the IPCC scenarios (which is what the IPCC also seems to thing: that is the high case.)
OK. I'm not sure that there's enough in that to bother arguing with.
I will, however, quibble with two points:
There is nothing "paradoxical" about it; irrational climate change deniers are largely a figment of your imagination.
No, irrational climate change deniers are certainly out there, and say all sorts of bizarre things. However, you have clearly shown that you are not an "irrational climate change denier," since you're arguing with numbers based on the real science. That is neither irrational, nor even being a "climate change denier" of any kind. There doesn't seem to be a quick category nam
And your proof of this is what?
I can only repeat what I just said: The fact that you don't seem to know about the decades-long ERDA and DOE programs doesn't mean that they didn't exist
...
There aren't many studies or reports on solar/poly prior to the ~2000s,
WHAT?????
Oh, I see. You mean "I don't know about anything that happened before Google, so it doesn't exist."
I can only repeat what I just said: The fact that you don't seem to know about the decades-long ERDA and DOE programs doesn't mean that they didn't exist