How Two Scientists Accurately Predicted Global Warming in 1967 (medium.com)

Now we just need one more thing by elrous0 · 2017-11-11 03:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

A way to distinguish the one prediction that's going to be right from the millions that aren't.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Re:Now we just need one more thing by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2017-11-11 04:20 · Score: 3, Funny

Depends on how you throw the banana.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Now we just need one more thing by ClickOnThis · 2017-11-11 06:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

A way to distinguish the one prediction that's going to be right from the millions that aren't.
We have that. It's called science.
And while we're on the subject, science does get things wrong despite its best efforts. But the most important thing about science is that it is in a constant state of trying to correct and improve itself.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:Now we just need one more thing by whyyisthissohard · 2017-11-11 09:17 · Score: 2

Okay and what about all the climate models that are "called science" that were very wrong? His point is that there are many competing models and almost none of them were correct. We only know this one was correct in hindsight.
Re:Now we just need one more thing by mnemotronic · 2017-11-11 09:57 · Score: 1

A way to distinguish the one prediction that's going to be right from the millions that aren't.
I disagree with that assumption. I think the spectrum of predictions is graduated; not binary. I believe that more than a few prognosticators will be absolutely correct; many will be partially correct but incomplete; some partially right/partially wrong, others mostly wrong and about 50% fully worng. My reason for that number is that I think that life on earth is far more complicated, interconnected and inter-dependent that we yet realize. Once the links are broken or disturbed, some life will evolve, adapt and survive in surprising ways. Other life will cease to exist. Those adaptions and failures will, in turn, induce further changes. This goes on all the time. IMHO, rapid, intrusive climate change just pokes at the gradual evolutionary processes with a pointed stick.

We have that. It's called science.
And while we're on the subject, science does get things wrong despite its best efforts. But the most important thing about science is that it is in a constant state of trying to correct and improve itself.
Is it that science is wrong, or that people are wrong? Science is science. People have foibles, flaws, misinterpretations, lack of imagination and hidden agendas.

--
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Re:Now we just need one more thing by whit3 · 2017-11-11 10:36 · Score: 1

...they did not have anything close to an accurate average global temperature to begin with in 1967.

Completely irrelevant, of course. This planet has a molten nickel-iron core, and frigid upper atmosphere; it doesn't have thermal equilibrium, nor an 'accurate temperature'. We make various averages and selections of temperature according to a variety of needs.
There was nothing wrong with any or all of those temperatures in 1967, nor is there now.
Re:Now we just need one more thing by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-11 11:03 · Score: 1

Velocity vs acceleration; understand the difference? Didn't think so.
So you are saying an unknown average measure in 1967 is somehow better than a slightly better known temperature in 2007. And now you are claiming you can calculate either velocity or acceleration from only one somewhat fuzzy observation. Amazing!
Toss some more random words around to show you think you know what you are doing.
Re:Now we just need one more thing by whit3 · 2017-11-11 11:03 · Score: 1

A way to distinguish the one prediction that's going to be right from the millions that aren't.

A danger warning about safe crossing of the street doesn't have to identify the one car of millions that is gonna run you down.
It's OK to dodge ALL the cars, and you get to the other side without getting flattened.
The proposed 'need' is nonsense.
The real need, is enough knowledge and understanding (i.e. science) to proceed with a degree of safety.
Re:Now we just need one more thing by Uberbah · 2017-11-11 11:19 · Score: 3, Informative

Okay and what about all the climate models that are "called science" that were very wrong?
Okay and which ones would those be. The climate cooling myth doesn't count for obvious reasons.
https://skepticalscience.com/i...

His point is that there are many competing models and almost none of them were correct.
His point is an uncited tautology.

We only know this one was correct in hindsight.
"Scientists pull random theories out of their butts and decades later pick and choose the ones that were correct" isn't how science actually works.
Re:Now we just need one more thing by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-11 11:45 · Score: 2

Start with the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know precisely how much of it is emitted when fossil fuels are burnt. We've known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas for a lot longer than 50 years.
http://www.climatechangenews.c...
1856, we've known CO2 is a greenhouse gas for over 160 years now!

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Re:Now we just need one more thing by dryeo · 2017-11-11 13:24 · Score: 2

Is it that science is wrong, or that people are wrong? Science is science. People have foibles, flaws, misinterpretations, lack of imagination and hidden agendas.
Science is a process that depends on amongst other things, correct data.
A famous example is the ether theory. Made perfect sense as light obviously had the properties of waves and in the experience of people, waves need a medium to travel in.
Eventually the measurements got better and showed that light traveled at the same speed no matter what, which was unlike anything people had experienced. After checking and rechecking their measurements, the theory of ether was thrown out.
The science was limited by the data the tools gathered and the limitations of people. The important thing was that the science improved, though it took a genius to think far enough out of the box to come up with relativity.
People are limited and our tools are limited.
Now climate science is much simpler in some ways, trap more energy in a system, temperatures, on average will raise and the arguments are more like arguing about the shape of the Earth. The flat Earthers are wrong, and so are the round Earthers, but one of them is much less wrong then the other.

--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Re:Now we just need one more thing by haruchai · 2017-11-11 14:52 · Score: 1

Now, thin fruit flies like thunderstorms
And thin farm boys like farm girls narrow;
And tax firm men like fat tax forms –
But time flies like an arrow.
When tax forms tax all firm men's souls,
While farm girls slim their boyfriends' flanks;
That's when the murd'rous thunder rolls –
And thins the fruit flies ranks.
Like tossed bananas in the skies,
The thin fruit flies like common yarrow;
Then's the time to time the time flies –
Like the time flies like an arrow.

--
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Re:Now we just need one more thing by whyyisthissohard · 2017-11-11 15:55 · Score: 1

isn't how science actually works
seems to be how Science actually works
Re:Now we just need one more thing by KeensMustard · 2017-11-11 20:43 · Score: 1

DId any of the models that assumed "it's not CO2 causing the warming" get it right?
No?
Then that's a start, right?
Re:Now we just need one more thing by KeensMustard · 2017-11-11 22:00 · Score: 2

A way to distinguish the one prediction that's going to be right from the millions that aren't.
You mean predictions like:
"It's not warming"
"It's warming but it's the sun/moon/jupiter"
"It's a something something natural cycle! Natural!"
"It's warming but it's good somehow (mumble mumble)"
Predictions like those?
Re:Now we just need one more thing by Layzej · 2017-11-13 03:50 · Score: 1

I believe that more than a few prognosticators will be absolutely correct;
Probably not. They say "Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful". This is the nature of models regardless of the field. Though even the wronger ones can be useful insofar as you can attempt to understand why it deviated from reality.
In this case "The big advance of Manabe and Wetherald’s work was to model not just the feedbacks but the interrelationships between the different components that contribute to the Earth’s temperature. As the atmospheric contents change, so do both the absolute and relative humidity, which impacts cloud cover, water vapor content and cycling/convection of the atmosphere. What they found is that if you start with a stable initial state—roughly what Earth experienced for thousands of years prior to the start of the industrial revolution—you can tinker with one component (like CO2) and model how everything else evolves."
Even in this case where the projected answer is indistinguishable from observations, it is wrong to assume that they got it exactly right. Their projection is that a doubling of CO2 will cause 2.36C of warming - all else being equal. In reality all else was not equal. Solar output has been waning since the study was published. Aerosols have likely been increased. Etc. Still, it's useful to understand what worked and why.
Re:Now we just need one more thing by david_thornley · 2017-11-13 10:10 · Score: 1

The exact temperature in 1967 or 2017 is not really important. What's important is the change, and that we can determine pretty accurately.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Now we just need one more thing by david_thornley · 2017-11-13 10:12 · Score: 1

How wrong were they? No model of anything is completely accurate. Many are close enough to be useful. As we get more data, we can make better models. Models that are close to accurate are more likely to be largely correct, and are good things to study.
There's also a whole lot of odd claims in the media. They often have nothing to do with science.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:Now we just need one more thing by Magius_AR · 2017-11-13 13:19 · Score: 1

Okay and which ones would those be.
Umm, many? "All models are wrong" is a very common thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The biggest one I remember is when the models overlooked the ocean as a gigantic heatsink, leading to a massive gap in "missing heat": http://www.sciencemag.org/news...
Most recently, the most recent models have been shown to vastly overstate the warming case: http://reason.com/blog/2017/09...
Just one quote: "Here's where it gets interesting. The average global temperature now stands at about 0.9 C above the pre-industrial baseline, which implies that global temperature would have to increase by 0.6 C between now and 2021 if the IPCC carbon budget calculations were right. This is highly implausible since such an increase would be about 10 times faster than than what has actually heretofore been observed"

"Scientists pull random theories out of their butts and decades later pick and choose the ones that were correct" isn't how science actually works.
And yet that appears to be almost exactly what they're doing...you basically shotgun a bunch of models based on "best understanding" of a very complex ecosystem. After observing end results (hindcasting), the ones that best fit you keep, the others you throw out. Which is a perfectly fine method of science long-term, with the exception that you aren't allowed to make a bunch of claims of certainty of the end of humanity when you're far from having it figured out. You know all those people that claims 90+% scientific consensus that we're on a path to global catastrophe? Right down to exact "tipping point" climate timelines which were pretty much used to craft the guidelines in the Paris accord.
Re:Now we just need one more thing by Uberbah · 2017-11-19 19:33 · Score: 1

Umm, many? "All models are wrong" is a very common thing
Only if we're counting every thesis and hypothesis as a peer-reviewed theory, which is of course nonsense.

Most recently, the most recent models have been shown to vastly overstate the warming case: http://reason/

Reason??? I'm happy to read their pieces on why drug prohibition/civil forfeiture/NSA spying should be ended, but on the subject of climate change they should be taken as seriously as a Young Earth Creationist telling you that carbon dating is crap.
Because for a libertarian to admit that AGW is real is to admit that libertarianism could never stop it, and the only things that would are things that libertarians despise: massive government regulation and massive government spending. Regulation and spending we have not seen the likes of since WWII. Which is why libertarians deny climate change like young earth creationists deny the carbon dating of dinosaur bones. To paraphrase that old line about paychecks:
It's hard to get a Libertarian to understand something when his ideology is dependent on his not understanding it.

Actual science by jandrese · 2017-11-11 03:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

This paper is arguably the origin of the modern disinformation campaign against carbon pollution. This is the point where politically powerful interests realized that their core business model was in danger and that they needed to do something to stop it. Now we have an entire political party who's official position is to ignore the blatantly obvious and to be actively hostile to the kind of research that produced this paper.

--

I read the internet for the articles.

Re:Actual science by OffTheLip · 2017-11-11 04:13 · Score: 1

Agreed. The opposition we good at mobilizing their financial resources at the expense of natural resources.
Re:Actual science by microbox · 2017-11-11 04:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

I've lived in houses for 42 years, and have yet to have one burn down on me. As a rough approximation, we could say that the probability of my house burning down next year is less than 1 in 42, or less than 2.4%. Yet I have fire insurance, because it is worth it.

Same thing with climate change. The chances of catastrophe are small, but the best estimates put it about 2.4%. And real world experience has shown that the cost of doing something is, net, almost nothing. Sure there are winners and losers, and the losers are big carbon companies, who are behaving exactly like tobacco companies when faced with the same calculus.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Re:Actual science by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-11-11 05:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

I've lived in houses for 42 years, and have yet to have one burn down on me. As a rough approximation, we could say that the probability of my house burning down next year is less than 1 in 42, or less than 2.4%. Yet I have fire insurance, because it is worth it.
Must be liberal arts grad. Your neighbor too lived for 40 or 50 years without burning down a house. Now suddenly your upper bound drops to 1%. And then add more and more people and you will find a few who lost houses to fire. Your sample might eventually include Betram Wooster who burnt down two houses, (or was it three?). Pretty soon you can get a very good estimate of actual likelyhood of you losing a home to fire in the next one year. The insurance company has this actuarial statistic and priced you insurance premium accordingly.
The actuarial science actually dates back to 1700s when the mortality of the priests in England was calculated with surprising accuracy.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re:Actual science by Oceanplexian · 2017-11-11 07:08 · Score: 1, Interesting

I'm a trader and read a lot into statistics. It's quite interesting how most people quickly jump to conclusions based on bad data.

Just because you can predict something, does not mean you can repeatedly predict it, or that your prediction implies a pattern. Investors tend to lose their shirt on a regular basis thinking they can time the market, even with rock solid data. Even predictions that can be replayed on historical data, frequently fail when applied on new, future data. I can virtually guarantee if you tried to apply the same model to an expanded data set it would be a hell of a lot less conclusive. Unfortunately the blogger that posted this has neglected to apply the model to the last 1,000, or 10,000 years, and has instead decided to come to conclusions based on 0.0001% of the actual data we should be looking at. This, too, is a common tactic, intended to obfuscate the facts and imply that carbon pollution is a much more serious threat than it actually is.
Re:Actual science by plopez · 2017-11-11 07:37 · Score: 3, Informative

The difference here is that there is a mechanistic explanation, the physical properties of CO2, while in trading you just have people twiddling knobs getting functions to fit or AI to converge. That is what makes climate research science and trading voodoo.

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Re:Actual science by riverat1 · 2017-11-11 07:38 · Score: 1

Climate models don't use data like you think they do. Temperature data is never an input to climate models except maybe as a starting point. Instead they run climate models in reverse to see how well they compare to the temperature data from the past and they do pretty well at it.
Re:Actual science by Aighearach · 2017-11-11 08:35 · Score: 1

Everybody with a 4 year degree who didn't attend a "trade school" has a Liberal Arts Degree. That includes all those BS degrees!
"The more you know!"
Liberal Arts means you had to learn how to read in addition to learning math.
Re:Actual science by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2017-11-11 10:20 · Score: 1, Troll

This paper is arguably the origin of the modern disinformation campaign against carbon pollution. This is the point where politically powerful interests realized that their core business model was in danger and that they needed to do something to stop it.
It also looks just like the hockey stick the "corrections" to later data warp the readings to match.
Now that the issue has been politicized, any actual science is no longer relevant to the debate.
* One side has caught researchers fudging (or using data pre-fuged by others) and doesn't trust further papers predicting gloom and doom, as possibly defective, pushed and often funded by the powerful institutional interests seeking more power and/or engaging in multi-billion dollar rent-seeking operations (such as carbon credit exchanges).
* The other rejects papers that don't predict gloom and doom as being fake research, possibly funded by fossil-fuel interests.
It's really a pity. If there really IS a problem it would be nice to have some trustworthy advance warning on which to make plans.
Meanwhile, it would be interesting to see how this one compares to the UNcorrected climate data.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Re:Actual science by Uberbah · 2017-11-11 10:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

Anytime we think there is a mechanistic explanation for events in a complex system -- such as the Earth and its biosphere is -- we're probably wrong.

Definitely denialist handwaving. When even Exxon-funded scientists admit that climate change is being driven by humans, why insult your own intelligence with the "gosh this is toooo hard to understand!" shtick.

As for me, I'd rather trust a trader's ability to observe patterns than the climate researcher's because the shirt on back of the former literally depends on that ability.
Traders who make money on fees whether the market goes up or down. A market driven by human psychology, something climate DGAF about.
Re:Actual science by Uberbah · 2017-11-11 11:21 · Score: 1

Remembering back to the days of Al Gore... he made it political.

So was giving women the right to vote and keeping companies like DuPont from dumping toxic waste into your drinking supply. WYP.

I suspect he introduced us to the carbon tax idea so that he could get in on the ground floor and make millions.
Yes, a conservative, market-based approach to mitigating climate change. Yet conservatives who believe in market solutions for everything despise Al Gore, for some reason.
Re:Actual science by riverat1 · 2017-11-11 12:49 · Score: 2

Anytime we think there is a mechanistic explanation for events in a complex system -- such as the Earth and its biosphere is -- we're probably wrong.
The Earth's climate doesn't change for magical reasons or as in the case for economic models for human psychological reasons. It changes for actual physical reasons, IOW mechanistic reasons. The complexity may make it difficult to determine those reasons but they definitely exist.
Also, a scientists reputation depends on the quality of the science they do and I think most scientists care quite a bit about their reputations. If they cared more about money they're smart enough to go into another field that pays more.
Re:Actual science by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2017-11-11 16:36 · Score: 1

The term "liberal arts" is distinguished from "technical arts" by who studies it, not by what is studied.
Liberal arts are meant for people with independent means of income and wealth who do not need the education to earn a living. Liberal comes from liberty and freedom. Such people would learn useless things that takes to their fancy without worrying about whether it would lead to paying jobs.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Re:Actual science by Mark+of+the+North · 2017-11-12 03:45 · Score: 1

Why do you keep talking about prediction? Is it because it's the only place you can cultivate uncertainty? If you want certainty, look backward. The climate has warmed: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital... A smart rock could see the trend. A dumb slug would be worried that the recent trend of acceleration of historically rapid warming. It takes a whole bunch of motivated reasoning to ignore the obvious.
Re:Actual science by ceoyoyo · 2017-11-12 09:40 · Score: 1

Apparently they dropped debate, argument and formal logic at his though: the GP's point, while valid, strengthen's the OPs actual argument considerably.
Re:Actual science by danbert8 · 2017-11-13 01:59 · Score: 1

I'm all for fighting climate change if it is a reasonable cost. There is no way of knowing the cost of future climate change and if the premium we are being asked to pay to slow it down is worth the decreased risk.

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Re:Actual science by danbert8 · 2017-11-13 02:05 · Score: 1

You must not listen much. Global warming deniers for the most part don't doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas, they doubt the man made catastrophe predictions of AGW zealots. You just can't come up with real evidence for a looming disaster so you set up the straw man CO2 argument to shut down debate.

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Re:Actual science by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-13 02:34 · Score: 1

Real evidence is historical evidence of what happened in the past when CO2 levels where high, there have been very large scale extinction events before. We're on course for 3centrigrade or more of heat rises, then there's the knock on effect of the methane from melting permafrosts which hasn't been added to the models and there's a substantial risk from ocean methane clathrates also releasing, also not factored in to the models. The permafrosts are already melting much like the north pole sea ice has already mostly melted at the warmest part of the year. Global warming is uneven, the north pole seems to be getting 10 to 20 degree rises already.
There is very clear scientific evidence that more CO2 = higher temperature and higher sea levels.
The oceans are already substantially more acidic because of mankind burning fossil fuels. Warming oceans is already killing coral reefs which are home to large amounts of ocean life. CO2 + water = carbonic acid and that's literally what's happening in the oceans right now, CO2 is turning into carbonic acid and acidifying the oceans. The last time the oceans became too acidic, most ocean life died, it rotted, that in turn released enough toxic gases to kill nearly all animal land life. Climate and sea level is the least of our worries, we should be far more concerned about ocean acidification - that's the real killer.
So you can ignore the predictions, you can also look up the road and ignore a Juggernaut heading towards you. Both are a bad idea. Heat = energy and more energy = more severe weather systems, pretty obvious really.
What have "Global warming deniers" got? Rhetoric by scientists who's main field of science usually isn't climate and they're typically backed by fossil fuel corporations. And whacky conspiracy theories that don't hold water under inspection.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Re:Actual science by danbert8 · 2017-11-13 05:21 · Score: 1

Global warming deniers have technology. Which is sort of a game changer when it comes to survivability... It's safe to ignore the Juggernaut ahead of you on the road if you've had the hover conversion done on your car and can glide right over it.
Technology can allow us to build more hardened structures, control water resources better, and even manipulate the atmosphere. But instead of focusing resources on those efforts which would benefit humanity regardless of climate, the cult of AGW has insisted we tax and reduce the expansion of technology to poor people which will never really have a measurable effect. CO2 reduction efforts are like government cash bailouts. If things improve, it was obviously successful. If things don't improve, we obviously didn't do enough. There is no way it is a wasted effort...

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Re:Actual science by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-13 06:04 · Score: 1

You want to live on a planet with air too toxic to breathe!!!
"It's safe to ignore the Juggernaut ahead of you on the road if you've had the hover conversion done on your car and can glide right over it."
Yeah, fantasy like the rest of the denialists ideas.
" the cult of AGW has insisted we tax and reduce the expansion of technology to poor people"
Such as? Coal Power stations? But of course coal is not technology, coal is a fossil fuel, one of which when you include the external costs is one of the most expensive forms of energy. Or should poor people just shut up and suffer from the nasty diseases and death that poor air quality brings.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Re:Actual science by Aighearach · 2017-11-13 08:37 · Score: 1

The term "liberal arts" is distinguished from "technical arts" by who studies it, not by what is studied.
So, your point is that you disagree with the basic concept of identity ? That's a hard row to hoe, for sure. Good luck with that, I know I'm unlikely to even consider your absurdity.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Re:Actual science by iMadeGhostzilla · 2017-11-13 12:39 · Score: 1

Precisely because the scientists care is why I trust those scientists whose reputation will be hurt if they are proven wrong. The problem with climate scientists as I see it is that it is difficult to prove them right or wrong in their lifetime.
I have no doubt that perhaps the vast majority of them are honest people doing their best and it is a difficult field, but they need to understand that an average Joe like myself needs to see several reasonably accurate predictions from their model come to pass, in a reasonable time frame, in order to make major changes in his life based on their model. To my best knowledge that hasn't happened yet. Most other scientific theories with far reaching consequences have been put to such test, and where they haven't, we have often paid the price.
Re:Actual science by riverat1 · 2017-11-13 13:06 · Score: 1

Warming has continued, ice continues to melt, sea level continues to rise. What more do you need? The problem with making projections about the future is that there's no event in Earth's past that is analogous to what is happening now* so it's difficult to say with certainty how it's all going to evolve.
*The PETM is the closest thing we know of but the increase in greenhouse gases and warming took place over thousands of years instead of hundreds of year as it currently happening.
Re:Actual science by danbert8 · 2017-11-14 00:33 · Score: 1

No, I want to live on a planet with the technology to clean the air. Also, CO2 is not toxic at any of the concentrations projected in any model.
Yes, I expect the technology 50 years from now to be what we would today consider fantasy. That's how technological advancement works. Ask Arthur C. Clarke.
Poor people do suffer from nasty things that poor air quality brings, but it beats suffering from hunger, exposure, and all of the other things they deal with in 3rd world countries. It's easy for you to forego coal power when you can buy solar panels shipped to your house on Amazon. It's harder to ask dirt poor people to pay more for what little electricity they can afford. You are talking about people so poor when a gasoline tanker overturns, they all come out with pots and pans to steal less than a gallon of fuel at the risk of their lives.

--
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Re:Actual science by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-14 01:03 · Score: 1

You need to consider the energy required to 'clean air' and the energy expended whilst outputting CO2. Since the 2 parts oxygen of CO2 are coming from the atmosphere, burning 1 ton of coal results in over 2 tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. How much energy does it take to remove 2 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere best case scenario?
I didn't say CO2 is toxic at any point.
The problem with your 3rd statement is that renewables are now cheaper than coal without subsidies in many places and the cost of renewables is still plummeting. Coal is dead, it costs too much, there is no point in continuing to burn it. Building a coal power station right now is a very risky thing to do which is why it's simply not happening much.
You can pretend the external costs don't matter, but that's simply not true those external costs are very real financial costs and they do matter. Do you expect developing countries to stop developing, do you not expect poor people to not receive medical treatment both now and in the future?
What's so great about electricity that it's worth getting ill and dying for? Would it not be better to simply pay for renewable energy and not get ill?

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Re:Except of course not by Megol · 2017-11-11 03:55 · Score: 1, Informative

1. Not really.

2. CO2 (It's carbon dioxide not cobalt gas) increases after warming from several sources, yes. But adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels also increases warming.
Not really worth arguing but correlation is often an indication of causation. That is one can't just use this phrase to disprove causation unlike some idiots think.

3. Ice age argument again? Really. Learn to troll noob.

Re:Except of course not by Sique · 2017-11-11 04:00 · Score: 5, Informative

ad 1st: 2.36 and 2.56 are better than 0.1. For a simulation of the last 50 years, that's impressive. (And much better thant any denier would give credit to any climate model).

ad 2nd: CO2 did raise far before the warming. The numbers were 270 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere in 1899 (Anatole Leduc, Nouvelles Recherches sur les Gaz, 1899), 330 ppm in the 1970ies, and are 400 ppm now. Warming took of in the 1970ies, when half of the CO2 increase until now had happened already.

ad 3rd: The global temperature level of the Eem Interglacial (the last warm period before the last Ice Age) is already reached.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

Fake news! by UnknowingFool · 2017-11-11 04:19 · Score: 5, Funny

[sarcasm]Clearly there is no way that scientists came up this research with decades ago and that they debated it for decades before consensus. No this was all invented by China recently to cover up their involvement with the Kennedy assassination and the Lindberg kidnapping.[/sarcasm]

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Re:Fake news! by Aighearach · 2017-11-11 08:38 · Score: 1

Make Pancakes Tennis Again!!!!1@

not as heroic as it sounds... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-11 04:20 · Score: 1

How Two Scientists Accurately Predicted the End of The Ice Age in 1967.

Looking backwards is no way to predict the future by petes_PoV · 2017-11-11 04:24 · Score: 1, Redundant

If you collect every predictive scientific paper published this year and fast-forward 50 years, a proportion of them will turn out to be correct, simply due to sheer dumb luck.

However, there is no way of knowing now, in 2017, which ones will be correct. Or which ones will be right for the wrong reasons. Neither can we say today which ones look plausible but have missed an important point, could not possibly have foreseen something unimaginable that hasn't happened of just happen to have lucked out and pick the few truly significant causes / relationships / equations out of the mass of conflicting opinions circulating at present.

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons

Re:I remember cooling was forecasted in the 70s. by microbox · 2017-11-11 04:49 · Score: 1

Yeah, there was a few exploratory papers (no consensus), and then one was popularized in the media, and caught the public imagination. It seems that scientists are pinged for asking the hard questions (will dust cause net cooling), and then pinged again because the news media knew how to sell a good story.

--

Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right

Re:The coming Ice Age by WindBourne · 2017-11-11 05:07 · Score: 1

As a schoolkid in the 60s and 70s I remember every science class telling us if we didn't fix our ways there would be another ice age.

It is obvious that you either did not pay attention and likely are just a business or liberal arts idiot, OR you have no memory of any kind.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Except of course not by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-11-11 05:26 · Score: 2

NASA wants to set max CO2 levels in the ISS at ~13X what it is on Earth right now. I think they have a bit of an interest in keeping astronauts clear-and-level headed, and apparently levels around 5000ppm are acceptable. Given most navies allow up to 8000ppm long-term in their submarines, it's probably a safe level for critical thinking,

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!

Re:I remember cooling was forecasted in the 70s. by Barsteward · 2017-11-11 05:27 · Score: 1

Perhaps you should have taken note of the scientists instead of the media regarding the "cooling" - here is a good place to start https://skepticalscience.com/i...
A lot of times where things do not happened as predicted are due to the predictions being addressed with possible solutions.

--
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)

Re:The coming Ice Age by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-11-11 05:32 · Score: 1

Interesting article from National Geographic in the 1970s about the potential for a coming ice age. And how the law that kicked of the US Federal Government research into climate change was specifically about global warming - not climate change (meaning - the conclusion is foregone, how do we research it).

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!

Re:The coming Ice Age by hey! · 2017-11-11 05:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

Yes. Because science doesn't dabble in truth, it deals with evidence, and likelihoods. Truth may be unchanging, but the most probable scenario has to change as you obtain more evidence.

From the 1940s to around 1980, the globe actually cooled because of industrial aerosol emissions, which reflect solar energy back out into space. From around 1910 to around 1960, CO2 mediated warming was believed to be impossible because (a) atmospheric CO2 was mistakenly believed to be in a stable equilibrium with ocean dissolved CO2 and (b) CO2's emission spectrum was mistakenly believed to overlap that of water vapor, which is much, much more common.

In the 1950s both those beliefs were disproven, by Roger Revelle's study of ocean CO2 chemistry and by more precise spectrographic instrumentation. This meant CO2-mediated warming was physically possible, however in the 1960s cooling was still the consensus because at that time scientists thought aerosol cooling would outpace CO2 warming. That was easy to believe, because the Earth was cooling before our very eyes.

In the 1970s measurements of increasing CO2 along with newly available computer modeling techniques tipped the balance of scientific consensus toward warming in the upcoming decades even though we were still in a aerosol-mediated cooling phase.

This is about as robust as a scientific result gets: an accurate prediction of a reversal of current trends. Were the predictions being made perfectly precisely correct? Of course not. But on the whole the prediction of a reversal of current temperature trends was correct. There was still significant dissent about the direction of future climate in the 80s, but by 1990 it was clear to virtually everyone in the climate research field that CO2 warming was overwhelming aerosol cooling.

Again, that's how science works. It's about reasonable extrapolations from evidence, not eternal and unassailable truths.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:Except of course not by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-11-11 05:39 · Score: 1

I would think that even a slight decrease of productivity of hundreds of millions of people would be more expensive for the society as a whole than a more severe decrease of productivity of a few dozen or a few hundred people.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Re:The coming Ice Age by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-11-11 05:44 · Score: 2

Yes, because high school science teachers are such vanguards of scientific knowledge...

--
Ezekiel 23:20

So this global warming thing... by eminencja · 2017-11-11 05:47 · Score: 1

So this global warming thing is not a scam?

Suggestion: RTFA by Kludge · 2017-11-11 05:55 · Score: 2

The medium.com article is very good by the way. Read it!

Re:Suggestion: RTFA by thegarbz · 2017-11-11 10:41 · Score: 1

The medium.com article is very good by the way. Read it!
I've fallen for that one before. Friends don't let friends read medium.com

Re: Looking backwards is no way to predict the fut by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-11 06:09 · Score: 1

Yes. Better do nothing than something stupid.

Re:Except of course not by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-11-11 06:16 · Score: 2

Maybe... it is around $500 million to send a person into space, and about $30,000 per pound of supplies they need. So whilst it may be a few dozen at the ISS, the cost per person is easily in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year per person.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!

Re:The coming Ice Age by Miles_O'Toole · 2017-11-11 06:16 · Score: 1

I don't think you actually remember that at all. Just about all the papers published then predicted warming, with only a few outliers saying we were headed for an ice aga.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Re:The coming Ice Age by bjdevil66 · 2017-11-11 06:17 · Score: 2

Or he did hear that being taught, just like I did in the late 70s and heard the exact same thing being taught - even in the Weekly Reader (those under 40 or so probably have no clue what that even is). The last theory I heard before the "next Ice Age" theories died out was that cooling was going to be caused particulate pollution in the atmosphere keeping sunlight from hitting the ground. Looking back it doesn't make a lot of sense, IMO, but that was the theory.

Weak trolling attempt, dude...

Re: Except of course not by mean+pun · 2017-11-11 06:27 · Score: 1

Well yes, some of us do trigger on insinuation, especially if there is zero proof. I consider this a good thing.

Re:Throw enough studies against the wall... by hyades1 · 2017-11-11 06:34 · Score: 2

You're either very badly mistaken or flat-out dishonest. Most of the studies in the 1970's predicted warming. The few that didn't have been discredited or retracted.

Read and learn:

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

--
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.

Re:Throw enough studies against the wall... by religionofpeas · 2017-11-11 07:02 · Score: 1

BUT, did that 1967 take into account all the dramatic changes that have been under-taken since 1967 to shrink the world's carbon footprint?

Yes, they took into account all zero of the dramatic changes.

Really? by Grand+Facade · 2017-11-11 07:29 · Score: 1

https://science.slashdot.org/s...

--
Rick B.

Re:Really? by religionofpeas · 2017-11-11 07:40 · Score: 1

Yes, really. What has a mantle plume under Antarctica have to do with global warming ? You're only exposing your ignorance here.

Re:Question by riverat1 · 2017-11-11 07:47 · Score: 1

Actually "unrevised" raw data shows a steeper warming slope than the adjusted data. That's because the methods they used to measure sea surface temperatures back then had a cool bias. When you haul a bucket of water out of the sea it cools by evaporation before it gets on deck and you can plop a thermometer in it.

Re:Except of course not by ClickOnThis · 2017-11-11 07:57 · Score: 1

2. CO2 (It's carbon dioxide not cobalt gas) increases after warming from several sources, yes. But adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels also increases warming. Not really worth arguing but correlation is often an indication of causation. That is one can't just use this phrase to disprove causation unlike some idiots think.

Actually the causation part is well-known. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You can demonstrate that easily in any high-school science class.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.

Re:Global warming might be GOOD (more food, etc) by fustakrakich · 2017-11-11 08:09 · Score: 1

Global warming may or may not be bad, but some of us would like to see clear skies every now and then. The contamination is unnecessary. We don't have to be such slobs.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

Re:Except of course not by religionofpeas · 2017-11-11 08:15 · Score: 3, Informative

Here's a nice demonstration how the greenhouse effect of CO2 works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Global warming might be GOOD (more food, etc) by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-11 08:21 · Score: 1

Bird hit by truck.
__________________ %¥_\\ ^o_x___

Re:The coming Ice Age by WindBourne · 2017-11-11 08:21 · Score: 2

They hysteria about it lasted less than a month, and then other scientists had come forward saying that it was the opposite.
IOW, it was not during the 60s and 70s, but about 1 month in the 70s and then it disappeared, and instead, scientists were saying we do not know, but it looks more like a major warming.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:The coming Ice Age by WindBourne · 2017-11-11 08:24 · Score: 1

You heard for less than a month about possible ice age and then after that, all of the scientists were saying that it would likely be a warming.
IOW, those that make 'ice age' as though it was a HUGE deal, either was not alive or simply is a total idiot.
And yes, I do remember since I am 58 and it occurred before 10 years ago.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Except of course not by Aighearach · 2017-11-11 08:27 · Score: 1

3rd. coming out of an ice age it is a safe bet to predict increasing temperature

Golly, if only we had some sort of geologic record to compare! Oh, wait...

Re: Except of course not by Aighearach · 2017-11-11 08:29 · Score: 1

What is Digg? Is that going to be the new slashdot?

Re:Except of course not by Aighearach · 2017-11-11 08:33 · Score: 1

If you're sending the same number of people either way, and the number of people being sent is not set up to automatically scale to their productivity, then the difference in cost is $0.

Whereas most of the people on the ground work at jobs where if they got less work done, it would translate into more total hours of work their employer would have to pay for.

Easy, easy calculation! X > 0 T/F

Re:The coming Ice Age by Aighearach · 2017-11-11 08:41 · Score: 1

"Liberal Arts" means they tried to teach you to read, in addition to teaching you a trade.

I take it you're very proud of your trade school degree, and consider it to be more valuable than a science degree from a Liberal Arts institution, right? Right? You're not just an idiot who couldn't learn the words??!

One big problem here by whyyisthissohard · 2017-11-11 09:07 · Score: 1

How did they predict CO2 output? They had an accompanying industrial growth model?

Seems like they just got lucky.

Re:One big problem here by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-11 12:01 · Score: 1

They looked at the past and extrapolated.
https://www.google.co.uk/imgre...

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Anonymous Cowards might be GOOD (but I doubt it) by XXongo · 2017-11-11 09:15 · Score: 2

These arguments always tend to revolve around whether global warming is real or not. That is not the right question.

Let us assume that global warming is real. The fallacy is when people assume that global warming is BAD.

Yes, but that is a different question.

The relentless assault on climate science and on climate scientists-- using words like "hoax" "scam" and "fraud" in referring both to the science and the scientists-- is still continuing. But now the attack has forked, with attacks on the scientists continuing, but now another branch of the attack saying "well, but maybe warming is good."

I'd pay more attention to them if they weren't pretty much the same people (and funded by the same oil companies) who were saying "climate science is a hoax and climate scientists should be put in jail."

I notice you don't sign your name, Mr. Anonymous Coward. So, to be clear: do you accept the evidence that global warming is real, and anthropogenic greenhouse gasses are the major contributor? Or are you just doing a new attack on a new front?

Re:The coming Ice Age by LynnwoodRooster · 2017-11-11 09:21 · Score: 1

Source? The NatGeo article was certainly built on science and papers that were generated and submitted over more than 1 month time...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!

Not how science is done by XXongo · 2017-11-11 09:28 · Score: 1

If you collect every predictive scientific paper published this year and fast-forward 50 years, a proportion of them will turn out to be correct, simply due to sheer dumb luck.

This just happens to be the first one, and the one in all of the textbooks (even the textbooks not about global warming-- textbooks about atmospheric light scattering, for example), and the one that all the climate scientists acknowledge as the beginning of accurate climate models.

This is not a paper that was picked up in retrospect, because it happened to be right-- this is the paper the started the field.

However, there is no way of knowing now, in 2017, which ones will be correct.

Bullshit. That's not how science is done. Scientists show their work and lay out their calculations and the reasons, and other scientists replicate their work (well, physical scientists do. I don't know about social scientists). "Scientists make random predictions and some of them are right" is not how science is done

Global cooling was not forecasted in the 70s. by XXongo · 2017-11-11 09:42 · Score: 1

Yeah, that never happened.

"Yeah, that never happened" is correct! Anonymous Coward says something accurate for a change.

There was no scientific consensus nor prediction by scientists that the Earth was "entering a global cooling phase."

Citations: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8199/full/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/"
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cruz-on-the-global-cooling-myth-and-galileo/

Re: Global cooling was not forecasted in the 70s. by david_thornley · 2017-11-13 10:26 · Score: 1

Scientific consensus means that a large number of smart people who know a lot about what they're saying and are prone to argument and disagreement believe something. That means that there's some pretty darn good evidence for it.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

comparison by XXongo · 2017-11-11 09:47 · Score: 1

Wow, in 1967 scientists predicted global warming, with a study that half a century later has proven to be largely accurate...

BUT, did that 1967 take into account all the dramatic changes that have been under-taken since 1967 to shrink the world's carbon footprint?

No. If you'd read the article, not just the summary, you'd see that the paper did not try to predict how much carbon dioxide would be produced. It predicted if this much carbon dioxide is produced, then this much warming would occur.

The comparison of prediction to experiment-- if you'd read the article you'd know this-- was to look at how much carbon dioxide actually was put in the atmosphere, and compare the warming to the amount predicted for that amount of carbon dioxide.

The theory turns out to be a remarkably good match to the data. Good work, Manabe and Wetherald.

The paper that started modern climate modelling by XXongo · 2017-11-11 09:52 · Score: 1

If you read any of the literature, you'd know that this is the reference-- the Manabe and Wetherald paper was the first to fully model the co-effect of carbon dioxide and humidity in a convective atmosphere, and is the one pretty much everybody references.

Here https://www.carbonbrief.org/pr... for example, or here https://www.skepticalscience.c...

Manabe was the grandfather of global circulation models-- pretty much all the models that exist today can be traced back to his work. This wasn't a "random" paper-- this was the paper.

Re: Except of course not by mnemotronic · 2017-11-11 10:00 · Score: 1

...We need real mods not these fake ass mods...

said the AC

--
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.

Re:The coming Ice Age by bluegutang · 2017-11-11 10:07 · Score: 1

So, if entirely by accident we produced enough aerosol emissions in order to neutralize global warming for decades, shouldn't it be easy right now to intentionally release aerosols which will neutralize global warming? Wouldn't this be cheaper, quicker, and less disruptive than reworking our entire economy to avoid carbon emissions?

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by Uberbah · 2017-11-11 10:33 · Score: 1

The problem is you present a problem but you don't present a way to fix the problem.

Do you also think that doctors talk about the danger posed by measles without ever saying what can be done about it?

Re:Throw enough studies against the wall... by Uberbah · 2017-11-11 10:36 · Score: 1

I lived thru that time, and remember the global cooling new ice age hysteria clearly.

You mean you remember reading articles in news magazines, not scientific studies. We'll be charitable and go with "badly mistaken". But as many times as this canard has been debunked it's probably "flatly dishonest".

Goblal warming will be bad (less food) by AutodidactLabrat · 2017-11-11 10:38 · Score: 1

... The fallacy is when people assume that global warming is BAD.

The point is: think about the ECONOMICS. Global warming may be real, but the fallacy is assuming that it is bad. It may be a great thing.

Never play games with reality, you get burned
The only fallacy is assuming that more deserts = more food

Re: The coming Ice Age by Uberbah · 2017-11-11 10:40 · Score: 1

This will help you more, sophist.

https://skepticalscience.com/i...

Re:The coming Ice Age by Uberbah · 2017-11-11 10:45 · Score: 1, Funny

And Popular Mechanics had articles on how everyone would have their own personal airplanes. Whoop de fucking do.

https://skepticalscience.com/i...

Re:The coming Ice Age by hey! · 2017-11-11 10:56 · Score: 1

What you are talking about is called geoengineering, and yes, people have examined the possibility of stratospheric aerosol injection.

There are some drawbacks to the procedure. CO2 has a half-life of 100 years, and CO2 levels are continuing to rise; you'd have to put a lot of aerosols into the stratosphere and continue doing so indefinitely on an increasing basis as CO2 rises. So one question is whether this is cheaper in the long run than simply curbing carbon emissions. Aerosol injection will also cause drastic local climate changes in many places, and effect crop yields globally.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

Re:Looking backwards is no way to predict the futu by Uberbah · 2017-11-11 11:44 · Score: 1

No. You do not do nothing. You adapt. Rather than accept the hubris that says the entire energy distribution of the planet is under complete human control, and even if it were there is no way you can control enough humans to a fine enough degree to steer it, you accept that change for whatever reason is happening and adapt.

Like how you just adapted yourself into a straw man!

If you cannot adapt, you die. Now there's a fine old idea with only a few radical right wing non-thinkers disputing it. Adapt or die.

Give us an update if its your ass that's dying for reasons outside your control, due to the actions of self-centered denialists.

Re:Global warming might be GOOD (more food, etc) by Uberbah · 2017-11-11 11:53 · Score: 1

It should be obvious by now that humans are notoriously bad at predicting large, systemic shifts and trends.

Boilerplate denialist handwaiving.

Let us assume that global warming is real. The fallacy is when people assume that global warming is BAD.

Every extinction event in history (before man started hunting species to extinction) arose from the climate changing too fast for life to adapt to it. You may have dreams of planting wheat in Antarctica and bananas in Siberia, which would be cool if that climate change took place over a few million years. Change the climate that fast over a thousand years, and you're going to have mass die-offs of plants and animals. Animals that will include a few hundred million humans, at least.

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-11 12:09 · Score: 1

Complete bollocks, environmentalists know exactly how to fix the problem, you just haven't been listening to anything they say. Solutions exist right across the board. No-one's saying it would be easy or that we could do this for free or without some small sacrifices in lifestyle methods, but if we don't address global warming we could wipe ourselves out. Personally I think that Trump winning the election is an example of so much stupidity that I don't think the human race is collectively intelligent enough not to wipe itself out.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Re:The coming Ice Age by Baron_Yam · 2017-11-11 14:37 · Score: 1

Nope. Same here, it was all, "We're all gonna freeze!" in the late 70s, maybe into the early 80s. Then we got distracted by cocaine, gun violence, and AIDS for a while.

Keep in mind, we're talking about what was being told to kids in school, and usually at the elementary and high school level you're lucky if you're getting anything published in the last 20 years. And teachers who actually know and understand such things well enough to teach them generally aren't doing so in elementary or junior high environments.

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by zifn4b · 2017-11-12 01:08 · Score: 1

Complete bollocks, environmentalists know exactly how to fix the problem, you just haven't been listening to anything they say. Solutions exist right across the board. No-one's saying it would be easy or that we could do this for free or without some small sacrifices in lifestyle methods, but if we don't address global warming we could wipe ourselves out. Personally I think that Trump winning the election is an example of so much stupidity that I don't think the human race is collectively intelligent enough not to wipe itself out.

Present the plan then. You can claim it exists but if you don't present it, all you have is words.

--
We'll make great pets

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by zifn4b · 2017-11-12 01:09 · Score: 1

The problem is you present a problem but you don't present a way to fix the problem.

Do you also think that doctors talk about the danger posed by measles without ever saying what can be done about it?

Posing another question doesn't help anything. Again, you didn't present anything constructive. You're passing the buck.

--
We'll make great pets

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-12 01:17 · Score: 1

You think it'd fit here? The plan would be the size of an encyclopedia. 100% Renewables, investment in multiple types of energy storage, changes to the way concrete and steel are made, changes to aeroplane fuel types. Efficiency increases. Incentives and fines. Massive car charging networks. Fossil fuel nothing, electric everything. 100% recycling of literally everything, if it can be recycled then don't make products with it. Just some of the stuff that needs doing, doing all of this would create jobs and industries and so would mostly be zero-sum cost to the economy.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

So, we're safe! by rogerz · 2017-11-12 03:44 · Score: 1

The only quantitative _predictive_ statement in the Medium article is that a doubling of CO2 concentration will cause a 2degreesC increase is temperature (at fixed relative humidity). This is a strictly log-linear prediction. Let's submit it to a real _prospective_ experiment:

We are currently at ~400 ppm CO2. According to the IPCC, the prediction of CO2 concentration in 2100 is about 600 ppm. So, according to the cited model, we will have about another 1degreeC in global mean temperature by 2100. (This, by the way, is well below the 2-5degreesC range predicted in the last IPCC assessment report (AR5). At the very high end of the CO2 predictions above, we have 800 ppm, meaning 2degreesC warming according to the model.

So, they're predicting 1-2degreesC increase with business as usual! I can live with that. Let's see if it's right.

--
If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.

Re:So, we're safe! by david_thornley · 2017-11-13 10:45 · Score: 1

First, you have no idea what you're talking about what you can live with. It isn't that things will be a touch warmer, it's all the knock-on effects.
Second, the statement almost certainly refers to equilibrium temperature, and we're not an an equilibrium. If we were somehow able to cut all fossil CO2 emissions, we'd continue warming for some time.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:So, we're safe! by rogerz · 2017-11-15 01:32 · Score: 1

Duh - I was submitting the OP to its own test. If we're not at equilibrium, then how can the OP claim the "model" in the cited paper accurately predicted the temperature? The experiment isn't over yet, by that standard.
As for the "knock-on" affects, well those are completely speculative. Some could be good, some could be bad. We have plenty of time to adapt, if we leave people alone to innovate. Oh, and being rich and having lots of reliable energy will help a great deal with innovation. For that, we have lots of supporting data.

--
If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.

Re:Except of course not by ebvwfbw · 2017-11-12 06:31 · Score: 1

We're still not there yet. When the Romans took over England, they were growing grapes and the sea was at least 30' higher than it is today.

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by zifn4b · 2017-11-12 06:37 · Score: 1

You think it'd fit here? The plan would be the size of an encyclopedia.

Excuses. Show me evidence there is such a plan and that it's been peer reviewed to have been deemed viable by experts. That'll fit in a comment.

--
We'll make great pets

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-12 07:00 · Score: 1

Evidence of a plan? There has to be some magical fucking scheme, get lost, there's all the solutions needed to reduce CO2 output, we don't need some fancy stupid master plan, that's fallacious.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Strange by Neuronwelder · 2017-11-12 07:04 · Score: 1

In Geography class (1967) we had it written in our books that the deserts were getting bigger. Hmm.. Let's connect the dots. And if you are one of those "climate deniers" what did you loose if we implement cleaner devices and laws? Cleaner air, water, land, sea?? Gee. Sounds like a big loss (Sarcasm). Oh, I get it! $$$ Its the money $$$

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by zifn4b · 2017-11-12 07:31 · Score: 1

Evidence of a plan? There has to be some magical fucking scheme, get lost, there's all the solutions needed to reduce CO2 output, we don't need some fancy stupid master plan, that's fallacious.

Wow, you wouldn't know the first thing about Logic, MrL0G1C. If you actually knew what logic was you'd realize how much you just embarrassed yourself. You just made a half a dozen appeals to irrational emotion. And guess what? Ironically, that's why the issue isn't resolved because people like you approach it irrationally. You're your own worst enemy. :)

--
We'll make great pets

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-12 08:27 · Score: 1

And that's all bollocks, this thread is a waste of time, I really don't care, what you;re saying has nothing to do with global warming and I don't think you're at all interested in solutions to global warming you just want to be an annoying git. There's no reason why I have to provide some 'plan' that isn't necessary, there doesn't need to be some incredible plan, just individual solutions to individual problems.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by zifn4b · 2017-11-12 08:44 · Score: 1

And that's all bollocks, this thread is a waste of time, I really don't care, what you;re saying has nothing to do with global warming and I don't think you're at all interested in solutions to global warming you just want to be an annoying git

Awwww all little baby could do is whine and complain and sit on their behind and not lift a finger besides to rant on the internet to solve a problem they supposedly care about. Wah wah wah. Do you need a diaper change?

--
We'll make great pets

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-12 08:50 · Score: 1

Like I said, nothing to do with the subject what so ever. Do you have any evidence that we can't deal with global warming. How about YOU actually try and construct some kind of meaningful argument, something which you haven't actually done yet, you've said nothing meaningful what-so-ever. Just went with some weird straw man argument.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by zifn4b · 2017-11-12 09:03 · Score: 1

Like I said, nothing to do with the subject what so ever. Do you have any evidence that we can't deal with global warming

I asked you to present compelling evidence for your claim and you presented nothing. You're the one who made the claim not me. I never claimed we can't deal with global warming. Go ahead look back and see if I made that claim. If you think I did, you either can't read or you're delusional.

--
We'll make great pets

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-12 09:27 · Score: 1

No, you did not ask for compelling evidence you asked for "a plan", a wholly singular thing that would require a herculean effort by one party. The solutions to global warming are not 'the plan' it's not a valid argument to say that solutions to global warming don't exist because you don't know what they are. Global warming is an extremely multifaceted problem, not a singular problem, it is caused by construction, by farming, by transport, by the energy industry etc. There is no one solution, there are hundreds of solutions it's absurd to ask anyone to list them all. Solutions to transport, energy production.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Not worried in the slightest by rhyous · 2017-11-12 17:01 · Score: 1

Can someone explain the problem?

I live in Utah. It looks like the temperature will go up 1 or 2 degrees by 2100. So my kids will be dead before this is a concern.

But that doesn't take into account the fact that we are already switching to solar and electric cars. One discovery could change all this. Heck, a large astral body could pass between us an the sun and shade us for two days, which would nearly freeze the world and then maybe global warming is a good thing.

So what is the problem? Are we going to die? No. Are we going to starve? No. Are we facing the end of the species? No. We are looking at a rise of 1 to 2 degrees by 2100.

The rising oceans isn't really a problem. It actually means that the seas will go inland further, the air will have more moisture, there will be more precipitation.

No to mention, the oceans rising a few feet over about 80 years is not nearly as dramatic as the ocean rising a few feet in one day. Will there be homes and business affected? Yes. But they will have time to move or be torn down, except in hurricane areas.

I dislike pollution. That is a problem. It causes asthma in kids. It causes could. Inversions actually hurt lungs, kill old people. So I am all for cleaner air.

But Global Warming beyond 1 or 2 degrees is only a possibility. Solar panel roofs and roads and electric cars and so many other changes will happen by 2100. What if we run out of warming CO2 and start cooling?

So I am not denying global warming. I asking, what is the problem?

Global Warming deniers are funny. Global Warming doomsdayer's are just as funny. Both seem to be fanatics.

I agree that global warming exists, but I deny that global warming is a problem now or that it will be much of a problem in the future.

I also deny that we have to take active part in global warming prevention. The market will take care of itself. We will get electric cars. Continued efficiencies in light bulbs. We will discover more energy sources. We will begin to desalinate the ocean at a very rapid rate. We haven't even really begun that. What if we start pumping water to Utah's Great Salt Lake from California, which makes sense, because water pumped to Utah flows back to California, so everyone benefits. We fill up the Great Salt Lake, which causes increased precipitation in the Rockie Mountains, rebuilds the snow packs, etc.

By 2100, if scorching of the earth looks likely I feel it will be solvable. What if we build a paper thin shield and deploy it to space and shade portions of the earth to prevent it from scorching? What would be the effect of shading 1 square mile of earth from the sun? What if that becomes an industries and we start shading thousands of square miles of earth from the sun? What if the cost to do that is nothing by 2100, as we have a new thriving community on Mars by then?
Or what if we put a large asteroid between the earth and the sun?
What if we start mining asteroids and bring air back to earth?
What if we just pump desalinzed water into the Sahara or Ghobi deserts and turn it back into a tropical forest and the increased plants absorb our extra C02?

Don't spend billions solving a problem that first, is not even for sure a problem, and second is likely to solve itself, and third we are likely to have way better technology to solve well before it actually becomes a problem.

Why don't we just stick cleaning up pollution. That is for sure a problem. That also would possibly result in hindering global warming.

Pollution is a problem, "Global Warming" or going up a degree or two or the next century is not.

Re:Not worried in the slightest by david_thornley · 2017-11-13 11:01 · Score: 1

It isn't just things getting a bit warmer and that's it. It's about lots of things happening because of that.
There will be more heat energy in the atmosphere. Some plants and animals are sensitive to fairly small temperature changes. There will be fairly large local changes. Global warming already appears to be affecting agriculture in some areas, and when people can't eat they get unruly.
You're discussing sea level rising in developed parts of the world. There are less developed parts of the world where moving inland is not trivial. There's also the possibility of rapid sea level rise from Greenland or Antarctica land ice falling off. If the Gulf Stream goes away, Europe turns into a freezer.
Your ideas about astronomy seem to lack a sense of scale. There are no large astral bodies that can block the entire sun for two days. If a large asteroid got close enough to the Sun to block the Sun on that scale, it would be moving so fast the effect would be temporary. This is true whether we move it deliberately or it happens by itself. We have transits of the Sun from Mercury, Venus, and the Moon already, and Venus is large, about the size of the Earth. The atmosphere is something over five quadrillion tons, and asteroids don't have noticeably atmospheres. We aren't shipping anything useful back to Earth in quantities large enough to be useful.
People are looking at geoengineering schemes to block out sunlight. However, blocking enough sunlight to cool us down will have other effects that we can't currently predict. It may or may not be a good idea. Some proposals for removing CO2 from the atmosphere don't look promising.
Solar panels and electric cars are part of the solution, but if we have no individual reason to cut down on CO2 emissions we'll still do a lot of fossil fuel-burning things. Producing electricity is only one thing we do with fossil fuels.
I care about the planet my descendants will have to live in, and I care about what happens after 2100 also.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes

Re:The coming Ice Age by Miles_O'Toole · 2017-11-12 21:57 · Score: 1

I can't argue that my science teachers in public school were anything special, but the ones I had for math and sciences in high school were pretty good.

Maybe I was just lucky.

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by zifn4b · 2017-11-12 23:49 · Score: 1

No, you did not ask for compelling evidence you asked for "a plan"

Now you're claiming a detailed plan wouldn't be compelling evidence. Are you sure you're logical? Most plans, in case you weren't aware, not only contain a strategy but also projected results to justify the plan. That would be compelling. Governments do this all the time.

a wholly singular thing that would require a herculean effort by one party.

No one said things worth doing would be easy. You sir have now achieved the status of a bonafide moron. But keep the rosy glasses on if it helps you sleep at night.

--
We'll make great pets

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-12 23:52 · Score: 1

"Now you're claiming a detailed plan wouldn't be compelling evidence."

No, I'm not.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

Re:Scientific Studies Don't Matter by zifn4b · 2017-11-13 00:23 · Score: 1

"Now you're claiming a detailed plan wouldn't be compelling evidence."

No, I'm not.

Last word achievement unlocked. Congratulations. Cheers!

--
We'll make great pets

Re: Global warming might be GOOD (more food, etc) by dave420 · 2017-11-13 00:52 · Score: 1

It increases the temperature which increases the amount of water vapour the air can hold, which in turn increases the amount of clouds when the air cools.

Re:Except of course not by Layzej · 2017-11-13 04:18 · Score: 1

1st. 2.36 and 2.56 are wayyy off.

2.36 is well inside the 95% confidence interval of the observations (2.29-2.84), so it's not accurate to say that this is way off from observations. Indistinguishable would be a closer word. As far as policy implications go they are also indistinguishable. Both are about 1/2 an Ice Age Unit (IAU) for a doubling of CO2. We're on track to much more than double by the end of the century.

This was actually predicted almost 200 years ago by WillAffleckUW · 2017-11-13 05:56 · Score: 1

Actually, the literal discovery of various gasses included the discovery that C02 was created by burning materials, reducing O2, and the predictions then indicated that the use of coal and other fossil fuels would have this impact.

We've known the lifespans of various gasses such as the NOx SOx COx variants for a long time. We even figured out how long they remained in the atmosphere. Which is why climate change is settled science.

Try reading a basic chemistry book sometime.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:The coming Ice Age by bjdevil66 · 2017-11-13 06:05 · Score: 1

I'm genuinely surprised that most of the replies here are just denials, minimizations, etc. I'm telling you - I WAS taught about the IDEA of a possible Ice Age in the very near future - at a public school, by an everyday school teacher. And we read about it in a Weekly Reader.

And it wasn't some quack teacher, either. Remember - we didn't have the same level of standardization in school curriculums at the federal level 40 years ago, Teachers had more latitude - as long as they got good grades and generally stuck to their more lax version of the "common core" at the state level.

The idea was even reported on at the national news level for a brief time. Maybe people don't remember it as well because it wasn't being sold with the same fearmongering, ratings-driven fashion that climate change is reported on today (on both sides)?

Re:Except of course not by david_thornley · 2017-11-13 10:16 · Score: 1

I have noticed that credible arguments against greenhouse gas theory have been censored / removed.
Nope. The reason you don't see them is that there aren't any.